Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 7 (since 2010-02-26 03:19:03)

William Boot

Showing comments 7 - 1
Page:

  • Zionists' failure to save Jews from Holocaust was spiked 50 years ago, now in the news
    • William Boot May 2, 2011 at 11:39 am with 10 replies

      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.

  • When Truman and Ben-Gurion took a stand for... terrorism
    • William Boot May 28, 2010 at 1:50 pm

      If you are arguing that Jewish Israelis have no legitimate claim to lands in Israel/Palestine, then you are part of the problem and not the solution. Both peoples have legitimate claims. Talk of colonialism is irrelevant. Yes, let's talk about what is happening today but Phil posted excerpts from a book talking about 1946. But from what I read most of the posters on this site only want to congratulate themselves for having a monopoly on the truth. If only anybody would listen.... (But, psst, here's a little secret: no one is.)

    • William Boot May 27, 2010 at 11:40 am with 4 replies

      In the fall of 1945, President Truman wrote to Atlee recommending that the British allow 100,000 Jewish Holocaust survivors held in terrible conditions in camps inside Germany and Austria to go to Palestine. Anti-immigration forces dominated the U.S. Congress. Few survivors could enter the U.S. No one else would take them either. Atlee refused. The Anglo-American Committee was created in order to deflect Truman's request. After the Anglo-American Committee recommended that 100,000 survivors be allowed to enter Palestine, Atlee reneged on his prior pledge to follow the Committee's recommendation.
      Had the British allowed those 100,000 desperate Jews to enter Palestine, history might have been very different. Had the U.S., Latin American countries and others allowed in 100,000 European Jews, things also might have been different.
      Let's not even begin to talk about the restrictions on Jewish emigration before the Holocaust.
      There is plenty of blame to go around. The crocodile tears shed over the Palestinians now are not so different from those shed over desperate Jewish refugees in the 1930s and 40s -- and over desperate refugees in countless places since. (Has anyone read anything lately about the 2 million Iraqi refugees displaced by the American invasion? Most are in Syria and Jordan.)
      Phil seems to be shocked by diplomatic double standards. He can't possible be so naive. Let's not defend terrorism. Let's promote a peaceful settlement.

  • Liberal Zionism, oxymoron
    • William Boot May 27, 2010 at 12:03 pm with 3 replies

      Thomas Jefferson was liberal but that business about "all men being created equal" did not include millions of slaves or women. It wasn't until 100 years after the Civil War that the promise of equality for Black Americans began to be fulfilled, when they finally demanded it. It took even longer for women to get the vote. We still have a large minority who think American is a Christian country for native English-speakers only.
      American nationalism ain't perfect, Mike. Neither is Israeli nationalism or French nationalism or Iraqi nationalism. Most nationalist movements elevate the majority over the minority, despite principals stating otherwise. Fact is, nationalism is inconsistent with equality. Not just Zionism. With the right institutions, some level of equality and justice can be maintained. But look how fragile that is in most of the world. It's a bad time in Israel now. But a resurrection of liberal Zionism could reverse that and deliver on more of the promises made by Israel's founding fathers. Meantime, take a look at what is happening at Guantanemo under our first Black President and be afraid, very afraid. It's not a great era for civil liberties here either.

  • Beinart has defined the new center, two steps to the left
    • William Boot May 27, 2010 at 11:44 am

      So the NYT Magazine won't run Beinart's piece for "stylistic reasons," but then they feature him debating it on their Web site? I guess Beinart did shift the debate. His ideas are suddenly in style.

  • My Holocaust education
    • William Boot May 7, 2010 at 5:47 pm with 11 replies

      Historians debate the starting point of the Holocaust, but it is pretty clear that it was underway by late June 1941, after the Germans invaded the Soviet Union and the Einsatzgruppen began massacring innocent Jews by the thousands. By 1943, sadly, most of the killing had been completed.

  • Do you have to be Jewish to report on Israel for the New York Times?
    • William Boot February 26, 2010 at 12:54 pm

      To compliment Cook's "reporting" in this piece is absurd. What reporting? He took someone out to lunch and repeated a lot of unsupported innuendo. Ethan Bronner has been writing about Israel/Palestine for close to 30 years! We don't need to listen to some anonymous source spout generalities in a Jerusalem cafe. The only way to judge Bronner's reporting is to read it and point out its flaws. Since he has been writing for three decades, it should be easy to judge how biased his reporting has been based on how events unfolded. I don't know anything about the families, nationalities, love lives and financial holdings of most of the reporters I read. I read their articles and decide how credible they are. Cook could have done a real service by reading Bronner's clips and exposing evidence of his bias. He could have tried to check the claims of his lunch partner to determine their veracity. Instead, he simply repeats unsupported claims and bloviates, exposing his own bias, which appears to be in favor of taking cheap shots at colleagues.

Showing comments 7 - 1
Page:

Comments are closed.