Zionists’ failure to save Jews from Holocaust was spiked 50 years ago, now in the news

Israel/Palestine
on 81 Comments

In 1961, Haaretz correspondent Naphtali Lavie wrote a series of exposés critical of the Zionist leadership’s failure to save Jews from the Holocaust. Fearing the repercussions, Lavie shelved the pieces. Haaretz just published the pieces for the first time, a half-century later.

While every attempt to sustain life in Nazi-occupied Europe was being quashed, the “partners” in the Yishuv silenced what was happening “there” and blocked any possibility for assistance…

The Jews in the Yishuv, who were fearful for their own fate during the period of the military campaign on the Egyptian border, wanted to put aside thoughts of such atrocities and rejected the rumors. The leadership was concerned. The chairman of the Jewish Agency, David Ben-Gurion, who was capable of demonstrating resourcefulness at decisive moments, did not address the problem. The No. 2 person in the hierarchy at the time, Moshe Sharett, made efforts to ensure that the contractual partnership with the Allies in the war against the enemy was realized in practice. His aim was to ensure that the Yishuv was an equal partner in the war. Hence, it was not possible for the Holocaust to occupy the top place in his ranking of priorities. Problems between the Yishuv and the “partners” were to be deferred until after the victory, and the rescue of European Jewry was only one of these problems.

About Matthew Taylor

Matthew A. Taylor is co-founder of PeacePower magazine, and author of "The Road to Nonviolent Coexistence in Palestine/Israel," a chapter in the book Nonviolent Coexistence.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

81 Responses

  1. MRW
    May 2, 2011, 11:05 am

    Good. I expect all the Hasbarists here who accused those of us who were writing about this and giving links about it over the past two years to apologize.

    • LanceThruster
      May 2, 2011, 11:16 am

      I remember being banned from several sites for merely bringing up this issue. Their attacks against Lenni Brenner consisted mainly of dismissing his scholarship based on his politics.

      See his self-defense against ADL smears here: link to fantompowa.org

      One day people will understand that such a determined effort to bury the truth means you have something to hide.

  2. Chaos4700
    May 2, 2011, 11:13 am

    Ha! Witty, hophmi and eee won’t touch this thread with a ten foot pole. It’ll be like sunlight on a vampire (and I don’t mean those Twilight vampires).

  3. eee
    May 2, 2011, 11:36 am

    What is the point you are trying to make? The whole world did not really believe what had happened until pictures of the camps emerged. Yes, there was a failure of imagination and no real idea what to do, especially with the Germans on the doorsteps of Palestine. So? Isn’t it your position that the world could have saved the Jews and that a strong Jewish state is not needed for that? So you complain that 400,000 poor Jews under British rule could have made a real difference?

    • Cliff
      May 2, 2011, 11:45 am

      Go cry in the comment section of Haaretz.

    • Chaos4700
      May 2, 2011, 11:46 am

      So you complain that 400,000 poor Jews under British rule could have made a real difference?

      …okay. I figured eee was actually smarter than to even try making a showing here. Gosh, my mistake, I guess. If only they “loved their children as much as we do,” to paraphrase Golda Meir(son).

      Incidentally, Jews who fled to British protection do seem to be among the more sensible ones.

    • Mooser
      May 2, 2011, 11:48 am

      “The whole world did not really believe what had happened until pictures of the camps emerged. “

      Ah, you old wine-dark and many-throated “eee”! Now tell us, from memory, what really happened at Calvary?

    • marc b.
      May 2, 2011, 11:54 am

      What is the point you are trying to make? The whole world did not really believe what had happened until pictures of the camps emerged.

      wrong. there were credible reports of genocide during the war dating back to 1942, and ‘the whole world’ knew of the treatment of the disabled, homosexuals, communists, etc. in pre-wwii germany. in fact american philanthropists, including american jews, supported eugenics research and programs in germany long before ‘the holocaust’.

      • Citizen
        May 2, 2011, 12:22 pm

        Not to mention, marc b, the Transfer Agreement between the Zionists and Nazi Germany, which Eichmann detailed during his trial in a very cool and rational manner, something that was videotaped completely during the time by a Jewish American, yet has not been given much exposure, by the Western press or Israeli press. And, as well, the typical Shoah history vision does not focus on the fact that, for the Allies, a German ball-bearing factory was a more important thing to attack than a concentration camp, given the total sum of lives at stake as distingished from the relatively small component of European Jewish lives; nor shall we mention that it might not be good to bomb the camps since you’d be killing the people you want to save, inter alia. And all this means that Gentiles should feel guilty and justify therefore anything Israel does to grab more lebensraum? Please. At least the American politicans have a rational motive: simply gaining and keeping political power in the USA, with all the material perks that go with it. Otherwise, we enter into Fantasyland with a special paranoid twist, which together with the gross material aspect, is exactly where Bibi and the US government are right now, and this, for decades now under successive US and Israeli regimes, each products of democracy, the real thing, not the theoretical thing. This is plutocracy combined with ideology–could one get more lethal? Krupp was a piker.

  4. William Boot
    May 2, 2011, 11:39 am

    Lavie’s claims are wrong. There has been tons of scholarship since 1961 that has shown how much Ben Gurion, Sharett and the other Yishuv leaders tried to do to help rescue Jews. Despite their efforts, they were not in a position to make much difference. The fact is that the Nazis were intent on murdering Jews even when it was clear that they were going to lose the war, while the Allies were focused on winning the war, not stopping the massacre of Jews. Think about what Haaretz has done here. It has published an article written in 1961. What would we think of a journal article on DNA research completed in 1961 that was recently discovered and published? Would it overrule our current understanding of DNA? The answer is no. Scholarship has moved far beyond what was known in 1961, even by the most perceptive of journalists. And the fact is that even the introduction to the Lavie articles contains serious historical errors. Some Jews want to blame other Jews for the Holocaust but that is absurd. The Nazis and their allies killed the Jews not Ben Gurion and Sharett.

    • Chaos4700
      May 2, 2011, 11:49 am

      Ahem.

      If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.

      David Ben-Gurion at his finest. The problem with your contention, is that the record as it stands doesn’t conflict with what has been revealed.

    • Mooser
      May 2, 2011, 11:50 am

      “There has been tons of scholarship since 1961 that has shown how much Ben Gurion, Sharett and the other Yishuv leaders tried to do to help rescue Jews.”

      ROTFLMSJAO! Yes, but how much of that “scholarship” was done by “anti-Semites” so it would be objective?

    • marc b.
      May 2, 2011, 11:57 am

      Think about what Haaretz has done here. It has published an article written in 1961. What would we think of a journal article on DNA research completed in 1961 that was recently discovered and published? Would it overrule our current understanding of DNA?

      where is the site’s logic mentor? this is what is called a false analogy. nice try though.

      • Mooser
        May 2, 2011, 1:14 pm

        “Would it overrule our current understanding of DNA?”

        If it was tested and found true, why, yes, it certainly would. And it very often happens that a paper or experiment is re-appraised or even noticed for the first time many years later.

        • Woody Tanaka
          May 2, 2011, 3:59 pm

          “If it was tested and found true, why, yes, it certainly would.”

          In fact, this basically happened. Gregor Mendel’s work on genetics was published in the mid-19th C., but was basically ignored and unappreciated for about 35-40 years before it was “rediscovered.”

    • MRW
      May 2, 2011, 12:04 pm

      There has been tons of scholarship since 1961 that has shown how much Ben Gurion, Sharett and the other Yishuv leaders tried to do to help rescue Jews.

      Incorrect.

    • Antidote
      May 2, 2011, 12:17 pm

      “The fact is that the Nazis were intent on murdering Jews even when it was clear that they were going to lose the war”

      Nolte made that point and, more recently, Snyder in ‘Bloodlands’. Has been debunked repeatedly in the decades bewteen Nolte’s and Snyder’s claim.

      • Stone
        May 2, 2011, 9:57 pm

        I had not heard this before. I haven’t read much on the issue but I do know that the Nazis were keen on Jews leaving before the war. Also I figured that they just wanted to “dispose” of them once the war wasn’t going their way. I did a quick search and I couldn’t find any articles. Do you have a few in mind for the debunking?

    • Citizen
      May 2, 2011, 12:31 pm

      And the USA and Israel are slowly erasing the Palestinian people despite Nuremberg and all the international law that came in its wake (way after Custer and the Trail Of Tears, MLK, the end of apartheid S Africa, not to mention the Conquistadors).

      • ChrisB
        May 3, 2011, 7:09 am

        So slowly that the palestinian population has increased from 1.5 million to 10 million.

  5. annie
    May 2, 2011, 11:40 am

    But in building the national institutions in Jerusalem, the leadership tried to toe a narrow line: to take part in the war effort with the “partners,” but at the same time, not to forgo its demands pertaining to the Land of Israel. There was a desire to be part of the general war effort, and in certain circles, suggestions were made to the effect that the rescue demands must not be allowed to overshadow other Zionist objectives.

  6. Michael W.
    May 2, 2011, 11:48 am

    Where would they have gotten those trucks?

  7. rachelgolem
    May 2, 2011, 11:51 am

    So, the Germans built factories to kill millions of people and burn their bodies and you are blaming people who were living on another continent, with no army, claiming they were in any position to stop it?

    Has anyone heard of Hannah Senesh?

    • annie
      May 2, 2011, 12:02 pm

      who is blaming?

      • Antidote
        May 2, 2011, 12:22 pm

        for most people, historical inquiry starts and ends with the question: whose fault was/is it? and they don’t spend a lot of time making up their minds, let alone use them properly.

      • Citizen
        May 2, 2011, 12:33 pm

        annie, good question. What the f*** is she implying? Is she trying to live up to her pen name?

    • MRW
      May 2, 2011, 12:05 pm

      Write Haaretz.

    • Chaos4700
      May 2, 2011, 12:54 pm

      At least we are in agreement that Zionists were never in the business of saving Jews from the Holocaust.

  8. GuiltyFeat
    May 2, 2011, 12:11 pm

    What exactly do you think these revelations will do to Israel?

    The Yishuv didn’t do enough to save Jews in Germany. We’re talking about a few hundred thousand people in the Middle East. How much would have been enough? Did France do enough? Did Britain do enough?

    I know some of you like to think that Truth is the enemy of Israelis, some of you even make the semantic error of thinking that Truth is the opposite of Secret, but it’s not the case. Politicians aside, Israelis are among the most truthful people I have met. We welcome truths, even painful ones like this.

    • annie
      May 2, 2011, 12:35 pm

      nobody did enough.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 2, 2011, 1:31 pm

        “nobody did enough.”

        I don’t believe that.
        Some did nothing, or worse, perpetrated the crime. Some did what they could, given their circumstance. But some risked their lives or gave the ultimate sacrifice. The Christians hiding Jews at the risk of their own lives or soldiers who fought and died fighting the Axis, the civilians who sacrificed and supplied the soldiers until the very end; they did enough.

    • Chaos4700
      May 2, 2011, 12:53 pm

      It goes to the heart of the fact that the notion that Israel was the solution to the Holocaust as being a total lie. Mere propaganda being hung on a banner on the mass graves of people who were more useful to Zionists by being murdered than being saved.

    • marc b.
      May 2, 2011, 1:03 pm

      nobody did enough.

      precisely.

      Israelis are among the most truthful people I have met.

      perhaps you could provide us with some clarification, though. are you referring to palestinian israelis as well, or is ‘the truth’, or more simply, this ‘truth’ (about the nazi genocide), something that can be faced by arabs? and could you please provide a comprehensive ranking of ‘truthfulness’ based on nationality and race? since israelis (to be further defined) are only ‘among the most truthful’, i would be interested to learn which categories of persons are more truthful than israelis. this should make for fascinating reading.

      • GuiltyFeat
        May 2, 2011, 3:02 pm

        “i would be interested to learn which categories of persons are more truthful than israelis. this should make for fascinating reading.”

        I grew up in London although my parents are not British. My experience living in England for 25 years is that English people are not honest (emotionally speaking). They do not tell you the truth. They are passive aggressive and take pains to tell you what they think you want to hear right up until the moment they lose their tempers and blame you for making them agree to things they didn’t want to. British people are often self-deprecating. It is considered poor form to say something positive about oneself. An Olympic gold medallist asked what he does for a living might say, “I run a bit,” a Nobel Prize-winning physicist might tell you he’s a bit of a nerd.

        Business trips have taken me abroad where, for example, I learned that no one will ever say “No” in the Philippines as it’s considered very rude. If the right answer to a question you ask is “No”, they will just say “Yes” and do nothing about it.

        Americans tend to value good manners which is more straightforward than the British avoidance of confrontation, but it still means they don’t always say what they mean.

        In Israel everyone will tell you what they think and in the spirit of doasyouwouldbedoneby, no one is ever offended if you tell them honestly what you think. I find people less underhand in their emotional relationships here. In England there’s a terrible social crime of talking about someone behind their back. In Israel, it doesn’t happen. If someone upsets you, you are supposed to tell them. Such confrontations are common and not ill-mannered.

        Of course these are all my subjective experiences and generalized opinions. Feel free to chime in and tell me I’m plain wrong.

        • American
          May 3, 2011, 3:16 am

          Hummmm….

          “My experience living in England for 25 years is that English people are not honest (emotionally speaking). They do not tell you the truth. They are passive aggressive and take pains to tell you what they think you want to hear right up until the moment they lose their tempers and blame you for making them agree to things they didn’t want to. British people are often self-deprecating. It is considered poor form to say something positive about oneself. An Olympic gold medallist asked what he does for a living might say, “I run a bit,” a Nobel Prize-winning physicist might tell you he’s a bit of a nerd.”

          ..so you would rather they tell you to your face you are loud , rude, argumentative, boorish and a braggart?

          Not you personally of course…just an illustration.
          It’s called having good manners.

        • GuiltyFeat
          May 3, 2011, 4:19 am

          “so you would rather they tell you to your face you are loud , rude, argumentative, boorish and a braggart?”

          If that’s what they thought, then certainly, yes. Would you rather people were not honest with you?

          I have nothing against good manners, except when it is a barrier to truth. For example, in your post, you are pretending to be well-mannered, but really you’re just being sly, by throwing all those descriptors out there and making out like you would never use them except as “just an illustration”. I get that you really want to say them to my face, but your culturally ingrained sense of (false?) propriety has brainwashed you into to believing it’s better if you come at these things sideways. I get it, really I do. I’m just not buying it.

        • MRW
          May 3, 2011, 5:27 am

          In Israel everyone will tell you what they think and in the spirit of doasyouwouldbedoneby, no one is ever offended if you tell them honestly what you think.

          That’s kinda rich, GF. The ones on this site who are soooo easily offended by any little nick at Israel are the Israelis who live there. They can never deal head on with statements made and throw in every historical equivalent as if it has any relevance. We perceive it as thin-skinned-hands-on-hip-ism.

          And the British are emotionally honest, just not accessible. If you know how to read them, they’re open books. They don’t perceive themselves as part of a tribe (which has attributes they don’t subscribe to), their sense of personal space is different, WWII did something to their national character that Israel (and Americans) would only understand if their cities were bombed or flattened (so adolescent nationalistic braggadocio survives in I & US), and they were once a great empire with socially engrained dos and donts that come with the responsibility of being one (many from the Victorian Age). Something Israel does not understand: witness the disdain with which it treats its neighbors; it’s a big frog in a little pond so it acts like it. The British know the weight and achievement of their centuries of literature and culture and history, some of the greatest the western world has ever known. Their children grow up imbued with that superiority. So what do you expect? That they’re going to grovel before an immigrant? Hardly. You’re expected to adjust.

          Israel was created on the model of half-baked eastern nations with no history of the supremacy of law or justice—the centuries of it—contrary to France or Britain at the time (those eastern nations were struggling with it in the 18th C…Israel could have chosen France as a model, but it didn’t, it wanted Bialystock). It’s still trying to justify its body politic as a quasi-ethnocracy/theocracy in the 21st C., even though the colonial blankie it throws over itself to fool us is called democracy.

          But it must make you feel good at least to be among your own kind. Rejoice in that. You’re home. It takes 10 years to become fully acculturated in a different land, but that assumes you want to. Many Jews, because of their religion, view that kind of assimilation as some kinda crime. (google Elliot Abrams USA)

          For a scientific read on this, check out Dr. Norman Doidge’s book: The Brain That Changes Itself.

          And btw, emotional diarrhea is not truth, it’s discharge.

        • GuiltyFeat
          May 3, 2011, 6:49 am

          “The ones on this site who are soooo easily offended by any little nick at Israel are the Israelis who live there.”

          I haven’t been here long but it seems like it’s the Americans here who get more offended about anti-Israel stuff than the Israelis. You only have to look at the amount of “Israel is behaving badly” articles that originate in Haaretz or the JPost compared to any US news source.

          “And the British are emotionally honest…” Er, I respectfully, but forcefully disagree.

          “The British know the weight and achievement of their centuries of literature and culture and history, some of the greatest the western world has ever known. Their children grow up imbued with that superiority.”

          Wow! Have you ever lived in England? This is some mighty fine nonsense you’re brewing up here. British society is riddled with class-consciousness which still prevents people from experiencing class mobility in any direction. The middle-class may have broadened, but, by and large, the children of bankers grow up to be bankers and the children of manual laborers grow up to be manual laborers. This is the reason that both the British working class and the upper class have a long and proud tradition of racism as successive waves of immigrants (Jews, then Indians, etc.) have rejected class immobility by beginning as low-paid workers while ensuring their children have the education, motivation and aspiration to succeed.

          Finally if you really want to learn something about “the disdain with which (a country) treats its neighbors”, ask an Englishman what he things of the French… or the Germans… or the Welsh… or the Irish… or anyone from anywhere outside of England. The English are undoubtedly the most xenophobic people on the planet.

        • Bumblebye
          May 3, 2011, 8:13 am

          GF
          Rot. In 25 years in England, did you only meet “Sun” readers and social climbers?

        • Sumud
          May 3, 2011, 9:31 am

          The English are undoubtedly the most xenophobic people on the planet.

          Translation: the BDS Movement is particularly strong in the UK.

          [Most Brits know their country did the wrong thing by Palestine during the mandate era and want to see that historical wrong righted, to the extent it can be.]

        • American
          May 3, 2011, 12:35 pm

          Well GF I just can’t buy that you really want people to say exactly what they think about everything. Take the Israel issue for example…a lot of people go at that sideways because if they put their opinion in descripitive plain english, without prefacing everything and adding this and that allowence…then they are called anti semites.

          If I said to Israel or pro Israelis ..’look, it’s time to get over yourselves, you aren’t the only people in the world or the only ones to have been genocided and presecuted thru out history..suck it up and move on, enough is enough and you are creating your own anti semitism with your constant demands and agression’….I can hear the howling and slur slinging already if put in such down to earth frank terms.

          What you really want people to say is ‘ yes it was the worst thing that ever happened in the entire world and of course Israel is justified in behaving the way it does because of it, we all understand and sympathize but pretty please, couldn’t you also consider the feelings and welfare of other peoples too?

          Now I will wait for you to tell me my second paragraph proves I am a anti semite because if you get the honesty you asked for the ususal response is you anti semite you.

        • GuiltyFeat
          May 3, 2011, 4:44 pm

          “[Most Brits know their country did the wrong thing by Palestine during the mandate era and want to see that historical wrong righted, to the extent it can be.]”

          If I was ever going to use a smiley face it would be now.

          This is ridiculous. I bet you can’t find one in a hundred Brits that has ever heard of the Mandate or that even knows the British were in Palestine pre-1948.

          Some of you guys live in the strangest bubble.

        • GuiltyFeat
          May 3, 2011, 5:08 pm

          @American

          Look we can go round and round on this, but if you’ve never visited Israel or actually talked to real Israelis about anything, your comments are mere supposition. I live here I’m giving you my opinion. Of course it may be biased, but at least it’s based on meeting real people.

          I’m Israeli and you can say what you like to me. If something you write seems anti-semitic, i.e. based on an irrational hatred of Jews rather than your subjective response to facts and evidence, I promise to let you know.

          “you are creating your own anti semitism with your constant demands and agression [sic]” That’s the only slightly dodgy thing in your second paragraph because it suggests that anti-semitism, a centuries old irrational hatred of Jews that has surfaced in every country that Jews have ever lived in, is somehow being created by citizens of a country that is only 63 years old. It also suggests that the behavior of the Jewish citizens of that country causes anti-semitism in communities around the world and that the Jews of Israel are responsible for graveyard desecrations in Istanbul, Strasburg, the Czech Republic, Toledo and Manchester as well as Jewish community center bombings in Buenos Aires and Caracas.

          Whatever terrible things you think Israel has done, none of them justify anti-semtism. Rail and protest against Israel as much as you think necessary, but don’t make the mistake of thinking there weren’t people before you and there won’t be people among you who just hate Jews. There are even a couple here on this board, but they’re really easy to spot and most people on both sides of the debate just steer clear of them.

          Finally the idea that you saying “suck it up and move on” to an Israeli would somehow be shocking is crazy. In 63 years Israelis have produced Nobel winners and Olympic medalists, astronauts and supermodels. Jordan has roughly the same population as Israel, how are they doing? The reality is we’ve been sucking it up and moving on for 63 years, longer actually. We rock at it.

        • Bumblebye
          May 3, 2011, 5:32 pm

          GF
          “one in a hundred Brits”
          Maybe not among your “Sun” reader version of the Brit character, but Dad was 17 and in the RN out there, Uncle Bernie, 21. was a military policeman out there. I’m fairly sure they knew about the Mandate and Balfour. And so do many more.

        • Sumud
          May 3, 2011, 6:14 pm

          If I was ever going to use a smiley face it would be now.

          I bet you can’t find one in a hundred Brits that has ever heard of the Mandate or that even knows the British were in Palestine pre-1948.

          Some of you guys live in the strangest bubble.

          I’ll say that I should have used the word “many” instead of “most” when I said “Most Brits know their country did the wrong thing by Palestine during the mandate era…”

          There’s a good reason BDS has such strong support in the UK and it has nothing to do with xenophobia and/or anti-semitism.

          Amusing to hear you describe me as living in a “bubble” when Israelis (especially in Tel Aviv) are said to live in a bubble.

          Let’s backtrack. You said “The English are undoubtedly the most xenophobic people on the planet.” Why would you say that? Based on what?

          You also said “Israelis are among the most truthful people I have met. ” ha ha ha! Israel is the only country I know of that is undertaking a national effort to lie to the rest of the world about it’s sins.

        • GuiltyFeat
          May 3, 2011, 6:22 pm

          “I’m fairly sure they knew about the Mandate and Balfour.”

          Listing two people who were there (are they both still with us? Apologies for the crudeness of the question) out of a population of 60 odd million is hardly the most convincing refutation of my hypothesis.

          Bumblebye, neither of us have the figures to back up our ideas, but I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss Sun readers as a simpleton minority. Together with the News of the World it’s the most widely circulated English language newspaper in the world. I’m more of a Grauniad man myself, but I think my ‘no more than one in a hundred Brits in 2011 have ever heard of the Mandate’, is a good bet.

        • GuiltyFeat
          May 3, 2011, 6:33 pm

          @Sumud

          “I should have used the word “many” instead of “most” ” Maybe, but I still think you’re fooling yourself. The overwhelming majority of Brits would be hard pressed to find Israel on a map. They wouldn’t be able to tell you what the West Bank was the West bank of and they certainly would not have any clue that Britain was arming the Arabs and hanging Jews found with arms in 1947.

          “The English are undoubtedly the most xenophobic people on the planet.” Why would you say that? Based on what?”

          First of all, I’m speaking partly in jest, but my semi serious comment is based on British attitudes to the French, the Germans, the Scottish, the Japanese, the Americans and pretty much anyone with an accent. I’m generalizing here, of course, but it’s a safe generalization that the average Brit is not keen on foreigners. This is a recurring theme in British comedy of the past 100 years. I promise you, I’m not inventing this stuff.

          Also, could you define “strong support”. How exactly is the BDS gaining traction in the UK? A few motions in the politically impotent and traditionally anti-Israel trades unions? A couple of student protests? Some goons chained up outside a cosmetics shop? I don’t see much in the mainstream media about it. Why is that if there’s such strong support? (My answer goes back to you being in that bubble again. I don’t live in Tel Aviv, so I can’t speak about the one you say we have here).

        • Sand
          May 3, 2011, 9:21 pm

          GuiltyFeat: “…In Israel everyone will tell you what they think and in the spirit of doasyouwouldbedoneby, no one is ever offended if you tell them honestly what you think…”

          Yeah, except if your name is Hedy and you arrive at at Ben-Gurion Airport. Oh GF — you’re such a hoot!

        • American
          May 4, 2011, 12:03 am

          GF…..

          “That’s the only slightly dodgy thing in your second paragraph because it suggests that anti-semitism, a centuries old irrational hatred of Jews that has surfaced in every country that Jews have ever lived in, is somehow being created by citizens of a country that is only 63 years old. It also suggests ..”

          Let me see if I can explain this in a way you will get.
          Yes, Israel causes anti semitism, or what you might call anti semitism…but which in fact should be called resentment and outrage in people.
          Because:
          1) Jewish State!..Jewish State!….. that’s how it’s billed and justified… and everything they do and say is all about the Jews.
          +
          2) People see what Israel does in the name of the Jews and the Jewish State!, the Jewish State!
          +
          3) Then people read about and see all the Jewish zionista mafia operating, (yes they have some gentile lackeys too) especially in the US, defending Israelis crimes and etc., and demanding the US do this and do that for Israel, and hand over more money for Israel even though we are told how antisemitic we are by the people we give that money to.

          So the connection to the Jews is …simply….the connection to the Jewish state and the Jews surrounding it.
          So people start to dislike and resent that group of Jews and view them with suspicion.

          If what I described above was being done by Buddhist or Quakers, people would feel the same way, say the same things about them and dislike them too.

          Israel has been exposed mainly due to the internet and everyone’s ability to get other than US press on I/P
          At the same time you could say Jews as a whole have benefited from that exposure on the net because information also shows that not all Jews support what Israel and their fellow Jews are doing.
          Then again Israel’s hasbara people have probably infuriated a lot of people re the Jews and Israel because they run around saying the most inaccurate and idiotic things and screaming anti semite at the top of their lungs. And idiots like that Oren?…..you saw the response to his trying to rewrite US history. People just get disgusted with this stuff after a while.

          There’s nothing anti semitic about saying that some Jews or even a large group of Jews are bringing a great deal of dislike and resentment on themselves and creating their own problems with the non Jewish population if that is what they are doing, and that is what ‘some’ of them …and Israel, as the ….are doing.

          We can get into the ancient history and ‘irrational’ hatred debate another time… this is mainly about Israel and the pro Israeli Jews or zionist actions Today…not yesterday.

        • Sand
          May 4, 2011, 12:36 am

          OK — that’s enough. You’re edging on David Dukes terrority. This is not constructive. You’ve revealed yourself as having no finese or feeling for what is being discussed.

        • GuiltyFeat
          May 4, 2011, 1:39 am

          @American

          “Israel causes anti semitism, or what you might call anti semitism…but which in fact should be called resentment and outrage in people.”

          I DON’T call it anti-semitism, you did. I am under no illusions that Israel most certainly DOES cause resentment and outrage in people, some of which is justified and some of which is disproportionate to the crimes committed by Israel and the amount of resentment and outrage allotted to regimes that behave considerably worse.

          By your reasoning, Al Qaeda committing atrocities “in the name of Islam” would justify Islamophobia.

          Antisemitism is the irrational hatred of Jews. It’s racist and like every other form of racism it’s reductionist and dumb.

          It doesn’t matter how many Jews disgust you by what they do and say, you still cannot extrapolate that into justified hatred of a Jew you’ve never met or heard from or have any idea of his opinions. If you do, then you’re a racist.

          This is Humanity 101. There have been more killings in the name of Christ, more people enslaved and more murders in the name of Allah than have ever been perpetrated in the “name of the Jews”. By your reasoning, it makes more sense to hate Christians and Moslems than Jews, no? But that would be wrong.

          In other words, if the first 100 Jews you meet are serial rapists, you don’t get to castrate the 101st based on what you know.

        • GuiltyFeat
          May 4, 2011, 1:48 am

          @Sand
          “OK — that’s enough. You’re edging on David Dukes terrority [sic]. This is not constructive. You’ve revealed yourself as having no finese [sic snigger] or feeling for what is being discussed.”

          Please leave American alone, he’s trying his best. You have added nothing to the debate with your rude comment.

        • MRW
          May 4, 2011, 7:31 am

          British society is riddled with class-consciousness which still prevents people from experiencing class mobility in any direction

          My point exactly…what did I call it above? ‘Imbued with superiority’. It’s centuries old, and comes from how land was apportioned to the Lords and Ladies (Barons and Dukes, etc). But it has zip to do with whether they are emotionally honest or not. Class divisions require that you don’t share outside your class; each layer has its rules, mostly tacit. I’m sure an Untouchable in India has an entirely different view of a Brahmin than the other way around. It takes a few generations in Britain before an immigrant is accepted as a true Brit. In the USA, on the other hand, it takes becoming a US citizen.

        • Donald
          May 4, 2011, 7:32 am

          “In Israel everyone will tell you what they think and in the spirit of doasyouwouldbedoneby, no one is ever offended if you tell them honestly what you think.”–GF

          “That’s kinda rich, GF.”–MRW

          Yeah, I’ve never been to Israel but in print or online I haven’t noticed what GF is claiming. His generalizations might be right about how people get along in daily life (though even here the moral claims of superiority about one culture over another generally strike me as self-serving BS no matter who makes them), but as for politics Israelis seem as arrogant and narcissistic and jingoistic as Americans. They’d have to be, to act the way they do (and again, the same is true of our country.) There are exceptions in both cases, plenty of them, but I don’t think I see a great distinction here. It’s not like most Israelis read Haaretz or support B’Tselem and just accept criticism from human rights groups outside.

        • MRW
          May 4, 2011, 7:54 am

          GF. It doesn’t matter how many Jews disgust you by what they do and say, you still cannot extrapolate that into justified hatred of a Jew you’ve never met or heard from or have any idea of his opinions. If you do, then you’re a racist.

          Which, of course, is what Americans will do every day with the French (you probably never heard of our Freedom Fries replacing French Fries, and how all Frenchmen were hated post-911) or the blanket rub-out of Latinos (curiously trumpeted in The Forward) or Muslims (Frank Gaffney, John Hagee, Pamela Geller, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, and pretty much every Christian Zionist in the book, etc), or the longest-standing of all: Blacks (examples abound from University professors who still say their brains are smaller, to radio-hosts like Limbaugh who dishes it up daily in code that whitey understands…this stuff came out in full force as a soon as there was a black man in the WH). What American is objecting to, is saying, is that Jews want special dispensation from our racist calls and labeling, because they’re sensitive and, as Sand noted above, you have to treat the issue with feeling and finesse. What American is also saying, and it is a truism in this culture, is that when resentment builds up, Americans react (as the anti-immigration thing did over supposed job losses caused by Mexicans when it was outsourcing to India and China on a colossal financial scale by transnational corps that was the real culprit, but our complainers aren’t economic wunderkind).

        • eljay
          May 4, 2011, 8:06 am

          >> It takes a few generations in Britain before an immigrant is accepted as a true Brit. In the USA, on the other hand, it takes becoming a US citizen.

          How long does it take in a “Jewish state”?

        • GuiltyFeat
          May 4, 2011, 8:35 am

          “It’s not like most Israelis read Haaretz or support B’Tselem and just accept criticism from human rights groups outside.”

          If you’re comparing America and Israel I would suggest that a far higher proportion of Israelis read Haaretz than Americans read whatever you could find which would be considered the equivalent. Does America even have a left-leaning, nationally distributed broadsheet newspaper?

          I’ll stipulate to the fact that our politicians are idiots (“arrogant and narcissistic and jingoistic” – check, check, check), but show me a country whose politicians aren’t. America? The UK? Gaza and the West Bank?

          “”Yeah, I’ve never been to Israel but in print or online I haven’t noticed what GF is claiming.” Er… look there’s just nothing for me to say about that. I choose not to judge all Americans based on things I’ve heard (Rush Limbaugh), seen (Glenn Beck), or encountered online (Jewwatch.com). You are free to use different criteria to make up your mind about Israelis.

        • American
          May 4, 2011, 2:17 pm

          David Duke territory?

          Well, that’s ridiculous. I am simply explaining how people , mainly those who know just enough to be dangerous, leap to or tend to associate ‘some’ with ‘all’. Particulary in the case of self identified groups.

          What I illustrated about the information people take in about Israel and pro Israel individuals forming their opinions of a Jews as a ‘group’, could just as well be applied to someone’s reactions to the dem party or the repub group based on what they see and read about those (commie)” liberals” or those (fascist) “conservatives”. I was telling you “Why” people make group associations and you convoluted it into something else.

          For myself I do object to the undue influence of the US zionist on US policy, it is real, it does exist, because of the immorality of I/P and ramifications to this country and Americans welfare. I have a right, even a duty, to say that and also point out those involved. That in no way means I hate Jews or think all Jews are responsible for this.
          And really, your response is more knee jerk bigoted toward me or maybe it’s because you aren’t smart enough to understand what I was saying…I’ll even be magnanimous and say maybe I wasn’t clear enough.

        • American
          May 4, 2011, 2:40 pm

          Yes, MRW, thank you…exactly the point I was trying to make.

        • American
          May 4, 2011, 2:45 pm

          Well –Thank you GF —- for at least allowing that I wasn’t necessarily saying what Sand alleged I was saying.

        • American
          May 4, 2011, 3:04 pm

          “By your reasoning, Al Qaeda committing atrocities “in the name of Islam” would justify Islamophobia.:

          Well, GF….. isn’t Islamophobia exactly what we have seen in a portion of the population in response to the actions of a few Muslims?

          BUT …it isn’t ‘my reasoning” that Islamophobia or anti semitism is justified by the actions of some of a group.

          My reasoning is that the actions of some Jews drive some people to anti semitism the same way the actions of some Muslims drive some people to Islamophobia.

          I don’t know where you get that I said either was justified.
          I said that’s what happens.

        • GuiltyFeat
          May 5, 2011, 5:53 am

          “My reasoning is that the actions of some Jews drive some people to anti semitism the same way the actions of some Muslims drive some people to Islamophobia.

          I don’t know where you get that I said either was justified.
          I said that’s what happens.”

          I don’t believe your response to both is comparable. When the actions of “some Muslims drive some people to Islamophobia”, you criticize the Islamophobes for being racist. When the actions of some Jews cause antisemitism, you blame the Jews.

        • Cliff
          May 5, 2011, 6:20 am

          Stop ‘point-scoring’.

          Islamic extremists help create a negative image of Muslims around the world. That does not justify Islamophobia, but it is a statement of fact. It is a consequence.

          And self-obsessed, morally bankrupt Zionists do the same.

          It’s not a justification for the belief that being a Jew or a Muslim makes you automatically such and such or behave a certain way.

          It is however a consequence of being human. Do you think everyone in the world is always thinking reasonable in spite of what they may endure? How often do Zionists try to link the antisemitism in the Arab world to Nazism? Saying it’s the same? There is context for how we feel the way we feel. It’s complex.

          I mean, what the hell is antisemitism then? Is it MAGIC, GuiltyFeat?

          Get over yourself.

    • Mooser
      May 2, 2011, 1:11 pm

      “Israelis are among the most truthful people I have met”

      And the men are handsomer, the women prettier, and all the children are above average. All my Israeli friends say so!

      And anybody who disagrees is nothing but a darned anti-Semite!

    • ddi
      May 2, 2011, 1:55 pm

      “We welcome truths, even painful ones like this.”

      Yeah, you sure do welcome painful truths, like say… the Nakba.

  9. justicewillprevail
    May 2, 2011, 1:42 pm

    You mean, “they say things I agree with.” Funny that every IDF spokesman and every Israeli politican has a pragmatic relationship to ‘truth’: what we say is true, and no amount of documented fact is going to change that.

  10. MHughes976
    May 2, 2011, 3:06 pm

    I don’t find it easy to sympathise with David Green and friends but in this respect I can see that they had a genuine problem. There must have been a rational argument that the best policy from every point of view was to support the Soviet advance rather than provide the Nazis with war materials that could be used to resist it.

  11. LanceThruster
    May 2, 2011, 5:54 pm

    “Israelis are among the most truthful people I have met”

    From the writings of Gilad Atzmon – link to gilad.co.uk

    “On the face of it, it would seem as if Jews are over sensitive to the ‘racial’ discriminatory implication of the ‘J’ word. However most Jews are not that concerned when being associated collectively with some great minds, adorable violin players or conductors. In short to safely apply the ‘Jew’ category, you just have to make sure you say the right things. No one will ever cause you any trouble for mentioning Albert Einstein in reference to Jewish intelligence or even bringing up Anne Frank as an exemplary motif of Jewish innocence but you may get into some serious trouble once you mention the following list of real and fictional characters: Bernie Madoff, Fagin, Wolfowitz, Lord Levy, Shylock, Alan Greenspan, Netanyahu and Nathan Rothschild without even identifying them as Jews.

    All of the above depicts a very obscure, yet far from surprising picture. As it seems, Jews, largely do not mind stereotypes or collective categories. They do not mind racial generalizations and essentialist stigmas as long as they are positive.”

  12. RoHa
    May 2, 2011, 9:39 pm

    “The Jews in the Yishuv, who were fearful for their own fate during the period of the military campaign on the Egyptian border,”

    I’m sure someone will be able to tell me how they all joined the British Army and went to fight at El Alamein.

  13. American
    May 3, 2011, 2:59 am

    The problem with holocaust discussions is that 99% of everything written about the holocaust is written by Jews or zionist and most of them are naturally going to cast everything in their favor.
    You will find very few books and hardly any research done by gentiles or non Jews available to the general public. And if anything is written that isn’t 100% positive about the jews or zionist it is attacked as anti semitic regardless so there is not much incentive for researchers or writers to attempt it. So it is difficult to know the real truth or what to believe about a lot of conflicting claims unless you are determined enough to spend mountains of time, years really, combing thru various national archives for official documents, papers and news articles of the time. I just went to the British National Archives to check something on 1930’40′s Jewish immigration and one paper listed was a document on the UK restricting Jewish immigration of Polish Jews due to fears of jewish terrorist in their ranks. Poland was where the zionist nationalist military group, the Betar, was formed even before nazi Germany so there may have been something to that fear. BUT, I could not access that paper because it is still ‘restricted’ even after 60 years and I would have do a Freedom of Info request to the UK government to get it.
    I think that because of the holocaust a lot of still unrevealed and valuable information is inaccessible because most governments fear that after the German phenomenon it might contain material that either encourages anti semitism and would also reveal too much about all the secret deals surrounding the war and all kinds of people and groups who were involved in these dealings.

    It’s a pity because I think there is a lot that could be known if it were not for the taboo like shadow cast over research on the holocaust and therefore certain areas of WWII itself.

  14. jon s
    May 3, 2011, 5:32 am

    American, It’s quite natural for Jews to be interested in the Holocaust and to write about it. However,lots of serious Holocaust research has been done by non-Jews: Christopher Browning, Ian Kershaw, Gotz Aly, Karl Dietrich Bracher, Joachim Fest the late William Shirer, to mention a few.

    • Citizen
      May 3, 2011, 9:35 am

      Agreed, jon s, there are exceptions to American’s generalization, and, e.g., Christopher-Browning’s input is really excellent, and Fest’s is pretty good. On the issue of Holocaust Studies generally, I take the liberty to present a snippet of what Kevin MacDonald said:

      “It is my view that the campaign to suppress the publication of David Irving’s biography of Goebbels (Washington Post, April 4, 1996) is another example of these tactics. After an article by editorial columnist Frank Rich condemning the book appeared in the New York Times (April 3, 1996), the ADL successfully pressured St. Martin’s Press to rescind publication despite the fact that this book, relying on previously unknown diaries of its subject, is a major scholarly achievement-an indispensable work for those writing on the history of the Third Reich. Deborah Lipstadt’s work contributes to this atmosphere of suppression-particularly her statement that Irving is not a historian. Quite simply, it is widely acknowledged among professional historians such as Gordon Craig, A.J.P. Taylor, and Hugh Trevor-Roper that David Irving is a brilliant researcher and a compelling writer. His work is required reading for serious students of the Third Reich and World War II.

      I suppose that the motivation for this campaign of suppression is because of Irving’s involvement in disputes about the nature and extent of the Holocaust-that in the absence of such activity, Irving’s biography of Goebbels would have been published without incident. However, I submit that Irving’s other activities should not result in the suppression of Irving’s historical research and the general denigration of his work that is apparent in Lipstadt’s work.. To be sure, Irving, like many historians, may indeed see events through a filter of personal political and intellectual convictions. This is a commonly acknowledged difficulty that afflicts all of the social sciences, and Jewish social scientists have certainly not been immune from these tendencies. In my book Separation and Its Discontents, I devote much of a chapter to many examples of the historigraphy of Jewish history written by Jews-surely not exhaustive-in which there are clear apologetic tendencies-tendencies to view the Jewish ingroup in a favorable manner and to pathologize anti-Semitism as irrational and completely unrelated to the actual behavior of Jews. These works have been published by the most prestigous academic and commercial presses. Other commentators have noticed similar apologetic tendencies in Jewish historiography, including, most notably Albert Lindemann in his recent book Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Revealingly, Lindemann’s examples of biased historical research include the work of Jewish Holocaust historians Lucy Dawidowicz and Danial J. Goldhagen-a clear indication that the area of Holocaust studies remains politically charged. Moreover, in The Culture of Critique I describe several highly influential intellectual movements (Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School of Social Research) that presented themselves as science but were strongly influenced the Jewish ethnic agendas of their founders, particularly combating anti-Semitism.
      Intellectual blinders and political agendas are a fact of academic life.
      However, even were it to be proved that David Irving does indeed bring a certain set of biases to his work, even the most biased researchers may well contribute invaluable scholarship. Science emerges when the work of all investigators becomes part of the marketplace of ideas and when scholars are not vilified and their scholarship censored simply because their conclusions fly in the face of contemporary orthodoxy.”

      • American
        May 3, 2011, 1:20 pm

        Citizen, you and jon may be right and I just haven’t found the right scholars to read. When I became interested the Israel issue and therefore the holocaust almost everything I found was either the Jewish version or those attacking it. So for the sake of objectivity and not being influenced by either I tried to stick with researching in official achieves and libraries for documents of the period on the net…but that is major undertaking to do really right and I don’t have the time to do much of that, so it’s been hit and miss and a lot of government stuff is still restricted so as I said you could spend years on this.
        I remember coming across Irving and the lawsuit against him for his investigations but didn’t delve into his work.
        However I did go to the trouble of finding the official state censuses, pre and post WWII of most of the countries Hitler occupied which did create some doubt in my mind about the 6 million number for the Jews being correct. I also at one time had the combined allies report on all deaths during WWII which also included civilians and Jews and POWs and others. But it’s been 3 crashes and two computers since then, so without the report at hand now I hesitate to quote numbers. But that also gave me the impression that the 6 million number was an overestimation.
        Of course when anyone simply challenges the number of Jews killed they are accused of holocaust denial….which is ridiculous.

        • GuiltyFeat
          May 4, 2011, 5:46 am

          “Of course when anyone simply challenges the number of Jews killed they are accused of holocaust denial….which is ridiculous.”

          You are free to challenge anything, but you must bring evidence and you must acknowledge and deal with the weight of evidence that shows the opposite of what you are trying to approve.

          Holocaust deniers like David Irving (it’s OK to call him that right? He was convicted of this crime in a German court, imprisoned in Austria and deported from Canada all for denying the Holocaust) challenge the established record not because they have a noble sense of truth and history, but because they hate Jews.

          David Irving is not trying to get a clear picture of the number of Jews who were victims of the Nazi genocide. He has attempted to prove that no such genocide occurred. Every time he has tried to do this, he has failed, by all standard measures of academic success. Based on his own track record, I think it’s fair to describe him as discredited and an abject failure as a historian.

          Citizen wrote above that:
          “Quite simply, it is widely acknowledged among professional historians such as Gordon Craig, A.J.P. Taylor, and Hugh Trevor-Roper that David Irving is a brilliant researcher and a compelling writer.”
          Quite simply false. Any praise Irving received for his research was last noted in the late 70s, some 35 years ago. He is NOT widely acknowledged today as anything other than a convict, a bankrupt and a fool.

          This from wikipedia: “In a speech at Yale University in 2005, [Norman] Finkelstein said of Irving that “personally, I don’t like the fellow … I think he is a Nazi”.

        • Donald
          May 4, 2011, 7:10 am

          David Irving is a creep, an anti-semite, and a Holocaust denier. The record of his trial in Britain is at this Guardian website–

          link

          For those who don’t know what he is like, look through some of what Irving has said.

          It’s depressing how his name comes up sympathetically here from time to time–it should take about ten minutes online to find out he’s not a decent human being.

        • Bumblebye
          May 4, 2011, 7:35 am

          David Irving hasn’t had an ounce of credibility since he “authenticated” the WWII related hoax of the century, the “Hitler Diaries”. Any other work is tainted by that – what else which is dubious has he similarly authenticated? His personal bias is too strong in one (pro Nazi) direction for him to be taken seriously at all.

        • MRW
          May 4, 2011, 8:12 am

          Bumblebye, it was the other way around. Irving scotched the idea that they were real, and threw a press conference to announce it. I don’t remember the German magazine that claimed them as real but the mag was livid. I remember it happening in the early 80s. Irving speaks German as well. Irving’s work on Churchill is one of the most fascinating books I’ve ever read; the stuff he got from officials’ diaries (and their wives) and interviewing Churchill’s hired help was amazing.

        • GuiltyFeat
          May 4, 2011, 8:56 am

          The true story is that Irving was one of the first to claim that the Hitler Diaries were a hoax. He gatecrashed a press conference where Hugh Trevor-Roper was about to announce the same thing and harangued him from off-stage.

          Later when he discovered that the fake diaries contained no reference to the Holocaust, Irving publicly recanted and claimed they were real. Once they had been fully debunked he flip-flopped again and said they really were fake.

          He has later tried to lay claim to being the FIRST person to say the Hitler Diaries were fake. Unfortunately for his credibility, he was also the LAST person to claim they weren’t. What a buffoon.

        • Antidote
          May 4, 2011, 7:04 pm

          What’s your source for this, GF? The wikipedia page for fellow British historian Trevor-Roper (it was Stern magazine that bought the diaries and called in experts for authentication):

          “The opinion among experts in the field was by no means unanimous; David Irving for example, initially decried them as forgeries but subsequently changed his mind and declared them genuine. Two other experts, Eberhard Jäckel and Gerhard Weinberg, also authenticated them. But within two weeks forensic scientist Julius Grant had demonstrated unequivocally that the diaries were a forgery. The embarrassing incident gave Trevor-Roper’s enemies at Peterhouse and elsewhere the opportunity to criticise him openly.

          Trevor-Roper’s initial endorsement of the alleged diaries raised questions in the public mind not only about his perspicacity as a historian but also about his integrity, because The Sunday Times, a newspaper to which he regularly contributed book reviews and of which he was an independent director, had already paid a considerable sum for the right to serialise the diaries. Trevor-Roper denied any dishonest motivation, explaining that he had been given certain assurances as to how the diaries had come into the possession of their “discoverer” and that these assurances had been wrong, prompting the satirical magazine Private Eye to nickname him Hugh Very-Ropey.

          Despite the shadow that this incident cast over his later career, he continued writing (producing Catholics, Anglicans, and Puritans in 1987) and his work continued to be well received.”

          So neither Trevor-Roper’s nor German historian Jäckel’s careers suffered any lasting damage, apart from the schadenfreude and ridicule expressed by critics and colleagues who probably had it in for them prior to the incident anyway. Both had been vehement critics of Irving, and none has been accused of being a Nazi. Their other work was not inevitably “tainted” and thrown into question (see Bumblebye’s comment). History is not a ‘hard science’, and both bias and error are inevitable. Note that forensic science decided the diary issue. If the scrutiny applied to Irving’s writings was applied to other historians or writers on this or other controversial subjects, many, if not most, would be discredited, or subject to fines and prison terms, for misrepresenting evidence by selective or truncated quotations.

          You, too, for this:

          “This from wikipedia: “In a speech at Yale University in 2005, [Norman] Finkelstein said of Irving that “personally, I don’t like the fellow … I think he is a Nazi”.”

          Here is the full quote, from Finkelstein’s website:

          “Questioner:It has been said of you, intended as a compliment, that you are the “Jewish David Irving.” I would agree with that. Do you, are you proud of that characterisation, do you agree with it, do you take it as a compliment?

          Finkelstein:Ahhh… I don’t know really, honestly, how to answer that question. With all due respect, I think that’s a stupid question so I can’t answer it. [Audience laughs] I can’t. What do you want? [laughing, clapping]… Ok, if you ask me what I think of David Irving… listen, young man, I can give you the politically correct answer and say “he’s terrible, he’s this and he’s that.” Personally, I don’t like the fellow. I think he is a Nazi. However, I have to be fair. And I want you to listen. Fairness means: A) I’m not an authority on the topic on which he writes. Mostly on military history, [audience noise, talking] on the German side, during WW2. Number two, [audience noise, talking] historians who are authorities on him have given mixed ratings. Gordon Craig, one of the leading historians on Germany in the US who writes regularly for the New York Review of Books, Gordon Craig wrote, “his contributions are indespensible.” I can’t change that. I cannot say Gordon Craig is wrong. You know why I can’t do it? Because I’m humble enough to say: I-Don’t-Know. John Keagan, one of the leading military historians in the UK, when he testified in the Irving Lipstad [spelling?] trial, he testified on his side, on Irving’s side, as being a good historian. So I can only report to you what other historians have said. And so in the book, in the Holocaust Industry, I wrote that Gordon Craig said that his contributions, his meaning Irving’s, are indespensible and that became “Finkelstein says Irving is an indespensable historian.” Well, I didn’t say it. And I just don’t know. What I do know is that, at this point, I totally here.. in this point… and I hope you will listen, I totally agree with John Stweart Mill. I teach Mill every quarter of whenever I teach. I love Mill’s On Liberty. One of the things Mill says in On liberty, he says that the most useful person in society, in trying to uncover ideas, is the devil’s advocate because the devil’s advocate is always trying to find holes in your argument and trying to find errors in your facts. Now, the devil’s advocate is a devil. That’s why he or she is called a devil’s advocate but he or she serves the useful purpose of trying to find errors in your reasoning, errors in your facts. That is to say, as Mill puts it, he or she, even if he or she is a devil, he or she is trying to help you find the truth. Now, may be his or her motives are evil, incidious, malicious or wicked but it makes no difference because by looking for errors in your arguments he or she is helping you — unwittingly no doubt — but helping you to find truth. And so I think, and I can imagine how it’s gonna be distorted, I think people like David Irving serve a good function in society. You know, I had… a few months ago for a film I was making .. with a British documentary, I went to visit Raul Hilberg, the leading authority in the world on the Nazi Holocaust, and I talked to him of this whole issue of the Holocaust deniers because Hilberg says “I think they’re useful, they’re good.” That’s the world’s leading authority on the topic. And I asked him, “well, how are they useful to you?” And he says “you know why they’re useful?” he says “they ask all the questions that everyone else takes for granted, that nobody else thinks to ask.” So he says “everybody knows,” he gives me an example, “that in the gas chambers they usef Zyclon B and then along come these Holocaust deniers and they say: ‘well, we tested this Zyclon B. it can’t kill humans. it can kill vermin but not humans.’” And it was an interesting point, and then Hilberg says: “well, it turns out they used Zyclon B but they couldn’t use it in its pristine form, they had to mix it.” They asked an interesting question. And he says: “I think they seve a useful purpose.” And I thought to myself, “if the world’s leading authority bar none on the Nazi Holocaust is not terrified of these Holocaust deniers and isn’t out to supress them, who am I to say they shouldn’t have the right to speak?” And that’s all I said and I’ll stick absolutely by that. Everyone… you know, Mill says at one point in On Liberty, he says “even if the world is in the right, dissentions still have… dissentions — those who disagree — still probably have something to contribute to truth, a small piece.” I think that’s true. And that’s my view on the topic. I think among… [audience applause] among rational people that won’t even be considered controversial. To let the devil’s advocate speak… who would even challenge that? Again, it’s one of the peculiarities of discussion when we come to this topic. The level of mental hysteria it evokes, is really terrifying. ”

          link to normanfinkelstein.com

          I’m with Finkelstein on Irving, full quote.

  15. Stone
    May 4, 2011, 8:46 pm

    Antidote May 2, 2011 at 12:17 pm
    “The fact is that the Nazis were intent on murdering Jews even when it was clear that they were going to lose the war”

    Nolte made that point and, more recently, Snyder in ‘Bloodlands’. Has been debunked repeatedly in the decades bewteen Nolte’s and Snyder’s claim.”

    I had not heard this before. I haven’t read much on the issue but I do know that the Nazis were keen on Jews leaving before the war. Also I figured that they just wanted to “dispose” of them once the war wasn’t going their way. I did a quick search and I couldn’t find any articles. Do you have a few in mind for the debunking?

Leave a Reply