I’d rather be on a side of democratic countries where people hold their government accountable vs. theocratic countries where government suppresses its people like Taliban.

People like you defended communism when it took hold Russia and then in China, all the wile so enthralled with your anti capitalist ideology to the point of finding excuses for repressions and mass murder that happened in those countries in early stages. Just as you find excuses right now for radical Muslims. Of cause history proved people like you wrong and eventually you had to acknowledge the horrific regimes for what they are. But you don’t learn your lessons. So be it .

So, my challenge still stands, give me an example (in modern times) of radical Christians putting a bounty on someone’s head or calling for a death of an artist or a novelist.

Also, food for though – if you ever find such a freak, you can be sure of one thing – all prominent Christians will condemn it. While when fatwa is issued in Arab country, not only it is not being condemned , but in fact Muslims in other countries try to carry it out!

Imagine a prominent Christian in US calling for death of a Muslim artist for disrespecting Christ and then some Christian in UK to carry the threat out! – that would be equivalent to what radical Muslims are doing right now.

>> ” I would venture to hazard a guess that you are above ever calling someone a name in your lifetime. If so, did you ever lose your job because of it”
- Very good example! I like name calling as much as a next guy and often do, BUT not in professional environment. Yes I would loose my job if on my job I would insult someone! In my professional writing I never, ever can allow myself to stoop to name-calling. However I am not a standard for academic discourse. Such standard exists and clearly does not allow for childish name-calling.

>>”You seem to take the stance that theft of an indigenous people’s land, their humiliation and slow-motion genocide are okay”
- you see, that’s why arguments with you guys never get anywhere, because as soon as I try to have a intelligent discourse, I am accused of supporting genocide! Do you really think I support genocide!?
Again you insult your intelligence when you write things like that.

It seems to me that there are plenty of people including prominent historians and political analysts who do not share your opinion that the conflict between Israel and Palestine is genocide. You seem to assume that your opinion is a fact. It’s unlikely to be a fact, if so many well educated, professional, independent in their judgment academics disagree with you on that.
So, if considering Israeli actions genocide is YOUR opinion, and MY opinion that it is not genocide, then that’s what we need to talk about and not insult each other with Nazi name calling.

>> “Using a few harsh labels might make for unpalatable scholarship, but it is not an excuse for tenure denial.”
- SL: I guess DePaul thinks otherwise, I personally agree with them.

There would be a major house cleaning in academia if that were to be the case, and I would venture to hazard a guess that you are above ever calling someone a name in your lifetime. If so, did you ever lose your job because of it?

I refrain from setting myself up as a judge of the evil of others. What I can attempt to do is describe the actions that would constitute evil. You seem to take the stance that theft of an indigenous people’s land, their humiliation and slow-motion genocide are okay. That is what separates us. The question is not how we would come to understand one another. How can you expect a people, such as the Palestinians, to accept suffering and murder, meted out to them by their oppressors? Would you accept if someone conquered your household by force and humiliated your loved ones daily?

>> “Using a few harsh labels might make for unpalatable scholarship, but it is not an excuse for tenure denial.”
- I guess DePaul thinks otherwise, I personally agree with them.

>>”it seems that you are at least misguided”
- I thought you would say that (well I thought you would use the words like ignorant or brainwashed). Not surprising I think the same about you.

The question is: how would two people like you and me would come to understand one another. I think the first step is to stop assuming that your opponent is either evil or ignorant for holding an opposing view. If we, two completely independent people, can’t do that, how can we expect Palestinians and Israelis to?

A fatwa is not the only measurement of intolerant religious views. The fact is that among Christians, Jews, and Muslims some will agitate against perceived slights of their religion.

SL: “Are Arab Zionists also racists?”

An Arab Zionist is just as pathetic as a Jewish Nazi.

SL: “Stating facts and statistics is academic, passing judgment and assigning subjective, loaded labels is not, no matter what side you’re on. E.g. to say ‘this person killed 10,000 people’ is academic, to say ‘this person is a Nazi’ is not (unless person actually was a Nazi in Germany in 40’s).”

I also share your dislike labels, but sometimes the label is correct. As with your Nazi example, to call a person who lies a “liar” is not subjective. Labels need to be substantiated. However, preferably a writer will just present the facts and rationale and let the readers form their own conclusions. Using a few harsh labels might make for unpalatable scholarship, but it is not an excuse for tenure denial.

SL: “Can I ask you a personal question, do you consider me also a warmonger, hate monger, genocide supporter for supporting Israel?”

I don’t know you. Depending on your principles and worldview, with all due respect, it seems that you are at least misguided.

>>”Just wondering Sam: is that like how radical Christians live happily with Muslims, gays, women, free speech lovers, etc.?”

- Well, if you can give me an example of prominent radical Christians putting a bounty on Scorsese’s head for “The Last Temptation of Christ ” and openly calling for someone to murder him – I may concede.

>>”racist ideology of Zionism”
- Are Arab Zionists also racists?

>> “At any rate, your bias is palpable”
- LOL the old “me objective, you not” argument

>>”Given academia’s silencing of Finkelstein within it…”
- I didn’t realize that only tenured professors had voice in academia.

>>”Advocacy is something that needs to be established”
- Stating facts and statistics is academic, passing judgment and assigning subjective, loaded labels is not, no matter what side you’re on. E.g. to say “this person killed 10,000 people” is academic, to say “this person is a Nazi” is not (unless person actually was a Nazi in Germany in 40’s).

Can I ask you a personal question, do you consider me also a warmonger, hate monger, genocide supporter for supporting Israel?

(hate is easy to spread but difficult to stop, that’s why I personally don’t rush to label people a Nazi supporter – but that’s just me)

Just wondering Sam: is that like how radical Christians live happily with Muslims, gays, women, free speech lovers, etc.?

Sam Livingstone: “Oh, and if anybody publishes a favorable book about Zionist state, or anything negative about Koran or Mohamed (like Satanic Verses), or makes a movie about Muslim culture in negative light – those people should at best be declared plagiarists who didn’t write their books and at worst be put on a fatwa death list – no mercy for those infidels.”

Sounds speciously clever. But the excesses of Zionism are not excused by any excesses among a minority of Islam. Furthermore, you draw false analogies. The racist ideology of Zionism is not to be compared with the religion of Islam. The correct analogy would be between Judaism and Islam. The Koran should be compared to the Bible or other core religious books. One could compare the outrage among Christians to Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ to the outrage felt by some Muslims over Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses.

Sam Livingstone: “Also, I personally think that if person speaks out against Zionism, he/she should be automatically awarded tenure. In fact we should put it into constitution – any controversial speech should be protected by tenure.”

Are you insinuating that it is okay to deny tenure for speaking out against Zionist crimes?

Sam Livingstone: “That’s funny I actually found Dershowitz’s books informative while Finkelstein’s propagandistic. I guess one is always biased toward supportive views hah.”

Strange sense of humor. At any rate, your bias is palpable.

Sam Livingstone: “What about the fact that Finkelstein was never published in peer reviewed academic journals? … I’d rather put my faith in academia rather then one Finkelstein.”

Given academia’s silencing of Finkelstein within it, how you place your “faith,” with all due respect, condemningly.

Sam Livingstone: “B.t.w the litmus test for academic writing vs. advocacy rating, is that academic writing should not contain vilification of opposing college’s intentions … It will be a sad day in Academia when this kind of writing becomes acceptable. (I also deplore Dershowitz for stooping to the same level as Finkelstein in battling him)”

Advocacy is something that needs to be established. When a scholar writes on a subject and the conclusions point in a direction, to write that this so is called honesty. Some twist honesty by calling it advocacy. Nevertheless, advocacy is not necessarily bad. To advocate against the humiliation and destruction of Palestinians honors the advocate.

When an opposing colleague is a scoundrel and when writing exposes a scoundrel (warmonger, hate monger, genocide supporter, insert your epithet) for what he is, then it is not vilification. It is implicit that vilification is the defamation or slander of someone’s good character. If the character is not good, then it is not vilification; it is honesty. Nonetheless, it should suffice to point out the misdeeds of a person, then the readers can draw their own conclusions as to what type of person the doer of such deeds is.

What about the fact that Finkelstein was never published in peer reviewed academic journals? That either says something about Finkelstein or something about our Academia. I’d rather put my faith in academia rather then one Finkelstein.

B.t.w the litmus test for academic writing vs. advocacy rating, is that academic writing should not contain vilification of opposing college’s intentions such as “Nazi, Nazi sympathizer, Nazi-like apologist, Clown, etc…” It will be a sad day in Academia when this kind of writing becomes acceptable. (I also deplore Dershowitz for stooping to the same level as Finkelstein in battling him)

Oh, and if anybody publishes a favorable book about Zionist state, or anything negative about Koran or Mohamed (like Satanic Verses), or makes a movie about Muslim culture in negative light – those people should at best be declared plagiarists who didn’t write their books and at worst be put on a fatwa death list – no mercy for those infidels.

Also, I personally think that if person speaks out against Zionism, he/she should be automatically awarded tenure. In fact we should put it into constitution – any controversial speech should be protected by tenure.

But, alas, I think that the author has not dig deep enough. If Bill would do some more research he will surely discover that Zionists practically forced Germans into creating Holocaust so that they can use it as an excuse for all their Zionist actions for the next 50 years, ultimately culminating in their paramount goal of denying Finkeltsein his well deserved tenure. It is a diabolically evil plan, worthy of the wretched Jew..argh, I mean Zionists!.

Please proceed with your voluble research, while there are still people remain out there who are blind to the truth of evil Zionists.