Translate

May 26, 2010

The best essay I ever read on finance....A must read.

 
__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.


Get real-time World Cup coverage on the Yahoo! Toolbar. Download now to win a signed team jersey!

.

__,_._,___

The Occidental Observer: Ezra Pound on Money + Blogs for Kevin MacDonald

 



--


Dalton's Holocaust Radio Debate on April 24, 2010:

http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/Barrett_10.html

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

http://www.DebatingTheHolocaust.com

Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

HN: Here is my opinion, and a short video re; Finkelstein Zio-stooge

 

FROM AN HN
Date: Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:49 PM
Subject: Here is my opinion, and a short video re; Finkelstein Zio-stooge
To: reporternotebook@gmail.com



I agree with Dalton, and I think this video pretty much demonstrates Norman Finkelstein's true nature regarding Israel;


Youtube ;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPZ2CezpS4g

Norman Finkelstein on Israel, Palestinians and Iraq War




Regarding Iraq and the role of the Israeli lobbies as instigators, Norman Finkelstein asserts that it was Romsfeld and Cheney's war and that they both look only after "American" interests and not Israel's interests, exonerating Israel from their role in instigating a war on their own behalf, as detailed in the book "The Invisible Cabal" (and many other sources).

For people like me who follow Finkelstein closely, I give him credit for what he has brought up to light but shame on him for not going all the way. I would like to think he does not do so because he would lose a lot of media exposure, but I would only be rationalizing and being apologetic on his behalf, since he is already established and has a big following and furthermore does not consider himself "Jewish"(tm).

Youtube ;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPZ2CezpS4g

Norman Finkelstein on Israel, Palestinians and Iraq War





--- On Wed, 5/26/10, ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com> wrote:

From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Thomas Dalton's article "Is Norman Finkelstein a Zionist Stooge?"
To: RePortersNoteBook@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 3:55 AM

 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@mac. com>
Date: Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 2:23 PM



This is an interesting point of view. I would love to debate it, going through the actual points made by Dalton. I utterly dislike the term "Zionist stooge" used by Dalton, because it is just a smear, like "anti-Semite", and has no probative value whatsoever. But the actual - and factual - points made by Dalton seem nevertheless to be, at least to me, compelling as evidence.

Among the factual points made by Dalton are the following:

He [Finkelstein] does not question Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. He does not endorse the right of return for all Palestinians, or financial compensation for them. He does not call for full and equal rights of Israeli Arabs. ... [and] he implicitly accepts virtually all of the traditional story [regarding the Holocaust]. ... Finkelstein unquestioningly accepts the 6 million figure .... At one time he apparently expressed doubt that gas chambers were used for mass murder, but no more; now he toes the line.

Are these statements true or false? If they are all - or even mostly - true, then Dalton's conclusion, namely that thereupon:

... [one could] make the case that he [Finkelstein] is, perhaps unwittingly, an apologist for Israel and for Jewish supremacy ... I doubt that Norman is a plant, but he serves the same purpose: a nice, safe, credible 'critic' of Zionism who knows his limits, and doesn't go too far

... seems eminently plausible.

I like in particular Dalton's final sentence:

"Perhaps I am wrong about Norm Finkelstein; I hope I am.  In fact, I would like nothing better than for him to prove me wrong, in public, by clearly exposing Jewish supremacism and racism within Israel itself, and by exposing, or at least acknowledging, the many holes in the Holocaust story."

I am sending a copy of this e-mail to Norman Finkelstein too, using an e-mail address of his which I have had from quite a few years ago. I do hope the e-mail address is current, and that he responds. Certainly if a similar accusation had been levelled against me, I would have responded promptly in an effort to set the record straight. And I would have hoped my friends would have supported me in this.

However, I would not wish any friends of mine to respond with mere smears; just with factual points proving Dalton wrong - something which Dalton himself hopes he is.


Cheers.


+++++


On 14-Mar-10, at 1:24 AM, Ibrahim Alloush quoted:




For most of the past decade, Norm Finkelstein has been held up as a paragon of truth and justice. He is a darling of the anti-war, anti-Zionist set, and friend to Arab and Muslim groups around the world. What could be better?—a Jew critical of the Jewish state, and a champion of the Palestinians. But I think it is high time to expose a few weaknesses in his armor, and to make the case that he is, perhaps unwittingly, an apologist for Israel and for Jewish supremacy. I think one can make a pretty good case that he is, in fact, a Zionist stooge.

First of all, anyone familiar with contemporary Zionism should be able to figure out that Finkelstein could never publish as he has, or speak as he has, or get the publicity that he has, without the implicit support of the various Jewish lobbies around the world. If he were truly the threat that is portrayed, we can be sure that he would be stopped cold—censored, sanctioned, sued, or imprisoned. Anyone doubting this need only consider the treatment given to Muslim 'extremists' and Holocaust skeptics.

So he must be 'acceptable' in some sense; perhaps even 'useful.' That use is not hard to discern. Every power structure in the world has a need to control and mitigate its opponents. In the good ol' days, a bullet to the head or a trip to the Gulag did the trick. Today one needs to be more subtle. The modern approach is to stake out the opposition's turf, or to plant a 'soft' opponent. I doubt that Norman is a plant, but he serves the same purpose: a nice, safe, credible 'critic' of Zionism who knows his limits, and doesn't go too far.

What do I mean by this? Two things. First of all, deep down, I have little doubt that Finkelstein is himself a closet Zionist—a true Zionist, meaning, a Jewish supremacist. This is the case with the vast majority of American Jews, and virtually all Israeli Jews. They firmly believe that Israel has a right to exist as an exclusively (or at least predominantly) Jewish state. This is a racist notion on any reading, and would be utterly unacceptable for any nation other than Israel. Certainly this is the case in Israel itself; it was recently reported in Al-Quds Al-Arabi (Feb. 15) that 75% of Israeli Jews are in favor of some form of ethnic cleansing, to achieve a purified Jewish state. American Jews are similarly inclined. No matter whether right or left, Republican or Democrat, pro-war or anti-war, nearly all Jews support the idea of Jewish-only state; the only disagreement is about the means of achieving it.

Finkelstein never questions this core of Zionism. It's true that he, like any thinking person with a shred of decency, is appalled at what Israel is doing in the occupied territories, but this doesn't make him anti-Zionist (in the deeper sense). He does not question Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. He does not endorse the right of return for all Palestinians, or financial compensation for them. He does not call for full and equal rights of Israeli Arabs.  Finkelstein is still, at heart, a Jewish supremacist.

Even worse is his stance on the Holocaust. He made his name in 2000, with his 'radical' book The Holocaust Industry. As before, we can be sure that neither his English publisher Verso, nor the printer of his German translation (Piper Verlag), nor any of the other 15 foreign-language publishers would have produced the book if it really got to the heart of the Holocaust story. Finkelstein's main concern is the hype surrounding the event, and the misuse of the money—chiefly, that it's not going to the 'right people.'  But he implicitly accepts virtually all of the traditional story.

I have seen Finkelstein speak in person three times. Never once did he indicate any real knowledge about the Holocaust. In fact, at one event he was directly asked about this, and he replied, "I'm not an expert on the Holocaust"—which is a fairly astonishing admission from a man whose claim to fame rests on that event. When a questioner challenged him about the unreliability of the numbers—that the '6 million' has no factual basis, that Hilberg claimed 5.1 million, that Reitlinger claimed 4.2 million, that Yad Vashem has less than 3 million names, that revisionists argue for 1 million or less—he waived off the whole point:  "I just follow the experts."

Finkelstein unquestioningly accepts the 6 million figure, without knowing anything of the massive difficulties behind that symbolic figure. He has no awareness of the physical impossibilities involved with the alleged mass murder and incineration; of the utter lack of forensic evidence, despite knowing where to look; of wartime air photos showing no evidence of mass murder; of 20 years of diary entries by Joseph Goebbels indicating a consistent process of evacuation and deportation rather than mass murder; and so on. At one time he apparently expressed doubt that gas chambers were used for mass murder, but no more; now he toes the line.  In this sense, he is a champion of traditionalism, and thus poses no real threat.

In truth the Holocaust story is fraught with difficulties, as I tried to show in my book Debating the Holocaust. Normally one would expect a person like Finkelstein to pick up on this point, since it actually serves his purpose of arguing that emphasis on Jewish suffering was over-blown and exploited for financial gain. But faithful Norman knows that, should he start raising these issues, or take seriously the ideas of Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, or Faurisson, that he, like they, would be totally shut down.  Bad for book sales, eh Norm?

Even the alleged resistance he gets at his various speaking engagements is, at least in part, bogus. On more than one occasion, where his talks were supposedly cancelled by "local Jewish opposition," it was he himself who cancelled out. He is in regular contact with Jewish leaders everywhere he goes, and if he gets a whiff that the crowd might be 'uncooperative,' or might raise uncomfortable issues (e.g. Holocaust revisionism) , then he cancels. Ask him, for example, what happened to the evening talk to a local Catholic student group in Ghent, Belgium, in 2008.

Readers out there are invited to ask Norman a couple pointed questions at his next local speaking engagement: (1) Do you repudiate the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state? If not, how can you deny being a racist? (2) On what basis do you accept the symbolic '6 million' Jewish Holocaust deaths, without knowledge of the many serious difficulties with that figure?

These would make for an interesting response; be prepared for some fancy footwork.

Perhaps I am wrong about Norm Finkelstein; I hope I am. In fact, I would like nothing better than for him to prove me wrong, in public, by clearly exposing Jewish supremacism and racism within Israel itself, and by exposing, or at least acknowledging, the many holes in the Holocaust story.  But don't hold your breath.





















=



--


Dalton's Holocaust Radio Debate on April 24, 2010:

http://www.american freedomradio. com/Barrett_ 10.html

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@ Gmail.com

http://www.Debating TheHolocaust. com

Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton




--


Dalton's Holocaust Radio Debate on April 24, 2010:

http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/Barrett_10.html

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

http://www.DebatingTheHolocaust.com

Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

White House party will fete Jewish culture

 


ReportersNotebook memo: Well, at least the Fox-man isn't being invited, but I don't see Norman Finkelstein on the list either????

 START:

     White House party will fete Jewish culture

                May 25, 2010 

 

In politics, as elsewhere, it's a sport that's almost as popular as people-watching: Guest-list watching.

And this week, it's the Jewish community in Washington and beyond that's buzzing over who'll be on the list when Barack and Michelle Obama host the first-ever White House reception marking Jewish Heritage Month.

The White House won't divulge the guest list for Thursday afternoon's event in the East Room. But those with knowledge of the list say it's an eclectic and interesting one - and markedly different from past Jewish-themed events like the president's annual Hanukkah party.

Where that event brings established Jewish community leaders to the White House, Thursday's reception is meant to honor American Jews who have made contributions in the arts, music, sports, the space program and other fields.

The most prominent guest on the list, according to several people familiar with it: former baseball great Sandy Koufax, the left-handed Hall of Fame pitcher for the Dodgers who famously refused to pitch in a World Series game on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism. (NOTE: I don't follow baseball but I know the name Sandy Koufax. This is the  first time I read about the Yom Kippur game. Was this supposed to be kept quiet?) (Koufax, now 74, could not be reached to confirm his plans.)

Names also mentioned by members of the Jewish community: Olympic swimmer Dara Torres, author Judy Blume, and a young woman who was wounded in a 1999 shooting at a Los Angeles Jewish center, Mindy Finkelstein.

But the list also includes a number of younger Jewish activists involved in interesting initiatives. One of them, Shawn Landres, heads Jumpstart, which he calls a "thinkubator for sustainable Jewish innovation." He's traveling to Washington from Los Angeles.

"There's been excitement about this, people posting on Facebook and talking about who's coming," says Landres.

"In the past," he adds, "when there were Jewish events at the White House, they tended to go to the same well of people - big Jewish organizations, the usual suspects. What I've noticed here is a commitment to go beyond that. The administration is trying to engage the Jewish community in different ways."

Of course, it's no secret that tensions have surfaced between the administration and some elements of the Jewish community over its policy toward Israel, particularly regarding construction of Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem.

So it's tempting to see this week's reception as another step in what many have called Obama's current "charm offensive" toward American Jewish leaders, including: a meeting last week between the president and Jewish congressional leaders; gatherings of top White House officials and rabbis; addresses by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and National Security Adviser James L. Jones to major Jewish groups; and a private lunch early this month between the president and Noble laureate Eli Wiesel.

But though Thursday's event certainly can't hurt, officials point out that plans have been under way for several months. And the pressure actually began years ago.

"Listen, I've been trying to get the White House to put on this event for five years," says Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, the congresswoman who spearheaded the campaign to establish Jewish Heritage Month in the first place. "I really don't think it has anything to do with the current outreach efforts."

"I'm really excited about the event," adds Schultz, who will attend along with many other Jewish members of Congress. "This is a way to demonstrate that President Obama is committed to the Jewish community. But also it's a way to educate Americans about the contributions of American Jews, to breed tolerance and understanding."

To illustrate her point, Schultz says that when she was in college in 1984, a fellow student came up to her and asked if she was Jewish. "I've never seen a real one," she says the student told her.

Washington Jewish leader William Daroff adds that it wasn't so long ago that Jews in the United States were restricted in many ways: where they could live, what colleges they could attend, and what professions they could aspire to.

"We've come a long way, and Jewish Heritage Month is there to celebrate that progress," says Daroff, director of the Washington Office of the Jewish Federations of North America.

But while May was declared Jewish Heritage Month in 2006, set into law by President George W. Bush, this is the first time the White House has agreed to hold a reception to mark it.

"I don't ascribe a motive," Schultz says. "Presidents are very busy."

Asked why Obama had decided to hold the reception, White House spokesman Matt Lehrich told The Associated Press that the Obamas wanted to celebrate Jewish Americans' contributions to the nation's history and culture. "The reception also offers a chance to foster partnership, collaboration, and education in the spirit of Jewish American Heritage Month," Lehrich said.

Daroff himself isn't on the guest list, and he says that's logical. "This event is less about those of us in the Beltway," he says, "and more about the folks out there living the Jewish experience, and breaking down barriers."

So who else is invited? "This could be interesting, seeing what the mix looks like," says Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, who said he's not on the list.

Or, put another way: "Adam Sandler could write a whole new Hanukkah song after this party," quips Steve Rabinowitz, a Washington public relations executive, referring to the popular song pointing out famous Jewish Americans.

Someone who probably wouldn't make the song is Rabbi Marc Schneier of New York. He leads two Orthodox congregations and spoke at the 2008 Democratic convention.

But he believes he was invited because of his outreach work to the Muslim community, as president of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding. He's also has been active in furthering ties with the black community.

"Our work is very much in concert with President Obama's agenda," says Schneier.

A past guest at the White House Hanukkah party, Schneier says this event has a whole different feel to it.

"This is quite unique," he says. "It's more exotic than the usual White House event."

Daroff agrees.

"Listen, anytime there's a first in Washington, it's a big deal," he says.

http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/05/25/1060711/capital-culture-wh-party-will.html

 
 



--


Dalton's Holocaust Radio Debate on April 24, 2010:

http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/Barrett_10.html

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

http://www.DebatingTheHolocaust.com

Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

More Re: Thomas Dalton's article "Is Norman Finkelstein a Zionist Stooge?"

 

From Rich Siegel

March 14, 2010


"First of all, anyone familiar with contemporary Zionism should be able to figure out that Finkelstein could never publish as he has, or speak as he has, or get the publicity that he has, without the implicit support of the various Jewish lobbies around the world. If he were truly the threat that is portrayed, we can be sure that he would be stopped cold—censored, sanctioned, sued, or imprisoned. Anyone doubting this need only consider the treatment given to Muslim 'extremists' and Holocaust skeptics."  This is pure bullshit.  There are plenty of activists who somehow remain out of jail.  Finkelstein is a disappointment- that's all.  His research, his writing, his books, have been extremely valuable.  The fact that he now speaks about the inevitability of two-states and some sort of "deal" about the refugees which does not include return, is just a disappointment.  He can accept these things.  But they are unacceptable.  Doesn't make him a closet anything, or a stooge, whatever that means.  I think some people have hyper-active imaginations.  -RS   On Sunday, March 14, 2010, at 02:23PM, "Ardeshir Mehta" <ardeshir@mac.com> wrote: >

This is an interesting point of view. I would love to debate it, going through the actual points made by Dalton. I utterly dislike the term "Zionist stooge" used by Dalton, because it is just a smear, like "anti-Semite", and has no probative value whatsoever. But the actual - and factual - points made by Dalton seem nevertheless to be, at least to me, compelling as evidence.

Among the factual points made by Dalton are the following:

He [Finkelstein] does not question Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. He does not endorse the right of return for all Palestinians, or financial compensation for them. He does not call for full and equal rights of Israeli Arabs. ... [and] he implicitly accepts virtually all of the traditional story [regarding the Holocaust]. ... Finkelstein unquestioningly accepts the 6 million figure .... At one time he apparently expressed doubt that gas chambers were used for mass murder, but no more; now he toes the line.

Are these statements true or false? If they are all - or even mostly - true, then Dalton's conclusion, namely that thereupon:

... [one could] make the case that he [Finkelstein] is, perhaps unwittingly, an apologist for Israel and for Jewish supremacy ... I doubt that Norman is a plant, but he serves the same purpose: a nice, safe, credible 'critic' of Zionism who knows his limits, and doesn't go too far

... seems eminently plausible.

I like in particular Dalton's final sentence:

"Perhaps I am wrong about Norm Finkelstein; I hope I am.  In fact, I would like nothing better than for him to prove me wrong, in public, by clearly exposing Jewish supremacism and racism within Israel itself, and by exposing, or at least acknowledging, the many holes in the Holocaust story."

I am sending a copy of this e-mail to Norman Finkelstein too, using an e-mail address of his which I have had from quite a few years ago. I do hope the e-mail address is current, and that he responds. Certainly if a similar accusation had been levelled against me, I would have responded promptly in an effort to set the record straight. And I would have hoped my friends would have supported me in this.

However, I would not wish any friends of mine to respond with mere smears; just with factual points proving Dalton wrong - something which Dalton himself hopes he is.


Cheers.


+++++


On 14-Mar-10, at 1:24 AM, Ibrahim Alloush quoted:




For most of the past decade, Norm Finkelstein has been held up as a paragon of truth and justice. He is a darling of the anti-war, anti-Zionist set, and friend to Arab and Muslim groups around the world. What could be better?—a Jew critical of the Jewish state, and a champion of the Palestinians. But I think it is high time to expose a few weaknesses in his armor, and to make the case that he is, perhaps unwittingly, an apologist for Israel and for Jewish supremacy. I think one can make a pretty good case that he is, in fact, a Zionist stooge.

First of all, anyone familiar with contemporary Zionism should be able to figure out that Finkelstein could never publish as he has, or speak as he has, or get the publicity that he has, without the implicit support of the various Jewish lobbies around the world. If he were truly the threat that is portrayed, we can be sure that he would be stopped cold—censored, sanctioned, sued, or imprisoned. Anyone doubting this need only consider the treatment given to Muslim 'extremists' and Holocaust skeptics.

So he must be 'acceptable' in some sense; perhaps even 'useful.' That use is not hard to discern. Every power structure in the world has a need to control and mitigate its opponents. In the good ol' days, a bullet to the head or a trip to the Gulag did the trick. Today one needs to be more subtle. The modern approach is to stake out the opposition's turf, or to plant a 'soft' opponent. I doubt that Norman is a plant, but he serves the same purpose: a nice, safe, credible 'critic' of Zionism who knows his limits, and doesn't go too far.

What do I mean by this? Two things. First of all, deep down, I have little doubt that Finkelstein is himself a closet Zionist—a true Zionist, meaning, a Jewish supremacist. This is the case with the vast majority of American Jews, and virtually all Israeli Jews. They firmly believe that Israel has a right to exist as an exclusively (or at least predominantly) Jewish state. This is a racist notion on any reading, and would be utterly unacceptable for any nation other than Israel. Certainly this is the case in Israel itself; it was recently reported in Al-Quds Al-Arabi (Feb. 15) that 75% of Israeli Jews are in favor of some form of ethnic cleansing, to achieve a purified Jewish state. American Jews are similarly inclined. No matter whether right or left, Republican or Democrat, pro-war or anti-war, nearly all Jews support the idea of Jewish-only state; the only disagreement is about the means of achieving it.

Finkelstein never questions this core of Zionism. It's true that he, like any thinking person with a shred of decency, is appalled at what Israel is doing in the occupied territories, but this doesn't make him anti-Zionist (in the deeper sense). He does not question Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. He does not endorse the right of return for all Palestinians, or financial compensation for them. He does not call for full and equal rights of Israeli Arabs.  Finkelstein is still, at heart, a Jewish supremacist.

Even worse is his stance on the Holocaust. He made his name in 2000, with his 'radical' book The Holocaust Industry. As before, we can be sure that neither his English publisher Verso, nor the printer of his German translation (Piper Verlag), nor any of the other 15 foreign-language publishers would have produced the book if it really got to the heart of the Holocaust story. Finkelstein's main concern is the hype surrounding the event, and the misuse of the money—chiefly, that it's not going to the 'right people.'  But he implicitly accepts virtually all of the traditional story.

I have seen Finkelstein speak in person three times. Never once did he indicate any real knowledge about the Holocaust. In fact, at one event he was directly asked about this, and he replied, "I'm not an expert on the Holocaust"—which is a fairly astonishing admission from a man whose claim to fame rests on that event. When a questioner challenged him about the unreliability of the numbers—that the '6 million' has no factual basis, that Hilberg claimed 5.1 million, that Reitlinger claimed 4.2 million, that Yad Vashem has less than 3 million names, that revisionists argue for 1 million or less—he waived off the whole point:  "I just follow the experts."

Finkelstein unquestioningly accepts the 6 million figure, without knowing anything of the massive difficulties behind that symbolic figure. He has no awareness of the physical impossibilities involved with the alleged mass murder and incineration; of the utter lack of forensic evidence, despite knowing where to look; of wartime air photos showing no evidence of mass murder; of 20 years of diary entries by Joseph Goebbels indicating a consistent process of evacuation and deportation rather than mass murder; and so on. At one time he apparently expressed doubt that gas chambers were used for mass murder, but no more; now he toes the line.  In this sense, he is a champion of traditionalism, and thus poses no real threat.

In truth the Holocaust story is fraught with difficulties, as I tried to show in my book Debating the Holocaust. Normally one would expect a person like Finkelstein to pick up on this point, since it actually serves his purpose of arguing that emphasis on Jewish suffering was over-blown and exploited for financial gain. But faithful Norman knows that, should he start raising these issues, or take seriously the ideas of Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, or Faurisson, that he, like they, would be totally shut down.  Bad for book sales, eh Norm?

Even the alleged resistance he gets at his various speaking engagements is, at least in part, bogus. On more than one occasion, where his talks were supposedly cancelled by "local Jewish opposition," it was he himself who cancelled out. He is in regular contact with Jewish leaders everywhere he goes, and if he gets a whiff that the crowd might be 'uncooperative,' or might raise uncomfortable issues (e.g. Holocaust revisionism) , then he cancels. Ask him, for example, what happened to the evening talk to a local Catholic student group in Ghent, Belgium, in 2008.

Readers out there are invited to ask Norman a couple pointed questions at his next local speaking engagement: (1) Do you repudiate the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state? If not, how can you deny being a racist? (2) On what basis do you accept the symbolic '6 million' Jewish Holocaust deaths, without knowledge of the many serious difficulties with that figure?

These would make for an interesting response; be prepared for some fancy footwork.

Perhaps I am wrong about Norm Finkelstein; I hope I am. In fact, I would like nothing better than for him to prove me wrong, in public, by clearly exposing Jewish supremacism and racism within Israel itself, and by exposing, or at least acknowledging, the many holes in the Holocaust story.  But don't hold your breath.
























--


Dalton's Holocaust Radio Debate on April 24, 2010:

http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/Barrett_10.html

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

http://www.DebatingTheHolocaust.com

Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.


Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.

.

__,_._,___

Re: Thomas Dalton's article "Is Norman Finkelstein a Zionist Stooge?"

 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@mac.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 2:23 PM



This is an interesting point of view. I would love to debate it, going through the actual points made by Dalton. I utterly dislike the term "Zionist stooge" used by Dalton, because it is just a smear, like "anti-Semite", and has no probative value whatsoever. But the actual - and factual - points made by Dalton seem nevertheless to be, at least to me, compelling as evidence.

Among the factual points made by Dalton are the following:

He [Finkelstein] does not question Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. He does not endorse the right of return for all Palestinians, or financial compensation for them. He does not call for full and equal rights of Israeli Arabs. ... [and] he implicitly accepts virtually all of the traditional story [regarding the Holocaust]. ... Finkelstein unquestioningly accepts the 6 million figure .... At one time he apparently expressed doubt that gas chambers were used for mass murder, but no more; now he toes the line.

Are these statements true or false? If they are all - or even mostly - true, then Dalton's conclusion, namely that thereupon:

... [one could] make the case that he [Finkelstein] is, perhaps unwittingly, an apologist for Israel and for Jewish supremacy ... I doubt that Norman is a plant, but he serves the same purpose: a nice, safe, credible 'critic' of Zionism who knows his limits, and doesn't go too far

... seems eminently plausible.

I like in particular Dalton's final sentence:

"Perhaps I am wrong about Norm Finkelstein; I hope I am.  In fact, I would like nothing better than for him to prove me wrong, in public, by clearly exposing Jewish supremacism and racism within Israel itself, and by exposing, or at least acknowledging, the many holes in the Holocaust story."

I am sending a copy of this e-mail to Norman Finkelstein too, using an e-mail address of his which I have had from quite a few years ago. I do hope the e-mail address is current, and that he responds. Certainly if a similar accusation had been levelled against me, I would have responded promptly in an effort to set the record straight. And I would have hoped my friends would have supported me in this.

However, I would not wish any friends of mine to respond with mere smears; just with factual points proving Dalton wrong - something which Dalton himself hopes he is.


Cheers.


+++++


On 14-Mar-10, at 1:24 AM, Ibrahim Alloush quoted:




For most of the past decade, Norm Finkelstein has been held up as a paragon of truth and justice. He is a darling of the anti-war, anti-Zionist set, and friend to Arab and Muslim groups around the world. What could be better?—a Jew critical of the Jewish state, and a champion of the Palestinians. But I think it is high time to expose a few weaknesses in his armor, and to make the case that he is, perhaps unwittingly, an apologist for Israel and for Jewish supremacy. I think one can make a pretty good case that he is, in fact, a Zionist stooge.

First of all, anyone familiar with contemporary Zionism should be able to figure out that Finkelstein could never publish as he has, or speak as he has, or get the publicity that he has, without the implicit support of the various Jewish lobbies around the world. If he were truly the threat that is portrayed, we can be sure that he would be stopped cold—censored, sanctioned, sued, or imprisoned. Anyone doubting this need only consider the treatment given to Muslim 'extremists' and Holocaust skeptics.

So he must be 'acceptable' in some sense; perhaps even 'useful.' That use is not hard to discern. Every power structure in the world has a need to control and mitigate its opponents. In the good ol' days, a bullet to the head or a trip to the Gulag did the trick. Today one needs to be more subtle. The modern approach is to stake out the opposition's turf, or to plant a 'soft' opponent. I doubt that Norman is a plant, but he serves the same purpose: a nice, safe, credible 'critic' of Zionism who knows his limits, and doesn't go too far.

What do I mean by this? Two things. First of all, deep down, I have little doubt that Finkelstein is himself a closet Zionist—a true Zionist, meaning, a Jewish supremacist. This is the case with the vast majority of American Jews, and virtually all Israeli Jews. They firmly believe that Israel has a right to exist as an exclusively (or at least predominantly) Jewish state. This is a racist notion on any reading, and would be utterly unacceptable for any nation other than Israel. Certainly this is the case in Israel itself; it was recently reported in Al-Quds Al-Arabi (Feb. 15) that 75% of Israeli Jews are in favor of some form of ethnic cleansing, to achieve a purified Jewish state. American Jews are similarly inclined. No matter whether right or left, Republican or Democrat, pro-war or anti-war, nearly all Jews support the idea of Jewish-only state; the only disagreement is about the means of achieving it.

Finkelstein never questions this core of Zionism. It's true that he, like any thinking person with a shred of decency, is appalled at what Israel is doing in the occupied territories, but this doesn't make him anti-Zionist (in the deeper sense). He does not question Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. He does not endorse the right of return for all Palestinians, or financial compensation for them. He does not call for full and equal rights of Israeli Arabs.  Finkelstein is still, at heart, a Jewish supremacist.

Even worse is his stance on the Holocaust. He made his name in 2000, with his 'radical' book The Holocaust Industry. As before, we can be sure that neither his English publisher Verso, nor the printer of his German translation (Piper Verlag), nor any of the other 15 foreign-language publishers would have produced the book if it really got to the heart of the Holocaust story. Finkelstein's main concern is the hype surrounding the event, and the misuse of the money—chiefly, that it's not going to the 'right people.'  But he implicitly accepts virtually all of the traditional story.

I have seen Finkelstein speak in person three times. Never once did he indicate any real knowledge about the Holocaust. In fact, at one event he was directly asked about this, and he replied, "I'm not an expert on the Holocaust"—which is a fairly astonishing admission from a man whose claim to fame rests on that event. When a questioner challenged him about the unreliability of the numbers—that the '6 million' has no factual basis, that Hilberg claimed 5.1 million, that Reitlinger claimed 4.2 million, that Yad Vashem has less than 3 million names, that revisionists argue for 1 million or less—he waived off the whole point:  "I just follow the experts."

Finkelstein unquestioningly accepts the 6 million figure, without knowing anything of the massive difficulties behind that symbolic figure. He has no awareness of the physical impossibilities involved with the alleged mass murder and incineration; of the utter lack of forensic evidence, despite knowing where to look; of wartime air photos showing no evidence of mass murder; of 20 years of diary entries by Joseph Goebbels indicating a consistent process of evacuation and deportation rather than mass murder; and so on. At one time he apparently expressed doubt that gas chambers were used for mass murder, but no more; now he toes the line.  In this sense, he is a champion of traditionalism, and thus poses no real threat.

In truth the Holocaust story is fraught with difficulties, as I tried to show in my book Debating the Holocaust. Normally one would expect a person like Finkelstein to pick up on this point, since it actually serves his purpose of arguing that emphasis on Jewish suffering was over-blown and exploited for financial gain. But faithful Norman knows that, should he start raising these issues, or take seriously the ideas of Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, or Faurisson, that he, like they, would be totally shut down.  Bad for book sales, eh Norm?

Even the alleged resistance he gets at his various speaking engagements is, at least in part, bogus. On more than one occasion, where his talks were supposedly cancelled by "local Jewish opposition," it was he himself who cancelled out. He is in regular contact with Jewish leaders everywhere he goes, and if he gets a whiff that the crowd might be 'uncooperative,' or might raise uncomfortable issues (e.g. Holocaust revisionism) , then he cancels. Ask him, for example, what happened to the evening talk to a local Catholic student group in Ghent, Belgium, in 2008.

Readers out there are invited to ask Norman a couple pointed questions at his next local speaking engagement: (1) Do you repudiate the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state? If not, how can you deny being a racist? (2) On what basis do you accept the symbolic '6 million' Jewish Holocaust deaths, without knowledge of the many serious difficulties with that figure?

These would make for an interesting response; be prepared for some fancy footwork.

Perhaps I am wrong about Norm Finkelstein; I hope I am. In fact, I would like nothing better than for him to prove me wrong, in public, by clearly exposing Jewish supremacism and racism within Israel itself, and by exposing, or at least acknowledging, the many holes in the Holocaust story.  But don't hold your breath.





















=



--


Dalton's Holocaust Radio Debate on April 24, 2010:

http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/Barrett_10.html

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

http://www.DebatingTheHolocaust.com

Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___