Trending Topics:

Another Israeli leader says Netanyahu misuses the Holocaust for political gain, but no one in the U.S. can say so

After the killings in a Tel Aviv market last night, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called an emergency cabinet meeting for today, but what will he say? Surely that Palestinians as a whole have to be punished even more for acts of violence a few undertake. Look for more restrictions on the movements of West Bank Palestinians, more house demolitions of families related to assailants, more denunciations of Palestinian leadership.

But Israel is in the midst of a political crisis, with one military/security leader after another saying that Netanyahu’s government is inciting violence; and that without a path to freedom, Palestinians are bound to resist the occupier.

The latest is the former head of the Israeli intelligence service, Efraim Halevy, who said last week that the wave of Palestinian knife attacks was inevitable because of the occupation, and that Israel should stop demonizing Hamas because military leaders want to work with Hamas. Exactly the opposite of what Netanyahu has said.

Halevy was interviewed on Al Jazeera by Mehdi Hasan [part 1], and began by criticizing Netanyahu’s approach to alleged terrorism. Halevy said there are “various types of terrorism”– and some terrorists need to be bargained with!

I do not subscribe to the way that Netanyahu describes terrorism. I believe that there are various types of terrorism. There are certain groups in the terrorist world with which we should have a dialogue…

He criticized Netanyahu for getting angry at UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for saying that the occupation produced violent resistance.

I think it was a kneejerk reaction to a statement of the secretary general. I believe it was probably politically motivated. I personally would have avoided such a statement.

Asked if there is a relationship between Israel’s military occupation and the violence of some Palestinians, Halevy said Yes.

Unfortunately, yes. I think one has to admit that since we are in control of the West Bank and since there is no political movement to move the situation in the West Bank to somewhere else and to give it a different either status or whatever you like to call it, I think one should expect unfortunately that there will be people who think that they have to rise up and who have to fight against it. That’s why I believe that we always have to offer our enemies alternatives to violence and I think we have not been all that good in doing so.

This is just what Lt. General Yair Golan said in his Holocaust remembrance day speech that so angered the prime minister. Palestinians are normal people who are going to resist occupation, while Israel is exhibiting traits of Nazi Germany. “There is nothing easier than hating the alien. Nothing is easier and more simple than provoking anxiety and horror. Nothing is easier and simpler than brutalization, jadedness and self-righteousness,” Golan said, then a week later Moshe Ya’alon resigned as defense minister, warning about fascism in Israeli society, and Netanyahu appointed the rightwinger Avigdor Lieberman to replace Ya’alon.

Halevy said that Netanyahu’s days are numbered. These recent events

herald the beginning of the countdown to the end of the administration of Mr. Netanyahu. This is going to be the first shot in a series of events which I believe might come about in the next year or two which will bring the transition from the Netanyahu era to a different era.

The 82-year-old former spook further defied Netanyahu by dismissing the premier’s spirit of militant chauvinism. He said Hamas must be treated as a normal political force– and all the Israeli military brass know it. “You have to have a political policy and not just a military policy,” he said, a direct slap at Netanyahu’s policy of repressing Gaza.

Let me let you into a secret, OK? If you go now to Israel and speak to the commanders in the field of the IDF… Every brigade commander who has been commanding a unit opposite the Gaza strip believes that the best situation for Israel at this point in time is that the Hamas should be there rather than anybody else. They are there to stay for a long period of time… You have to have a political policy and not just a military policy.

Halevy said that Israel invades Gaza with a disregard for civilian casualties, and he approved of former American officials talking to Hamas.

Echoing Golan, he expressed the concern that “Jewish terror” is on the rise and has gained support from the Israeli public and ministers and politicians.

And meantime, Netanyahu is misusing the Holocaust to justify fearful policies, Halevy said. Because Israel’s security is assured “for 1000 years,” and Iran was never an existential threat.

I believe there is no existential threat to Israel from anybody in the world including the Iranians…  The total of all our capabilities, both defensive and offensive, are such that we can be sure and assured, that the existence of Israel is assured for the next 1000 years….

I know many people in the establishment who believe what I’m saying, that we have sufficient capability to assure our existence. Why is fear being used as a tool to assure Israel’s support of one side or another? This unfortunately goes back to our recent history of the last 100 years. Because those who quote the existential threat also go back to the Holocaust. I believe there is no comparison between the Holocaust and what is happening now. Because in the Holocaust we were defenseless; and today we are the strongest military power in the middle east.

So all of Netanyahu’s ferocious bluster against the deal– paralyzing the entire world as it tried to achieve a breakthrough in diplomacy, by marshaling the U.S. Jewish community and Israel lobby behind him — was for domestic political consumption. Halevy described Netanyahu as a complete cynic:

Because.. look how silent most of the Israeli leaders are on Iran. Suddenly, it’s almost a deafening silence. Whereas before the deal was signed, almost every day people were railing against it and so forth, suddenly the tone has changed and suddenly it’s possible for the Israeli prime minister to go to Moscow, and to talk to the Russian president at the same time that the Iranians are coming to Moscow too, and they are now probably one of the biggest allies of the Russians in the Middle East.

The bottom line on this interview is that Halevy is trashing Netanyahu right and left on Al Jazeera and none of this is in the American press. Netanyahu is still treated as a sacred figure in our MSM, even after he insulted our president; and the head of a Democratic thinktank fawns over him like Ghandi or Mandela and Hillary Clinton says he’ll be coming to the White House if she’s elected in the first month. He is never questioned like a normal politician, while everyone in Israeli leadership knows him as the most cynical politician they have ever met. What contempt Netanyahu has for American politics.

Of course Bernie Sanders sought to end that bar in April when he said, “There comes a time when if we pursue justice and peace we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time.”

But no politician in the U.S. could make this series of honest accusations and criticisms against Netanyahu and withstand the storm of criticism that would follow. Clinton has yet to utter a word against him; and Donald Trump will be visiting Israel soon to get his photo-op with the leader called a fascist by the men who know him best.

This interview shows that the Israeli government has lost everyone at this point but the right wing and the American power structure: it’s lost Europe, it’s lost the American left, it’s lost young American Jews, it’s lost its own security establishment. And still it hangs on to our elites.

Look what happened to James Fallows a year ago when he dared to murmur what Halevy and other Israeli security leaders have said baldly, that Netanyahu is manipulating the Holocaust to oppose a deal that poses no risk to Israel and is good for the world. Tablet magazine’s James Kirchick jumped in to say that Fallows was an anti-Semite:

To be a warmonger out of unreasonable and misplaced fears that impel you to manipulate the entire world into wars is one thing; to do so out of sheer lust for power is straight out of Christopher Marlowe, or Henry Ford.

By such smears, the American discourse is twisted in the pro-Israel direction. But the propagandists cannot keep Israel’s political crisis from coming here. And its own leaders’ criticisms of Netanyahu begin the countdown to the end of an orthodoxy.

Phil Weiss and Yakov Hirsch

Phil Weiss is a co-editor of this site. Yakov Hirsch is a professional poker player and dog trainer.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

30 Responses

  1. Mike Hite on June 9, 2016, 3:05 pm

    Israeli Military and Intelligence officials with many years of experience continue to discuss Netanyahu’s bad decisions. Mainstream American media continues to turn a blind eye. Thank you Phil for your work to tell the other side of the story in Israel.

    • JWalters on June 11, 2016, 1:43 am

      Who has the power to silence America’s free press? What are the mechanisms of their operation?

  2. WH on June 9, 2016, 5:16 pm

    Why is it always the former heads? Why never the current ones?

  3. wondering jew on June 9, 2016, 10:20 pm

    Halevy’s assessment that Netanyahu will be gone in 2 years is heartening. Gideon saar and yaalon’s exile from the ruling likud party government is indicative of the selfishness of bibi’s hold on power. I am not as optimistic as halevy regarding bibi’s inability to win the next election.

  4. JWalters on June 10, 2016, 2:30 am

    The Democrats should invite Golan and Halevy to speak at their convention. Then they should be interviewed on the news shows. It’s time Americans knew.

    The undeniable historical fact that the Nazis were predators can not be used to justify Zionists being predators. End of story. No clever word games, no appeal to the Torah, nothing can justify predatory Zionism.

    The new generation of adults has a more universal view of spirituality, and the archaic religious divisions will ultimately be washed away.

  5. JulianaFarha on June 10, 2016, 9:00 am

    The situation here in the UK is the same: I haven’t read a word about Halevy’s comments to Mehdi Hasan in the mainstream UK media, nor have they reported the Tel Aviv mayor’s admission that the occupation is an incitement in the Tel Aviv attacks. On the contrary, the campaign to smear anyone who dares to stand up for Palestinians as an anti-Semite continues to gain steam, while people like Jonathan Freedland at The Guardian, Ian Katz and James Harding at the BBC and countless others exploit their positions of influence (paid for by the UK tax payer, in the case of the BBC) to whitewash Israeli behaviour, and silence its critics.

  6. JLewisDickerson on June 10, 2016, 6:52 pm

    RE: “[T]he former head of the Israeli intelligence service, Efraim Halevy, . . . said last week that the wave of Palestinian knife attacks was inevitable because of the occupation, and that Israel should stop demonizing Hamas because military leaders want to work with Hamas. Exactly the opposite of what Netanyahu has said.” ~ Phil Weiss and Yakov Hirsch

    MY COMMENT: The U.S. (including Elliott Abrams, AIPAC, ADL, ZOA etc.) is largely responsible for the decision to demonize Hamas.*

    * SEE: “Permanent Temporariness”, by Alastair Crooke, London Review of Books, 03/03/11:

    [EXCERPT] It was in 2003 that I realised something fundamental had changed. The door to the room in which I was sitting flew open. In stalked a figure still dressed in a dark overcoat and scarf. He evidently could contain himself no longer. I was in Downing Street with the prime minister’s foreign affairs adviser, David Manning; the overcoated figure bursting into our meeting was Jack Straw. He wanted to tell Manning that he had persuaded Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, to add Hamas to the EU list of terrorist movements. His tale of his conversion of Fischer was wrapped in expressions of outrage at Hamas. It wasn’t so much the proscription that shocked me. A ceasefire, which I had helped facilitate, had broken down. What was new was the elation with which Straw greeted the banning. I don’t know what Manning thought, but he will have been aware that the terrorist ‘list’ is one of those things from which it’s almost impossible to get a name removed. The consequences for diplomacy, for the politics of peace-making, would be profound, possibly irreversible; but Straw wasn’t worried. Manning, I knew, believed strongly that there could be no solution to the Israel-Palestine issue without Hamas involvement and had firmly supported EU efforts at inclusive peace-building. Officially, the EU remained committed to a political solution, but it now seemed that two key member states were heading in the opposite direction – towards a militarised resolution. The wind had changed.

    There had already been hints that a political solution was no longer at the forefront of Whitehall thinking. Not long before, a senior British official had told me bluntly that my methods of building popular consent – holding ‘town hall’ meetings with all factions, working with Hamas, shuttling between Palestinians on the ground and President Arafat to ensure broad participation and continued momentum – were passé. We were in a new era, and it required new thinking: ‘The road to Jerusalem now passes through Baghdad,’ the official insisted. He was speaking just before the 2003 invasion. The message was clear: the Islamic resistance in Palestine was to be neutralised, and psychologically defeated, by the massive display of Western force in Iraq, rather than brought into the political process. Britain and the US expected that the chastened Palestinians would then make the necessary concessions to Israel. What was striking was the official’s conviction that such an outcome was inevitable.

    These were heady days for American and British officials and enthusiasm for the ‘war on terror’ was soaring. At our first meeting, Manning’s Downing Street successor, Nigel Sheinwald, told me angrily that security in Palestine could be achieved by eradicating the ‘virus’ of Hamas from Gaza, and eliminating its ‘disease’ from the region. He had no interest in helping to create legitimate Palestinian security services, representative of a cross-section of the community. The language was Washington’s. The Palestinian conflict was seen not as a problem in its own right, but as a subset of a war against ‘extremism’ – another domino to be pushed over in order to strengthen the ‘moderates’. A senior Israeli intelligence official later told me, privately, that he believed the change had begun in earnest in September 2003, after Arafat forced Mahmoud Abbas – a favoured figure in Washington – to resign as prime minister. Angry and frustrated, Bush called Blair. He complained that the Europeans ‘were dancing around Arafat’, while the US was left to do the ‘heavy lifting’ with Israel. Bush also complained that he did not see peace-building as compatible with his ‘war on terror’. Al-Jazeera’s recent release of the Palestine Papers has cast some light on all this: the documents include copies of British covert plans from 2003 and 2004 to ‘degrade’ the capabilities of opponents to the Palestinian Authority, to disrupt their communications, intern their members, close their civil and charitable organisations, remove them from public bodies, and seize their assets. Blair had set aside the lessons of peace-building, so recently learned in Northern Ireland, and embraced the doctrine of counter-insurgency.

    The shift in the British position, under American pressure, sabotaged European policy. It undermined the EU’s commitment to promoting Palestinian unity by suppressing, at the covert, security level, opposition to the PA, removing from Palestinian institutions not only all members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad but even those elements in Fatah who had been involved in the second intifada. From now on, the EU would ‘talk the talk’ of encouraging Palestinian unity, while several of its most prominent member states were ‘walking the walk’ of a security-led repression of the very movements the EU was trying to encourage into the political arena. The result was that when Hamas – rather than being demoralised or psychologically defeated by shock and awe in Baghdad – comfortably won the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, the EU was forced into a militarised security response. The new commitment to counter-insurgency meant that there was no prospect of exploring the political possibilities of Hamas’s win. After the election the UN envoy to the Middle East, Alvaro de Soto, wrote a memo to the UN secretary general complaining that the conditions for entering into a dialogue with Hamas had been deliberately set so that Hamas would be unable to meet them – thus engineering its exclusion. De Soto resigned from the UN soon afterwards.

    It may seem odd that other EU member states should have acquiesced so readily to the 2003 switch to a militarised solution, but Blair’s approach proved hard to resist. Schisms in the lead-up to the Iraq war had left the EU badly weakened. The instinct of men such as Romano Prodi, the president of the European Commission, was that the EU should try to ‘contain’ American rhetoric – through working closely with Washington – while at the same time seeking to ‘mitigate’ its most harmful consequences. But continuing to work with the US, in the hope of bolstering American officials like Colin Powell, who might soften American policies, severely limited what the EU could do: it had already conceded the American demand that the parameters of Israeli security would be determined by Israel; within this confined space, Palestinians would have to find their own ‘solution’. The US and Britain simply pushed on with the counter-insurgency project; EU efforts to mitigate it proved toothless. Much later, Richard Armitage, Powell’s deputy, told me that the secretary of state had backed away from seeking a one-to-one conversation with the president for more than 18 months – in spite of Armitage’s pleadings.

    EU and European foreign policy chiefs pursued a similar ‘strategy’ with Powell’s successor, Condoleezza Rice, jostling and competing among themselves to prove how helpful they could be. Those collecting the most points – phone calls per week with the secretary of state – boasted of playing ‘Athens’ to Bush’s ‘Roman’ muscularity. It’s now clear how little influence any of them had on Washington. In 2006, the EU special envoy was still reassuring Palestinian negotiators that, while ‘the US wants to see a Hamas government fail,’ the EU would ‘encourage Hamas to change and will try to make things work as much as possible’. But at the same time as he was saying this, leading European states were ramping up their covert strategy to destroy Hamas militarily. The Palestine Papers show how this project mushroomed: there was huge investment in training and security infrastructure, prisons were built to allow for the possible internment of Hamas members, the Dayton military battalions were established with the aim of confronting Hamas, and plans were laid to depose the organisation in Gaza and assassinate its leaders. Even the Quartet dived in, working with the intelligence services of other Arab states to disrupt Hamas’s sources of finance.

    The changing dynamic in EU thinking was made very clear to me one day in 2007, when I had a meeting with various EU officials, all of whom expressed deep misgivings about the course of EU policy but despaired of convincing any member states to change direction. Later the same day, Javier Solana, then the EU foreign policy chief, gave a new and different reason for following the US line. When I suggested that the EU could not endlessly continue to support the regional status quo but must acknowledge new forces, Solana asked me what at the time seemed an odd question: ‘But if we were to do that, what would happen to my friend Hanan Ashrawi? Would she continue to be able to wear lipstick, and to enjoy an occasional glass of wine?’ It was my first intimation of Europe’s feeling of its own vulnerability. At the time Turkish entry to the EU was being opposed by some member states on the grounds that it would compromise the Christian values underpinning European identity. On my way down from Solana’s office, a colleague said with foreboding: ‘Soon this place [the EU Council] will be very different: Europe is moving to the right.’ He was prescient. The rise of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe has become another factor impeding the EU’s ability to respond to the Islamist challenge.

    The Palestine Papers have shown that the Palestinian negotiators, too, were more than willing to work with Israel on its security requirements; and that as their collaboration increased, so did demands for further collaboration. Any concept of Palestinian sovereignty was hollowed out: the putative Palestinian ‘state’ would be still under occupation even if it had a Palestinian flag. Dov Weissglas, Ariel Sharon’s former bureau chief, was clear: to ‘fight terror and instil quiet’ were the two criteria that Israel looked to the PA to provide. Some form of occupation, as a political system of control and containment, thus became the inevitable outcome of a political process that had allowed Israel’s definition of its own security requirements to become the necessary and sufficient principle on which any solution would be based. The EU, too, embraced this proposition, tilting increasingly towards the conviction that Palestinian statehood could be achieved only if Israel’s self-defined security needs were met: an erroneous assumption based on a flawed understanding of Israel’s strategy. . .

    SOURCE –

    • Boomer on June 11, 2016, 5:44 am

      As yes, you bring back memories: ‘The road to Jerusalem now passes through Baghdad,’ That was a good one. One of the golden oldies from when we decided to “catapult the propaganda,” as the junior George Bush put it. I also liked Tom Friedman’s version: the war was our way of telling the Arab world to “suck on this.” It was (and is) not clear whether Friedman’s “our” referred to the U.S. in general, or to the Israeli lobby that was calling the shots.

      • talknic on September 13, 2016, 10:40 pm

        @ Boomer >” Tom Friedman’s version: the war was our way of telling the Arab world to<em “suck on this.” It was (and is) not clear whether Friedman’s “our” referred to … … “

      • Boomer on September 14, 2016, 8:25 am

        @ talknic

        Perfect image, accurate message. Thanks for the link.

  7. iResistDe4iAm on June 11, 2016, 12:42 am

    “This is going to be the first shot in a series of events which I believe might come about in the next year or two which will bring the transition from the Netanyahu era to a different era.”

    Unfortunately, the transition is more likely to be regressive, from the disguised fascism of today to an openly fascist era. Israel will reluctantly be recognised as a fascist state when fascist mobs start lynching Jewish Israelis who try to help Palestinians.

    “that the existence of Israel is assured for the next 1000 years…”

    Where have we heard that before?

  8. Marnie on June 11, 2016, 3:38 am

    I am amazed at the patience and constraint that Mehdi Hasan showed considering the BS this Halevy spoke, especially wrt to the question of israel’s nukes.

  9. Boomer on June 11, 2016, 5:36 am

    “Connections” abound. BBC World Service has a report on the Israeli attack on the French-built nuclear reactor in Iraq, in June 1981, during the Iraq-Iran war. It was being built openly, with UN inspectors present. Unexplained accidents and deaths in France had delayed the project, but it was near completion when Israel’s U.S.-supplied war planes destroyed the site, leaving cluster bombs scattered about as a parting gift. According to the Iraqis interviewed, this attack led to Iraq’s decision to begin a covert nuclear weapons program as the only way to defend itself. That, in turn, can be seen as contributing to the generation of wars, death and destruction that has followed. Obviously, one can never know what might have been: counterfactual history is futile speculation. Opinions rarely change. The same people who supported the attack then still feel the same way, I suspect. The cycle continues.

  10. eljay on June 11, 2016, 8:23 am

    … I believe there is no existential threat to Israel from anybody in the world including the Iranians… The total of all our capabilities, both defensive and offensive, are such that we can be sure and assured, that the existence of Israel is assured for the next 1000 years….

    Always with the thousand years with these Israelis. I wonder if he thinks religion-supremacist “Jewish State” will also last a thousand years.

    • echinococcus on June 11, 2016, 12:03 pm

      If it were religion-supremacist, it is sacrilegious:

      There are two, twin-born romantic nationalist racial supremacist movements for whom a “tausendjähriges Reich” is such a big deal –and a sacred figure: Nazism and Zionism. Not for nothing does the statement sound like coming from any Goebbels.

      What the ignoramuses don’t realize, though, is that it’s a concept taken directly from very specifically Christian mythology, as opposed to Judaism. Any religion-aware person worth hisher salt can tell you about Millenarism.

      I suppose they should be excommunicated by their own Rabbies.

  11. Ossinev on June 11, 2016, 12:42 pm

    “I am amazed at the patience and constraint that Mehdi Hasan showed considering the BS this Halevy spoke, especially wrt to the question of israel’s nukes”

    I sense that Mehdi Hassan was expecting the usual evasive “I can`t comment” “it would be wrong for me to comment ” etc and was thrown somewhat by Halevy`s bizarre insistence that he , the ex head of Mossad , simply didn`t know. He seemed however to know and insist that Israel because of it`s defence capabilities was not under existential threat – but was insisting in effect that this was without any nuclear deterrent.

  12. YoniFalic on June 12, 2016, 4:01 pm

    We have to start talking about the Holocaust and the Nakba rationally in the USA.

    As a Columbia trained historian that has spent years in studying the Holocaust as well as contemporary E. & C. European historian, I have no doubt whatsoever that the Holocaust resulted from blowback from the obviously disproportionate role of Soviet national Jews in planning and perpetration Soviet atrocities and genocide. Until the consolidation of the Soviet Union, hostility toward Jews was in decline throughout Europe.

    As lawyer trained in international law, I have no doubt that the US government has to start treating the Nakba as an obvious example of genocide and as the most archetypal genocide of the 20th century. Otherwise the US is internationally perceived as outrageously hypocritical. US support of Israel undercuts the international antigenocide legal regime by giving “Jews” a pass on committing genocide.

    • Mooser on June 12, 2016, 6:42 pm

      “I have no doubt whatsoever that the Holocaust resulted from blowback from the obviously disproportionate role of Soviet national Jews in planning and perpetration Soviet atrocities and genocide.”

      Hoo-boy! For that you went to college?

      • wondering jew on June 12, 2016, 8:14 pm

        Always room for more sewage in the mw comments section. Hats off to mw editors and yonifalik for the latest fecal serving on your table here.

      • eljay on June 12, 2016, 11:23 pm

        y.f. then:

        Scoffing is the first step towards dialogue? I don’t think so.
        – and –
        … There are ways of engaging in “conversation” or “dialogue” that could occur even here on this blog in this comments section. But I don’t see how your “I guess that’s beyond you” is an incentive or an opening line to a “conversation” or a “dialogue”.

        y.f. now:

        Always room for more sewage in the mw comments section. Hats off to mw editors and yonifalik for the latest fecal serving on your table here.

      • wondering jew on June 13, 2016, 1:48 pm

        If the murder of jews in wwII had been instigated by ukrainians, then yonifalik’s theory might be worthy, but it was carried out by Hitler, the nazis and Germany in the aftermath of a defeat in wwI, and the jew hatred in Germany was only incidentally tangential to the bolshies revolution, so this theory is pure sewage and that you, eljay raise a voice for civility in its defense says volumes about your view of history, unless you care to explain.

      • eljay on June 13, 2016, 2:27 pm

        || yonah fredman: … and that you, eljay raise a voice for civility … ||

        I didn’t “raise a voice for civility” – you did. Those are your words.

      • jon s on June 14, 2016, 4:14 pm

        yonah, The sewer has overflowed with with YoniFalic’s latest Anti-Semitic comment , blaming the Jews for the Holocaust (and in violation of MW comments policy…)

      • Mooser on June 14, 2016, 4:22 pm

        “YoniFalic’s latest…”

        I don’t know that much about it, but I could hardly of conceived of it happening that way.
        Of course, I wasn’t brought up in Israel, so I may have some very naive ideas.

      • eljay on June 14, 2016, 4:37 pm

        || jon s: yonah, The sewer has overflowed with with YoniFalic’s latest … ||

        No surprise, seeing as how the sewer was already full of Zio-supremacist “fecal servings” that non-Jews summarily executed by supremacist “Jewish State” Occupation Forces goons got what they deserved.

      • Mooser on June 14, 2016, 9:03 pm

        It’s only fair that I mention that both “Yonah Fredman” and “Jon s” served with the IDF, in combat roles, and they were never bothered by second thoughts or bitterness.

        Oh, that’s right, neither of them came near that bit of business required by Zionism. Too busy eating chickenhawk soup.

    • Sibiriak on June 13, 2016, 12:02 pm

      eljay: y.f. now:

      yonah fredman never advocated “conversation” or “dialogue” with Holocaust deniers.

      Besides, such a “conversation” would be a violation of the Mondoweiss comments policy:

      2. No Nakba or Holocaust denial. We’re not going to tolerate any discussion of the Jewish role in the rise of the Nazis which is used as a pretext for blaming Jews for the Nazi rise, a form of Holocaust denial we want no part of. Similarly, this policy includes Nakba denial as well, and efforts to blame the expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 on Palestinian actions. [emphasis added]

      • eljay on June 13, 2016, 2:21 pm

        || Sibiriak: yonah fredman never advocated “conversation” or “dialogue” with Holocaust deniers. … ||

        On several occasions y.f. has advocated dialogue and civility and on several occasions he has failed to live up to his own advocacy.

    • Mooser on June 13, 2016, 3:33 pm

      “As a Columbia trained historian that has spent years in studying the Holocaust as well as contemporary E. & C. European historian”

      In that case, perhaps there might be a paper or article or something on the web you could point us at, illustrating this trend, or conclusion*, in Holocaust or historical studies?

      (*”I have no doubt whatsoever…/… Soviet atrocities and genocide.”)

      • YoniFalic on June 13, 2016, 6:26 pm

        I tried to respond. If you’re on twitter, I can tweet you.

Leave a Reply