I would especially recomment reading the lancet article..
Thanks for the standwithus link and copying of the flyer into your response, you must of broken a finger nail, which is what anti-free speech groups like standwithus wouldn't want to happen, they offer all the bullshit hyprocitcrical propaganda at zionist fingertips. For a liberal zionist I guess it isn't beyond you citing a right wing zionist propanganda group that writes Nakba in quotes (a blatant denial of Palestinian history) and who recruit their members to sit in on any person, group, organzation that's critical of israel in any way. At one of Makdisi's last talks, and they try to do with this on all campuses, they distributed a list of questions:
Makdisi's twitter entry: Standwithus, the crudest US Zionist group, has distributed a list of questions they want their hooligans to ask me at a talk next week.
And have also been proven to be fabricators by another jewish group:
Their laughable twitter entries go something like Are settlements an obstacles to peace? and have made staments oh their website like "there is no humanatarian crisis in Gaza."
In their flyer, which I am sure was ciruculated among the most discerning of groups, tremendously editorializes, provides mostly idf sources and a nytimes source, which I searched for in the archives section given the date and keywords, and I came up with nothing, and that is more than enough attention i can give this delusional comic group that criticizes israeli "moderates" like you claim to be.
On the lancet article, first of all, I question the "viewpoint," (the name of this section of lancet) of the idf doctor, Sami Viskin, who from the opening paragraph seems too proud of his post in the occupying army, as someone stated in a letter to the lancet:
"Viskin's article is in stark contrast to your April 26 Editorial (p 1399),4 which addresses the legal and humanitarian responsibilities of occupying powers, in particular in Iraq. The same rules hold for the Israeli occupying forces in the West Bank and Gaza; collective punishment is expressly prohibited. Yet how else can the mass destruction of homes in the West Bank and Gaza by the Israeli occupation forces be explained?2 How else can the destruction of 17·5 km2 of arable land in Gaza be accounted for?... I believe Viskin is naive to think that his integrity as a cardiologist remains untarnished when he wears his military uniform. Perhaps he should spend less time defending the politically self-righteous and more time caring for the poor, oppressed, and dispossessed." http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance ... 40-6736(03)13828-7/fulltext
After he pats himself on the back for helping a Palestinian woman, he goes onto say that he had countless encounters with Palestinian ambulances, BUT then also claims that these abmulances have been "repeatedly" used to transport combatants and weapons. Wouldn't Dr.idf have come across a combatant or weapon himself on one of these encounters if they "repeatedly" have been used to transfer militants and weapons?
From Viskin in his viewpoint in the lancet:
I would later read in disbelief what the press classified as the indiscriminate firing at Palestinian ambulances by Israeli soldiers.That is not what I saw. The guidelines of the IDF are straightforward: Palestinian ambulances must be allowed freedom of passage to zones of conflict unless there is evidence that they are being used to transport military equipment. These guidelines are orders from the General Command of the IDF (as testified by the Command Secretary in an official response to an inquiry by the Israel Medical Association).3 In fact, these are the same orders I heard when working in the field.Unfortunately, Palestinian ambulances were repeatedly used to transport combatants and weapons, prompting the IDF to send an official protest to the International RedCross on May 2, 2002.4 The communication included reports of terrorists who were disguised as being wounded and transported in ambulances of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (the local form of the International RedCross) in attempts to evade the IDF. Also, flagrant abuse of medical accreditation by Palestinian terrorists was reported on January 27, 2002, after a terrorist bombing indowntown Jerusalem. Both the female suicide terrorist (Wafa Idris), and the attack coordinators (Mohammed Hababa and Munzar Noor) worked for the Palestinian Red Crescent Society.
No, he has to reference the idf forces who before this March "discovery" have been admonished by human rights organizations to stop attacking amublances, shortly before March 27 2002, when the vest was "discovered"
Human Rights Watch, March 9, 2002:
"Human Rights Watch today called on the Israeli government to instruct soldiers to immediately refrain from attacking medical personnel in the West Bank and Gaza. During the past week, at least three ambulances have been fired upon, three ambulance staff have died, and nine other medical personnel have been injured.
Btselem stated that before March 27, that it has become almost routine for idf to shoot at ambulances:
Firing at Ambulances and Medical Staff
Since the beginning of the al-Aqsa intifada, B’Tselem has documented cases in which IDF soldiers fired at ambulances and medical staff on their way to evacuate the wounded.[1] Since 28 February 2002, there has been a significant increase in the number of such cases, and they have become almost routine. The gunfire has killed and wounded medical team members, and damaged ambulances. The gunfire has also made it impossible for the medical teams to evacuate the wounded to hospital, and some of the injured have bled to death.
The IDF also fires at ambulances and medical teams where passage of the ambulances has been coordinated with IDF officials, For example, Dr. Waal Qadan, director of the red Crescent Society in the Occupied territories, informed B’Tselem that, during the IDF’s incursion into Ramallah, agreement was reached with the army that Red Crescent ambulances would be allowed to move about when accompanied by a Red Cross vehicle. Despite this, on 12 March 2002, at about 6:30 P.M., IDF soldiers fired at a Red Cross vehicle that was accompanying an ambulance, striking it twice. As a result, the medical teams halted their work until the following afternoon, when the movement of ambulances was once again coordinated with the army. During that time, the Red Crescent received forty-two calls to evacuate wounded to which they could not respond. http://www.btselem.org/download/200203_ ... nt_eng.doc
A mere coincidence that the idf finds a vest just as human right organizations begin to take notice and condemn the idf for attacking and targeting amulances? I have searched for info on the International Red Cross web site and for any independent source that there were two International Red Cross members at the this finding as the captions state.
Also how could Viskin pass on Wafa Idris working for the Red Crescent, how in the world does that justify firing ambulances and sick people? I am missing the connection, she didn't pose as a Red Crescent worker, she wasn't driving an ambulance at the time, it was her occupation. Trying to make a twisted connection to justify killing innocent people is just that, twisted.
As for the guidelines which idf ignore, seriously violate and that go unpunished are there to fill up space in this article, seem to be there for Viskin to further his self congratulation, that he is working with a truly democratic occupying force who would NEVER target ambulances. The joke is exactly on who? Because some of the accounts of ambulances being fired upon and delayed and sick patients being denied medical services, and who die at checkpoints are sickening and would shake any with a conscience.
What you have in the lancet article is a doctor from the occupying force justifying the collective punishment on ambulances. There is no justifciation for killing innocent people. The opening paragraph of this Haaretz article:
"Rules of Engagement: Open fire also upon rescue," was handwritten in Hebrew on a sheet of paper found in one of the Palestinian homes the Israel Defense Forces took over during Operation Cast Lead. A reservist officer who did not take part in the Gaza offensive believes that the note is part of orders a low-level commander wrote before giving his soldiers their daily briefing. "
What you are proclaiming or trying to prove that the idf/the occupying forces are accroding to "Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, among others, 'is the most moral army in the world' This description of Israeli behavior is yet another myth, another element in what Maron Benvenisti, the former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, calls Israel's sacred narrative.... Indeed, terrorism was one of the key tactics that the Zionists used when they were in a similiarly weak position and trying to obtain their own state. It was Jewish terrorists from the infamous Irgun, a militant Zionist group, who in late 1937 introduced into Palestine the now-familiar practice of placing bombs in buses and large crowds. Benny Morris speculates "the Arabs may well have learned the value of terrorist bombings from the Jews." Between 1944 and 1947, several Zionist organizations used terrorist attacks to drive the British from Palestine and took the lives of many innocent civilians along the way. Israeli terrorists also murdered the U.N. mediator Count Folke Bernadotte in 1948 because they opposed his proposal to internationalize Jerusalem. The perpetrators of these acts were not isolated extremists: the leaders of the murder plot were eventually granted amnesty by the Israeli government and one of them was later elected to the Knesset. Another terrorist leader, who approved of Bernadotte's murder but was not tried, was future Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. He openly argued that "neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat." Rather, terrorism had "a great part to play...in our war against the occupier (Britain)." Nor did Shamir express regrets about his terrorist past, telling an interviewer in 1998 that "had I not acted as I did, it is doubtful that we would have been able to create an independent Jewish state of our own."Of course, Menachem Begin, who headed the Irgun and later became prime minister, was one of the most prominent Jewish terrorists in the years before Israeli independence. When speaking of Begin, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol often referred to him simply as "the terrorist." p. 102 The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt
If you want to use the old testament as a real estate document, then why not using it to explain your claimed misuse of ambulances as you reap what you sow: they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same. (Job 4:8)
I'm not requesting that you turn a blind eye towards anything. I'm asking that if you want to criticize Jews that you do so without comparing us to the people that butchered our parents and grandparents in their millions. I'd think that for any reasonably empathetic person it would be plainly obvious why such a comparison is wildly offensive.
This isn't about my feelings getting hurt. I can deal with hurt feelings. This is about you. How you express yourself. How you treat the people you interact with. I'm asking you to conduct yourself in a way that is respectful of others. I'm not telling you not to express your opinions, I'm just asking you not to be a dick when you do so.
I will repeat that I am not the first to compare israel to nazis, again Norman Finkelstien, whose parents survived two of the worst concentration camps has pointed out the parallels, his article on Jewish Nazis, http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/jewish ... ork-again/, Finkelstein has indeed studied the Holocaust in depth, he had his very own first hand account from his parents on the Holocaust, I ask why you discount his legitmate standing on the subject, he wrote his Princeton doctoral dissertation on the subject of Israel Paletine, do you think you know something he doesn't or felt something he hasn't when he calls Israel nazis? One of the main points that you are sadly missing when he makes this comparison is... "The Nazi holocaust, however horrific and even if forever a part of Germany’s present, is–except for the handful of survivors–fundamentally a historical question. The persecution of the Palestinians is, by contrast, an on-going horror, and it is, after all, the crimes of the Third Reich that are used to justify this persecution. In the first instance, moral action by Germans is no longer possible; in the second, it plainly is." Finkelstein http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/11/25/ ... n-germany/ You come on here defending murderous people who want to justify taking another people's land and lives, humiliating them and making their lives a living hell on a daily basis, hindering their movement, lining them up at checkpoints and with a wave of the hand deciding on the fate of millions of people. What gives you the right to say that they there aren't parallels, when you haven't lived it, or refuse to see the great injustification that this racist apartheid state is committing. Your beliefs alone fall in line with a TRANSFER of a people out of their homeland, how else would the two state solution that you support come to be? As you noted that the Palestinians are growing in number, and perhaps soon will outnumber the jewish population, so a state for just for the jews plainly means TRANSFER, and as Jabotinksy, again, states that "Hitler as odious as he was to us....gave it a good name in the world." How in the world can a Jew refer to Hitler on transfer but its off limits to the people that are a witness to and victim to the horrendous acts of ethnic cleansing? But you want to claim that I am the dick? That's fine, given your views, a compliment from you would make me question my moral integrity, so I think I am doing okay. Here's a news flash, creating a jewish homeland is not the answer to anti-semitism, saying Yes, that we are a foreign body that doesn't belong in Germany or Russia, or wherever these jewish immigrants were from, the true land of their forefathers, (read Shlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People) and we need to be separate from a "master" race and have a homeland of our own based on these anti-semitic views that we don't belong, SOLVES NOTHING.
thanks for posting VP. you make some pretty compelling points with your posts.
Thanks, as do you! I have been wanting to write the same about your posts, but you beat me to it
thanks to you too. i have always had incredible timing lol..
i am not as up on the conflict as i was at one time, so it is always nice to get to read posts from people from all perspectives that know a lot more about it than i do.
I feel the same, there is so much out there, your posts help inform me. I always look forward to what you have to write.
UN agencies in the occupied West Bank said today that Israel last week destroyed 21 homes of Palestinian Bedouin refugees, making 54 people including 35 children homeless.
A joint statement from the refugee agency UNRWA and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs condemned the April 18 demolition of the structures at Khalayleh north of Jerusalem, along with the removal the same day of refugees from two houses in annexed east Jerusalem.
"The forced eviction of Palestine refugees and the demolition of Palestinian homes and other civilian structures in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is contrary to international law," UNRWA's West Bank director, Felipe Sanchez, said in the statement.
"We urge the Israeli authorities to find an immediate solution to enable the Palestinian population of the occupied West Bank, to lead a normal life, in full realisation of their rights", he added.
Israeli officials could not immediately confirm or deny the Khalayleh demolitions.
The European Union yesterday condemned the east Jerusalem eviction, in which 14 Palestinians were removed from two houses in the Beit Hanina neighbourhood ahead of Jewish settlers moving in.
The EU's diplomatic missions in Jerusalem and Ramallah said in a statement that they were "deeply concerned by the plans to build a new settlement in the midst of this traditional Palestinian neighbourhood."
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
I feel the same, there is so much out there, your posts help inform me. I always look forward to what you have to write.
there is too much out there. but such a complicated issue is going to have a lot written about it. some of it is contradictory so one has to be aware of what they are reading and from where. it all depends on who writes it and what their agenda is. you seem like you have been studying this for a long time. i have moments where i try really hard to read and get engrossed in it, and i come to realize that the longer i spend on it the more sad or angry i become, and anger is not what is called for in this situation. i do not have the cool head it requires to have things be worked out diplomatically. when i reach that point i take some time away from reading about it, and then i come back and read the new news it is still all the same shit on a different day. personally this topic makes me lose a good deal of faith in humanity. i mean, they are all human beings, and to know that the cruelty between people not only exists, but is unabated a lot of the time. it wears me out emotionally, knowing that no matter what the international community says nothing is going to change right now, today. it may in the future, but i mean for fucks sakes, israel will not even halt construction of the settlements long enough to come to the negotiating table and then it blames the palestinians for wanting to have that single precondition before agreeing to negotiations.... jeez.... everyone involved, especially the hardline israeli government, needs to remember that when you point your finger and blame other people you have 3 fingers pointing right back at you.
your posts have been very informative, and it is good to see someone else joining in the discussion aside from the 5-10 of us that are regulars in all of these israel/palestine threads. i don't contribute a lot to further the discussion because i don't know or don't remember exact particulars on some of the history, but i see how things are now and hope that by talking about it something good comes out of it.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
If you want to use the old testament as a real estate document, then why not use it to explain your claimed misuse of ambulances as you reap what you sow: they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same. (Job 4:8)
Re. StandWithUs: I'm not a supporter. I don't like their organization. I posted the link simply because it provided a useful roundup of information from other newssources. I'll note that guilt by association is a neat rhetorical tool to use in an argument, but it doesn't actually carry any logical weight.
As I said to B, I'm not trying to categorically justify anything. Unlike you, it would seem, I don't view this conflict as an entirely one-sided affair. Lives have been lost on both sides, and neither side's hands are clean. I'm just pointing out that that as is often the case the situation is not as simple as your one-sided presentation would make it seem. I'm sure that very often actions taken against medical personnel are not justified; sometimes they are though, and the reason for that is the manner in which Palestinians have themselves violated the neutrality of medical personnel.
Speaking of justifications, however, your entire paragraph about pre-state Jewish terror groups would seem to be an attempt to justify Palestinian terror. The Irgun was not justified in its actions and the Palestinian terrorists aren't either. There is no justification for the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians.
I don't rely on the bible. I haven't brought the bible up at all.
The fact that Norman Finkelstein says something doesn't make it ok. I, and as far as I can tell most other Jews who are informed about his views, think he's a terrible person who has traded on the suffering of his parents to make his career. I mean, how much of a hypocrite do you have to be to base your career on a sensationalist book that argues that Jews exploit the holocaust for their own gain?! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE FUCKING DOING WITH YOUR OWN FUCKING BOOK!!!!! (Sorry for the ouburst, this shit just really makes me angry).
Finally, I love how you manage in a single paragraph to attack me for supporting transfer (WHICH I HAVE MADE CLEAR I DON'T SUPPORT, but whatever) and then go on to basically imply that 6 million Israelis, most of whom, at this point, have probably been born in Israel, should go back to Germany, Russia, etc.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
The fact that Norman Finkelstein says something doesn't make it ok. I, and as far as I can tell most other Jews who are informed about his views, think he's a terrible person who has traded on the suffering of his parents to make his career.
Being forced out of his job at De Paul University as a result of standing by his principles and being an outspoken critic of Israel, is a strange way to 'make his career'.
I mean, how much of a hypocrite do you have to be to base your career on a sensationalist book that argues that Jews exploit the holocaust for their own gain?!
Are you claiming that the assertions made in 'The Holocaust Industry' are false? If so, would you please point out to us what these falsehoods are?
In the meantime, here's what Raul Hilberg had to say about Norman Finkelstein's book:
Raul Hilberg. One of the best-known and most distinguished of Holocaust historians. He is author of the seminal three-volume work "The Destruction of the European Jews" and is considered the founder of Holocaust studies. He joins us on the line from his home in Vermont.
RAUL HILBERG: And I was struck by the fact, even as I, myself, was researching the same territory that Professor Finkelstein was covering, that the Swiss did not owe that money, that the $1,250,000,000 that were agreed as a settlement to be paid to the claimants was something that in very plain language was extorted from the Swiss. I had, in fact, relied upon the same sources that Professor Finkelstein used, perhaps in addition some Swiss items. I was in Switzerland at the height of the crisis, and I heard from so-called forensic accountants about how totally surprised the Swiss were by this outburst. There is no other word for it.
Now, Finkelstein was the first to publish what was happening in his book The Holocaust Industry. And when I was asked to endorse the book, I did so with specific reference to these claims. I felt that within the Jewish community over the centuries, nothing like it had ever happened. And even though these days a couple of billion dollars are sometimes referred to as an accounting error and not worthy of discussion, there is a psychological dimension here which not must be underestimated.
I was also struck by the fact that Finkelstein was being attacked over and over. And granted, his style is a little different from mine, but I was saying the same thing, and I had published my results in that three-volume work, published in 2003 by Yale University Press, and I did not hear from anybody a critical word about what I said, even though it was the same substantive conclusion that Finkelstein had offered. So that’s the gist of the matter right then and there.
...However, leaving aside the question of style — and here, I agree that it’s not my style either — the substance of the matter is most important here, particularly because Finkelstein, when he published this book, was alone. It takes an enormous amount of academic courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there to support him. And so, I think that given this acuity of vision and analytical power, demonstrating that the Swiss banks did not owe the money, that even though survivors were beneficiaries of the funds that were distributed, they came, when all is said and done, from places that were not obligated to pay that money. That takes a great amount of courage in and of itself. So I would say that his place in the whole history of writing history is assured, and that those who in the end are proven right triumph, and he will be among those who will have triumphed, albeit, it so seems, at great cost.
Look, my point is that Finkelstein is a dick (just about anyone that's ever heard him speak knows that) and the fact that he makes a certain comparison in no way means that comparison is not offensive.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Here, this review makes the case much better than I can. This is from the NY Times Book Review. The author of the review is a professor of European History and German Studies at Brown University.
A Tale of Two Holocausts
The first one had victims, Norman G. Finkelstein says; the second has opportunists.
By OMER BARTOV
Norman G. Finkelstein first gained a national reputation with his essay, ''Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's 'Crazy' Thesis,'' included in the book he wrote with Ruth Bettina Birn, ''A Nation on Trial.'' Much of the essay was a brilliant dissection of Goldhagen's book, ''Hitler's Willing Executioners.'' Its last section, however, revealed Finkelstein undergoing a bizarre metamorphosis, in which he employed the same dubious rhetoric and faulty logic he had identified in Goldhagen's work in order to propound his own, even ''crazier,'' thesis on the dark forces lurking, to his mind, behind his adversary's success.
Now Finkelstein is back, with a vengeance, a lone ranger with a holy mission -- to unmask an evil Judeo-Zionist conspiracy. The main argument in ''The Holocaust Industry'' is based on a simple distinction between two phenomena: the Nazi Holocaust and ''The Holocaust,'' which he defines as ''an ideological representation of the Nazi holocaust.'' The author has little interest in the former, though he readily acknowledges that it happened, since both his parents survived its horrors and since some of the few historians he respects, notably Raul Hilberg, have written on it.
But in one of those strange inversions that characterize his book, Finkelstein speaks of the historical event with the same kind of awe, and demands the same sort of silent incomprehension, that he ascribes to his main foe, Elie Wiesel. In order ''to truly learn from the Nazi holocaust,'' he asserts, ''its physical dimension must be reduced and its moral dimension expanded.'' Whatever that might mean, it comes as no surprise that his views about the origins, nature and implications of the genocide of the Jews are but a series of vague, undocumented and contradictory assertions. Thus, for instance, in one place he writes that the ''historical evidence for a murderous gentile impulse is nil,'' and rejects the notion that there might have been an ''abandonment of the Jews'' by the United States government. But in another place he charges that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ''mutes the Christian background to European anti-Semitism'' and ''downplays the discriminatory U.S. immigration quotas before the war,'' and then goes on to cite approvingly David S. Wyman's book, ''The Abandonment of the Jews.''
But what really interests Finkelstein is ''The Holocaust.'' The gist of his argument is simple: Had the Jews and the Zionists not had the Holocaust already, they would have had to invent it. Indeed, for all intents and purposes, this is precisely what they have done, in the form of ''The Holocaust,'' despite the distracting fact that, once upon a time, such an event actually took place. And why was ''The Holocaust'' fabricated? Because it legitimizes ''one of the world's most formidable military powers,'' Israel, allowing it to ''cast itself as a 'victim' state,'' and because it provides ''the most successful ethnic group in the United States,'' the Jews, with ''immunity to criticism,'' leading to ''the moral corruptions that typically attend'' such immunity.
Finkelstein views himself as innocent of any desire to exploit ''The Holocaust'' for his own ends, unlike his apparently countless enemies. The fact that his sensational ''revelations'' and outrageous accusations draw a great deal of public and media attention is no fault of his own. Nor is his vehement anti-Zionism and seething hatred of what he perceives as a corrupt Jewish leadership in the United States anything but a reflection of a reality that only he can perceive through the clouds of mystification and demagogy that have deceived thousands of lay persons, scholars, and intellectuals. From his Mount Sinai, everything is clear and obvious. It's just that his voice is too faint to be heard in the valley.
The main culprit, in the world according to Finkelstein, is ''the Holocaust industry,'' made up of Israeli officials and fat lawyers, Jewish agents well placed in American political circles and ruthless Zionists determined to subjugate the Palestinians. Here he combines an old-hat 1960's view of Israel as the outpost of American imperialism with a novel variation on the anti-Semitic forgery, ''The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,'' which warned of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. Now, however, the Jewish conspiracy is intended to ''shake down'' (his favorite phrase) such innocent entities as Swiss banks, German corporations and East European owners of looted Jewish property, all in order to consolidate Jewish power and influence without giving the real survivors of the genocide anything but empty rhetoric.
Nowhere does Finkelstein mention that the main beneficiaries of compensation for forced labor will be elderly gentile men and women living their last days in poverty in Eastern Europe, or that German scholars like Ulrich Herbert, hardly an employee of ''Jewish interests,'' have been at the forefront of the struggle to gain compensation from corporations that for decades refused to admit their enormous gains from slave and forced labor. From the author's perspective, this is simply a case of organized American Jewry ''lording it over those least able to defend themselves,'' such as, presumably, the Swiss banks it was ''plotting'' to boycott, and ''the United States and its allies'' from whom it ''finagled another $70 million.''
Thus have the great powers of the world capitulated to what The Times of London called the ''Holocash'' campaign in the United States, according to Finkelstein. He reserves special contempt for the Claims Conference, an umbrella of Jewish organizations that distributes reparations funds to survivors, and quotes approvingly the right-wing Israeli Parliament member Michael Kleiner, who called the conference ''a Judenrat, carrying on the Nazis' work in different ways.'' Indeed, as Finkelstein says in another context, les extrmes se touchent: in denouncing the ''shakedown'' of German corporations, this left-wing anti-Zionist uses precisely the kind of rhetoric that Menachem Begin employed when he spoke out against taking ''blood money'' during the right-wing riots against the restitution agreement with West Germany in the early 1950's, which almost toppled the Israeli government.
There is something sad in this warping of intelligence, and in this perversion of moral indignation. There is also something indecent about it, something juvenile, self-righteous, arrogant and stupid. As was shown in Peter Novick's far more balanced (though not entirely satisfactory) book, ''The Holocaust in American Life,'' the changing perception of the Nazi genocide of the Jews has also opened the way for a variety of exploiters and small-time opportunists. Yet to make this into an international Jewish conspiracy verges on paranoia and would serve anti-Semites around the world much better than any lawyer's exorbitant fees for ''shaking down'' a German industrialist.
Finkelstein speaks of the ''Holocaust industry'' as ''cloaking itself in the sanctimonious mantle of 'needy Holocaust victims.' ''Yet he cloaks himself in that very same mantle, while at the same time showing little sympathy for the feelings of the survivors and enormous zeal in exposing the ''reckless and ruthless abandon'' of the ''Holocaust industry,'' which he calls ''the main fomenter of anti-Semitism in Europe.'' By its ''blackmailing of Swiss bankers and German industrialists,'' as well as of ''starving Polish peasants,'' the ''Holocaust industry'' seeks endlessly to augment that pile of gold, or ''Holocaust booty,'' on which Jewish and Zionist leaders are now allegedly sitting. ''The Holocaust,'' Finkelstein concludes, is possibly ''the greatest robbery in the history of mankind.''
What I find so striking about ''The Holocaust Industry'' is that it is almost an exact copy of the arguments it seeks to expose. It is filled with precisely the kind of shrill hyperbole that Finkelstein rightly deplores in much of the current media hype over the Holocaust; it is brimming with the same indifference to historical facts, inner contradictions, strident politics and dubious contextualizations; and it oozes with the same smug sense of moral and intellectual superiority.
This book is, in a word, an ideological fanatic's view of other people's opportunism, by a writer so reckless and ruthless in his attacks that he is prepared to defend his own enemies, the bastions of Western capitalism, and to warn that ''The Holocaust'' will stir up an anti-Semitism whose significance he otherwise discounts. Like any conspiracy theory, it contains several grains of truth; and like any such theory, it is both irrational and insidious. Finkelstein can now be said to have founded a Holocaust industry of his own.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Look, my point is that Finkelstein is a dick (just about anyone that's ever heard him speak knows that).
Bullshit.
He's a great public speaker and he backs up everything he says with the factual record. Though I can see how that can be a problem for you, which is why you resort to calling him a dick, and why slippery weasels like Alan Dershowitz call him a self-hating Jew, among other things. Maybe because they're incapable of actually addressing the points he makes.
Here, this review makes the case much better than I can. This is from the NY Times Book Review. The author of the review is a professor of European History and German Studies at Brown University.
A Tale of Two Holocausts
The first one had victims, Norman G. Finkelstein says; the second has opportunists.
By OMER BARTOV
The 6 August 2000 issue of The New York Times Book Review featured a major review of The Holocaust Industry ("A Tale of Two Holocausts") by Omer Bartov, an Israeli military historian turned Holocaust expert. Ridiculing the notion of Holocaust profiteers as a "novel variation of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,'" Bartov let loose a barrage of invective: "bizarre," "outrageous," "paranoid," "shrill," "strident," "indecent," "juvenile," "self-righteous," "arrogant," "stupid," "smug," "fanatic," and so forth. (4) In a priceless sequel some months later, Bartov suddenly reversed himself. Now he railed against the "growing list of Holocaust profiteers," and put forth as a prime example "Norman Finkelstein's 'The Holocaust Industry.'"
It's not bullshit at all. The man doesn't give a shit about other people's sensitivities. There's video of him reducing a college girl to tears in front of a college audience. Whether or not you think he's right (in that particular instance or in general), most people, I think, would consider the manner in which Finkelstein often addresses himself to others to be "dickish."
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I don't get what the point of your last post is. It makes exactly my point. Finkelstein wrote a sensationalist book about holocaust profiteering, off of which he has profitted greatly. There is an irony there.
Bartov never reversed himself. He never denied that there is holocaust profiteering. He simply thinks that Finkelstein's assertion, that the entire manner in which Jews relate to the holocaust the world over is some sort of conspiracy to extort money and shield Israel from criticism, is a crock of shit.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Finkelstein...employed the same dubious rhetoric and faulty logic he had identified in Goldhagen's work in order to propound his own, even ''crazier,'' thesis on the dark forces lurking, to his mind, behind his adversary's success.
It's a shame he was unwilling to provide us with any examples.
a reality that only he can perceive through the clouds of mystification and demagogy that have deceived thousands of lay persons, scholars, and intellectuals.
Actually, there's no mystification or demagogy in any of Finkelstein's book. They are perfectly clear and unambiguous, are heavily sourced, and rely solely on the factual record.
Though I find it ironic that an Israel apologist can have the audacity to accuse someone like Finkelstein of mystification and demagogy, considering that mystification and demagogy are the Israel apologists standard modus operandi.
Here he combines an old-hat 1960's view of Israel as the outpost of American imperialism with a novel variation on the anti-Semitic forgery, ''The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,'' which warned of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. Now, however, the Jewish conspiracy is intended to ''shake down'' (his favorite phrase) such innocent entities as Swiss banks, German corporations and East European owners of looted Jewish property, all in order to consolidate Jewish power and influence without giving the real survivors of the genocide anything but empty rhetoric.
Nowhere does Finkelstein mention that the main beneficiaries of compensation for forced labor will be elderly gentile men and women living their last days in poverty in Eastern Europe, or that German scholars like Ulrich Herbert, hardly an employee of ''Jewish interests,'' have been at the forefront of the struggle to gain compensation from corporations that for decades refused to admit their enormous gains from slave and forced labor. From the author's perspective, this is simply a case of organized American Jewry ''lording it over those least able to defend themselves,'' such as, presumably, the Swiss banks it was ''plotting'' to boycott, and ''the United States and its allies'' from whom it ''finagled another $70 million.''
Except the conveniently forgets to mention that the actual survivors of the holocaust in question have in the cases he documents in his book, failed to see a penny of the money 'shaken down' from the Swiss banks.
Still, at least he was able to throw in the old Anti-Semitism slur. The article would have been incomplete without at least one mention of it.
There is something sad in this warping of intelligence, and in this perversion of moral indignation. There is also something indecent about it, something juvenile, self-righteous, arrogant and stupid.
Finkelstein speaks of the ''Holocaust industry'' as ''cloaking itself in the sanctimonious mantle of 'needy Holocaust victims.' ''Yet he cloaks himself in that very same mantle, while at the same time showing little sympathy for the feelings of the survivors
Sure, he showed so little sympathy for the survivors of the holocaust, that he took upon himself to write an entire book on their behalf, denigrating those who have sought to exploit their suffering.
it is brimming with the same indifference to historical facts, inner contradictions, strident politics and dubious contextualizations
Once again, it really is a shame that this writer was unable to provide us with even one example of an indifference to historical facts, an inner contradiction, or a dubious contextualization.
Like any conspiracy theory, it contains several grains of truth; and like any such theory, it is both irrational and insidious.
So there we have it; an entire article that fails to address any of the actual points made in the book itself, and which fails to provide us with even one single example of Finkelstein's 'faulty logic', 'sensational revelations', or 'outrageous accusations'.
any man that can make such an impassioned defense of one o.j. simpson has zero credibility in my book. it means he would be willing to sell his soul and his integrity to prove a lie that simpson was innocent...and in dealing with this issue, i believe that integrity is very important.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
It's not bullshit at all. The man doesn't give a shit about other people's sensitivities. There's video of him reducing a college girl to tears in front of a college audience. Whether or not you think he's right (in that particular instance or in general), most people, I think, would consider the manner in which Finkelstein often addresses himself to others to be "dickish."
He didn't reduce her to tears. She was already weeping when she stepped up to the podium. The girl was pathetic, and attempting to use emotional blackmail and the memory of the holocaust to excuse and justify Israel's crimes against the Palestinians, and Finkelstein was right to put her in her place.
You do understand that this was a book review. It's supposed to sum up the reviewers opinion of the book. It's not a legal brief. You can't fault the man for not writing an essay picking apart Finkelstein's book. That's not his job. His job is to write a review.
As for Finkelstein being supported by the facts, no less than the late Peter Novick, of the University of Chicago, whom Finkelstein himself cited as the scholarly inspiration for writing the Holocaust Industry, said in his own review of Finkelstein's book that:
"No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites.”
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I don't get what the point of your last post is. It makes exactly my point. Finkelstein wrote a sensationalist book about holocaust profiteering, off of which he has profitted greatly. There is an irony there.
Would you have been happy if he had refused to accept any royalties for a book that he spent at least a year writing?
Your argument is pathetic.
Bartov never reversed himself. He never denied that there is holocaust profiteering. He simply thinks that Finkelstein's assertion, that the entire manner in which Jews relate to the holocaust the world over is some sort of conspiracy to extort money and shield Israel from criticism, is a crock of shit.
Except that isn't what Finkelstein said, and it isn't the purpose of the book at all. His assertion isn't that Jews, the World over, are guilty of this extortion, but that certain people and organizations are. But then you know that already. That's just an attempt on your part to trivialize and denigrate the book instead of addressing any of the facts contained in it.
Yeah Dershowitz is also a prick (don't know why we're talking about him now too), although as a law student I firmly believe that everyone is entitled to a competant defense, so faulting him for defending O.J. isn't really fair.
B, whatever, the girl isn't the point. The point is that Finkelstein is not a nice, caring, person. He treats other people like shit.
Whatever, I posted the review. It can speak for itself. People on here can make their own decisions whether on this subject they want to place more trust in you or in the expert scholar from one of the best universities in the world.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
You do understand that this was a book review. It's supposed to sum up the reviewers opinion of the book. It's not a legal brief. You can't fault the man for not writing an essay picking apart Finkelstein's book. That's not his job. His job is to write a review.
Your desperation is telling.
So now we're led to believe that it's beyond the remit of any review to actually provide any evidence supporting the criticism's it makes. We're just supposed to take the reviewers word for it, are we?
"No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites.”
So what? This critical thinking should be applied to any book, or article, should it not? In fact, I'm sure Finkelstein would agree wholeheartedly with Peter Novick's comments.
B, whatever, the girl isn't the point. The point is that Finkelstein is not a nice, caring, person. He treats other people like shit.
I disagree.
I've seen many of his debates and public talks, and also the documentary 'American Radical', and I've never once seen or heard him treat anyone like shit, unless, like Dershowitz, they fully deserved it.
Your attempt at character assassination, whilst failing to actually address any of the points Finkelstein has made, says more about you than it does about him.
Someone who has dedicated the better part of his life to trying to relieve the suffering of an entire people, by highlighting the lies and obfuscations put forth by those apologists of ethnic cleansing, is, in my opinion, a nice, caring person.
Here's a question for you: Have you actually read any of his books?
Really? Now you're pretending that Novick's comments aren't a criticism but just a friendly reminder to read critically?
I abridged a little. Here's a more complete version of Novick's quote:
“As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein concerning reparations and restitution, and on other matters as well, the appropriate response is …examination of his footnotes. Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention. … No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites."
But yeah, you're right, he's just making a general appeal for more critical reading.
As for Bartov's review, I'll be sure to let him know for the future that when he publishes a 800 word book review in a general interest publication he should provide a detailed point by point rebuttal to all the claims made in the work he's reviewing just in case his review is ever cited on an obscure band fansite internet thread. :roll:
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I have not read his books. Scholars I put a great deal of faith in have left me with the impression that his books are not worth reading, so I've found better uses for my time. That said, I've also watched many of his debates and read many of his articles. I don't generally find them convincing, and unlike you I do find him to be a dick towards others. This is not an attempt at character assassination. I am not trying to say he's wrong because he's a dick. I'm saying that I think he's a dick, and he also happens to be wrong.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Really? Now you're pretending that Novick's comments aren't a criticism but just a friendly reminder to read critically?
I abridged a little. Here's a more complete version of Novick's quote:
“As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein concerning reparations and restitution, and on other matters as well, the appropriate response is …examination of his footnotes. Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention. … No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites."
But yeah, you're right, he's just making a general appeal for more critical reading.
That's very clever of you. You now accuse me of 'pretending' something?
The part of his quote you posted previously made no mention of Finkelstein indulging in pure invention, so I was perfectly right to take the quote for what it was.
Was this just a little trick you decided to play in the pursuit of one-upmanship?
Anyway, as far as Peter Novick's claim that Finkelstein has indulged in 'pure invention', I couldn't care less. Finkestein's book has been independently verified and supported by other scholars, as I pointed out above.
RAUL HILBERG: And I was struck by the fact, even as I, myself, was researching the same territory that Professor Finkelstein was covering, that the Swiss did not owe that money, that the $1,250,000,000 that were agreed as a settlement to be paid to the claimants was something that in very plain language was extorted from the Swiss. I had, in fact, relied upon the same sources that Professor Finkelstein used, perhaps in addition some Swiss items.
...I was saying the same thing, and I had published my results in that three-volume work, published in 2003 by Yale University Press, and I did not hear from anybody a critical word about what I said, even though it was the same substantive conclusion that Finkelstein had offered. So that’s the gist of the matter right then and there.
...It takes an enormous amount of academic courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there to support him. And so, I think that given this acuity of vision and analytical power, demonstrating that the Swiss banks did not owe the money, that even though survivors were beneficiaries of the funds that were distributed, they came, when all is said and done, from places that were not obligated to pay that money. That takes a great amount of courage in and of itself. So I would say that his place in the whole history of writing history is assured, and that those who in the end are proven right triumph, and he will be among those who will have triumphed, albeit, it so seems, at great cost.
AVI SHLAIM:His last book, Beyond Chutzpah, is based on an amazing amount of research. He seems to have read everything. He has gone through the reports of Israeli groups, of human rights groups, Human Rights Watch and Peace Now and B’Tselem, all of the reports of Amnesty International. And he deploys all this evidence from Israeli and other sources in order to sustain his critique of Israeli practices, Israeli violations of human rights of the Palestinians, Israeli house demolitions, the targeted assassinations of Palestinian militants, the cutting down of trees, the building of the wall — the security barrier on the West Bank, which is illegal — the restrictions imposed on the Palestinians in the West Bank, and so on and so forth. I find his critique extremely detailed, well-documented and accurate.
It wasn't a trick. It just happened to work out nicely for me. I thought the meaning of the bit I quoted originally was clear (I suspect it was, even to you, but whatever).
And many scholars have criticized him as a hack. It all depends on who you choose to put your faith in. I will continue to put more faith in the people who don't seem, to me, to be driven by bias, and who are therefore capable of perceiving the complexities and nuances of the world we live in (which is not a quality that I've found in Finkelstein).
I think he's wrong about many things. I think he's right about a few things as well. It was a general statement.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
And many scholars have criticized him as a hack. It all depends on who you choose to put your faith in. I will continue to put more faith in the people who don't seem, to me, to be driven by bias, and who are therefore capable of perceiving the complexities and nuances of the world we live in (which is not a quality that I've found in Finkelstein).
Yep, I suppose it's only to be expected that a Jewish son of holocaust survivors would be 'biased' in favour of the rights of Palestinians.
Ok, well I'm not really interested in getting into a talmudic discussion of Finkelstein's work, but to choose just one thing from the group, I'd say that I think his position on Hezbollah is astoundingly wrong. He gave an interview, discussing Hezbollah, in which he said:
"I do believe that Hezbollah has the right to target Israeli civilians if Israel persists in targeting civilians until Israel ceases its terrorist acts."
Leaving aside the fact that I think his characterization of Israel's actions is wrong, I don't see any way that this statement can be morally justified. This is very basic two wrongs don't make a right kind of stuff. He's simply wrong about this. No matter what Israel does, Hezbollah has no right to target civilians.
There's many other aspects of his positions, even on the topic of Hezbollah, that I have a problem with, but I'll leave it at that.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Comments
Thanks for the standwithus link and copying of the flyer into your response, you must of broken a finger nail, which is what anti-free speech groups like standwithus wouldn't want to happen, they offer all the bullshit hyprocitcrical propaganda at zionist fingertips. For a liberal zionist I guess it isn't beyond you citing a right wing zionist propanganda group that writes Nakba in quotes (a blatant denial of Palestinian history) and who recruit their members to sit in on any person, group, organzation that's critical of israel in any way. At one of Makdisi's last talks, and they try to do with this on all campuses, they distributed a list of questions:
Makdisi's twitter entry: Standwithus, the crudest US Zionist group, has distributed a list of questions they want their hooligans to ask me at a talk next week.
And have also been proven to be fabricators by another jewish group:
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/right-win ... srael.html
Their laughable twitter entries go something like Are settlements an obstacles to peace? and have made staments oh their website like "there is no humanatarian crisis in Gaza."
In their flyer, which I am sure was ciruculated among the most discerning of groups, tremendously editorializes, provides mostly idf sources and a nytimes source, which I searched for in the archives section given the date and keywords, and I came up with nothing, and that is more than enough attention i can give this delusional comic group that criticizes israeli "moderates" like you claim to be.
On the lancet article, first of all, I question the "viewpoint," (the name of this section of lancet) of the idf doctor, Sami Viskin, who from the opening paragraph seems too proud of his post in the occupying army, as someone stated in a letter to the lancet:
"Viskin's article is in stark contrast to your April 26 Editorial (p 1399),4 which addresses the legal and humanitarian responsibilities of occupying powers, in particular in Iraq. The same rules hold for the Israeli occupying forces in the West Bank and Gaza; collective punishment is expressly prohibited. Yet how else can the mass destruction of homes in the West Bank and Gaza by the Israeli occupation forces be explained?2 How else can the destruction of 17·5 km2 of arable land in Gaza be accounted for?... I believe Viskin is naive to think that his integrity as a cardiologist remains untarnished when he wears his military uniform. Perhaps he should spend less time defending the politically self-righteous and more time caring for the poor, oppressed, and dispossessed."
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance ... 40-6736(03)13828-7/fulltext
After he pats himself on the back for helping a Palestinian woman, he goes onto say that he had countless encounters with Palestinian ambulances, BUT then also claims that these abmulances have been "repeatedly" used to transport combatants and weapons. Wouldn't Dr.idf have come across a combatant or weapon himself on one of these encounters if they "repeatedly" have been used to transfer militants and weapons?
From Viskin in his viewpoint in the lancet:
I would later read in disbelief what the press classified as the indiscriminate firing at Palestinian ambulances by Israeli soldiers.That is not what I saw. The guidelines of the IDF are straightforward: Palestinian ambulances must be allowed freedom of passage to zones of conflict unless there is evidence that they are being used to transport military equipment. These guidelines are orders from the General Command of the IDF (as testified by the Command Secretary in an official response to an inquiry by the Israel Medical Association).3 In fact, these are the same orders I heard when working in the field.Unfortunately, Palestinian ambulances were repeatedly used to transport combatants and weapons, prompting the IDF to send an official protest to the International RedCross on May 2, 2002.4 The communication included reports of terrorists who were disguised as being wounded and transported in ambulances of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (the local form of the International RedCross) in attempts to evade the IDF. Also, flagrant abuse of medical accreditation by Palestinian terrorists was reported on January 27, 2002, after a terrorist bombing indowntown Jerusalem. Both the female suicide terrorist (Wafa Idris), and the attack coordinators (Mohammed Hababa and Munzar Noor) worked for the Palestinian Red Crescent Society.
No, he has to reference the idf forces who before this March "discovery" have been admonished by human rights organizations to stop attacking amublances, shortly before March 27 2002, when the vest was "discovered"
Human Rights Watch, March 9, 2002:
"Human Rights Watch today called on the Israeli government to instruct soldiers to immediately refrain from attacking medical personnel in the West Bank and Gaza. During the past week, at least three ambulances have been fired upon, three ambulance staff have died, and nine other medical personnel have been injured.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/03/08/isra ... -personnel
Btselem stated that before March 27, that it has become almost routine for idf to shoot at ambulances:
Firing at Ambulances and Medical Staff
Since the beginning of the al-Aqsa intifada, B’Tselem has documented cases in which IDF soldiers fired at ambulances and medical staff on their way to evacuate the wounded.[1] Since 28 February 2002, there has been a significant increase in the number of such cases, and they have become almost routine. The gunfire has killed and wounded medical team members, and damaged ambulances. The gunfire has also made it impossible for the medical teams to evacuate the wounded to hospital, and some of the injured have bled to death.
The IDF also fires at ambulances and medical teams where passage of the ambulances has been coordinated with IDF officials, For example, Dr. Waal Qadan, director of the red Crescent Society in the Occupied territories, informed B’Tselem that, during the IDF’s incursion into Ramallah, agreement was reached with the army that Red Crescent ambulances would be allowed to move about when accompanied by a Red Cross vehicle. Despite this, on 12 March 2002, at about 6:30 P.M., IDF soldiers fired at a Red Cross vehicle that was accompanying an ambulance, striking it twice. As a result, the medical teams halted their work until the following afternoon, when the movement of ambulances was once again coordinated with the army. During that time, the Red Crescent received forty-two calls to evacuate wounded to which they could not respond.
http://www.btselem.org/download/200203_ ... nt_eng.doc
A mere coincidence that the idf finds a vest just as human right organizations begin to take notice and condemn the idf for attacking and targeting amulances? I have searched for info on the International Red Cross web site and for any independent source that there were two International Red Cross members at the this finding as the captions state.
Also how could Viskin pass on Wafa Idris working for the Red Crescent, how in the world does that justify firing ambulances and sick people? I am missing the connection, she didn't pose as a Red Crescent worker, she wasn't driving an ambulance at the time, it was her occupation. Trying to make a twisted connection to justify killing innocent people is just that, twisted.
As for the guidelines which idf ignore, seriously violate and that go unpunished are there to fill up space in this article, seem to be there for Viskin to further his self congratulation, that he is working with a truly democratic occupying force who would NEVER target ambulances. The joke is exactly on who? Because some of the accounts of ambulances being fired upon and delayed and sick patients being denied medical services, and who die at checkpoints are sickening and would shake any with a conscience.
What you have in the lancet article is a doctor from the occupying force justifying the collective punishment on ambulances. There is no justifciation for killing innocent people. The opening paragraph of this Haaretz article:
"Rules of Engagement: Open fire also upon rescue," was handwritten in Hebrew on a sheet of paper found in one of the Palestinian homes the Israel Defense Forces took over during Operation Cast Lead. A reservist officer who did not take part in the Gaza offensive believes that the note is part of orders a low-level commander wrote before giving his soldiers their daily briefing. "
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/fe ... s-1.272628
What you are proclaiming or trying to prove that the idf/the occupying forces are accroding to "Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, among others, 'is the most moral army in the world' This description of Israeli behavior is yet another myth, another element in what Maron Benvenisti, the former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, calls Israel's sacred narrative.... Indeed, terrorism was one of the key tactics that the Zionists used when they were in a similiarly weak position and trying to obtain their own state. It was Jewish terrorists from the infamous Irgun, a militant Zionist group, who in late 1937 introduced into Palestine the now-familiar practice of placing bombs in buses and large crowds. Benny Morris speculates "the Arabs may well have learned the value of terrorist bombings from the Jews." Between 1944 and 1947, several Zionist organizations used terrorist attacks to drive the British from Palestine and took the lives of many innocent civilians along the way. Israeli terrorists also murdered the U.N. mediator Count Folke Bernadotte in 1948 because they opposed his proposal to internationalize Jerusalem. The perpetrators of these acts were not isolated extremists: the leaders of the murder plot were eventually granted amnesty by the Israeli government and one of them was later elected to the Knesset. Another terrorist leader, who approved of Bernadotte's murder but was not tried, was future Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. He openly argued that "neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat." Rather, terrorism had "a great part to play...in our war against the occupier (Britain)." Nor did Shamir express regrets about his terrorist past, telling an interviewer in 1998 that "had I not acted as I did, it is doubtful that we would have been able to create an independent Jewish state of our own."Of course, Menachem Begin, who headed the Irgun and later became prime minister, was one of the most prominent Jewish terrorists in the years before Israeli independence. When speaking of Begin, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol often referred to him simply as "the terrorist." p. 102 The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt
If you want to use the old testament as a real estate document, then why not using it to explain your claimed misuse of ambulances as you reap what you sow: they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same. (Job 4:8)
I will repeat that I am not the first to compare israel to nazis, again Norman Finkelstien, whose parents survived two of the worst concentration camps has pointed out the parallels, his article on Jewish Nazis, http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/jewish ... ork-again/, Finkelstein has indeed studied the Holocaust in depth, he had his very own first hand account from his parents on the Holocaust, I ask why you discount his legitmate standing on the subject, he wrote his Princeton doctoral dissertation on the subject of Israel Paletine, do you think you know something he doesn't or felt something he hasn't when he calls Israel nazis? One of the main points that you are sadly missing when he makes this comparison is... "The Nazi holocaust, however horrific and even if forever a part of Germany’s present, is–except for the handful of survivors–fundamentally a historical question. The persecution of the Palestinians is, by contrast, an on-going horror, and it is, after all, the crimes of the Third Reich that are used to justify this persecution. In the first instance, moral action by Germans is no longer possible; in the second, it plainly is." Finkelstein http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/11/25/ ... n-germany/ You come on here defending murderous people who want to justify taking another people's land and lives, humiliating them and making their lives a living hell on a daily basis, hindering their movement, lining them up at checkpoints and with a wave of the hand deciding on the fate of millions of people. What gives you the right to say that they there aren't parallels, when you haven't lived it, or refuse to see the great injustification that this racist apartheid state is committing. Your beliefs alone fall in line with a TRANSFER of a people out of their homeland, how else would the two state solution that you support come to be? As you noted that the Palestinians are growing in number, and perhaps soon will outnumber the jewish population, so a state for just for the jews plainly means TRANSFER, and as Jabotinksy, again, states that "Hitler as odious as he was to us....gave it a good name in the world." How in the world can a Jew refer to Hitler on transfer but its off limits to the people that are a witness to and victim to the horrendous acts of ethnic cleansing? But you want to claim that I am the dick? That's fine, given your views, a compliment from you would make me question my moral integrity, so I think I am doing okay. Here's a news flash, creating a jewish homeland is not the answer to anti-semitism, saying Yes, that we are a foreign body that doesn't belong in Germany or Russia, or wherever these jewish immigrants were from, the true land of their forefathers, (read Shlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People) and we need to be separate from a "master" race and have a homeland of our own based on these anti-semitic views that we don't belong, SOLVES NOTHING.
I feel the same, there is so much out there, your posts help inform me. I always look forward to what you have to write.
is this ever going to end?
UN says Israel destroyed Palestinian Bedouin homes
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_un ... es_1679458
UN agencies in the occupied West Bank said today that Israel last week destroyed 21 homes of Palestinian Bedouin refugees, making 54 people including 35 children homeless.
A joint statement from the refugee agency UNRWA and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs condemned the April 18 demolition of the structures at Khalayleh north of Jerusalem, along with the removal the same day of refugees from two houses in annexed east Jerusalem.
"The forced eviction of Palestine refugees and the demolition of Palestinian homes and other civilian structures in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is contrary to international law," UNRWA's West Bank director, Felipe Sanchez, said in the statement.
"We urge the Israeli authorities to find an immediate solution to enable the Palestinian population of the occupied West Bank, to lead a normal life, in full realisation of their rights", he added.
Israeli officials could not immediately confirm or deny the Khalayleh demolitions.
The European Union yesterday condemned the east Jerusalem eviction, in which 14 Palestinians were removed from two houses in the Beit Hanina neighbourhood ahead of Jewish settlers moving in.
The EU's diplomatic missions in Jerusalem and Ramallah said in a statement that they were "deeply concerned by the plans to build a new settlement in the midst of this traditional Palestinian neighbourhood."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
your posts have been very informative, and it is good to see someone else joining in the discussion aside from the 5-10 of us that are regulars in all of these israel/palestine threads. i don't contribute a lot to further the discussion because i don't know or don't remember exact particulars on some of the history, but i see how things are now and hope that by talking about it something good comes out of it.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Re. StandWithUs: I'm not a supporter. I don't like their organization. I posted the link simply because it provided a useful roundup of information from other newssources. I'll note that guilt by association is a neat rhetorical tool to use in an argument, but it doesn't actually carry any logical weight.
As I said to B, I'm not trying to categorically justify anything. Unlike you, it would seem, I don't view this conflict as an entirely one-sided affair. Lives have been lost on both sides, and neither side's hands are clean. I'm just pointing out that that as is often the case the situation is not as simple as your one-sided presentation would make it seem. I'm sure that very often actions taken against medical personnel are not justified; sometimes they are though, and the reason for that is the manner in which Palestinians have themselves violated the neutrality of medical personnel.
Speaking of justifications, however, your entire paragraph about pre-state Jewish terror groups would seem to be an attempt to justify Palestinian terror. The Irgun was not justified in its actions and the Palestinian terrorists aren't either. There is no justification for the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians.
I don't rely on the bible. I haven't brought the bible up at all.
The fact that Norman Finkelstein says something doesn't make it ok. I, and as far as I can tell most other Jews who are informed about his views, think he's a terrible person who has traded on the suffering of his parents to make his career. I mean, how much of a hypocrite do you have to be to base your career on a sensationalist book that argues that Jews exploit the holocaust for their own gain?! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE FUCKING DOING WITH YOUR OWN FUCKING BOOK!!!!! (Sorry for the ouburst, this shit just really makes me angry).
Finally, I love how you manage in a single paragraph to attack me for supporting transfer (WHICH I HAVE MADE CLEAR I DON'T SUPPORT, but whatever) and then go on to basically imply that 6 million Israelis, most of whom, at this point, have probably been born in Israel, should go back to Germany, Russia, etc.
Being forced out of his job at De Paul University as a result of standing by his principles and being an outspoken critic of Israel, is a strange way to 'make his career'.
Are you claiming that the assertions made in 'The Holocaust Industry' are false? If so, would you please point out to us what these falsehoods are?
In the meantime, here's what Raul Hilberg had to say about Norman Finkelstein's book:
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/5/9/it ... _amount_of
Raul Hilberg. One of the best-known and most distinguished of Holocaust historians. He is author of the seminal three-volume work "The Destruction of the European Jews" and is considered the founder of Holocaust studies. He joins us on the line from his home in Vermont.
RAUL HILBERG: And I was struck by the fact, even as I, myself, was researching the same territory that Professor Finkelstein was covering, that the Swiss did not owe that money, that the $1,250,000,000 that were agreed as a settlement to be paid to the claimants was something that in very plain language was extorted from the Swiss. I had, in fact, relied upon the same sources that Professor Finkelstein used, perhaps in addition some Swiss items. I was in Switzerland at the height of the crisis, and I heard from so-called forensic accountants about how totally surprised the Swiss were by this outburst. There is no other word for it.
Now, Finkelstein was the first to publish what was happening in his book The Holocaust Industry. And when I was asked to endorse the book, I did so with specific reference to these claims. I felt that within the Jewish community over the centuries, nothing like it had ever happened. And even though these days a couple of billion dollars are sometimes referred to as an accounting error and not worthy of discussion, there is a psychological dimension here which not must be underestimated.
I was also struck by the fact that Finkelstein was being attacked over and over. And granted, his style is a little different from mine, but I was saying the same thing, and I had published my results in that three-volume work, published in 2003 by Yale University Press, and I did not hear from anybody a critical word about what I said, even though it was the same substantive conclusion that Finkelstein had offered. So that’s the gist of the matter right then and there.
...However, leaving aside the question of style — and here, I agree that it’s not my style either — the substance of the matter is most important here, particularly because Finkelstein, when he published this book, was alone. It takes an enormous amount of academic courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there to support him. And so, I think that given this acuity of vision and analytical power, demonstrating that the Swiss banks did not owe the money, that even though survivors were beneficiaries of the funds that were distributed, they came, when all is said and done, from places that were not obligated to pay that money. That takes a great amount of courage in and of itself. So I would say that his place in the whole history of writing history is assured, and that those who in the end are proven right triumph, and he will be among those who will have triumphed, albeit, it so seems, at great cost.
A Tale of Two Holocausts
The first one had victims, Norman G. Finkelstein says; the second has opportunists.
By OMER BARTOV
Norman G. Finkelstein first gained a national reputation with his essay, ''Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's 'Crazy' Thesis,'' included in the book he wrote with Ruth Bettina Birn, ''A Nation on Trial.'' Much of the essay was a brilliant dissection of Goldhagen's book, ''Hitler's Willing Executioners.'' Its last section, however, revealed Finkelstein undergoing a bizarre metamorphosis, in which he employed the same dubious rhetoric and faulty logic he had identified in Goldhagen's work in order to propound his own, even ''crazier,'' thesis on the dark forces lurking, to his mind, behind his adversary's success.
Now Finkelstein is back, with a vengeance, a lone ranger with a holy mission -- to unmask an evil Judeo-Zionist conspiracy. The main argument in ''The Holocaust Industry'' is based on a simple distinction between two phenomena: the Nazi Holocaust and ''The Holocaust,'' which he defines as ''an ideological representation of the Nazi holocaust.'' The author has little interest in the former, though he readily acknowledges that it happened, since both his parents survived its horrors and since some of the few historians he respects, notably Raul Hilberg, have written on it.
But in one of those strange inversions that characterize his book, Finkelstein speaks of the historical event with the same kind of awe, and demands the same sort of silent incomprehension, that he ascribes to his main foe, Elie Wiesel. In order ''to truly learn from the Nazi holocaust,'' he asserts, ''its physical dimension must be reduced and its moral dimension expanded.'' Whatever that might mean, it comes as no surprise that his views about the origins, nature and implications of the genocide of the Jews are but a series of vague, undocumented and contradictory assertions. Thus, for instance, in one place he writes that the ''historical evidence for a murderous gentile impulse is nil,'' and rejects the notion that there might have been an ''abandonment of the Jews'' by the United States government. But in another place he charges that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ''mutes the Christian background to European anti-Semitism'' and ''downplays the discriminatory U.S. immigration quotas before the war,'' and then goes on to cite approvingly David S. Wyman's book, ''The Abandonment of the Jews.''
But what really interests Finkelstein is ''The Holocaust.'' The gist of his argument is simple: Had the Jews and the Zionists not had the Holocaust already, they would have had to invent it. Indeed, for all intents and purposes, this is precisely what they have done, in the form of ''The Holocaust,'' despite the distracting fact that, once upon a time, such an event actually took place. And why was ''The Holocaust'' fabricated? Because it legitimizes ''one of the world's most formidable military powers,'' Israel, allowing it to ''cast itself as a 'victim' state,'' and because it provides ''the most successful ethnic group in the United States,'' the Jews, with ''immunity to criticism,'' leading to ''the moral corruptions that typically attend'' such immunity.
Finkelstein views himself as innocent of any desire to exploit ''The Holocaust'' for his own ends, unlike his apparently countless enemies. The fact that his sensational ''revelations'' and outrageous accusations draw a great deal of public and media attention is no fault of his own. Nor is his vehement anti-Zionism and seething hatred of what he perceives as a corrupt Jewish leadership in the United States anything but a reflection of a reality that only he can perceive through the clouds of mystification and demagogy that have deceived thousands of lay persons, scholars, and intellectuals. From his Mount Sinai, everything is clear and obvious. It's just that his voice is too faint to be heard in the valley.
The main culprit, in the world according to Finkelstein, is ''the Holocaust industry,'' made up of Israeli officials and fat lawyers, Jewish agents well placed in American political circles and ruthless Zionists determined to subjugate the Palestinians. Here he combines an old-hat 1960's view of Israel as the outpost of American imperialism with a novel variation on the anti-Semitic forgery, ''The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,'' which warned of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. Now, however, the Jewish conspiracy is intended to ''shake down'' (his favorite phrase) such innocent entities as Swiss banks, German corporations and East European owners of looted Jewish property, all in order to consolidate Jewish power and influence without giving the real survivors of the genocide anything but empty rhetoric.
Nowhere does Finkelstein mention that the main beneficiaries of compensation for forced labor will be elderly gentile men and women living their last days in poverty in Eastern Europe, or that German scholars like Ulrich Herbert, hardly an employee of ''Jewish interests,'' have been at the forefront of the struggle to gain compensation from corporations that for decades refused to admit their enormous gains from slave and forced labor. From the author's perspective, this is simply a case of organized American Jewry ''lording it over those least able to defend themselves,'' such as, presumably, the Swiss banks it was ''plotting'' to boycott, and ''the United States and its allies'' from whom it ''finagled another $70 million.''
Thus have the great powers of the world capitulated to what The Times of London called the ''Holocash'' campaign in the United States, according to Finkelstein. He reserves special contempt for the Claims Conference, an umbrella of Jewish organizations that distributes reparations funds to survivors, and quotes approvingly the right-wing Israeli Parliament member Michael Kleiner, who called the conference ''a Judenrat, carrying on the Nazis' work in different ways.'' Indeed, as Finkelstein says in another context, les extrmes se touchent: in denouncing the ''shakedown'' of German corporations, this left-wing anti-Zionist uses precisely the kind of rhetoric that Menachem Begin employed when he spoke out against taking ''blood money'' during the right-wing riots against the restitution agreement with West Germany in the early 1950's, which almost toppled the Israeli government.
There is something sad in this warping of intelligence, and in this perversion of moral indignation. There is also something indecent about it, something juvenile, self-righteous, arrogant and stupid. As was shown in Peter Novick's far more balanced (though not entirely satisfactory) book, ''The Holocaust in American Life,'' the changing perception of the Nazi genocide of the Jews has also opened the way for a variety of exploiters and small-time opportunists. Yet to make this into an international Jewish conspiracy verges on paranoia and would serve anti-Semites around the world much better than any lawyer's exorbitant fees for ''shaking down'' a German industrialist.
Finkelstein speaks of the ''Holocaust industry'' as ''cloaking itself in the sanctimonious mantle of 'needy Holocaust victims.' ''Yet he cloaks himself in that very same mantle, while at the same time showing little sympathy for the feelings of the survivors and enormous zeal in exposing the ''reckless and ruthless abandon'' of the ''Holocaust industry,'' which he calls ''the main fomenter of anti-Semitism in Europe.'' By its ''blackmailing of Swiss bankers and German industrialists,'' as well as of ''starving Polish peasants,'' the ''Holocaust industry'' seeks endlessly to augment that pile of gold, or ''Holocaust booty,'' on which Jewish and Zionist leaders are now allegedly sitting. ''The Holocaust,'' Finkelstein concludes, is possibly ''the greatest robbery in the history of mankind.''
What I find so striking about ''The Holocaust Industry'' is that it is almost an exact copy of the arguments it seeks to expose. It is filled with precisely the kind of shrill hyperbole that Finkelstein rightly deplores in much of the current media hype over the Holocaust; it is brimming with the same indifference to historical facts, inner contradictions, strident politics and dubious contextualizations; and it oozes with the same smug sense of moral and intellectual superiority.
This book is, in a word, an ideological fanatic's view of other people's opportunism, by a writer so reckless and ruthless in his attacks that he is prepared to defend his own enemies, the bastions of Western capitalism, and to warn that ''The Holocaust'' will stir up an anti-Semitism whose significance he otherwise discounts. Like any conspiracy theory, it contains several grains of truth; and like any such theory, it is both irrational and insidious. Finkelstein can now be said to have founded a Holocaust industry of his own.
Bullshit.
He's a great public speaker and he backs up everything he says with the factual record. Though I can see how that can be a problem for you, which is why you resort to calling him a dick, and why slippery weasels like Alan Dershowitz call him a self-hating Jew, among other things. Maybe because they're incapable of actually addressing the points he makes.
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=4
The 6 August 2000 issue of The New York Times Book Review featured a major review of The Holocaust Industry ("A Tale of Two Holocausts") by Omer Bartov, an Israeli military historian turned Holocaust expert. Ridiculing the notion of Holocaust profiteers as a "novel variation of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,'" Bartov let loose a barrage of invective: "bizarre," "outrageous," "paranoid," "shrill," "strident," "indecent," "juvenile," "self-righteous," "arrogant," "stupid," "smug," "fanatic," and so forth. (4) In a priceless sequel some months later, Bartov suddenly reversed himself. Now he railed against the "growing list of Holocaust profiteers," and put forth as a prime example "Norman Finkelstein's 'The Holocaust Industry.'"
Bartov never reversed himself. He never denied that there is holocaust profiteering. He simply thinks that Finkelstein's assertion, that the entire manner in which Jews relate to the holocaust the world over is some sort of conspiracy to extort money and shield Israel from criticism, is a crock of shit.
It's a shame he was unwilling to provide us with any examples.
Once again, it's a shame that he isn't able to provide us with any example of a 'sensational revelation', or 'outrageous accusation'.
Actually, there's no mystification or demagogy in any of Finkelstein's book. They are perfectly clear and unambiguous, are heavily sourced, and rely solely on the factual record.
Though I find it ironic that an Israel apologist can have the audacity to accuse someone like Finkelstein of mystification and demagogy, considering that mystification and demagogy are the Israel apologists standard modus operandi.
Except the conveniently forgets to mention that the actual survivors of the holocaust in question have in the cases he documents in his book, failed to see a penny of the money 'shaken down' from the Swiss banks.
Still, at least he was able to throw in the old Anti-Semitism slur. The article would have been incomplete without at least one mention of it.
Impressive use of a thesaurus here.
Sure, he showed so little sympathy for the survivors of the holocaust, that he took upon himself to write an entire book on their behalf, denigrating those who have sought to exploit their suffering.
Once again, it really is a shame that this writer was unable to provide us with even one example of an indifference to historical facts, an inner contradiction, or a dubious contextualization.
Thereby discounting any and all of the actual claims made in the book, all of which are supported by the factual record.
So there we have it; an entire article that fails to address any of the actual points made in the book itself, and which fails to provide us with even one single example of Finkelstein's 'faulty logic', 'sensational revelations', or 'outrageous accusations'.
Pathetic.
any man that can make such an impassioned defense of one o.j. simpson has zero credibility in my book. it means he would be willing to sell his soul and his integrity to prove a lie that simpson was innocent...and in dealing with this issue, i believe that integrity is very important.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
He didn't reduce her to tears. She was already weeping when she stepped up to the podium. The girl was pathetic, and attempting to use emotional blackmail and the memory of the holocaust to excuse and justify Israel's crimes against the Palestinians, and Finkelstein was right to put her in her place.
As for Finkelstein being supported by the facts, no less than the late Peter Novick, of the University of Chicago, whom Finkelstein himself cited as the scholarly inspiration for writing the Holocaust Industry, said in his own review of Finkelstein's book that:
"No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites.”
Would you have been happy if he had refused to accept any royalties for a book that he spent at least a year writing?
Your argument is pathetic.
Except that isn't what Finkelstein said, and it isn't the purpose of the book at all. His assertion isn't that Jews, the World over, are guilty of this extortion, but that certain people and organizations are. But then you know that already. That's just an attempt on your part to trivialize and denigrate the book instead of addressing any of the facts contained in it.
B, whatever, the girl isn't the point. The point is that Finkelstein is not a nice, caring, person. He treats other people like shit.
Whatever, I posted the review. It can speak for itself. People on here can make their own decisions whether on this subject they want to place more trust in you or in the expert scholar from one of the best universities in the world.
Your desperation is telling.
So now we're led to believe that it's beyond the remit of any review to actually provide any evidence supporting the criticism's it makes. We're just supposed to take the reviewers word for it, are we?
So what? This critical thinking should be applied to any book, or article, should it not? In fact, I'm sure Finkelstein would agree wholeheartedly with Peter Novick's comments.
I disagree.
I've seen many of his debates and public talks, and also the documentary 'American Radical', and I've never once seen or heard him treat anyone like shit, unless, like Dershowitz, they fully deserved it.
Your attempt at character assassination, whilst failing to actually address any of the points Finkelstein has made, says more about you than it does about him.
Someone who has dedicated the better part of his life to trying to relieve the suffering of an entire people, by highlighting the lies and obfuscations put forth by those apologists of ethnic cleansing, is, in my opinion, a nice, caring person.
Here's a question for you: Have you actually read any of his books?
I abridged a little. Here's a more complete version of Novick's quote:
“As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein concerning reparations and restitution, and on other matters as well, the appropriate response is …examination of his footnotes. Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention. … No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites."
But yeah, you're right, he's just making a general appeal for more critical reading.
As for Bartov's review, I'll be sure to let him know for the future that when he publishes a 800 word book review in a general interest publication he should provide a detailed point by point rebuttal to all the claims made in the work he's reviewing just in case his review is ever cited on an obscure band fansite internet thread. :roll:
That's very clever of you. You now accuse me of 'pretending' something?
The part of his quote you posted previously made no mention of Finkelstein indulging in pure invention, so I was perfectly right to take the quote for what it was.
Was this just a little trick you decided to play in the pursuit of one-upmanship?
Anyway, as far as Peter Novick's claim that Finkelstein has indulged in 'pure invention', I couldn't care less. Finkestein's book has been independently verified and supported by other scholars, as I pointed out above.
RAUL HILBERG: And I was struck by the fact, even as I, myself, was researching the same territory that Professor Finkelstein was covering, that the Swiss did not owe that money, that the $1,250,000,000 that were agreed as a settlement to be paid to the claimants was something that in very plain language was extorted from the Swiss. I had, in fact, relied upon the same sources that Professor Finkelstein used, perhaps in addition some Swiss items.
...I was saying the same thing, and I had published my results in that three-volume work, published in 2003 by Yale University Press, and I did not hear from anybody a critical word about what I said, even though it was the same substantive conclusion that Finkelstein had offered. So that’s the gist of the matter right then and there.
...It takes an enormous amount of academic courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there to support him. And so, I think that given this acuity of vision and analytical power, demonstrating that the Swiss banks did not owe the money, that even though survivors were beneficiaries of the funds that were distributed, they came, when all is said and done, from places that were not obligated to pay that money. That takes a great amount of courage in and of itself. So I would say that his place in the whole history of writing history is assured, and that those who in the end are proven right triumph, and he will be among those who will have triumphed, albeit, it so seems, at great cost.
AVI SHLAIM: His last book, Beyond Chutzpah, is based on an amazing amount of research. He seems to have read everything. He has gone through the reports of Israeli groups, of human rights groups, Human Rights Watch and Peace Now and B’Tselem, all of the reports of Amnesty International. And he deploys all this evidence from Israeli and other sources in order to sustain his critique of Israeli practices, Israeli violations of human rights of the Palestinians, Israeli house demolitions, the targeted assassinations of Palestinian militants, the cutting down of trees, the building of the wall — the security barrier on the West Bank, which is illegal — the restrictions imposed on the Palestinians in the West Bank, and so on and so forth. I find his critique extremely detailed, well-documented and accurate.
And just what is he 'wrong' about?
:corn:
And many scholars have criticized him as a hack. It all depends on who you choose to put your faith in. I will continue to put more faith in the people who don't seem, to me, to be driven by bias, and who are therefore capable of perceiving the complexities and nuances of the world we live in (which is not a quality that I've found in Finkelstein).
I think he's wrong about many things. I think he's right about a few things as well. It was a general statement.
Yep, I suppose it's only to be expected that a Jewish son of holocaust survivors would be 'biased' in favour of the rights of Palestinians.
:roll:
Conveniently vague reply.
No. Just one thing will do.
You said above that:
So you must know what it is he's wrong about, right?
"I do believe that Hezbollah has the right to target Israeli civilians if Israel persists in targeting civilians until Israel ceases its terrorist acts."
Leaving aside the fact that I think his characterization of Israel's actions is wrong, I don't see any way that this statement can be morally justified. This is very basic two wrongs don't make a right kind of stuff. He's simply wrong about this. No matter what Israel does, Hezbollah has no right to target civilians.
There's many other aspects of his positions, even on the topic of Hezbollah, that I have a problem with, but I'll leave it at that.