False Dichotomies

80 Comments so far

1. May June 11th, 2009 12:33 am

   I have seen this line of reasoning so often in Texas–and nothing you can say gets you anywhere in those kinds of arguments. Thank god I left Texas, I guess.

2. Gabriel June 11th, 2009 12:35 am

   “You have chosen to emigrate to a country that was born by robbing the land of others. You did not do so for economic reasons or because you were discriminated for ethnic or religious reasons. You have served in the army of the robber baron country, so it is utterly hypocritcal to say that you are working for those your country oppresses.

   Your presence in Israel, neither by birth nor by necessity, is a slap in the faces of those who really own that land.”

   This is at the heart of a lot of the hypocrisy in the world about Israel. I live in a country that ethnically cleansed its native people in a far more vicious way than Israel did and yet are allowed to proudly call ourselves “a nation of immigrants”. Did Israel’s creation cause ethnic cleansing? Undoubtedly, but ethnic cleansing to create a country is not only not unique, it is the norm. Also, why exactly is moving to a country for religious reasons somehow worse than moving for economic reasons? In fact, whatever you think of Israel, the reasons for creating the country were infinitely more noble than the reasons for the creation of any New World country. (Which were all about land, resources, and very occasionally freedom from persecution.)

   “Israel is illegitimate.”

   This is something Israelis rightly worry about. This is the dominant thinking in the Muslim and Arab worlds. How can Israel move towards peace when people will never accept it? (I do not agree with this line of thinking, but I understand it.) Again, the absurdity of this statement is mind-boggling. What makes Israel illegitimate exactly? What are the criteria that make a state legitimate or not? The argument of such people will always become something like “Middle Eastern states built on stolen land starting with “I” that are not Iran or Iraq.” In other words, they will start backwards to attempt to make the criteria fit only Israel. This type of thing worries me as I think a total Israeli/Arab peace will be impossible until this unwillingness to accept Israel’s basic existence is greatly lessened.

3. Rankin Mike June 11th, 2009 1:54 am

   Sorry to see that nascent Jewish-Indian dialogue has got off to a rocky start. Like May says, there really is no way of debating with die-hard anti-Zionists.

   Alex, you responded to his/her comments well – nevertheless, wasn’t it provocative sending him that LA Times link in the 1st place?

4. Alex June 11th, 2009 8:16 am

   Ranks – this has nothing to do with Jewish-Indian dialogue, I set up a Jewish-Kashmiri dialogue group, and I have been in touch with this correspondent since before that.
   As for being provocative, well, you know me!

5. Madzionist June 11th, 2009 5:49 pm

   Gert, do you find yourself siding more with the Indian or Alex in this encounter? At one time you held the position of Alex, then you shifted (or hardened as you put it) to the position of the militant anti-Zionist, and now I sense a bit of softening again. In all sincerity, this is where my line in the sand is for dialogue and discussion. Even Alex, as leftist and liberal as he may be, has this line that he will not cross, too… the line where indoctrination of bias and bigotry against Israel so severe that the result is anti-Semitism.

   This is my line, too.

6. Avram June 11th, 2009 8:10 pm

   Madze – Gert’s yet to post in this thread …

7. Madzionist June 11th, 2009 8:23 pm

   I know, Avram, but I figured he’d be here soon enough. If not… it’s open ended for anyone else who wants to chime in, too.

8. Gert June 11th, 2009 10:21 pm

   On the ‘legitimacy issue’: it’s indeed pointless for an outsider to contest the legitimacy of Israel. Israel is recognised by many countries and is a reality that’s not going anywhere. I do however fully support the right of some Palestinian factions to not de jure recognise Israel. Asking them to do so is like asking the burgled to legitimise the burglar’s actions: it ads needless insult to injury. And recognition of Israel by the PLO hasn’t brought the Palestinian cause any result worthy of note.

   On ethnic cleansing: Gabriel wrote; “Undoubtedly, but ethnic cleansing to create a country is not only not unique, it is the norm”. That’s an enormous overstatement. Many Nation States weren’t created through ethnic cleansing (but quite a few were). Most weren’t created on the basis of ethnicity or religion either (some of those are now truly disasters). And two wrongs don’t make a right.

   Israel is also somewhat unique in the fact that its ethnic cleansing was carried out in two distinct waves, well apart from each other, when during the second wave it already had a state.

   Sheik Yassin:

   “Tzvika, listen, we had good teachers: You established a state thanks to your military power. The dead I take from you are for the sake of establishing a state, but you are killing women and children for the sake of the occupation. You already have a state. You are dirty and hypocritical. I have no interest in destroying you – all I want is a state.”

   To this day the ethnic cleansing of Palestine continues… virtually uncontested: where is the Israeli Left (or the dried up turd of what’s left of it)? The Peace bloc?

   On hypocrisy: call us hypocrites all you like. Assume you are 100% right about that, does our hypocrisy take anything away from Zionism’s crimes or Israel’s ongoing occupation, colonisation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine? No, it doesn’t. It’s a little sideshow: Gabriel Ashe’s “You suck” type of argument.

   My sympathy remains completely with the Palestinian people. But with Jews I haven’t got the slightest problem.

9. Madzionist June 11th, 2009 10:54 pm

   My sympathy remains completely with the Palestinian people. But with Jews I haven’t got the slightest problem.

   This is a complete lie. If you believe that Jews are guilty of ethnic cleansing, illegal occupation, land theft, and brutal crimes against humanity you most certainly do have a big problem with them. You would be a monster if you didn’t. At least be honest about this. I know I would hate them with every fiber of my being if I believed such allegations were true.

10. Gert June 12th, 2009 12:10 am

    Madze:

    There’s a big distinction between Jewry and Zionism (even though Zionism often pretends to speak for all Jews).

    And don’t ‘hate’ Zionists either, at least not in the literal sense of the word.

    My fellow countrymen and forefathers are guilty of many crimes too, but I don’t ‘hate’ them, I just think they were wrong. As was Zionism.

11. Madzionist June 12th, 2009 12:31 am

    Gert, it is Jews persecuting Palestinian Arabs according to your interpretation of the events. You cannot have it both ways. You either can choose to be dishonest and claim you are cool with the Jews even though they slaughter, humiliate, and impoverish millions of Palestinian arabs (as you see it), or you can be honest and just say that the Jews are a terrorist nation of people that are committing atrocities upon the innocent, and you believe that they must be stopped at whatever the cost.

    All your Zionist word means is Jews who believe in the right of Jews to self determination in Israel. Almost every Jew in the world is a Zionist, and you see Zionism akin to Nazism. I’m sorry, but you are a liar and I will call you on that until you either admit to being anti-Jew or state that you no longer believe the disgusting, fallacious blood libels your being spoon fed by the Judeophobes.

12. Gabriel June 12th, 2009 1:09 am

    “Undoubtedly, but ethnic cleansing to create a country is not only not unique, it is the norm”. That’s an enormous overstatement. Many Nation States weren’t created through ethnic cleansing (but quite a few were). Most weren’t created on the basis of ethnicity or religion either (some of those are now truly disasters). And two wrongs don’t make a right.”

    1) Every single state I can think of in the New World was created by Ethnic cleansing. All of North America, all of South America. Australia, New Zealand, even India/Pakistan. I think pretty much every state was at one time or another, it’s just that the wars happened 1,000 years ago.

    2) Most were not created on ethnic/religious lines because they didn’t have to be. First, there is a need for a Jewish state in a way there wasn’t ever for another White Christian European state. Second, when everyone is the same anyway, you don’t need to define the state. Israel has a higher percentage of a minority religion than almost any country in the world. When you are 95% Christian, surrounded by other states that are 95% Christian, you don’t need to define yourself as Christian. It doesn’t mean you aren’t though. It’s the same way Yemen or Iran might say “we welcome everyone of all religions” (they won’t, but this is theoretical) who the hell wants to live in Yemen? What kind of Christian or Jew is going to move to Iran? They don’t. In fact, Jews can’t really live in most countries in the world in any practical way even in countries which don’t define themselves on religious or ethnic grounds. This stuff reminds me of what one my favourite quotes. “The law is just-both the rich and the poor are forbidden from sleeping under bridges and stealing bread.”

    3) Two wrongs indeed do not make a right, but that was not my point. My point is that if ethnic cleansing is deemed to make a state “illegal” then most of the states in the world are “illegal”.

13. Alex Stein June 12th, 2009 1:18 am

    Just to clarify that I in no way believe my correspondent to be anti-Semitic.

14. Gabriel June 12th, 2009 3:25 am

    “You established a state thanks to your military power. The dead I take from you are for the sake of establishing a state, but you are killing women and children for the sake of the occupation. You already have a state. You are dirty and hypocritical. I have no interest in destroying you – all I want is a state.””

    Except that this is a complete lie. It’s not “all I want is a state”, it’s “all I want is a state where your state is and for you to leave.” It’s amazing how people who look for hints of ulterior motives in every word from every Israeli politician, can take at face value the words of someone whose words are contradicted by their actions and all their other words. This is a man who formed Hamas with the EXPRESS PURPOSE of opposing peace talks with Israel. He said “Israel must disappear from the map” and “reconciliation with Jews is a crime.” (Note, not Israelis, but Jews) among many other such hateful speech. Yet, we are supposed to think that this man really desired peace that “all I want is a state”? It’s such incredible bullshit and shows how dishonestly many anti-Zionists view history.

    I’m sick of the whitewashing of Hamas and Hezbollah, people pretending they are pragmatic organizations instead of racist, sexist, homophobic religious extremist groups bent on perpetual war ending in the destruction of Israel. You can oppose Israel’s occupation without pretending Hamas are something they are not. Their entire history is about killing to derail peace talks, not to spur them on.

15. Madzionist June 12th, 2009 7:04 am

    Gabriel, I must confess to being confused by your dichotomy. I think you are even more contradictory than Alex! I honestly can’t figure you out…

16. Avram June 12th, 2009 7:28 am

    Gabriel, in my opinion Madze, is consistent in his dislike for things he doesn’t like in Israel and in his defense for Israel when she is in the right. He’s a ‘realistic’ left winger (I think he leans left) … If only we had more like that in the govt.

17. Gabriel June 12th, 2009 3:56 pm

    “Gabriel, in my opinion Madze, is consistent in his dislike for things he doesn’t like in Israel and in his defense for Israel when she is in the right. He’s a ‘realistic’ left winger (I think he leans left)”

    I would say so. I don’t think there are any contradictions in what I believe. To believe that settlements are wrong and that Hamas are bent on Israel’s destruction are not mutually exclusive and really have nothing to do with each other. (Or even believing both that Israel’s war in Gaza was pointless and that the protesters around the world were hypocrites.) It always annoys me when people feel they have to buy the entire package of one political viewpoint. (Not just in Israel by any means). I think this is maybe the biggest political problem in the world today-people who feel that you have to be A or B and in this context either be pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli as if one cannot be both…or neither.

18. Madzionist June 12th, 2009 4:15 pm

    I think this is maybe the biggest political problem in the world today-people who feel that you have to be A or B and in this context either be pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli as if one cannot be both…or neither.

    False Dichotomies. Do you contradict yourself? Very well then, you contradict yourself (you are large, you contain multitudes).

19. Gert June 12th, 2009 6:45 pm

    Madze:

    “You either can choose to be dishonest and claim you are cool with the Jews even though they slaughter, humiliate, and impoverish millions of Palestinian arabs (as you see it), or you can be honest and just say that the Jews are a terrorist nation of people that are committing atrocities upon the innocent, and you believe that they must be stopped at whatever the cost.”

    You continue to equate Zionism and Jewry. I don’t.

    Right from the beginning there was considerable opposition to the project, including from some very famous Jews. And in certain quarters of Jewry, being critical of Israel or even being openly anti-Zionist has always existed. Today, American Jewry is slowly waking up and more and more people are saying: “not in my name!”

    Gabriel:

    In your zeal you overshoot when it comes to both Hamas and Hizb’allah. Both are much more than mere terrorist organisations. And the latter is an inevitable resistance organisation (and again, much more besides that) borne out of Lebanon I. Who would trust the boys that look pretty in crisp uniforms known as the ‘Lebanese Regular Army’ with the defense of that country? As long as the IDF is sniffing around, Hizb’allah will continue to enjoy widespread support in Lebabon.

    And that Hamas isn’t some nice Western Enlightenment inspired resistance movement is simply neither here nor there (another “They suck!” type of argument): they maintain the right to violently resist Occupation, a right that is enshrined in International Law.

    The crucial point though is that thanks to hypocrites like Tony Blair and the Zionist regime (which helped create Hamas, fer chrissake!) an opportunity to politically engage Hamas was missed, This has achieved NOTHING and has actually been quite disastrous for Israel’s international standing, because of Gaza. Some called it “Israel’s Sharpeville”, well, that may have been too strong an expression but Gaza does seem to have acted as a tipping point.

    On Palestinian terrorism, I quote Tony Karon:

    “The grim reality for Palestinians is that they were a forgotten people until the late 1960s and early 70s, when the PLO’s campaign of high profile terror attacks put them back in the headlines. And the only reason Israel agreed to talk to the PLO ahead of the Oslo Accords was that the intifada uprising that began in 1987 made the occupation politically untenable. Moreover, following Obama’s civil rights analogy, Palestinians could not peacefully appeal to the “ideals at the center of” Israel’s founding for full and equal rights in the way that African Americans did of the United States, since the very principle of a “Jewish State” required their exclusion. (If the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan had been implemented, Palestinian Arabs would have been 45% of the population of what would become Israel).

    And as for using South Africa as a stick with which to beat home the message that the Palestinians have to “renounce violence”, it ought to be remembered that the Nelson Mandela and the ANC never, in fact, renounced violence, until the apartheid regime had accepted the principle of democratic majority rule.

    Still, far more significant than these flaws in his reasoning is the fact that Obama appeared to acknowledge that the Palestinians have a right to resist their plight — he challenged their resorting to violent resistance, instead urging them to pursue non-violent means of resistance, both on moral grounds and also because they’re more likely to effective. And in suggesting that the Palestinians learn from African-Americans or black South Africans under apartheid, he was recognizing their narrative of dispossession and oppression.”

20. Gabriel June 12th, 2009 7:21 pm

    “As long as the IDF is sniffing around, Hizb’allah will continue to enjoy widespread support in Lebabon.”

    Except that this is backwards. Israel wants nothing to do with Lebanon. They don’t want Lebanese land, they don’t want wars with Lebanon. Hezbollah’s presence is the main reason why Israel remains so interested in Lebanon.

    “they maintain the right to violently resist Occupation, a right that is enshrined in International Law.”

    Which is the right to fight soldiers, not attack civilians, even civilians living in occupied territories. And Israel has the right to fight back and kill them as well. Except that Hamas believes that it has the right to kill any Israeli and that Israel doesn’t have the right to kill even Hamas fighters. About 90% of Hamas’ “resistance” is illegal under international law. Firing rockets into civilian areas is a war crime. Attacking civilians is a war crime.

    “And the only reason Israel agreed to talk to the PLO ahead of the Oslo Accords was that the intifada uprising that began in 1987 made the occupation politically untenable. ”

    Nope. The only reason they talked to the PLO is that Bush the First dragged Shamir to Madrid for talks as a way of appeasing the Arab states after Gulf War the First. Anyway, Karon’s analysis is just a typical anti-Zionist way of rationalizing why Palestinians should never recognize Israel. I mean, stuff like this “If the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan had been implemented, Palestinian Arabs would have been 45% of the population of what would become Israel” Well, who gives a fuck? The partition plan was not implemented because the Arab states rejected it. I am so sick of people harping on things that happened 60-100 years ago as if that excuses something for today or has any relevance whatsoever. This was like the Polish argument to the EU that it should have more say in the EU because had the Germans not killed so many Poles, they would have had many more people. Yeah, sure, but they did, and they don’t. Counterfactuals are for fiction.

    (I always love the “lots of Jews have always opposed Zionism” as if opposing the idea of Israel in 1917 would be the same as wanting to overthrow a state in 2009. It’s like saying “some people have always thought that the conquest of Australia was a bad idea.” Maybe, but it’s all rather a moot point now. Israel is a moot point as well. It exists and you, and other people, need to get past that. In fact, this constant attempt to destroy Israel by the Muslim world and the European Left is a massive boost for the right in Israel. Why should Israelis dismantle settlements and make moves towards peace when it will just be seen as a step closer to destroy Israel?

    The crucial point you miss though is this: “an opportunity to politically engage Hamas was missed”. Engaging with Hamas is even worse than Alex engaging with the correspondent above.
    Hamas: you have no right to exist and we will destroy you and kill Jews.

    What kind of dialogue can you have with a group that is ideologically bent on murdering you? Who celebrates the death of your children? Whose charter not only calls for your destruction but also for the murder of Jews. You are doing ridiculous whitewashing, pretending that Hamas is fighting soldiers to fend off the occupation. What Israelis know of Hamas is blowing up children on Purim outside a mall, blowing up restaurants filled with families, and blowing up buses with civilians. You may want to call that justified. I know it’s murder.

21. Gert June 12th, 2009 7:30 pm

    As regards Hamas’ intent on the destruction of Israel, be fair and accept statements that show a softening in position:

    Amira Ha’as in Ha’aretz:

    “The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

    The Hamas leader spoke at a meeting with 11 European parliamentarians who sailed from Cyprus to the Gaza Strip to protest Israel’s naval blockade of the territory. Haniyeh told his guests Israel rejected his initiative.

    Clare Short, who served in the cabinet of former British prime minister Tony Blair, asked Haniyeh to repeat his offer. He said the Hamas government had agreed to accept a Palestinian state that followed the 1967 borders and to offer Israel a long-term hudna, or truce, if Israel recognized the Palestinians’ national rights.

    In response to a question about the international community’s impression that there are two Palestinian states, Haniyeh said: “We don’t have a state, neither in Gaza nor in the West Bank. Gaza is under siege and the West Bank is occupied. What we have in the Gaza Strip is not a state, but rather a regime of an elected government. A Palestinian state will not be created at this time except in the territories of 1967.”"

    See also very similar statements by Khaled Meshal recently in the NYT…

22. Gert June 12th, 2009 7:44 pm

    Gabriel:

    Your whole line of “thinking” in the comment above mine is really that of a hardline rightist Israeli Zionist (please don’t blame us for the Israeli Right’s massive increase in popularity – anti-Zionism just isn’t that powerful at all – a mix between religio-ethnocracy, racism and military untouchability however does the trick).

    “Why should Israelis dismantle settlements and make moves towards peace when it will just be seen as a step closer to destroy Israel?”

    … is Likud (TM).

    And a little gem like:

    “In fact, this constant attempt to destroy Israel by the Muslim world and the European Left is a massive boost for the right in Israel.”

    … really shows your true colours.

    Anyway, good luck with your ‘principled stance’, make sure Israel doesn’t give an inch and ends up politically and economically isolated. Fuck the Palestinians, it’s all Hamas’ fault anyway.

    In a sense you’ll be doing my work for me. Thanks for that!

23. Madzionist June 12th, 2009 7:51 pm

    You continue to equate Zionism and Jewry. I don’t.

    Yet, “Zionism”by definition simply means Jews believing in the Jewish right to self determination in Israel. Nearly every Jew in the world is a “Zionist”, save that tiny fragment of whack jobs you blog with. You absolutely, positively ARE accusing the Jews of committing crimes against humanity, Gert. I’m sorry to continue pounding the daylights out of you on this, but I will continue to call you out as disingenuous until you either admit the truth, that you do have a BIG problem with Jews, or state that you no longer believe the disgusting, fallacious blood libels your being spoon fed by the Judeophobes.

24. Gert June 12th, 2009 8:55 pm

    Madze:

    “You absolutely, positively ARE accusing the Jews of committing crimes against humanity, Gert.”

    Zionists have committed crimes against Palestinians and have ethnically cleansed Palestine of much of its Palestinian population. Those are facts. They are not in dispute.

    Just one little snippet to get your taste buds going:

    AMY GOODMAN: And Shlomo Ben-Ami, your response to those who continue to say that at that time, at the time of the establishment of the state of Israel and before, that it really was empty, that Jews came to a place that was not populated.

    SHLOMO BEN-AMI [former Israeli Foreign Minister and historian]: Of course, it is nonsense. I mean, it was populated. Obviously, it was populated. I mean, the notion that existed, I think it was Israel Zangwill, the first to say that we are — we came a nation without a land to a land without a people. Obviously, it was not true, but again, part of the tragedy was that the Palestinians, as such, did not have — the Palestinian peasants did not have the full control of their own destiny. Part of that land was bought by the Zionist organizations from Affendis, landowners living in Turkey or anywhere else throughout the Ottoman Empire, and these people were inevitably evicted by these kind of transactions. But as a whole, I think that not more than 6 or 7% of the entire surface of the state of Israel was bought. The rest of it was either taken over or won during the war.
    AMY GOODMAN: Norman Finkelstein, you’re author of the book Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. Do you share the same narrative? Do you agree with what Shlomo Ben-Ami has put forward, the former Israeli Foreign Minister?

    NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, I agree with the statement that there is very little dispute nowadays amongst serious historians and rational people about the facts. There is pretty much a consensus on what happened during what you can call the foundational period, from the first Zionist settlements at the end of the 19th century ’til 1948. There, there is pretty much of a consensus. And I think Mr. Ben-Ami, in his first 50 pages, accurately renders what that consensus is.
    I would just add a couple of points he makes, but just to round out the picture. He starts out by saying that the central Zionist dilemma was they wanted to create a predominantly Jewish state in an area which was overwhelmingly not Jewish, and he cites the figure, I think 1906 there were 700,000 Arabs, 55,000 Jews, and even of those 55,000 Jews, only a handful were Zionists. So that’s the dilemma. How do you create a Jewish state in area which is overwhelmingly not Jewish?
    Now, the Israeli historian Benny Morris, at one point, he said there are only two ways you can resolve this dilemma. One, you can create what he called the South African way, that is, create a Jewish state and disenfranchise the indigenous population. That’s one way. The second way is what he calls the way of transfer. That is, you kick the indigenous population out, basically what we did in North America.

    Now, as Mr. Ben-Ami correctly points out, by the 1930s the Zionist movement had reached a consensus that the way to resolve the dilemma is the way of transfer. You throw the Palestinians out. You can’t do that anytime, because there are moral problems and international problems. You have to wait for the right moment. And the right moment comes in 1948. Under the cover of war, you have the opportunity to expel the indigenous population.

    I was kind of surprised that Mr. Ben-Ami goes beyond what many Israeli historians acknowledge. Someone like Benny Morris will say, “Yes, Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948.” That’s Benny Morris’s expression. But he says it was an accident of war. There are wars, people get dispossessed. Mr. Ben-Ami, no, he will go further. He said you can see pretty clearly that they intended to expel the Palestinians. The opportunity came along, and they did so. Now, those are the facts.

    I look forward to your response that will undoubtedly be another shining example of the paucity of Zionist ideas…

25. Madzionist June 12th, 2009 9:02 pm

    Gert, let me try this angle…

    If the Palestinian humanitarian plight were resolved so that they were no longer impoverished and suffering from Israeli military domination, would you be satisfied even if they were not given a nation of their own in the Land of Israel? In other words, is your anti-Zionist activism based on Palestinian nationalism or Palestinian humanitarianism. Call this a false dichotomy if you must, but it is a telling question when trying to glean the motivation for your hatred.

26. Gert June 12th, 2009 10:23 pm

    Madze:

    There is no hatred and thus no motivation either.

    What the Palestinians would accept, in what is left of Palestine or outside of it is of course up to them (not me). I merely support the idea that their plight be considered and dealt with, in a fashion that’s acceptable to them.

    You advocate incentivated transfer (buy them out, in plain English). Well, if you can name a price (and cough up the dough too, of course) that’s adequate according to them, then who would I be to oppose that: it’s their life, not mine… It’s what they want that counts, not what I see as best or ideal.

27. Gabriel June 12th, 2009 10:37 pm

    ” A Palestinian state will not be created at this time except in the territories of 1967.”

    Exactly. Now, we can have a Palestinian state inside 1967 borders, but soon we will be strong enough to destroy Israel.

    “Anyway, good luck with your ‘principled stance’, make sure Israel doesn’t give an inch and ends up politically and economically isolated. Fuck the Palestinians, it’s all Hamas’ fault anyway.”

    This is exactly the problem. You are complaining that I don’t (according to your deliberate misreading of my post) to make any concessions at all. Well, you are anti-Zionist who wants to see the end of Israel so ultimately while you talk about concessions, you simply see them as a step to the end of Israel. If it came down to the racism of the far right in Israel or the genocidal intentions of Hamas, I and 99% of Israelis would choose the former. Also, quoting Norman Finkelstein talking with Ben-ami? I always amazed by the ability on anti-Zionists to find quotes that back up their minority opinions and then present them as fact. (And even more so by their reverence for third-rate polemics like Finkelstein.) Even beyond that, even if what they say is true, who cares? 0% of the population of the US was Christian in 1286. What the population was in 1906 is a irrelevant to 2009.

28. Madzionist June 12th, 2009 10:57 pm

    Gert, I think we’ve made some real progress here.

    We now at least agree that this is a sincere effort to resolve the dispute in a way that’s quite different from genocide or a crime against humanity. I am smart enough to realize the Palestinians will be very resistant initially to such a concept, but, perhaps, if the price is right and the terms are good enough, it is conceivable they may see sufficient enough benefit in accepting a negotiated relocation to make a deal. I don’t want arabs to suffer, I don’t want Jews to suffer, and if this plan did come to fruition both sides would finally achieve the elusive peace, self determination, and secure future we all hope for.

    I know it isn’t anywhere close to being a reality, but having the intentions understood even by an anti-Zionist as a sincere effort to find a workable conclusion to the conflict is a big start. I actually just felt a tiny glimmer of optimism!

29. Sam June 13th, 2009 3:17 am

    “I live in a country that ethnically cleansed its native people in a far more vicious way than Israel did and yet are allowed to proudly call ourselves “a nation of immigrants”. Did Israel’s creation cause ethnic cleansing? Undoubtedly, but ethnic cleansing to create a country is not only not unique, it is the norm. Also, why exactly is moving to a country for religious reasons somehow worse than moving for economic reasons? In fact, whatever you think of Israel, the reasons for creating the country were infinitely more noble than the reasons for the creation of any New World country. (Which were all about land, resources, and very occasionally freedom from persecution.)”

    Would you make the same argument for slavery? Can I keep a slave because I live in a country that used to have slaves? Is it a morally compelling argument to participate in untouchability for religious reasons because others did it too? Why shouldn’t I get my turn at moving into the house that belongs to a family in Gaza, so I can feel good about being able to speak a 2000 year old language and because God gave me the right? So what if every Jew that moves from London or Brooklyn to Palestine is the nail in the coffin of one more Palestinian waiting to come home? Give me my slave, my untouchable, my aliyah dammit. I deserve my turn.

30. Gert June 13th, 2009 3:59 pm

    Gabriel:

    “Well, you are anti-Zionist who wants to see the end of Israel so ultimately while you talk about concessions, you simply see them as a step to the end of Israel.”

    Get yourself to Specsavers from some decent glasses. I’ve said completely the opposite regards Israel’s existence. I used caps. Still you can’t read it. That’s sad.

    “Also, quoting Norman Finkelstein talking with Ben-ami? I always amazed by the ability on anti-Zionists to find quotes that back up their minority opinions and then present them as fact. (And even more so by their reverence for third-rate polemics like Finkelstein.) Even beyond that, even if what they say is true, who cares? 0% of the population of the US was Christian in 1286. What the population was in 1906 is a irrelevant to 2009.”

    Very American. Finkelstein a third-rate polemicist? The man has an encyclopedic memory of the conflict, I’ve yet to see him lose a debate on the facts. And he’s uncompromising, as he should be.

    Dear Americans, keep carbon dating the world back to last Tuesday, whatever happened before that doesn’t matter. And for those who disagree, you still have your guns. Arrested development.

31. Gert June 13th, 2009 4:01 pm

    Sam:

    If you’re Jewish, it’s your entitlement. Go for it!

32. Gabriel June 13th, 2009 5:53 pm

    “Would you make the same argument for slavery? Can I keep a slave because I live in a country that used to have slaves? Is it a morally compelling argument to participate in untouchability for religious reasons because others did it too? Why shouldn’t I get my turn at moving into the house that belongs to a family in Gaza, so I can feel good about being able to speak a 2000 year old language and because God gave me the right? So what if every Jew that moves from London or Brooklyn to Palestine is the nail in the coffin of one more Palestinian waiting to come home? Give me my slave, my untouchable, my aliyah dammit. I deserve my turn.”

    You can always tell an anti-Zionist argument because self-righteous anger replaces all logic. The comparison is not “Can I keep a slave because I live in a country that used to have slaves? ” it is can YOU complain about slavery in a country half the world away when you own slaves and have owned them for centuries. I live right now on land that used to be native. I didn’t live in it in the past and then moved away. All of the Americas is built on stolen land. Natives TODAY live in third world conditions on reserves sniffing gas and killing themselves at incredible rates-largely living hopeless lives. Why? Because we took their land, we fucked them over. But who cares right? Because that little kid held hostage in a camp in Lebanon, his grandfather, as a child, lived in a village 60 years ago that doesn’t exist near Tel Aviv. That is obviously the worst thing in the history of the world and nothing else matters. Of all the injustices in the world the only one that needs to be overturned, to be undone, is Israel? This is the amazing hypocrisy of anti-Zionists. Tens of millions of people murdered, millions more ghettoized, and well, that’s just the way it is. The world has to accept it. I mean, we really needed more white, Protestant countries built for economic reasons. But, with Israel built for nobler reasons that any colonization in the history of the world-”OH MY GOD, ISRAEL EXISTS!!!! IT”S EVIL!!!! ZIONISTS ARE EVIL!! ISRAEL MUST DIE!!! If it weren’t such a prevalent idiocy, it would be laughable. As usual, this “Sam” also used the idea that Zionism is based on some religious idea rather than the fact that the world has shown, rather conclusively over the past 2, 000 years that it will justify the suffering and murder of Jews. How many countries in the world TODAY is it safe to be Jewish? That you can walk down the street with Kipa on and you don’t have to fear being attacked? U.S., Canada, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, well, that’s about it. I am sure, “Sam”, that you are someone, like all anti-Zionists, who downplays antisemitism or excuses it as some natural, understandable, byproduct of Zionism.

    “Very American. Finkelstein a third-rate polemicist? The man has an encyclopedic memory of the conflict, I’ve yet to see him lose a debate on the facts. And he’s uncompromising, as he should be.”

    I’m not American but “Finkelstein the son of Holocaust survivors” is not even a third-rate polemicist. He is a historian of Israel that doesn’t speak Hebrew or Arabic and a historian of the Holocaust who doesn’t speak German and just takes his work from real historians and then edits the parts that he doesn’t like so that Israel (or the Jews in general) look evil. The serious historians who he bases his work on trash him. Not trash him like “I disagree with…” but trash him like “He is a liar and he has no idea what he’s talking about.”

    I actually do believe he just hates Jews. His Holocaust Industry fantasies are sickening. (And never mind that “Finkelstein the son of Holocaust survivors” uses the Holocaust for his own benefit more than 99.9% of Jews.) I saw a quote from one of his books where had this aside which was something like….”Israelis, much like American Jews did with blacks, persecute Palestinians…” Well, never mind that Jews were leaders in the civil rights march in the U.S. (and South Africa for that matter), “Finkelstein the son of Holocaust survivors” just can’t stop letting his hatred of Jews showing. If he is not an anti-Semite, he is completely insane. Anyway, “Finkelstein the son of Holocaust survivors” is only read by people who know what he is going to say and want to agree with it.

33. Gabriel June 13th, 2009 6:04 pm

    “Of all the injustices in the world the only one that needs to be overturned, to be undone, is Israel? This is the amazing hypocrisy of anti-Zionists. Tens of millions of people murdered, millions more ghettoized, and well, that’s just the way it is”

    I wish my computer were faster so I could find the letters page in the Independent a couple of months back. They had back to back letters that went something like…

    “Peace will only come to Northern Ireland when the Irish realise that reunification is not going to happen.”

    Followed by

    “The only just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a bi-national state.”

    So, in other words…We have to accept that injustices were done and just live with it in Northern Ireland but in Israel, the injustices must be reversed even if it means more injustices in the process. This is pretty much par for the course in the world. Two rules-one for Israel and one for everyone else. Palestinians are encouraged to keep fighting to destroy Israel either through demographics or violence and everyone else, Natives, Irish, Basque, whoever, is told to deal with the situation. Yeah, there’s no hypocrisy there.

34. Sam June 14th, 2009 8:48 am

    “it is can YOU complain about slavery in a country half the world away when you own slaves and have owned them for centuries. ”

    Yes, I do believe I can. Otherwise, the Tanakh and Amaleks would mean the Jews should simply put up with genocides without complaint. We don’t want to go down those paths.

35. Avram June 14th, 2009 11:43 am

    “Finkelstein a third-rate polemicist? The man has an encyclopedic memory of the conflict, I’ve yet to see him lose a debate on the facts.”

    Didn’t Dershowitz humble him in some debate? Or was that Chomsky?

    Which Finkelstein debate is your favorite btw?

36. Alex Stein June 14th, 2009 6:53 pm

    Gert – re. Iran, I’m posting this here because I’m moderated over at Tikkun Olam. Leaving aside the unnecessary ‘piss off’, your comment shows your true colours. Only a watcher of Press TV could deny that something extremely fishy has gone on. Regarding evidence, I suggest you start here – http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.html

37. Gert June 14th, 2009 7:20 pm

    Gabriel:

    Finkelstein is one of the few that construct a consistent narrative connecting the facts from pre-1948 Zionism up to this day. His central thesis is that Zionism is a colonial project with the sole purpose of colonising all of historic Palestine. Look at the facts and see how anybody could objectively disagree with that? As we’re tapping away more settlements are being built. Any talk of the ridiculous ‘settlement freeze’ (as if that’s really what’s needed) is being met with sheer hostility and diversionary talk about Iran (I’ll give Bejamin Yahoo the benefit of the doubt on his foreign policy speech – I haven’t seen it yet).

    And Finkelstein is wrong? Because he doesn’t speak Hebrew? You’re funny, you know that?

    Avram:

    I like all his debates.

    Jerkowitz? This is the guy who who said (at Durban II):

    “The terrible, terrible, terrible tragedy is that there is a direct unbroken line between Hitler and [the anti-semitic Palestinian Mufti} Husseini on the one hand, and today Hamas and radical Islamic Jihadists on the other hand. They are the heirs of Hitler. Ahmedinejad their sponsor is the heir of Hitler. Those who are complicit in that evil are complicit in the evil of Nazism. Nazism has not disappeared from the world today. It has the same genocidal goals….

    Woe unto any of you out there who support Hamas. You are supporting Hitler’s heirs. Whether you consider yourself a leftist or a centrist, you are complicit in the worst evil of the twentieth century. And there is no way of breaking that bond. As long as Hamas maintains its genocidal attitudes towards the Jewish people…

    This conference is a hate fest. Like Nuremberg was a hate fest…

    Durban I traces its roots to Nuremberg. It traces its roots to the Nazi-Husseini alliance.”

    This is also the guy who came on the BBC defending the idea of legitimising torture, well before Cheney and his merry band of torturers had even contemplated it.

    This is also the guy who called Walt and Mearsheimer anti-Semites for writing ‘The Israel Lobby’.

    This is also the guy whose rebuttal of that paper was so risible even the footnote apparatus was littered with gems like: “he called me a ^^%*&&^, so I called him a SOB fuckwit, then he called me a &^(&% and I took him to court”.

    Jerkowitz is a vile little man and a pathetic excuse for a human being. I can only think of one American Jewish Zionist whose worse: David Horriblewitz from FrontPageMag.

    Another claim to fame was getting OJ Simpson off.

38. Gert June 14th, 2009 7:31 pm

    Alex:

    Showing my true colours in what way exactly: for giving Iran the reasonable benefit of the doubt with regards to its election? For believing in innocence before being proven guilty? Who, Alex, exactly is showing colours here?

    As regards dishing Press TV, there’s much wrong with it but I bet you never watch it.

    Go tell your opinion to the many Jews, non-Jews, Zionists, non-Zionist and anti-Zionists alike that contribute to wonderful programs a like American Dream, Hearts and Minds, The Real Deal or Fine Print, to name but a few.

    And if I’m wrong about this election, I’ll be the first to admit it but right now I see a lot of headless chickens running around the courtyard.

39. Alex Stein June 14th, 2009 7:37 pm

    Does that mean you’re not planning to respond to the serious explanations offered by Juan Cole (himself hardly a neocon/Zio stooge, btw)?

40. Gert June 14th, 2009 8:04 pm

    Not at this point Alex, no. There’ll be other opinions and evidences brought forward, let me get a fuller picture first (you on the other hand seem all too keen to go over one night of ice on this issue).

    I would have preferred Mr Moussavi to win (of course) but we need to be careful calling an election rigged just because we don’t like the result. Note that the excellent Juan Cole is quite cautious too…

41. Gabriel June 14th, 2009 8:05 pm

    ““it is can YOU complain about slavery in a country half the world away when you own slaves and have owned them for centuries. ”

    Yes, I do believe I can. Otherwise, the Tanakh and Amaleks would mean the Jews should simply put up with genocides without complaint. We don’t want to go down those paths.”

    Are you crazy? Amalek probably never really happened or if it did was some tribal dispute 3, 000 years ago. The oppression of native peoples by white Europeans and the ramifications of hundreds of years of oppression is still going on TODAY. The hypocricy is calling for an end to Israel based on XYZ, and then saying well, XYZ everywhere else is just fine. When you call for the destruction of Australia and Argentina, maybe you’ll be a little less of a hypocrite. When you equate Canadian nationalism with racism you would be a little less of a hypocrite. When you call for the end to the racist seperation of Pakistan and India which was based on ethnic cleansing that dwarfs anything that happened in Israel, you would be a little less of a hypocrite. You won’t though, so you will remain a hypocrite. What anti-Zionists try to do is say that by pointing out their hypocricty, you are trying to avoid the issue. What they are really saying is that there are just different rules for Israel and for everyone else. What they want to be able to do is to treat Israel differently and pretend it is born out of justice. This is also what racists in the south do. Their newspaper might ignore 100 rapes but then a black man rapes a white woman, and watch out, the coverage is insane. Then, when you say “why are you obsessed with this particular crime and ignore everything else?” they, like anti-Zionists, will pretend that you are just covering up for rape. They will be outraged. “Pro-rapists” they will say. Well, it’s just ridicilous. Israel must be destroyed because of displacing 700, 000 people but countries built on genocide? Who gives a fuck, what about Israel???

42. Alex Stein June 14th, 2009 8:05 pm

    He didn’t seem that cautious to me. I shall await your opinion in the coming days.

43. Avram June 14th, 2009 10:09 pm

    Gert:

    I didn’t read anything you said about Dershowitz. I’m sure there was something interesting there but when people insult people with idiotic terms, it generally turns me off

    “all of historic Palestine”

    Do tell me what is ‘historic Palestine’? Define her borders as you seem to be insinuating it wasn’t a ‘region’.

44. Avram June 14th, 2009 10:11 pm

    “calling an election rigged”

    You’re right, Mugabe did win those elections fair and square!

45. Avram June 14th, 2009 11:05 pm

    (PS Gert, I was joking with my Mugabe comment. Everyone with three or more brain cells knows Mugabe rigged election after election. Heck, my mom’s cousin had a Zimbabwean Fatwa issued because of all the evidence he shared with reporters …)

46. Gert June 14th, 2009 11:19 pm

    Avram:

    “but when people insult people with idiotic terms, it generally turns me off”

    Why, you start reading comments from the bottom up?

    “You’re right, Mugabe did win those elections fair and square!”

    What does Mugabe have to do with Iran? Nothing whatsoever, of course.

    What does the fact that historic Palestine was a region have to do with anything?

    See Avram, this kind of reasoning gives Zionism the name of being a racist, ethnocentric ideology, akin to the BNP or NF in that respect.

    So Zionism ethnically cleansed a region but that’s OK because it wasn’t a Country/Nation State?

    Zionism ethnically cleansed a large part of Palestine, but that’s OK because they were Jews, a REAL Nation of People and the Palestinians aren’t?

    Had the Palestinians been made up of 40 % Arabs, 30 % Japanese and 30 % Belgians the RoR would be no less valid, because it simply states that people are allowed to return to their homes after the hostilities have ceased. My grandfather and his family (including my father) fled from Antwerp to avoid the advancing German troops (WW II). They planned to cross into England (my granddad worked for British firm) via Boulogne but they missed the last boat. They returned to Antwerp. Were they more entitled to do so because they were Belgian? The answer is no.

    You know what all these questions about the status of Palestine and the nature of the Palestinians show on your part? Undigested guilt.

47. Sam June 14th, 2009 11:20 pm

    Gert:
    “Are you crazy? Amalek probably never really happened or if it did was some tribal dispute 3, 000 years ago. ”

    The foundation of Israel is a tribal dispute 2000 years ago. Whats a thousand years here and there?

    “The oppression of native peoples by white Europeans and the ramifications of hundreds of years of oppression is still going on TODAY”

    In that case, any oppression of Jews is also redundant. Why bother with the Holocaust industry?

48. Sam June 14th, 2009 11:22 pm

    That should be Gabriel referenced in my post, not Gert.

    “When you call for…”

    When my tax dollars pay for them, I will.

49. Gabriel June 15th, 2009 4:04 am

    “The foundation of Israel is a tribal dispute 2000 years ago. Whats a thousand years here and there? ”

    No, the foundation of Israel is irrelavent. Israel exists and has existed for 60+ years. The foundation of Argentina is based on genocide. Let’s send those people back to Europe.

    “The oppression of native peoples by white Europeans and the ramifications of hundreds of years of oppression is still going on TODAY”

    “In that case, any oppression of Jews is also redundant. Why bother with the Holocaust industry?”

    Huh? Your arguments are getting increasingly absurd. What they really amount to is that you loathe Israel and want to see it gone so are using all sorts of absurd and desperat logic as to why that should happen. What does the argument amount to? That any country built on ethnic cleansing has no right to exist? Umm, no…well, any country that was built on ethnic cleansing and has caused suffering to its native peoples? Umm…no…That any country in the Middle East that starts with “I” and that is not Iran or Iraq? Yeah, sure. Any country like that has no right to exist!! Oh, what a noble stance!

50. Avram June 15th, 2009 7:39 am

    Gert:

    No, I don’t read from the bottom up … I read:

    “Avram:

    I like all his debates.

    Jerkowitz?”

    So I stopped there.

    “What does the fact that historic Palestine was a region have to do with anything?”

    I’m glad you answered the question honestly.

    “You know what all these questions about the status of Palestine and the nature of the Palestinians show on your part? Undigested guilt.”

    I’m not really sure how you got 1+1 to equal 3 here, but you did. Interesting post however, not that I really know where it sprouted from …

51. Madzionist June 15th, 2009 8:10 am

    Gert, I am truly sad for you, but at the same time reassured in my beliefs and hopes by you. Your libelous comments cherry pick from the most disgraced and disrespected sources, and your eyes, ears and mind are so closed to the truth that reality and objectivity simply cannot penetrate.

    That said, it is because of your prejudice that the positives from your willingness to recognize a negotiated relocation of the arabs from Israel to Jordan is particularly powerful. If someone who relies on the citings of holocaust deniers to spew hatred against Jews can be accepting of such a scenario truly anyone can.

    It also has made me realize that there is pragmatism buried underneath all of your missionary zeal.

    To accept a future in which those whom you most bitterly despise could enjoy annexed boundaries from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea is something very powerful, and makes me think it’s genuinely possible to achieve in my lifetime – provided the right leadership emerges in Zion, of course. Your hatred for Jews matches, or even exceeds, that of Hamas, Hizballah, and the PLO, so if even you’re amenable to such possibilities I truly have reason for optimism.

    Gert, you have unintentionally moved me in a way that caused me to become a more Happy Zionist than anytime in recent memory.

52. Avram June 15th, 2009 11:49 am

    “holocaust deniers”

    I don’t think Finkelstein is a ‘denier’ – he just thinks that we as a people have made it an industry to push various goals.

53. Madzionist June 15th, 2009 2:58 pm

    Avram, Finkelstein openly insists that the Holocaust is exaggerated and embellished by the Jews. That, in truth, it was far less of an atrocity than the Jews claim it was, that the Jews are using it to extort money and power from the world, and that Israel is the primary center and benefactor of Holocaust exaggeration and propaganda. He sides with Holocaust deniers in campaigning AGAINST reparations, AGAINST the Yad Vashem and other Holocaust memorials, and AGAINST teaching of the Holocaust in schools.

    In short, he wildly claims without any quantifiable evidence, in fact AGAINST all quantifiable evidence, that the actual Holocaust as we know it and study it is a complete fabrication. He is considered by all but the most militant and hostile anti-Semites to be a complete shill for the far left alliance with the islamic extremism.

    Gert, a socialist and militant anti-Zionist, is a perfect example of the type of crowd that his Holocaust revisionism is embraced by.

54. Gert June 15th, 2009 6:28 pm

    Madze:

    “In short, he wildly claims without any quantifiable evidence, in fact AGAINST all quantifiable evidence, that the actual Holocaust as we know it and study it is a complete fabrication. He is considered by all but the most militant and hostile anti-Semites to be a complete shill for the far left alliance with the islamic extremism.”

    In short, Madze wildly claims without any quantifiable evidence, in fact AGAINST all quantifiable evidence, any old nonsense that springs to his overheated mind. Good to see you’re back to your old self again, in a certain sense. But sad to see that that piece of 9/11 shrapnel is still lodged in your brain. I told you to go and see someone about that.

    When you state things like these you remind me of just what a complete joke of a man you really are, as are most of the bloggers you usually hang out with: nitwits, oddballs, the Ultimate Far Right, obsessives about Kohoho-homunism, Nietzsche fanatics, Obama bashers, homophobes, Biblical nutters, conspiracy theorists, ID freaks and assorted fundies etc, you name it and your cluster of bloggers provides it.

    Finkelstein isn’t a Holocaust denier at all. If you fought with an open visor (and not anonymously) and said that to his face he’d successfully sue you to hell and back.

    Whenever a Zionist complains about Palestinian extremism, I can always invoke you as a shining counter-example.

55. Gert June 15th, 2009 6:31 pm

    Oh, and by the way: if you said what you said here to my face in Britain, you’d pay a high legal price to, be assured of it. Now please just go away and go indulge in your Jewish supremacist fantasies.

56. Gert June 15th, 2009 6:39 pm

    Avram:

    Why are questions about the pre-1948 status of Palestine and the Palestinians relevant according to you? After all, you raised the question, so I can reasonably conclude you find this relevant.

    Why is it relevant to you? Because it makes you feel better?

57. Madzionist June 15th, 2009 7:03 pm

    Nicely done, Gert… you sure told me off.

58. Avram June 15th, 2009 7:37 pm

    “Why are questions about the pre-1948 status of Palestine and the Palestinians relevant according to you? ”

    You made the statement Gert, I asked a question so I can see how you define it. You have played games since.

    “Why is it relevant to you? Because it makes you feel better?”

    If that makes you feel better mate, ok – but the real reason is I just wanted to better understand how you defined a term you used.

    “Finkelstein openly insists that the Holocaust is exaggerated”

    How do you respond to this claim, Gert? If that’s the case, then Finkelstein becomes a far less extreme version of our dear Iranian president (who I think says only 1 million Jews died) wrt this subject (holocaust denial)

59. Gert June 15th, 2009 8:01 pm

    Avram:

    “Finkelstein openly insists that the Holocaust is exaggerated”

    Why is the onus on me to refute a claim made by the nutter Mad Zionist? Why isn’t the onus on you for example?

    Avram, you’re the one who is playing games here and very childish ones too.

    Go on, Google it and see what you can come up with. You’ll find that claim on extremist websites like FrontPageMag (which is were Mad Zionist got it from – I doubt very much if the man has the capacity for reading any book of any serious length) and other places where the bitterest of the ultra-pro-Zionist US Hyper Far Right hang out.

    I’m under no obligation to refute claims made by whackjobs: I don’t hang out at FlatEarthSociety.com either.

    I’m getting tired of you.

60. Madzionist June 15th, 2009 8:09 pm

    Boy, Gert, you sure are zinging us today. Great stuff. I know I’m unable to muster an intelligent comeback to your brilliant slams. Wait, lemme try this one: You, you, you… stupid head!

    There, I gotcha!

61. Avram June 15th, 2009 8:55 pm

    Gert:

    To be honest, I’ve tired of your strawmen too. But I give you time because even though you run away from your statements (be it the Iran vote wasn’t a sham or ‘Historic Palestine’), you seem to be an intelligent guy who’s focused his anger on Israeli wrongs (of which many sadly I agree with you – I obviously wish you were making them up but alas, that’s not the case)

    But to try and answer your question – I did read one of Finkelstein’s books in a uni class some years ago. I honestly don’t remember the title, but it’s most likely his most famous one about the ‘Holocaust industry’ (I think those words were in the title). I do believe the Holocaust has sadly become an industry to an extent – but I somehow doubt Finklestein wouldn’t have sued person A B or C if they made false allegations that Madze alleges.

    The onus wasn’t on you btw – but you had used him, Madze slammed him and you (like him) took shots at him without really refuting anything he said about Storming Norman. I just thought you’d obviously have links or something … Guess I was wrong, wouldn’t be the first time.

    “FlatEarthSociety.com”

    I’m tempted to type that in the address bar – but I’ll resist the temptation for now.

62. Madzionist June 15th, 2009 10:19 pm

    Avram, let me help Gert out a bit with some links in defense of old Norm. Here’s a glowing one from David Duke’s site promoting Finkelstein’s work.

    http://www.davidduke.com/general/norman-finkelstein-anti-israel-speech_83.html

63. Sam June 15th, 2009 10:47 pm

    “What does the argument amount to? That any country built on ethnic cleansing has no right to exist? ”

    Not at all. But any country that recognises the “right” of some Brooklyn born bloke over that of an indigenous one based on RELIGION or CASTE or COLOUR to the extent that they are willing to KILL for it or DISPOSSESS that indigenous bloke or TRANSFER him to other lands, might as well put a swastika on their flag and be done with the pretence.

    This would apply just as easily to the BNP as to the Zionists.

64. Gert June 15th, 2009 10:50 pm

    Mad Zionist:

    Ever heard of the Bad Company Fallacy? The fact that David Duke (or anyone else for that matter) endorses Finkelstein (or anyone else for that matter) does not make what Finkelstein says true or false: there is no logical connection between the two.

    What the Nazis said or did wasn’t wrong because it was the Nazis that said or did it, but because what they said or did was wrong.

    In plain English the Bad Company Fallacy is simply smearing.

    And this Madze, is something you and your buddies in the sewers of the Tinkerwebs are very good at.

    As a result of your ‘methods’ you end up calling a committed Zionist like Gabriel an anti-Semite and making a total tit of yourself.

    “Finkelstein openly insists that the Holocaust is exaggerated”

    Make that claim hard. I know for a fact that it’s based on typical gross distortion, pulling out of context and hyperbolic invective by intellectual flyweights a la David Horowitz and his fan base, the idiots that gravitate to Mad Zionist. But right now the onus is on you to prove your accusation. Except you can’t. Go on, surprise me.

    Avram:

    “you run away from your statements (be it the Iran vote wasn’t a sham or ‘Historic Paletine’)”

    This is getting thoroughly boring: yet another straw man. I’m willing to wait for more complete evidence on the Iranian election. In what way is that wrong or running away? On historic Palestine I gave you my honest and correct answer. Again, where’s the running away? You’re being dishonest.

65. Sam June 15th, 2009 10:52 pm

    The funny thing is Jews who lived in Russia for a thousand years or in Europe or Asia for 2000 have to be reminded of this. They know what it means to be born in a country and treated as an interloper

    “That which is hateful to you, do not unto another: This is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary — [and now] go study.”

    For shame. Why would ANY Jew on earth support the dispossession of any people and hide behind G-d or Judaism as though that could ever be a justification for such terrible crimes? What kind of Jew believes in such a small minded G-d?

66. Gert June 15th, 2009 11:06 pm

    On Iran, it’s now increasingly looking like the election results are suspicious. But for those like me who rooted for Moussavi wouldn’t it be much better to have incontrovertible proof of vote rigging? Something stronger than suspicions? Because conclusive proof we do not have. Evidence, yes, proof, no.

67. Madzionist June 15th, 2009 11:08 pm

    Why would ANY Jew on earth support the dispossession of any people?

    Oh, so you must be talking about Jews who want to expel the Jews from Judea and supported the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gaza? Yeah, that is kinda stupid. Oh, wait, were you talking about the arabs? Gee, let me think… why would that be a good idea… let me think… remove the people that are committed to killling you, let them remain and get yourself killed, or flee as a “good will gesture” to the people who are trying to kill you… hmmm. What to do, what to do…

68. Gert June 15th, 2009 11:15 pm

    The Flat Earth Society forum (welcomes dissent!)

69. Avram June 15th, 2009 11:25 pm

    “I’m willing to wait for more complete evidence on the Iranian election.”

    You had it almost a day afterwards – Alex linked a site that did show you many many glaring issues. Whatever the case, I just hope that no more people in ‘their’ world lose their lives over this. When it comes down to it, it’s terribly sad and hopefully ends sooner rather than later (so it seems doubtful).

    “On historic Palestine I gave you my honest and correct answer”

    I just looked through your answers since the question and you really haven’t – but since you claim you did, I’ll just say, “Ok Gert, thanks for that”.

    Sam:

    Where you from?

70. Gert June 15th, 2009 11:44 pm

    Avram:

    “You had it almost a day afterwards”

    The condemnation came very, very quickly, suspiciously quickly IMHO. Over at Mondoweiss things got really quite hysterical, with talk of coups and A. behaving like a New Prophet etc etc. I decided to take a bit of a backseat: just because Juan Cole (and I’m a fan) says so doesn’t make it true.

    “I just looked through your answers since the question and you really haven’t -”</i<

    Then I don’t know what you understand by an honest and correct answer. Please explain.

71. Avram June 16th, 2009 7:32 am

    Gert:

    Mondoweiss isn’t a barometer – so I don’t really go by it. But weren’t the ‘pre-election’ %s something like 55-40 in favor of Mousavi (sp?)? Whatever the case, I think we can both agree that we hope that this ends quickly. Some amazing pics if you’re interested:

    http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/irans_disputed_election.html

    “Then I don’t know what you understand by an honest and correct answer.”

    Well, you never defined what YOU see as ‘Historic Palestine’ (I just wanted to know if you see it as a region, or a country, etc). As I said in the last post, no worries though. Let’s move on as it’s going around in circles and we both may soon get dizzy.

72. Sam June 16th, 2009 12:47 pm

    “Where are you from?”

    Haven’t decided yet. I aim for a borderless world where such queries are irrelevant.

73. Avram June 16th, 2009 2:55 pm

    Sam:

    Thanks for your answer

74. Gert June 16th, 2009 4:26 pm

    Avram:

    “But weren’t the ‘pre-election’ %s something like 55-40 in favor of Mousavi (sp?)?”

    Yes, but before the groundswell of support for Moussavi, Ahmadinejad, as the incumbent, was widely tipped to be the most likely winner, as incumbents often are (see also US elections e.g.).

    Now it appears we may be looking at another Iranian Revolution or perhaps a Revolutionette, either would be good news for the Iranians. But Moussavi, make no mistake about it, is strong on both the nuclear and Palestinian issue. While the revolt, if it succeeds, would lead to much needed greater internal freedoms, I believe Iran will remain firm on these issues.

    Are you impressed with the Mad Zionist’s no-show with regards to his Finkelstein claim?

    I’ll give him some more time but hopes aren’t high.

75. Gert June 16th, 2009 4:31 pm

    Sam:

    “Haven’t decided yet. I aim for a borderless world where such queries are irrelevant.”

    A staunch anti-nationalist, eh? I like it. Imagined Communities…

76. Avram June 16th, 2009 5:54 pm

    “Now it appears we may be looking at another Iranian Revolution or perhaps a Revolutionette, either would be good news for the Iranians. But Moussavi, make no mistake about it, is strong on both the nuclear and Palestinian issue. While the revolt, if it succeeds, would lead to much needed greater internal freedoms, I believe Iran will remain firm on these issues.”

    I don’t disagree with any of that … But to be honest, and I know it’s hard for Anti-Zionists to believe this, I could care less what he thinks of Israel/Nuclear weapons, I just would rather not see more people suffer/die needlessly there … Let it stop inshallah.

    Sam is a Lennonist.

77. Gert June 16th, 2009 7:53 pm

    Avram:

    Agreed (and I think there are many like us). But two days ago (with the alleged landslide for A.) I could distinctly hear the sound of the rehearsing of launch codes emanating from Tel Aviv, today it sounds more like the gnashing or Bibi’s teeth

    Reversal of fortune!

78. Avram June 16th, 2009 10:16 pm

    “I could distinctly hear the sound of the rehearsing of launch codes emanating from Tel Aviv”

    That was probably Alex working on his pick up lines mate … They sound awfully like launch codes, honest.

79. Gert June 16th, 2009 11:47 pm

    All these phone numbers of nubile Israeli mademoiselles? Yep, could be…

80. Gert June 16th, 2009 11:49 pm

    I think Mad Zionist must be off to the local library, either that or reading two paragraphs of Stormin’ Norman caused him a stroke

Leave a reply