Finklestein.

[a_unique_person]

A modern day 'Protocols' or just a person with a contentious point of view?

[a_unique_person]

Salon interview with Finklestein.

http://dir.salon.com/books/int/2000/08/30/finkelstein/index.html



With his clever, explosive and sometimes even wryly funny little book, "The Holocaust Industry," Norman G. Finkelstein, the 47-year-old enfant terrible of Holocaust studies from Brooklyn, N.Y., hit a nerve. Such a big nerve, in fact, that it caused a blackout of virtually all intellectual circuits -- at least in this country.


Finkelstein's main and most devastating charge is that "American Jewish elites" and organizations are extorting billions of dollars from European countries and corporations in the name of "needy Holocaust survivors" in order to fund Holocaust programs, Holocaust memorials, Holocaust studies, Holocaust literature and, in general, "the Jewish community." Together they form not just a cottage industry but a full-fledged "Holocaust industry" sustained by a persistent ideology of "Holocaust correctness" that serves "certain class and political interests." Instead of helping the Jewish cause, Finkelstein goes on to argue, the Holocaust industry has become "the main fomenter of anti-Semitism in Europe" by spreading an image of greedy Jews.

While the book created a firestorm all over Europe, notably in England and Germany, in the U.S. a deafening silence has descended on it. Nobody wants to touch it. Whereas Finkelstein first got mostly negative and later mostly positive reviews in major European newspapers and magazines, and was given various opportunities to debate his adversaries, here he hardly got any reviews (in spite of the 250 review copies he helped his small publisher mail out to critics).

Well, the New York Times did one. It reserved a full page in its Sunday Book Review to compare the book to "The Protocol of the Elders of Zion," a notorious anti-Semitic work, and called its author "indecent," "juvenile," "self-righteous," "arrogant" and "stupid."

"I've looked it up; this review is worse than the one of 'Mein Kampf,'" says Finkelstein, in his high-pitched voice, full of moral indignation.

Finkelstein's theory that the memory of the Nazi Holocaust is being abused for political, moral and financial blackmail could only spring from a deep-rooted anti-Zionism and/or his own personal psychological problems, most American intellectuals silently seem to agree. Not surprisingly, Finkelstein has received death threats from fanatics within the Jewish community and heard Elan Steinberg, executive director of the World Jewish Congress, say, "Mr. Finkelstein is full of s**t" before the nightly television news in Germany.

Finkelstein, educated at Princeton and in Paris but now teaching his "comrades-students" about Marxism and Nazism as an adjunct political science professor at Hunter College in New York, is used to being trashed. In his 1998 essay, "A Nation on Trial," he carefully took apart Daniel Goldhagen's 1996 bestseller, "Hitler's Willing Executioners." When New Republic literary editor Leon Wieseltier heard about it, he advised Finkelstein's publisher, Michael Naumann of Henry Holt, that the author was "poison, a disgusting self-hating Jew, something you find under a rock."

"I'm thick-skinned; I got that from my parents," Finkelstein says, in his tiny apartment decorated with pictures of his father, who survived Auschwitz, and his mother, who survived Majdanek, on one wall and a poster of Charlie Chaplin on the other. "I try not to lose my sense of humor. When everyone keeps saying you're ugly, first you think they're jealous. But after a while you start thinking that you're really ugly."

Usually there are two sides in a controversy. But it seems you are the only one on yours.

I'm being censured. This is the Holocaust industry at work. Almost everyone I name is a beneficiary of the Holocaust industry. But I bet they feel like the ground beneath them is trembling.

Today I did get some positive feedback, though, from professor Raul Hilberg, an expert on the Holocaust and a conservative Republican at that, so since I am a person of the left, his support cannot be partisan. A Brazilian journalist asked him about my book. Hilberg said Jewish organizations have gone too far with their compensation claims and that they overestimate the number of Holocaust survivors. He calls this form of exploitation obscene. Now, I didn't even use that word.



Tricky said in the the n word thread that, when you have to get over a traumatic experience, sometimes the best solution is laughter, when referring to holocaust survivors making wicked jokes about the subject.

Finklestein is trying to say that the reparations business and the guilt trip that Israel is trying to put on the rest of the world insupport of it's illegal actions in Palestine is not the way to go, now that over 50 years have gone by. In fact, he sees it as being counterproductive.

[demon]

"In his 1998 essay, "A Nation on Trial," he carefully took apart Daniel Goldhagen's 1996 bestseller, "Hitler's Willing Executioners." "

Finkelstein in da house, takin` out da trash.

He is a brave man and he has done the world a service with his work.
His writings should be compulsory reading in schools.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/

[Cleopatra]

Is this what we are going to do? Exchange links?

You posed a question, aren't you going to attempt to answer it yourself?

This how is done usually. The one who starts the thread apart from posing the question he offers his point. Where is yours?

What do you think about the book, has the author persuaded you that Jews are using Holocaust to justify "their crimes in Palestine"?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Is this what we are going to do? Exchange links?

You posed a question, aren't you going to attempt to answer it yourself?

This how is done usually. The one who starts the thread apart from posing the question he offers his point. Where is yours?

What do you think about the book, has the author persuaded you that Jews are using Holocaust to justify "their crimes in Palestine"?

Jews, no. There are plenty of Jews who don't do anything like that. I have already posted how, several months after reading the book, I heard a representative of a Holocaust Museum on the radio acting like a character from straight out of the book. In between talking about the holocaust, he was talking about how it all fits in with the war on terrorism. The interviewer, who is very gentle and liberally minded man, and obviously had the guy on because he is interested in causes such as this and promoting them, was quite plainly taken aback at the way the Holocaust had been hijacked for other purposes.

[Cleopatra]

Jews, no. There are plenty of Jews who don't do anything like that.

Then who?

I am sorry but the book is built on the premise that Jews all over the world,especially those that live in countries that belong to the West, guided by the World Jewish Council use Holocaust as a propaganda tool to justify "the Israeli crimes".

Holocaust was not the first genocide in Human's History but it was the first industrial genocide. For the first time in History, Science was used to extinguish people. I am sure you understand what does this mean.

It's not rare for marginal religious groups to focus on the misfortunes in their History but when it comes to Holocaust , Unique, the truth is so shocking that any exaggeration doesn't make any difference.

Jews all over the world didn't need Finkelstein to protect them by themselves. Ben Gurion was the first who declared that we cannot let our past dictate our future.

Finkelstein's book doesn't suggest a legitimate criticism. As you have said yourself it's based on a wrong premise: That the discussion about The Holocaust constistutes an Industry

It's not the criticism that makes it wrong but the intention and this book is ill-intented.

Since you have aknowledged yourself that the basic premise of the book is wrong I don't know why you insist in quoting that book.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Then who?

I am sorry but the book is built on the premise that Jews all over the world,especially those that live in countries that belong to the West, guided by the World Jewish Council use Holocaust as a propaganda tool to justify "the Israeli crimes".



I don't know where you get that from. Can you quote a reference that says that? I think he says Jews all over the world are being discredited because there are Jews that are doing this.



Holocaust was not the first genocide in Human's History but it was the first industrial genocide. For the first time in History, Science was used to extinguish people. I am sure you understand what does this mean.



Yes, it means that, like all genocides, and attempted genocides, this one had it's distinguishing characteristics.



It's not rare for marginal religious groups to focus on the misfortunes in their History but when it comes to Holocaust , Unique, the truth is so shocking that any exaggeration doesn't make any difference.



History is full of the shocking.



Jews all over the world didn't need Finkelstein to protect them by themselves. Ben Gurion was the first who declared that we cannot let our past dictate our future.



Ben Gurion, despitel his faults, had the sense to realise that Israel, if it was to succeed at all, had to be a modern, fair, democratic state that followed the rule of law. He knew that Israel had to get out of the West Bank.

Israel is being strangled by the extremists who harken back to the good old days of myth, flouts the rule of law and has a democratic system that is in serious trouble.



Finkelstein's book doesn't suggest a legitimate criticism. As you have said yourself it's based on a wrong premise: That the discussion about The Holocaust constistutes an Industry



No, I said that even if you don't accept the basic premise, it still makes valid points. As to the validity of the main point, I think it is valid to a degree.



It's not the criticism that makes it wrong but the intention and this book is ill-intented.

Since you have aknowledged yourself that the basic premise of the book is wrong I don't know why you insist in quoting that book.

What is the intention of the book, then, from your point of view?

[a_unique_person]

Actually, that appears to be your objection, and why you have compard it to the 'protocols'. You believe the intent is comparable, to discredit Jews in general. I do not get that from the book. He is only trying to discredit a select group, and he does not create any outright lies, (although you may disagree with his facts, he does appear to source them all. That is, they are not pure figments of his imagination).

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I don't know where you get that from. Can you quote a reference that says that? I think he says Jews all over the world are being discredited because there are Jews that are doing this.

Who are the Jews that do that Unique and how many are they? This is important. If I do this for example you cannot claim that I have an impact. The same stands for the director of the museum you mentioned ( you see??? I take your word for it, let see how you will use my trust this time) and you don't even remember his name...

Yes, it means that, like all genocides, and attempted genocides, this one had it's distinguishing characteristics.

Not it means that from all the genocides this one was exceptional and it needs a detailed study. If the scientific knowledge of the 30ies was enough to extinct millions of people think what can scientists do today.

The memory of the Holocaust serves as a shield to the whole of the Humanity, Unique.

History is full of the shocking.

None disagrees with that what do you mean?

Israel is being strangled by the extremists who harken back to the good old days of myth, flouts the rule of law and has a democratic system that is in serious trouble.

You addressing a different topic now.

No, I said that even if you don't accept the basic premise, it still makes valid points. As to the validity of the main point, I think it is valid to a degree.

This is a huge logical fallacy unique. If the premise of a theory is wrong then its conclusions cannot be right.
You say that the validity of the main point is valid to a degree. To which degree? You either reject a theory or you embrace it.
So, you believe that Jews have set up a Holocaust industry that use it as a propaganda tool.
Why it took it so long to admit it?

What is the intention of the book, then, from your point of view?

The book is a libel and it was written to blacklash the Jewish Nation.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Who are the Jews that do that Unique and how many are they? This is important. If I do this for example you cannot claim that I have an impact. The same stands for the director of the museum you mentioned ( you see??? I take your word for it, let see how you will use my trust this time) and you don't even remember his name...



You can take my word for it. I have no need to create lies. If I did so, then all this would be a waste of time.

His argument is not about those who 'maintain the rage'. I am not a Holocaust denier, nor do I think we should just forget it as a once of abberration. "Those who do not learn from history..". Finklestein does appear to want the holocaust to be remembered properly, with respect, not as something that has been hijacked and discredited. That means you don't get people abusing the lives of those who suffered by touring the world talking up the "war against terrorism", which I believe the events in Iraq have shown to be fraud.



Not it means that from all the genocides this one was exceptional and it needs a detailed study. If the scientific knowledge of the 30ies was enough to extinct millions of people think what can scientists do today.



I have no argument with this at all. I have also campaigned against the spread of nukes.



The memory of the Holocaust serves as a shield to the whole of the Humanity, Unique.



agreed, as do other significant events in history.




None disagrees with that what do you mean?



For you, as a Jew, the Holocaust is particularly shocking. This is natural. For me, as a non-Jew, it is one more in a long line of shocking acts in history. For example, I would compare it to the treatment of the aboriginal people in Australia.




You addressing a different topic now.



This is a huge logical fallacy unique. If the premise of a theory is wrong then its conclusions cannot be right.
You say that the validity of the main point is valid to a degree. To which degree? You either reject a theory or you embrace it.
So, you believe that Jews have set up a Holocaust industry that use it as a propaganda tool.
Why it took it so long to admit it?



No, not the Jews. Like all institutions, it can take on a life all it's own. In this case, one that is seeking still for new sources of reparations, for an ever decreasing number of people, who, according to the book, don't appear to ever see much of the money.

However, I do recall Skeptic regularly accusing me of wanting all Jews dead.



The book is a libel and it was written to blacklash the Jewish Nation.

Once again, quotes, where? I cannot recall this.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

That means you don't get people abusing the lives of those who suffered by touring the world talking up the "war against terrorism", which I believe the events in Iraq have shown to be fraud.

You might remember by your own experience the eve of 1967 war ( I wasn't born yet so my info comes from my readings and mostly my dad who is NOT a Jew)

The Arab League was theatening Israelis that the Third Temple was coming and that they would anihilate them in their very own country.

In a way Arabs were the first after WWII that used Holocaust as a political argument and they sticked to it after 1967, in fact PLO was founded to perform exactly this duty.

Israelis responded to that threat by reminding what the Holocaust was about that's all. None in Israel has ever campaigned using Holocaust as a political argument.


agreed, as do other significant events in history.
Only when they are to describe similar events. Holocaust is unique in History.

For you, as a Jew, the Holocaust is particularly shocking. This is natural. For me, as a non-Jew, it is one more in a long line of shocking acts in history. For example, I would compare it to the treatment of the aboriginal people in Australia.

Did you perform in vivo experiments on the Aboriginals?

No, not the Jews. Like all institutions, it can take on a life all it's own. In this case, one that is seeking still for new sources of reparations, for an ever decreasing number of people, who, according to the book, don't appear to ever see much of the money.

Now we are talking, the book is about money and the reparations.

Finkelstein thinks-probably because his mother told him so-- that Jews shouldn't have asked for compensations. I don't understand why. My family for example is searching for a huge Art-Collection that was stolen by the Nazis, my great grand father was an Art dealer.What's wrong with that? Does this make us greedy and evil?

However, I do recall Skeptic regularly accusing me of wanting all Jews dead.

I am not a Skeptic's apologist, however I want to remind you the the extravaganzas you have posted in the heat of the debate...It happens, as you know.

Once again, quotes, where? I cannot recall this.

Please, you have to decide if we are going to have a serious discussion.
I found an Australian site that hosts a sample of his book.

In this sample people can enjoy how anecdotal facts are supported by " my mother said that" arguments.

As the
rendering of the Holocaust assumed ever more absurd forms, my mother liked to
quote (with intentional irony) Henry Ford: 'History is bunk'. The tales of
'Holocaust survivors' all concentration camp inmates, all heroes of the
resistance were a special source of wry amusement in my home.



http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters/finkelstein.htm

[a_unique_person]

I found an Australian site that hosts a sample of his book.

In this sample people can enjoy how anecdotal facts are supported by " my mother said that" arguments.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the rendering of the Holocaust assumed ever more absurd forms, my mother liked to quote (with intentional irony) Henry Ford: 'History is bunk'. The tales of 'Holocaust survivors' all concentration camp inmates, all heroes of the resistance were a special source of wry amusement in my home.

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


http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Di...finkelstein.htm

[/b]

remember this?




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cleopatra
I remember one year that my grandmother took me with her to a dinner with Holocaust survivors. My blood froze with the Holocaust jokes those people were telling each other!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Didn't I say that humor is part of the healing process?

I'm actually a little sad that no one yet feels comfortable about making jokes about 9-11. It means that we have not yet begun the healing process. Either that or they are afraid Ashcroft is watching them.



The Adelaide Institute instantly made my ears prick up, that is a right wing ratbag site.

[Cleopatra]

Thanks for that comment :)

There is no decent site that hosts Finkelstein's extracts of his books I am afraid... that's why when you type Finkelstein in the search box ( apart from his website) only these kind of sites appear :)

[Cain]

I plan on reading that book soon.

Salon originally gave it a rather negative review. I forget the other book reviewed in the same article, but it had a similar, though more restrained, argument.

[Cleopatra]

I strongly suggest to people to read it!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


You might remember by your own experience the eve of 1967 war ( I wasn't born yet so my info comes from my readings and mostly my dad who is NOT a Jew)

The Arab League was theatening Israelis that the Third Temple was coming and that they would anihilate them in their very own country.

In a way Arabs were the first after WWII that used Holocaust as a political argument and they sticked to it after 1967, in fact PLO was founded to perform exactly this duty.



We have debated this already. The Israeli's knew, as soon as they declared independence, that they would be attacked, and were ready for it. They expected to be attacked because they knew the Arabs would not be happy with what has effectively an invasion.



Israelis responded to that threat by reminding what the Holocaust was about that's all. None in Israel has ever campaigned using Holocaust as a political argument.

Only when they are to describe similar events. Holocaust is unique in History.


Did you perform in vivo experiments on the Aboriginals?



No, but the aboriginals of Tasmania were effectively wiped out, completely. No pure blood descendents survived at all.



Now we are talking, the book is about money and the reparations.

Finkelstein thinks-probably because his mother told him so-- that Jews shouldn't have asked for compensations. I don't understand why. My family for example is searching for a huge Art-Collection that was stolen by the Nazis, my great grand father was an Art dealer.What's wrong with that? Does this make us greedy and evil?



He was not complaining about the compensation. He was pointing out that compensation was already paid decades ago, yet the search for new forms of compensation still goes on. What your family is after is their actual property, not compensation.

[Skeptic]

(Yawn)

As usual, AUP is too much of a coward to actually openly say he agrees with Finkelstein's claims (of a evil jewish conspiracy to "exploit" the holocaust), so he just asks rhetorical questions instead, to the effect of "Finkelstein--crank or good man prosecuted by the joooooooooos?", with the preferred answer clearly insinuated.

For the record, AUP had already supported Finkelstein with the VERY SAME salon.com review he now reposts. Why? Because it is essentially the ONLY positive review of Finkelstein's book found on google.com that isn't posted on some neo-nazi or antisemitic web site. Simply put, nobody except neo-nazis (and the lone gullible report from salon.com) takes Finkelstein's work seriously.

It is yet another indication that AUP's "research" of "israeli crimes" is to enter something into google ("Finkelstein AND positive AND reviews", or something similar, in this case), and just post what comes up. For example, in a recent thread, AUP posted "proof" of israeli "crimes" from Earnst Zundel's neo-nazi conspiracy theory site. The only difference between that "evidence" and the one he just reposted in this thread is that this time he actually CHECKED if the site is a neo-nazi one before cutting and pasting the link.

Incidentally, all this was already discussed to death in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15464&highlight=Finkelstein+AND+salon+magazine) (you might need to scroll a little down to reach the discussion about Finkelstein). As usual, AUP had his ass handed to him. AUP probably figured that people will forget that his positive view of Finkelstein was already blown out of the water in that thread, exposing him as the supporter of a antisemitic crank, so it is safe to repost the same lies by now. Who knows? Perhaps THIS time somebody will believe him.

I have to say, AUP, one of the reasons our discussions take so long is that you repost the same lies and conspiracy theories again and again, so I have to refute them again and again.

[Cain]

I love how quickly knee-jerk ideologues resort to injecting "conspiracy theory" into an otherwise discussion. Perhaps, "Skeptic," (a nice touch of irony) you could argue the merits of the book.

It's not difficult to copy/paste the results of numerous positive book reviews (via a Lexis-Nexis search).

I'll resign myself to a summary review from_ New Statesman_, the English journal.

The Holocaust is one of those subjects that tends to make otherwise reasonable, intelligent individuals go a little bit bonkers. So it should come as no surprise that Norman Finkelstein's new book has been met in some quarters with the sort of reception normally reserved for the likes of David Irving. After all, Finkelstein's earlier work, both on the Holocaust and on the politics of the Middle East, has seen him labelled "poisonous", "a self-hating Jew" and so forth.

The Holocaust Industry is a short, sharp and furious polemic. It almost seems designed to set Finkelstein's critics baying. In television debates, it has been derided as "intellectual bunkum". The Guardian's Jonathan Freedland, normally an admirable writer, has given the book a quite swivel-eyed review, arguing that it hasn't really generated any great controversy (so why did his own paper see fit to run extracts from it over two days?) and, moreover, that it has all been said before. He then roundly condemns Finkelstein for saying it again and, for good measure, chucks in the "self-hating Jew" epithet (a peculiarly unpleasant term of abuse), comparing Finkelstein with, yes, David Irving as someone who "sees Jews as the authors of their own suffering".

This is all quite spectacular nonsense and a shameful misrepresentation of Finkelstein's argument. For a start, he distinguishes the holocaust (the historical event in which millions of Jews were murdered by the Nazi regime) from The Holocaust (its ideological representation, which is the primary subject of this book). Since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, he goes on, that ideology has been developed to sustain certain class and political interests, notably those of the conservative Jewish elite in the United States, and to bolster the state of Israel itself through the representation of that state, and Jews in general, as eternal victims of oppression. This ideology, he argues, has been used to "extort" money from the German government and the Swiss banks, and to exempt Israel from criticism of its own oppressive treatment of the Palestinians.

Finkelstein identifies two central dogmas that underpin this ideology: 1) that the holocaust marks a categorically unique historical event; 2) that the holocaust marks the climax of an irrational, eternal Gentile hatred of Jews. Further, the holocaust is cast as a definitively Jewish event. To deny these tenets, argues Finkelstein, is, in some circles, tantamount to denying the holocaust itself. In a vicious critique of the doyen of Holocaust literature, Elie Wiesel, he writes: "Rationally comprehending The Holocaust amounts, in [Wiesel's] view, to denying it. For rationality denies The Holocaust's uniqueness and mystery. And to compare The Holocaust with the sufferings of others constitutes, for Wiesel, a 'total betrayal of Jewish history'."

Yet it is hard to make any sense at all of the uniqueness claim, unless at a trivial level: namely, that all historical events are unique. Everyone knows there have been other genocides -- against the Armenians, the Native Americans, the Aborigines, the East Timorese. Even a partial list is dispiritingly long. Yet, as if to bolster this idea of uniqueness, memorialisations of the holocaust all too often downplay or ignore the Nazis' non-Jewish victims. Visit Yad Vashem, for example, and you will struggle to find any mention of the Roma (equally the target of the Nazis' policy of total elimination) or the disabled.

It is self-evidently absurd to say that questioning the uniqueness of the holocaust is the same as denying the holocaust. But the uniqueness claim is politically important because, as Finkelstein writes, "unique suffering confers unique entitlement": it is the very basis of the exploitation of the holocaust as an ideological tool.

Rabbi Julia Neuberger, writing in response to Finkelstein in the London Evening Standard, defends the uniqueness claim on the basis that the destruction of the Jews "was planned and executed so efficiently in civilised Christian Europe, in Germany, home of great composers and writers. It was as if the cradle of civilisation had taken leave of its senses ... This does not belittle other genocides." Fine sentiments, but, sadly, this absolutely does belittle other genocides. The unfortunate corollary of this line is that, say, the slaughter of Tutsis by Hutus, regrettable though it is, should not surprise us so much as that of the Jews by the Germans. Anyone who thinks that savagery exists only beyond the marches of western Christian civilisation, frankly, hasn't been paying attention.

No, the injunction "don't compare" is as ethically bankrupt as it is intellectually unsustainable. "No doubt," writes Finkelstein, "historical distinctions must be made. But to make out moral distinctions between 'our' suffering and 'theirs' is itself a moral travesty." Quite so. Part of the reason why Finkelstein's tone in this book is so angry is that we really shouldn't need to be having this argument. And, indeed, he devotes a fair amount of space to other themes, which there is no room here to elaborate, such as the eye-watering hypocrisy that underpins US foreign policy in the Middle East, central America and elsewhere. This is, in short, a lucid, provocative and passionate book. Anyone with an open mind and an interest in the subject should ignore the critical brickbats and read what Finkelstein has to say.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Salon interview with Finklestein.

http://dir.salon.com/books/int/2000/08/30/finkelstein/index.html



Tricky said in the the n word thread that, when you have to get over a traumatic experience, sometimes the best solution is laughter, when referring to holocaust survivors making wicked jokes about the subject.


You do realize that this
Finklestein is trying to say that the reparations business and the guilt trip that Israel is trying to put on the rest of the world
does not, necessarily imply this
insupport of it's illegal actions in Palestine is not the way to go, now that over 50 years have gone by. In fact, he sees it as being counterproductive.

Frankly, if I were an Isralai, I'd play the guilt card for all it is worth.

[Skeptic]

I love how quickly knee-jerk ideologues resort to injecting "conspiracy theory" into an otherwise discussion. Perhaps, "Skeptic," (a nice touch of irony) you could argue the merits of the book.

This was already done, ad infinitum, in the thread I referred to in my previous post. The conclusion, as you can see in that thread, is that Finkelstein is a crank.

The problem is, AUP will simply repeat the same "evidence" for jewish "perfidity"--such as Finkelstein's book--no matter how many times it was shown to not be worth the paper it's printed on.

I'll resign myself to a summary review from_ New Statesman_, the English journal.

We've already discussed European reviews in the thread I referred to.

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic: The problem is, AUP will...blah, blah, blahThe problem is that you have a huge chip on your shoulder and cannot discuss criticism of Israel rationally, except by labeling opponents as antisemites, cowards, bloodthirsty, etc, etc ad finitum. It's boring.

How about if we just assume that anyone critical of Israeli policies are de-facto antisemites. There will then no longer be a need for you to waste time and JREF's space asserting this irrelevant fact, and everyone can get back to discussing the issues.

Gheeeeez.

[Skeptic]

Skeptic: The problem is that you have a huge chip on your shoulder and cannot discuss criticism of Israel rationally, except by labeling opponents as antisemites, cowards, bloodthirsty, etc, etc ad finitum. It's boring.

(shrug) so don't read it.

How about if we just assume that anyone critical of Israeli policies are de-facto antisemites.

AUP & co. aren't "critical of israeli policies". They are critical of israel's "unjust" existence, and do everything they can to deligitimize it and glorify those who seek to destroy it.

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:(shrug) so don't read it.I usually don't, as your long rants often dominate.
AUP & co. aren't "critical of israeli policies". They are critical of israel's "unjust" existence, and do everything they can to deligitimize it and glorify those who seek to destroy it. Supposing they are indeed critical of Israel's "unjust" existence, SO WHAT? The reasons why, are interesting. Your rants about how they are antisemites, etc, etc, etc, are boring and don't contribute to the clarification of the issues involved.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Skeptic: The problem is that you have a huge chip on your shoulder and cannot discuss criticism of Israel rationally, except by labeling opponents as antisemites, cowards, bloodthirsty, etc, etc ad finitum. It's boring.

(shrug) so don't read it.

How about if we just assume that anyone critical of Israeli policies are de-facto antisemites.

AUP & co. aren't "critical of israeli policies". They are critical of israel's "unjust" existence, and do everything they can to deligitimize it and glorify those who seek to destroy it.

You will find there are many Jews who think the creation of Israel was a mistake. I do too. I have also said that now that it is there, it isn't going away. I have never claimed it should be destroyed. I have asked for it to withdraw completely from the West Bank and Gaza and remove all 'settlements'.

[Skeptic]

Supposing they are indeed critical of Israel's "unjust" existence, SO WHAT? The reasons why, are interesting.

Suppose I am critical of Denmark's "unjust" existence and want it destroyed, and the Danes "removed" from the "occupied" territory they live in, SO WHAT?

Does that AUTOMATICALLY make me someone who hates Danes?

Shouldn't we have an impassionate, "rational" investigation into the reasons WHY I want the Danes dead and their country destroyed, before you unfairly label me as a Dane-hater?

Isn't that what's REALLY interesting about my "objective criticism" of Denamark's existence?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Supposing they are indeed critical of Israel's "unjust" existence, SO WHAT? The reasons why, are interesting.

Suppose I am critical of Denmark's "unjust" existence and want it destroyed, and the Danes "removed" from the "occupied" territory they live in, SO WHAT?

Does that AUTOMATICALLY make me someone who hates Danes?

Shouldn't we have an impassionate, "rational" investigation into the reasons WHY I want the Danes dead and their country destroyed, before you unfairly label me as a Dane-hater?

Isn't that what's REALLY interesting about my "objective criticism" of Denamark's existence?

I want the Jews dead? What part of fantasy land do you live in?

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:Suppose I am critical of Denmark's "unjust" existence and want it destroyed, and the Danes "removed" from the "occupied" territory they live in, SO WHAT?

Does that AUTOMATICALLY make me someone who hates Danes?No. Obviously not.
Shouldn't we have an impassionate, "rational" investigation into the reasons WHY I want the Danes dead and their country destroyed, before you unfairly label me as a Dane-hater? Indeed, such an investigation would be interesting. What it has to do with childish "labelling" of people, I don't know.
Isn't that what's REALLY interesting about my "objective criticism" of Denamark's existence? No. Contaminating otherwise sober discussions with reasons for labelling someone as "whatever", is uninteresting. It is totally superflous. It is irrelevant. It is of no interest to anyone concerned with the topic.

Do you understand this, or should I expound?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Skeptic: The problem is that you have a huge chip on your shoulder and cannot discuss criticism of Israel rationally, except by labeling opponents as antisemites, cowards, bloodthirsty, etc, etc ad finitum. It's boring.

How about if we just assume that anyone critical of Israeli policies are de-facto antisemites. There will then no longer be a need for you to waste time and JREF's space asserting this irrelevant fact, and everyone can get back to discussing the issues.

Gheeeeez.

I understand what you are saying DD, but doesn't this also apply to the other side?

I mean if Skeptic takes the Israel is right position. Doesn't AUP or Demon and others take the Israel is always wrong positon?

So in fact they are really talking past each other?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mike B.


I understand what you are saying DD, but doesn't this also apply to the other side?

I mean if Skeptic takes the Israel is right position. Doesn't AUP or Demon and others take the Israel is always wrong positon?

So in fact they are really talking past each other?

There seem to be other posters on this board that I can have a rational debate on issues such as this with. Skeptic, however, is like a broken record.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed


Frankly, if I were an Isralai, I'd play the guilt card for all it is worth.

I think that is the whole point of his book. Playing this card is not a good idea. It cheapens the legacy of the victims of the holocaust, it is immoral, that is, your own case does not stand on it's own merits, it demeans those who do so, and it blackens the name of others by association.

[Cleopatra]

Is this a thread about Finkelstein's libel or about the Israeli policy?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Is this a thread about Finkelstein's libel or about the Israeli policy?

I think you were going to tell us why you believe the book to be libelous.

[Skeptic]

Skeptic:No. Obviously not.

(Just for the record: needless to say, I do not actually desire anything of this sort for Denmark--it is a hypothetical analogy.)

OK, DD, let's make this absolutely clear. In your view, me wanting the Danes expelled and Denmark destroyed is NOT necessarily a sign that I REALLY hate Danes, God forbid. You'd still need more proof for that--although I cannot imagine what it would be.

sigh...

Well, I'll grant you this: IF wanting a country destroyed and its people expelled is NOT a sign that you hate its people, then my (hypothetical) claims about Denmark are not a sign of hating Danes, and AUPs (real) claims about israel are not a sign of antisemitism.

But this is merely a case of "garbage in, garbage out" reasoning: if you start from an absurd premise, you reach absurd conclusions.

[Skeptic]

Finkelstein in da house, takin` out da trash.

And who, precisely, ARE "the trash", Mr. "non-antisemite"?

[demon]

"And who, precisely, ARE "the trash", Mr. "non-antisemite"?"

Ok, I don`t know why I`m bothering but it`s not "who" the "trash" is, it`s "what" it is and in this instance it refers to the crap that Goldhagen spouts in that book.

Are you seriously losing it Skeptic or are you just incapable of resisting any old opportunity to squawk "anti-Semite"?. You`re like some kind of demented Pavlovian dog who barks out the inevitable response irrespective of the stimulus.
Maybe it was all the fumes from the bulldozers.

You`re so paranoid that next you`ll be thinking Finkelstein`s "Holocaust Industry" is about the likes of you. Ooops, it is;)

[davefoc]

This thread is on the periphery of things that I have thought and wondered about for awhile.

As I understand it only about half the people murdered by the Nazis were Jewish in the holocaust. Why is there such disparate treatment of the victims in the media? There are few books, stories, movies, etc about the non-Jewish victims of the holocaust. Why?

Perhaps it is because the non-Jewish groups were so disparate (political prisoners, gypsies, dwarfs, etc.) that there is no group that can speak for them today. That is part of the reason I am sure, but I have wondered if there isn't something in the Jewish traditions that creates a long term institutional memory of their defeats and disasters.

The bible is of course loaded with this kind of thing. Jews getting trampled by the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians. Is there something going on in the Jewish culture which is unique in the world with regard to this kind of communal remembrance of disaster?

[demon]

"Why is there such disparate treatment of the victims in the media? There are few books, stories, movies, etc about the non-Jewish victims of the holocaust. Why?"

Good question and one effectively addressed by Finkelstein in his "Holocaust Industry".
I hope you can get hold of a copy...all will become clear.

His disembowelment of Goldhagen is also worth a serious look...brings all the "special pleading" and inconsistency of the Goldhagen position (a popular position too in Jewish society), into sharp focus.

Happy reading!

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Skeptic:No. Obviously not.

(Just for the record: needless to say, I do not actually desire anything of this sort for Denmark--it is a hypothetical analogy.)

OK, DD, let's make this absolutely clear. In your view, me wanting the Danes expelled and Denmark destroyed is NOT necessarily a sign that I REALLY hate Danes, God forbid. You'd still need more proof for that--although I cannot imagine what it would be.

sigh...

Well, I'll grant you this: IF wanting a country destroyed and its people expelled is NOT a sign that you hate its people, then my (hypothetical) claims about Denmark are not a sign of hating Danes, and AUPs (real) claims about israel are not a sign of antisemitism.

But this is merely a case of "garbage in, garbage out" reasoning: if you start from an absurd premise, you reach absurd conclusions.

My (real) claims are a fantasy in your head. My real claims are that Israel and Palestine learn to, eventaully, live in peace. The only Israelis I am saying I want expelled are those living in Palestine. Once again, your catchcry of 'anti-semitism' is not based on any evidence, and is once again an appeal to emotions.

As to this topic. If I was to start one on a serious discussion as to how true the 'protocols' are, there would be uproar. Here, it is a bit of a fizzer. Perhaps the two tomes do not compare that closely after all.

[a_unique_person]

From his website, a quote from Raoul Hildberg.



Raul Hilberg comments on the first edition of The Holocaust Industry

"When I read Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry, at the time of its appearance, I was in the middle of my own investigations of these matters, and I came to the conclusion that he was on the right track. I refer now to the part of the book that deals with the claims against the Swiss banks, and the other claims pertaining to forced labor. I would now say in retrospect that he was actually conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy. He is a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the research, did it carefully, and has come up with the right results. I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years, will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough."

[davefoc]

AUP said:
You will find there are many Jews who think the creation of Israel was a mistake. I do too. I have also said that now that it is there, it isn't going away. I have never claimed it should be destroyed. I have asked for it to withdraw completely from the West Bank and Gaza and remove all 'settlements'.

I just wanted to quote AUP on this because I thought it was a particularly concise and well written summary of his position. It is the same position that he has had the entire time I have been reading his posts. Some people that disagree with his view consistently want to change it to something it is not and then attack AUP for things which AUP doen't believe and has not said.

If someone believes that AUP is anti-semetic because he believes the above, fine, but understand that this use of the term anti-semetic is not remotely consistent with what the term is understood to mean by most people.

[davefoc]

I hope my post above does not serve to derail this thread. I thought the topic was interesting and I am looking forward to seeing more discussion of it.

I just read the Finklestein interview at Salon and found it quite interesting. One of the things Finklestein said was that 85% of the reparation money had been distributed to Jewish institutions and not to individuals and the money distributed to the Jewish institutions had not been equitably redistributed by them.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this statement?

Cleopatra said that she thought the book was libelous. I was hoping that she could explain her thoughts behind that.

[Skeptic]

As I understand it only about half the people murdered by the Nazis were Jewish in the holocaust. Why is there such disparate treatment of the victims in the media? There are few books, stories, movies, etc about the non-Jewish victims of the holocaust. Why?

The reason is that the jews--and ONLY the jews--were a race judged, by their very existence, to be worthy of death. The jews--and ONLY the jews--suffered from a full-scale, systematic program to kill every member of their race; the jews, and ONLY the jews, faced the ghettoes, yellow star, and gas chambers--since ONLY the jews' existence per se was considered "intolerable". This is what is special about the jewish holocaust. It is the one and only time in history that a nation, Germany, used all its might for the purpose of eliminating a race of people, the jews, off the face of the earth, to the last baby.

What is also special--and also makes it memorable--is that the criminals were not so-called "savages", the crimes were not at the "heat of the moment" or due to some perceived wrong, but were done, in a cool, dispassionate, technologically advanced, and "humane" (or so Himmler believed) way by civilized, urbane, technologically advanced and well-educated people, who were simply convinced of one mad idea: the the jews are, literally, bacilli that must be destroyed.

Perhaps it is because the non-Jewish groups were so disparate (political prisoners, gypsies, dwarfs, etc.) that there is no group that can speak for them today.

This isn't true. There ARE groups who speak for these people--and quite rightly, too. There certainly isn't any opposition from any jewish group to remembering other victims; www.nizkor.com, for example, the best-known holocaust commemoration web site on the internet, is dedicated to the "twelve million victims" of the nazi regime, jewish and non-jewish, and often mentions the non-jewish victims.

But, to repeat, the main reason the holocaust is still remembered is not because others didn't suffer; it is because the special nature of the suffering--a systematic extermination program of an entire race by a people at the grip of a nationalistic insanity. Perhaps unfairly (or perhaps luckily, since otherwise we'd go out of our mind), suffering and genocide per se isn't "news" for long. But only once in history was there such an attempt at such a systematic genocide.


That is part of the reason I am sure, but I have wondered if there isn't something in the Jewish traditions that creates a long term institutional memory of their defeats and disasters.

Yes, that's just AWFUL, isn't it? You are butchered by the millions and the next thing you know, you're unwilling to forget it. Anyway, if it will make you feel any better, I fully admit to this "nuerosis" of the jewish character. You see, two thousands years of Christian charity and love made us somewhat paranoid, for some reason.

The bible is of course loaded with this kind of thing. Jews getting trampled by the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians. Is there something going on in the Jewish culture which is unique in the world with regard to this kind of communal remembrance of disaster?

No. What is special is that the jews, more or less the only people who have remained around from ancient times (except the Chinese, I suppose), simply have 3000 years of such disasters to remember, as opposed to 100-200 years, at best, most other nations have.

Presuming you're an American, and presuming Americans somehow survive 3000 years in the future, despite (say) a new USSR nuking the US 100 years from now--would it be "abnormal" for those future Americans to remember that nuclear attack even in the future?

[a_unique_person]

from nizkor



"Increasing numbers of Jewish scholars" who supposedly support Holocaust-denial is probably a reference to Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT. They tend to claim that Chomsky supports their absurd theories, but that is a lie. Chomsky has defended the right of the French "revisionist" Faurisson to free speech, but he completely rejects Holocaust revisionism itself.

Here is what he wrote on the matter:

My views are quite explicitly stated: the Holocaust was the most extreme atrocity in human history, and we lose our humanity if we are even willing to enter the arena of debate with those who seek to deny or underplay Nazi crimes.

And when asked his opinion on the writings of Faurisson and other Holocaust "revisionists," he answered:

I have seen no reason to doubt the conclusions of authentic Holocaust historians (Hilberg, Bauer, etc.) on the facts of the matter.

Hilberg and Bauer are well-known Holocaust historians. Each has written numerous books and articles. Needless to say, neither of them doubts the murder of millions in gas chambers.



1. The same Hilberg has been quoted as supporting Finklestein. 2. Agreeing with Finlestein does not constitute being a Holocaust denier.
3. Nizkor looks to be a pretty reputable site. That is, it is broad minded. Because it is, it does not exonerate those who do exploit the Holocaust.

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/involved/petitions.htm#Fact

Some of those terrible Jews supporting peace.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, I'll grant you this: IF wanting a country destroyed and its people expelled is NOT a sign that you hate its people, then my (hypothetical) claims about Denmark are not a sign of hating Danes, and AUPs (real) claims about israel are not a sign of antisemitism.

But this is merely a case of "garbage in, garbage out" reasoning: if you start from an absurd premise, you reach absurd conclusions.

Skeptic, I have occasionally enjoyed reading your posts in threads that don't mention Israel. This is why I don't have you on Ignore.

But you are being a first-class, irrational nuisance here. In this particular thread, it's just true that you could, intellectually, think that Israel is a bad idea without being a racist.

You have a distressing habit of posting foaming abuse into otherwise civilised and constructive threads. It does you no credit, and your cause no service.

[davefoc]

Thank you for the link AUP:
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/involved/petitions.htm

Seems like that site might be the subject of a thread on its own.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

We have debated this already. The Israeli's knew, as soon as they declared independence, that they would be attacked, and were ready for it. They expected to be attacked because they knew the Arabs would not be happy with what has effectively an invasion.

This is irrelevant with what I was discussing, Unique. The Arabs used holocaust as a political slogan for the first time.

Finkelstein ,accuses the Jews for using Holocaust to support Israel's territorial ambitions and the continuous pressure they exercise on the Palestinians but he forgets to refer to those that they initiate the use of Holocaust as a political slogan. The Jews have used Holocaust as an excuse to Israel's policy in rare occasions in the past and only in response to the Arab propaganda.

But Finkelstein seems to “forget” that.

No, but the aboriginals of Tasmania were effectively wiped out, completely. No pure blood descendents survived at all.

I didn't ask you what happened to the aboriginals of Tasmania but I asked you if they were extinct with the industrialized way Jews have been.

The argument that The Holocaust is morally equivalent to “War Crimes" in general is not something new and of course, Finkelstein didn’t discover it.

Finkelstein is just another one in the long row of people-revisionist historians mostly- that stand behind Adolf Eichmanm who tried, in his trial in Jerusalem- to equate Holocaust with the bombardments of Germans cities by the Allies during War... and when judge Benjamin Halevi asked him if he understands the difference between the two situations he replied that he understands it very well but when those crimes were perpetrated they have been legalized by the German Government (the Nazi Regime).

This was the main defense line in the trial of Nuremberg as well that Holocaust was legalized by the Nazi government.

Eichmann tried to baptize the Holocaust a war crime ordered by his superiors and that because all of them have committed suicide and he thought that by doing so he would be cleared of the accusations.

I mention all the above Unique to show you why I suggest that Finkelstein's books is libelous and offensive for the Jewish people.

What Finkelstein does is to continue the defense line that Nazis kept during the trials.

I am surprised you didn't know all these things though and you insist on trivialize the whole issue.

He was not complaining about the compensation. He was pointing out that compensation was already paid decades ago, yet the search for new forms of compensation still goes on. What your family is after is their actual property, not compensation. [

Let's see "the big scandal of compensations that F. brought to light."

If somebody tried to persuade me that people that tried to take advantage of the Holocaust and profit from it didn't exist it I'd say that he is insane.

I am sure that there are cases of individuals or rabbis or people in Jewish communities that took advantage of the whole issue but the spare and anecdotal "evidence" F. provides, doesn't support his claims that there has been an organized plan by the Jews.

He keeps mentioning the 2.500 $ his mother took and around this he tries to built a conspiracy.

On the other hand he recognizes that the majority of Jewish organizations speedily distributed to elderly survivors funds, which, ironically, he thinks should not be collected in the first place!!

Also, it's true that USA and Israeli Banks hold unreturned assets from Europe's Jews but this Unique is a reason to pressure the Banks and not to stop the negotiations with the Swiss or with German corporations that profited from slave labor as Finkelstein suggests for reasons only he knows.

Finkelstein accuses the Jews that they insist that The Holocaust is unique in order to appear special in their societies but ironically this is what he does for him self: He appears to be the special not one of a million survivors but one of an elite of "the true" sufferers that got very few (he keeps mentioning with grief those 2.500 $...)

Finkelstein says that he is afraid that the demand for reparations will lead to the enlivenment of anti-Semitism and what he does? He becomes the first and the loudest denouncer of his own race in the States.

But of course what it seems that he ignores is the fact that this attitude won't save him; the next Nazis won't care more than the previous did...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


This is irrelevant with what I was discussing, Unique. The Arabs used holocaust as a political slogan for the first time.

Finkelstein ,accuses the Jews for using Holocaust to support Israel's territorial ambitions and the continuous pressure they exercise on the Palestinians but he forgets to refer to those that they initiate the use of Holocaust as a political slogan. The Jews have used Holocaust as an excuse to Israel's policy in rare occasions in the past and only in response to the Arab propaganda.

But Finkelstein seems to “forget” that.



I have no knowledge of that. Either way, it is not relevant to his book. He does not deny the Holocaust at all, I do not see that he would be happy with anyone invoking it's memory as a spur to kill more Jews. His problem is not with the anti-semites, but with Jews acting immorally.



I didn't ask you what happened to the aboriginals of Tasmania but I asked you if they were extinct with the industrialized way Jews have been.



As with all such tragedies, this one had it's own distinguishing characteristics. For example, at one point they actuall had the infamous Black Line 'sweep' of the island. Tasmania is a relatively small island, so it was feasible for enough people to form a line and sweep the whole state from one to the other to try to capture or kill all the surviving aboriginals.

http://www.pacificislandtravel.com/australia/tasmania/tas_aboriginals.asp



The argument that The Holocaust is morally equivalent to “War Crimes" in general is not something new and of course, Finkelstein didn’t discover it.



I don't think he is claiming that. He is only pointing out that people who hijack the Holocaust for their own purposes are wrong.



Finkelstein is just another one in the long row of people-revisionist historians mostly- that stand behind Adolf Eichmanm who tried, in his trial in Jerusalem- to equate Holocaust with the bombardments of Germans cities by the Allies during War... and when judge Benjamin Halevi asked him if he understands the difference between the two situations he replied that he understands it very well but when those crimes were perpetrated they have been legalized by the German Government (the Nazi Regime).

This was the main defense line in the trial of Nuremberg as well that Holocaust was legalized by the Nazi government.

Eichmann tried to baptize the Holocaust a war crime ordered by his superiors and that because all of them have committed suicide and he thought that by doing so he would be cleared of the accusations.

I mention all the above Unique to show you why I suggest that Finkelstein's books is libelous and offensive for the Jewish people.



The allied bombing of WWII was in many ways a crime, as it was specifically used to target civilians in many raids. However, this was a war, and the Germans did the same thing. They were not tried for this, IIRC, but for the actual act of starting the whole stupid war in the first place, and for the acts of mass murder against civilians who constituted no actual enemy. That is, the Jews in the conquered lands were no actual threat to the German war effort, except to the extent that they were engaged in the general guerilla activities that all the conquered populations engaged in.

However, I do not see the actual libel part of his book being presented here. If it was to be a libellous book, he would be doing what others do, which Skeptic accuses me of, which is to start with the basic premise of hating Jews, then diggin up any dirt you can to blacken their name.



What Finkelstein does is to continue the defense line that Nazis kept during the trials.

I am surprised you didn't know all these things though and you insist on trivialize the whole issue.



He doesn't at all sympathise with the Nazis, and makes a very clear distinction, from the start of what he calls the Nazi Holocaust, the event of History, and the 'Holocaust Industry', the events which are happening today.



Let's see "the big scandal of compensations that F. brought to light."

If somebody tried to persuade me that people that tried to take advantage of the Holocaust and profit from it didn't exist it I'd say that he is insane.

I am sure that there are cases of individuals or rabbis or people in Jewish communities that took advantage of the whole issue but the spare and anecdotal "evidence" F. provides, doesn't support his claims that there has been an organized plan by the Jews.



I think he is more concerned with those involved in 'the industry'. Most jews would not be, as the actual 'industry' would only constitute a fraction of a percent the actual population of Jews.



He keeps mentioning the 2.500 $ his mother took and around this he tries to built a conspiracy.

On the other hand he recognizes that the majority of Jewish organizations speedily distributed to elderly survivors funds, which, ironically, he thinks should not be collected in the first place!!



I think he is actually claiming that, while money was distributed at first, today the majority of the money is not distributed. This would make sense, since most of the survivors of the holocaust would be dead now. In fact, many of them died in the first few years after liberation as they were so weakened by their capture. What concerns him is that the actual numbers of those entitled to compensation is being increased by the industry, more money is being taken in, yet less is being handed out.



Also, it's true that USA and Israeli Banks hold unreturned assets from Europe's Jews but this Unique is a reason to pressure the Banks and not to stop the negotiations with the Swiss or with German corporations that profited from slave labor as Finkelstein suggests for reasons only he knows.



That is what puzzles him, why pick on the Swiss Banks (who, I must admit, I don't hold a lot of sympathy for), but not those in the US and Israel?



Finkelstein accuses the Jews that they insist that The Holocaust is unique in order to appear special in their societies but ironically this is what he does for him self: He appears to be the special not one of a million survivors but one of an elite of "the true" sufferers that got very few (he keeps mentioning with grief those 2.500 $...)

Finkelstein says that he is afraid that the demand for reparations will lead to the enlivenment of anti-Semitism and what he does? He becomes the first and the loudest denouncer of his own race in the States.



Are you just killing the messenger? As you have noted, there is a rise in anti-semitism. The world is entering a new phase of history. I would hate to think that we would be returning to those days of sectarian warfare that many seem to be pushing us towards.



But of course what it seems that he ignores is the fact that this attitude won't save him; the next Nazis won't care more than the previous did...

I hardly think he underestimates the effects anti-semitism. He lived with them for many years. Like I said before, for all his mistakes, Ben Gurion had the sense to want Israel to be a model of modern Democracy and morale action. He knew that Israel should get out of the West Bank. Current actions of Israel and the Holocaust Industry are only help fan the new flames of anti-semitism.

I worked in a factory with many races, Jews, Aussies, Greeks, Turks, English, Arabs, Italians, Maltese, and more.

When Turkey invaded Cyprus, there was bad feeling on the factory floor between the Greeks and Turks. Special measures were taken to keep the two nationalities apart till the bitterness died down, or there would most probably have been bloodshed.

People understood that both sides had a lot to blame the other side for, but, in the end, people attacking each other and going on about the past and present would not have improved the situation one bit. I get the feeling that this is something like what Finklestein is after. He doesn't want the Jews being treated specially or differently. He wants them to get on with life in the present, while remembering the lessons of the past. By continuing the quest for reparations for people who have mostly passed on now, no good purpose is being served, but a bad one is being created. As he points out, Israel has said the right of return for Palestinians has gone and lapsed for good, and they will just have to forget about it. This right of return the Palestinians are asking for is more recent than the Holocaust.

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:(Just for the record: needless to say, I do not actually desire anything of this sort for Denmark--it is a hypothetical analogy.)Darn. I was warming up to a long rant on how you were clearly an anti-Dane and how this was very important for everyone to know.
OK, DD, let's make this absolutely clear. In your view, me wanting the Danes expelled and Denmark destroyed is NOT necessarily a sign that I REALLY hate Danes, God forbid. You'd still need more proof for that--although I cannot imagine what it would be. Many Greenlanders want Danes and Denmark out of Greenland and Greenland declared an independent country. Do these people generally hate Danes? No, they don't. They just want "their" land back under their own control. (Just for the record, although Denmark is basically ready to give them independence, I don't see this happening in the near future. The Greenland economy would collapse.)
Well, I'll grant you this: IF wanting a country destroyed and its people expelled is NOT a sign that you hate its people, then my (hypothetical) claims about Denmark are not a sign of hating Danes, and AUPs (real) claims about israel are not a sign of antisemitism.Glad to see you've come around.
But this is merely a case of "garbage in, garbage out" reasoning: if you start from an absurd premise, you reach absurd conclusions. No it isn't. You must be refering to your ridiculous contention that anyone critical of a country's policies automatically hate the people in that country.

[Skeptic]

Skeptic:Darn. I was warming up to a long rant on how you were clearly an anti-Dane and how this was very important for everyone to know.

Suppose I WAS serious, DD? Suppose I REALLY DID think Denmark must be destroyed and the Danes expelled? Wouldn't that justify a few "long rants" and would be considered important by you?

Well, then. My point exactly. AUP is on record supporting the "just" arab attempt to destroy israel, claiming that it wouldn't be antisemitism because it involved "only" a genoicde of the jews "in a strictly limited geographical area", and that israel has no right to exist. To repeat, if this isn't the very definition of hating a country and its people, what is?

Many Greenlanders want Danes and Denmark out of Greenland and Greenland declared an independent country. Do these people generally hate Danes? No, they don't. They just want "their" land back under their own control.

That's nice. Of course, alas, the Greenlanders don't want the Danes out of DENMARK. They don't consider Copenhagen their "ancient and inalianable capital", nor do they consider the existence of non-Greenlanders in Odense an awful occupation, do they? How many Greenalnders are taught in school that their goal in life should be to blow themselves up in

This is not the case with the palestinians, whose cause--endlessly repeated everywhere, from their constitution to kid's reading material--is to "replace" the "invading zionists" (read: all the jews) by palestinians who are "returning" to their homes, and uniformally glorifies and lionizes the killing of jews (see www.memri.org for details). Unlike the Greenlanders, they want the jews all dead and gone. If this isn't the very definition of hate, what is?

your ridiculous contention that anyone critical of a country's policies automatically hate the people in that country.

But, for the zillionth time, AUP & co., and the arabs, are NOT "critical of israeli policies". They are critical of israel's EXISTENCE. You claimed that EVEN THIS is not enough to show they are "really" antisemites, but I wonder: if it isn't, what is?

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Skeptic
This is not the case with the palestinians, whose cause--endlessly repeated everywhere, from their constitution to kid's reading material--is to "replace" the "invading zionists" (read: all the jews) by palestinians who are "returning" to their homes, and uniformally glorifies and lionizes the killing of jews (see www.memri.org for details). Unlike the Greenlanders, they want the jews all dead and gone.You say this, but the source you link to that is supposed to prove it, has an article (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=reform&ID=SP57303) by a Palestinian arguing for exactly the opposite!

To the original issue:Finkelstein's main and most devastating charge is that "American Jewish elites" and organizations are extorting billions of dollars from European countries and corporations in the name of "needy Holocaust survivors" in order to fund Holocaust programs, Holocaust memorials, Holocaust studies, Holocaust literature and, in general, "the Jewish community." Together they form not just a cottage industry but a full-fledged "Holocaust industry" sustained by a persistent ideology of "Holocaust correctness" that serves "certain class and political interests."Can't the same be said of many other advocacy groups? It seems to me that the word 'industry' is often used to give something a negative connotation. While it can be argued that such an industry exists (just like there is a 'environmentalist industry', or a 'human rights industry') it does not necessarily mean that it isn't entirely legitimate.

I haven't read Finklestein's book, so could someone explain to me whether he argues that the 'Holocaust Industry' is something immoral, and whether he shows any evidence for it if he does? A few isolated incidents will probably not do.

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:Suppose I WAS serious, DD? Suppose I REALLY DID think Denmark must be destroyed and the Danes expelled? Wouldn't that justify a few "long rants" and would be considered important by you?Skeptic, my point, as you well know, is that your Pavlovian response whenever AUP posts something regarding Israel is to rant about how he is clearly an antisemite, bloodthirsty, etc, etc. For me, this is completely and totally irrelevant and unhelpful. As a consequence, I often scroll past you post and thus possibly miss some actual factually based arguments on the topic in question.
Well, then. My point exactly. AUP is on record supporting the "just" arab attempt to destroy israel, claiming that it wouldn't be antisemitism because it involved "only" a genoicde of the jews "in a strictly limited geographical area", and that israel has no right to exist. To repeat, if this isn't the very definition of hating a country and its people, what is? If AUP has in fact stated the above, then I certainly find his view deplorable. I'm against the advocating for the extermination of a people. Any people. Including the Palestinians.
That's nice. Of course, alas, the Greenlanders don't want the Danes out of DENMARK. They don't consider Copenhagen their "ancient and inalianable capital", nor do they consider the existence of non-Greenlanders in Odense an awful occupation, do they? How many Greenalnders are taught in school that their goal in life should be to blow themselves up inDoesn't matter. They are advocating for the removal of the "occupiers" from their land, which is exactly what the Palestinians are doing.
This is not the case with the palestinians, whose cause--endlessly repeated everywhere, from their constitution to kid's reading material--is to "replace" the "invading zionists" (read: all the jews) by palestinians who are "returning" to their homes, and uniformally glorifies and lionizes the killing of jews (see www.memri.org for details). Unlike the Greenlanders, they want the jews all dead and gone. If this isn't the very definition of hate, what is?Give me a break. I very much doubt that the Palestinians care about Jews living somewhere else than Israel. Do you really think they would wage war against Jews if Israel didn't exist and Jews were living somewhere else?
But, for the zillionth time, AUP & co., and the arabs, are NOT "critical of israeli policies". They are critical of israel's EXISTENCE. You claimed that EVEN THIS is not enough to show they are "really" antisemites, but I wonder: if it isn't, what is? Indeed, being critical of Israel's existence doesn't mean one hates Jews. It all centers around why one is critical. If some country annexed Texas (say the fictive country called the Republic of Scientology) would you just automatically think that any Texan opposed to this move was a bloodthirsty, irrational anti-Scientologist? Or would you think that some ire might be expected?

[Skeptic]

You say this, but the source you link to that is supposed to prove it, has an article (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=reform&ID=SP57303) by a Palestinian arguing for exactly the opposite!

No, it doesn't. From that "moderate" article:

I write this now because I am optimistic about the current Palestinian leadership, since it decided in 1974 – at the 12th [Palestinian] National Council – to relinquish the 'all or nothing' policy, to struggle for what was possible and not sell it for the impossible.

In 1974, the PLO officially declared it is adopting the infamous "stage plan" (their name) for israel's destruction: that it will agree to a small palestinian state provided a). this implies no recognition of israel's legitimacy, and b). will be used as the "starting point" for the "liberation of all of palestine" (e.g., the destruction of israel). This, to this day, is the "moderate" position of the PLO and the palestinians in general.

In other words, the definition of an Arab "moderate" is someone who (like the author of this article) is for israel's destruction using the "stage plan" of 1974 (the "relinquishing of the all or nothing strategy" the author so highly praises), as opposed to an "extremist", who considers destroying israel at one go the preferred tactic.

NOWHERE in this article--or anywhere else, for that matter--have the arab "moderates", this author included, accepted israel's existence, or legitimacy, in ANY borders (except for public consumption in the west, as part of the effort to get israel to give up yet more land). All their argument with the "extremist" is on the METHOD of destroying israel, not an argument WHETHER it should be destroyed.

Re-read this article. Does this "moderate" author say a word about comprtomise with the jews, or perhaps recognizing that they, too, might have some claims? No, he doesn't. Does he say a word about accepting israel? No, he doesn't. Does he say a word about peace? Again, no, he doesn't. All he is lamenting is the failure of Arab strategy to gain territory as part of the struggle for israel's destruction by strategy X, so he suggests strategy Y instead. He simply considers what strategy will be more efficient in destroying israel, the "moderate" stage plan or the "extremist" all-out war plan, and decides in favor of the former.

Quite clearly, the writer of this article is committed to israel's destruction; the question is only, by what means.

I haven't read Finklestein's book, so could someone explain to me whether he argues that the 'Holocaust Industry' is something immoral

and whether he shows any evidence for it if he does?

He doesn't, except for a few isolated incidents he blows out of all proportion. But, as you rightly say...

A few isolated incidents will probably not do.

[Skeptic]

Give me a break. I very much doubt that the Palestinians care about Jews living somewhere else than Israel.

Oh, how nice of them!

And I have no problem with Danes as such, just as long as they leave "occupied Denmark", have their country destroyed, and become refugees elsewhere.

Me? Hate Danes?? Whatever gave you that idea???

You are being utterly absurd.

Indeed, being critical of Israel's existence doesn't mean one hates Jews.

Indeed, being critical of Danish Dynamite's existence doesn't mean one hates Danish Dynamite.

You must realize that it is UTTERLY irrational on your part to blame me for hating you, just because I tried to murder you with a rusty knife the other day.

I was just "expressing" my "criticism of your existence", you see, which, naturally, is something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than hating you and wanting you dead.

And to think that you just called the police and had me arrested, instead of calmly figuring out WHY I wanted to kill you---er, *cough* cough*, WHY I was "critical of your existence"--and if it REALLY means I hated you or not...

[Earthborn]

NOWHERE in this article--or anywhere else, for that matter--have the arab "moderates", this author included, accepted israel's existence, or legitimacy, in ANY borders

(snip)

Does this "moderate" author say a word about comprtomise with the jews, or perhaps recognizing that they, too, might have some claims? No, he doesn't. Does he say a word about accepting israel? No, he doesn't. Does he say a word about peace? Again, no, he doesn't.And you say that I should reread the article:There is no way around living together in two countries – a situation that will take decades and will be a prelude to shared life in one democratic state, in accordance with our motto in the PLO in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

(Snip)

"Why not stop the waterfalls of blood and bring hope to both our peoples? Why do we glorify death lovers and not the lovers of life? This is the big question. A great challenge faces us all."

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Earthborn
And you say that I should reread the article:

You don't get it, do you?

The PLO, when accepting the stage plan in 1974, had openly declared that its final goal is a "democratic secular state for both people". This is a euphemism for "the destruction of israel and the elimination of the jews", since it also called for the removal of all "zionists" from the area--defined as all jews who have come to the region (or were born there) after 1917, leaving as "equal citizens in a secular state" only a few centenarian jews.

Now, the new euphemism for the current step in the stage plan--ever since the Oslo disaster of 1993--was Arafat's public procalamations about a "future for both our people". This really means "a palestinian state as a step for the final goal of israel's destruction", as Arafat openly said to his advisors many times since he signed the Oslo agreement, and as evidenced in all his actions. He never meant it literally as a matter of real peace--and neither does this "moderate" writer.

This is all this "moderate" hope by the author means: he is using arafat's Oslo-days expressions for a reason; he means, that is, the same thing that Arafat means by it. Note that he does NOT give up the dream of a "secular state for both people" (e.g., israel's destruction); he only thinks it will take a long time, so that in the meantime a "future for both people" (e.g., a palestinian state as part of the overall plan to achieve this ultimate goal.

[Earthborn]

The PLO, when accepting the stage plan in 1974, had openly declared that its final goal is a "democratic secular state for both people". This is a euphemism for "the destruction of israel and the elimination of the jews", since it also called for the removal of all "zionists" from the area--defined as all jews who have come to the region (or were born there) after 1917, leaving as "equal citizens in a secular state" only a few centenarian jews.Please provide evidence that this is what the author meant. Also provide evidence that the PLO meant it that way.This is all this "moderate" hope by the author means: he is using arafat's Oslo-days expressions for a reason; he means, that is, the same thing that Arafat means by it. Note that he does NOT give up the dream of a "secular state for both people" (e.g., israel's destruction); he only thinks it will take a long time, so that in the meantime a "future for both people" (e.g., a palestinian state as part of the overall plan to achieve this ultimate goal.Please tell me what you expect a real moderate Palestinian to say if it isn't exactly this.

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:Oh, how nice of them!

And I have no problem with Danes as such, just as long as they leave "occupied Denmark", have their country destroyed, and become refugees elsewhere.

Me? Hate Danes?? Whatever gave you that idea???

You are being utterly absurd.I see it is futile to get through your hate. In which case, as I said before, can we just assume that anyone critical of Israel is de-facto an antisemite?
Indeed, being critical of Danish Dynamite's existence doesn't mean one hates Danish Dynamite.Relevance?
You must realize that it is UTTERLY irrational on your part to blame me for hating you, just because I tried to murder you with a rusty knife the other day. Indeed it is. Suppose I had annexed your home.
I was just "expressing my "criticism of your existence", you see, which, naturally, is something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than hating you and wanting you dead.*Sigh*
And to think that you just called the police and had me arrested, instead of calmly figuring out WHY I wanted to kill you---er, *cough* cough*, WHY I was "critical of your existence"--and if it REALLY means I hated you or not... *Double sigh*

In line with your view I guess we can also conclude that the US hated the Iraqis. Afterall, they attacked their country, killing thousands. Their hate can therefore be the only reason for their actions. Bloody anti-Iraqis.

Gheeeez.

[demon]

"secular state for both people"

Absolutely!
A two state solution just endorses ethnic cleansing without resolving or fixing it, a two state solution will leave wounds un-opened and festering.
A one state solution binds the two parties into a situation that ensures they have to work together for their mutual benefit and ensure equality and human rights for all .
The Palestinians SHOULD demand that they are included in the polity of Israel. They should reject the state they are being offered and just demand their rights.
The two state solution, both for Israel and the Palestinians, is a major disaster - and frankly unethical. After all, if the Palestinians could choose their future - choose it - as the Israelis can, I know what they would do and it would not be cornering themselves off in a fraction of the territory that belongs to them. Nor would it be the fatuous crap argument saying they'd throw the Israelis into the Med.
It would just have big implications for Israelis, ones which they should bear with grace and humility as the people reintegrate into the region

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaza shifts to a new solution
Palestinians search for options as chances of two states recede, reports Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
Sunday September 14, 2003
The Observer

...

As the death toll mounts from the war between the Israeli government and Hamas, the bulldozers are busy, clearing more land for the separation fence, for new houses in the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and new roads to weld the settlements onto the state of Israel.

Ghassan Khatib, the Palestinian Minister of Labour, said that as each mile of the separation fence and each new settlement house was built, 'the viability of a two-state solution is less and less. A large number of Palestinians realise that a Palestinian state is no longer practical'.

Since 1988 the widely preferred solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, the two-state solution. In the past year, Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, and Presi dent George W. Bush have also adopted this vision.

But growing numbers of Palestinians and Israelis are realising that a point may have been reached where it is impossible for Israel to disengage from the West Bank and Gaza and leave room and resources for a viable Palestinian state.

Khatib believes the only way forward for Palestinians is to accept Israel's control and demand equal rights, an idea that is gaining momentum among Palestinians.

'When I used to analyse opinion polls, it was clear that support for the one-state solution was a fast-growing trend although still a minority. Sooner or later things will need to move in that direction and the fault will lie with Israel's right-wing parties,' he said.

In a document sent to the United States last year, the PLO warned: 'If the international community continues to remain unwilling to rein in Israeli settlement construction and expansion, irreversible facts on the ground and the de facto apartheid system such facts create will force Palestinian policy-makers to re-evaluate the plausibility of a two-state solution.'

The road network which serves the Israeli West Bank settlements is integrated with the Israeli network as are telecommunications, electricity and water. In many areas it is not clear where the West Bank begins and Israel ends.

Israeli settlements have become so entrenched in the West Bank that according to Diana Buttu, a legal adviser to the PLO, the only direction for the Palestinians would be to call for equality in a single state for both Arabs and Israelis.

However, such a state would lose its already slim Jewish majority within a few years because of the high Arab birth rate and the low Jewish birth rate. Currently there are 5.4 million Jews and 4.93m Arabs on the territories controlled by Israel. According to projections, in 2020 there will be 6.69m Jews and 8.49m Arabs.

A former Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, who is preparing for a return to politics, emphasised the danger in an article last week in the Israeli daily, Yedioth Ahronoth. He wrote that Sharon's failure to act decisively in creating a Palestinian state would 'endanger the whole Zionist enterprise'.

Furthermore, he could already discern a Palestinian position coming to the fore which demands not 'two states for two peoples', but one state from west of the Jordan River.

'However, (and so the Palestinians will demand) this should conform to the spirit of the twenty-first century, i.e. be democratic, secular, with "one citizen, one vote." This position is liable to gain support from large parts of the world, as long as no acceptable Israeli plan is on the table,' Barak wrote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny that last quote from Barak, note it well - it's a warning:

Democracy might happen!! Quick do something to make sure it doesn`t!!!

THIS 'moderate' politician and his ilk are the ones that the Western liberal press love to align themselves with.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1041728,00.html

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by davefoc
Thank you for the link AUP:
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/involved/petitions.htm

Seems like that site might be the subject of a thread on its own.

I have mentioned before that there are such organisations as this, and that the majority of Israelis would be happy to get out of the West Bank and Gaza. People like Skeptic choose to ignore these posts.

[Skeptic]

Skeptic:I see it is futile to get through your hate. In which case, as I said before, can we just assume that anyone critical of Israel is de-facto an antisemite?

How many times do we need to go through this, DD?

Criticism of israel's actions == not antisemitism
Criticism of israel's existence == antisemitism

For the same reason that:

Criticism of Denmark's actions == not hating Danes
Criticism of Denamak existing == hating Danes

Or:

Criticizing what you did yesterday == not hating you
Claiming you have no right to live == hating you.

It's really very simple.

WHY someobody hates israel and wants the jewish state destroyed is irrelevant; genocidal antisemites, from Hitler to Toequemada to Arafat, always have all the best reasons why the jews have it coming. What makes them evil is not that they used the "wrong" reason to justify the destruction of israel or the jews; it's the VERY ACT that is evil.

The position that they might be right--yes, they want all the jews dead, but perhaps they want them dead for the RIGHT reasons--is morally repulsive. It is merely blaming the victim (for being an "extremist" who doesn't "make an effort to understand" those who want him dead). It is the moral equivalent of saying, "yes, they DID lynch that uppity ni**er, but maybe they had GOOD REASONS to do it?" or "yes, he DID rape her, but maybe it was her fault?".

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, then. My point exactly. AUP is on record supporting the "just" arab attempt to destroy israel, claiming that it wouldn't be antisemitism because it involved "only" a genoicde of the jews "in a strictly limited geographical area", and that israel has no right to exist. To repeat, if this isn't the very definition of hating a country and its people, what is?


And I am on record calling you a liar for saying that I said that.



But, for the zillionth time, AUP & co., and the arabs, are NOT "critical of israeli policies". They are critical of israel's EXISTENCE. You claimed that EVEN THIS is not enough to show they are "really" antisemites, but I wonder: if it isn't, what is?

This one claim sums up your racist stance. You are forever going on about people attacking "the Jews", but will attack "the arabs" without blinking an eye.

Einstein and Cleopatra both questioned the wisdom of creating Israel, that is, it's existence, which is also my stance. However, speaking for myself, I have also stated, and will restate just for the record, my belief that now that it does exist, there is no point trying to undo that act. Both sides just have to learn to get along. There is no other option. Those who would try to destroy each other will only end up destroying themselves.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by demon
"secular state for both people"


Ghassan Khatib, the Palestinian Minister of Labour, said that as each mile of the separation fence and each new settlement house was built, 'the viability of a two-state solution is less and less. A large number of Palestinians realise that a Palestinian state is no longer practical'.



And I would call this an act of genocide. It is clearly the aim of Sharon and his friends. The callous disregard of the 'settlers', invaders would be a more appropriate term, for the plight of the palestinians is palpable. I have seen interviews where they just feign innocence, and say that they are doing nothing to harm anyone, just returning to their ancestral lands. When they are attacked for doing this, a women wondered what they had done to offend god that he had allowed them to be attacked like this.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
It's really very simple.

WHY someobody hates israel and wants the jewish state destroyed is irrelevant; genocidal antisemites, from Hitler to Toequemada to Arafat, always have all the best reasons why the jews have it coming. What makes them evil is not that they used the "wrong" reason to justify the destruction of israel or the jews; it's the VERY ACT that is evil.

The position that they might be right--yes, they want all the jews dead, but perhaps they want them dead for the RIGHT reasons--is morally repulsive. It is merely blaming the victim (for being an "extremist" who doesn't "make an effort to understand" those who want him dead). It is the moral equivalent of saying, "yes, they DID lynch that uppity ni**er, but maybe they had GOOD REASONS to do it?" or "yes, he DID rape her, but maybe it was her fault?".

That is crazy. Israel, by your definition, can never do anything wrong.

If, for example, Israel was developing WMD, invading other countries and killing innocent civilians, then there would be no recourse. Jews cannot be touched because that would be being anti-semitic.

Hitler and Toeqemada had reasons for killing Jews that were totally wrong. As to Arafat, he appears to have backed off from calls for the destruction of Israel.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Earthborn
You say this, but the source you link to that is supposed to prove it, has an article (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=reform&ID=SP57303) by a Palestinian arguing for exactly the opposite!

To the original issue:Can't the same be said of many other advocacy groups? It seems to me that the word 'industry' is often used to give something a negative connotation. While it can be argued that such an industry exists (just like there is a 'environmentalist industry', or a 'human rights industry') it does not necessarily mean that it isn't entirely legitimate.

I haven't read Finklestein's book, so could someone explain to me whether he argues that the 'Holocaust Industry' is something immoral, and whether he shows any evidence for it if he does? A few isolated incidents will probably not do.

Page 81.

There were about 100,00 survivors of ghettos, concentration camps and slave labor camps.

P83.

The Israeli Prime Minister's office recently put the number of living survivors at about 1,000,000.

As his mother, who was a survivor asked, who did Hitler kill?

p85.

There were three agreements used to compensate surivors.

Individual claimants recieved payments under the Law of Indemnification. A separate agreement paid for the absorption and rehabilitation of several hundred thousand jewish refugees to israel.

Also, a Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany was established to use the allocated money, $10 million a year for 12 years, or about 1 Billion dollars in today's terms, to compensate Jewish victims of Nazi persecution who had fallen through the cracks.

Finklesteins mother recieved $3,500 dollars, as a survivor of Polish slave camps and ghettos. As she was not a German surivor, she did not get the pension allocated to all German Jewish survivors.

The conference was to hand out money to survivors who had not received a fair compensation, for whatever reason.



The German government sought to make explicit in the agreement with the Claims Conference that the monies would go solely to Jewish survivors, strictly defined, who had been unfairly or inadequately compensated by German courts. The Conference expressed outrage that its good faith was doubted. After reaching agreement, the Conference issued a press release underlining that the monies would be for "Jewish persecutees of the Nazi regime for whom the existing and proposed legislation cannot provide a remedy."
The final accord called on the Conference to use the monies "for the relief, rehabilitation and resettlement of Jewish victims."

The Claims Conference promptly annulled the agreement. In a flagrant breach of it's letter and spirit, the conference earmarked the monies not for the rehabilitiation of Jewish victims but rather the rehabilitiation of Jewish communities. Indeed, a guiding principle of the Claims Conference prohibited use of monies for "direct allocations to individuals". In a classic instance of looking after ones own, however, the Conference provided exemptions for two categories of victims: rabbis and "outstanding Jewish leaders" received individual payments.

This constituent organizations of the Claims Conference used the bulk of the monies to finance various pet projects. Whatever benefits (if any) the actual Jewish victims received were indirect or incidental.



An estimate on P86 is that about 15 percent of the money went to actual victims.

[Cleopatra]

I hope that you appreciate the fact that I take my time to respond to this thread because I want to have the book in front of me when I am going it.

For the moment I respond to

this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870097281[/url)


I think I see what your objection to the book is now. It is not so much what he says, which I believe you would actually find interesting if you read it dispassionately, but rather the hyperbole he uses.

This was indeed one of the criticisms of the book that I saw in a review, and thought that it did hit home. Finklestein is an angry man, and it shows. However, his hyperbole is something that I think you often see used in Jewish political debates. It would aid his cause if, when he attacks it, he does not use it.


No. My objection to the book is that he puts together anecdotal sources, spare facts, " half truths" and urban legends in order to create a conspiracy theory. I have showed this to my last post.

I don't have any problem with his anger and I wouldn't have any problem with his criticism but I do find libellous the way he puts together spare facts in order to create his personal myth.

He reminds me of the "scientists" that first they form a theory and then they look for the experiment that will prove it.

The fact that there are Jews that are hyperbolic and maybe dirty in their political debates doesn't justify others to create myths that blacklash a whole nation.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I hope that you appreciate the fact that I take my time to respond to this thread because I want to have the book in front of me when I am going it.

For the moment I respond to

this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870097281[/url)





No. My objection to the book is that he puts together anecdotal sources, spare facts, " half truths" and urban legends in order to create a conspiracy theory. I have showed this to my last post.



Much of it is anecdotal, but then, this is not a discussion of a scientific but a political issue. He does provide references to just about everything he uses. I don't know that you have shown it in your last post. You would have to provide example.



I don't have any problem with his anger and I wouldn't have any problem with his criticism but I do find libellous the way he puts together spare facts in order to create his personal myth.



I take is you are referring to facts that only tell half a story. Do you have any examples of these?



He reminds me of the "scientists" that first they form a theory and then they look for the experiment that will prove it.



Well, that is what scientists are supposed to do, make a general observation, then conduct experiments that either prove or disprove the theory.



The fact that there are Jews that are hyperbolic and maybe dirty in their political debates doesn't justify others to create myths that blacklash a whole nation.

From the number of anti-semitic sites that appear to refer to this book, there are certainly people out there using the book for this purpose. However, the irony is that he never once disputes the basic facts of the holocaust, which is something that all these sites would do. He is concentrating, as far as I can see, on those who would make use of the holocaust in ways that are not ethical. I do not see you or James doing such a thing. You both certainly jacked up when I inadvertantly used a link to Zundel (I hope you believe I have never heard of this person or his site before in my life).

However, Skeptic does exactly this, he uses every attack I make on what I believe to be Israeli injustices as evidence that I want all Jews killed. He said that it doesn't matter what reasons Hitler had for wanting to kill Jews, just wanting to attack Jews is enough to condemn someone. I would argue exactly the opposite. All groups are open to criticism for their actions. Hitlers reasons for attacking Jews, and other groups, were invalid.

Skeptic's logic only brings Jews in general into disrepute, not Finklestein. He places them beyond crticism. This is PC gone mad. I don't agree with the hatred and contempt you see for aboriginals in Australia from many people, but I do see that there are huge problems with domestic violence and alcoholism, which have to be addressed by them, and which many of them are addressing already.`

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
A modern day 'Protocols' or just a person with a contentious point of view?

AUP,

Finklestein is IHR's "pet Jew". I haven't read the entire thread, so perhaps it's been pointed out to you that the IHR (Institute for Historical Review) is a veritable viper's nest of nutty Holocaust Deniers.

Last year I read Dr. Shermer's book;
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0520234693.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

In it he describes the similarities between the Holocaust Deniers, and the Creationists as textbook examples of confirmation bias.

He has a short bio of Finklestein in this book...I can't really remember what Shermer said about him, but it was not praise for his fairness and accuracy.

Read the book AUP,...Shermer is perhaps the fastest rising star among the world's skeptics. He's got the goods on IHR, and your friend Finklestein.

-z

[Cleopatra]

I avoided to refer to what Shermer says about Finkelstein so far but it will be my last weapon... I didn't want to appeal to authority from my first post...

[rikzilla]

Well...I guess that's possible,... :confused:

However since Shermer approaches the subject as a scientistic skeptic he not only debunks the lies of the deniers, he also researches the denier's motives and biases. Dropping Shermer's name in a room full of skeptics is kind of a popular appeal,..but not really an appeal to authority. I mean, anyone can pick up this book and judge Shermer's work for themselves. I'm not saying that Shermer is right because he's Shermer....I'm saying merely that it's the best book I've ever read on this subject. One that AUP would do well to read for himself.

-z

[Cleon]

Originally posted by rikzilla


AUP,

Finklestein is IHR's "pet Jew". I haven't read the entire thread, so perhaps it's been pointed out to you that the IHR (Institute for Historical Review) is a veritable viper's nest of nutty Holocaust Deniers.



This is just not true. Finklestein has no connection to the IHR in any way, shape, or form. Yeah, of COURSE they've latched onto what he's said because they'll latch onto anything. They also made a big thing out of the discovery that the "human soap" bit was a myth, though the people who researched it were legitimate historians.

I haven't commented on this thread, because I haven't read this particular book. I am, however, a fan of Finklestein's other writings.

Finklestein is not a Holocaust denier. His book, clearly, does NOT deny the Holocaust. Claiming that he's associated in any way with the IHR is simply intellectually dishonest.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Cleon


This is just not true. Finklestein has no connection to the IHR in any way, shape, or form. Yeah, of COURSE they've latched onto what he's said because they'll latch onto anything. They also made a big thing out of the discovery that the "human soap" bit was a myth, though the people who researched it were legitimate historians.

I haven't commented on this thread, because I haven't read this particular book. I am, however, a fan of Finklestein's other writings.

Finklestein is not a Holocaust denier. His book, clearly, does NOT deny the Holocaust. Claiming that he's associated in any way with the IHR is simply intellectually dishonest.

Like I said, I read the book last year, so I cannot speak to specifics. (memory is not that great) If I must I will go and check out the book and quote from it directly. All I remember is that Shermer tagged Finklestein as a denier and an associate of IHR. (There is also an IHR conference picture in Shermer's book, which includes Finklestein, along with David Irving, and Willis Carto)

These are not good people. I would think that Finklestein at best has some pretty hinky friends...and at worst is what Dr. Shermer says he is.

-z

[demon]

What does Finkelstein have to do with Holocaust deniers?

This is absolutely typical and shows the weakness of the anti Finkelstein case.
Have you read his books/articles Rik?
If you are going to contribute to this thread it would seem that that should be your next step.

[Skeptic]

About Finkelstein and the IHR: I think there is a cofusion here.

The IHR at least used to have a jewish member, whose name I forgot at the moment (Cohen?), who was their "poster boy" to "prove" they are not racists. I believe this is the person Shermer is referring to in Denying the Holocaust. It was not Finkelstein.

Finkelstein's work, however, was of course enthusiastically endorsed by the IHR as more "proof" of the perfidious jews cheating the poor, innocent gentiles out of money. Quite apart from all other criticisms of Finkelstein's vapid scholarship, the fact that the IHR endorses it is in and of itself just about proof that it is a conspiracy theory against the jews, since that is more or less ALL the IHR ever publishes.

So, no, Finkelstein is not a holocaust denier--at least not in his book. He thinks the holocaust happened (which didn't bother the IHR in endorsing him, since he makes jews look bad--showing how much they really care about "historical truth" as opposed to bashing jews).

Of course, one should consider the possibility that Finkelstein will deteriorate from his current position to holocaust denial. This is, in my opinion, quite likely: it happened before (as is seen in David Irving's increasing paranoia), and is quite symptomatic of conspiracy theorists.

Once you buy into one conspiracy that blames the jews (or the freemasons, or the blacks, or whomever) for one thing, you are likely to eventually buy into all of those conspiracy theories, and blame your percieved enemy for everything. The reason is that buying into one conspiracy theory is sometimes enough to destroy your sense of rationality and reality, and therefore make aquiring belief in others easier.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Skeptic
About Finkelstein and the IHR: I think there is a cofusion here.

The IHR at least used to have a jewish member, whose name I forgot at the moment (Cohen?), who was their "poster boy" to "prove" they are not racists. I believe this is the person Shermer is referring to in Denying the Holocaust. It was not Finkelstein.



Cole. David Cole. You're right--aside from your other blatherings, this might be simple confusion on rikzilla's part.

Interestingly, Cole later retracted his denial and fell in with the Jewish Defense League, an ultra-Zionist organization founded by Israeli terrorist Meyer Kahane.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Cleon


Cole. David Cole. You're right--aside from your other blatherings, this might be simple confusion on rikzilla's part.

Interestingly, Cole later retracted his denial and fell in with the Jewish Defense League, an ultra-Zionist organization founded by Israeli terrorist Meyer Kahane.

Okay...perhaps I am mistaken on that one. Please forgive, like I said it's been over a year since I read it....so maybe it's time I re-read it.

Mea culpa....or as the Church Lady so eloquently put it: "Never Mind"

-z

[Cleon]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Okay...perhaps I am mistaken on that one. Please forgive, like I said it's been over a year since I read it....so maybe it's time I re-read it.

Mea culpa....or as the Church Lady so eloquently put it: "Never Mind"

-z

Well, there's more than a slight difference. Finklestein is fairly well-known, and well-respected as an intellectual. David Cole is, well, not. :)

Anyway, for those interested in what he has to say, he has a website up at http://www.normanfinklestein.com. He also regularly appears in counterpunch.org and commondreams.org, if memory serves.

[CapelDodger]

Quoted by Cain:
Since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, he goes on, that ideology has been developed to sustain certain class and political interests, notably those of the conservative Jewish elite in the United States, and to bolster the state of Israel itself through the representation of that state, and Jews in general, as eternal victims of oppression
I haven't read the entire book, only extracts, but I find this view self-evident. There is an endless discussion in the established Jewish community about ways to combat assimilation by various forms of social engineering. Encouraging a fearful attitude to the non-Jewish world is part of that social engineering. Nationalist Zionists also have an interest in exaggerating - and encouraging - anti-semitism because they're nothing without it.

If the book makes only similar points, which seem to me unarguable, then the interesting point is the reaction to it. (I have a particularly bad attitude to the term "self-hating Jew", use of which will get you banned from my house. It's the first stage of de-personalisation that leads to extermination - after all, if they hate themselves there's nothing wrong with hating them, is there?) The vitriol that spouts from some normally rational mouths when these matters are raised reveals, in my opinion, deeply suppressed doubts about how the image of rampant anti-semitism and constant danger to all Jews fits in the world that they actually live in and observe.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
About Finkelstein and the IHR: I think there is a cofusion here.

The IHR at least used to have a jewish member, whose name I forgot at the moment (Cohen?), who was their "poster boy" to "prove" they are not racists. I believe this is the person Shermer is referring to in Denying the Holocaust. It was not Finkelstein.

Finkelstein's work, however, was of course enthusiastically endorsed by the IHR as more "proof" of the perfidious jews cheating the poor, innocent gentiles out of money. Quite apart from all other criticisms of Finkelstein's vapid scholarship, the fact that the IHR endorses it is in and of itself just about proof that it is a conspiracy theory against the jews, since that is more or less ALL the IHR ever publishes.

So, no, Finkelstein is not a holocaust denier--at least not in his book. He thinks the holocaust happened (which didn't bother the IHR in endorsing him, since he makes jews look bad--showing how much they really care about "historical truth" as opposed to bashing jews).

Of course, one should consider the possibility that Finkelstein will deteriorate from his current position to holocaust denial. This is, in my opinion, quite likely: it happened before (as is seen in David Irving's increasing paranoia), and is quite symptomatic of conspiracy theorists.

Once you buy into one conspiracy that blames the jews (or the freemasons, or the blacks, or whomever) for one thing, you are likely to eventually buy into all of those conspiracy theories, and blame your percieved enemy for everything. The reason is that buying into one conspiracy theory is sometimes enough to destroy your sense of rationality and reality, and therefore make aquiring belief in others easier.

Well that was a total waste of a post.

Finklestein is not Holocaust denier.
Finklestein has been appropriated by the IHR for their own purposes, but Finklestein has not been a part of this.
Finklestein is not a holocaust denier, but don't be surprised if he becomes one, it happened to Irving.
Slippery slopes galore.

Can you make one point that is worth making?

[Skeptic]

Cole. David Cole. You're right--aside from your other blatherings...

Thank you. To return the compliment, you don't look as ugly today as you usually do.

Interestingly, Cole later retracted his denial and fell in with the Jewish Defense League, an ultra-Zionist organization founded by Israeli terrorist Meyer Kahane.

This sort of phenomena--moving from one extreme to the other of the political map--is very common. What matters is not really the ideology--marxism or nazism, say--but the belief that you have THE TRUTH(tm).

P.S.

Kahane was never a "terrorist", though he was an extremist. It's amusing, in a sad sort of way, how the supporters of Arafat & co. are so quick to label israelies (and Americans) "terrorists".

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Kahane was never a "terrorist", though he was an extremist. It's amusing, in a sad sort of way, how the supporters of Arafat & co. are so quick to label israelies (and Americans) "terrorists". [/B]

It's amusing, in a sad sort of way, how the supporters of Sharon and co. are so quick to excuse terrorism.

Guess what? Jews can be terrorists, too.

Kahane actually served time in prison for bomb-making even before he moved to Israel in 69. I mean, come ON, even the Israeli government considers Kach (the Israeli organization Kahane founded) and Kahane Chai (splinter group) terrorist. Hell, the guy personally organized goon squads to attack Soviet diplomats.

The guy was a thug, pure and simple.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/kahane.html

[demon]

Kahane was a terrorist in every sense of the word and a rabid ethnic cleansing fascist a**hole to boot.
He is known for advocating bombings and violent action and did time for bomb making.
The Kach party that he founded in Israel was up to its neck in terrorism.

In October 2001, Colin Powell announced that the Kach group was on the Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations...his legacy lives on.

Skeptic:
"The reason is that buying into one conspiracy theory is sometimes enough to destroy your sense of rationality and reality..."

Care to tell us which one you bought into? I`ll make sure I stay well clear of it.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I haven't read the entire book, only extracts, but I find this view self-evident. There is an endless discussion in the established Jewish community about ways to combat assimilation by various forms of social engineering. Encouraging a fearful attitude to the non-Jewish world is part of that social engineering. Nationalist Zionists also have an interest in exaggerating - and encouraging - anti-semitism because they're nothing without it.

Capel Dodger.

I have asked you a couple of times to point to me a country that wasn't established the way Israel was. After you do, could you be kind enough to point to me a nation or any group of people that doesn't try to avoid assimilation by not investing to the fears of its members?

In one of our discussions--while talking about Ptolemies and Seulecids-- you have stated, after my asking you that you take History personally because it involves humans and it has a powerfull effect on their lives.

I will resist to the temptation to quote Shylock and ask you "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" only because I think we share the same opinion about Shakespeare... but in its essence my... appeal remains: show the Jews the mercy you show the Ptolemies...

If the book makes only similar points, which seem to me unarguable, then the interesting point is the reaction to it. (I have a particularly bad attitude to the term "self-hating Jew", use of which will get you banned from my house. It's the first stage of de-personalisation that leads to extermination - after all, if they hate themselves there's nothing wrong with hating them, is there?)

I am impressed that you have a bad attitude towards an issue that you have solved since you became a capel dodger, when you were 10 years old....

I accept this term but the reason I do not use it is because I am not a psychiatrist to diagnose syndroms to others. You accept the term yourself as the last paragraph of your posts shows, you just don't use it for your own reasons.

The vitriol that spouts from some normally rational mouths when these matters are raised reveals, in my opinion, deeply suppressed doubts about how the image of rampant anti-semitism and constant danger to all Jews fits in the world that they actually live in and observe.

Too many issues in 5 lines. I like that.

I can be nothing but sarcastic to people like Finkelstein who project their personal fears ( be careful, I said fears) to other people, who use anecdotal evidence and unrelated material to support conspiracy theories because his book supports nothing but a conspiracy theory.

As for how the image of anti-semitism fits in our world, I don't know but I remember another post of yours where you described yourself as a child in Cardiff and the impression the ruins of the buildings of Cardiff after the war made you. It affected you a lot and I understand. So, you know by first hand how the past determines the perception we have for the present, don't you?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Capel Dodger.

I have asked you a couple of times to point to me a country that wasn't established the way Israel was.


Well, what do you mean by "the way Israel was"? The answer would depend on wether you mean by violence, by a mandate in the UN or by any of the other particular details of Israel's creation.

One nation that was not created "the way Israel was" in any sense of the phrase, though, would be Iceland.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


Well, what do you mean by "the way Israel was"? The answer would depend on wether you mean by violence, by a mandate in the UN or by any of the other particular details of Israel's creation.

One nation that was not created "the way Israel was" in any sense of the phrase, though, would be Iceland.

One of the issues of this is that the world has come to a roughly collective agreement that the way countries used to be created is a thing of the past. No more empire building or invasions.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


One of the issues of this is that the world has come to a roughly collective agreement that the way countries used to be created is a thing of the past. No more empire building or invasions.

Yes Yes of course.... and we had the opportunity to see this in former Yugoslavia. Give me a break, Unique.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Capel Dodger.


I can be nothing but sarcastic to people like Finkelstein who project their personal fears ( be careful, I said fears) to other people, who use anecdotal evidence and unrelated material to support conspiracy theories because his book supports nothing but a conspiracy theory.



No it doesn't.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


No it doesn't.

If I were you, I wouldn't lean on one book to make definite decisions about such a serious matter.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Yes Yes of course.... and we had the opportunity to see this in former Yugoslavia. Give me a break, Unique.

Yugoslavia was the breaking up of a country along ethnic lines, not the creation of a new one. It was basically the result of centuries of war and conflict.

[Cleopatra]

You are definetely wrong but you already know that but probably you haven't followed the issue closely.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Capel Dodger.

I have asked you a couple of times to point to me a country that wasn't established the way Israel was.

Uh, Denmark, Britain, Russia, China, Japan, Canada, the United States (though an argument could be made), Colombia, hell, Zimbabwe.

Israel is a different cookie--the idea that it's "just another country" is, at best, incongruous. At the time the UN declared it, Jews were a minority in the area (1948 borders), and were mostly European immigrants (eg, Menachem Begin) or children of European immigrants (Ariel Sharon). So the UN essentially established a country that, by design, represented a single ethnic/religious group in an area where that particular group didn't even have a majority. (Not that I think it would be right even if there was a Jewish majority.)

[Cleopatra]

If you include USA and Britain, Denmark etc etc in your list it means that you haven't understood my question.

Every country I know was established the way Israel was, By invasions, ethic cleanings etc etc etc.

Countries have been established by the minorities they had the strongest supporters. Israel was made by the West the way Westerns knew to establish countries in their former colonies.

Simple things.

EDITED TO ADD : And in the case of Israel they had the option not to create it. BUT this would mean that Europeans would have to live with the Jews and this, wasn't a very appealing thought...

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
If you include USA and Britain, Denmark etc etc in your list it means that you haven't understood my question.

Every country I know was established the way Israel was, By invasions, ethic cleanings etc etc etc.


Well, again I'd like to point out Iceland, and neither Norway nor Sweden was created through invasions nor ethic cleansings (although there were force used internally to subjugate other kinglets and gather it all together as a single country) and to the best of my knowledge neither was Denmark or Finland.

[Cleopatra]

Even if this is true, which I doubt it-- I will have to check-- things didn't happen like this in the whole area of the Mediterranean ( I exclude the other continents because they aren't our problem right now).

Since I am an anti-zionist I do not have any problem to aknowledge that Israel was created in the worst possible way (which it didn't--for example Greece or Turkey were created with far worse attrocities and blood sheds...) but this won't address the original problem; Europe failed to protect its Jewish citizens and it didn't give them an alternative, on the contrary it was convenient for the Europeans to embrace the Zionist plans since they took the opportunity to get rid of Jews.

Now, the Europeans that sent them to ME criticize them for the way they have established the state. This is absurd.

At least Capel Dodger is honest and has accepted that the Jews shouldn't have a country of their own, something that I agree with, but I approach it from a significantly different way....

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You are definetely wrong but you already know that but probably you haven't followed the issue closely.

I don't get it. You are being too brief. What have I got wrong with Yugoslavia other than that it has been one of the longest ongoing trainwrecks in history?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


If I were you, I wouldn't lean on one book to make definite decisions about such a serious matter.

I was just offering as much evidence as you did.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
If you include USA and Britain, Denmark etc etc in your list it means that you haven't understood my question.

Every country I know was established the way Israel was, By invasions, ethic cleanings etc etc etc.

Countries have been established by the minorities they had the strongest supporters. Israel was made by the West the way Westerns knew to establish countries in their former colonies.

Simple things.

EDITED TO ADD : And in the case of Israel they had the option not to create it. BUT this would mean that Europeans would have to live with the Jews and this, wasn't a very appealing thought...

This is all very debateable, but as you asked earlier, I thought we were debating Finkestein.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Even if this is true, which I doubt it-- I will have to check-- things didn't happen like this in the whole area of the Mediterranean ( I exclude the other continents because they aren't our problem right now).

Since I am an anti-zionist I do not have any problem to aknowledge that Israel was created in the worst possible way (which it didn't--for example Greece or Turkey were created with far worse attrocities and blood sheds...) but this won't address the original problem; Europe failed to protect its Jewish citizens and it didn't give them an alternative, on the contrary it was convenient for the Europeans to embrace the Zionist plans since they took the opportunity to get rid of Jews.

Now, the Europeans that sent them to ME criticize them for the way they have established the state. This is absurd.

At least Capel Dodger is honest and has accepted that the Jews shouldn't have a country of their own, something that I agree with, but I approach it from a significantly different way....

That is one thing I don't agree with. After WWII there was in fact a huge amount of guilt about how the Jews were treated, IMHO. The creation of Israel was supposed to be compensation, not good riddence.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That is one thing I don't agree with. After WWII there was in fact a huge amount of guilt about how the Jews were treated, IMHO. The creation of Israel was supposed to be compensation, not good riddence.

1. I thought we were debating Finkelstein...

Europe failed to protect its jewish population and it felt guilt about it indeed but apart from the guilt it felt, it had to return to those that survived the camps their properties that they were stolen during the War. In some countries they were so willing to help Jews to move to Israel that they were covering the expenses of the immigration... this how my family moved to Israel for example.

But even if you are right Unique ( you are not ) this doesn't change the image. Europe wasn't a safe place for a Jew to live, it never was.It's just that the Holocaust didn't leave much space to doubts.

Capel Dodger says that Israel is the least safe place for a Jew to live but however true this might be it remains a post-hoc observation.

As you probably know Sefardic Jews were fiercly against Zionism but after the War they were left with no arguments and not alternatives.

2. It's true Unique that I failed to rebuke Finkelstein's mother arguments but I owe you more answers on this topic.

3. The present countries that formed Yugoslavia were created with the ancient method of intervention. Germans started the project with the well-known destructive results but this is another discussion.

More, later.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


1. I thought we were debating Finkelstein...

Europe failed to protect its jewish population and it felt guilt about it indeed but apart from the guilt it felt, it had to return to those that survived the camps their properties that they were stolen during the War. In some countries they were so willing to help Jews to move to Israel that they were covering the expenses of the immigration... this how my family moved to Israel for example.

But even if you are right Unique ( you are not ) this doesn't change the image. Europe wasn't a safe place for a Jew to live, it never was.It's just that the Holocaust didn't leave much space to doubts.

Capel Dodger says that Israel is the least safe place for a Jew to live but however true this might be it remains a post-hoc observation.

As you probably know Sefardic Jews were fiercly against Zionism but after the War they were left with no arguments and not alternatives.



It is not a matter of post hoc reasing but empirical observation.



2. It's true Unique that I failed to rebuke Finkelstein's mother arguments but I owe you more answers on this topic.

3. The present countries that formed Yugoslavia were created with the ancient method of intervention. Germans started the project with the well-known destructive results but this is another discussion.

More, later.

Yugoslavia, which is where Catholicism, Orthodox Xianity and Islam meet, has been constantly at war with itself and in a state of flux for many hundreds of years.

[Skeptic]

Kahane was a terrorist in every sense of the word

Really? How many people did he kill?

Anyway, surely you know, demon, that the "root causes" of terrorism--of groups like Hamas and the PLO--is never, God forbid, that they are evil. It's always their "frustration" of the "injustice" that their evil jews did to them, and until that "injustice" is corrected, terrorism will continue. Furthermore, the more radical and violent the terrorist, the more "frustrated" he surely is, and therefore the more "unjustly" he was treated.

At least, that's what we keep hearing from Chomsky, Said, &co.

So, by analogy, surely Kahane's terrorism wasn't really because he was a bad man; it was his intended victims' fault--the Arabs' fault--in some way. Surely they have done some REALLY awful things to have Kahane hate them SO much. Until the injustices they are doing are corrected, you can expect more Kahanes--and that, too, will all be the Arabs' fault for being "radical" and not willing to "negotiate" with Kahane, of course.

Neat, isn't it, how "rational" and easy it is to blame the victim for terrorism?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Kahane was a terrorist in every sense of the word

Really? How many people did he kill?

Anyway, surely you know, demon, that the "root causes" of terrorism--of groups like Hamas and the PLO--is never, God forbid, that they are evil. It's always their "frustration" of the "injustice" that their evil jews did to them, and until that "injustice" is corrected, terrorism will continue. Furthermore, the more radical and violent the terrorist, the more "frustrated" he surely is, and therefore the more "unjustly" he was treated.

At least, that's what we keep hearing from Chomsky, Said, &co.

So, by analogy, surely Kahane's terrorism wasn't really because he was a bad man; it was his intended victims' fault--the Arabs' fault--in some way. Surely they have done some REALLY awful things to have Kahane hate them SO much. Until the injustices they are doing are corrected, you can expect more Kahanes--and that, too, will all be the Arabs' fault for being "radical" and not willing to "negotiate" with Kahane, of course.

Neat, isn't it, how "rational" and easy it is to blame the victim for terrorism?

*applause*

Nice illustration of the flawed logic of terrorist sympathizers.

However,...you do know that Kahane, and the groups he founded were truly terrorist....hey man, even ADL says so. :con2: I'm not gonna touch Kahane....no matter his politics, he was one of the bad guys.

-z

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
Israel was not created as other countries were. The "countries" or nations of the world were created by the people that lived there or over their heads (as in so much of Africa). Israel was created in the same way as a colony, and from the same kind of European thinking about the nation state and the lack of rights of "backward" peoples. To suggest that the morals of William the Bastard or the Magyars justify such actions in the 20th CE is to claim that human morality has made no progress.
Europe failed to protect its jewish population and it felt guilt about it indeed but apart from the guilt it felt, it had to return to those that survived the camps their properties that they were stolen during the War
What is the definition of "Europe"? Russia is part of Europe; it failed to protect many of its Jewish citizens, just as it failed to protect many non-Jewish citizens. No-one protected the Gypsies and hardly anyone does now. The French weren't able to protect themselves, but French citizens protected many Jews. As did many other unprotected people in Europe (including Germans). You have surely visited North London and seen the long-established Jewish community there; in the East End Jewishness is as much part of the local identity as it is in New York. These communities were protected, and of course played their part in that just as any other part of the population. The treatment of German Jewish refugees (classed as enemy aliens) was callous but hardly deliberately anti-semitic. It was also much criticised at the time, by press, politicians and pundits, as was the treatment of British-Italians.

There is no "Europe" that can be pointed to as responsible for this and that, any more than there is a "Jewish People" that wants this and that. This (dangerous) idea of a "Jewish People" is part of what Finkelstein criticises. It is a requirement for those that would wish to put themselves forward as "their" representatives. (See, I smuggled in Finkelstein at the last moment.)

[JamesM]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

There is no "Europe" that can be pointed to as responsible for this and that, any more than there is a "Jewish People" that wants this and that.
The idea of a 'Jewish People' is not an optimum one. How much better if everyone considered themselves a citizen of the world.

However, as long as there are those that identify the 'Jewish People' as a group, and have the means and will to attempt to exterminate them, then it will be necessary for the 'Jewish People' to identify themselves as such and take steps to protect themselves by collectivising. Jewish experience in Germany in the 19th century and America and the UK in the 20th, shows that Jews are able to assimilate themselves out of existence, if they are given the opportunity to.

The holocaust was not some odd spasm of European Jew-hatred, which the Jews are unaccountably miffed about. The idea of the 'Jewish People' is not a pernicious idea dreamt up by rabid Zionists and their clannish co-religionists as a way of furthering their colonial aims. It is the logical end-point of being singled out as the 'Jewish People' for over 1000 years, it has been thrust upon them.

Your implied alternative is that Zionists should give up the idea of a Jewish state and instead rely on the good offices of the people they live among and everything will be ok. Your evidence appears to be that the Nazis didn't make it as far as the East End (for which I am personally very grateful) and that there hasn't been anything on the scale of the Holocaust for 50-60 years. Therefore, all this stuff about anti-semitism is over-cooked paranoid fantasy to keep Jews in glassy-eyed obedience, handing over the cash to Israel.

(As an aside, how much anti-semitism is enough?)

Israel and Zionism may be quite a bad idea in theory, and disastrous in practice. Historically speaking, the alternative looks to be just as poor a bet.

[Cleopatra]

Good evening Capel Dodger.

I thought to avoid to answer to this tonight but I found in James' reply the inspiration I needed.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Hi Cleopatra:
Israel was not created as other countries were. The "countries" or nations of the world were created by the people that lived there or over their heads (as in so much of Africa). Israel was created in the same way as a colony, and from the same kind of European thinking about the nation state and the lack of rights of "backward" peoples. To suggest that the morals of William the Bastard or the Magyars justify such actions in the 20th CE is to claim that human morality has made no progress.

No, this is not accurate. You are talking about the post 50ies period. Regardless if the Jewish population was a minority, it existed before WWII and it was responding to the European Zionism.

These communities were protected, and of course played their part in that just as any other part of the population. The treatment of German Jewish refugees (classed as enemy aliens) was callous but hardly deliberately anti-semitic. It was also much criticised at the time, by press, politicians and pundits, as was the treatment of British-Italians.

Salonika, the most multi-cultural city of Europe at the time, failed to protect a fiercly anti-zionist population. The example of England in quite unfortunate in my opinion Capel Dodger because if GB hadn't succeeded in protecting its Jewish population I am not sure that the two of us would be talking right now.

There is no "Europe" that can be pointed to as responsible for this and that, any more than there is a "Jewish People" that wants this and that. This (dangerous) idea of a "Jewish People" is part of what Finkelstein criticises. It is a requirement for those that would wish to put themselves forward as "their" representatives. (See, I smuggled in Finkelstein at the last moment.)

James M gives you an eloquent answer about this. James is an Askenazi Jew, let me tell you what Sefardic Jews and Israelites ( a term that only sefardic Jews use because they had to describe the uncounted offsprings of mixed marriages...) think.

We have never seen ourselves as the "jewish people" but as citizens of the world that's why we opposed to Zionism with such a passion.

We were reminded that we are the Jewish people in various occassions of the Greek and Balkan History. In Salonika we didn't have "blood libels" but in other parts of Greece " blood libels" were a common practice for centuries and think that in Corfu for example the jewish community dates back to the period of the Second Temple.

When the Greek Jews returned from the camps, Christians named them "Soaps".

So, you and Finkelstein cannot blame Jews for cultivating such attitudes.

"Jewish people" is only a reflex reaction to hatred.


Israel and Zionism may be quite a bad idea in theory, and disastrous in practice. Historically speaking, the alternative looks to be just as poor a bet.

The last phrase in James' post is what I have been telling you since we started discussing this matter.

My grandmother before dying she confessed that she wished to had died in the camp than having to leave her house in Salonika and move to Israel.
I am sure that you understand the importance of this statement.

She had forgotten the Holocaust, she never talked about the camps but she couldn't forgive the world for not giving to her an alternative.

[CapelDodger]

from JamesM:
However, as long as there are those that identify the 'Jewish People' as a group, and have the means and will to attempt to exterminate them, then it will be necessary for the 'Jewish People' to identify themselves as such and take steps to protect themselves by collectivising.
What's the logic in that? Your enemies wish to define you in some way, so you'd better reinforce their image by fitting it? The effective reponse to being accused of being a "non-national" bacause of your religion is to demonstrate the extent to which youare a national. That mobilises other parts of the society to support you. When parties like the Nazis accused the Jews of owing loyalty to "World Jewry", was it a good idea for the German Jews to say "Yes we do, so watch out"? Frankly, it wasn't, nor was it the actual reaction of most German Jews. They felt it more sensible to point to the service of German Jews during the Great War - when German Jews fought in German trenches, French Jews in French trenches and so on. Hitler wasn't elected to power because of his anti-semitism - in fact, he wasn't elected to power at all. The idea that German Jews banding together as Jews rather than Germans would have helped is obvious nonsense.
Jewish experience in Germany in the 19th century and America and the UK in the 20th, shows that Jews are able to assimilate themselves out of existence, if they are given the opportunity to.
Indeed, and it scares the willies out of those have a high status in Jewish communities. But let's consider the rather charged term "out of existence". Appropriate, perhaps, in that they are no longer Jewish, but they and their descendents still exist. They just don't have the same superstitions and traditions that some of their ancestors had. Assimilation is fine if that's your choice. What I object to is trying to influence the choices that people make, for instance whether or not to "marry out" of some community. Yet this is openly discussed - "how can we stop our young people choosing to marry a non-member?" - from Amish to Zionists. We should all be assimilating into the human race.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
James M gives you an eloquent answer about this. James is an Askenazi Jew, let me tell you what Sefardic Jews and Israelites ( a term that only sefardic Jews use because they had to describe the uncounted offsprings of mixed marriages...) think.

We have never seen ourselves as the "jewish people" but as citizens of the world that's why we opposed to Zionism with such a passion.

We were reminded that we are the Jewish people in various occassions of the Greek and Balkan History. In Salonika we didn't have "blood libels" but in other parts of Greece " blood libels" were a common practice for centuries and think that in Corfu for example the jewish community dates back to the period of the Second Temple.

This is very interesting. I myself am Ashkenaz(and also anti-Zionist). Although the Zionist movement was largely based in the Ashkenazi communities, it was by no means a dominant movement. It was actually a fairly small political cult. I only say this to point out that not all Ashkenazi are/were Zionists. (In fact, the Chassids--an almost exclusively Ashkenazi tradition--almost universally rejected Zionism until fairly recently. Many, possibly most, Chassids still do.)

I do see myself as Jewish, though I'm hardly practicing. I see a cultural and ethnicity of being "Jewish," so I do see something called "the Jewish people." But we are one people among many other peoples--as you say, we are citizens of the world. I think there's a difference between seeing yourself as part of a group, and thinking that that group should dominate another group (in this case, the Palestinians).

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger


What's the logic in that? Your enemies wish to define you in some way, so you'd better reinforce their image by fitting it? The effective reponse to being accused of being a "non-national" bacause of your religion is to demonstrate the extent to which youare a national. That mobilises other parts of the society to support you.

Unfair!

Sorry for the sentimental responses but it is just because I know that you have a solid knowledge about History, so I have to assume that you choose to interpret things that way.

Jews accomplishments in the European societies for centuries " demonstrate the extend to which Jews were national" but european societies seem to have missed that part.

Do you suggest now that Jews had to prove the self-evident?

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
No, this is not accurate. You are talking about the post 50ies period. Regardless if the Jewish population was a minority, it existed before WWII and it was responding to the European Zionism.
I'm talking about the whole Nationalist Zionist project, and that dates back to the 1880's. The question was always there: what about the people that are currently living there? What is the nature of a "Jewish Homeland"? Does that mean a Jewish Nation-State, in which case: what's that? The answer to the real question had to await Jabotinsky. At least he was honest.

There has always been, of course, a completely different Zionism that had no trappings of statehood about it. It involved a return of Jewish people who so wished to the Holy Land. It was a spiritual movement in many ways, and romantic, but it still strikes a chord with me. I have no problem with that form of Zionism. But those Zionists have been overwhelmed by the loud-mouthed Nationalist Zionists and forced into a false position. But still there are those who refuse to recognise Israel.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
Salonika, the most multi-cultural city of Europe at the time, failed to protect a fiercly anti-zionist population
But the zionist tendencies of the people had no bearing on what happened to them. When the extermination policy began the bureaucrats had targets to achieve and concentrations like Salonika - to those who don't know, the largest and most influential Jewish centre for centuries - were going to be high on the list. There was nothing that anyone could do about it in the circumstances.
We have never seen ourselves as the "jewish people" but as citizens of the world that's why we opposed to Zionism with such a passion.
But that doesn't stop other people claiming you as part of the "Jewish People".

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Cleon

This is very interesting. I myself am Ashkenaz(and also anti-Zionist). Although the Zionist movement was largely based in the Ashkenazi communities, it was by no means a dominant movement. It was actually a fairly small political cult. I only say this to point out that not all Ashkenazi are/were Zionists. (In fact, the Chassids--an almost exclusively Ashkenazi tradition--almost universally rejected Zionism until fairly recently. Many, possibly most, Chassids still do.)

Yes, I know that Zionism wasn't the dominant movement that's why I suggested in a previous post that it's not uncommon in History for minorities to establish their status over the majority. Zionism was used by the Christians too as a weapon to negotiate with the Jews. I am not in the trip " The bastard Christians what they have done to us" right now, I hope you understand, I just point out that those that appear surprised by Zionism are those that they created the conditions for Zionism to flourish.

I do see myself as Jewish, though I'm hardly practicing. I see a cultural and ethnicity of being "Jewish," so I do see something called "the Jewish people." But we are one people among many other peoples--as you say, we are citizens of the world. I think there's a difference between seeing yourself as part of a group, and thinking that that group should dominate another group (in this case, the Palestinians).


I am very lucky. I grew up in a family with a long tradition from both of my parents. My grandparents were "bigger than life" kind of people, proud and secular humanists.

My father is an atheist and talking about religion at home wasn't allowed because he didn't want to hurt my Jewish mom that he adores. Greece is a very religious country, so he didn't want anything of this in our house.

We even celebrated a parody of Christmas/Hanukkah and during the Easter we were visiting the family in Israel because he wanted to avoid the celebrations and the comments about "the Jews that crucified our Jesus." Of course, he didn't accept preaching from the Jewish part of the family as well.

To me, being Greek and Israelite is nothing more than food and family gatherings around the table, escorted by tones of stories " from the old" times, my greek grandfather's stories about the Resistance,about the Ancient Greek doctors, the stories about our bookstore in Salonika,the first in the Southeastern Europe the fourth in whole Europe... the stories about Amsterdam and the Art market at the beginning of the 20th century. Whining about the past was also prohibited in my paternal home...we narrated only pleasant stories.

I am the last person on earth that will ever justify the dominance over other groups, especially over the Palestinians

I have said it before. I live for the day the Palestinian State will be established and I do not justify the attrocities, I am just a bit sensitive to unfair comments. Perhaps, oversensitive.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
When the Greek Jews returned from the camps, Christians named them "Soaps".
At least say "some Christians". In Northern Ireland the Prods have a ppular kicking-dance they perform when Taigs are around, reminding them of a particularly notorious mob-murder in Portadown. There are a lot of people out there who aren't worth a dead dog.

From JamesM, quoted by the estimable Cleopatra:
Historically speaking, the alternative looks to be just as poor a bet.
Historically speaking, there are Jewish communities all over Europe. They are not in as much danger as Israelis - even those who would like peace. Historically speaking, emancipation has continued. There is no prospect of another Holocaust but there's a whole lot of trouble in the Middle East theat wasn't there before Natonalist Zionism.

This is all very real-time: I will pause, read and reflect.

[Cleopatra]

Capel Dodger.

Have I told you that my grandmother's house in Salonika had two kitchens? I don't think that I have.
Well, one kitchen was used to bake pastries and prepare the desserts, the preserves etc and the other one was used to prepare food.

A detail that seems irrelevant with the discussion but it's not.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

At least say "some Christians".

Ok you are right about that.

Some Christians.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
Unfair!
As if I would!
Do you suggest now that Jews had to prove the self-evident?
They had something to point to. In life it's often necessary to point out the bleeding obvious. But in the case of the Great War (I use that term advisedly) it was a killer argument. "We fought and died as Germans, not Jews." There was no yellow star on the enemy's uniform. German Jews killed French Jews - it must have happened. The line that "The Jews" had stolen victory from the Germans made no sense outside Catholic Bohemia (Catholicism expunges sense), and Hitler didn't gain power because of his anti-semitism.

Pastries aren't food? Baklava isn't food? That stuff with the honey and the pistachios and the nameless red bits isn't food? Why does it fill me up so quickly?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Yes, I know that Zionism wasn't the dominant movement that's why I suggested in a previous post that it's not uncommon in History for minorities to establish their status over the majority. Zionism was used by the Christians too as a weapon to negotiate with the Jews. I am not in the trip " The bastard Christians what they have done to us" right now, I hope you understand, I just point out that those that appear surprised by Zionism are those that they created the conditions for Zionism to flourish.



Well, sure. I recall reading somewhere that the only Jewish groups the Nazis would deal with were the Zionists--because they shared the Nazi dream of a "judenfrei" Germany.


I am the last person on earth that will ever justify the dominance over other groups, especially over the Palestinians

I have said it before. I live for the day the Palestinian State will be established and I do not justify the attrocities, I am just a bit sensitive to unfair comments. Perhaps, oversensitive.

Perhaps. :) I wasn't accusing you of being "soft on Israel" or any such rubbish, I just rarely encounter people from the Sephardic tradition and am rather curious as to how the different histories/experiences of the Ashkenazi and Sephardim play out in terms of philosophies, Israel/Palestine, etc. Hell, I've never met anyone who speaks Ladino, but my grandparents all grew up speaking Yiddish. It's just fascinating for me, because growing up we didn't hear anything of the Sephardic experience--it's almost as if the Sephardim stopped existing after the Inquisition.

The Sephardim in the US tend to be on the West Coast for some reason, I'm not sure why. I've always been curious about whether they're Zionist, non-Zionist, or lunatics like the Brooklyn crew. In the US, if you're Jewish and speak out against Israel (even mild criticisms) you have a tough time of it. Even the non-Zionist Chassids tend to keep quiet; those who speak out, like Satmar and Neturei Karta, are ridiculed or assaulted.

Forgive my curiousity. :)

In the spirit of the Bund,

Cleon

[Cleopatra]

In the thread about Israel-USA I intend to make a short reference about the relationship of some ( before Capel Dodger corrects me) Zionists and the Nazis.

I speak Ladino, I think that this is heretic for a baptised Christian , also I consider my visiting the Synagogue a heretic practice but I enjoy talking with the elder members of the community who still talk Ladino and they have some secret recipes they still refuse to reveal but I am working on that.

My grandmother was speaking with my mother in Ladino when they didn't want us to understand of what they were talking about. I learned Ladino older though and Internet communities have helped me to practice and I try to persuade my mother to talk with me in Ladino but she avoids it.

I don't want this language to be lost.

Some months ago, The Israelite Community of Salonika ( this is how they call themselves because there are members of Jewish origin but baptised Christians--like me for example) published a cookbook. I went to Thessaloniki to attend the presentation because the book was based mostly on the notes and recipes of my grandmother who was a proverbial cook of her time.

When I identified myself to a couple of people that they knew my grandmother in person, I mentioned that I was born in Israel. Their exclaimed in horror : " Oh poor child, what a pity".

I found it funny and very ironic. :)

In New York there is a synagogue of Greek Sefardims,in low East Manhattan.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JamesM

The idea of a 'Jewish People' is not an optimum one. How much better if everyone considered themselves a citizen of the world.



Agreed. Unfortunately, many see this concept as the NWO.



However, as long as there are those that identify the 'Jewish People' as a group, and have the means and will to attempt to exterminate them, then it will be necessary for the 'Jewish People' to identify themselves as such and take steps to protect themselves by collectivising. Jewish experience in Germany in the 19th century and America and the UK in the 20th, shows that Jews are able to assimilate themselves out of existence, if they are given the opportunity to.

The holocaust was not some odd spasm of European Jew-hatred, which the Jews are unaccountably miffed about. The idea of the 'Jewish People' is not a pernicious idea dreamt up by rabid Zionists and their clannish co-religionists as a way of furthering their colonial aims. It is the logical end-point of being singled out as the 'Jewish People' for over 1000 years, it has been thrust upon them.



I disagree with this. Hating Jews does not have a logical endpoint, anymore than hating wogs or spics or wops. The unfortunate part was Hitler identifying Jews as being in need of extermination, and having the means to attempt this act. He was also working pretty hard at exterminating the gypsies and slavs, although for different reasons.



Your implied alternative is that Zionists should give up the idea of a Jewish state and instead rely on the good offices of the people they live among and everything will be ok. Your evidence appears to be that the Nazis didn't make it as far as the East End (for which I am personally very grateful) and that there hasn't been anything on the scale of the Holocaust for 50-60 years. Therefore, all this stuff about anti-semitism is over-cooked paranoid fantasy to keep Jews in glassy-eyed obedience, handing over the cash to Israel.



I don't think it is just a case of blindly handing over cash to Israel. Many jews send nothing to Israel, because Israel already exists and, while it was in a reasonably peaceful state, doing quite well economically.

The issue is that, IMHO, most of the money being sent to Israel is being used to fund the extremists groups, such as the settlers.

That appears to be the case in Australia. Joseph Gutnick, for example, has been doing his bit to stoke the fires in the Middle East for many years.



(As an aside, how much anti-semitism is enough?)



Any amount, as is any hatred of any race.



Israel and Zionism may be quite a bad idea in theory, and disastrous in practice. Historically speaking, the alternative looks to be just as poor a bet.

That makes sense. What does not make sense is pushing the boundaries of what Israel is today. Why is is impossible to just pull out all the settlements, and, for example, build the fence on the green line. And it is impossible for Israel to reign in the settler movement.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Unfair!

Sorry for the sentimental responses but it is just because I know that you have a solid knowledge about History, so I have to assume that you choose to interpret things that way.

Jews accomplishments in the European societies for centuries " demonstrate the extend to which Jews were national" but european societies seem to have missed that part.

Do you suggest now that Jews had to prove the self-evident?

You are talking as if Europeans lived in harmony with each other, while spending their time harrassing the Jews in particular. Europeans were hard at it the whole time, causing misery for themselves as well. The Catholic/Protestant persecutions, for example, were very gory. The Spanish Inquisition, another example.

Somebody mentions Hitler coming from Catholic Austria. He could just as easily have, in his twisted mind, seen the Protestants as the cause of all the worlds problems, or the Freemasons. That he targetted the Jews for his particular hatred is one of those 'quantum' events of history. One persons lunacy turning the whole world upside down. Napoleon is another such person.

By picking on the Jews, he certainly tapped into a popular prejudice. But it was one that had been long running, just as the Catholic/Protestant one had been. In Australia, the Catholic/Protestant divide went on for over 150 years.

At the same time as the American Army was freeing the surivors of death camps, it was fighting as a force segregated along colour lines. That is, you had black companies and white companies.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You are talking as if Europeans lived in harmony with each other, while spending their time harrassing the Jews in particular. Europeans were hard at it the whole time, causing misery for themselves as well. The Catholic/Protestant persecutions, for example, were very gory. The Spanish Inquisition, another example.

Well, the Spanish Inquisition was mostly targetting apostate former jews and muslims, so that's not a very good case in point.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Originally posted by a_unique_person


You are talking as if Europeans lived in harmony with each other, while spending their time harrassing the Jews in particular. Europeans were hard at it the whole time, causing misery for themselves as well. The Catholic/Protestant persecutions, for example, were very gory. The Spanish Inquisition, another example.

Well, the Spanish Inquisition was mostly targetting apostate former jews and muslims, so that's not a very good case in point.

I think it was anyone who didn't think exactly what the Cardinals thought. The Jews weren't spared, nor was anyone else. You only had to look like you didn't think the right way and they would torture a confession out of you.

However, I take your point, the Jews would have been a good target for them.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by davefoc
The bible is of course loaded with this kind of thing. Jews getting trampled by the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians. Is there something going on in the Jewish culture which is unique in the world with regard to this kind of communal remembrance of disaster?

Literacy. Jews write things down.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think it was anyone who didn't think exactly what the Cardinals thought. The Jews weren't spared, nor was anyone else. You only had to look like you didn't think the right way and they would torture a confession out of you.

However, I take your point, the Jews would have been a good target for them.

No, it specifically targetted apostate jews and moslems - they were not just incidental victims to it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


No, it specifically targetted apostate jews and moslems - they were not just incidental victims to it.

http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Student_Work/Trial96/loftis/overview.html

This is how I remember it. The Inquisition was created to target anyone anyone who did not agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church.



HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE INQUISITION

After the Roman Church had consolidated its power in the early Middle Ages, heretics came to be regarded as enemies of society. The crime of heresy was defined as a deliberate denial of an article of truth of the Catholic faith, and a public and obst inate persistence in that alleged error. At this time, there was a sense of Christian unity among townspeople and rulers alike, and most of them agreed with the Church that heretics seemed to threated society itself.

However, the repression of heresy remained unorganized, and with the large scale heresies in the 11th and 12th centuries, Pope Gregory IX instituted the papal inquisition in 1231 for the apprehension and trial of heretics. The name Inquisition is der ived from the Latin verb inquiro (inquire into). The Inquisitiors did not wait for complaints, but sought out persons accused of heresy. Although the Inquisition was created to combat the heretical Cathari and Waldenses, the Inquisition later extended i ts activity to include witches, diviners, blasphemers, and other sacrilegious persons.





But once again we must stress the chronological track, because the bloody reputation of the Spanish Inquisition - though it formally existed for more than three centuries - was earned during its first decade and a half, even before, that is, the capture of Granada. During this unhappy period perhaps as many as 2000 persons were burnt as heretics. Though this number is only a small fraction of what the Black Legend routinely alleged, it is nevertheless sobering enough. Almost all those executed were conversos or New Christians, converts, that is, from Judaism who were convicted of secretly practicing their former religion. It should be borne in mind that the Inquisition, as a church-court, had no jurisdiction over Moors and Jews as such. But, ironically, once such persons accepted baptism they became capable of heresy in the technical sense of the word. Thus the early savagery of the Spanish Inquisition contributes another chapter to the sad history of anti-Semitism, motivated on this occasion, however, more by politico-religious expediency than by racial hatred. It was in any event an enormous and unforgivable miscalculation. Far from constituting a danger to the nation, the Jewish conversos of previous decades had already been admirably blended into the larger community. As Professor William Monter has pointed out, the New Christians "represent the first known large-scale and long-term assimilation of Jews into any Christian society. Although the process included many painful adaptations, some severe backlash and even a decade of brutal persecution under the Inquisition, it ended with their general integration into Spanish society. Their descendants quietly flouted racist codes and contributed to the vibrant Catholicism of Golden Age Spain; St. Teresa of Avila was the granddaughter of a New Christian penanced by the Inquisition."



http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/article2.html

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Student_Work/Trial96/loftis/overview.html

This is how I remember it. The Inquisition was created to target anyone anyone who did not agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church.



I was speaking specifically of the Spanish Inquisition, as that's the example you used earlier. Neither the medieval Inquisition or the later Roman Inquisition specifically targetted jews, but the Spanish Inquisition did (well, apostate jews to be precise.) From the Britannica:


...after the Muslims had been driven out, the Catholic monarchs of Aragon and Castile determined to enforce religious and political unity and requested a special institution to combat apostate former Jews and Muslims as well as such heretics as the Alumbrados. Thus in 1478 Pope Sixtus IV authorized the Spanish Inquisition.

[a_unique_person]

Which roughly agrees with what I have been saying. They only targeted the Jews and Moslems who were no longer practisting their own faith. Which is pretty silly, but then, this is nothing new.

I also seem to have been unaware of the distinction between the Spanish Inquisition and the others. IIRC, the Inquisition is still a surviving institution of the Catholic Church.

[JamesM]

Phew, rather a lot here to consider.

Capel Dodger, on the subject of German Jews:
What's the logic in that? Your enemies wish to define you in some way, so you'd better reinforce their image by fitting it?
The logic of self-preservation. Identify with the Zionists, go to Israel, and let the Germans pick on someone else. Or stick around, try and fit in and eventually they decide you're not really Germans after all, you're Jews.

They felt it more sensible to point to the service of German Jews during the Great War - when German Jews fought in German trenches, French Jews in French trenches and so on.
It didn't do them much good, did it?


The idea that German Jews banding together as Jews rather than Germans would have helped is obvious nonsense.
It is nonsense only because they had nowhere to go as Jews. If a Jewish state had been in existence, they could have gone there and survived.

[JamesM]

Capel Dodger, on the more general subject of assimilation:
We should all be assimilating into the human race.
A fine sentiment. But tell me, on being sent to the concentration camps, were the ones with only one Jewish grandfather, who said "But I'm not Jewish! I'm a citizen of the world, me!", were they spared? Or was the response "we decide who's a Jew, and you're one of them"? If I had to choose, I'd rather live as a Jew than die as a member of the family of man.

You are putting the burden of supra-national/religious/cultural enlightenment onto the victims. It takes two to tango.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JamesM
Phew, rather a lot here to consider.

Capel Dodger, on the subject of German Jews:

The logic of self-preservation. Identify with the Zionists, go to Israel, and let the Germans pick on someone else. Or stick around, try and fit in and eventually they decide you're not really Germans after all, you're Jews.


It didn't do them much good, did it?


It is nonsense only because they had nowhere to go as Jews. If a Jewish state had been in existence, they could have gone there and survived.

Well, some did try to get out to places such as the US, only to be turned back.

[JamesM]

Capel Dodger again, on European Jewry:
Historically speaking, there are Jewish communities all over Europe. They are not in as much danger as Israelis - even those who would like peace. Historically speaking, emancipation has continued. There is no prospect of another Holocaust
There is (IMO) a very important point here in understanding the attitude of Jews and Zionists.

The Jews of 19th century Germany were the most cultured and assimilated Jews in all of Europe. The enlightenment of Jewry began there, the religious reformation that gives us liberal, reform and other non-orthodox Judaism began there. Jews made huge contributions to German cultural life: Heine, Mendelssohn, the portrait painter Veit. They were doing very well, thanks.

If you told them that in less than 100 years, 550,000 of the 580,000 Jews in Germany were going to be wiped out, do you think they would have believed you? And yet you say there is no prospect of another Holocaust. This requires us to accept that we're all far too civilised to engage in that behaviour any more. It was only 60 years ago! In terms of Jewish history, that's nothing.

Europeans have been engaging in Jew-killing for over 1000 years. Only the methods and the motives change. The Holocaust must be seen in that context. Can you blame some Jews for finally getting the message and becoming Zionists?

I want to stress here, that I am not claiming that the Jews are the only ones to have been treated unpleasantly through history or that they have some monopoly on suffering. My point here is to try to illustrate that the choice facing Jews at the end of World War 2 was not one of self-evident good (assimilate into the human race and everything will be just peachy) and self-evident evil (become Zionists).

The 'Why can't we all just get along?' option had been tried by Jews before, when they had no choice. Zionism is not necessarily a better choice than that, but when it comes to oppressing, at least it put the boot on the other foot, so to speak, and that had novelty value for Jews. That's not a very pleasant way of looking at things, but if anyone ever said suffering was ennobling, they were idiots.

edited for spelling (as usual)

[Cleopatra]

When the Sefardic Jews came to Salonika and introduced new techniques in the Textile Industry and in Typography, they didn't offer their services to Jews only.

When Abraham Benaroya established the Socialist Party of Greece wasn't addressing to the Jews only... Abraham Benaroya was the first Greek that was elected to the Greek Parliament as a Communist.

The family bookstore didn't sell books to Jews only.

The majority of the doctors of Salonika were Jews.

The only Maternity Hospital that existed in Salonika until 1940 belonged to the Jewish Community and as you pressume it was open to the public.

Colonel Moses Frizis, who was the first officer of the Greek Army who died in the battle field in October of 1940, died as a Greek and not as a Jew.

Only some of the self-evident truths that made the Greek Jews feeling safe in Salonika and rejecting Zionism.

As James said and as I have heard people confirming, none believed that 2 months were enough to vanish 500 years of prosperity...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JamesM
Capel Dodger again, on European Jewry:

There is (IMO) a very important point here in understanding the attitude of Jews and Zionists.

The Jews of 19th century Germany were the most cultured and assimilated Jews in all of Europe. The enlightenment of Jewry began there, the religious reformation that gives us liberal, reform and other non-orthodox Judaism began there. Jews made huge contributions to German cultural life: Heine, Mendelssohn, the portrait painter Veit. They were doing very well, thanks.

If you told them that in less than 100 years, 550,000 of the 580,000 Jews in Germany were going to be wiped out, do you think they would have believed you? And yet you say there is no prospect of another Holocaust. This requires us to accept that we're all far too civilised to engage in that behaviour any more. It was only 60 years ago! In terms of Jewish history, that's nothing.



There are no guarantess. But it did take 2,000 years in Europe for the first one. The Tasmanian aboriginals were wiped out in a much shorter time. I think you do have to have some faith in manking, otherwise why bother. There is nowhere on earth for Jews to hide now. Maybe space colonisation is the answer?



Europeans have been engaging in Jew-killing for over 1000 years. Only the methods and the motives change. The Holocaust must be seen in that context. Can you blame some Jews for finally getting the message and becoming Zionists?



Well, the Jews got into a bit of killing themselves during the time in biblical Israel. Zionism was an understandable strategy, though.



I want to stress here, that I am not claiming that the Jews are the only ones to have been treated unpleasantly through history or that they have some monopoly on suffering. My point here is to try to illustrate that the choice facing Jews at the end of World War 2 was not one of self-evident good (assimilate into the human race and everything will be just peachy) and self-evident evil (become Zionists).

The 'Why can't we all just get along?' option had been tried by Jews before, when they had no choice. Zionism is not necessarily a better choice than that, but when it comes to oppressing, at least it put the boot on the other foot, so to speak, and that had novelty value for Jews. That's not a very pleasant way of looking at things, but if anyone ever said suffering was ennobling, they were idiots.

edited for spelling (as usual)

I don't think anyone but those who admire suffering from afar would think that. The thing about the boot being on the other foot, though, is that not all Israelis, I would guess, want the boot on their foot.

Why is it that they cannot reign in the extremists like the settlers and actually voted in Sharon?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
When the Sefardic Jews came to Salonika and introduced new techniques in the Textile Industry and in Typography, they didn't offer their services to Jews only.

When Abraham Benaroya established the Socialist Party of Greece wasn't addressing to the Jews only... Abraham Benaroya was the first Greek that was elected to the Greek Parliament as a Communist.

The family bookstore didn't sell books to Jews only.

The majority of the doctors of Salonika were Jews.

The only Maternity Hospital that existed in Salonika until 1940 belonged to the Jewish Community and as you pressume it was open to the public.

Colonel Moses Frizis, who was the first officer of the Greek Army who died in the battle field in October of 1940, died as a Greek and not as a Jew.

Only some of the self-evident truths that made the Greek Jews feeling safe in Salonika and rejecting Zionism.

As James said and as I have heard people confirming, none believed that 2 months were enough to vanish 500 years of prosperity...

You will be pleased to know that the greeks who migrated to Australia were subjected to much racial discrimination. (Although not murder). Anyway, they are not the real Greeks, just barbarian interlopers.

[Skeptic]

There are no guarantess. But it did take 2,000 years in Europe for the first one.

If you ignore 2000 years of christian prosecution, the spanish inqisition, the crusades, and the butchery and expulsion, in turn, of the jews from just about every european country before that.

There is nowhere for the jews to hide now.

To your great satisfaction, no doubt.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Skeptic


To your great satisfaction, no doubt.

The way you try to smear anyone who disagrees with your take on the Middle East with the label of "anti-semite" appears shamelessly cynical. If you have evidence that AUP has made anti-semitic remarks, or favors the destruction of Israel please post the links. If not you should leave off with the baseless accusations and accept that it is possible to criticise Israeli policy in the occupied territories without being an anti-semite.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by originalgagster


The way you try to smear anyone who disagrees with your take on the Middle East with the label of "anti-semite" appears shamelessly cynical. If you have evidence that AUP has made anti-semitic remarks, or favors the destruction of Israel please post the links. If not you should leave off with the baseless accusations and accept that it is possible to criticise Israeli policy in the occupied territories without being an anti-semite.

The phrase "destruction of the state of Israel" itself is loaded and is shamelessly "given" to those of us who don't think the idea of a "Jewish state" is a good one. Why, the reasoning goes, if you don't like the idea of Israel as a Jewish state, you must want to destroy Israel! And if you want to destroy Israel, you want to kill Jews! And if you want to kill Jews, you're anti-Semitic!

That's the logic. You can see it in Skeptic's posts, easily enough. The reality is most of us who aren't Zionist, especially those of us who are Jewish, don't want anybody to be killed or expelled. We don't want to see anyone or anything destroyed. We want to see a secular, democratic state where Palestinians, Jews, Christians, etc. can live in peace.

But, alas, a "secular, democratic state where everyone can live in peace" just doesn't sound monstrous enough. So they say we advocate the "destruction of the state of Israel." And therefore want to destroy Jews. Et cetera. Ad nauseum. And other Latin phrases.

Neturei Karta--A Chassidic anti-Zionist group--came up with their own version of this oft-used phrase. They simply counter it by saying "we advocate the peaceful dismantlement of the Zionist state."

[CapelDodger]

From JamesM:
The logic of self-preservation. Identify with the Zionists, go to Israel, and let the Germans pick on someone else. Or stick around, try and fit in and eventually they decide you're not really Germans after all, you're Jews.
German Jews did not, in the main, identify with Zionism and many condemned it. Self-preservation coincided with the philosophical and political attitudes of most German Jews, who saw such divisions as damaging anachronisms. Most other educated Germans felt the same. The series of events that led to the Final Solution was not inevitable. Your last sentence implies that non-Jews will always decide that Jews are not of their nation/tribe (unless you have a particularly bad opinion of Germans). What qualities of Jewishness do you think leads to the inevitable hatred and persecution of Jews? And is the same decision merely delayed in the US or the UK, for instance?

Identifying with Nationalist Zionism would mean identifying with a colonial enterprise that they despised. Perhaps it is better to die than to become that which you hate.
The 'Why can't we all just get along?' option had been tried by Jews before, when they had no choice
What opinion would they have had if they had a choice? "Let's not get along"? That, admittedly, is the Zionist view, but look what that's arrived at.

Perhaps you refer to Rabbinical Judaism as the "Let's get along" principle. The rejection of a political, nationalist aspect to Judaism was what preserved Mediterranean Judaism from the Romans. The results of the nationalism that started with the Maccabeans were very clear - utter devastation of the "homeland" and its people. This nationalist attitude was never fully endorsed by all Jews, as evidenced by the growth of Alexandria as a Jewish centre when Palestine itself was dominated by wild-eyed fanatics. The many Jewish communities outside Palestine naturally rejected this fundamentalism, although their young men were, as ever, susceptible to a message of Righteous Violence (as young Western Muslim men are today). European Jews, in the main, wished only to exist as a part of normal society.

The Maccabean principle was reintroduced in the 1880's. Within fifty-five years the first attempt was made to exterminate European Jewry. Do you think this is a coincidence? Or might it be that a very vocal nationalist minority provided evidence for those who would wish to exclude Jews?

[CapelDodger]

From JamesM:
A fine sentiment. But tell me, on being sent to the concentration camps, were the ones with only one Jewish grandfather, who said "But I'm not Jewish! I'm a citizen of the world, me!", were they spared? Or was the response "we decide who's a Jew, and you're one of them"? If I had to choose, I'd rather live as a Jew than die as a member of the family of man.
Shroud-waving isn't going to impress me. Assmiliation into the human race is a process that will take time, but has manifest advantages. It will require everybody to climb out of the boxes they put themselves into, and not to put other people into boxes. It willnot change what has happened in the past, but what history should teach that such attitudes have evil consequences. Would you prefer to live as a Jew or to live as a human?

[CapelDodger]

From Cleon:
Neturei Karta--A Chassidic anti-Zionist group--came up with their own version of this oft-used phrase. They simply counter it by saying "we advocate the peaceful dismantlement of the Zionist state."
That puts the case excellently.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From JamesM:

Shroud-waving isn't going to impress me. Assmiliation into the human race is a process that will take time, but has manifest advantages. It will require everybody to climb out of the boxes they put themselves into, and not to put other people into boxes. It willnot change what has happened in the past, but what history should teach that such attitudes have evil consequences. Would you prefer to live as a Jew or to live as a human?

Attempts to interpret historical facts based on wishful thinking doesn't impress anybody.

Is it that embarassing to you to admit that "Jewish people" is nothing more than a reflex reaction?

Who put whom in the boxes at first place, Capel Dodger?

Joke from today's leftist newspaper "Eleftherotypia" ( www.enet.gr)

-What do 10 Jews that sing make?
-A soap opera.

edited to turn some phrases into English...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


(Although not murder).

I guess you mean that they didn't suffer a genocide as the Jews did. Yes, of course, we have been through this; Holocaust is a unique case of genocide.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Literacy. Jews write things down.

And when paper is not available History is writen, literally, on their skins... but oh! Apologies!!!

"Shroud waving" doesn't impress anybody.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger


I'm talking about the whole Nationalist Zionist project, and that dates back to the 1880's. The question was always there: what about the people that are currently living there? What is the nature of a "Jewish Homeland"? Does that mean a Jewish Nation-State, in which case: what's that? The answer to the real question had to await Jabotinsky. At least he was honest.

Yes, you are right about that. The question about the nature of the "Jewish Land" was never addressed and we are paying the consequences of this right now.

I wonder why none dared to answer that question. I have a theory...

There has always been, of course, a completely different Zionism that had no trappings of statehood about it. It involved a return of Jewish people who so wished to the Holy Land. It was a spiritual movement in many ways, and romantic, but it still strikes a chord with me. I have no problem with that form of Zionism. But those Zionists have been overwhelmed by the loud-mouthed Nationalist Zionists and forced into a false position. But still there are those who refuse to recognise Israel.

I do have a problem with your posts. You talk about the past based on hypothetical statements. Yes if I was born in Cardiff I would be more severe towards those that they chose Zionism instead of assimilation but I wasn't born there.

Let me tell you something, of course you know it.

Greek Jews, in a desperate attempt to boycott the Zionist plans, tried to persuade the Ottoman Occupation Forces -by bribery- to declare Salonika an independant city, while the rest of the Greeks were struggling to create their National State.

This was considered by the rest of the Greek as betrayal and I can't blame them for accusing the Jews for betrayal of the "national cause".Can you?

It's easy to criticize choices a posteriori . History is not about how things could have been, I am afraid.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
Attempts to interpret historical facts based on wishful thinking doesn't impress anybody.

Is it that embarassing to you to admit that "Jewish people" is nothing more than a reflex reaction?

Who put whom in the boxes at first place, Capel Dodger?
Where is my interpretation based on wishful thinking? I read consequences into actions and attitudes; I may be wrong in my interpretation, but the consequences are clear facts.

I've constantly rejected the idea of a "Jewish people", so what that means I can't say.

People have been putting themselves in boxes since they wandered the forests in the Ice Age; chimps do it. The boxes are all marked "Better people than you out there". Was the self-declared status as a "Chosen People" nothing to do with getting into a box? Isn't every declaration of nationality getting into a box? Tribe, nation, religion, they're all boxes. Mostly they're boxes people are born into - "I am of this group because my ancestors were". Surely the human race can get over that. Or maybe I'm an incurable optimist.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

Where is my interpretation based on wishful thinking?

This is wishful thinking:

Assmiliation into the human race is a process that will take time, but has manifest advantages. It will require everybody to climb out of the boxes they put themselves into, and not to put other people into boxes. It willnot change what has happened in the past, but what history should teach that such attitudes have evil consequences.

Who can disagree with that? Why humanity has never accomplished to free itself from the boxes?Do you have an answer for that or it's enough for you to spot the problem?

It's must be a matter of character. I am not satisfied only with spotting and describing the problems.

I want solutions.

The problems that can only be descibed but not solved belong to the category: " Literature".

Have you ever thought that we tend to fantasize about things that we know that we will never achieve?

I read consequences into actions and attitudes; I may be wrong in my interpretation, but the consequences are clear facts.

I object to your methods. You go backwards. You have the facts but you try to examine how differently could they have occured , how can this be possible?

People have been putting themselves in boxes since they wandered the forests in the Ice Age; chimps do it. The boxes are all marked "Better people than you out there". Was the self-declared status as a "Chosen People" nothing to do with getting into a box?

Then why you accuse Jews for doing it, it's within the human nature , damn it!

Isn't every declaration of nationality getting into a box? Tribe, nation, religion, they're all boxes. Mostly they're boxes people are born into - "I am of this group because my ancestors were". Surely the human race can get over that. Or maybe I'm an incurable optimist.

I am sorry, I do not want to sound rude or condescending but you are living in the "luxurius" position that your island provides for you and you make comments about people that they don't know if they will exist tomorrow because they cannot decide about their existence and I am not talking about the Jews right now.

Take the Balkans. You know for sure that you will always live in Cardiff - if you choose that-- I do not know if I will always live in Greece, it's not up to me, it wasn't up to my ancestors either.

Life in this box is difficult Capel Dodger.

THIS creates a different state of mind, the same way different climate does...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Attempts to interpret historical facts based on wishful thinking doesn't impress anybody.

Is it that embarassing to you to admit that "Jewish people" is nothing more than a reflex reaction?

Who put whom in the boxes at first place, Capel Dodger?

Joke from today's leftist newspaper "Eleftherotypia" ( www.enet.gr)

-What do 10 Jews that sing make?
-A soap opera.

edited to turn some phrases into English...

No one would get away with that sort of 'joke' in the Australian press.

[JamesM]

Capel Dodger:
Your last sentence implies that non-Jews will always decide that Jews are not of their nation/tribe
If you forced me to come off the fence, I would say that that is quite likely eventually, based on the history of the Jews. However, as AUP has pointed out, you have to have some faith in mankind.

What qualities of Jewishness do you think leads to the inevitable hatred and persecution of Jews?
I'm unsure if this was meant as a rhetorical question. If not, are you implying that their nationalist aspirations, combined with the diaspora is always going to lead to accusations of having split loyalties? This is true enough, but you are again blaming the victim.

And is the same decision merely delayed in the US or the UK, for instance?
It could be. You're welcome to hoot with derision at this point, I don't blame you. But once again, I will refer you to the experience of German Jews. They were in essentially in the same position I am in. Well-educated, rational, sensible people. They didn't possibly think it could happen to them. So what do I know?

Perhaps it is better to die than to become that which you hate.
Perhaps, but as Cleopatra has pointed out, that's easy to say from the relative comfort of Cardiff. And it's not really the Jewish way, which promotes life over pretty much everything short of apostasy, and the marranos ignored even that last injunction.

[JamesM]

Capel Dodger:
What opinion would they have had if they had a choice? "Let's not get along"?

Yes, exactly.

That, admittedly, is the Zionist view, but look what that's arrived at.
It's easy to be wise with hindsight. The problems caused by, and facing the state of Israel are related to the practicalities of nation-building and the specific location of the Jewish state. These belong in a different discussion, so I won't, if it's ok with you, deal with them here.

The rejection of a political, nationalist aspect to Judaism was what preserved Mediterranean Judaism from the Romans.

That may have been true then, but it does not mean that this is always the optimal strategy. Circumstances change, and today's equivalent to the Roman Empire has an interest in preserving a political and nationalist aspect to Judaism in that region.

The Maccabean principle was reintroduced in the 1880's. Within fifty-five years the first attempt was made to exterminate European Jewry. Do you think this is a coincidence?
Yes I do. Your argument ignores the 1000 years in between where there was no nationalist zeal, and yet persecution continued.

Or might it be that a very vocal nationalist minority provided evidence for those who would wish to exclude Jews?
What I think is that some people just don't like Jews. And those sorts of people have been around for a very long time. There doesn't need to be a nationalist movement amongst Jews, they'll find something: sacrificing gentiles for their religious ceremonies, killing little kids to make matzos, poisoning wells, spreading the Black Death, being usurers, controlling international finance, being communists, being subhuman - having nationalist aspirations merely dovetails nicely into existing prejudices about Jews. The idea that Zionism was main cause of anti-semitism from the 1880s-1940s does not seem very tenable to me.

You see Zionism as a cause of anti-semitism. I see it as a reaction to it. I want to point out, though, that I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing. I am merely attempting to illustrate that the dichotomy you present to post-Holocaust Jews is not as easy a choice as you make out.

[JamesM]

Capel Dodger (again):
Shroud-waving isn't going to impress me.
I'm afraid I've never come across this phrase before. I certainly get the idea that it isn't an admirable trait, but the exact nuances escape me - something to do with death?

Assmiliation into the human race is a process that will take time, but has manifest advantages.
We remain in full agreement on this point.

It will require everybody to climb out of the boxes they put themselves into, and not to put other people into boxes.
Jews to Gentiles: "you go first".

Would you prefer to live as a Jew or to live as a human?
Many times in history, Jews have not been given that choice. Zionism is an answer to that question. If it turns out not to be a very good answer, I hope I have been able to communicate why some Jews consider it no worse than the alternative you suggest.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
I am sorry, I do not want to sound rude or condescending but you are living in the "luxurius" position that your island provides for you and you make comments about people that they don't know if they will exist tomorrow because they cannot decide about their existence and I am not talking about the Jews right now.
The "island", luxurious in its way, I live on is myself. I am not in a box, and I won't be boxed. If I can do it so can others. As to why this hasn't been achieved before, when was modern democracy achieved? If I'd been suggesting the American Constitution in 1860, would you dismiss it as "wishful thinking"?

I've lost track of what we're arguing about. What Finkelstein is saying is that a Jewish Establishment is exploiting fear to bolster their own position within their own communities and in the wider world as representatives of those communities. If the fear is already there because of past experiences, that is what they are exploiting. But past experience does not define what can be expected in the present and the future; those things must be examined in the light of modern reality.

I think you posted once that you feel a sense of responsibility to past generations, that there are inherited duties you feel you should perform. I don't feel that kind of emotion. I care for my family, I'm interested in its history, but I feel injustices against anyone, past or present, are important to me, ancestral or not. I make no distinction.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Would you prefer to live as a Jew or to live as a human?

You do realize how offensive that statement is, do you not? Then again, dehumanizing Jews has a long history.

[CapelDodger]

From JamesM:
I'm unsure if this was meant as a rhetorical question. If not, are you implying that their nationalist aspirations, combined with the diaspora is always going to lead to accusations of having split loyalties? This is true enough, but you are again blaming the victim.
What I'm blaming is the nationalist aspirations. Modern nationalism is a European phenomenon. Nationalist Zionism was created by Europeans. Since it was European and modern it was accepted as a good thing without question, and this was taken up by people like Hertzl and Weizmann. With the Europeanism came the idea that lines could be drawn on a map without thought or consideration for the people that lived there. Also with the Europeanism came a racist attitude to "undeveloped" peoples, a racism that is far more acceptable today amongst Israelis than it is in the UK.

The movement, which took shape in the 1880's, was roundly condemned by Jews from Jerusalem to New York. It was particularly reviled by the exisiing Zionist movement which imagined moving in with the Arabs rather than creating a "Jewish State". (They presented the whole idea as a Russian plot, which was a plausible argument.) The majority of Jews complained that the creation of a Jewish Nation would undermine the common Jewish reaction to nationalism, which was to commit themselves to the new nations. And they had no intention of moving to Palestine, a foreign country. What they wanted was to be part of the societies they lived in. That became a lot more difficult in Germany and Austria after the Balfour Declaration and defeat for the Central Powers.

[Cleopatra]

Good evening Capel Dodger

Originally posted by CapelDodger


The "island", luxurious in its way, I live on is myself. I am not in a box, and I won't be boxed. If I can do it so can others. As to why this hasn't been achieved before, when was modern democracy achieved? If I'd been suggesting the American Constitution in 1860, would you dismiss it as "wishful thinking"?

You live by yourself because your country has built a safe environment for you to do so.
I perfectly understand what do you mean but in my opinion you can accomplish certain things only if your environment tolerates you.

American Constitution of 1860, In God we Trust.


I've lost track of what we're arguing about. What Finkelstein is saying is that a Jewish Establishment is exploiting fear to bolster their own position within their own communities and in the wider world as representatives of those communities. If the fear is already there because of past experiences, that is what they are exploiting. But past experience does not define what can be expected in the present and the future; those things must be examined in the light of modern reality.

Losing track is an indication of a good discussion.

'The Jewish Establishment" ( funny you use this expression, I mean you don't understand the expression " Jewish People" but you seem to know about the "Jewish Establishment" ) doesn't need to exploit the fear because it exists and it is based on facts. F-A-C-T-S.

If you don't use the past to predict the future why do you study History?
I am not sure I want to hear to the answer :)


I think you posted once that you feel a sense of responsibility to past generations, that there are inherited duties you feel you should perform. I don't feel that kind of emotion. I care for my family, I'm interested in its history, but I feel injustices against anyone, past or present, are important to me, ancestral or not. I make no distinction.

I do not understand why you confuse duty with injustice.
Yes I do feel the sense of duty.

I had this discussion with some friends tonight over the dinner table. In Athens, there are some buildings that still have the holes of the bullets of WWII.

My office is next to one of those building. Every morning I pass in front of it, I really need to touch those holes and as I pass I touch them only for seconds.

I feel that I touch the past. Now the new Major wants to restore these building and those holes will be lost,

I will sue her.

I make no distinction too when it comes to people and you know why? Because I have learned from the past and the pain of my family.

Since we arrive to the same point and at the end, we meet, why do you care if I need to take my path in order to meet you?

[CapelDodger]

from JAmesM:
It could be. You're welcome to hoot with derision at this point, I don't blame you. But once again, I will refer you to the experience of German Jews. They were in essentially in the same position I am in. Well-educated, rational, sensible people. They didn't possibly think it could happen to them. So what do I know?
If you knew more about 20th century history you might be more circumspect. History isn't just the same old thing going round. The roots of what happened in the 1940's go back to the French Revolutionary Army in Italy, who opened the ghettos. Take into account that many Italians were thoroughly enamoured of Republican ideas and weren't about to resent French rule when the alternative was Austrian rule or Papal rule. Who wouldn't be? The French Revolution was a damn fine thing in many ways. But it was taken over by the Corsican dwarf, and anyway was something of an experiment. (The American experience of experimentation was much assisted by the Atlantic.) The pope returned to power, and was not a happy bunny. He was resisted by Italians and treated as a joke.

He saw the world slipping away into Democracy (not a positive word in those days; it was associated with mob-rule and the Terror, not the demolition of ghetto walls) and Socialism and Atheism and nothing good for Papism. Being without any significant power, but determined to mount a new Counter-Reformation, the Vatican lit upon the emancipation of the Jews as something they could affect. From that time a virulent anti-semitism was the main product of the Vatican. Read "Unholy War", by David Kertzer; everybody should. ("The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti_Semitism ").

Hitler was an Austrian - a Catholic nation. He wasn't known as an anti-semite when he left Austria, but he'd seen anti-semitism in action as a political tool (by avowedly Catholic parties). He started in politics in Catholic Munich. The Germans you refer to as the almost inevitable persecutors of Jews in modern times were actually one small part of the country, but they gained enormous influence through the "genius" of one man. And only in the circumstances that pertained in Germany after the loss of the Great War, after the vindictiveness of the French, after the Great Inflation that was meant to cancel out reparations, and the effects of the Great Depression. And at a time when the Nationalist Zionists were crowing that they'd won the war for Britain in exchange for the Balfour Declaration.

Hitler was never elected to power. On top of that the votes that the Nazis did get were not principally because of anti-semitism but because of its populist "Socialism".

So, do you see reflections of this in these days? Anti-semitism in Europe has its occasional moment in the sun, but only in Austria and Catholic Germany. Even the French Right applauds Israel for its atttitude to Moslems, who are now their target. The Vatican has given up on anti-semitism (except as a personal sort of thing) in favour of becoming a power in the Thirld World. Anti-semitism in the Muslim (and particularly Arab) world is a venomous power, but that's down to the whole Israel thing and unlikely to spark pogroms in New York. If anything demonisation of Muslims seems to be the coming thing. Is there even a wild conjecture you could make as to how a US pogrom might arise? (I'm a great admirer of wild conjectures, the wilder the better.)

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
You live by yourself because your country has built a safe environment for you to do so.
I live by myself because nobody could live with me. We all live in the environments we alight in.
'The Jewish Establishment" ( funny you use this expression, I mean you don't understand the expression " Jewish People" but you seem to know about the "Jewish Establishment" ) doesn't need to exploit the fear because it exists and it is based on facts. F-A-C-T-S.
They are still exploiting it. Making use of it to a purpose. And in doing so, are they likely to err on the side of caution? Or exaggeration?
I put quotes about the "Jewish Establishment" ( at least I hope I did) because Establishments are so hard to define. One thing that defines a member of an Establishment is someone that credibly claims to be part of it (such as the people that Finkelstein refers to). What defines a member of the "Jewish People"? Jewish mother, one-quarter, converted by the right sort of rabbi? Farmer, tailor, merchant, all part of the same thing?
American Constitution of 1860, In God we Trust.
There is no god.
had this discussion with some friends tonight over the dinner table. In Athens, there are some buildings that still have the holes of the bullets of WWII.
There's a church in St Lo which had a great slice taken out of it in WW2. The wall has been repaired in a way that stands out starkly and yet fits, resonates somehow with the rest of the building. I'm not a visual person but it worked on me at a deep level. The war memorial there is very affecting.

[CapelDodger]

From Ed:
You do realize how offensive that statement is, do you not? Then again, dehumanizing Jews has a long history.
But not accusing me of anti-semitism, are you? Perish the thought.

Look at the context, you prat.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I put quotes about the "Jewish Establishment" ( at least I hope I did) because Establishments are so hard to define.

Especially when they do not exist.

One thing that defines a member of an Establishment is someone that credibly claims to be part of it (such as the people that Finkelstein refers to).

Ok and since Finklestein refers to them,we must accept it...

What defines a member of the "Jewish People"? Jewish mother, one-quarter, converted by the right sort of rabbi? Farmer, tailor, merchant, all part of the same thing?

I do not know. I do not use this term, I belong to the "Sea and Pet Lovers People" ( I hope that I am allowed to troll a bit too... I just don't want you to feel alone ;) )


Impressive post the last one of yours, many things I agree with, many conjectures I find very wild for my taste, many things to think about...

I will be back, you won't go away with this that easily...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I put quotes about the "Jewish Establishment" ( at least I hope I did) because Establishments are so hard to define.

Especially when they do not exist.

One thing that defines a member of an Establishment is someone that credibly claims to be part of it (such as the people that Finkelstein refers to).

Ok and since Finklestein refers to them,we must accept it...

What defines a member of the "Jewish People"? Jewish mother, one-quarter, converted by the right sort of rabbi? Farmer, tailor, merchant, all part of the same thing?

I do not know. I do not use this term, I belong to the "Sea and Pet Lovers People" ( I hope that I am allowed to troll a bit too... I just don't want you to feel alone ;) )


Impressive post the last one of yours, many things I agree with, many conjectures I find very wild for my taste, many things to think about...

I will be back, you won't go away with this that easily...

[JamesM]

CapelDodger:
So, do you see reflections of this in these days?
Not really. I take it that you are asserting that all of the trends that you listed in your history lesson must be in place for murderous anti-semitism to occur. I'm not sure how you square that with the pogroms that have taken place throughout history, the violence visited upon the Jews of Europe during the Crusades, the expulsion of Jews from England in the 11th century, the expulsion of Jews from the Iberian peninsula in the 15th century and so on.

Anti-semitism in Europe has its occasional moment in the sun, but only in Austria and Catholic Germany.
This is rather besides the point, but FWIW, attacks on Jews in Europe are on the increase. In May, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre claimed that attacks on Jews had reached their highest levels since WWII. Last year, two-thirds of all racist assaults in France were anti-semitic in nature. For the lesser offences of insults, graffiti and threats, the figure was closer to three-quarters. Last year, a synagogue in Brussels was attacked with automatic gunfire and a Jewish bookshop firebombed. There are similar stories across Europe, as far as the Ukraine. Perhaps you could provide figures to back up your claims?

Is there even a wild conjecture you could make as to how a US pogrom might arise?
No, I can't. But how does my lack of imagination have any bearing on the feasibility of future events? I couldn't have predicted the events of 9-11, does that mean it didn't happen? If you asked Heinrich Heine a similar question about how the destruction of 95% of the Jewish population of Germany could come about, I'm sure he couldn't tell you, either (er, not that I'm comparing myself to Heine, I hasten to add) - does that mean it didn't happen?

[Cleopatra]

Ed:

Capel Dodger is not an antisemite. I know, because when I started reading his posts I had this feeling too, so in order to avoid assumptions I asked him directly. I wouldn't mind if replied that he is, antisemites do not bite, I know this by first hand. But he is not and not just because he said so...

Unique is not an antisemite too.

Both of them seem to have some problems with the " Jewish Establishment" . When asked, they have a problem to define it though and this is a good thing.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Ed:

Capel Dodger is not an antisemite. I know, because when I started reading his posts I had this feeling too, so in order to avoid assumptions I asked him directly. I wouldn't mind if replied that he is, antisemites do not bite, I know this by first hand. But he is not and not just because he said so...

Unique is not an antisemite too.

Both of them seem to have some problems with the " Jewish Establishment" . When asked, they have a problem to define it though and this is a good thing.

Thankyou Cleopatra. I have had as much sense from you and James in a few months as I ever got from everyone else over about a year.

Skeptic, for example, appears to be the epitome of what Finkelstein is complaining about. You and James, however, actually hold a rational discussion and raise legitimate points I must consider. You and James create respect and an intellectual connection. Skeptic appears to only raise contempt.

[Cleopatra]

This is Europe Unique and Jews and people of Israeli origin are expected to behave in a different way.

They are expected to laugh at racist humor (" Hey! It's only a joke" ) , they are expected not to protest when Synagogues are burnt, they are expected not to protest when somebody compaires the Middle Eastern conflict to the Holocaust, they are expected to tolerate the wild festivities of admiration towards Arafat, they are expected to accept the myth about the political wing of Hamas.

This is Europe,Unique.

As one of the greatest minds in History has once said: " I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them ".

Of course, I can't help wondering what Spizona would have said if he had exprerienced the events of WWII, if he has survived them of course....

[davefoc]

I have been reading through this thread since I have come back from a small vacation. The topic about whether Jews have uniquely suffered throughout history and if so why, is one that I have spent some time thinking about and I was interested in reading other's thoughts on this.

There are times that I find myself in awe of Capel Dodgers posts. The depth of knowledge and the clarity with which he is able to express it is truly impressive.

My own views on the topic of Judaism have been significantly affected by some reading on the history of the Bible and some reading of the Bible itself. As a person brought up in a Christian culture I assumed that Judaism was about the same thing as Christianity without Christ. Perhaps reformed Judaism is, but the Judasim of the Bible is very different than Christianity. The God presented seems to be the personal God for the Jews and he is much more like an impish Greek god than the sort of undefined all powerful God of love and peace that I had assumed he was based on my Christian cultural upbringing.

The Bible also presents a very racist side of Judaism when it talks about the people returning from Babylon having to give up their non-Jewish spouses or when it seems to have no problem with the mass murder of the non-Jewish inhabitants of Jericho simply because they aren't Jews.

My thought is that at least some of the suffering of Jews relates strongly to the nature of the religion. The religion, while having elements that has widespread appeal (note the rise of Christianity based loosely on it) does not promote converts. This puts Jews in the position of almost always being in the minority because of the rise of Religions that do promote converts.

The Bible also is strange compared with other cultural writings in that it records so many defeats in such detail. I think most cultural writings tend to celebrate great victories and not be too expansive about great defeats. Somehow this seems to tie in with a Jewish cultural tradition of remembering great disasters as part of the religion. The vast majority of people on this earth have no group that they can identify with that has an historic record of great transgressions against them going back thousands of years. The Jews, perhaps uniquely, do.

Perhaps what is unique about the suffering of Jews is that they unlike most groups that have suffered enormous defeats and disasters have managed to maintain a cultural identity despite these setbacks. Most groups that have suffered similar defeats or disasters have either been wiped out or just assimilated in to the conquering culture.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by davefoc


The Bible also presents a very racist side of Judaism when it talks about the people returning from Babylon having to give up their non-Jewish spouses or when it seems to have no problem with the mass murder of the non-Jewish inhabitants of Jericho simply because they aren't Jews.

My thought is that at least some of the suffering of Jews relates strongly to the nature of the religion. The religion, while having elements that has widespread appeal (note the rise of Christianity based loosely on it) does not promote converts. This puts Jews in the position of almost always being in the minority because of the rise of Religions that do promote converts.

Perhaps what is unique about the suffering of Jews is that they unlike most groups that have suffered enormous defeats and disasters have managed to maintain a cultural identity despite these setbacks. Most groups that have suffered similar defeats or disasters have either been wiped out or just assimilated in to the conquering culture.

All religious and racial groups have some distinguishing features. One of the more curious ones is that Judaism created the one god who was universal, but only interested one particular group. Not at all a recipe for co-habitation. Like all religions, most Jews would have rationalised out the more unfortunate parts, and get along quite happily with others. The Xians and Jews, for example, if they really believed all the tenets of their faiths, would just be working up to the next holy war.

However, the flip side of this belief is that it does give them a very strong cultural identity, the nature of which is very strong and enduring. Thus, they have survived as a distinct group for thousands of years, despite events such as the creation of the diaspora.

An interesting parrallel is the fate of the slaves in America. Their culture was destroyed. An act that, IMHO, is the cause for many of their social problems in the US today.

[Cleopatra]

Capel Dodger read this please.

It’s part of a PM I received by a member that I don’t want to reveal its name because the discussion wasn’t about the Holocaust, it’s just popped up in the discussion. BTW this member is younger than me...

Unfortunately, I am quite burned out from anti Semitism threads. I do not live in Cardiff and unlike James my family did not live in England. When you grow up 100 yards from a mass grave, when about 95% of your family is exterminated...it is hard to debate logically and dispassionately. I think I could do it with you and James but not AUP or not even CapelDodger, although obviously he is quite educated, more so than I. I just remember how my great aunt, a great snob and anti Zionist and a wife to a Doctor and a convert to Christianity was burned in the same stack (like firewood), alive, as her sisters and brothers, poor religious Jews, whom she scorned her whole life for being provincial. Nobody cared that she was a citizen of the world. So when my uncle left the hell hole that was USSR and went to Israel, I do not blame him. And you know, it is all nice to talk about being a citizen of the world. But I was told to my face in USSR Hitler did not finish. And Pamyat was in my towns. And my parents took me out of school because my neighbors and schoolmates threatened pogroms. So having lost most of my family, having lived with stories and ghosts, having experienced on my skin anti Semitism...I cannot discuss it calmly My own failing. I remember I tried once, with a college friend, a nice girl from Colorado. Expulsion from Spain, England, France, Black Death, Pale, blood Libel, Dreyfus, Cossacks, Pogroms, etc. She listened. And then she said- well, all this persecution- what did you guys do to make all these different people mad? So I will let cooler heads discuss this.

I am sorry if I gave the impression that I do not respect the victims of the Holocaust. I learned about Holocaust by my grandmother who was a survivor, I remember the tattoo on her hand since I remember myself but she didn’t like to talk about it, in fact all of her life was pretending that none ever succeeded in humiliating her. I don’t want to think what she went through while she was a prisoner in Bergen-Belsen.

My grandmother left Thessalonica after the War because people were discussing that she survived because she was very beautiful… it was the typical reaction: the victim must always apologize.

She has been trying to get back her house in Salonika just to burn it down; she was a very passionate woman.

All I am trying to say is that different people have different ways to deal with their past.

I do not belong to those that they will ever forget – I hope that this is clear for my posts- but I am too independent to leave anything dominate my life, even the past.

edited to add :I do not mean that those who feel the burden of the past heavy on their shoulders that they are obsessed with it or they take advantage of it. On the contrary. It's just that each one of us deals with the past with his own way.

[a_unique_person]

I cannot get the point across to this poster, who I would guess is Renata, that I have never denied the Holocaust, or those affected by it. One of my grandmothers was Jewish, (not sure how much, but enough for Hitler to be after her if she was there when he was around), and left Germany, moved to Australia, married an Irishman, who was a drunkard, and lived quite a happy life after he died. Her father fought in WWI, as a German. He suffered greatly from it.

There are plenty of other people around the world, however, who suffer in their own way from their own experiences of disaster.

Finkelstein, IIRC, does not once rail against the existence anti-semitism. He does not deny his Jewish history or family. As you have said, Cleopatra, the Jews of Germany made a great contribution to the country. He did not claim that anti-semitism should be ignored or does not occur.

All Finkelstein is unhappy about is those who take this disaster of history, and then turn it on it's head, into a money making venture that does not even hand out the money to those who suffered. It builds a Holocaust Museum, and invites those who attend to Rock and Roll the night away at The Hot Rod.

The author of your PM does confuse the support of Israel with the uncritical support of it. Providing uncritical support for it is counterproductive, as recent events have shown. The policies of Sharon has made Israelis more unsafe than they have ever been.

[Cleopatra]

The point of posting this PM is to show to people that sometimes intellectual analysis is one thing and experience is another thing.

Many people cannot discuss with you AUP because you are very passionate about this issue, look at the titles of the threads you start. They are inflammatory. Why you seem so surprised?

[renata]

Cleopatra,

Message from AUP above is why I decline to participate in these threads any longer. It seems to be a mixture of a misrepresentation of my viewpoint mixed in with a personal attack.

AUP- I never accused you of denying the Holocaust. I just tried to find out why the only book about it that you read is the same one that is heavily promoted by Neo Nazi and Holocaust denying sites.

Finkelstein might be happy to know may be happy to know that our family did not get a penny for our dead relatives. And everything that Nazis looted from several hundred of my dead relatives, some poor, some wealthy is still missing. We never found it- we never looked. But would I blame those who did, who had the proofs the papers- absolutely not.

And nowhere in my PM did I address support of Israel. Indeed had you followed my postings you would know that I am not at all an uncritical supporter of Israel. However, when I see people who have a kneejerk negative reaction to everything Israel does, without examining it, I tend to dismiss those people as honest debaters and interested participants. I do not see how this issue is at all relevant to what Cleopatra chose to post.



Some of us do not have the luxury of examining this event from afar. Some of us lost direct relatives, some of us have been told that Hitler did not finish the job. Another interesting tidbit people may not know is that many mass graves in USSR did not indicate Jews were buried there. USSR did not want it known Germans targeted Jews. So first they were killed, and then the memory of the crime was attempted to be erased. So it may seem strange to you that someone of my age remembers all these stories about my family- I have hundreds of them- who died where and how. But how else would anyone remember them? They were part of my family's oral tradition. And we were not victims, reliving the horror and the pain and the sadness. We were simply the lucky branchlet that survived, with duties that followed from that fact.

[demon]

"Finkelstein might be happy to know may be happy to know that our family did not get a penny for our dead relatives."

I see you still have actually to read Finkelstein...or if you have thats`s one pathetic misrepresentation of his position.

"There's no business like 'Shoah' business", eh renata?

[Cleopatra]

Renata, please do not reply to this antisemite.

[demon]

"Renata, please do not reply to this antisemite."

Reply to who?
Abba Eban ?
Yaffa Eliach?

[Cleopatra]

demon you are a jerk but we have been through this before...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by renata
Cleopatra,

Message from AUP above is why I decline to participate in these threads any longer. It seems to be a mixture of a misrepresentation of my viewpoint mixed in with a personal attack.



I have had numerous personal attacks and misrepresentations made against me on this general issue.



AUP- I never accused you of denying the Holocaust. I just tried to find out why the only book about it that you read is the same one that is heavily promoted by Neo Nazi and Holocaust denying sites.



And that appeared to be enough for you to dismiss it out of hand. I have provided arguments as to why it has been placed on such sites, and why it discredits their own positions, as it never denies the holocaust. It is also discussed and reviewed on numerous sites that are not Neo Nazi.



Finkelstein might be happy to know may be happy to know that our family did not get a penny for our dead relatives.



Nothing about this makes him happy. His only position is that the money that was paid was often not paid to those for whom it was intended. Most of the money was meant to be for the survivors themselves, not their family, certainly not those deemed important enough for other reasons to be paid it.



And everything that Nazis looted from several hundred of my dead relatives, some poor, some wealthy is still missing. We never found it- we never looked. But would I blame those who did, who had the proofs the papers- absolutely not.



And Cleopatra also. Finkelstein does not complain at all about those after their property, just the double standards of those involved in seeking that money for their own ends, and not those survivors and relatives of those in the holocaust. For example, much land in Eastern Europe was appropriated by the Nazis, then the USSR. He states that claims are now being made for the return of this land, but not to the actual owners or their descendants.

For example, much of the Nazi loot was in turn looted by the Allied forces. However, you don't see these people hounded for it's return. Jews placed their money in more than Swiss Bank accounts for safe keeping, but it was only the Swiss that have been formally charged with totally auditing and accounting for all such money, at a massive cost. At the same time, they were accused of deliberately shredding documents that recorded such money, with no evidence.



And nowhere in my PM did I address support of Israel. Indeed had you followed my postings you would know that I am not at all an uncritical supporter of Israel. However, when I see people who have a kneejerk negative reaction to everything Israel does, without examining it, I tend to dismiss those people as honest debaters and interested participants. I do not see how this issue is at all relevant to what Cleopatra chose to post.



I do not recall any criticism of Israel from you. And you appear to be one of the few people who supports Skeptic and his rants.



Some of us do not have the luxury of examining this event from afar. Some of us lost direct relatives, some of us have been told that Hitler did not finish the job. Another interesting tidbit people may not know is that many mass graves in USSR did not indicate Jews were buried there. USSR did not want it known Germans targeted Jews. So first they were killed, and then the memory of the crime was attempted to be erased. So it may seem strange to you that someone of my age remembers all these stories about my family- I have hundreds of them- who died where and how. But how else would anyone remember them? They were part of my family's oral tradition. And we were not victims, reliving the horror and the pain and the sadness. We were simply the lucky branchlet that survived, with duties that followed from that fact.

And I appreciate this is so, for you, and for many millions of people around the world. For example, Vietnam was the first country that an attempt was made by a superpower to bomb it back to the stoneage, for no better reason than that they wanted their independance, and would not take on the US's terms. These people were called 'gooks'. They were not regarded as being human by many. There are many families in Vietnam going through exactly the sadness that your family suffered too.

Asians in many countries, such as the US, are still regarded as second class citizens.

The aboriginals of Tasmania in Australia have no surviving pure blood descendents.

Finkelstein himself makes no attacks on descendents and survivors of the holocaust holding valid claims to the memory and legacy of the event. He refers to historians, such as Raoul Hildburg(sp), who produce proper histories, with great respect. What he does not like is those who make a travesty of the holocaust by appropriating the tragedy of those who died in it and survived it, for their own ends.

[Cleopatra]

Seriously Unique I think I know where the problem in our communication is.

1. You don't know where to quit

2. You want to have the last word.

Well, I am not getting into this so, you may have the last word in this conversation.

[Cleopatra]

I am sorry Renata, I didn't mean to put you into this.

[demon]

"Well, I am not getting into this so, you may have the last word in this conversation."

"I avoided to refer to what Shermer says about Finkelstein so far but it will be my last weapon... I didn't want to appeal to authority from my first post..."

Aww, I was so looking forward to that too.

[Cleopatra]

You are a jerk but I guess that you already know that :)

[DanishDynamite]

Cleopatra:This is Europe Unique and Jews and people of Israeli origin are expected to behave in a different way.

They are expected to laugh at racist humor (" Hey! It's only a joke" ) , they are expected not to protest when Synagogues are burnt, they are expected not to protest when somebody compaires the Middle Eastern conflict to the Holocaust, they are expected to tolerate the wild festivities of admiration towards Arafat, they are expected to accept the myth about the political wing of Hamas.

This is Europe,Unique.Sorry, but on which planet is this Europe you describe located? If you happen to refer to the Europe on this planet, perhaps you can justify these ridiculous claims. To my knowledge, there is no law here in Denmark requiring Jews to accept any of those things.

BTW, if Europe is so evil, why are you still living here? Could it be that perhaps it isn't as you say?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

The aboriginals of Tasmania in Australia have no surviving pure blood descendents.


The aboriginals of Tasmania didn't become guinea pigs in the concentration camps the way Jews did ,Unique, why is that difficult for you to understand that? Just because Finkelstein doesn't mention it in his book?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


The aboriginals of Tasmania didn't become guinea pigs in the concentration camps the way Jews did ,Unique, why is that difficult for you to understand that? Just because Finkelstein doesn't mention it in his book?

I do undestand that. Each 'holocaust' has it's own distinguishing features.

[davefoc]

Hmm, I'm back from dropping my daughter off at college and I thought I'd drop in on this thread again.

A question that occurred to me while I was driving her up to Santa Cruz was how does the compensation for the six million non-Jews of the holocaust compared with the compensation provided for the six million Jews.

I had previously mentioned that one of Finklesteins contentions was that 85% of the compensation had gone to Jewish groups that had not distributed it equitably amongst the victims. What do people think about this contention?

As to some of the emotions that have been generated here, I would like to offer my apologies if I have contributed to that. For those who don't have direct connections with those who died in the holocaust I can easily imagine that our necessarily detached approach may seem offensive and unsympathetic. I don't think I feel unsympathetic and on a concious level I know I am both sympathetic to and empathetic with those who suffered.

As an aside, my father, helped his Jewish neighbor write down his experiences during world war II. As an additional completely unrelated aside my 87 year old father just got remarried so I now have a step mother and three step brothers.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Seriously Unique I think I know where the problem in our communication is.

1. You don't know where to quit

2. You want to have the last word.

Well, I am not getting into this so, you may have the last word in this conversation.

As you have demonstrated, perhaps we are still going because there are still points to debate. I do not find having the last word is important to me. Often, when I find I have been the one to have the last word, it is only because everyone else has become worn out. I have stayed up all night trying to solve problems on computers. When there is something to nut out, I am very persistent.

[davefoc]

AUP said:
I do undestand that. Each 'holocaust' has it's own distinguishing features

Actually I think AUP has said this a few times before. And, with respect to those who disagree, it seems that he is basically right.

I would quibble with whether the medical experiments by the Nazi's on the Jews were even unique in WWII. I believe the Japanese carried out some pretty gruesome experiments on the Chinese in Nanking and even some on American soldiers. I also believe that the Nazi's carried out some of their experiments on non-Jews in the concentration camps.

But this may not be particularly useful or relevant. Millions of people suffered in one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the world and the determination of whether certain factors add up to make it more or less unique with respect to other tragedies doesn't seem useful.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by davefoc

As to some of the emotions that have been generated here, I would like to offer my apologies if I have contributed to that.



We are quite capable of generating our own emotions, I assure you.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by davefoc
AUP said:


Actually I think AUP has said this a few times before. And, with respect to those who disagree, it seems that he is basically right.

I would quibble with whether the medical experiments by the Nazi's on the Jews were even unique in WWII. I believe the Japanese carried out some pretty gruesome experiments on the Chinese in Nanking and even some on American soldiers. I also believe that the Nazi's carried out some of their experiments on non-Jews in the concentration camps.

But this may not be particularly useful or relevant. Millions of people suffered in one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the world and the determination of whether certain factors add up to make it more or less unique with respect to other tragedies doesn't seem useful.

I think that, as Renata's experience shows, it is the disaster that is closest to you that affects you the most. This is quite understandable, especially when it involves your immediate family.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by demon
"Well, I am not getting into this so, you may have the last word in this conversation."

"I avoided to refer to what Shermer says about Finkelstein so far but it will be my last weapon... I didn't want to appeal to authority from my first post..."

Aww, I was so looking forward to that too.

So what did he say? I was wondering what it was, but my trusty friend Mr. Google was silent.

[Cleopatra]

davefoc

The Holocaust was a unique case of genocide in History. It wasn't the only genocide that has been recorded and unfortunately it won't be the last.

Michael Shermer mentions that part of the revisionist theories regarding The Holocaust is the comparison of this genocide of unique nature to other genocides and he mentions Finkelstein as a striking example of this campaign.He doesn't say that he is a Holocaust denier and why should he? Finkelstein is not a Holocaust denier.

Compairing The Holocaust to other genocides is the nastiest part of a political agenda that AUP happens to embrace.

So,davefoc do you blame the Jews for not taking over the protection of the rest of the 6mil. victims? Don't you find that this is a bit unfair?

I do not think that people are unsympathetic, they are not obliged to be sympathetic, they are not obliged to like Jews either.

What I find repulsive and I will be honest with that is that the only thing that Unique cares about is the promotion of his political agenda.

Unique you don't have limits and I do not like that.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
davefoc

The Holocaust was a unique case of genocide in History. It wasn't the only genocide that has been recorded and unfortunately it won't be the last.

Michael Shermer mentions that part of the revisionist theories regarding The Holocaust is the comparison of this genocide of unique nature to other genocides and he mentions Finkelstein as a striking example of this campaign.He doesn't say that he is a Holocaust denier and why should he? Finkelstein is not a Holocaust denier.

Compairing The Holocaust to other genocides is the nastiest part of a political agenda that AUP happens to embrace.



David Irving and friends have an agenda. I don't know what you think mine is. But you are certainly getting closer to one of Finkelsteins messages when you talk about comparing the Holocaust to other acts of genocide.

The Holocaust was unique. So was the actual, rather than attempted, genocide of the Tasmanian aboginals. And the Hutus vs Tutsis. All unique in their own terrible ways, all involving suffering beyond understanding of those not subject to these horrors.

I still do not understand what you find so ojectionable.



So,davefoc do you blame the Jews for not taking over the protection of the rest of the 6mil. victims? Don't you find that this is a bit unfair?

I do not think that people are unsympathetic, they are not obliged to be sympathetic, they are not obliged to like Jews either.



Finkelstein is not saying that the Jews are obliged to take on board the others killed by the Nazis. I think is interest is more in the appropriation by the 'industry' of the reparations, and generation of more reparations. Also the "canaries in the mine" view as promoted by Skeptic. That is, creating the impression that Jews suffered the most, and are always the first to be attacked, etc.



What I find repulsive and I will be honest with that is that the only thing that Unique cares about is the promotion of his political agenda.



??? In my world, everyone pushes their own political agenda. How can it be otherwise?



Unique you don't have limits and I do not like that.

I was told when I was quite young that I was tactless, and I did not know the meaning of the word. As a certified computer nerd, I am not employed for my people skills, that is for sure.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
davefoc

The Holocaust was a unique case of genocide in History. It wasn't the only genocide that has been recorded and unfortunately it won't be the last.

Michael Shermer mentions that part of the revisionist theories regarding The Holocaust is the comparison of this genocide of unique nature to other genocides and he mentions Finkelstein as a striking example of this campaign.He doesn't say that he is a Holocaust denier and why should he? Finkelstein is not a Holocaust denier.

Compairing The Holocaust to other genocides is the nastiest part of a political agenda that AUP happens to embrace.

So,davefoc do you blame the Jews for not taking over the protection of the rest of the 6mil. victims? Don't you find that this is a bit unfair?

I do not think that people are unsympathetic, they are not obliged to be sympathetic, they are not obliged to like Jews either.

What I find repulsive and I will be honest with that is that the only thing that Unique cares about is the promotion of his political agenda.

Unique you don't have limits and I do not like that.


And what political agenda is that ? (genuine question)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
David Irving and friends have an agenda. I don't know what you think mine is. But you are certainly getting closer to one of Finkelsteins messages when you talk about comparing the Holocaust to other acts of genocide.

I don't know why you brought Irving in the discussion. Finkelstein is the most vocal in this comparison and it goes as far as quoting "his mother" for the comparison she makes between the Jews that have been annihilated and the Palestinians, don't pretend that you don't know of what I am talking about.

The Holocaust was unique. So was the actual, rather than attempted, genocide of the Tasmanian aboginals. And the Hutus vs Tutsis. All unique in their own terrible ways, all involving suffering beyond understanding of those not subject to these horrors.

This is the first time you admit that and yet you are not ready or willing to see the difference. To me a single person's suffering in a Turkish prison is the same with the suffering of a Jew in a camp. I do not scale suffering but there is a huge difference between those two conditions, this is what you do not wish to see.

Finkelstein is not saying that the Jews are obliged to take on board the others killed by the Nazis.

This is what he is saying along with many people here.

I think is interest is more in the appropriation by the 'industry' of the reparations, and generation of more reparations. Also the "canaries in the mine" view as promoted by Skeptic. That is, creating the impression that Jews suffered the most, and are always the first to be attacked, etc.

You insist in replying to me by referring to Skeptic although it's obvious that Skeptic and I do not share views in many issues.

What so ever, I repeat that I wouldn't object if Finkelstein was criticizing the way the reparations were handled but he doesn't criticize, he builts a conspiracy theory and to this conspiracy theory is that I object.

I was told when I was quite young that I was tactless, and I did not know the meaning of the word. As a certified computer nerd, I am not employed for my people skills, that is for sure.

I haven't realized that you participate in this community with the identity of the certified computer nerd...

Flo I think that I have answered to your question as well, if not let me know please.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Flo I think that I have answered to your question as well, if not let me know please.

Not quite.

I'm generally not impressed by the automatic accusations of "hidden political agenda" (usually an euphemism for antisemitism) that arise everytime someone questions the politics of Israel, sionist ideology, the questions of compensations (I'm not talking about restitution of what have been stolen: this should go without saying), etc. It reminds me of the same automatic accusations of racism foisted on anyone who doesn't approve the right to compensations for victims of the slave trade, colonisation, etc.

What I'd like to know is what precise "hidden political agenda" you ascribe to AUP, considering the fact you've written somewhere you didn't consider him an antisemite.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Flo


Not quite.

I'm generally not impressed by the automatic accusations of "hidden political agenda" (usually an euphemism for antisemitism) that arise everytime someone questions the politics of Israel, sionist ideology, the questions of compensations (I'm not talking about restitution of what have been stolen: this should go without saying), etc. It reminds me of the same automatic accusations of racism foisted on anyone who doesn't approve the right to compensations for victims of the slave trade, colonisation, etc.

What I'd like to know is what precise "hidden political agenda" you ascribe to AUP, considering the fact you've written somewhere you didn't consider him an antisemite.

I am generally not impressed and to tell you the truth I am rather bored with bubbles that confuse the criticism to the Israeli policy to antisemitism.

You will have to point to me the euphemisms of any sort you have found in my posts.

If people do not wish to be accussed of antisemitism they'd better not confuse Jews to Israel's policy and not embrace or advocate antisemitic theories and ideas also , they'd better condemn the rise of antisemitism in Europe if they care.

AUP agenda is not hidden at all. He compares The Holocaust to the oppression of the Palestinians in the occupied territories and this is an agenda that antisemites are pushing.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



AUP agenda is not hidden at all. He compares The Holocaust to the oppression of the Palestinians in the occupied territories and this is an agenda that antisemites are pushing.

Is that what I'm doing? That's news to me. Given that there are no gas chambers in Palestine or Israel, I don't think I am performing that comparison.

The act of genocide in the West Bank and Gaza that I am referring to is a much more humane one, that is, there is no policy of mass homicide in process.

There is a policy of creating ghettoes and destruction of culture, however. I believe this is all I have claimed. This is one step prior to a policy of actual killing. I don't believe it would ever come to a policy of mass killings. Such an act would cast Israel in the role of pariah and forever destroy any credibility or respect it has.

The only comparisons I have made to the Holocaust are to other acts of actual mass homicide. That is, Rwanda, Tasmania, the Gypsies.

[Cleopatra]

You know Unique, I thought that I inspired to you some kind of respect because I devote time in composing my messages to you and I try ( although I do not always succeed) not to troll.

All I ask in return is not to underestimate my intelligence and my efficiency in reading comprehension. You do compare the Palestinians to the victims of The Holocaust the same way Mr.Finkelstein does.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You know Unique, I thought that I inspired to you some kind of respect because I devote time in composing my messages to you and I try ( although I do not always succeed) not to troll.

All I ask in return is not to underestimate my intelligence and my efficiency in reading comprehension. You do compare the Palestinians to the victims of The Holocaust the same way Mr.Finkelstein does.

I can't recall doing that. I have certainly made the claim of genocide. Finkelstein does mention the Palestinians in passing in his book on the 'industry'. However, more in depth discussion of the actual palestinian issue is reserved for other books.

I would not try to underestimate your intelligence. Anyone who can master two languages is pretty smart in my book, more than two and you are a genius. However, I think you confuse my proficiency at word games with proficiency at the deeper subtlety you are accusing me of.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
If people do not wish to be accused of antisemitism they'd better not confuse Jews to Israel's policy and not embrace or advocate antisemitic theories and ideas also , they'd better condemn the rise of antisemitism in Europe if they care.

And how do you objectively determine what is an antisemitic theory or idea ? Ah, yes : if antisemites are using an argument, all users of said argument are de facto antisemites ... and of course, those who are not seen to denounce the rise of antisemitism (and not the rise of all forms of racism), or are questioning its real extent (re. your rather insulting rant about Europe some messages above), are too ...

[davefoc]

I just reread the chapters in Why People Believe Weird Things on the holocaust and couldn't find any mention of Finklestein.

There was a mention of a Julius Finklestein, but I don't think that had anything to do with the author in question.

I was curious as to what Shermer had to say about Finklestein. Could somebody provide a link or a direct quote?

[davefoc]

Cleopatra said
So,davefoc do you blame the Jews for not taking over the protection of the rest of the 6mil. victims? Don't you find that this is a bit unfair?


This, for me is a difficult and complicated question, and I am not sure I have any insight on it.

To some degree injured groups attempt to band together to apply unified pressure so as to achieve the most compensation possible. Like the victims of 9/11 banded together and achieved far larger compensations than other people who had suffered similar losses but who could muster less political power.

So blaming the Jewish establishment for acting in the way the leadership of other injured groups act is wrong unless you're going to criticize other orgainizations for trying to retrieve the maximum compensation for their members while not doing anything for others who have suffered similar losses.

Still, I think it would have been nice and perhaps beneficial to the Jewish cause if the compensation of Holocaust victims had been based more on the harm done than the ethnicity of the victims.

At any rate, I think my question was a reasonable one. What, for instance, compensation did the Gypsies get who had suffered in the holocaust? If the answer is not much at all, then my thought is that, yes, the Jewish leaders dealing with holocaust compensation should have considered non-Jewish victims with their advocacy.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by davefoc
I just reread the chapters in Why People Believe Weird Things on the holocaust and couldn't find any mention of Finklestein.

There was a mention of a Julius Finklestein, but I don't think that had anything to do with the author in question.

I was curious as to what Shermer had to say about Finklestein. Could somebody provide a link or a direct quote?

I think I understand Cleopatra's problem with him now. If I am right, she believes that Finkelstein is equating what is happening now in Palestien with what happened to the Jews in the Holocaust.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think I understand Cleopatra's problem with him now. If I am right, she believes that Finkelstein is equating what is happening now in Palestien with what happened to the Jews in the Holocaust.

Now if I make a comment about your efficiency in reading comprehension you will start complaining for my not respecting you or you will post a comment for my English.

What if I make a comment for your deliberatly twisting what I am saying? Nahhh we have been through this before.

You know, Orthodox Jews when they are " discussing" they pretend that they are listening but they don't. They are preparing their next answer to a question that none has posed to them...

I didn't know you have learned how to debate in a Orthodox Jewish Havra :)

In case you missed it Unique :

Cleopatra:

What so ever, I repeat that I wouldn't object if Finkelstein was criticizing the way the reparations were handled but he doesn't criticize, he builts a conspiracy theory and to this conspiracy theory is that I object.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



I didn't know you have learned how to debate in a Orthodox Jewish Havra :)




Almost as good, the Irish Catholic nuns. A force to be reckoned with. Blind faith, violence and ignorance.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Almost as good, the Irish Catholic nuns. A force to be reckoned with. Blind faith, violence and ignorance.

Come-on Unique. Time to move on. People have put behind them worse things than that.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Come-on Unique. Time to move on. People have put behind them worse things than that.

I have, you were just asking where I learned my debating skills.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Flo

And how do you objectively determine what is an antisemitic theory or idea ?

Is comparing Zionism to Nazism an antisemitic theory or not?


those who are not seen to denounce the rise of antisemitism (and not the rise of all forms of racism), or are questioning its real extent (re. your rather insulting rant about Europe some messages above), are too ...

I find interesting that you call "insulting rant" my mentioning the fact that attacks against Jews in Europe are in the heighest levels since WWII. Do you know that during the last year 2 out of 3 racial attacks in France were antisemitic in nature?

[Flo]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Is comparing Zionism to Nazism an antisemitic theory or not?

Comparing is not the same as likening, and depending on who does it, it can be antisemitic, or simple hyperbole denoting sheer ignorance (of history and the power of words), stupidity, or lack of logic rather than antisemitism.



I find interesting that you call "insulting rant" my mentioning the fact that attacks against Jews in Europe are in the heighest levels since WWII. Do you know that during the last year 2 out of 3 racial attacks in France were antisemitic in nature?

That's not what you did: you painted with a wide brush a portrait of Europe and Europeans that has nothing to do with reality, as Danish Dynamite said:

Sorry, but on which planet is this Europe you describe located? If you happen to refer to the Europe on this planet, perhaps you can justify these ridiculous claims. To my knowledge, there is no law here in Denmark requiring Jews to accept any of those things.

In addition, the majority of racially motivated attacks in France, albeit grossly underreported, are against Arabs. The recent trend of attacks against Jewish interests is closely followed by the authorities, the press, and all (a majority) of responsible citizens, and the Jewish representative have the ears of the government. Laws protecting (justly to my mind) the memory of victims of the Nazis from insults are still in full effect, to the fury of far-right groups who would like them repelled in the name of "freedom of speech". School curriculum is big on teaching kids - especially those from Magrehb countries - about the Shoah and trying to ensure it is neither forgotten nor distorted.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Flo

Comparing is not the same as likening, and depending on who does it, it can be antisemitic, or simple hyperbole denoting sheer ignorance (of history and the power of words), stupidity, or lack of logic rather than antisemitism.

"Depending who does it" ??? Weren't you the one who asked for objective determinations of antisemitic theories? What made you change your mind? Which are your criteria that dinstiguish stupidity and lack of logic from antisemitism?

Who told you that antisemitism is about knowledge and logic anyway.

And even if I accept that you are right are you willing to point to those that make the comparison that are idiots, ignorant, hyperbolic ( sic), or at least mistaken?

That's not what you did: you painted with a wide brush a portrait of Europe and Europeans that has nothing to do with reality

In addition, the majority of racially motivated attacks in France, albeit grossly underreported, are against Arabs. The recent trend of attacks against Jewish interests is closely followed by the authorities, the press, and all (a majority) of responsible citizens, and the Jewish representative have the ears of the government.

First of all, Danish Dynamite is in my ignore list I do not read his posts. Can you bring to me an official report that describes this trend you mention or it's just your observation? Personally I wouldn't mind if this is just your observation I just want to know.

When we read in reports that antisemitic violence in Europe is in its highest levels since WWII what I think about the bias of the Europeans against the Jews is of very little importance.

Can you deny the reports of Simon Weisenthal Centre? That is the question.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
"Depending who does it"

Of course, "depending who does it" ! When a minion of Le Pen does it, I'm sure it is antisemitic, given their biases and ideology. When an elderly Jewish lady or my aquaintance, survivor of a nazi camp, does it do I have to assume she is an antisemite ? When a kid has heard (from someone misinformed or harbouring bad intents) that "the methods of the Zionists against the Palestinian populations are similar to those of the Nazis" do I have to assume he is an antisemite and should I brand him so, or should I rather assume he is ill-informed and try to set him right ?

Who told you that antisemitism is about knowledge and logic anyway.

Opinions are all about knowledge and logic, more often than not More often than not, dislikes and hatred are fuelled by ignorance and illogism.

And even if I accept that you are right are you willing to point to those that make the comparison that are idiots, ignorant, hyperbolic ( sic), or at least mistaken?

Didn't I just do exactly that ? To be clear, I consider those who compare Zionism and nazism are either idiots, ignorants, careless, or in effect antisemites.


First of all, Danish Dynamite is in my ignore list I do not read his posts.

Your loss in this case.


Can you bring to me an official report that describes this trend you mention or it's just your observation? Personally I wouldn't mind if this is just your observation I just want to know.

My observation from my daily reading of French and Swiss press, as well as a number of other informations from official bodies and anti-racists agencies in both countries. Sorry, nothing specific.

When we read in reports that antisemitic violence in Europe is in its highest levels since WWII what I think about the bias of the Europeans against the Jews is of very little importance.

On the contrary, I consider that your perception of the level of antisemitic violence, as well as that of all Jews, IS important and has to be addressed. I'd be rather upset if it wasn't. From the actions of the French and Swiss authorities, I think I can say it is.

Can you deny the reports of Simon Weisenthal Centre? That is the question.

I don't deny the reporting of the facts, and they do worry me too. I deny the allegations that Europeans in their majority don't care or worse.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Flo

Of course, "depending who does it" ! When a minion of Le Pen does it, I'm sure it is antisemitic, given their biases and ideology. When an elderly Jewish lady or my aquaintance, survivor of a nazi camp, does it do I have to assume she is an antisemite ? When a kid has heard (from someone misinformed or harbouring bad intents) that "the methods of the Zionists against the Palestinian populations are similar to those of the Nazis" do I have to assume he is an antisemite and should I brand him so, or should I rather assume he is ill-informed and try to set him right ?

Well, to be totally honest the only elder lady I have heard that she has made this comparison is Finkelstein's mother. I am in touch with the elder people of the jewish communities of Athens and Salonika and although the majority of people are antizionists they have never, ever, compared Zionism to Nazism.

If a kid believes that Nazism is equal to Zionism then it has been subjected to antisemitic propaganda.

You can blame Zionism for many many things but it's ... how shall I say it, it's sad to compare Zionism with Nazism. It's unhuman.

Opinions are all about knowledge and logic, more often than not More often than not, dislikes and hatred are fuelled by ignorance and illogism.

I do not disagree with that


Didn't I just do exactly that ? To be clear, I consider those who compare Zionism and nazism are either idiots, ignorants, careless, or in effect antisemites.

Sorry, I didn't realize it, I apologize.

Your loss in this case.

Ah no! It's not personal at all, it's just that our conversations contributed very little to this forum.


My observation from my daily reading of French and Swiss press, as well as a number of other informations from official bodies and anti-racists agencies in both countries. Sorry, nothing specific.

Ok, your observations are enough for me and I do not question them. Has it occured to you that the antisemitic violence is more increased than the already increased violence against the Arabs? Just a thought.

On the contrary, I consider that your perception of the level of antisemitic violence, as well as that of all Jews, IS important and has to be addressed. I'd be rather upset if it wasn't. From the actions of the French and Swiss authorities, I think I can say it is.

Tomorrow the Palestinian Establishment is celebrating the outbreak of the second Indifanda, in Greece they are celebrating the "International Day against the Jewish crimes", in the rest of Europe Synagogues are burnt, cemetaries are vandalized, I appreciate the official concerns but I cannot feel but deep sadness about those events.

I don't deny the reporting of the facts, and they do worry me too. I deny the allegations that Europeans in their majority don't care or worse.

Those that they care blame antisemitism to the Israeli policy and the side-effects of Zionism and this is not a right way to address the problem. Antisemitism is deep rooted in Europe and has a long historical background. It didn't appear yesterday.

[Cleopatra]

Hi davefoc, I didn't reply immedietely because I wanted to think over your post.


Originally posted by davefoc


To some degree injured groups attempt to band together to apply unified pressure so as to achieve the most compensation possible. Like the victims of 9/11 banded together and achieved far larger compensations than other people who had suffered similar losses but who could muster less political power.

The victims of 11/9 were citizens of the same country, this wasn't possible for the victims of The Holocaust, even Jews acted as citizens of different countries. Also, have another important thing in mind. It's the Jewish struggle for compensations that "taught" the world how such experiences should be treated. We keep learning davefoc, back in the 50ies people didn't have the experience we currently have.

Still, I think it would have been nice and perhaps beneficial to the Jewish cause if the compensation of Holocaust victims had been based more on the harm done than the ethnicity of the victims.

At any rate, I think my question was a reasonable one. What, for instance, compensation did the Gypsies get who had suffered in the holocaust? If the answer is not much at all, then my thought is that, yes, the Jewish leaders dealing with holocaust compensation should have considered non-Jewish victims with their advocacy.

As you have already understood this is the part of your message that put me into thoughts. Putting the legalistic aspect of the issue aside ( this wouldn't be possible legally speaking) and a couple of "technical" difficulties ( before WWII gypsies weren't official citizens of any country) you expected the majority of victims to take care of the rest of the world.

Capel Dodger, expected the Jews to prefer to die rather than become something else ( zionists) you expected the Jews to talk on behalf of all the victims of the Holocaust.

I wonder if both of you are right to expect that much from the specific group of people, I guess I have to think about it, in the mean time the only thing I have to reply to both of you is that the next time we will have those observations in mind and I am sure that the future survivors will do better than our grandparents did; please don't reply that there won't be another time because you will have History against you.

edited to correct a huge grammatical mistake

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

edited to correct a huge grammatical mistake

Don't worry, we like them.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Well, to be totally honest the only elder lady I have heard that she has made this comparison is Finkelstein's mother. I am in touch with the elder people of the jewish communities of Athens and Salonika and although the majority of people are antizionists they have never, ever, compared Zionism to Nazism.

The lady I'm referring to lives in Geneva. I met her in a rally at the start of the current intifada, where Palestinians and Jews were together protesting the actions of Sharon and Co. They would meet every Fridays in the center of town, vowing to continue until the situation got a bit more "human". I stopped seeing her, and attending those rallies, when the Palestinian/Arab side started monopolizing the protest and justifying the unjustifiable ...

If a kid believes that Nazism is equal to Zionism then it has been subjected to antisemitic propaganda.

Or to such a lady's tirade, that he is not informed enough to analyze properly ...

You can blame Zionism for many many things but it's ... how shall I say it, it's sad to compare Zionism with Nazism. It's unhuman.

It is, alas, absolutely human, and on the same foot to what every society has done in order to justify its biases towards another.

Ok, your observations are enough for me and I do not question them. Has it occured to you that the antisemitic violence is more increased than the already increased violence against the Arabs? Just a thought.

Yes and no. I think it is more obvious, and that there is a better network to report and denounce it. However, the basic level of resentment against Arabs isn't counterbalanced by any sense of the outrage that have been committed against them (think: Algeria), as for the Jewish community, and the violence against them will continue long after it diminishes against the Jews.


Jewish crimes",

Never heard of this one, and I thing it would cause a public uproar and an automatic prosecution in France and Switzerland, under the "public incitation to racist and antisemitic discrimination" laws.


in the rest of Europe Synagogues are burnt, cemetaries are vandalized, I appreciate the official concerns but I cannot feel but deep sadness about those events.

And Mosque are defiled, refugees are beaten or stabbed, etc, ad nauseam. I share your sadness at all this imbecility and cruelty.



. Antisemitism is deep rooted in Europe and has a long historical background. It didn't appear yesterday. [/B]

True. But so is the fight against discriminations.

[davefoc]

Just a link to an article about the Gypsies and the Holocaust that perhaps somebody might find of interest
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/gypsy-holo.html

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by davefoc
Just a link to an article about the Gypsies and the Holocaust that perhaps somebody might find of interest
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/gypsy-holo.html

Amazing!

I wonder if this means that pikeys have a "right of return" to Israel as well?

pikey
""pie key"" Click once to rate this definition: (votes: 92)

Prounounced "Pikey" or in it's simplified form, "Tosser", Pikey is an age old breed of illiterate evil that is found infesting many towns and/or fields in Southern England. They are often to be found in 24 hour Tescos at early hours of the morning, accompanied by bleached slappers whom they met whilst serving in their dad's Kebab van. They take pleasure in insulting elderly checkout ladies which they believe will enhance their image as "'ard bastards". Pikey is believed to have washed up on Essex and Kent shores. It is a little known fact they wiped out most of the settled Norman invaders in the late 1100s, using simple metal tools such as car wheel jacks, which is the reason they have a stranglehold in the South. Unfortunately, since the 1980s, their reach has extended to include East Anglia, which is now experiencing unprecedented levels of lawnmower stealing and reports of many offers to gravel your driveway.

If you have adidas striped trousers in combination with a speech impediment and think yer a hard geeza, you may actually be a pikey.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by davefoc
Just a link to an article about the Gypsies and the Holocaust that perhaps somebody might find of interest
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/gypsy-holo.html


You know davefoc, Finkelsteins of the world would never devote time and energy to defend gypsies or even the German citizens that they were victims of the Holocaust.

Why? Because they are eager to create their Holocaust industry which is the only industry that one can talk about with certainty....

[demon]

Finkelstein taking out more trash.

It's a pity they didn't transcribe the remainder of the show, because Dershowitz's rationalisations about the Benny Morris reference are particularly pathetic. Still, Finkelstein has now put the plagiarisms from Joan Peters in Dershowitz's latest piece of tat in table form, so y'all can see:

What if a Harvard Student did this?

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id141.htm

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



You know davefoc, Finkelsteins of the world would never devote time and energy to defend gypsies or even the German citizens that they were victims of the Holocaust.

Why? Because they are eager to create their Holocaust industry which is the only industry that one can talk about with certainty....

That is a baseless assertion. He has in fact suffered a lot because of his views, and been sacked from his college for being too controversial.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Amazing!

I wonder if this means that pikeys have a "right of return" to Israel as well?



Rick, you are priceless. Picking on those trash the 'pikeys'.

[a_unique_person]

Now, the question, as least as far as Cleopatra is concerned, is if Finkelstein is just attacking Jews.

From what I can see, he isn't. He definitely attacks what he calls the 'industry'. However, he does not seem to be attacking Jews in general. I have seen no evidence of that.

[DanishDynamite]

Cleopatra:First of all, Danish Dynamite is in my ignore list I do not read his posts. :confused: Apparently I must have said something to upset Cleo. Odd how some people can dish it out, but can't see the log in their own eye....
This is Europe, Unique, and Jews and people of Israeli origin are expected to behave in a different way.

They are expected to laugh at racist humor (" Hey! It's only a joke" ) , they are expected not to protest when Synagogues are burnt, they are expected not to protest when somebody compaires the Middle Eastern conflict to the Holocaust, they are expected to tolerate the wild festivities of admiration towards Arafat, they are expected to accept the myth about the political wing of Hamas.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Now, the question, as least as far as Cleopatra is concerned, is if Finkelstein is just attacking Jews.

From what I can see, he isn't. He definitely attacks what he calls the 'industry'. However, he does not seem to be attacking Jews in general. I have seen no evidence of that.

If an unkind woman, I'd say that you are trolling again but instead I am asking you to read again what I have said.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


If an unkind woman, I'd say that you are trolling again but instead I am asking you to read again what I have said.

Damm, you are accusing me of trolling again, but I am seriously trying to find out exactly what you don't like about Finkelstein.

Can you please spell it out again, in words of three syllables or less, for an elderly man with dyed hair and failing memory, just what you object to.

PS.

You did attack 'Europeans' in general when you attacked DD. No one is denying that the 'humour' in your paper was not acceptable, but it was not anything connected with DD, so he was right to pull you up on it, even if he maybe did do it a little too strongly.

Also, should I be laying into Rickzilla for his derogatory reference to Pikeys. It was a racist statement that ranks up there with the best of Jedi Knight.

[Cleopatra]

I have stated many times why I object to Finkelstein, I know that it's part of elderly men's methods to pose a question over and over in order to exhaust their victims...

Go away!

The last elderly man that attempted to apply this method to me follows this discussion from an Internet Cafe in Hell right now...

I didn't attack Danish Dynamite. How can I attack somebody that I have in my ignore list? I didn't even refer to his name.

Unique... Don't tell me that you are jealous of Danish Dynamite because he has managed to piss me off that much. Don't take it as a personal failure Unique. You piss me off as well but in a different way, in fact in your absurdity and provocations I have found a spring of inspiration and courage to continue posting about this subject. You have driven many people crazy but moi ! http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/love/kissa.gif


Now.
I didn't attack Europeans I mentioned some facts! The Middle East is on fire and the Council of the Ministers was discussing about the " Political Wing" of Hamas, from Christ sake Unique such a thing doesn't exist. Abu Mazen was the PM and European leaders were meeting Arafat behind his back.

I have had enough with the hypocricy of Europe on this matter, that's all.

edited to correct some of the typos you adore so much...

[Flo]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Now.
I didn't attack Europeans I mentioned some facts! The Middle East is on fire and the Council of the Ministers was discussing about the " Political Wing" of Hamas, from Christ sake Unique such a thing doesn't exist. Abu Mazen was the PM and European leaders were meeting Arafat behind his back.

I have had enough with the hypocricy of Europe on this matter, that's all.

No dear, you DID attack Europeans by implying they condone antisemitism and support antisemites. Read what you wrote and substitute "black Africans" for Jews, and Greeks for Europeans (Greeks have a reputation of being racists among Africans ...) and ask yourself if you could take this without reacting.

BTW, what you call hypocrisy is called in political circles "pragmatism": you have sometimes to pretend things exist that you know do not (e.g. that there is a political wing to IRA, ETA, Corsica lib. front, Hamas, etc.) in order to try to identify someone who still has some functionnal brain cells and could be negociated with to stop the madness.

[Cleopatra]

Flo

I have never hidden what I believe about Europeans. They do condone antisemitism.

I don't understand why you call political pragmatism discussions about the non-existing political wing of Hamas or the burning of Synagogues.

Could you be kind enough to show me this political wing of Hamas, its leaders, its political views, etc ?

Who is the person that represents Hamas and wants to end this madness? What is his name?

[Cleopatra]

Flo, do you mean him (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030925/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_822) ?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Flo

I have never hidden what I believe about Europeans. They do condone antisemitism.

I don't understand why you call political pragmatism discussions about the non-existing political wing of Hamas or the burning of Synagogues.

Could you be kind enough to show me this political wing of Hamas, its leaders, its political views, etc ?

Who is the person that represents Hamas and wants to end this madness? What is his name?

But that's just like saying all Jews like being anti-Palestinian.

[Cleopatra]

Well if you try to suggest Unique that all Jews worldwide are anti-Palestinians you will have some difficulties to prove it.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Flo

I have never hidden what I believe about Europeans. They do condone antisemitism.

That's what you choose to believe, and a gross generalisation, too. As a European, I do resent the insult.

I don't understand why you call political pragmatism discussions about the non-existing political wing of Hamas or the burning of Synagogues.

Could you be kind enough to show me this political wing of Hamas, its leaders, its political views, etc ?

Who is the person that represents Hamas and wants to end this madness? What is his name?


Cleo, Cleo, Cleo ... I expect better from you than playing this kind of little words games. You know full well that the burning of Synagogues is the fact of a minority of far-right and muslim fanatic extremists, not an everyday occurence sanctionned by the whole population and political establishment of Europe. You know as well that the European population and policital establishment, on the whole, does regard Hamas as scum, Arafat as unreliable and past his sell-by date (and probably somewhate gaga), but unfortunately inavoidable interlocutors for the time being.

Shouting "antisemite" at every single person who is willing to (try to) talk sense with your ennemies is no way to advance your cause.

I was not precisely referring to Yassin (a nasty piece of work who I wish would soon do the best thing in his life: dying in his bed), but to anyone in Hamas with enough sense to be talked into condoning a more humane and intelligent course of action.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Flo


That's what you choose to believe, and a gross generalisation, too. As a European, I do resent the insult.

I do understand your feelings.

Cleo, Cleo, Cleo ... I expect better from you than playing this kind of little words games. You know full well that the burning of Synagogues is the fact of a minority of far-right and muslim fanatic extremists, not an everyday occurence sanctionned by the whole population and political establishment of Europe. You know as well that the European population and policital establishment, on the whole, does regard Hamas as scum, Arafat as unreliable and past his sell-by date (and probably somewhate gaga), but unfortunately inavoidable interlocutors for the time being.

Well, Flo, I think that you will agree that it's quite embarassing for a continent with such an antisemitic past, a continent that witnessed a unique kind of genocide only 50 years earlier to experience again a dramatic increase in racist violence against its Jewish citizens.

The genocide 50 years ago started by a minority of extremist wackos...

In Europe, only on Saturday they were protesting for the Jewish crimes against Humanity... they deliberately confusing the jews with the Israelis and I call this antisemitism. They attempt to implicate a whole group of people around the world with the policy that a part of them applies in their country, I can see nothing but malice in that.

Also, what I know very well is that EU was part of the Road map Plan and knew very well that the success of this plan was based on Abu Mazen's success as a PM of the Palestinians.

What I know is that European Leaders chose to undermine Mazen in order not to distrurb Yasser Arafat the one you say that they consider a scum.

Also I know is that in a period when Hamas has showen its most fierce face in Europe we have invented the Political Wing of Hamas.... Right!

Also, what I have discovered by discussing in message boards is a complete ignorance for the attrocities performed by the Palestinian Authority. if you believe what you read when it comes to the Middle Eastern conflict it takes one to tango...

Shouting "antisemite" at every single person who is willing to (try to) talk sense with your ennemies is no way to advance your cause.

Personally I shout "antisemite" to those that confuse Israelis with Jews because I know where they are heading at.

I was not precisely referring to Yassin (a nasty piece of work who I wish would soon do the best thing in his life: dying in his bed), but to anyone in Hamas with enough sense to be talked into condoning a more humane and intelligent course of action.

Well, Hamas wasn't established in order to defend the right of the Palestinians to have a country as PLO did. Hamas was established just to destroy Israel.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
In Europe, only on Saturday they were protesting for the Jewish crimes against Humanity... they deliberately confusing the jews with the Israelis and I call this antisemitism. They attempt to implicate a whole group of people around the world with the policy that a part of them applies in their country, I can see nothing but malice in that.

Who "they" ? Where, how many people attended, what government agencies supported that "protest" ?

You are here "attempting to implicate a whole groupe of people with the policy a part of them applies". Don't you see how it undermines your attitude of offended righteousness ?

Do you really believe no European is aware of how it all started that led to the extermination camps ?

Also, what I know very well is that EU was part of the Road map Plan and knew very well that the success of this plan was based on Abu Mazen's success as a PM of the Palestinians.

What I know is that European Leaders chose to undermine Mazen in order not to distrurb Yasser Arafat the one you say that they consider a scum.

and what you seem not to know is that from the start Europeans knew this plan was deeply flawed, in part because Arafat wasn't going to play the game (what politician, anywhere in the world, would accept being ousted by a foreign power ?), in part because Abu Mazen's chances of success were zilch to begin with (no support from the population, hence more influence for the Hamas), in part because Sharon wasn't going to help calm things down either. All this means that Europeans reckoned that Arafat, and the Hamas, would still be part of the game for a while longer, and had unfortunately to be taken into account.


Also I know is that in a period when Hamas has showen its most fierce face in Europe we have invented the Political Wing of Hamas.... Right!

Stop with the "invented". There is a political side to any armed group, however despicable. As long as there is a chance to turn to talks instead of bombs, there are reasons to maintain the somewhat fictitious idea that someone, somewhere, might be amenable to talk. Think of Liberia: 2 factions intent on destroying the other, killing and maiming the population in the process. Nobody is advocating to stop talking to any of them, since it is the only way, short of killing every single of them (and that's not what you advocate is being done to the Hamas and the Palestinians who support it, do you ?), every would-be mediators in the conflict accept there is a "political wing" to those armies of thugs.

You react extremely emotionnally to considering members of Hamas as human beings (although I concede they are very wicked ones) because of the specific circumstances surrounding the birth of Israel, and the persecutions the Jews went through, which I can perfectly understand.


Also, what I have discovered by discussing in message boards is a complete ignorance for the attrocities performed by the Palestinian Authority. if you believe what you read when it comes to the Middle Eastern conflict it takes one to tango...

Oh, come on ! "a complete ignorance" indeed ... :rolleyes:
Palestinian authority is no different in this regard than quite a number of its counterparts all around the third World. What makes their crimes special is the fact that you can use them as a further argument to justify not talking to them ...



Personally I shout "antisemite" to those that confuse Israelis with Jews because I know where they are heading at.

No, you don't know, you fear that it does ... legitimate, but not the same as knowing, and a slippery slide. "Peasants" slide easily from being branded something to acting this very something. Be more careful with the way you apply qualifiers.


Well, Hamas wasn't established in order to defend the right of the Palestinians to have a country as PLO did. Hamas was established just to destroy Israel.

True. However unpalatable, it does exist and must be taken into account if any kind of solution is to be found. It won't disappear overnight just because Europeans could be persuaded to stop addressing it.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Flo


Who "they" ? Where, how many people attended, what government agencies supported that "protest" ?

You are here "attempting to implicate a whole groupe of people with the policy a part of them applies". Don't you see how it undermines your attitude of offended righteousness ?

Do you really believe no European is aware of how it all started that led to the extermination camps ?



and what you seem not to know is that from the start Europeans knew this plan was deeply flawed, in part because Arafat wasn't going to play the game (what politician, anywhere in the world, would accept being ousted by a foreign power ?), in part because Abu Mazen's chances of success were zilch to begin with (no support from the population, hence more influence for the Hamas), in part because Sharon wasn't going to help calm things down either. All this means that Europeans reckoned that Arafat, and the Hamas, would still be part of the game for a while longer, and had unfortunately to be taken into account.




Stop with the "invented". There is a political side to any armed group, however despicable. As long as there is a chance to turn to talks instead of bombs, there are reasons to maintain the somewhat fictitious idea that someone, somewhere, might be amenable to talk. Think of Liberia: 2 factions intent on destroying the other, killing and maiming the population in the process. Nobody is advocating to stop talking to any of them, since it is the only way, short of killing every single of them (and that's not what you advocate is being done to the Hamas and the Palestinians who support it, do you ?), every would-be mediators in the conflict accept there is a "political wing" to those armies of thugs.

You react extremely emotionnally to considering members of Hamas as human beings (although I concede they are very wicked ones) because of the specific circumstances surrounding the birth of Israel, and the persecutions the Jews went through, which I can perfectly understand.




Oh, come on ! "a complete ignorance" indeed ... :rolleyes:
Palestinian authority is no different in this regard than quite a number of its counterparts all around the third World. What makes their crimes special is the fact that you can use them as a further argument to justify not talking to them ...





No, you don't know, you fear that it does ... legitimate, but not the same as knowing, and a slippery slide. "Peasants" slide easily from being branded something to acting this very something. Be more careful with the way you apply qualifiers.




True. However unpalatable, it does exist and must be taken into account if any kind of solution is to be found. It won't disappear overnight just because Europeans could be persuaded to stop addressing it.

Hello Flo,
Always good to read your posts.
Just wish you would post more...
:)

[Mycroft]

This thread seems to have strayed a bit, but I found this that relates to the origional topic.

An enemy of the people

Norman Finkelstein's book shows him as a Jew who doesn't like Jews

Jonathan Freedland
Friday July 14, 2000

Perhaps he thought the sky would fall in. Perhaps Norman Finkelstein imagined
his “explosive” new polemic, The Holocaust Industry, serialised in the
Guardian, would drive the Jewish world crazy with fury. Maybe he is a little
disappointed that, in Britain at least, that hasn’t happened yet.
But there is good reason. For though Finkelstein likes to cast himself as the
brave prophet, nobly confronting his wayward people with a truth only he dare
tell, his claims are not nearly as shocking to Jews as he would like to
imagine. Indeed, the chief questions he raises have been at the heart of
Jewish debate for at least a decade. So he tells us that the Holocaust should
not be treated as a sacred mystery, impervious to human inquiry - and that
its lessons must be applied to genocide and suffering the world over. Most
Jews accepted that long ago. More controversially, he insists that the
Holocaust is not unique - as if unaware that a debate has long raged on this
very question.
Some insist that the Shoah did indeed witness an unprecedented convergence of
state bureaucratic power and modern technology in a systematic,
industrialised attempt to extinguish an entire people. Others counsel against
“hierarchies of oppression,” in which Jews claim first place in an Olympic
games of world suffering. It is a loud, important debate - but it did not
begin with Norman Finkelstein.
The same goes for the “memory” industry, the abundance of museums, films,
books and conferences commemorating the Holocaust. Finkelstein is no pioneer
here either. Indeed it was a former Israeli foreign minister, Abba Eban, who
first quipped that “There’s no business like Shoah business” (a trade,
incidentally, which this latest book has now joined).
Thoughtful Jews have been questioning for a while the wisdom of making the
Holocaust the centre of Jewish identity. Peter Novick’s landmark book, The
Holocaust in American Life, makes this case far more powerfully than
Finkelstein. He offers a moving plea for today’s Jews to define themselves as
a people with a rich, vibrant culture - rather than as a ghost-nation, a
walking version of the corpses of Auschwitz and Treblinka.
Novick is just as appalled by Holocaust theme parks and Auschwitz tourism as
Finkelstein. But there’s a crucial difference - which explains why Novick’s
book was welcomed for posing some awkward but necessary questions, while
Finkelstein’s has been dismissed or condemned. Novick wrote as a Jew,
concerned that his fellow Jews were taking a path that could only end in
harm. This new book has none of that sensitivity or human empathy - surely
prerequisites of any meaningful debate about the Holocaust. It asks some
legitimate questions, among them whether the Shoah was used unfairly to
immunise Israel from criticism. But it reads like a rant, with splenetic
attacks on individuals, many of them survivors, and vast generalisations
about the whole of world Jewry.
In a telephone call to Brooklyn yesterday, I asked Finkelstein why he
reserved his most scathing language for his fellow Jews - much harsher than
any words he had for the Nazis themselves. “If I was writing a book about the
Nazis, I’m sure I’d use scathing language about them,” he said, rather
feebly. It is perhaps too easy to write off a critic like Finkelstein as a
self-hating Jew, but it is striking to hear someone who appears to have
nothing but contempt for his own people. He issues the same call sent out by
David Irving in the high court this year - that Jews should not simply
condemn anti-semitism, but examine their own role in provoking it. Like
Irving, Finkelstein sees Jews as the authors of their own suffering. He
claims that Jews have made up stories of persecution and that there are too
many survivors to be true - another Irving favourite. In fact, what this
claim amounts to is the fair statement that Jews expanded their definition of
survivor to mean not just those who were held in camps, but those who fled or
hid from the Nazis. But to put it like that would be to give Jews the benefit
of the doubt. And Finkelstein, like Irving, is not in that game.
Besides the animus and the vitriol, there is a subtler way in which
Finkelstein does the anti-semites’ work for them. He constructs an elaborate
conspiracy theory, in which the Jews were pushed from apathy to obsession
about the Holocaust by a corrupt Jewish leadership bent on building
international support for Israel. He has no truck with the idea that Jews
might themselves have changed their attitude to the Shoah, for a complex
range of reasons. Instead Jews are mere sheep, pushed around by a wicked
Jewish elite.
Finkelstein sees the Jews as either villains or victims - and that, I fear,
takes him closer to the people who created the Holocaust than to those who
suffered in it.

[a_unique_person]

Perhaps he thought the sky would fall in. Perhaps Norman Finkelstein imagined his “explosive” new polemic, The Holocaust Industry, serialised in the Guardian, would drive the Jewish world crazy with fury. Maybe he is a little disappointed that, in Britain at least, that hasn’t happened yet.

[/b]

That does in fact seem to be the reaction.



But there is good reason. For though Finkelstein likes to cast himself as the brave prophet, nobly confronting his wayward people with a truth only he dare tell, his claims are not nearly as shocking to Jews as he would like to imagine. Indeed, the chief questions he raises have been at the heart of Jewish debate for at least a decade. So he tells us that the Holocaust should not be treated as a sacred mystery, impervious to human inquiry - and that its lessons must be applied to genocide and suffering the world over. Most Jews accepted that long ago. More controversially, he insists that the Holocaust is not unique - as if unaware that a debate has long raged on this very question.
Some insist that the Shoah did indeed witness an unprecedented convergence of state bureaucratic power and modern technology in a systematic, industrialised attempt to extinguish an entire people. Others counsel against “hierarchies of oppression,” in which Jews claim first place in an Olympic games of world suffering. It is a loud, important debate - but it did not begin with Norman Finkelstein.



It is interesting that the debate is allowed to be an internal one only. Any external debate brings shame up him. While this internal debate is going on, the external 'Industry' is allowed to proceed unmolested.



The same goes for the “memory” industry, the abundance of museums, films, books and conferences commemorating the Holocaust. Finkelstein is no pioneer here either. Indeed it was a former Israeli foreign minister, Abba Eban, who first quipped that “There’s no business like Shoah business” (a trade, incidentally, which this latest book has now joined).



So, he cannot comment on the topic?



Thoughtful Jews have been questioning for a while the wisdom of making the Holocaust the centre of Jewish identity. Peter Novick’s landmark book, The Holocaust in American Life, makes this case far more powerfully than Finkelstein. He offers a moving plea for today’s Jews to define themselves as a people with a rich, vibrant culture - rather than as a ghost-nation, a walking version of the corpses of Auschwitz and Treblinka.



IIRC, Finkelstein does refer to such books, and provides references when he does. If he does it better, then just say it.



Novick is just as appalled by Holocaust theme parks and Auschwitz tourism as Finkelstein. But there’s a crucial difference - which explains why Novick’s book was welcomed for posing some awkward but necessary questions, while Finkelstein’s has been dismissed or condemned. Novick wrote as a Jew, concerned that his fellow Jews were taking a path that could only end in harm. This new book has none of that sensitivity or human empathy - surely prerequisites of any meaningful debate about the Holocaust. It asks some legitimate questions, among them whether the Shoah was used unfairly to immunise Israel from criticism. But it reads like a rant, with splenetic attacks on individuals, many of them survivors, and vast generalisations about the whole of world Jewry.



I asked Cleopatra if his tone was one of her problems with the book. She said it wasn't.



In a telephone call to Brooklyn yesterday, I asked Finkelstein why he reserved his most scathing language for his fellow Jews - much harsher than any words he had for the Nazis themselves. “If I was writing a book about the Nazis, I’m sure I’d use scathing language about them,” he said, rather feebly.



Feebly? Right at the start of the book, Finklestein says he is discussing the Holocaust Industry and not the Nazi Holocaust.



It is perhaps too easy to write off a critic like Finkelstein as a self-hating Jew, but it is striking to hear someone who appears to have nothing but contempt for his own people. He issues the same call sent out by David Irving in the high court this year - that Jews should not simply condemn anti-semitism, but examine their own role in provoking it. Like Irving, Finkelstein sees Jews as the authors of their own suffering. He claims that Jews have made up stories of persecution and that there are too many survivors to be true - another Irving favourite. In fact, what this claim amounts to is the fair statement that Jews expanded their definition of survivor to mean not just those who were held in camps, but those who fled or hid from the Nazis. But to put it like that would be to give Jews the benefit of the doubt. And Finkelstein, like Irving, is not in that game.



Freedland refers ealier to Novick.



But there’s a crucial difference - which explains why Novick’s book was welcomed for posing some awkward but necessary questions, while Finkelstein’s has been dismissed or condemned. Novick wrote as a Jew, concerned that his fellow Jews were taking a path that could only end in harm.



To equate Finkelstein to Irving is a pretty serious charge, one that is not supported for me. Finkelstein does in fact address directly the issue of what constitutes a survivor. For him, the issue is, besides the frauds out there, the need to expand the definition. A survivor was once literally that, a survivor of a concentration camp or similar institution. Not surprisingly, there weren't that many of them. Over time, the number of survivors has been changed to increase from about 100,000 to about 1,000,000. The only problem with this is, the Nazis were hunting, persecuting and killing many people in Europe during the war, not just Jews. The Jews and a few other minorities were singled out for the concentration camps, but bad treatment at the hands of the Nazis was pretty widespread.



Besides the animus and the vitriol, there is a subtler way in which
Finkelstein does the anti-semites’ work for them. He constructs an elaborate conspiracy theory, in which the Jews were pushed from apathy to obsession about the Holocaust by a corrupt Jewish leadership bent on building international support for Israel. He has no truck with the idea that Jews might themselves have changed their attitude to the Shoah, for a complex range of reasons. Instead Jews are mere sheep, pushed around by a wicked Jewish elite.



I don't know that the Jews in general have been pushed around in such a way, nor do I see any evidence that Finkelstein claims this.

[b]

Finkelstein sees the Jews as either villains or victims - and that, I fear, takes him closer to the people who created the Holocaust than to those who suffered in it.


Finkelstein, IIRC, attacks the Industry and those he sees as the protagonists of it. I don't recall any attempt to cast Jews as either victims or villains.

So in summary.

Freedman agrees that Jews need to be wary of those abusing the Holocaust memory, need to be aware that doing so can have negative repurcussions, and that there are many Jews who question the wisdom of making it out to be a distinctly unique event in history, that no other act of genocide compares to.

His real problem with Finkelstein appears to be the tone of the book, and does not once disagree any facts from the book, but agrees with some of them.