Holocaust Hypocrisy


Pages: 1 2


The inappropriate use of Holocaust and Nazi imagery to attack political opponents is rampant both on the left and the right and both among Jews and non-Jews.  In fact, it seems far more prevalent on the left, many of whose most vocal ideologues invoke it against all manner of enemy ranging from George W. Bush, to Israel, to me (“Zionazi”).  Rabbi Michael Lerner and his supporters refer to Kristallnacht  when attacking those who criticize them.  Rabbi Arthur Woskow decries the possibility of a nuclear Holocaust.  Keith Olbermann repeatedly invokes Nazi imagery.  Move On, an organization funded by George Soros, produced a video showing pictures of Hitler and Nazi rallies and claiming that Hitler’s war crimes have become President Bush’s foreign policy.  Norman Finkelstein, whose articles are published and praised by Michael Lerner, repeatedly compares the Israeli army to the Gestapo.  Gilad Atzmon apologizes for making such a comparison, arguing that the Israeli army is far worse than the Gestapo.

There are also several prominent Israeli professors who regularly compare Israel and Nazi Germany.  And just a week or so before this Wall Street Journal ad appeared, a prominent Jewish liberal congressman, Steve Cohen, compared Republican arguments against Obama healthcare to the “big lies” told by Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

One would think that a group of rabbis, many on the hard left, would express concern about their coreligionists and ideological soul mates misusing the Holocaust.  “But nooooooo!,” as John Belushi used to say.  These rabbis, 400 strong, took out a $100,000 ad in the Wall Street Journal, limiting their vitriol to two right wing figures who have misused Holocaust imagery:  Glenn Beck and Roger Ailes.  Not surprisingly, the list of rabbis includes both Michael Lerner, whose dubious rabbinical credentials have been questioned for years, and Arthur Woskow, a strident demonizer of Israel.  Both of these rabbis are guilty of the very offense they accuse Beck and Ailes of committing.  I would bet there are also other rabbis on the list whose sermons and political screeds include inappropriate Holocaust references and support for Move On.

Why then did so many decent rabbis sign an ad that includes indecent rabbis and that fails to deal with the far more serious problem of Jewish demonizers of Israel who repeatedly compare the Jewish state to Nazi Germany?  Related to that question is another one:  Who shelled out the $100,000 that it costs to run a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal?  Certainly it wasn’t the rabbis themselves, many of whom earn yearly salaries less that the cost of the ad.  The third question is how many of these rabbis would sign an ad condemning the inappropriate use of Holocaust imagery by hard left delegitimators of Israel such as Lerner, Woskow, Finkelstein and Atzmon?

Pages: 1 2

  • muchiboy

    "..but Holocaust metaphors should be used sparingly and never, ever with regard to Israel. Any such comparison is obscene, ahistorical, anti-Semitic and despicable."

    Personally,this brings up a red flag for me,as well thought out and intentioned as it may be.I can understand and even sympathize with the stated view,but restricting my criticism of Israel in such a way may further attempts by the Zionists and pro Israel lobby to equate antisemitism with anti-Zionism.I for one will not be sighing on any time soon to such a censored go easy on Israel world view.However,in keeping with the legitimate points made by the author I will be more vigilant and self aware if not self censoring in my criticism of Israel and the Zionists.muchiboy

    • MixMChess

      Dershowitz is making a good point that there is absolutely NO comparison between Israel and the Nazis treatment of Jews.

      The Nazis’ objective was the systematic extermination of every Jew in Europe. Israel is seeking peace with its Palestinian neighbors. Over 1.5 Arabs live as free and equal citizens in Israel (making up 20% of Israel's population). When Israel engages in actions against Palestinians in the territories, it is to protect Israeli citizens – Jews AND non-Jews – from the incessant campaign of terror waged by the PA and Islamic radicals. There is and never has been a plan to persecute, exterminate, or expel the Palestinian people.

    • USMCSniper

      Listen you hemmoroid sucking mindless leftist twit: These are JEWS in this video!
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WVyqht71Ns&fe

  • aspacia

    muchless, I doubt if any conservative gives a rat's a$$ that you might actually self-censor yourself. Most do not respect you steming from the fact you lie, omit facts, and only listen to Arab propaganda. I read both Israeli and Arab media.

  • http://www.therepublicrevealed.com/ Victor Laslow

    The time is coming fast that Israel will be no more. Not as we know it. Stop, look and listen to what is going on all around you, you just might see what I see. http://www.therepublicrevealed.com/forums/index.p

  • http://www.therepublicrevealed.com/ Victor Laslow

    Dear Sharon. A letter to a liberal Jewish friend…. http://www.therepublicrevealed.com/forums/index.p
    Victor Laslow

  • Elliot

    Whenever I see someone making a comparison between Nazi Germany and Israel I just scroll on by. I just dismiss them-no problem.There are no similarities and one would have to be a contortionist to make the argument. There are none.

    So, let them discredit themselves.They have personal demons which drive these agendas.I can't fathom what they could be and one needs a psychiatrist to suss it all.

    The majority of college kids grow up, cut the apron strings, and decide for themselves if they are the least bit curious. This isn't a difficult analysis.

  • Cynic

    These rabbis, 400 strong, took out a $100,000 ad in the Wall Street Journal,

    They’re not religious rabbis but secular rabbis.

  • Taim

    Mr. Dershowitz is a habitual liar well exposed by Finkelstein. How he can be a professor in a university is something that should be the subject of one's thesis.

    Norman Finkelstein has exposed Dershowitz totally. He accused Finkelstein's mother of being a "kapo". This is his integrity (or lack of it). Whenever I read his name under an article, I dismiss the article without giving much thought.

    Not to mention, Dershowitz does not know how to write a coherent sentence. His articles are a pain to read, suggesting an infirm mind.

    • stern

      Interesting, though, that Finkelstein is the one who was fired from is job as a professor at a university, while Dershowitz continue to thrive in his. Kinda makes you wonder who exposed whom, doesn't it? (Okay, I know it doesn't make you wonder, because you've already made up your mind – but to any rational person, it's perfectly clear who's right and who's wrong.)

      • Taim

        "Interesting, though, that Finkelstein is the one who was fired from is job as a professor at a university, while Dershowitz continue to thrive in his."

        Of course, this should be the subject of investigation, as I already said.

        You are a rational person – go to Finkelstein website and check how he exposes Dershowitz on his plagiarism. Read it with an OPEN mind.

        Then see the debate between Dershowitz and Finkelstein on DemoracyNOW on youtube on the same subject, with an OPEN mind.

        Then also read on Finkelstein's website, and from other sources, about the massive campaign launched by Dershowitz and his cohorts to influence the decision of the university from which Finkelstein was fired. Read the details, how most people on the penal supported Finkelstein but some influential people betrayed him.

        In a country in which a presidential candidate has to repeatedly remind everyone how supportive of Israel he is, to have any hope of election, you think criticism of the Israel in the manner practiced by Finkelstein is such an easy task?

        Now if your rational mind hasn't already grasped the fact how pro-Israel America is, may I remind you that America is one of 4 or maybe 5 countries of the world that oppose an annual general assembly resolution calling for withdrawal of Israeli occupying forces from Palestinian territories. The other include Israel itself, Australia, and couple of banana republics.

        • stern

          To take your last point first, look at who approves of those resolutions. Great democracies like China, Saudi Arabia, Syria etc etc. Of course, you can also point to the European countries, but that's another issue completely. Britain, for example, is one of the world's most anti-Semitic countries. For example, take the recent court case where a group of people were acquitted of charges that they'd broken into a warehouse and destroyed stuff because that stuff was destined for Israel! France ain't much better, running scared of its own Muslim population and pandering to the Arab oil lobby for years.

          As for reading Finkelstein's stuff, I have to ask you whether you have read Dershowitz's responses to those accusations. He has answered every one of them, to my satisfaction.

          And the reason Finkelstein was fired had more to do with the fact that he has not produced any academic writing in years, preferring to pander to people like you who take his every word as gospel.

          You keep asking me to have an OPEN mind. I could very well say the same thing to you.

          • stern

            One more thing on the last point. I quote your own words: "Whenever I read his name under an article, I dismiss the article without giving much thought."

            And you're the one who keeps telling ME to keep an OPEN mind?

          • Taim

            You refuted your own democracy argument by mentioning European countries. Now you accuse European countries of antisemitism – by using their relatively tougher (yet still quite mild) stance on Israel; going into circles aren't we?

            So to answer your rhetorical question – who favors those resolutions? The WHOLE world – yes, that's right – literally the whole world – except for United states, Israel and a couple of other states.

            As for Finkelstein, I should say you should see the debate he had with Dershowtiz on the topic of plagiarism and Israel on Democracy Now. It's there on you-tube.

            Finkelstein's works on Israel and Holocaust have been praised by people of scholarly stature, including of Jewish origin. I don't think so he can be accused of not producing academic writings (of course, academic writings suiting one's purpose is another subject altogether).

            Now my opinion of Dershowtiz and his "writings" has been shaped after I have read tons of arguments from both sides, including Dershowtiz debates with Chomsky and others.

            If a person is satisfied with Dershowitz, I have nothing more to say to him just like have nothing to say to people who still believe in flat earth.

          • MixMChess

            "Finkelstein's works on Israel and Holocaust have been praised by people of scholarly stature, including of Jewish origin. I don't think so he can be accused of not producing academic writings (of course, academic writings suiting one's purpose is another subject altogether)."

            The only people who praise Finkelstein's works are other Israel haters like Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappe. Of course, Finkelstein has many fans among neo-Nazis such as Robert Faurisson, David Duke, the Frank Weltner. Additional, Islamo-fascists groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah (both of which are committed to the world wide destruction of Jewry) openly support Finkelstein. Apparently the feeling is mutual considering Finkelstein has expressed solidarity with Hezbollah and Hamas as well as other Palestinian terrorist organizations engaged in murderous activities against Israeli children.

          • Taim

            "Raul Hilberg, most distinguished historian on the Nazi holocaust and member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, comments on the first edition of The Holocaust Industry: "

            Link:
            http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/category/the-hol

          • MixMChess

            Peter Novick, Professor of History at the University of Chicago and a noted Holocaust historian strongly criticized Finkelstein's work, describing it as "trash."

            Historian Omer Bartov, writing for The New York Times Book Review, judged Finkelstein's book about the "Holocaust Industry" to filled with errors: '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…" Bartov went on to describe Finkelstein's "conspiracy theory" as "both irrational and insidious."

            The Anti-Defamation League cited Finkelstein as an "obsessive anti-Zionist" filled with "vitriolic hatred of Zionism and Israel."

            Check-mate.

          • Taim

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raul_Hilberg

            "Raul Hilberg. … was widely considered to be the world's preeminent scholar of the Holocaust, and his three-volume, 1,273-page magnum opus, The Destruction of the European Jews, is regarded as a seminal study of the Nazi Final Solution."

            Let's see Peter Novik:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Novick

            "Peter Novick is an American historian, best known for writing That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Profession and The Holocaust in American Life. The latter title has also been published as The Holocaust and Collective Memory, especially for non-US anglophonic markets."

            Gee, he is no Holocaust expert but poser.

            As for Omer Bartov, read here and decide who really is the expert on Holocaust, Hilberg or these men:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omer_Bartov

            It is the story of quantity not quality?

            I can oblige:

            "Informing Finkelstein's analysis is a universal ethics… He, and not the Jewish organizations he criticizes, is following the example set by the great Jewish prophets."

            – The Nation

            "…clever, explosive, sometimes even wryly funny."

            – Salon.com

            "… a short, sharp and copiously noted polemic."

            – Times Higher Educational Supplement

            "… his basic argument that memories of the Holocaust are being debased is serious and should be given its due."

            – The Economist

            "… Finkelstein has raised some important and uncomfortable issues… examples cited can be breathtaking in their angry accuracy and irony."

            – The Jewish Quarterly

            "Finkelstein is at his best when he skewers those who would sacralize the Holocaust…"

            – Los Angeles Times Book Review

            Admit defeat with grace or are you still adamant and want to go like Husni Mubarak?!

          • Taim

            And anti-defamation league? The fli p side of it would be neo-Nazis.

          • MixMChess

            Please…

            German historian Hans Mommsen disparaged Finkelstein's work as "trivial" and said that it "appeals to easily aroused anti-Semitic prejudices."

            Israel Gutman stated that Finkelstein's work "is not research; it isn't even political literature… I don't even think it should be reviewed or critiqued as a legitimate book."

            Even anti-Israel Historian Benny Morris has long been critical of Finkelstein's scholarly research as it relates to his [Morris's] work. He criticizes Finkelstein for "selectively quot[ing]" from his book and for not knowing "anything …beyond what is found" in his books. His sources, according to Morris, are "dubious," and he adds that Finkelstein fails to marshal "sources or materials from elsewhere that could serve to contradict my findings"

            The New York Times' review of the Finkelstein's book described its premise as a "novel variation" of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and descrbed Finkelstein as "juvenile," "arrogant," and "stupid."

            Chuck Suchar, the Dean of DePaul’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences stated that Finkelstein's scholarship "threatens the basic tenets of discourse within an academic community—to conduct inquiry with civility
            and without undue or unnecessary personal injury or attack."

            Sorry Taim, you lose again! :-)

          • Taim

            Nope, my score is high both in QUALITY as well as in quantity:

            (Bring a scholar of Hilberg's stature who is an EXPERT in the holocaust studies, not pseudo holocaust historians)

            "Raul Hilberg, most distinguished historian on the Nazi holocaust and member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, comments on the first edition of The Holocaust Industry: "

            "Informing Finkelstein's analysis is a universal ethics… He, and not the Jewish organizations he criticizes, is following the example set by the great Jewish prophets."

            – The Nation

            "…clever, explosive, sometimes even wryly funny."

            – Salon.com

            "… a short, sharp and copiously noted polemic."

            – Times Higher Educational Supplement

            "… his basic argument that memories of the Holocaust are being debased is serious and should be given its due."

            – The Economist

            "… Finkelstein has raised some important and uncomfortable issues… examples cited can be breathtaking in their angry accuracy and irony."

            – The Jewish Quarterly

            "Finkelstein is at his best when he skewers those who would sacralize the Holocaust…"

            – Los Angeles Times Book Review

          • MixMChess

            Taim, you're an idiot. Peter Novick is a Holocaust scholar on par with Mr. Hillberg. I provided you with evidence of historians and scholars who have all said Finkelstein is a liar and has shoddy scholarship. You list off a bunch of online magazines that gave his book glowing reviews. I provided more quality and quantity than your pea brain can handle. Seriously, give it up loser.

          • Taim

            "Taim, you're an idiot. Peter Novick is a Holocaust scholar on par with Mr. Hillberg."

            Nonsense. Look at the Wiki entry on Peter Novick:

            "Peter Novick is an American historian, best known for writing That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Profession and The Holocaust in American Life. The latter title has also been published as The Holocaust and Collective Memory, especially for non-US anglophonic markets."

            So? He is not even a holocaust scholar and has not authored any book on the holocaust itself (now holocaust in American life is not a book about holocaust itself).

            And his wikipedia entry also include:

            "He has been a fierce critic of Norman Finkelstein,"

            In four lines of his biography on wiki, it was worth mentioning his rivarly with Finkelstein.

            What a great "holocaust historian"!

            So the "idiot" here it seems is you.

            [quote]I provided you with evidence of historians and scholars who have all said Finkelstein is a liar and has shoddy scholarship. You list off a bunch of online magazines that gave his book glowing reviews. I provided more quality and quantity than your pea brain can handle. Seriously, give it up loser.[/quote]

            You provided me with no scholar on par with Raul Hilberg who is an EXPERT in the holocaust studies.

            I referred to you EXPERT opinion, you started the rat race of putting up quotations from newspaper reviews to mediocre scholars who have an agenda on Israeil issue, and now you cry?

            Admit defeat with grace, if you have any. You said Finkelstein's work has been praised only by lunatics like Neo-Nazis or Hamas, I gave you evidence that this is not the case and that experts in the field have praised his work.

            Do you have the grace to concede your point?

            I don't think so (judging from your support of a character like Derhsowtiz).

          • MixMChess

            I won't concede because I'm right and you're still an idiot. There is no doubt that Peter Novick is a Holocaust expert. He titled a book about the Holocaust in American Life. It is a book about the Holocaust ITSELF and its impact on America.

            You hang your hat on one man, Raul Hillberg. The only reason Hilberg praised Finkelstein was because Finkelstein had earlier smeared Hilberg's own arch-nemesis, the historian Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. As Steven Plaut describes: "It was an example of Middle East style vendetta, where 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.'"

            Finkelstein has more critics than supports. Outside of Hillberg, all of Finkelstein's supporters are biased opponents of Israel or Neo-Nazis (where do you fit in?). Name one peer-reviewed article or book by Finkelstein. You won't find it! Anyone can publish a book and get some good reviews from a crappy newspaper. Heck if that is your standard, than Dershowitz easily eclipses Finkelstein in terms of praise for his works.

            Seriously, give it up and quit embarrassing yourself. You are a loser. Go back under your rock turd.

          • Taim

            "I won't concede because I'm right and you're still an idiot. There is no doubt that Peter Novick is a Holocaust expert. He titled a book about the Holocaust in American Life. It is a book about the Holocaust ITSELF and its impact on America. "

            Nonsense. He is not holocaust scholar on par with likes of Raul Hilberg, and his wiki entry proves it. Provide evidence if you have any other repeating nonsense.

            "You hang your hat on one man, Raul Hillberg. The only reason Hilberg praised Finkelstein was because Finkelstein had earlier smeared Hilberg's own arch-nemesis, the historian Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. As Steven Plaut describes: "It was an example of Middle East style vendetta, where 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.'" "

            Now you expose your true self.

            If Raul Hilberg had ulterior motives, I can say the same about medicore historains like Peter Novick with more confidence.

            HIs Wiki entry talks about his RIVALRY with Finkelstein. What more can I say?

            You say, except Hilberg, the others who praised Finkelstein work are biased opponents of Israel. WHat does this mean? Criticizing Israel is not something that makes someone biased.

            But I can say the same about the opponents who attacked Finkelstein's work. They are active supporters of Israeli occupation and because Finkelstein is a critic of Israel, they oppose Finklestein's work.

            What makes your argument more valid than mine?

            And remember, Finkelstein's book has been praised by the leading holocaust historian, Raul HIlberg.

            As for peer-reviewed article and book – I can show you reviews of his other books, which have received greater acclaim than this work in holocaust industry.

            You must also remember, that being a fierce critic of Israel does no go down well with the leading publications in the United States.

            It is you who needs to give up your sorry arguments and defense or an indefensible character, not me.

          • Taim

            Hi,

            Well, you refuted your own argument in which you implied that it is the authoritarian regimes who support the UN resolutions calling an end to Israel’s occupation, by mentioning the European countries. So your democracy argument is demolished by yourself. Thank you.

            Now as for antisemitism in Europe, well you can accuse just about anyone of antisemitism who dare to criticize Israel. Is this a valid argument?

            You are indulging in a logical fallacy. You accuse European countries of antisemitism for their relatively tougher stance on Israel – it means you will never accept any criticism of Israel and always equate it with antisemitism. You have shut the doors to logical argument.

            Now, who approves of those resolutions? The WHOLE world, except for a few states including Israel and America!

            As for Finkelstein, just watch the debate he had with Dershowtiz on the issue of plagiarism, on youtube and then come back to me.

            If you are satisfied with Dershowitz I can do nothing but look at you in the same manner as I do to those who still believe in a flat earth.

            Regarding Finkelstein alleged lack of acadamic writings, I should tell you many of his works on Israel and holocaust has been praised by people of scholarly stature including of Jewish origin. You can again read this on Finkelstein website.

            As for me not reading Dershowitz article, of course, I have followed the debate between him and Finkelstein, as well as Chomsky, earnestly, and it is after reading a lot of works from both sides that I have made my conclusions.

        • MixMChess

          "You are a rational person – go to Finkelstein website and check how he exposes Dershowitz on his plagiarism."

          This is amusing considering that all of Finkelstein's accusations of Dershowitz plagarism were proven false. Former Harvard president Derek Bok, following a review requested by Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan, determined that no plagiarism had occurred.

          In fact, Finkelstein's own publisher refused to print the claim that Dershowitz did not write The Case for Israel or use the word "plagiarize" because, the publisher said, "it couldn’t document that" Dershowitz misappropriated sources.

          Additionally, James O. Freedman, the former president of Dartmouth College, the University of Iowa, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, has defended Dershowitz stating, "there is no claim that Dershowitz used the words of others without attribution. When he uses the words of others, he quotes them properly and generally cites them to the original sources" and that there was no indication of plagiarism, "under any reasonable definition of that word."

          • Taim

            So placing identical quotes lifted from another work in your book is not plagiarism?

            Maybe, not technically, as he did not steal someone's ideas. Or maybe yes, as he presented someone's research as his own.

            But in any case, this proves what kind of "scholar" and "author" this man is. And simply by studying Finkelstein's allegations and watching the ensuring debate objectively, one has to conclude that maybe not technically a plagiarist (questionable), Dershowtiz is no doubt someone who does not know the first thing about scholarly research and "authoring a book".

            This is the point. To show the credibility of this man (and by extension the credibliyt of those institutions is which such people are hired as professors).

            I must say you have all ignored another of Dershowitz's disgraceful episodes whereby he accused Finkelstein's mother of being a "kapo".

          • MixMChess

            Did you even bother to read my above comment? Harvard Law School conducted an investigate inquiry and found no traces of plagiarism. End of story.

            As for credibility, Finkelstein has been exposed as a liar with shoddy research by multiple professors and historians in addition to Dershowitz, See my earlier comment. No question Finkelstein is an idiot, a liar and has a serious mental derangement and obsession with Israel and Jews.

          • Taim

            So you take the investigation of Haward Law School (against their own "distingisted" professor) as the word of God?

            I dare don't!

            Tell me again, is lifting quotes from another work and putting them into your own almost identically, a scholarly practice to you?

            Your insults towards FInkelstein only show your frustrations and bias. It is not a valid argument.

            On the contrary, Dershowtiz has been proved as a blatant liar by Finkelstein on a number of occasions. One example I suggest to you is the debate between the two on Democracy Now which can be viewed on youtube.

            The rest of your post is too outlandish.

          • MixMChess

            "So you take the investigation of Haward Law School (against their own "distingisted" professor) as the word of God?"

            I trust the Harvard Law School administration which have a legal and ethical duty to be truthful over Finkelstein who is an antisemitic hysteric.

            "Tell me again, is lifting quotes from another work and putting them into your own almost identically, a scholarly practice to you?"

            Dershowitz never lifted any quotes, any unoriginal work was properly cited according to academic standards. Finkelstein on the other hand has a history of not providing sources for his fabrications and frequently misquotes the works of Historian Benny Morris.

            "Your insults towards FInkelstein only show your frustrations and bias. It is not a valid argument."

            The same can be said regarding your insults towards Prof. Dershowitz.

            "On the contrary, Dershowtiz has been proved as a blatant liar by Finkelstein on a number of occasions. One example I suggest to you is the debate between the two on Democracy Now which can be viewed on youtube."

            I have seen that debate and nowhere did Dershowitz look like a liar. Walk away Taim before you embarrass yourself more.

          • Taim

            "I trust the Harvard Law School administration which have a legal and ethical duty to be truthful over Finkelstein who is an antisemitic hysteric. "

            So your opinion on the issue is based on prejudice and bias.

            I indict Dershowtiz based on his writings and the CONTENT of Finkelstein's allegation, as any objection person would.

            "Dershowitz never lifted any quotes, any unoriginal work was properly cited according to academic standards. Finkelstein on the other hand has a history of not providing sources for his fabrications and frequently misquotes the works of Historian Benny Morris. "

            Dershowtiz not only lifted quotes, but LIFTED THE MISTAKES in those quotes.

            What about Dershowtiz attributing "turnspeak" to Orwell? So confused was he plagiarizing from another's work, that he couldn't even note that Orwell cointed the term "newspeak".

            "I have seen that debate and nowhere did Dershowitz look like a liar. Walk away Taim before you embarrass yourself more."

            I can take a donkey to the river, but I can't make him drink water (no personal insult, just to highlight the difficult task of convincing a blind opponent).

            Me embarrassing myself? Well, your blindness is not confined to this issue only.

          • MixMChess

            "So your opinion on the issue is based on prejudice and bias."

            Not at all. You really don't get it do you? Harvard Law School has legal and ethical duty to uphold truthfulness. They were bound to conduct an unbiased and completely objective inquiry. They vindicated Dershowitz. I trust an unbiased and objective body over the opinion of Finkelstein who has a clearly biased agenda. Match point.

            "I indict Dershowtiz based on his writings and the CONTENT of Finkelstein's allegation, as any objection person would."

            But you aren't objective, you are an antisemitic Israel-basher.

            "What about Dershowtiz attributing 'turnspeak' to Orwell? So confused was he plagiarizing from another's work, that he couldn't even note that Orwell cointed the term 'newspeak.'"

            Again, Harvard University exonerating Dershowitz against Finkelstein's charges that he committed "plagiarism." End of story.

            How come in Finkelstein's book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict he exclusively on Benny Morris's book "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem" rather than checking the original source? Benny Morris himself has charged that Finkelstein distorted the secondary source.

            I guess your hero is a fraud after all huh?

          • Taim

            "Not at all. You really don't get it do you? Harvard Law School has legal and ethical duty to uphold truthfulness. They were bound to conduct an unbiased and completely objective inquiry. They vindicated Dershowitz. I trust an unbiased and objective body over the opinion of Finkelstein who has a clearly biased agenda. Match point. "

            This is pure example of argument of authority.

            I humbly say that the patricular body failed to uphold objectivity and truthfulness in the case of their long term professor, professor Dershowtiz.

            I am asking you to trust YOUR own intelligence, not Finkelstein or me.

            "How come in Finkelstein's book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict he exclusively on Benny Morris's book "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem" rather than checking the original source? Benny Morris himself has charged that Finkelstein distorted the secondary source. "

            If you can refer to me any article written by Benny Morris in which he demostrates that Finkelstein quoted his historical research but did not attributed to him, I will be grateful.

            If it turns out to be true, I would be the first person to condemn this action on Finkelstien's part.

          • MixMChess

            "I humbly say that the patricular body failed to uphold objectivity and truthfulness in the case of their long term professor, professor Dershowtiz."

            Really? Did you read their findings? Are you an expert in Chicago citation standards? Are you an expert in AML or BlueBook citation procedures? You have no authority and basis to challenge their findings. This would be laughable if you weren't actually serious. Get a clue dope.

            "If you can refer to me any article written by Benny Morris in which he demostrates that Finkelstein quoted his historical research but did not attributed to him, I will be grateful."
            http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x

            You are now free to condemn your hero Finkelstein. And no cop-outs or dodging allowed! Be a man and admit you are wrong with grace and dignity.

          • Taim

            "Really? Did you read their findings? Are you an expert in Chicago citation standards? Are you an expert in AML or BlueBook citation procedures? You have no authority and basis to challenge their findings. This would be laughable if you weren't actually serious. Get a clue dope. "

            I may not be an expert on the "Chicago citation standards" or the "BlueBook citation procedures", but I do claim some knowledge of the UNIVERSAL standards of decency and authentic scholarship.

            I know that it is wrong to quote someone scholarly research and present it as your own.

            I know that it is completely incompetent to repeat the MISTAKES contained in the secondary sources while attributing them directly to the original.

            The particular body in this case might have exxonerated their long term professor based on some dubious technicelity, but any objective person can see where Dershowtiz stands in this regards.

            And yo continue to repeat your argument from authority. Should I tell you that the international court of justice at Hague, declared Israel's control of Palestinian territories as an illegal occupation and termed the building of settlements on occupied territories as an unlawful act?

            Now certainly, you are no better authority on international law than the tribunal at Hague, do you accept their judgment?

            If so, let's end this debate which is on a side issue. You would have conceded the main point that Israel is an occupying force.

    • MixMChess

      "He accused Finkelstein's mother of being a 'kapo'."

      Nope, you now YOU are lying (no wonder you like Finkelstein!). Dershowitz never accused Finkelstein's mother of being a kapo, he was merely repeating that Finkelstein had suspected his own mother of being a "kapo".

      • Taim

        "Nope, you now YOU are lying (no wonder you like Finkelstein!). Dershowitz never accused Finkelstein's mother of being a kapo, he was merely repeating that Finkelstein had suspected his own mother of being a "kapo"."

        And this is precisely the LIE Dershowtiz paddled based either on his maliciousness or incompetence (or both – which is more likely in Dershowtiz's case) in reading a passage contained in Finkelstein's book.

        • MixMChess

          First, I am glad that you admit you lied about Dershowitz calling Finkelstein's mother a kapo which never actually happened.

          Second, Dershowitz didn't lie, he was merely giving a synopsis based on Finkelstein's own writings where he actually did state he had suspicions that his own mother may have been a kapo. What don't you understand?

          • Taim

            I admitted no such thing. Dershowitz shows that he is a disgraceful person when he claims that Finkelstein doubted his mother to be a kapo, saying at one instance that Finkelstein actually "said" that his mother was a kapo.

            Now if you want to revel in this disgrace with your disgraceful mentor, I cannot stop you.

          • MixMChess

            Taim, you're lying AGAIN (No wonder you love Finkelstein)! This is actually kind of funny because first I proved that Dershowitz never called Finkelstein's mother a kapo. Now you claim that Dershowitz "said" that Finkelstein called his own mother a kapo. Dershowitz never "said" any such thing. It's really not that hard to understand… Dershowitz merely reiterated that Finkelstein had suggested he had suspicions that his own mother (Finkelstein's) may have been a kapo.

            Keep worshiping the liar Finkelstein, you two clearly have much in common!

          • Taim

            "Dershowitz never "said" any such thing. It's really not that hard to understand… Dershowitz merely reiterated that Finkelstein had suggested he had suspicions that his own mother (Finkelstein's) may have been a kapo".

            And this is where Dershowitz disgraces himself. He not only misunderstands what Finkelstein actually said (have you read what Finkelstein actually said, are or are rambling without knowing anything?) based on his sinister and incompetent self, he propagandizes this lie on many fora.

            Well, it is not just me, but anti-Finkelstein raving lunatics who conclude the same about Dershowtiz:

            "Apparently relying on information supplied to him by Dershowitz, Professor Steven Plaut of Haifa University has recently stated:

            While Finkelstein likes to defend his own anti-Semitic ravings by claiming his parents are themselves Holocaust survivors, Dershowitz recently revealed that Finkelstein’s mother was in fact a collaborator with German Nazis during the war. (“DePaul U Confronts Amerikan ‘Empire,’” FrontPageMag.com (3 January 2006); posted on this web site under “The New Year Begins”)" "

            Any objective person with a grain of deceny will conclude that Dershowtiz has been disgraceful in this episode for bringing in Finkelstein's mother, who was an holocaust survivor. His remarks and his propaganda amounts effectively to an accusation.

            Keep disgracing yourself by defending Dershowtiz.

          • MixMChess

            Did you even bother to read the article and Dershowit'z actual quotes? It was Steven Plaut who made the suggestion that Finkelstein's mother was a collaborator, not Dershowitz.

            What is wrong with Dershowitz pointing out the fact that Finkelstein had doubts about whether his own mother may have been a kapo? He was merely reiterating Finkelstein's OWN words. The real problem isn't Dershowitz repeating what FInkelstein said, the REAL problem is with Finkelstein's words and thoughts in the first place. Seriously man, just give it up you are a disgrace.

          • Taim

            "Did you even bother to read the article and Dershowit'z actual quotes? It was Steven Plaut who made the suggestion that Finkelstein's mother was a collaborator, not Dershowitz. "

            But based on whom? Plaut said that BASED on Dershowtiz's remarks. Plaut wrote that article on the SAME website Dershowtiz's had his piece on (Frontpage).

            "What is wrong with Dershowitz pointing out the fact that Finkelstein had doubts about whether his own mother may have been a kapo? He was merely reiterating Finkelstein's OWN words. The real problem isn't Dershowitz repeating what FInkelstein said, the REAL problem is with Finkelstein's words and thoughts in the first place. Seriously man, just give it up you are a disgrace."

            Of course, you don't see any problem with it. I expect no better from you. For a person who defends Dershowtiz, it is not surprising at all.

            An attempt to tarnish the character of a decreased female holocaust survivor (and the mother your opponent) cannot be "wrong" in the eyes of neocon bandits.

            Now I ask you again, did you actually read what Finkelstein actually wrote about this mother? Or are you simply apt on disgracing yourself to defend your equally disgraceful hero?

            If you haven't I can help you:
            http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/who-was-maryla-h

            Read the whole article, and then come back to me and tell me if you are as mentally infirm, disingenuous and vicious as the one you are defending, to conclude that Finkelstein really doubted his mother of being a kapo.

          • MixMChess

            The fact that Finkelstein goes through so much effort to defend his original statements and to try to stretch what Dershowitz was actually saying proves my point. Finkelstein should have been more careful in his original writing if he didn't want people to glean that he doubted his own mother was a kapo. Plain and simple.

            But please, explain to me if you are as mentally infirm, disingenuous and vicious as someone like Finkelstein? Oh wait, I already have my answer.

          • Taim

            Finkelstein's original writings were not problematic in the least. I ask you again, have you read it? I even gave you the link. One must be thoroughly incompetent, if not vicious, to conclude from Finkelstein's writings that he BELIEVES his mother to be a kapo,

            No one "gleaned" that from Finkelstein's writings except Dershowtiz, whom I believe to be both incompetent and vicious.

            And Finkelstein were putting "so much effort" in it because your favorite Dershowtiz defamed his deceased mother and pro-Israeli intellectuals like Plaut were using Dershowtiz's "revelation" to repeat this slander.

            Yet you still defend this disgraceful episode?

  • jimminy

    Neither Lerner nopr Waskow are rabbis. Please stop referring to them as such. They are hippy moonbat frauds.

  • angry ed

    Norman Finkelstein is a psychotic Jewish-born Holocaust Denier and Neo-Nazi congenital serial liar and fraud

    Sewing his foreskin back on would be too good for him

    • stern

      Ooh, I love it!

  • muchiboy

    "Listen you hemmoroid sucking mindless leftist twit: These are JEWS in this video!"

    Heinous,what more can I say.This is antisemitism at it's most cruel and inhuman.It is however not an example of anti-Zionism.Really,you do a disservice to the victims of antisemitism everywhere when you equate the two.Most of these horrible acts occurred before there was a re-created Israel or the full realization of the Zionist goal.While anti-Zionism is an expression of the occupation and repression of the Palestinian people by the Diaspora,I will not engage in a useless debate as to what example of mans inhumanity to man is lesser or greater.That too would be a disservice to all victims of mans inhumanity to man.
    Your mindless vile insults similarly do a disservice to the victims of antisemitism.muchiboy

    • MixMChess

      "While anti-Zionism is an expression of the occupation and repression of the Palestinian people by the Diaspora…"

      No anti-Zionism is denying the Jews alone among all nations the right to self-determination. That smacks of antisemitism.

      • Taim

        Why don't you give Jewish the "right to self-determination" in your home town? For that matter, why don't you give to all religious and ethnic groups who do not have a separate state like Sikhs, a piece of America to realize their "self-determination."

        Understand?

        • MixMChess

          I understand, but clearly YOU don't understand. America is a secular and pluralistic society that allows people of all faiths, races, creeds and sexual orientation to call it home.

          Israel historically and legally has always been the home of the Jews. Archeological evidence proves this and ISLAMIC population statistics and historical facts prove that Jews have always been the only indigenous population in Israel. That said, similar to the America, Israel is a secular democracy and a pluralistic society. Israel guarantees freedom of religion for peoples of all faiths, including Islam, the Báha and Druze faiths, as well as Chaldaic and many other Christian denominations, and others. In fact, 20 % (1.5 million) of Israel's population are Arabs.

          Even Israel's Jewish community is diverse. 80% of Israelis are Jews of different ethnicities and races from Arab countries, Ethiopia, India, Russia, the former Soviet Union republics, Latin America, the U.S. and Europe. Refugees from Arab and Muslim Middle Eastern and North African countries and their descendants make up over 50% the Jewish population.

          Understand genius?

          • Taim

            America is a secular state and all including Jewish folks can live happily in it according to you, refuting your own argument that Jews require self-determination.

            According to you, they have self-determination in America and I should say by parallels, in much of the western world. Then why this exclusive ethnic based requirement.

            "Israel historically and legally has always been the home of the Jews."

            What? What are you saying? Which legal institution has pass judgment as to which piece of land historically belongs to which group?

            Secondly, Israel is the name given to this land by some people, other gave it a different name. Try to be objective next time.

            Historical evidence shows that a large number of people living in what is now Israel and Palestinian territories – in fact majority – have been non-Jews for centuries, and most Jews comprising Israel today are of European, Russian and African origin.

            And Israel is NOT purely a secular state. It is, by definition, a Jewish state. A secular state, by definition, has no state religion or affiliation with any ethnicity.

            In Israel, Jews from all over the world are offered citizenship, this does not apply to non-Jews. It is actually a kind of Jewish supremacist state.

            "Even Israel's Jewish community is diverse. 80% of Israelis are Jews of different ethnicities and races from Arab countries, Ethiopia, India, Russia, the former Soviet Union republics, Latin America, the U.S. and Europe. Refugees from Arab and Muslim Middle Eastern and North African countries and their descendants make up over 50% the Jewish population"

            Thank you for proving that Israel is a settler state based on ethnic affiliation.

            Now who should understand?

          • MixMChess

            "America is a secular state and all including Jewish folks can live happily in it according to you, refuting your own argument that Jews require self-determination."

            Actually, America has nothing to do with Jewish rights to self-determination. Just because a people can live in one state doesn't mean that they don't have any right to their own self-determination. By your same retarded logic, the Palestinians can easily live in the U.S. therefore they don't need a state of their own. Same can be said for the rest of the Arab/Islamic world which shouldn't have a right to any self-determination.

            Are you really this stupid?

            "According to you, they have self-determination in America and I should say by parallels, in much of the western world. Then why this exclusive ethnic based requirement."

            Where did I say Jews have self-determination in America or the Western World? In fact the opposite is true, Jews do not have a right to create their own state in America or in Western Countries.

          • Taim

            Answer this question:

            Why should European, African and Russian Jews be more entitled to the land that is now Israel and Palestine than the local Palestinians whose existence goes back to centuries?

          • MixMChess

            Jews have a historical connection to the land going back well over 3,000 years, during which time there has always been an indigenous Jewish population existing in the land. The Palestinian existence in the land only goes back approximately 60-80 years. The majority of the Palestinians immigrated to the land AFTER the Zionists made the land livable and raised the standard of living. The Palestinians are foreign interlopers seeking to disrupt the culture the Jews established in Israel.

          • Taim

            Okay, that "indigenous population" of Jews only constituted the minority of Palestinian population uptil the 19th century.

            What about Jews of Russian, Africa, European, ORIGIN?

            "The Palestinian existence in the land only goes back approximately 60-80 years. The majority of the Palestinians immigrated to the land AFTER the Zionists made the land livable and raised the standard of living. The Palestinians are foreign interlopers seeking to disrupt the culture the Jews established in Israel."

            You lie out of your teeth.

            Jews were SMALL minority of the population of what is now Palestine and Israel up till the early 20th century:

            "By Volney's estimates in 1785, there were no more than 200,000 people in the country.[211] According to Alexander Scholch, the population of Palestine in 1850 had about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews[212]"

            60-80 years you say?

            According to Ottoman statistics studied by Justin McCarthy,[213] the population of Palestine in the early 19th century was 350,000, in 1860 it was 411,000 and in 1900 about 600,000 of which 94% were Arabs. In 1914 Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews.[214] McCarthy estimates the non-Jewish population of Palestine at 452,789 in 1882, 737,389 in 1914, 725,507 in 1922, 880,746 in 1931 and 1,339,763 in 1946.[215]

            So Jews were a SMALL minority up till the the start of the 20th century when Russian and European settlers arrived.

            If you keep on lying like this, I will ignore you for this part of the debate.

  • Binyamine

    Please, read this:

    At least 26 Signatories On the Wall Street Journal Ad Criticizing Glenn Beck for Holocaust Analogies Are Themselves Tied to Nazi Analogies
    http://jewsforsarah.com/?p=6398

  • muchiboy

    "How did that feel? Knowing our people at last had found a safe haven, a place that can welcome its people home.."

    I can't argue that sentiment.I can however argue the impact of the realization of that same sentiment on the Palestinian people.When safe haven for one (i.e.Jew) becomes the ethnically cleansed for the other (i.e.Palestinian) it is not so pure and simple.muchiboy

    • MixMChess

      "When safe haven for one (i.e.Jew) becomes the ethnically cleansed for the other (i.e.Palestinian) it is not so pure and simple."

      It is pure and simple because the Palestinians were never ethnically cleansed. Why else did the Zionists urge the Palestinians not to leave the region and encouraged them to stay in their homes and communities? Why else has the Palestinian population increased exponentially under Israeli rule? You sound like a broken record, we're all tired of your moronic rhetoric. Move past the lies or go away.

    • Binyamine

      The Arabs now called Palestinian were never the indigenous people of that land as many tend to believe only because the Arab world created such false narrative intending to destroy the Jewish state. Most of the Arabs came en mass to Palestine when the British ruled and when the Jews were re-establishing their home land in Palestine. They came to that land because they sought work and were cheap labor. And they, these Arabs, originated in the Arabian desert now called Saudi Arabia or other neighboring areas. Study the 1922 Palestine Mandate Document, valid to date and under sacred trust. Indeed Judea and Samaria are legally belong to the Jewish State and so is the Golan Heights and Gaza.

  • San

    Muchi- what about the 900,000 Jews that were ethnically cleansed from Arab countries after Israel was established? You conveniently ignore that or you are conveniently ignorant or in your "non-anti-semitic mind", ethnically cleansed Jews don't count…their lives don't count. And, oh, yes, you are not an anti-Semite, only anti-Zionist.

  • muchiboy

    "The Arabs now called Palestinian were never the indigenous people.."

    And the hundreds of thousands of European Jewish refugees were?And the thousands of Russian Jews are?And the thousands of black Ethiopian Jews,too? muchiboy

    • MixMChess

      Israel has always maintained a continuous Jewish presence. After the Roman conquest, only a portion of the population was exiled. The remaining Jews flourished for centuries in other Jewish towns, such as Yavne, Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea. Even after the crusades in the 12th century when the Jewish population was decimated, it rebounded in the next centuries and grew as Jews migrated to Safed, Jerusalem, Tiberius and Hebron. Jerusalem has maintained a Jewish majority since at least the 19th century.

      Jews had been returning to Israel for two millennia. The Jews returning in the 19th and 20th centuries were merely part of this age-old pattern. The European Jews, who had been exiled from Israel, were merely returning to their indigenous homeland during the early days of Zionism.

  • Taim

    "Finkelstein is a liar and anti-Semite and so is Chomsky. …"

    Wow, you are so objective.

    You simply dismiss criticism of Israel as antisemitism. You might think this is a valid argument, but to any rational person it is far from it.

    Let's see some evidence of why you think Finkelstein and Chomsky are antisemite, being Jewish themselves. Come on.

    If getting fired from university is your only criteria for determining someone's credibility, you should accept what Chomsky says as he is not only not fired from any but respected by a large number.

    Rest of your argument is too outlandish.

    • Taim

      And did you see the debate between Dershowitiz and Finkelstein (not Chomsky)?

  • MixMChess

    "America is a secular state and all including Jewish folks can live happily in it according to you, refuting your own argument that Jews require self-determination."

    No, it is clear you have no concept of nationality or statecraft. Just because Jews can live in other countries doesn't mean that they don't have a right to self-determination and creating a state of their own. Your argument is completely illogical. In fact, under your argument, the Palestinians can live happily America and therefore do not require self-determination. Similarly, there should be no Arab/Islamic states since the Arab/Islamic citizens can live "happily" in other countries.

    "According to you, they have self-determination in America and I should say by parallels, in much of the western world. Then why this exclusive ethnic based requirement."

    I never claimed that Jews have self-determination in America. Jews cannot create their own state in America or other Western countries. Jews do not have the ability to automatically immigrate to America or other Western Countries.

  • MixMChess

    "What? What are you saying? Which legal institution has pass judgment as to which piece of land historically belongs to which group?"

    Um, its called International Law based on Jus Cogens. Jews have rights to the land based on clear historical connections and archeological evidence. Jews have always been the only indigenous population in the region. The Zionists of the 18th and 19th century LEGALLY purchased VACANT land to build Israel. It is their land based on these facts alone.

    BUT… The League of Nations, which was the International Legal Governing Body in 1922, established the Palestine Mandate guaranteeing Jews a state in Israel.

    AND… The UN, which is the CURRENT International Legal Governing Body affirmed the creation of Israel in 1947 with the UN Partition Plan and with official recognition of Israel in 1948.

    Care to be schooled some more Taim?

  • MixMChess

    "Secondly, Israel is the name given to this land by some people, other gave it a different name. Try to be objective next time."

    The land has been known as Israel and sometimes the Jewish names of Judea and Samaria for over 3,000 years. The term Palestine wasn't used until the second century A.D., after the Romans conquered the land and renamed Palaestina in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The term “Palestine” is derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who had once settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of Israel in the 12th century, who had been defeated by the Jews. The Philistine culture was completely extinct when the Romans renamed the region to Palestine. The Romans chose the name Palestine specifically to insult the Jews by referencing the Jews ancient enemy which was now long extinct.

  • MixMChess

    "Historical evidence shows that a large number of people living in what is now Israel and Palestinian territories – in fact majority – have been non-Jews for centuries, and most Jews comprising Israel today are of European, Russian and African origin."

    Historical evidence does not prove this at all. Jews are indigenous to the land and maintained a continuous presence for over 3,000 years according to archeological and historical evidence. Historian Michael Gant notes that even after the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in approximately 135 AD, Jews remained the majority of the population. They simply left Jerusalem and moved to other parts of the country. By the time of the Crusades (c. 1100 AD), over 300,000 Jews lived in Israel.

    In 1491, European Christian pilgrim Martin Kabatnic described the many Jews in Jerusalem: "There are not many Christians but there are many Jews, and these the Moslems persecute in various ways…The Moslems know that the Jews think and even say that this is the Holy Land which has been promised to them….in spite of all the troubles and sorrows inflicted on them by the Moslems, they refuse to leave the land." Historian Samuel Katz notes that during the sixteenth century, there "developed a new effervescence in the life of the Jews in the country. Thirty communities, urban and rural, are recorded at the opening of the 16th century. They include Haifa, Sh'chem, Hebron, Ramleh, Jaffa, Gaza, Jerusalem and many in the north. Their center was Safed. Its community grew quickly….The 8,000 or 10,000 Jews in Safed in 1555 grew to 20,000 or 30,000 by the end of the century." In fact, "16,000 lived in Safad in 1700, at a time when only a handful of European cities even 10,000 inhabitants." In 1864, British officials estimated that Jews were the majority population in Jerusalem: "the population of the City of Jerusalem is computed at 15,000 of whom about 4,500 Moslem, 8,000 Jews, and the rest Christians of various denominations."

    Those Jews who were exiled Exiled Jews maintained a continuous and intense attachment to their people and their homeland and return to Israel was at the core of their religious beliefs. In addition, during the two millennia of their exile, Jews kept returning to Palestine in periodic waves of emigration. The early Zionists of the 19th and 20th centuries were merely part of this age-old pattern.

  • MixMChess

    "And Israel is NOT purely a secular state. It is, by definition, a Jewish state. A secular state, by definition, has no state religion or affiliation with any ethnicity."

    Looks like you are LYING again Taim. Israel is a purely SECULAR state. Israel has NO official state religion, and all faiths enjoy freedom of worship.

    Israel is governed by the rule of law as drafted by a democratically elected parliament. It is informed by Jewish values and adheres to many Jewish religious customs (such as holidays), but this is similar to the United States and other nations that are shaped by the Judeo-Christian heritage and also have expressly religious elements (e.g., church-state separation in the U.S. does not preclude the recognition of Christmas as a holiday).

    Strange that Israel is attacked for its Jewish character, whereas the Arab states are actual Theocracies with Islam as their official religion. Why don't you attack the Arab states legitimacy?

    • krz2

      isn't there a difference between expressing an opinion and lying? lying is an attempt to knowingly intend to deceive. you can be wrong or even stupid without lying.

  • MixMChess

    "In Israel, Jews from all over the world are offered citizenship, this does not apply to non-Jews. It is actually a kind of Jewish supremacist state."

    Sorry Taim, you are lying again and you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Israel's immigration and citizenship rules. Israel's laws automatically allow Jews worldwide to IMMIGRATE to Israel. This is no different than western countries like France which allows all French citizens and nationals to immigrate to France. Non-Jews can apply to immigrate to Israel. Once immigrated, Jews equally like non-Jews, must apply for citizenship.

  • MixMChess

    Thank you for proving that Israel is a settler state based on ethnic affiliation.

    Israel is not a settler state based on ethnic affiliation. Israel is a diverse and pluralistic society made up with many different cultures. Of course as the Jewish state, the majority of the population are Jews. Just as in Japan the majority of the population are Japanese, or in India, the majority of the population is Indian.

    That said, Israel's non-Jewish minority makes up over 20 percent of the population and is made up of Arab Muslims, Arab Christians, non-Arab Christians, Druze, Bedouins, Circassians, Asians and many other ethnicities and backgrounds.

    Israel is the only country in the middle east that allows freedom of religion and provides equal protection and civil rights to all of its citizens regardless of race, creed, religion or sexual orientation.

  • MixMChess

    Taim, the point is that there was never a stable or "indigenous" Palestinian population unified by a common culture in the region. Foreigners constantly settled in Palestine because Muslim rulers wanted to populate it, because it was the holy land and drew the religious, and because of the shortage of labor.

    As historian Erich Isaac notes, in the course of the 18th and 19th centuries the holy land was essentially repopulated by foreigners: "Egyptians arrived in a number of waves, with an especially large one from 1832 to 1840. Sudanese pioneered successfully in the swampy marshlands. Entire tribes of Bedouin from as far away as Libya settled on the coastal plane. Abandoned villages in the Galilee were resettled by Lebanese Christians. Coastal towns attracted Armenians, Syrians, Turks. Algerian's settled villages in the Galilee. Circassians, Georgians and Russians also founded their own villages. Bosnians, Turkomans from Russian Central Asia and Kurds complete the roster." In fact, the only surviving culture was that of the Jews, who everywhere still pray, and in Israel also speak, in the native language, Hebrew.

    Even anti-Israel historian Benny Morris admits that in the 19th century, "the Ottoman authorities-in an effort at Islamization-transferred tens of thousands of Muslims from the empire's northern and Balkan peripheries (Bukhara, the Caucasus, Albania and Bosnia) to its Levantine core, including Lebanon, Syria and [Israel]. This increased the Muslim proportion of the population."

    During Egypt's rule of region in the 1830's, Mohammed Ali, "sent new settlers to consolidate his rule." The Egyptian settlers scattered to many urban and rural points, appropriated large tracts of land, and lent variety and numbers to the existing population….In a number of villages….there are hundreds of families of Egyptian origin who accompanied the conquering forces….Similarly, in the cities of Samaria and Judea there are hundreds of families which, to this day, are named Masri."

    During WWI and WWII Britain brought in tens of thousands of foreign Arab workers to assist in the war efforts. For example, during WWII, Britain transported 30,000 foreign Arab workers into Israel, at a time when it had closed off immigration to Jews.

    The very idea of a unified Palestinian identity didn't come about until 1964, when in 1964, the Arab League created the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as a tool in its war against Israel.

    Match point and game, Taim.

  • Taim

    Read the wikipedia article on Palestine, all historical research on its demographics is quoted and explained. Why wouldn't you dare?

    You are quoting from Peters' hoax of a book, which has been universally condemned as an hoax. Read historical research not propaganda articles. You are a thinking human being (I hope so), you should rely on your own intelligence and consult the historical sources from the point of view of neutrality.

    Is it too much to ask for from you?

    • MixMChess

      ME: Here are some historical facts and demographics from noted historians and original sources.

      YOU: Why won't you quote from Wikipedia!?

      BTW, I didn't quote from Peters book, but nice try.

  • MixMChess

    "Nonsense. He is not holocaust scholar on par with likes of Raul Hilberg, and his wiki entry proves it. Provide evidence if you have any other repeating nonsense."

    I forgot that Wikipedia has the final say in truthfulness. In addition to Mr. Novick (who is a Holocaust expert), other historians and academics have proven that Finkelstein is nothing more than a raving lunatic. Why else was he denied tenure? I mean seriously just give it up, your hero is a fraud just like you. Quit embarrassing yourself loser.

    "But I can say the same about the opponents who attacked Finkelstein's work. They are active supporters of Israeli occupation and because Finkelstein is a critic of Israel, they oppose Finklestein's work."

    Fine, then you admit that Finkelstein's supporters are biased. End of Story.

    "What makes your argument more valid than mine?"

    Because I'm right and you're wrong. You're an idiot and I'm not. I can go on.

    "As for peer-reviewed article and book – I can show you reviews of his other books, which have received greater acclaim than this work in holocaust industry."

    Book reviews are not on par with peer-reviewed articles or books. If you want to rely on "reviews of books" than I can point to the fact that Dershowitz has received on aggregate MORE acclaim for his books than Finkelstein could ever dream of.

    Give it up loser.

  • MixMChess

    "I may not be an expert on the "Chicago citation standards" or the "BlueBook citation procedures", but I do claim some knowledge of the UNIVERSAL standards of decency and authentic scholarship."

    So you are not an expert. Thank you for answering my question. I think I'll let the experts (such as Harvard Law School and the Harvard Code of Conduct) determine what constitutes plagiarism.

    "The particular body in this case might have exxonerated their long term professor based on some dubious technicelity, but any objective person can see where Dershowtiz stands in this regards."

    Harvard Law School has a legal and ethical duty to be objective when it reviewed the charges. As they proved, any objective person can see that Dershowitz never plagiarized anyone. Just another empty attack by Finkelstein, rather than confronting the cold hard facts.

    "If so, let's end this debate which is on a side issue. You would have conceded the main point that Israel is an occupying force."

    Nope, because 1) the Hague is not objective, and 2) there are other objective international legal scholars that disagree with the Hague's opinion, the reading of their opinion and their basis for jurisdiction to even have the authority to review the manner.

    You lose Taim. Go away.

  • MixMChess

    "Finkelstein's original writings were not problematic in the least. I ask you again, have you read it? I even gave you the link. One must be thoroughly incompetent, if not vicious, to conclude from Finkelstein's writings that he BELIEVES his mother to be a kapo."

    His writings are problematic, and yes I have read them. Not only does he use poor grammar and style, but the way he structured the paragraph one could easily glean that he had serious doubts about whether or not his mother was a kapo. Again, Dershowitz never stated that Finkelstein believed his mother was a kapo, just that his writings suggested he had reservations and doubts.

    Only someone as incompetent and vicious as Finkelstein would have written the paragraph in such a sloppy manner and than attacked people for honestly misinterpreting his poorly written thoughts.

    You lack the intellectual rigor to continue this debate Taim. I am finished with you, go crawl back under the rock you came from.

    • Taim

      Well, you are as intellectually incompetent and disingenuous as your hero Dershowtiz if you glean from Finkelstein's writings that he doubted his mother of being a collaborator.

      But it is not a surprise knowing what kind of a human being you are standing up for.

      Finkelstein has written numerous book praised by intellectuals and historians alike – his grammar style is poor?

      Well, I think it is your brain capacity that is poor.

      I am also finished with you, yes quieten up and stop posting replies to my arguments and you will be at peace.

      • MixMChess

        Taim, Finkelstein is a fraud and a joke. You can have peace in that ok?

  • Taim

    "I forgot that Wikipedia has the final say in truthfulness. In addition to Mr. Novick (who is a Holocaust expert), other historians and academics have proven that Finkelstein is nothing more than a raving lunatic. Why else was he denied tenure? I mean seriously just give it up, your hero is a fraud just like you. Quit embarrassing yourself loser. "

    I told you why he was denied tenure. If that is your problem, FYI, Chomsky is someone who is respected in acadamia Will you agree with his opinion on Israel? If no, then your argument against Finkelstein is flawed. You wouldn't agree with someone whether he is denied tenure or not, so what is the issue with you?

    Again, Peter Novic is NOT a holocaust scholar, let alone holocaust scholar on par with Raul Hilberg.

    He is not written any book on holocaust, and the book about holocaust in America life – have you read it? Look what was that book all about:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Ame

    "The Holocaust in American Life is a book by historian Peter Novick. His subject is NOT the Holocaust, but rather how it has been acknowledged, defined, and spread as an event which requires public remembrance. It has been reviewed by major journals and discussed in many Jewish magazines. [1] It popularized the term "victimization Olympics" to describe how various groups have fought to portray themselves as the most serious victims of the Holocaust." (emphasis mine).

    In fact, his premise of the book is very much similar to Finkelstein – that holocaust has been exploited by Jewish groups in America – and his work has been vociferously condemned by the likes of Dershowtiz!

    You are still adamant that he is a holocaust scholar on par with Hillberg? Being a foul-mouthed assh*le would not help your argument. Try to bring someone objective on the table.

    "Harvard Law School has a legal and ethical duty to be objective when it reviewed the charges. As they proved, any objective person can see that Dershowitz never plagiarized anyone. Just another empty attack by Finkelstein, rather than confronting the cold hard facts. "

    Well, and international court of Justice has the legal and ethical duty to be objevtive when it reviews charges regarding breach of international law.

    If you say that the International Court of Justice at Hague is not objective (oh the cheek!), I have much more reason to say that Harvard law school is biased in favor their OWN professor.

    And don't beg me to go away, I am enjoying wiping your sorry intellectual backside.

    • MixMChess

      The facts still stand, historians, scholars and papers of record (New York Times) all agree that Finkelstein's scholarship is fraudulent. The only one who actually supports Finkelstein is Hillberg (who had an axe to grind with a rival scholar) and Chomsky (who uses Finkelstein to further his own political agenda). In fact, relying on Chomsky is terribly flawed considering he plays fast and loose with the facts.

      BTW, I am not begging you to go away. I enjoy embarrassing you. Also, the term is kicking my intellectual backside, not wiping it. Otherwise you make yourself to sound like my servant. I may have owned you in our debate but I don't literally own you. Big difference genius.

      • Taim

        Now that was a stubborn response with little or no substance. I think you have given up the pretense of supporting your invalid arguments and that's fine by me.

        Again, Finkelstein's scholarship has been praised by renowned people in the academic field and his only "crime" is that he is a fierce critic of Israel.

        And new New York Times is a paper that feeds into the popular opinion – and it is not an expert authority on anything when it comes to opinion.

  • Taim

    "Book reviews are not on par with peer-reviewed articles or books. If you want to rely on "reviews of books" than I can point to the fact that Dershowitz has received on aggregate MORE acclaim for his books than Finkelstein could ever dream of. "

    Then I can bring in Chomsky and other leading intellectuals if you want to talk about popularity.

    But my argument is that Finkelstein's books (which is part of scholarly work) has been acclaimed by renowned historians and political commentators alike. Thus his academic record is not in doubt.

    • MixMChess

      Me: If you want to compare Dershowitz and Finkelstein, then its clear that Dershowitz has received a greater amount of acclaim in the aggregare for his books than Finkelstein has.

      You: Oh yea what about Chomsky?

      Me: This has nothing to do with Chomsky, its about Finkelstein's lack of true academic scholarship.

      You: I'm just gonna deflect the argument I can't win. What about Chomsky?

      • Taim

        Let the readers be the judge. I am confident I have mutilated your argument.

        There is an easy method of not to lose a debate – stand with the truth.

        Doesn't it sound simple and sweet?