From Thomas Dalton
March 15, 2010
I don't know Mr 'Israel Shamir', but I can only assume he is a well-intentioned but misguided individual. If Finkelstein is really "the best we've got," then "we" are in sad shape. I further note that Mr Shamir does not respond at all to my two main points--Norm's failure to challenge the concept of a Jewish-only state, and his failure to acknowledge the massive weaknesses in the standard Holocaust story. This is a typical Zionist tactic, particularly on the Holocaust: avoid substantive issues, and instead slander someone's character.
In my three opportunities to see Norm speak, I can't honestly recall one "brave" or "daring" statement. Of course, he does say some truthful and important things, but no more than any moral, unbiased person would say. Why does he not tell the whole truth? Why stop half-way? The risk is that Norm's half-truth ends up appearing to people as the whole-truth, which would be a real tragedy.
Thomas Dalton.
From: israel shamir <israel.shamir@gmail.com >
To: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@mac.com >; togethernet <togethernet@yahoogroups.com >
Cc: Rich Siegel <richpiano8@mac.com >; Steve Campbell <callstevec1@yahoo.com >; rhgusn@gmail.com ; news-sense <news_sense@yahoogroups.com >; Square-Two@yahoogroups.com ; uno_reform@yahoogroups.com ; thomasdaltonphd@yahoo.com ; normangf@hotmail.com ; Michael Santomauro <MSantom629@aol.com >
Sent: Mon, March 15, 2010 5:46:50 PM
Subject: Norman Finkelstein is the best we have
I don't know Mr 'Israel Shamir', but I can only assume he is a well-intentioned but misguided individual. If Finkelstein is really "the best we've got," then "we" are in sad shape. I further note that Mr Shamir does not respond at all to my two main points--Norm's failure to challenge the concept of a Jewish-only state, and his failure to acknowledge the massive weaknesses in the standard Holocaust story. This is a typical Zionist tactic, particularly on the Holocaust: avoid substantive issues, and instead slander someone's character.
In my three opportunities to see Norm speak, I can't honestly recall one "brave" or "daring" statement. Of course, he does say some truthful and important things, but no more than any moral, unbiased person would say. Why does he not tell the whole truth? Why stop half-way? The risk is that Norm's half-truth ends up appearing to people as the whole-truth, which would be a real tragedy.
Thomas Dalton.
From: israel shamir <israel.shamir@
To: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@mac.
Cc: Rich Siegel <richpiano8@mac.
Sent: Mon, March 15, 2010 5:46:50 PM
Subject: Norman Finkelstein is the best we have
I agree with Rich; this discussion is disgraceful. Norman Finkelstein is the best we've got. There is nobody with better delivery on TV in the whole pro-Palestinian community. He is noble, direct, fast of reaction. I watch him on youtube with admiration. He is daring and brave beyond reproach - think of him going and supporting Hizbullah and Iran and Hamas.
And the allegations are made by a person who does not even dare to disclose his name. Normally I do not respond to people who hide under the cloak of anonymity, but I see that usual suspects begin to garbage Norman's name, so I have to try and stop it. Mr Mehta, nobody, least of all Norman, owes you any explanations. Just stop besmirching the great man's name.
I had my argument with Norman years ago, and we are not on speaking terms, but as years pass I admire his steadfast stand in defence of Palestine even more - because this field is so full of shit on both sides of the line, as "Dalton"'s attack proves.
Israel Shamir
On 15 March 2010 23:37, Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@mac.com > wrote:
Rich,When speaking about Finkelstein being destitute if were not to criticise zionism and the holocaust narrative sufficiently strongly, I was referring to Bob Gregory's following statement:
00.org/shit- ) and note how many with large negative write-ups are still alive and kicking. Gilad Atzmon is there. So is Shlomo Sand, the Israeli historian who wrote a book, The Invention of the Jewish People, which Zionists thoroughly hate. But both of these men continue to live and work and write.list.html I thought that was clear from my e-mail. I am NOT suggesting that Finkelstein SHOULD indeed become destitute. I am rather trying to explain Bob Gregory's words quoted above fail to refute the points made in Dalton's article.I'm not going to go full-hog on a character assault and require him to be impoverished as you do.Again, I do NOT require him to be impoverished. I just think he ought to become an outspoken, full-fledged anti-zionist, which he clearly isn't. Lots of people are, without becoming impoverished as a result.As for your term "character assault", I am not trying to assault his character. I was myself a zionist stooge for decades, so it's not hard for me to understand and empathise with Finkelstein. I never denied that I was a zionist stooge: indeed, Dalton's words,"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 ....... would have applied just as correctly to me too. If I were assaulting Finkelstein's character, then by the same standard I would be assaulting my own too.As for Dalton's words:... [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 ...... one doesn't have to KNOW that one is being manipulated in order to BE manipulated.
As I said, I myself would have fit the description perfectly - and that, for DECADES. The reason was, I simply hadn't investigated the matter properly. And that lack of investigation was my fault, no one else's. It was only when I actually decided to investigate the matter thoroughly that I changed my mind and became an out-and-out anti-zionist. I see no reason Finkelstein can't do likewise. I am applying the same standards to Finkelstein that I apply, and have in the past applied, to myself.Indeed, in your own early years you yourself were probably manipulated by the people around you into rooting for Israel. Is that not true? Then when you decided to investigate, you understood that you were being manipulated, and as a consequence, changed your mind. Why can't - or won't - Finkelstein do the same?Cheers.+++++On 15-Mar-10, at 2:06 PM, Rich Siegel wrote:
The man has sacrificed his teaching position and has not been able to replace it to date- will have a very hard time finding another position. I call that a sacrifice. But that's not good enough for you. He has to be in perfect agreement with you, and he has to be destitute, in order to satisfy you. THAT's what I find distasteful- NOT the criticism. I too will criticize him. I have read all his books and think his writing has been very valuable- particularly his debunking of the Joan Peters statistics. Then I heard him speak and heard wishy-washy nonsense about the inevitability of a two-state solution, and about not taking an Anti-Zionist stand. I was disappointed, but I'm not going to go full-hog on a character assault and require him to be impoverished as you do. -RS
On Monday, March 15, 2010, at 01:59PM, "Ardeshir Mehta" <ardeshir@mac.com > wrote:
On 14-Mar-10, at 10:28 PM, Rich Siegel wrote:
If you're talking about the Masada 2000 SHIT list, it's far too long a list for you to be making such a statement about it. I'm on the list and I also doubt the official holocaust narrative.Yes, I mis-spoke. There's also Gerard Menuhin on the list.
As for point two, Finkelstein has indeed sacrificed his career.Yes. But he's not homeless and penniless ... which is the point I was trying to make.
There is something very distasteful about this discussion.I wrote the following several years ago - tell me whether you agree with it or not:
[QUOTE]
... we should welcome criticism, not shun it. We should particularly welcome it from our friends, and particularly if it makes sense. Even if it doesn't, we ought to perhaps think that our critical friend doesn't have the skill to adequately put his thoughts into words: for the very fact that he has criticised us is proof that something is wrong with our stand. We should clear it up, if not with out friend, then at least in our own heads. And then if we still feel justified in our stand, we should try to set our friend right too.
Indeed we ought to be our own worst critics. And if we make a mistake, we ought to be willing to admit it, and revise our stand. Without self-criticism, we are virtually no better than demagogues.
However, the corollary to this is - and this is an equally important matter - when you have tested your theory and are firmly convinced that it is right, and when you can defend it against criticism, you should stand up for it: and if standing up for what you are convinced is right makes you look like a demagogue, so be it! Your authority derives, in such a case, not from the might of your weapons, but from the rightness of your argument. This kind of authority and "obstinacy" is not at all wrong. As long as you are willing to change your mind if convinced by argument, you have a right, indeed a duty, to stand up for your convictions.
[END QUOTE]
If you DON'T agree, could you tell me why not? and if you DO agree, then why do you call this discussion "distasteful"?
Your friend,
Ardeshir.
+++++
On Sunday, March 14, 2010, at 09:38PM, "Ardeshir Mehta" <ardeshir@mac.com > wrote:
I think there are a few points that can be made regarding Bob Gregory's statements (copied below).
1. With the singular exception of our good chum Gilad Atzmon, I have yet to see a SINGLE person on the "Israeli S.H.I.T. list" who outspokenly declares himself a sceptic as regards the official Holocaust narrative.
2. As for Gilad, he makes his living from music, not from writing or teaching. Finkelstein does not have this advantage. If he were as outspoken as Gilad, he'd probably be penniless and homeless. (Unless of course he knows some other skill, like plumbing.)
3. Prof. Sand lives in the Jewish State, so I presume that in his view, the Jews have a right to it.
4. The "Israeli S.H.I.T. list" includes many zionists, like Noam Chomsky, and so it can hardly be considered a list of Israel's REAL enemies.
5. As for calling Finkelstein a "stooge", just because the shoe fits doesn't make the term NOT a smear. For instance, a person can genuinely have low intelligence, but that doesn't mean that calling him an "idiot" is not a smear.
6. Bob Gregory says,
Indeed. But Finkelstein, like most others, IS doing more harm than good by NOT being as strong an opponent of zionism as he COULD be. "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for 'good' people to do nothing". Yes?
Cheers.
+++++
On 14-Mar-10, at 8:10 PM, Steve Campbell wrote:
--- On Sun, 3/14/10, BOB GREGORY <rhgusn@gmail.com > wrote:
From: BOB GREGORY <rhgusn@gmail.com >
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Thomas Dalton's article "Is Norman Finkelstein a Zionist Stooge?"
To: "Steve Campbell" <callstevec1@yahoo.com >
Date: Sunday, March 14, 2010, 3:03 PM
I don't know enough about Finkelstein to argue all the points made by Mr. Dalton, but I am impressed that some of Dalton's arguments are based on his own assumptions.
For instance, he assumes that Finkelstein must not be a serious threat to Zionism and may even be considered "acceptable" or "useful" to the Zionist cause and that is the reason he has not be taken out of the picture in some way, even perhaps terminated. Yet there are numerous Jews who adopt stances of anti-Zionism and are very outspoken without being "censored, sanctioned, sued or imprisioned" or terminated with extreme prejudice. Take a look at the list of 7,000+ Jews on the Israeli S.H.I.T. List (http://www.masada2000.org/shit- ) and note how many with large negative write-ups are still alive and kicking. Gilad Atzmon is there. So is Shlomo Sand, the Israeli historian who wrote a book, The Invention of the Jewish People, which Zionists thoroughly hate. But both of these men continue to live and work and write.list.html
Finkelstein also has a substantial entry on the S.H.I.T. List. Here it is:
It may be that Finkelstein is not so strong an opponent of Zionism as other people, but if he attacks part of it and casts doubt on it, it seems to me that he is doing more good than if he sat silent. If you believe "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," does that mean the enemy of your enemy must rabidly conduct suicide attacks on your enemy, or can he just not like and not agree with your enemy and work in more subtle ways to attack your enemy?
Finkelstein, Norman G. Holocaust denier and author of "The Holocaust Industry," who once famously asked, "If all these people survived the Holocaust, who actually died?" He has also referred to Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel as the "clown in the Holocaust circus." [So, besides being a Holocaust denier, he's also a heartless bastard!] Further, he claimed that the Holocaust is being used by racist Jews to justify their presence in Palestine and to oppress Arabs. He agrees that the use of the Holocaust as "extortion" to extract money from Germans and others is a crime and, according to Finkelstein, just more proof of the fact that Jews care for nothing but money. Israel is not immune from his castigation either. In a December 200l speech in Beirut, Lebanon, Finkelstein compared Israeli behavior to "Nazi practices" during World War II. Finkelstein refers to the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis as the "Six Million" in quotation marks, and says that nearly every Holocaust survivor is a fraud, a thief and a liar. (Finkelstein's own parents are Holocaust survivors and Finkelstein has long tried to capitalize on this as a way to legitimize his own anti-Semitism.)
It's inconceivable to me that Finkelstein might achieve tenure at De Paul University in Chicago, where he presently teaches his bizarre theories. That he is an assistant professor there is, in my view, a badge of shame for De Paul.
His true occupation is as a member of a traveling circus, a freak show of anti-Semites who promote anti-Israel propaganda from campus to campus. He openly admits to having high regard for Hezbollah on his Web site, and he promotes the false notion that "scholars widely agree that Israel ethnically cleansed the Palestinian people in 1948."
Finkelstein is almost universally regarded as a Jewish traitor and anti-Semite, and at the very least a fraud and pseudo-scholar.Commentary Magazine's Gabriel Schoenfeld has labeled Finkelstein's views as crackpot ideas, some of them mirrored almost verbatim in the propaganda put out by neo-Nazis around the world.. "Fink's" books do not sell in America, but they are best-sellers among the growing number of neo-Nazis in Germany. Finkelstein has been endorsed by anti-Semites of all stripes, including Israeli Jewish anti-Semites like Neve Gordon from Ben Gurion University.
Finkelstein's hatred of Jews runs so deep that he has actually implied that his own mother, who survived the Nazi Holocaust, may have collaborated with the Nazis. If so collaboration with evil seems to run in the family, because Finkelstein has clearly become a collaborator with Hezbollah anti-Semitism and Nazism. Finkelstein's website is filled with Hezbollah promotion, including breathless reprints of Nasrallah speeches. Following the one month 2006 summer war between Israel and Hizbollah,he wrote, "I truly honor [Hizbollah] for having inflicted an exceptional and deserving defeat on their foreign occupiers. It's another wonderful chapter in the long and painful struggle for human emancipation and even liberty and certainly one that every human being can take inspiration from." When American and Jewish soldiers die, Finkelstein rejoices!
Has this capo EVER said a kind word about the Israel or the Jewish people? Sadly, we know of none. Even if Norman Finkelstein did not really exist, we'd have to invent him as a Poster Yehudon [Jew Boy] caricature of the Self-Hating Israel-Threatening Jew.
Click Here and Here and Here for lots more on the FINKelstein. Click Here to view an audio of The Fink as he is guest of [Hizbollah's] honor in Lebanon.
Click Here for another video of "The Fink" in action.
So, is Finkelstein a stooge? I am not smart enough to know, but I believe the only way the term "stooge" could be a smear would be if it were an intentionally and completely untrue statement made about Finkenlstein. I have to assume that Mr. Dalton is stating his opinion and that it is his OPINION that Finkelstein is a Zionist stooge. I don't consider that to be a smear. If Mr. Dalton had incontrovertible evidence that Finkelstein IS working on behalf of Zionists, then his calling him a stooge would just be a justifiable, truthful statement. What does stooge mean? Here are three definitions from good dictionaries:
Bob
- One who allows oneself to be used for another's profit or advantage; a puppet.
- any underling, assistant, or accomplice.
- someone's pawn; someone controlled or maneuvered by someone else.
===================== ==
Steve Campbell wrote:_
--- On Sun, 3/14/10, Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@mac.com> wrote:
From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@mac.com>
Subject: Re: Thomas Dalton's article "Is Norman Finkelstein a Zionist Stooge?"
To: "efreePalestine" <eFreePalestine@yahoogroups. , "Ibrahim Alloush" <alloush100@yahoo.com> com> , "Samia Saleh" <samiasaleh65@yahoo.com> , gharbiyeh@yahoo.ca , thomasdaltonphd@yahoo.com , normangf@hotmail.com , "Michael Santomauro" <MSantom629@aol.com>
Cc: "news-sense" <news_sense@yahoogroups.com> , Square-Two@yahoogroups.com , uno_reform@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, March 14, 2010, 12:23 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
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@
http://www.Debating
Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
