rotherham_red
Full Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2005
- Messages
- 7,416
Twitter wasted no time removing that post.
The specific quote of Finkelstein on Irving: Irving was a very good historian.
1:29
I've only scratched the surface with Irving but according to Wikipedia (I know) he was once considered a very good historian, wasn't he? I can obviously see how praising him any time in the last 40 years could be problematic, so I can see where you guys are coming from. I don't think he was promoting Irving's views though.
I think that perhaps Finkelstein aims too much of his stuff at academics when his audience has clearly grown beyond that. I think it's a little harsh to say he was all praise for Irving based on that clip alone (assuming this is the only clip on the matter).Here is Christopher Hitchens defending Irving in 1996:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/1996/06/hitlers-ghost-christopher-hitchens
He states he is a fascist historian, but also a great historian of fascism. Because of his sympathies with Nazi Germany, Irving actually got access to surviving Nazis for his books that did not speak to other historians.
The Mare's Nest managed to find German sources and research on the V1 and V2 rocket programmes which had eluded other scholars, but Irving still went out of his way to ignore or explain away the slave labour which built the programme.
There is an academic argument that would state that Irving managed to provide new perspectives on Nazi Germany, but to be of historical use you have to selectively read and interpret his work to get around the disturbingly apologetic tone he adopts for Nazi Germany. And that's before the later more overtime Holocaust denial.
Of course, for people without academic or historical training his books can be read as pure propaganda, and if you are in Finkelstein's position as an academic, a throwaway statement praising Irving's historical nous can be very misleading, to say the least.
Thank you for sharing. Interesting seeing the same questions raised by Fisk also being raised here regarding whether Israel's surgical strikes are actually inaccurate or whether they're perfectly accurate and the mass civilian killing is deliberate. But I guess the question of their accurate capabilities doesn't matter when they're only semi-applied and half the bombs dropped on Gaza are unguided. It works as a useful get-out-of-jail excuse in that they can't say they targeted civilians deliberately, they just dropped bombs and if civilians happened to be there then, well, civilians die in all wars in densely populated areas right?
Not really sure what this accomplishes, but it's a significant shift in rhetoric from the Democrats, and it doesn't hurt that it comes from someone Jewish, so any accusations of anti-semitism would fall flat.
I will only focus on one aspect, although you can find many more examples. And the fact that Filkenstein is the son of Holocaust survivors...that makes it even worse.
Chomsky said that denial of gas chambers or Holocaust itself has no anti-semitic implications. And Filkenstein has nothing but praise for David Irving. David Irving. I dont think more needs to be said about those two.
"Wrong type of jew" is exactly the argument he's making.I assume you're referring to the Faurisson affair regarding Chomsky? It would be a profound misunderstanding of Chomsky's point, which is a broadly libertarian formal point of logic, if so.
I think you're on dangerous ground intellectually here and pretty close to the "wrong kind of Jew" type of argument.
There's no intellectual ground in any of his comments. That's exactly what he's doing.I assume you're referring to the Faurisson affair regarding Chomsky? It would be a profound misunderstanding of Chomsky's point, which is a broadly libertarian formal point of logic, if so.
I think you're on dangerous ground intellectually here and pretty close to the "wrong kind of Jew" type of argument.
There is much more to that. How else would you interpret his words like “jewish run media” or “jewish domination of cultural and economic life”. It is a classic example of antisemitism that Jews do not act as individuals but only as an organized group for the purpose of running the world.I assume you're referring to the Faurisson affair regarding Chomsky? It would be a profound misunderstanding of Chomsky's point, which is a broadly libertarian formal point of logic, if so.
I think you're on dangerous ground intellectually here and pretty close to the "wrong kind of Jew" type of argument.
31 per cent - or 1 in 3 children under 2 years of age – in the Northern Gaza Strip suffer from acute malnutrition, a staggering escalation from 15.6 per cent in January.
Malnutrition among children is spreading fast and reaching devastating and unprecedented levels in the Gaza Strip due to the wide-reaching impacts of the war and ongoing restrictions on aid delivery.
At least 23 children in Northern Gaza Strip have reportedly died from malnutrition and dehydration in recent weeks, adding to the mounting toll of children killed in the Strip in this current conflict – about 13,450 reported by the Palestinian Ministry of Health.
I've not read everything Chomsky has produced - who could? - but I've read enough that I find it very hard to believe that he is antisemitic for a whole variety of reasons. Can you provide any actual quotes, in context, that support this claim?There is much more to that. How else would you interpret his words like “jewish run media” or “jewish domination of cultural and economic life”. It is a classic example of antisemitism that Jews do not act as individuals but only as an organized group for the purpose of running the world.
The vessel carrying aid from Cyprus has docked at the new port in the Gaza Strip, located perilously close to the most dangerous security thoroughfare established by Israel, aimed at dividing the northern Gaza Strip from its southern region. Despite the presence of a much larger port along the shores of Gaza City, its location does not serve Israel's interests in besieging and starving Palestinian civilians. The Israeli concept initially proposed at the onset of the war on Gaza is now being implemented by the US under the guise of humanitarianism, exploiting the suffering and needs of Palestinians for food. This marks the inception of a project to replace the Rafah land crossing, controlling the movement of individuals entering and exiting, and serving as an alternative to the Kerem Shalom crossing for aid delivery, paving the way for an invasion of Rafah. This maneuver will serve as a potent new bargaining chip, further isolating northern Gaza, in future negotiations with Palestinian resistance. The current events represent the most significant and perilous development since the beginning of the war on the Gaza Strip, yet the enormity of the catastrophe remains largely unrecognized due to the humanitarian facade of this project.
You said, Israel, really thought funneling money to Hamas will give them protection. When in reality this was not Netanyahus objective, he has done it to increase rift between the Palestinians to prevent the possibility of a two state solution. The two are not connected.I don't think that there's any disagreement here, as I said the same thing here recently.
These false antisemitism claims is actually fueling more of it. Something serious like it shouldn't be weaponised like it has.
Odd how if you disagree you're threatened with removal of your race. Delegitimised.You think Jews exhibit more self-hatred than other religious or racial groups?
It was noted, extensively, by scholars years ago that conflating criticisms of the Israeli state with antisemitism was and is dangerous. Those scholars were maligned but they were absolutely correct. There are legitimate racists who will use Israeli state actions as a trojan horse for their own agenda (many in the American congress, as it goes, who have a dangerous world-view of what should happen before other things do). But Israel is not "Judaism" and "Judaism" is not all of the Semitic.These false antisemitism claims is actually fueling more of it. Something serious like it shouldn't be weaponised like it has.
You said, Israel, really thought funneling money to Hamas will give them protection. When in reality this was not Netanyahus objective, he has done it to increase rift between the Palestinians to prevent the possibility of a two state solution. The two are not connected.
I clearly stated in recent weeks and days that Netanyahu's main objective in strengthening Hamas (not necessarily through Qatari money, but overall) was to increase that rift. So whether that money served another purpose at the same time does not contradict that at all.
It obviously was a tactic, but I think that the people who were interested in that part were the policitians, starting with Netanyahu.
The average Israeli didn't care the about the tactic, if he even knew or understood it. He was focused on the result - if it gives him peace and quiet, fine, whatever.
That's part of the tragedy, really. The Palestenian problem stopped being an issue for most Israelis as they just assumed the govenment had it sorted, in its own twisted way.
Unless you want to say that that the average Israeli did not care about how cruel the tactic is even if it means the results was to backfire on Israelis. Because the goal was never about peace and quite, it was always about stopping the two state solution. Now tell me, how is stopping the very thing Palestinians are fighting for was going to give Israelis peace and quite? Your statements are contradictory.
As the video above, Ehud Barak said Netanyahu said it in public, it was not a concealed goal for Netanyahu trying to deceive the public.
Unless you want to say that that the average Israeli did not care about how cruel the tactic is even if it means the results was to backfire on Israelis. Because the goal was never about peace and quite, it was always about stopping the two state solution. Now tell me, how is stopping the very thing Palestinians are fighting for was going to give Israelis peace and quite? Your statements are contradictory.
This post is fecking insane. Thank feck Lil' Jon is fighting the Devil, though. The Palestinian oppressed will be delighted, I'm sure.As Israel surpasses their own pits of depravity, they make their plans with their allies and of course the Devil. God also makes His plans. And God is the best of planners. Evil will not win IA.
The fate of the Palestinians is written. It's what we are doing right now that counts. It literally is time to take sides. The Devil or God. Sorry atheists, you can skip this post. You probably already have.
Just wanted to say I forgot, rest in power Aaron Bushnell. Who? Exactly. Also, the rapper Lil Jon has taken the Shahada and become a Muslim.