Harry's Place

let’s us not forget this interview:

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2008/02/13/finkelstein_loses_it_in_lebanon.php

Yup, I was looking for that… I’ll put that link in.

and for once I hope that no one will defend Norman Finkelstein’s very poor grasp of history

We are supposed to be charitable and give everybody, inclusive of The Guardian journalists, the benefit of the doubt. Unless, of course, there is a proof to the contrary, and in this case there indeed is.

The entire report in The Guardian is essentially lifted (with no real attribution) from Haaretz, except for one instrumental fact: that Finkelstein was barred from Israel because of his meeting with Hizbullah. Indeed, the headline of The Guardian report (I am quoting from memory, having already disposed of my copy of the newspaper in an environmentally-aware manner) was that a US academic was barred from Israel because of his opposition to Israeli policies. Which definitely didn’t follow from the Haaretz report.

All this – either The Guardian’s journalist’s duplicity or an inability to understand fairly straightforward text – is completely irrelevant to another issue, the cleverness (or otherwise) of barring Finkelstein from Israel. Why make a martyr of him, for goodness sake? Does anybody believe that he came on a secret mission from Hizbullah?

The Guardian article is even worse than that:-

who has accused Israel of using the genocidal Nazi campaign against Jews to justify its actions against the Palestinians, So the Guardian is using the old Antisemitic canard that Jews treat Palestinians to a Holocaust because they suffered a Holocaust.

Finkelstein is one of several scholars rejected by Israel in the increasingly bitter divide in academic circles, between those who support and those who criticise its treatment of Palestinians. as you elaborate, it has nothing to do with his academia but to do with his support of Hezbollah.

Finkelstein was also refused tenure last year at Chicago’s DePaul University for attacking several staunch Israel supporters and academics such as Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz. TSo, the simple act of arguing with Dershowitz (The Jew) is ebough to lose you your job. Ergo, “Jews are powerful and can get you sacked if you disagree with them” (The article gets more Antisemitic by the sentence!)

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel said the deportation of Finkelstein was an assault on free speech.

“A democratic state, where freedom of expression is the highest principle, does not shut out criticism or ideas just because they are uncomfortable for its authorities to hear. It confronts those ideas in public debate.”

“Jews/Israelis are just like Nazis” may be free speech but Jew/Israelis do not have to make someone with these views a guest. Anyway, he was told to go away for meeting with and supporting an enemy of Israel.

Finkelstein said he was held in a cell and encountered “several unpleasant moments with the guards I hope so!

Norman Finkelstein will probably produce another book (or two) from these events “I was held in an Israeli Jail” or “My foul incarceration at the hands of the Zionists” etc

perhaps Finkelstein could be prevailed upon to do a tour of ALL jails in the Middle East? or is that too cruel?

Why does Israel fear Finkelstein?

oh and the sequel, making up the Finkelstein trilogy”Zionists stubbed my toes”

The original Haaretz source (by Yossi Melman) is http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/986571.html and I suggest that anybody interested in the sheer lack of integrity of The Guardian just compares it with the Toni McLaughlin piece at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/26/israelandthepalestinians.usa .

Even the sentence “Finkelstein said he was held in a cell and encountered “several unpleasant moments with the guards” is taken out of context to make his “ordeal” so much worse. The exact quote from Finkelstein’s email to Haaretz reads

“‘I was kept in a holding cell at the airport for approximately 24 hours. It wasn’t a Belgian bed-and-breakfast, but it wasn’t Auschwitz either. I had several unpleasant moments with the guards at the airport and in the holding cell, but since martyrdom is not my cup of tea, I’ll spare you the details,’ Finkelstein said.”

I’ve only been to Israel once: a year and a half ago, in the company of a friend who had recently been on a trip to Syria.

Things turned out rather better for him: largely as his purpose in visiting was archeological (he’s a classicist and and Eton housemaster) rather than to meet with a terrorist organisation, and then tell the locals off for their lack of enthusiasm for it.

But then again your friend is not a target of Dershowitz.

Finkelstein, in the Haaretz article -

I was kept in a holding cell at the airport for approximately 24 hours. It wasn’t a Belgian bed-and-breakfast, but it wasn’t Auschwitz either.

What a tosser.

It wasn’t Auschwitz? You mean you weren’t gassed and incinerated? Like the Jews were? Like how the Jews are now treating the Palestinians?

Knob.

Dershowitz controls the Israeli Government?

I can’t tell if that’s fake Flanker or not.

He is so dreadfully unhinged he is actually beyond parody.

Good riddance!

Finkelstein’s inability to gain tenure has almost taken on the qualities of an urban myth, obviously this has nothing to do with the fact he has not published one peer reviewed research paper (a normal requirement of a Professorship) or threatening other staff, as reported:

“Oral and physical confrontations between Finkelstein and university officials began shortly after his tenure denial, according to a memo written by university Provost Helmut Epp.

that’s the way to get tenure !

Well done Israel.

Shame on The Guardian for its appallingly distorted report.

That Alan Derschowitz has magical powers, if we are to believe our deranged friend, Flanker: he controls both one of the leading American Catholic universities and the Israeli government. I will not be surprised at the least were Flanker to blame Derschowitz also for Cyclone Nargis.

seems that the cranks have picked it up too:

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2008/05/israel-denies-finkelstein-right-of.html

I wonder if someone on the UCU activist list would remind Prof. Bresheeth that Norman Finkelstein is a political scientist, he is not a historian.

The official voice of the “British Left” continues to run fascist propaganda for Hezbollah and Hamas…and I, a Yank who follows soccer (an effete past-time over here) continues to use the Guardian online merely to read match reports. The world is a complicated place.

It’s Football, not ‘Soccer’.

I beg to differ. I dislike Finkelstein as much as you do but I do not see much point in giving him this sort of free publicity/martyrdom. According to Melman in Haaretz, Finkelstein has already visited Israel 15 times or so. I assume he maintained low profile during these visits for obvious reasons. I fail to see the harm he could cause if allowed into the country.

As for Bereshith, though much worse than Finkelstein in many senses, he has nothing to be worried about. Since he is an Israeli citizen he cannot be denied entrance into Israel. I truly hope, though, that he would indeed refrain from visiting, as implied in his e-mail.

What is going on. David claims that the quote “Shin Bet interrogated him for around 24 hours about his contact with the Lebanese Islamic militia, Hizbullah, when he travelled to Lebanon earlier this year and expressed solidarity with the group which waged war against Israel in 2006″. to quote David “gives the misleading impression that Finkelstein did not meet with Hezbollah at all”. No it doesn’t.

Likewise, Muffin thinks that the quote “Finkelstein said he was held in a cell and encountered “several unpleasant moments with the guards”…” is somehow taken out of context to sound worse than the original “‘I was kept in a holding cell at the airport for approximately 24 hours. It wasn’t a Belgian bed-and-breakfast, but it wasn’t Auschwitz either. I had several unpleasant moments with the guards at the airport and in the holding cell, but since martyrdom is not my cup of tea, I’ll spare you the details,’ Finkelstein said.”. Complete nonsense.

On the issue, I would have to agree with the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) who said: “The decision to prevent someone from voicing their opinions by arresting and deporting them is typical of a totalitarian regime. A democratic state, where freedom of expression is the highest principle, does not shut out criticism or ideas just because they are uncomfortable for its authorities to hear, it confronts those ideas in public debate,”.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3547270,00.html

Why do you people wax over the PR angle over the humanitarian one? The same happened with the minister that threatened the Palestinians with a Shoah, only caring that it was a PR blunder over the HR threat.

On the issue, I would have to agree with the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) who said: “The decision to prevent someone from voicing their opinions by arresting and deporting them is typical of a totalitarian regime. A democratic state, where freedom of expression is the highest principle, does not shut out criticism or ideas just because they are uncomfortable for its authorities to hear

Then you are a berk.

Finkelstein was not deported in order to prevent him ‘voicing his opinions.’

He was deported for his repeated meetings with, and stated solidarity with, a terrorist organisation that is at war with Israel.

This point has been stated repeatedly on this thread, and yet somehow you still fail to grasp it.

let’s remember Finkelstein poor grasp of history and his support for violence as a solution:

“Interviewer: Is there no other way than military resistance?

http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1676.htm

Finkelstain is an American citizen travelling abroad. Over at MPACUK, he is described as very brave, a “man braver than most Muslims”. As far as I can see the most this hero has had to endure is very short detention for questioning at immigration and a ban on entering Israel – hardly a life-threatening experience, unlike what numberless people in the Lebanon who don’t share his views face at the hands of Hizbollah.

It’s Football, not ‘Soccer’. is almost as annoying as “Arabs can’t be antisemites because they are semitic.”

The Guardian is beyond redemption, for the past 20 years it has twisted every fact and slanted every story to vilify Israel. In doing so it panders to the prejudices of its dwindling readership. The Guardian is not a newspaper but the epitome of a “views” paper and perhaps the Guardian’s most trenchantly held view is that Israel is a bad thing – at best a holdover of the colonisation of the indigenous peoples of the Middle East by the “Western conceit that is the Zionist project.” This is the central argument of Islamist anti-Semetic discourse and it is one that the Guardian shares.

Within the last 10 years there has been an increasing anti-Semitic tone to the Guardian. Its editors have unquestioningly accepted almost every Islamist canard about Israel and rejected out of hand Israel’s right to self defense. Now the Guardian is intent on using Finkelstien to question the moral right to of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. In this they are not alone …. Here for example is an article in the Independent by Johan Hari alluding as best he can to Israel as shit.

Its futile to point out to Guardianistas that Arabism and Arab nationalism are also recent Western constructs – or that Islam is the most complete and ruthless colonising system since the Western Christian imperialism of the 20th century. Nor is it worth highlighting the obvious – that Islam and Arabism have trampled on and destroyed countless religious minorities and subsumed many disparate nations by the destroying indigenous cultures from Morocco to Indonesia and continue to do so at great human cost – Darfur being only the latest example.

With Finkelstien the Guardian is lionising a man who because of his vanity has belittled the holocaust at every turn and spearheaded the central anti-Israel argument set out by Islamists. This argument conflates the Holocaust and the Zionist project and in doing so attempts to undermine the moral cornerstone of Israel as a Jewish state.

The Islamist polemic is in two parts and both are anti-Semetic:

Islamists hold that Israel is an illegitimate Western construct foisted on the Arab/Islamic world and that if (1) it can be shown that the holocaust is an historic myth, and/or that (2) the Jewish lobby acting as an adjunct of Western colonialist powers has perverted the memory of the holocaust to manipulate Western powers in aiding the creation of Israel – then it can be shown that Israel an historic anachronism without moral foundation, an illegitimate, colonial and “racist” state much like South Africa before Mandela.

It is a polemic that seeks to deny that Jews are a people bound by religion and language with legitimate national rights – and are a people that originated from an historic Israel to which they have a right of return.

The Islamic Republic and Ahmadinejad tried to float the first part of this polemic in 2005.

But holocaust denial remains a non-starter in the West, even for the likes of the editors of the Guardian. So since 2005 the Guardian has sought to push the second part of the Islamist polemic. That the Zionist/Jewish lobby has perverted the memory of the holocaust to foist an illegal Jewish state on the “indigenous” muslim population of Palestine.

Finkelstien is the poster boy of this line of thinking and as a Jewish scholar he is the perfect tool for the Guardianistas to push an essentially anti-Semetic line without the fear of being exposed as the anti-Semites that they are.

“Finkelstien is the poster boy of this line of thinking and as a Jewish scholar he is the perfect tool for the Guardianistas to push an essentially anti-Semetic line without the fear of being exposed as the anti-Semites that they are.”

Wow then thank god you exist to “expose” them then.

Yes, Flanker – and you exposed Bush’s ‘Reichstag’ 9/11 plot, didn’t you?

OK – get a bit of perspective. Finkelstein’s ideas may be challenging but they are not particularly dangerous to the inhabitants of Israel and Palestine.

If you are looking for dangerous Americans that Israel let’s in, there are loads of them who have moved out there over the years, living in illegal settlements in the West Bank, and terrorising the local Palestinian population. They are the fundamentalists arriving from New York saying “this is my land”, and they are armed, meshigeneh and dangerous.

The quality of the people Israel does let in obviously continues to rise – why, they let in Amy Winehouse just a few days ago

The Finkelstein article is only a single bullet in the Guardian’s ongoing Jihad against the Jewish people and their state.

Can anyone actually say what grouping these “New York” Jews actually come from? Are they Chabad, Satmar, Reform? Just curious.

As to Finkelstein – where are the folks on this blog who keep saying, if you support war, why aren’t you over there fighting? Why aren’t they saying – Norm, if you support Hezbollah’s resistance, why haven’t you joined up and fight for them?

@TheIrie

Lucky he’s not criticising Syria – typical of that totalitarian regime is your car exploding while your in it.

Comparative bannings: Feiglin

Hamish wrote:

Finkelstein’s ideas may be challenging but they are not particularly dangerous to the inhabitants of Israel and Palestine.

which ideas ? does he have any original ones?

do you agree with him that violence is the way?

Or can you “see another way”?

“I wonder if someone on the UCU activist list would remind Prof. Bresheeth that Norman Finkelstein is a political scientist, he is not a historian.”

what gets me is the idea you can be a political scientist without being an historian. i’ve got an MA in politics and I still don’t realy understand what the discipline actually is. seems to me that it is often history lite.

Jeff,

to be a historian, especially recognise as a professional one, one tends to write research papers on historical themes, or the occasional book which is recognised to be scholarly and worthy of merit, on top of that if you employ sound historical methods then that’s a bonus

but as Norman Finkelstein hasn’t achieved one of the above criteria, it a bit much to call him a historian

a bit like fiddling around with a tap washer then calling yourself a plumber, on the basis of that

Modernity

But the point about calling F. a historian is that it adds credibility (and a sense of authority) to his positions on Israel.

If it was said he was a political scientist then you could listen to what he said about Zionism (politics) and consider that he is an authority on this, but you wouldn’t really regard his work on the Holocaust industry, foundation of Israel (historical topics) etc as anything more than amateur writings as he would not be an authority on those.

The quality of the people Israel does let in obviously continues to rise – why, they let in Amy Winehouse just a few days ago

Yes, hilarious.

You realise that there is almost nothing that you can do about this report, without being accused of being part of a well-funded Jewish conspiracy?

Oniad,

absolutely, Norman Finkelstein’s command of history is shaky at best, note his stupid comment about “Even Hitler didn’t want war” which I dealt with in the previous HP thread.

Finkelstein’s credibility is shot to bits, if you follow his goings-on you can see the basic misrepresentation of facts time and again [the tenure issue is just one], and the desire of his supporters to beef up his reputation often portraying him as a martyr, all of these could be cleared up by a few searches on google I am just a bit surprised that the Guardian journalists didn’t do a better job.

The description of Finklestein’s activities and opinions in the Haaretz are extremely muted, at least in the Hebrew edition of the paper. You will find there that Finklestein, an open and active supporter of Hezbollah attacks on Israeli civilians 2 summers ago, has done nothing more specific or malicious than generally voice “severe criticism of Israeli policies”. His incendiary accusations that Israel exploits the Holocaust for political reasons are phlegmatically repeated by the paper as if they are legitimate level-headed opinions.

Only yesterday Haaretz published an editorial saying “Yes to a Tahdiya”. By accepting a term from Islamic jurisprudence rather than international law for negotiating with Arabs, the newspaper advocates a servility and lack of self-respect that is chilling, and a cold-blooded pragmatism that is solipsistic in its unawareness of the importance of symbolic content.

Almost all the anti-Israeli ideas in the Guardian about which so many on this blog complain have their origin in Haaretz and other Israeli publications. The Guardian is a me-too echo-chamber of Haaretz, with little independent judgement or capacity for originality. The ease with which this important organ of British opinion has succumbed and been taken over by leftist Israelis is breathtaking, and should provide food for thought to all who believe in the importance of a free and independent press – and also to those who don’t.

To those who say its supressing his freedom of speech and right to criticise Israel: Since when has he stopped? Would he say anything different in Israel to what he says outside it? Suppression of his freedom of speech would be a bullet in the back of his neck or falling from a great height anywhere in the World.

What is more disturbing are the lies that the Guardian propogates. They are as bad as MPAC UK in inciting Antisemitism.

When we talk about the Exeter bomber we know that this guy has mental problems and was radicalised by Muslims. What’s the Guardian’s excuse?

Far more anti-Semitic than the Guardian, then, is the Jerusalem Post, who carry the line “Officials said that the decision to deport Finkelstein was connected to his anti-Zionist opinions and fierce public criticism of Israel around the world.” That is a far clearer statement than anything in the Guardian piece.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1211434094376

“Almost all the anti-Israeli ideas in the Guardian about which so many on this blog complain have their origin in Haaretz and other Israeli publications”

Right on target. I wouldn’t see too much into The Guardian. I have read worse things in Haaretz. However, while the fact that Haaretz has become an organ for the post-Zionist, stock market playing, rich Tel Avivian left is sad, the Guardian should know that to take such a strong stance regarding a foreign conflict is kind of weird.
I mean, is like Argentina’s left-wing newspapers were against Uruguay naming its streets Artigas, or even pusblished every other day an editorial against the Queen of England, given that everybody knows that a monarchy is an anachronism after the French revolution.
Do you get my drift? the Guardian has a chip in the shoulder regarding Israel.
It is possible that they have adopted the view that under the British Mandate everything was great in Palestine.

Good for Israel. Finklestein is a sick puppy who needs to be sectioned. They have every right to ban him from entering the country. He serves no purpose other than to provide agitiation for anti-semites.

Here’s todays Haaretz editorial on this (warning – more overt anti-Semitism – don’t read if you have a weak constitution).

“Considering his unusual and extremely critical views, one cannot avoid the suspicion that refusing to allow him to enter Israel was a punishment rather than a precaution.

It is difficult to sympathize with Finkelstein’s opinions and preferences, especially since he decided to support Hezbollah, meet with its fighters and visit the graves of some of its slain operatives. But that does not mean he should be banned from entering Israel, since meetings with Hezbollah operatives do not in themselves constitute a security risk…

The Shin Bet argues that Finkelstein constitutes a security risk. But it is more reasonable to assume that Finkelstein is persona non grata and that the Shin Bet, whose influence has increased to frightening proportions, latched onto his meetings with Hezbollah operatives in order to punish him.

And the decision is all the more surprising when one recalls the ease with which right-wing activists from the Meir Kahane camp – the kind whose activities pose a security threat that no longer requires further proof – are able to enter the country.”

Finkelstein’s credibility is shot to bits, if you follow his goings-on you can see the basic misrepresentation of facts time and again [the tenure issue is just one], and the desire of his supporters to beef up his reputation often portraying him as a martyr, all of these could be cleared up by a few searches on google I am just a bit surprised that the Guardian journalists didn’t do a better job.

Are you really surprised modernity? the only way you could have been “surprised” is if you hadnt read that rag in the last 15 years.

Modernity,

On Finkelstein as a would-be historian and respected scholar, Paul Bogdanor, in a chapter that decimates Finkelstein, summed it up quite well:

Finkelstein is not a professional historian, has conducted no archival research, and makes no references to primary or secondary sources in Hebrew or Arabic, with the exception of the occasional newspaper article translated by a far-left comrade in Israel. Not surprisingly, academic journals have kept their distance from this P.T. Barnum of Middle East historiography.

Source:

Paul Bogdanor, “Norman G. Finkelstein: Chomsky for Nazis” in Edward Alexander and Paul Bogdanor eds. The Jewish Divide Over Israel: Accusers and Defenders(New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2006) pp. 135-160

Can anyone actually say what grouping these “New York” Jews actually come from? Are they Chabad, Satmar, Reform? Just curious.(Oniad)

They are often extreme religious Zionists – so they are certainly not reform. Unlikely to be Satmar either as Satmar have largely been anti-Zionist. Could be Chabad though they tend to give their strong support to the most whacky right wingers in Israel from afar. There are certainly American settlers who are followers of the late and completely unlamented Rabbi Meir Kahane and his fascist-inspired Kach movement. Their ideology before and after settling has basically been “Death to the Arabs” (which they like to graffitti on walls) but they have been able to exercise their “right of return” unhindered as far as I know.

which ideas ? does he have any original ones?
do you agree with him that violence is the way?
Or can you “see another way”? (Modernity)

Some of Finkelstein’s ideas are completely unremarkable – he has been a longstanding 2 stater – and reiterated that again just the other day. I don’t think he has any views which are not shared by at least some Israeli citizens on the non/anti-zionist left.

His more challenging ideas (expressed in “the Holocaust industry”) are about the exploitation of the holocaust for political purposes which I personally find overblown and stated in a way that doesn’t naturally evoke sympathy even among those who can support his general thesis.

It has been commonplace for Israeli leaders to invoke the Holocaust or characterise any new opponent as a “new Hitler” in order to defend indefensible policies in support of occupation/expansion. Meanwhile Israel has angered many Holocaust survivors who were among its founders by not supporting them financially through levels of pensions etc. Last year thousands of holocaust survivors marched against the israeli government on this issue.

There are of course Israeli writers and academics making similar general points to Finkelstein about Israel’s misuse of the Holocaust, such as Professor idith Zertal who recently published “Israel’s Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood” (Cambridge Univeristiy Press). In that she says that israel has marginalised the actual survivors and used the Holocaust to “render itself immune to criticism and impervious to rational dialogue with the world around her…Israel because of its wholesale and out of context use of the Holocaust, became a prime example of devaluation of the meaning and enormity of the Holocaust.”

She is building partly on the ideas of commentators such as Boaz Evron who described the two tragedies that the Jewish people suffered in the 20th century as – “the holocaust and the interpretation of the holocaust”.

I don’t agree with violence as a way to solve the problem of occupation and oppression and never have. I do recognise that in the current situation of the 41st year of occupation and the 60th anniversary of the dispossession and expulsion of the palestianians, that, as the settler population grows, as israel’s landgrabbing in annexed East jerusalem continues, as thousands of Palestinians remain in Israeli prisons without trial, calls for violent responses are going to be heard on the Palestinian street and in the refugee camps.

In recent years nearly 200 civic associations of Palestinians have united to promote a non-violent policy of boycott divestment and sanctions and you can see how warmly that was responded to…

Whilst I am as opposed to NF not being allowed to enter Israel as I am to the way this story has been misintepretted by the Guardian and others, there is one good result. Now that he does not have an Israeli stamp in his passport, he is free to travel to Malaysia and all those other countries whose definition of freedom ensures no Israeli can visit them.

“I do recognise that in the current situation of the 41st year of occupation and the 60th anniversary of the dispossession and expulsion of the palestianians,” (Hamish Q Cumber)

Sorry, Palestinians dispossesed? Bollocks. My aunt has a Palestinian passport and she is very much not dispossesed.

Maybe you mean the Arab population of Greater Syria who attacked the Palestinian Jews to murder them all in 1948?

Sorry, of course, the year was 1947, when the Arabs from Greater Syria decided that they didn’t need another Arab state (because they were part of Syria), but that a Jewish state was imperdonable.

You maybe mean 1947, when the Arabs of Greater Syria mocked the UN resolution and called for a campaign of extermination of Jews the size of the Mongols? Explain to me how do you call that a “dispossesion”. They were sure they would win. That is why they launched a war. Sorry for wining.

Mazeltov to your aunt Fabian. I’ll drink a glass of Palwin (pre-state of Israel kosher Palestinian wine that has retained the name) to her. But I hope she talks more sense than you do.

I thought that Golda Meir was the last dinosaur to claim “there are no such thing as Palestinians”. Even Ariel Sharon before he went a bit quiet referred to the Palestinian Arabs as the Palestinians.

Oh, Hamish, if I go outside my home now, maybe I will see a Palestinian, that is an Arab. The problem is when you claim that “Palestinians” were dispossesed in 1948. As you know, the former Palestinians now have a state, it is called Israel, and they are called Israelis now.

1. The Arabs did not call themselves Palestinians, they did not want a country called Palestine, and
2. they were not dispossesed. They launched a war of extermination and lost. I don’t call that a dispossesion, but defeat and just retribution.

Maybe if a man hits you in the street with the desire to kill you, but you overpower him and blood his nose, you would tell the police that you have dispossesed the man of his right to your wallet and to have a non-running nose.

I don’t.

Let’s face the facts – you hate Finkelstein because he is such an effective critic of the pro-Israel policies you support at HP.

Why not try engaging with his arguments. Better to spend time discussing constructive proposals to resolve the Israel/Palestine conflict than wittering on and on about whether a newspaper website is biased one way or the other in the usual fashion of an HP thread

Lets face the facts, if Finkelstein would be really interested in resolving the Israel/Palestinians conflict, he would do better than meet the terrorist group Hezbollah and call anybody who doesn’t support war against Israel a “coward” on Lebanese TV.

I understand that Prof. Finkelstein was not banned from Israel for his criticism of Israel, or for his book The Holocaust Industry, or his support for the intifada, but his open meetings with Hizbollah, a militia which mysteriously has felt the need to acquire 12,000 missiles to liberate a 14 km strip of land called Shebbah Farms, whih were not returned to Lebanon after the 2000 Israeli withdrawal because there is a political dispute whether they belong to Lebanon or Syria. David Hirst, the veteran Guaridan journalist, who is probably single-handedly responsible for first bringing the Guardian over to a pro-Arab perspective in the afternmath of the 67 war, has written that Hezbollah pulled the Shehbba farms like a rabbit out of a hat in order to prolong the conflict after the Israeli withdrawal.

OT, but slightly related, it seems that France2 & Enderlin are going to make an appeal to the Cour de Cassation.

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2008/05/26/round-three-france2-appeals-to-the-cour-de-cassation/#comments

The third comment has an excellent overview in French.

http://michelgurfinkiel.com/articles/170-France-Le-droit-au-debat.html

David Hirst, the veteran Guaridan journalist, who is probably single-handedly responsible for first bringing the Guardian over to a pro-Arab perspective in the afternmath of the 67 war, has written that Hezbollah pulled the Shehbba farms like a rabbit out of a hat in order to prolong the conflict after the Israeli withdrawal.

Do you have a source for that Linda?

Here

There was also a piece elsewhere which spelled this out more explicitly but I’m still looking for it.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/530/re1.htm

My apologies. My memory was not correct. It was the Lebanese government which raised the question of the Shebbah Farms, but it is Hizbollah which has mainatined an arsenal of 12,00 missiles to liberate the Farms.

So the question remains, if Hizbollah, as some here believe, is an army of liberation, why does it need 12k missiles to liberate a 14k strip of land which has no-one living on it, and why does Prof. Finkelstein support this aim?

Hamish,

On the subject of dinosaurs, isn’t the works of Karl Marx a bit old hat these days?

Let’s face it – the problem you have, and you have never quite got to grips with, is that all those working class Jews who were bravely fighting fascists on the streets of London as members of the 43 Group went on volunteer for the Hagganah and Israeli army and assisted them in their War of Independence when the fledging state was invaded by the Arab countries. This is detailed in Morris Beckman’s book The 43 Group (London: Centerprise Publications, 1993) pp. 129-130

You try and make yourself believe that Zionism was only for middle classes but you fail to appreciate the whole socialist Zionist tradition with groups like Hashomer Hatzair, and others such as Dror.

Whilst people such as yourself, in Jewish groups, were complaining that there was not enough meat in your salt beef sandwich from Blooms in Aldgate East and that the jam machine for the doughnuts at Kossof’s was not working properly whilsty dreaming of a revolution that was not going to happen, other working class Jews got off their Tukkas’s went to Israel and joined a kibbutz and went to work with veshtinkener chickens. They did something practical for socialism. Apart from convincing Borders, a massive capitalist retail company, to stock Jewish Socialist, which does not really count, what have you ever done for the working classes?

“Apart from convincing Borders, a massive capitalist retail company, to stock Jewish Socialist, which does not really count, what have you ever done for the working classes?”

Jews are 0.23% of the world population nowadays. Socialist (in the sense of Marxist) Jews may be, what? 3% of Jews, being very very generous?

I see a brilliant future for Jewish socialism…

Mikey,
I think you will find it is farshtinkener chickens -the chickes on kibbutz have a hard enough time without you making up words about them. If you are going to attempt to use mame-loshn to support your ‘arguments” at least don’t make such a patshkeray of it, otherwise it just confirms that you are full of narishkeyt.

Now, where were we? So, all those 43niks went off to fight for Israeli independence…I know some did, then who were those Jews here who fought against the fascists in the 50s, 60s, and so on?

On the kibbutz question. I know a few kibbutzim were formed in the Negev desert but most of them were not. Who was working the land and living on the land where most of the socialist kibbutzim were established and what happened to them? The socialism I’ve always supported (which does go back to old man Karl but there have been a few theorists I follow since he went to yene velt) has been about equality? How many of Israel’s Arab citizens have been permitted to join these socialist kibutzim? Only asking.

And by the way – checkout how nicely Israel’s capitalist economy has treated the “socialist” kibbutzim. They have nearly all been privatised. Nice idea though.

“Who was working the land and living on the land where most of the socialist kibbutzim were established and what happened to them? ”

You mean those people who shouted in the 1920s: “Filastin arduna wa al- yahud kilabuna!” (“Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs!”)?

Nice egalitarian kibbutznikim you would have had there… Maybe you could have explained your progressive projects to them in Yiddish.

I have no problem saying that I do want to express solidarity with them, …
I don’t care about Hizbullah as a political organization. I don’t know much about their politics, and anyhow, it’s irrelevant.

Pretty much the same did Chomsky say when he talked with Nasrallah, that is evasive and right out lies, of course they know about Hizbullah politics. After all both of them is otherwise inflated with self-importance and have an instant certain opinions and “knowhow” on just any topic and what’s going on in the world.

You know something funny? the same people who attack the beginnings of the State of Israel for the sin of being ruled by an Azkenazi elite insensitive to the culture and ways of the Jews of Arab lands, are those who attack the Jewish Socialists for not transforming Arab fellahin (traditional and backward peasants) into Marxist kibbutznikim.

Hamish,

I do apologise for my East London Yiddish accent and incorrect spelling. Some of us remember our working class roots whilst others who claim to be “socialist” move to posh places like Tufnell Park and send their kids to Cambridge so they can quaff champagne and attend May Balls.

Have you forgotten that Moses Hess directly influenced “old man Karl” and his very rich friend Fred who lived in a big house in Primrose Hill, one of the most expensive parts of London, on communism. Have you also forgotten that Moses Hess went on to become a founder of the whole socialist Zionist movement and inspired the kibbutz dream? It is true that many of the kibbutz have been privatised and, you know what, in many of the kibbutz, the residents got rich out of it! What I would like to know is when Israel was trying the kibbutz thing what was the likes of Bund supporters doing for socialism?

I have a further question. The Jewish Socialist Group claims on its website that it was:

Founded in Manchester/Liverpool as lobby group campaigning around two issues: awakening the Left, anti-racists and the Jewish community to the growing threat posed by the National Front; and campaigning for Left parties and groups to relate more positively to Jewish issues including its analysis of the Israel/Palestine conflict where traditional anti-Zionism had often slipped into antisemitism and uncritical support for all Arab nationalism, which was alienating Jews from the Left.

What went wrong? Why is the Jewish Socialist Group affiliated to Unite Against Fascism? This is the same Unite Against Fascism who conducted a “whispering campaign” against Searchlight, a magazine and campaigning organisation with an impeccable and long record of fighting fascism, saying that they were Zionists. Surely this is exactly the sort of nonsense that JSG was set up to fight against? But no, these days the JSG affiliates with such groups.

How disgraceful and despicable this sort of behaviour is. You are simply sell outs who collaborate with Jew haters.

It’s spreading:

Toby Manhire
Sunday May 25, 2008
guardian.co.uk

Grumbles over Wednesday’s scheduled appearance by John Bolton at the Hay festival turned caustic last night as the activist and journalist George Monbiot called for a citizen’s arrest of the man George Bush controversially appointed to the UN in 2005. The Guardian columnist’s demand – greeted with cheers from the audience – came just hours after an audience member challenged the veteran author Gore Vidal for appearing on the same festival bill as Bolton, who is widely viewed as a driving force behind the 2OO2 invasion of Iraq.

Perhaps HP can arrange a prisoner exchange.

Monbiot expressed astonishment that a “war criminal” such as Bolton could “swim through the politest of polite soirees – which is of course Hay”, without fear of proper interrogation. People such as Bolton and Tony Blair “would’ve been hanged” had a Nuremberg-like trial been held to investigate the war in Iraq, he added.

Perhaps the Hay attendees could arrange a citizen’s hanging?

“People such as Bolton and Tony Blair “would’ve been hanged” had a Nuremberg-like trial been held to investigate the war in Iraq”

Another trivialization of the Holocaust. A part of the left really likes to use the Jews.

From the Hay Q&A I read this:

“Dom Joly, comedian asks Sandi Toksvig, broadcaster

Q Sandi, I’ve always wanted to ask you: how would we solve the Israel/Palestine situation?

A Do you know, the answer that I like best – and I don’t know whose answer it is – is that we should get one side to divide the country and decide where the border is going to go, and then the other half get to choose which side they want. Isn’t that a brilliant idea? It’s so simple. Maybe in his simplicity, Blair found that too simple. Perhaps I could be an undersecretary of something?”

I thought that was a brilliant answer, rather like the wisdom of Solomon. It wouldn’t work of course, and no, I’m not seriously suggesting it, but its an interesting thought experiment.

Hamish wrote:

“His more challenging ideas (expressed in “the Holocaust industry”) are about the exploitation of the holocaust for political purposes which I personally find overblown and stated in a way that doesn’t naturally evoke sympathy even among those who can support his general thesis.”

controversial maybe but his ideas as expressed in “The Holocaust Industry” were not critically original, just polemical and with a fair amount of cherry picking to support his arguments

so when you get down to it he’s not a very original individual, a contrarian certainly, a publicist for sure but original? not really

let’s that is not forget that Finkelstein has a vast following on the extreme right, but I doubt that particularly worries him either

by the way, did the JSG do a review of his book? I’d be interested to read it.

I understand that you are somehow connected to the JSG?

Would it be possible for you to prevail upon them to come into the 21st century and put all of the back copies of Jewish Socialist online?

most publications after a few months are making an effort to put their back archives online, NLR, etc so it won’t cost much (a bit of time and effort) and might make interesting historical reading

it would be a terrible pity if JS was solely a paper copy and lost for posterity in, say, 50 years time,? whereas as an online resource it can be archived and kept.

Rather like two children dividing a cake at a children’s party?

Child A (it is agreed by the adults) should get 1/3 of the cake, while child B should get 2/3.

Child B refuses to accept that child A has a claim to even 1/3 of the cake, and, with the help of his larger friends, attempts to seize the 1/3 of the cake from child A.

Child A manages to fight off the attempts of the other children to get his section of cake, and, in so doing, manages to end up with rather more than his initial 1/3.

Over the next half-an-hour, the other children make repeated attempts, again, to seize all the cake.

Again, child A is able to defend his share, and again (in so doing) manages to acquire more of child B’s cake – rather more than 50%.

After each of these skirmishes, he suggests to child B and his allies – I’ll give you back the bits of cake I’ve seized from you, if you leave me in peace.

The other children refuse on each occasion.

Perhaps the Irie thinks that child B and his allies (who have ended up with less than 50% through their own intransigence and stupidity) should be rewarded with a solution that totally ignores historical context?

Norman: “Right now, and I say it publicly, right now we are all Hezbollah. All of us”

And:

Every victory of Hezbollah over the vandals and the marauders, the invaders and the murderers; every victory by Hezbollah over Israel is also a victory for liberty and a victory for freedom.

But no, he’s not an enemy of Israel. He’s a friend. Nothing to see here.

What a clueless ‘tard.

“Perhaps the Irie thinks that child B and his allies (who have ended up with less than 50% through their own intransigence and stupidity) should be rewarded with a solution that totally ignores historical context?”

I tell you, what I think – I think child B should be given back 22% of the cake, i.e. the two state solution. Oslo, of course, was all about how much of that 22% the Israelis would actually keep, and Arafat and the Palestinian’s were the unreasonable ones, apparently. The idea that the two sides have equal negotiating power, as in Sandy T’s thought experiment, is just unthinkable. The parameters of negotiation are how much of Palestine (i.e. 67 borders Palestine, which is 22% of Mandate Palestine) the Palestinians actually get to keep.

“Would it be possible for you to prevail upon them to come into the 21st century”

Shwiyeh shwiyeh: the first task with the I’m-a-fat-bundist-brigade is to get them to internalise the 20th century.

“Oslo, of course, was all about how much of that 22% the Israelis would actually keep, and Arafat and the Palestinian’s were the unreasonable ones, apparently”

Indeed they were. Oslo failed because Arafat and his cronies demanded a right to return to Israel for millions of Palestinians.

You would have tought that they would have liked to have their brothers in their own country, not in their neighbors’ country.

“I tell you, what I think – I think child B should be given back 22% of the cake, i.e. the two state solution.”

1. But of course the cake is larger than what TheIrie mentions. The cake includes Transjordan, which, somehow, the Jews cannot ask to be given back – that is to be a “fanatic” according to TheIRie.

2. The Palestinians cannot “ask back” anything from that “22 %”. Only Jordan can ask to be given back that. The Palestinians can only ask to be given the cake.

And they could ask for a piece of the cake nicely. For starters they should abandon that indoctrination to hatred that makes their politician talk like barbarians.

Hello Modernity – always a pleasure to discuss with you even on areas where we strongly disagree – no agendas, just honest debate. Some of those characters on this thread are beginning to remind me of that film “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest.” I can definitely see Mikey Mouse, Weiss and Fabian in there – quite disturbing!

First the good news – we are planning to start work on creating an on-line archive for JS soon.

I’m not sure if we reviewed Finkelstein’s book in JS – I thought we had (and I thought I had written something on it) but can’t find any record of it at the moment. We did carry a positive review of his earlier book “Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict”.

What I remember about the time it came out was that there was another book, by Novick? which seemed to express related ideas in a more careful, balanced and less polemical way.

If I was Finkelstein I’d be a bit bothered by the the fact that the far right laud him but at the same time I’d recognise their opportunism. After all, are mainstream zionist concerned that the BNP now promote themselves as supporters of Israel and Zionism?

Anti-Zionists could make a big noise about that but, much as I oppose Zionism, at the end of the day I honestly think it says more about the far right’s opportunism than about Zionism.

So why do you think Israel acted against Finkelstein? And do you support them? I don’t believe he poses any danger to people of Israel/palestine at all and I suspect they were acting against his ideas rather than what they believe to be his political connections.

The book by Peter Novick, The Holocaust and Modern Memory, I belioeve it was called, was a careful, nuanced, thoughtful work which raised for perhaps the first time, the issues of the use of the Holocaust. I bought the book, read it, and while I found it uncomfortable reading, I nevertheless felt that Novick had started a necessary debate.

The LRB gave the book to Finkelstein to review. Finkelstein felt that Novick did not go far enough. His review was polemical and as a result he was approached by Verso, who asked him to expand the review into a short book.

When it was published it attracted a huge amount of publicity, publicity denied to Nocick because of the carefulness of his analysis. Finkelstein’s book ensured that the debate Novick had started was shut down. Novick regards Finkestein’s book as littered with inaccuracies and slipshod scholarship.

But Finkelstein demonstrated that if you have a big mouth and are preopared to advance crude, coarse, polemical argument,. you will become famous.

Novick’s book is forgotten. Finkelstein is the darling of both anti-Zionists, and, judging by some of the reviews on amazon.com, anti-semites.

Therie, I think you should be a negotiator for the Palestinians because you will give it ALL away.

The parameters of negotiation are how much of Palestine (i.e. 67 borders Palestine, which is 22% of Mandate Palestine) the Palestinians actually get to keep

The Mandate for Palestine gave the Arabs zero of Palestine from the perspective of political control because it gave The Lebanon, Jordan and Syria 100% to the Arabs.

The West Bank and Gaza are part of The Jewish National home created in 1922. The Mandate has never been rescinded or modified. The Partition Plan by the British (circa 1947) was rejected by the Arabs and so has no legal modification to the original Mandate.

http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm

Here is my counter proposal (a la “My Cousin Vinny”). How about if you stop attacking us and sign a permanent peace deal we will let you have a State under our terms? After all you wouldn’t want the Jewish State to renege on its political control mandate of The West Bank and Gaza.

Good lord. Monbiot is a psychopath, isn’t he? He was saying the other week that the current government is the most right wing one in British history. Total headcase.

Israel is clearly perfectly justified in banning Finkelstein. I’m just not quite sure what Israel gains from it. The Guardian reporting beggars belief, however. This is what one comes to realise about a lot of the press, though. Pick any issue where you have a specialist interest, or a greater amount of knowledge than the average broadsheet reader, and you will consistently see blantant engineering of the facts, misrepresentation, and sometimes downright lying and/or inaccuracy (lets be charitable here). The Guardian has written some shocking stories on Sark and Jersey politics and society over the years that I’ve desultorily read it. So too has the Telegraph re Sark – but then it is owned by the plutocrat Barclay brothers, so one cannot be surprised.

In my last job, I had to talk to the financial press a fair bit. Most of them didn’t have a clue what they were talking about on a regular basis, and cared less. I have developed a very dim view of the press generally, it must be said.

Indeed Hamish, I like a strong exchange of views

Yes, you are correct concerning Novick, it seems (and you’d have to cross check sources to verify, my memory is not what it was) that Norman Finkelstein either wanted to pre-empt Novick or at least ride on the wave of his book, one way or the other.

Having read both I can say that Novick’s handling of the material, whilst occasionally controversial in some people’s minds, seemed to me was balanced, scholarly and reasoned, whereas Finkelstein’s “The Holocaust Industry” came over as a rant with footnotes.

“So why do you think Israel acted against Finkelstein? And do you support them? “

Frankly, I don’t know, it could be as simple as a minor bureaucrat venting his spleen on Finkelstein, not sure.

I haven’t made my mind up about it yet.

certainly Finkelstein’s desire to applaud Hezbollah isn’t exactly going to do him any favours, is it? as in the above clip.

but Israel isn’t particularly unique in her handling of the likes of Finkelstein

remember that if you were a vicious opponent of Chavez that you could be kicked out of the country, or equally if you had been an Irish Republican years ago, then the British state could exclude you from the mainland, that’s not to agree with any of that, but States have those powers and occasionally use them, even in Chavez’s paradise.

I’ll bet that if you were an open foreign opponent (supporting rightwing militia, parallels of Hezbollah) of the Saudi, Sudanese, Malaysian or Russian regimes that your chances of gaining access to those countries might be next to nil. Not nice, but not unexpected.

Back to JS, can I suggest a few things?

Firstly, approach it in a planned way, prototype it, initially, do a small project on say 2 years of JS, see how that works out, then revise and do another implementation,
Secondly, make it accessible to the widest range of PCs and O/Ses, that means having both PDF and html representations in parallel (not everyone likes or wants to use PDFs).
Thirdly, employ the best search facility that you can, keep it simple but powerful.
Fourthly, think about burning the archive to DVDs, that way it can be accessed without the need for the Internet.
Fifthly, document the process, so if someone gets sick or leaves then you don’t have to start from scratch again, break tasks up, small teams are best, not management by committee.
Finally, think about accessibility issues, text to speech, variable fonts, etc aiming at the widest possible audience.

Hamish,

Any answer on why you affiliate with UAF who denounced Searchlight as Zionists and started a whispering campaign against them so that Searchlight felt compelled to leave?

about the JS, a couple of years back I was proudly presented with a copy by a then friend, a member of the JSG. I was staggered by the base, puerile level of one article in particular, and wanted to write to the paper in response. I was unable to find any contact details in the paper at all.

Modernity – thanks for the advice on the archive. We have agreed on the objective of creating an on-line archive and are starting to meet with relevant people on the process so I will pass this on.

I think you and Linda are both broadly right about Novick’s book being superior to Finkelstein’s.

Yes, states all over the world operate exclusion policies against individuals – (and to be honest I am a bit more concerned for the ever growing Palestinian diaspora who have been waiting in the queue a lot longer than Norman F), but it is also up to people that care about issues to monitor this and protest what they see as unjust treatment.

It can also be the thin end of the wedge. I know of several people with views much less controversial than Finkelstein who have had great difficulty and a lot of attention from the Israeli authorities when they have entered Israel in recent years.

And of course “security risk” is one of these catch-all excuses that doesn’t have to be justified. for several years here, particularly around the time of the first intifada, members of the Jewish Socialists’ Group were regularly excluded from Jewish communal events on the basis that they were considered “security risks” by the Israeli-trained goons of the Community Security Organisation (later CST) – officially accountable to the Board of Deputies but actually financed and run outside of them.

There are are already enough barriers put in the way of israeli peace activists seeking to express solidarity and give practical assistance to Palestinians. That needs to be challenged as does any attempt to prevent diaspora Jews taking part in similar solidarity activities, whether by critical zionists, non-zionists or anti-Zionists.

On a different note, I am pleased to know that the Jewish Socialist archive will soon be on line. Were there any articles entitled something like, “Gerry Healy: The Man I knew and Loved”?

Ami,
Glad to see you’ve got a friend. Has he or she a name? Don’t suppose you can remember what the article was about etc

The contact and subscription details for JS are printed in every issue, usually on the back cover (except for the last issue when it was inside as the back cover had a ful-page ad for the sell-out “60 years what a state” event attended by 250 people recently).

If you couldn’t find your way to the contact details then I might have to question your ability to judge any of the articles. Sorry but it just sounds like you are making the whole thing up. Checkout the JSG website for details of the of the mag: http://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk

Hamish wrote:

“…members of the Jewish Socialists’ Group were regularly excluded from Jewish communal events on the basis that they were considered “security risks” by the Israeli-trained goons of the Community Security Organisation (later CST) – officially accountable to the Board of Deputies but actually financed and run outside of them.”

is that still so? I haven’t heard much about that, what are the circumstances? were they fully detailed in the Press?

I did hear of the JSG being excluded from the StWC platform on at least one occasion, is it overall a big issue? Do the JSG piss people off deliberately? Or such certain individuals? I don’t know, you’ll have to expand on it.

thin end of the wedge?

I would expect Israel to act similar to other States, but to be honest I can’t get terribly worked up about Norman Finkelstein being refused entry to Israel, given his past associations, his borderline character and rampant self promotion, there are considerably bigger issues in the world and certainly in the Middle East.

As for JS, I should add, there might be a temptation to revise some of the documents or articles, when putting them on the archive, but for the sake of historical accuracy, that should be avoided at all costs, even if some of the old articles make the authors wince nowadays. JS should be published warts and all.

I would avoid turning this project into another Channel Tunnel type scheme, break it up into small bits, learn as you go along, involve a wide range of people, not just techies.

Make the interface as simple and as friendly as possible, bearing in mind that many people don’t have terribly good eyesight or might not be familiar with navigating complex menu systems or PC in general.

Finally, test across a range of browser, Firefox, Iceweasel, IE4, IE5-IE7, Safari, etc think about using open source tools wherever possible, it will cut down cost.

“A Do you know, the answer that I like best – and I don’t know whose answer it is – is that we should get one side to divide the country and decide where the border is going to go, and then the other half get to choose which side they want. Isn’t that a brilliant idea? It’s so simple. Maybe in his simplicity, Blair found that too simple. Perhaps I could be an undersecretary of something?”

This is also the time honoured resolution for splitting up drugs.

There was some press coverage of the exclusions by the CSO which included a fabulous quote by Eric Moonman representting the Bored of Deps at the time, justifyng the CSO excluding JSG members from an Israeli film festival. He said there were holocaust survivors in the audience and it was important to keep them away from people with a political opinion.

There were other unpleasant forms of harassment at the time which coincidentally took a similar from to that being endured by some of our members from the BNP/Combat 18 at the time.

Anyway they seem to have grown out of it these days.

I’ve got to play footie now, so I’ll sign off. Mikey go play with whatever comes to hand. I’ll check in tomorrow to see if anything of interest has been added. If not, see you on another thread.

Don’t wear your kishkers out.

I quite agree with comments about the Guardian’s bias but hands up who’s surprised.

Finkelstein doesn’t deserve to be allowed into Israel. He would readily sell it out to its enemies

seems that Ben White and others are wooden spooning it about Finkelstein’s treatment:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_silverstein/2008/05/shut_out_of_the_homeland.html

Hamish Q Cumber: Yes she has a name. Do you?
I will try and unearth the issue in question as it would be salutory to quote from the article here in all its grossness. It was a sniggering account by a Jewish student of the attempt by Christians at his uni to convert him. I am absolutely fine with people who engage in criticism, satire and ridicule of any and all religions, and missionising in particular, but the level of this was, I thought, an embarrassment. Given the reverence I was hearing at the time for Islam from your ranks, I wanted to write and ask if you would entertain the same level of scurrilousness against Islam in your pages.

Perhaps when you get it online, and if there is a good search facility..

compare and contrast the following story:

instead of Finkelstein’s exclusion from Israel, allegedly because of his views, although equally it could have been for statements such as “every victory by Hezbollah over Israel is also a victory for liberty and a victory for freedom.” or his support for the rightwing theocratic militia, Hezbollah, I doubt we will know for a while

but we know why the following were excluded from Egypt’s, it wasn’t for their views, it wasn’t for their comments, it was because they were Jews, as the rather lame BBC reports explains:

“A trip to Egypt by a Jewish group has been called off after rumours they were going to reclaim nationalised property prompted hotels to cancel bookings.

Allegations were broadcast on Egyptian television last week that the group was coming to claim confiscated property.

The trip organisers denied that, saying it was purely a personal journey.

But anti-Israeli sentiment in Egypt is so strong that no business is willing to take any risk, particularly when it involves such a highly sensitive issue.

The woman behind the trip, Levana Zamir, is an Egyptian-born Israeli who runs an organisation in Tel Aviv that seeks to promote better understanding between the two cultures.

Ms Zamir, who speaks Arabic fluently, said she was one of a group of elderly Jewish people of Egyptian origin from all over the world who wanted to visit their ancestral homeland with their children, to see old neighbourhoods.

Television presenter

But a few days before the group was due to arrive in Cairo, she was told by the Egyptian travel agent that their hotel reservation was cancelled and that no other hotel in Egypt wanted to receive them.

Many believe it is all down to the populist television presenter, Amr Adeeb, whose programme is widely watched here.

Mr Adeeb urged the authorities last week to prevent the trip from going ahead.

He said all the department stores that were established by Egyptian Jews at the turn of the past century were now the property of the people of Egypt.

A local organisation that represents the few remaining Jewish people in Egypt has distanced itself from the trip.

Despite a peace treaty that ended decades of war between Egypt and Israel, relations between the two countries remain tense.

The majority of Egyptians identify with the Palestinians under Israeli occupation and the country is often rife with rumours of Israeli plots to undermine Egyptian interests. “

It is unlikely that we’ll hear any screams of indignation over those Jews excluded from Egypt, as happened with Finkelstein ?

Let’s see if CiF picks up the story, or even bothers to research the history of Jews in Egypt or their terrible treatment in the last 60+ years?

No, we won’t hear that from the Guardian or the BBC, a bit too controversial I expect? A bit too radical?

ops the link is
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7421961.stm

“remember that if you were a vicious opponent of Chavez that you could be kicked out of the country”

Name 1.

You are allowed in my country modernity, but it seems I am not allowed in yours.

“OK – get a bit of perspective. Finkelstein’s ideas may be challenging but they are not particularly dangerous to the inhabitants of Israel and Palestine. (Hamish)”

Agreed – but his ideas, especially the support of the “resistance” is dangerous for Lebanese people.

Modernity

Thats the reason why the Palestinians always insist the post-48 Arab expulsion, dispossession and racism against the Jews of Arab states has to be separated from their concerns. They know that the other Arab regimes will never cut a deal on this issue with reference to them – they’ll just leave them in the refugee camps rather than pay out the compensation.

btw Hamish Q, what a bizarre notion that I made something up about the JSG. Why on earth would I want to go the trouble of doing so- it is not of such importance. Or need to, when there is enough of JSG in the public domain that speaks for itself regarding its qualities.

Ami said: “what a bizarre notion that I made something up about the JSG.”
Maybe you didn’t, but it is not as bizarre as the claim that you couldn’t even find our address on our magazine.

I may have also been influenced by the complete ignorance you displayed about our politics. To put it charitably if you did read our magazine you didn’t understand it.

For example you say,”Given the reverence I was hearing at the time for Islam from your ranks,” – if you know anything at all about the JSG (which I’m not sure you do) you’ll know that we are strongly secularist and pretty unforgiving of any attempt by anyone from any religion to undermine human rights or link their religion to political power – whether it is Islam, judaism, Christianity, Hinduism or others. Over many years the JSG has worked very closely with Women Against Fundamentalism (in the first instance in the wake of the Rushdie affair in 1989) and we fully share their irreverence and their attitude of putting human rights first.

If you know anything about the JSG’s involvement in the anti-war movement you will know that we have argued that it should be a movement under a secular umbrella rather than an alliance with an Islamist organisation representing a particular political strand within Muslim communities. So I don’t honestly know what your comment is based on other than your own uninformed speculation.

Still I agree 100% with you when you say “there is enough of JSG in the public domain that speaks for itself regarding its qualities.” But please have the decency to read what we say and understand it before you rubbish it. Read it and you might even find that we agree on some things

We’re always happy to argue our case with those who disagree strongly and honestly with our analysis. That seems a bit more worthwhile than just hurling gratuitous insults.

Over many years the JSG has worked very closely with Women Against Fundamentalism: That was one of my concerns- why this link seemed to fade in later years, and whenever I asked about it, I got an obfuscatory response.

I can only speak from my erstwhile close friendship with 2 people in JSG and a previous aquaintance with one other- so the attitude to Islam and other aspects are based on frequent discussions with them, reports from them, and occasional sight of various resolutions. I did wonder how much this person knew about the history of socialism, not only on the evidence that I once jokingly called her a useful idiot and she was deeply shocked, thinking I had literally insulted her intellectual capacity- she had never heard the phrase and it held no resonance for her.

Has there ever been any factional splits in the JSG? What side do you take on the Soviet Union under Stalin – Degenerated Workers’ or State Capitalist?

In fact the particular issue was some action she had described which I said put her and her colleagues in danger of being useful idiots of the Islamists.

Ami, it could have been worse: you could have called her a useless idiot. I guess not everyone has a familiarity with quotes and phrases used by left thinkers.

You are completely misinformed about the JSG as regards Women Against Fundamentalism – our link with them has been strong throughout, though WAF itself has had quieter periods. Nevertheless, over the years members of WAF have spoken to JSG meetings and written for our magazine. Last year two longstanding WAF members, Pragna and Georgie, gave a talk to the JSG about issues around education and religion.

WAF has revived its activities in the last couple of years – which we are very pleased about as we are on very similar wavelengths – and members and close friends of the JSG participate within it very actively. When WAF relaunched itself with a seminar nearly two years ago a JSG member was one of the key speakers.

Mikey, yes we do have factional disputes in the JSG . Some of us support West Ham while others support Spurs or even Man U. This has not prevented us from unity in action. And btw, a groysen dank for your concern for my kishkas while I was playing footie.

Hamish Q- I am pleased to hear about the continued links with WAF- I did gather WAF had revived recently.

on a lighter note- Rance appeals to the Left for a “Political Response”

http://azvas.blogspot.com/2008/05/trance-pleads-with-left-for-political.html

Uh oh. Time to shut this post.