Disturbing the Universe: Holocaust Denial, Revisionism, Religion, Censorship, and War

They will take evil and call it good. They will take the lie and call it truth.
— Isaiah

The unexamined life is not worth living.

War is always finally about betrayal.
— Chris Hedges

A static universe isn’t physically self-consistent. The sun can’t shine forever.
— James Peebles, Physics Professor Emeritus, Princeton University

Do I dare
disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.
— T.S. Eliot

On July 11th, author William Blum e-mailed me a Washington Post article about Ken Meyercord. Fredrick Kunkle, a Post staff writer, described Meyercord as a 65-year old with a “high tech job at Freddie Mac, a local public-access cable television show … and a long history of writing about what he says are ‘myths’ of the Holocaust.” Meyercord, the article continued, hoped to win “an at-large seat on the board of the Reston Citizens Association, a quasi-government body … for the community of 60,000, which is not officially a municipality.” Reston is basically a D.C. suburb in Virginia.

I’d met Meyercord a few months before at a political celebration in downtown D.C. The party’s sponsors were elated over Obama’s inauguration. More cynical than most of those there, I’d latched onto Blum’s coat-tails for the invite—providing chauffeur services in my old van. I met Medea Benjamin, Meyercord and his Palestinian wife, Samira, and a few other interesting people. Nobody I met or overheard struck me as radical or dangerous. Some—not those I’ve mentioned here—struck me as naïve for believing that one election would change the direction of our latter-day Empire.

A few months later, friend Blum and I were at Eduardo Galeano’s reading at Politics and Prose, also in D.C.. We ran into Meyercord there and we decided to get some Chinese food nearby. Meyercord told me about his TV show then, but most of the conversation had more to do with Peking duck than with the sweet and sour business of contemporary, imperial politics.

Meyercord probably mentioned that he was running in the Reston election. A Maryland resident, unable to vote in Virginia, absorbed in my personal problems then, all of that sailed over my head. Conversation was mostly convivial; no one was trying to proselytize; and, in fact, nobody could have. Blum is 75 and he’s seen it all; I’m 63 and I’ve seen enough.

Four days after reading the first article on Meyercord, I was e-mailed another, also by Fredrick Kunkle at the Post. Under the headline, “Write-in Effort Blocks ‘Revisionist,” I learned: “A last-minute campaign to prevent a self-described Holocaust revisionist from serving on a civic body in Reston has succeeded with a landslide. … Ken Meyercord, who had been running unopposed for an at-large seat on the Reston Citizens Association’s 13-member volunteer board, received only 23 votes after his provocative views on Jews created a backlash.” Debra Steppel, who organized the write-in campaign, called it a “fabulous result.”

Mr. Kunkle wrote that Meyercord was “gracious in conceding,” and that he had congratulated Ms. Steppel for her efforts, although he thought her “misinformed.” Further, the article noted that Meyercord and his wife had lived in Reston since 1977, and that, in “writings and interviews,” he had expressed doubt that Nazi Germany had a “mission to annihilate European Jews, a plan known as the Final Solution.” Meyercord had also denied that Nazis used gas chambers to murder Jews, and he had “expressed skepticism that the number of Holocaust victims reached 6 million.”

By now, my interest was more than piqued, and I asked Meyercord to send me some of his writing. As a half-Jew with Zionists, anti-Zionists and the indifferent, ignorant and uniformed within my own extended family; as a fan of Paine and Thoreau, Martin Buber, Rilke and Hesse; as a man vitally interested in my world and human psychology, I wanted to know more about this tempest in a teapot in Reston and how it might relate to our confused, violent and pernicious modern macro world.

Perusing Meyercord’s work, I found him to be more apologetic than inflammatory. In “In Search of a Holocaust Denier,” he writes, “What I would like to offer here is a rationale—a plea, really—for investigating all aspects of the holocaust story in an atmosphere free of rancor, intolerance, and intimidation. I believe we can learn from history and that it will be a better world if we do. Of course, to learn from history, we have to have an accurate understanding of what happened. …”

Meyercord describes how the “goose-stepping … siegheiling” Nazis endlessly portrayed by Hollywood and the other media provided little insight into “how a man like Hitler could have risen to power in one of the most sophisticated countries on earth.” He deplores the fact that we have learned so little from the Nazi era, noting that the Foreign Minister of Israel [Avigdor Lieberman] has advocated the deportation of all Palestinians from Eretz [Greater] Israel. Those who have challenged holocaust orthodoxy have found themselves exiled to an academic wilderness—a la Norman Finkelstein in the U.S.—or imprisoned—like David Irving in Austria! And, in that same reasonable, almost apologetic mode, he asks, “Wouldn’t it be better to dispel the myths surrounding the holocaust now, while anti-Semitism is a neglibible factor in American society, than at some future date when hard times lead desperate, angry Americans to look around for a scapegoat?”

So much for the overview of Meyercord’s approach. He’s not some glib-tongued salesman for neo-Nazism. His argumentation is tightly reasoned and far less fiery and provocative than, say, Limbaugh’s, O’Reilly’s, Hannity’s or Coulter’s. He directs his readers (and directed me in a short phone interview of him) to two websites for further exploration of the issues.

Meyercord describes himself as a “revisionist,” not a holocaust denier. He notes: “What causes revisionists to be misrepresented and slandered by the believers is their denial of three constituent parts of the holocaust story:

   1. That there was a plan to exterminate the Jews, aka, “The Final Solution.”
   2. That gas chambers were used in the execution of that plan; and
   3. That no less than six million Jews died as a result.

He offers his own refutations of the predominant “holocaust story” and directs us to others for more detail.

The question I have to ask now is: How is this relevant to our post-9/11 world?

It is relevant because past is prelude, and those who don’t learn the lessons of the past, as Santayana said … well, you know the rest.

It’s relevant because we would rather kill each other to defend the sanctity of our myths—religious, ideological, nationalistic/patriotic—than smash the idols of our perceptions—and misperceptions.

It’s relevant because a thoughtful man’s views of history or religious dogma is irrelevant to the performance of his duties and responsibilities as a citizen in a local civic organization.

It is relevant because every tin-pot dictator who appears on the scene—a Noriega, a Saddam Hussein—who loses the favor of the U.S. imperial regime; and every populist leader—an Ahmadinejead, a Hugo Chavez, a Fidel Castro—is inevitably compared to Hitler and threatened with regime change, or having his country “wiped off the map,” or has, in fact, been invaded. Hitler has become the gold standard of evil—and that incubus colors every other form of evil. We have personalized and incarnated evil, ignorance and brutality, and exonerated the institutions, the social forms and mechanisms of control, the psychologies and hysterias still very much with us today.

It is relevant because most Americans don’t know squat about Zionism or the role that Jewish nationalism played in the run-up to World War I, the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, the disastrous Versailles treaty, the Balfour Declaration, etc. (Meyercord, in fact, does not touch on any of this in his writing or in his interviews with me or with Fred Kunkle at the Post.)

It is relevant because whether 6 million Jews died or 1 million died—there still is no justification for the expropriation of another people’s land, resources, country. (My mother taught me as a child, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”)

Meyercord’s little dust-up in a D.C. suburb leaves us with three big ponderables:

   1. A question of censorship
   2. A moral question
   3. The historical record

Ms. Steppel’s write-in campaign, and the voters of Reston, attempted to censor Meyercord’s words and beliefs. They did not vote on the man’s competence, his willingness and ability to serve his local community. They voted against his convictions, at which he had arrived after carefully examining the evidence, his life and the promptings of his conscience. He lived for six months in Beirut, traveled in Israel, has had a long, fulfilling marriage to a Palestinian woman. They raised two children who attended Reston’s public schools. No doubt his unique experiences have enriched his perspective. How does censorship and expurgation serve the public interest? In our intertwined world, are we not all safer reaching out, trying to understand “the other”?

The moral question has too often reduced itself to “my suffering is better than your suffering.” Suffering employed this way has little or nothing to do with morality, much to do with religious dogma. It is suffering as justification—for outrageous reparations (against Germans, for example, no more guilty for World War I than Brits, the French, the Americans, the Russians). It is suffering employed as the ultimate rationale for “man’s inhumanity to man,” “nature red in tooth and claw,” etc. It is suffering memorialized as stasis (James Peebles here: “a static universe isn’t physically self-consistent”). It is suffering as rationalization for continuing the empires of destruction, wreaking havoc and revenge on more innocents, continuing the whole ghastly process (“They will take evil and call it good. They will take the lie and call it the truth.”)

As for the historical record, it has always been a rather murky affair. In my entire lifetime, God has never spoken to me once out of the Whirlwind, and I have been waiting for 46 years to find out what really happened on November 22, 1963. Einstein said God doesn’t play dice with the Universe, and Bohr told Einstein to stop telling God what to do! God may not play dice, but He/She/It certainly keeps His/Her/Its cards close to His/Her/Its chest/bosom/ineffable mystery.

Which means I’ve got to keep digging. I have to keep disturbing the universe, checking my notes and revising my memes because in an expanding universe I don’t participate in cosmological events, but I can play my ant-like role in the evolution of awareness and consciousness. “War is finally about betrayal,” as Hedges succinctly and profoundly writes, and I need to know why and how a species that has evolved so magnificently in its technology has, when it comes to interacting with other sentient beings, stymied itself in the Age of Iron and Sky Gods. What gives? What mystery here?

Six million victims or one innocent victim—what compels us to slaughter the innocents under Herod, to crucify Christ for our sins, to burn John Hus for impiety? How shall we employ numbers to justify brutality? Did the death of 20 million Russians in the Great Patriotic War justify the rape of 2 million German women by Russian troops when the Third Reich collapsed? The ghost voices of tens of millions of native peoples of the Americas rise up and cry for justice. What reparations can we pay them? Millions of Africans, lost in the “Middle Passage” of the slave trips, sweated to death among the sugar canes of the Caribbean and the cotton and tobacco plantations of the New (old!) World—what memorials shall we build for them, what is their due?

How do we make equivalences? I suffered, my family suffered, my people suffered … therefore, I have the right to. … What? Wreak vengeance? Upon the innocents?

Probably it is too much to hope for forgiveness—either given or gotten. Humans are not, generally, constituted that way. Except for a few saints we’ve usually managed to crucify upside down, boil in oil, or murder with a thousand cuts.

But we may, possibly, hope for clarity, breaking the cycle of wrong for wrong, by excavating the truths, the hidden causes, penetrating the whirlwind of confusion and setting the record straight–because in this melange of pulsating life called Earth, it’s looking more and more like we’d better all pull on the oars together or we’re all going down together. And it looks more and more like Eugene Debs, who said so much well, said this one perfectly: “While there is one soul in prison, I am not free.”

What else but to know the true history of the human mind and heart—to extricate ourselves, to beam the searchlights in terra incognita, confront our demons, shake our wings loose from the chrysalis of so much ignorance, blood-lust, power-lusting, arrogance, fear, greed and stupidity?

Poet-playwright-journalist-fictionist-editor-professor, Dr. Gary Corseri has published work in Dissident Voice, The New York Times, Village Voice, CommonDreams and hundreds of other publications and websites worldwide. His dramas have been produced on PBS-Atlanta, and he has performed his work at the Carter Presidential Library. Gary can be reached at gary_corseri@comcast.net. Read other articles by Gary.

64 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. bozh said on July 23rd, 2009 at 6:29am #

    i echoed bohr not knowing that he said what i often say: no one knows ‘god’; one can only take a guess; not, however, as a tot but later in childhood.
    those people who tell us what ‘god’ wants us to do, believe [take a guess] that their ‘god’ is dumb, deaf, and blind.

    i am glad that corseri calls ‘god’ s/he/it.
    according to historians, nazis offered madagascar to euros with the cult.
    ‘zionists’ , predictably, rejected the offer; thus, willfully sacrificing ‘jews’ in order to steal palestine.
    if it wasn’t for this wilfull/aimfull sacrifice, not many ‘jews’ wld have chosen to steal other people’s land.

    if ‘jews’ wld think of selves as human being first and then ‘jews’, they’d stop persecuting us and we wld stop hating them.
    but i do hate/fear their “jewishness” but not the legs, etc., of a any person.
    i also abhor/fear americanism and its “jewishness”, and anybody elses “ishness” tnx

  2. jon s said on July 23rd, 2009 at 7:43am #

    In the field of Holocaust studies there have been , and still are, lively debates over various aspects: the “intentionalist” approach as opposed to the “functionalists”; the role of the Jewish leadership; the controversy over Goldhagen’s book…and more. All these are legitimate historical controversies, which ultimately add to our attempts to understand . “Holocaust revisionism” –such as questioning the existence of the gas chambers – is not part of the legitimate debate . The question itself is an insult to the survivors and to the memory of the victims. The Holocaust was not only the greatest crime – it was also the best- documented crime in history with original documents, photos and eye-witness testimony by both survivors and perpetrators.
    In short , Holocaust deniers or “revisionists” including Mr. Meyercord, are nothing more than neo-Nazi propagandists, which is why denial has been criminalized in many countries. The links provided in the article indeed lead to neo-Nazi websites.
    Here’s an analogy: say I would propose the idea that African slavery never happened, that the whole story – the abductions in Africa, the transport across the Atlantic in slave ships, the buying and selling in America and so on – it’s all a gigantic hoax perpetrated by African-Americans with the purpose of attaining preferential treatment. Of course any sane person would say that’s preposterous, and offensive towards African-Americans.
    As to the numbers: we’ll never know the exact number of Holocaust victims and “6 million” is indeed an estimate. Hilberg, in his monumental study, puts the number at around 5.1 million : Eck estimates 5.8 million; the World Jewish Congress estimated over 6 million.

  3. ned lud said on July 23rd, 2009 at 7:45am #

    Very good writing by Mr. Corseri.

  4. Elissa Maye said on July 23rd, 2009 at 9:35am #

    One of the biggest deceptions on earth thats carried out is the denial of the holocaust.People bank on the details being so gruesome that the human mind shuts down even though sympthetic at first the gruesome manner of death and deception that were done seems unbelieveable to logic and the response or lack of response of terrorized victims,somehow it makes people want to blame the victim,thus to me that kind of thinking keeps what was started more alive .

  5. David said on July 23rd, 2009 at 9:52am #

    Nicely done, Mr. Corseri.

    Be careful, though. You might be on the same edge upon which I found myself a number of years ago when teaching Am. History in an adult education program.

    I felt it very important to do a few lectures on what nuclear war (the time was the early eighties) would mean to humanity so as to reinforce the need to stop it from ever happening. After preparing and delivering the lectures, I found myself in a substantial state of depression.

    At the time, I didn’t connect the subject matter with the mental state. But after reading some of Jonathan Schell’s personal musings on nuclear war I found that he, too, suffered the same predicament. Understandably so!

    After many years, I have come to the same conclusion as did Arthur Schlesinger. I offer this from Louis Lapham’s Notebook column in the Harper’s issue of May, 2007, wherein he quotes Schlesinger.

    “Problems will always torment us because all important problems are insoluble: that is why they are important. The good comes from the continuing struggle to try and solve them, not from the vain hope of their solution.”

    Perhaps Schlesinger is correct. Complexity and the limits of human thought and action seem to lead to this conclusion.

    Good health and comfort.

  6. Nick said on July 23rd, 2009 at 9:57am #

    It’s a joy to encounter another person who thinks on a cosmic level. Keep up the good work, Gary.

  7. B99 said on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:05am #

    But Yad Vashem has come up with ‘only’ 3 million-plus names in all their decades of research. That is of course 3 million-plus too many, but does raise the question: if the numbers are fuzzy, what else needs to be examined.

    Firstly – Questioning the Holocaust should not be illegal anywhere, absolutely no one should be imprisoned for doing so. This SHOULD be obvious to Jews, it does them no service to judicially stifle free-speech on this. It backfires as in the case of Iran holding a conference on the Holocaust – as if historical European Christian anti-Semitism is something of urgent import to the Iranian state. So Iran does what Germany is not allowed to do.

    Another problem with the Holocaust is that is used as an anvil to stifle related subject matter. Many tens of millions of people – civilians – were killed in WWII – the Holocaust dead is but a subset of that number. (Once, one of the late Princess Diana’s sons wore a German uniform for some silly reason. He was reprimanded by Elie Wiesel for defiling the sanctity of the Holocaust. The less published response to Wiesel was that it defiled the sanctity of all those British soldiers and sailors who defended Britain against the Nazi attack, and who fought and gave their lives on European soil to end Hitler’s reign of terror. But Wiesel only saw the sacrifice of Jews as important.) WWII is by no means just about the Holocaust. When I was a kid, the atomic bombing of Japanese cities was the central representation of that war. That is now all but forgotten in the effort to revise the order of importance.

    The Nuremberg laws singled out Roma (Gypsies) for persecution just as it singled out Jews. Yet, the Holocaust is apparently about Jews only. When I raised that issue with a Zionist friend of mine, she said there is a room at the Holocaust Museum in DC reserved for non-Jews. While Jews are reimbursed for stolen paintings – Roma families get nothing.

    That raises another question. Why is there a Holocaust Museum in DC and why in such a prominent position? The Holocaust was not carried out in America, but in Europe, and not by Americans, but by Europeans. Yet, there it is on the tourist trail – while museums to African Enslavement, the Middle Passage, the genocide of Native-America, the racist ‘yellow peril’ period are no where to be found. Down the road in Richmond, VA there is a centrally located Holocaust Museum – here in the capital of the confederacy and an important entrepot for the trade in enslaved humans. Is there a museum of the Middle Passage here? No – just a well-placed and well-funded museum to the Holocaust on ground donated to them by the City of Richmond. The Holocaust has become a franchise.

    In the US there is a periodic break-out of animosity of blacks towards Jews. Jews don’t seem to get it. What has happened is that the plight of the Jews, in particular, its usurpation of the plight of blacks in America as a focal point regards racial oppression, results in ongoing tensions and resentment. This despite the largest Holocaust in history being the forced removal and enslavement of Africans, despite the absolute struggle for some sense of justice in our country for blacks, and despite the fact that Jews are America’s most successful immigrant group. Yet there is a Holocaust Museum in one of the most black cities in America.

    Speaking of other mass genocides, there have been many before and since the Holocaust. King Leopold of Belgium killed an estimated 6 million Congolese at the turn of the century. How many people even know of this Holocaust?

    So the Holocaust raises a number of issues. Jews would do well to integrate ‘their’ Holocaust with all the others that have blighted humankind in recent history. They do themselves no favor to place themselves apart. Ultimately, that generates only anger on the part of other victims, and paranoia on the part of Jews.

  8. B99 said on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:12am #

    As for Goldhagen, his central point is the almost universal guilt of Germans to one degree or another in perpetrating the ultimate crime of the Holocaust. It was not just the Nazi leadership in this view.

    If we accept his thesis, then what of Israeli-Jews, who not only give consent to genocide by voting in one reactionary government after another, but raise their children to leave their country and kill their neighbors as they expropriate their land?

    There really is no two ways about this.

  9. Tennessee-With-Zelaya said on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:39am #

    Hello friends of this great progressive news site: I suspect that you might have problems with your relatives, friends, and other people around you for rebelling against mainstream corporate morality and against the mainstrain capitalist brainwashing going on in the whole world, and for being so politically active, for being in a permanent revolution against lies and evil.

    You see my own family (my sisters, and my father) and other capitalist egocentric relatives i have like distant cousins, cousins etc. (which are not really my family, because my real family are the communists and any revolutionary person of this world), said that i should quit reading, talking and writting in the internet about politics, about Israel, zionism, 9/11, capitalism, socialism and politics in general, and they think that only politicians and not just any average person should be worried about political affairs. i told them that we are political-animals, and that we can’t have personal-liberty without a general knowldge of reality like John Adams said, another thing i told my capitalist conservative family and friends that we are political animals and politics has an impact on our personal lives

    i got angry with them like Napoleon Bonaparte who had attacks of anger, because all anger and rage is a result of a happy organization, and all liberty is a consequence of rage.

    I don’t believe in the family and traditional friends, there are no real friends really, all people are evil unless they are socialists. i consider my real family the leftists of this world

  10. B99 said on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:57am #

    Well, you can come on here Tennessee and watch your socialist family tear itself apart.

  11. jon s said on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:59am #

    The reason Yad Vashem will never have all the names is obvious: names of victims are reported by survivors. If , say , one member of a family survived, and is aware of the names project, that survivor can report the names of his or her parents and siblings. However if no-one survived, if that family was completely wiped out, there’s no-one left to remember them and report their names .
    We’ve already gone over the issue of the Holocaust’s uniqueness. Allow me to recommend this book: Yehuda Bauer: Rethinking the Holocaust.
    And I totally reject your definition of Israeli policy as genocide. Nonsense.

  12. kalidas said on July 23rd, 2009 at 11:24am #

    As we all know, (or do we?) the rulings of the “judges” in the Toben, Zundel, Irving and Finkelstein trials have declared… “the truth is no defense.”

    Quite a precedent.

    Well, hey, case closed. Nuff said.

    Joseph Heller, move over..

  13. Harry Canary said on July 23rd, 2009 at 12:34pm #

    hey jon s. How much is the Israeli government paying you to say this stuff?

    We have not “gone over” the issue of the jewish holocausts uniqueness. There are far too many examples, whether Armenian, Native American, Cambodian, Ukrainian kulaks, Congolese to count. It is disrespectful of the jewish people to minimize all of these other mass murders.

    And the zionist governments treatment of the Palestinian people is absolutely disgusting. The jewish people, of all nationalities, should know better after the experience at the hands of the nazis.

  14. dan e said on July 23rd, 2009 at 12:57pm #

    Very good, Harry Canary!

    B99, I’m grateful that you take the time to articulate all that you do. Gary Corseri writes really interesting stuff, but IMO you’re the most focussed.

  15. B99 said on July 23rd, 2009 at 1:12pm #

    Jon S – All families have neighbors and friends. And all Jews are aware of the names project. And Germans were noted for record keeping (a lesson the Israelis absorbed). Yad Vashem should really have gotten much closer to six million than they have – unless the total number is less.

    The holocaust is unique in the way that all genocides are unique. Saturn is unique in that it is not Jupiter. But both are planets. There is no reason to isolate Saturn when we count the planets. (OK – Pluto is different.)

    I don’t have a definition of genocide. I’m using the UNITED NATIONS definition – and Israeli actions in Palestine fully meet that definition and exceed it.

  16. B99 said on July 23rd, 2009 at 1:19pm #

    dan e – Well thank you Dan. Your message is a reminder that I must be kind here, as others (some anyway) have been kind to me.

  17. Hue Longer said on July 23rd, 2009 at 2:28pm #

    jon s said on July 23rd, 2009 at 7:43am “say I would propose the idea that African slavery never happened, that the whole story – the abductions in Africa, the transport across the Atlantic in slave ships, the buying and selling in America and so on – it’s all a gigantic hoax perpetrated by African-Americans with the purpose of attaining preferential treatment”.

    African Americans have preferential treatment?

  18. opeluboy said on July 23rd, 2009 at 2:32pm #

    All history should be subject to review, as should all science. Everything should be questioned, including one’s own faith. This does not imply denial or disbelief. Often after such review, the original case is strengthened. Those who fear questions must have something to hide or fear their facts or their faith is too weak to endure such testing.

  19. B99 said on July 23rd, 2009 at 4:02pm #

    In fairness, Hue, conservatives in America say blacks get preferential treatment over whites – that racism is history, and that blacks are just as likely to commit racist acts as whites – so there’s no need to bring up the slave period.

  20. Max Shields said on July 24th, 2009 at 5:54am #

    Gary, just superb…

  21. jon s said on July 24th, 2009 at 10:51am #

    Harry Canary,
    How much does the Israeli government pay me?
    Not enough. I’m thinking of going on strike until I get a raise.
    When I said that I had “gone over” the issue of the uniqueness of the Holocaust, I meant that I had addressed the matter in previous posts.
    I never expressed disrespect towards other genocides and I never minimized them.
    What if the neighbors and friends are also dead? The lowest statistical estimate of the Holocaust that I’m aware of , fromReitlinger’s book, one of the earliest studies , from 1953, is 4.5 million.
    The Nurmberg Indictment put the number at 5.7 million. Eichmann himself is said to have boasted of the “5 million on my conscience.”
    Let me clarify, perhaps I was misunderstood: of course the Holocaust can be compared to other genocides , and “comparison” means pointing out similarities and also unique characteristics.
    I’m aware of the UN definition of genocide. It’s completely irrelevant to Israeli policy.

  22. kalidas said on July 24th, 2009 at 12:07pm #

    Give me Netanyahu, a water board and one hour and I’d bet he’d confess to personally killing Christ and 5,999,999 others.

    In fact, he’d sign a confession saying he killed the six million other Jews claimed killed in WWI. (NOT)
    (it must be true, i read it in the NYT)

  23. jon s said on July 24th, 2009 at 12:22pm #

    In case you’re referring to Eichmann, he apparently made the boast before he was apprehended, not in an Israeli jail.
    And it’s WW2…

  24. B99 said on July 24th, 2009 at 12:35pm #

    Jon – There’s also German records and lists. In any case, I’m not fighting for a lower figure, whatever the real number is, it is in the millions – and is a holocaust.

    UN definition of genocide is only irrelevant to Israel’s behavior and practices in the sense that Israel far exceeds it. The UN definition does not require killing. Israel kills freely. There are unlikely any possible violations of human dignity and existence that Israel has not either already executed or discusses in public as a pending option.

  25. dan e said on July 24th, 2009 at 2:38pm #

    B99, Mulga, Max, DB: don’t miss the piece by Gilad Atzmon re “Bruno” in this wknd’s CP

  26. kalidas said on July 24th, 2009 at 2:42pm #


  27. Max Shields said on July 24th, 2009 at 2:56pm #

    jon s,

    The problem is that Zionists (particularly the reason for the very existence and continued genocide of Palestinians) is premised on a grossly exaggerated Holocaust. Few deny its occurring, i.e., the murder of millions Pols, Catholics, Jews, homosexuals; but only it is only the Zionist and their apologist who make this the “world’s greatest atrocity”. And it is not simply this exaggeration – a little history will readily clarify the truth – it is what is done in the name of this “H”olocaust. This is what makes the whole subject tangled in anxiety and demonization and hence genocide of the indigenous people of Palestine.

    Now, beneath that are the facts which must be discerned relative to the stories spun, as Norman Finkelstein states – the spinning and selling of the Holocaust as an enterprise to impose some of the worst human conditions on others.

    That IS the real issue not simply the body count which can readily be countered with the hundreds of millions who have been submitted, as Gary’s article illuminates, the horrors of inhumanity.

  28. Mulga Mumblebrain said on July 24th, 2009 at 3:07pm #

    jon, I have to agree that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians does not, yet, amount to the popular concept of genocide. Of course nowadays we have definitions of ‘cultural genocide’ that involve the destruction of societies through the destruction of their institutions, beliefs,habits, and the removal of populations from their ancestral homelands, and other definitions like ‘ethnocide’ and ‘politicide’. What is unambiguous however is that Israeli state terror, over generations, has killed thousands, dispossessed, denigrated and humiliated, and that’s where you are, in my opinion, so deeply in the wrong, with you apologias and exculpations for this pitiless, racist, state terror.

  29. Mulga Mumblebrain said on July 24th, 2009 at 4:36pm #

    B99, I’m just listening to yet another Jew being a guest on the national broadcaster, the ABC. Apparently someone at the ABC has decided that Jewish stories are the most interesting in this multicultural land. This fellow is of Lithuanian descent, but his family got out and traveled to South Africa, where the ‘business opportunities’ were better. And, typically, they appear to have found post-apartheid South Africa not to their taste, and ended up here. It was, of course, a wise decision in hindsight to leave Lithuania, because the Lithuanian fascists put even the Nazis to shame as Jew-killers during WW2. Other ‘touching’ Jewish stories are shoved down our throat over and over, while the much larger Moslem community, is only represented in negative light. Ditto for Aborigines, and most other minorities. The Jewish chap is now, ritually, with encouragement from the host, recounting the usual hate propaganda against the Soviets.
    The ubiquity of Rightwing propaganda on our national broadcaster mirrors the bigotry of the business media. It is also thus with Israel, the Palestinians and such historical events as the Judeocide. As others have pointed out, the Zionazi dominance of the media means only the Judeocide is emphasised amongst the Nazi crimes. The killings of the Roma, Slavs, Soviet citizens, Jehovah’s Witnesses etc, are all ignored. The other genocides, of the Armenians, native Americans, Indians, the Chinese under the Japanese occupation etc, all are similarly utterly ignored, or actually denied. Due to Judaic money power and political power, only Jewish suffering has been sanctified, and is used in the most morally debased manner, to justify Israeli crimes.
    I’m not interested in debating the details of the Judeocide. It was a great evil, one of the greatest in history, but it was not unparalleled, although, like all genocides, it was unique in its particular features. However its subsequent use by Zionazis to justify Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians is, in my opinion, a detestable crime and an insult to the victims of the Nazis.

  30. Max Shields said on July 25th, 2009 at 5:00am #

    Mulga Mumblebrain

    Genocide is a legal term having legal implications (which may or may not be enforced based on who’s breaking it). In other words, it’s not simply a “popular” term devised to be tossed out at whim.

    I think if you look up the term you’ll conclude that a genocide is occuring in Palestine, perpetuated by Israel. Genocide is not annihilation, though directionally it is a systematic attempt at near annihilation. Native Americans suffered genocide. There are still Native Americans, but their numbers went from 10 millions to under 100,000.

    I don’t think the net population is the basis for determining genocide, it is the systematic act of ethnic slaughter.

  31. Shabnam said on July 25th, 2009 at 6:01am #

    Thank you Max.
    What is happening in Palestine is nothing but genocide. Please look at the following list to see that genocide is commited by zionist Jews for sure:
    a) Killing members of the group;
    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    All and more has happened and continue to be happening in Palestine. Therefore, it is necessary to use the word genocide when you refer to Palestinian’s annihilation.
    Please look at the map of the historical Palestine at the following link where has been wiped off the map by the zionist Jews.


  32. B99 said on July 25th, 2009 at 6:48am #

    Indeed, as I’ve pointed out to the Israel-uber-alles ‘crowd’ here several times – there is an accepted (and accepted by Israel) international definition of genocide that Israel easily exceeds – and easily exceeds for 61 years.

    Mulga – Here in the US of A, our public radio station, NPR routinely does Jewish cultural stories and frequently drops into its conversation Jewish cultural references. Seemingly nothing wrong with that as the stories are sometimes interesting in and of themselves. But considering that Jews make up something less than 2% of the American population it begs the question – Why so many Jewish stories? And why so many depicting Jewry under duress or presenting Jewry with a soft and sentimental fuzzy vibe?

    The stories come at the expense of other cultural features, they come at the expense of science reporting, and they come BIG TIME when NPR is in money collection mode. It seems that Jews are percentage-wise, avid listeners of NPR, uh, and financial supporters – and so they want to hear Jewish stories and they want those stories to depict them in a favorable light – and of course, lest I forget, they want good-time stories about Israel to go unchallenged, while the occasional stories of the dreaded Palestinians and other Arab/Muslim miscellany must be ‘balanced.’

    I routinely right to correct NPR. Recently (and they do this all the time), I reminded them that NPR cannot say that Arabs refer to the Haram al-Sharif while the Jews (or Israelis as they put it – ignoring the large Arab speaking minority which is now losing its Arabic-language signs) call it the Temple Mount. I repeatedly remind them that Israelis do not switch to English to refer to the site. Seems innocent no? – but it establishes in the unconscious mind of the listener that Jews talk like us – and Arabs speak an alien tongue.

    That’s our National PUBLIC radio.

  33. bozh said on July 25th, 2009 at 7:25am #

    yes, i agree,
    crimes by israel with strong support from UN [the one that solely or largely matter] and almost all members of judeo-christian alliance, are enormous and in some aspects, such as manhunting, ‘settling’ of people from all over the wordl, unique.
    but technology and ‘religions’ are also big factors in these crimes and not just people.
    people had been more or less the same; however, with ‘better’ weapons to use, people appear worse than ever. tnx

  34. bozh said on July 25th, 2009 at 7:39am #

    still, love for everything ‘jewish’ by privately owned media and world plutos [now solidly united in warfare] may be a passing fancy.
    it may last only as long as plutocratic proseprity lasts.

    plutos need to sell their products. They will need and want blns of customers and not paltry 5mn.
    but even a ‘quality’ called “jewishness” will undergo change in view of everlasting worship of one the only: god of money! tnx

  35. Max Shields said on July 25th, 2009 at 1:15pm #

    Well stated B99.

  36. bozh said on July 25th, 2009 at 1:48pm #

    chomsky, in his, The Chomsky Reader [’87] on p. 375 says the following: ‘It might be argued that as a result of US-Israeli rejectionism, a peaceful political settlement is no longer possible, that the US-financed program of Israeli settlement in the occupied territories has “created facts” that cannot be changed short of war’ [single quotes are mine].
    yet chomsky[ along with pappe] in an interview on ICH that he is for a two-state solution. Had he forgotten that he stated in ’87that settlements cannot be removed? Of has he, as i asssert after adducing significant other facts, not changed his mind?
    btw, pappe was very pessimistic ab. the socalled two-state solution.
    it seems that many people have seen the writing on the wall. tnx

  37. B99 said on July 25th, 2009 at 3:25pm #

    So bozh – you quote Chomsky and then you get it wrong. Where does Chomsky say in your quote that the ‘settlements cannot be removed’? Or by saying the single quotes are yours are you not actually quoting him???

    To say Pappe has seen the writing on the wall is like a rookie telling Babe Ruth he is getting the hang of that home run thing. Pappe saw the writing – at least as he sees the writing – decades ago.

  38. bozh said on July 25th, 2009 at 4:40pm #

    what chomsky says in, HEGEMONY OR SURVIVAL [’03] on p. 170 “A look at the maps reveals that the clinton-barak offer virtually divided the West Bank into three cantons, effectively separated from one another by two salients consisting of expansive Jewish settlement and infrastructure developments. The three cantons have only limited access to East Jerusalem- the center of palestinian commercial, cultural, and political life” .

    ‘…. chief negotiator at Camp David, Shlomo Ben-Ami, considered a dove in israeli spectrum, published an academic study in which he outlined the goal of the Oslo “peace process”: to establish a “neocolonial dependency” for the Palestinians, which will be permament’ . Double quotes are Chomsky’s.

    on p. 172, “The Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem was finally able to obtain official maps indicating Israeli territorial intentions. Israeli settlements now control 42% of West Bank”

    ‘The situation in 2003 is described in the primary US scholarly source on the settlements by its editor, Geoffrey Aronson, after a visit to the southern area. ” In virtually every israeli settlemnet, colonization eforts are proceeding apace”, leading to “revolutionary changes in patterns of transportation and access” aimed at “consolidating Israel’s ability to secure a permament hold over these lands,” integrated within much-expanded Israel’

    we can see what US had in mind in ’03. So, a question arises, did US/Israel change their plans or is it chomsky? Or has chomsky forgotten what he wrote and what others had said in ’03.
    it is not likely that US/Israel had changed their minds!
    anybody still think Israsel/US wld allow second state? Short of war? Which actualy may be welcomed! tnx

  39. B99 said on July 25th, 2009 at 6:15pm #

    Well Bozh – as per your quotes, Chomsky said it ‘ MIGHT be argued that a political settlement is no longer possible. That does not mean he was calling for a one-state solution. I’m certain Chomsky knows where he stood and where he stands. There’s no contradiction/

    What war are you referring to? How many wars can the Palestinians stand?

  40. Mulga Mumblebrain said on July 25th, 2009 at 7:10pm #

    B99, I have seen it written that, in public opinion polling, the average Yank, when invited to estimate the proportion of Jews in the US population, estimates it as between 20 and 43%. The reasons are blindingly obvious. The media is dominated, in ownership, control and personnel by Jews, and they seem, at least to my eyes, to be almost uniformly Likudnik types ie of the extreme Right and racial and cultural supremacists. Of course such observations, based on nothing more substantial than the facts, are instantly abused as ‘anti-Semitism’ and become ‘unfacts’ never to be mentioned in polite discourse. Much as I admire Judaic achievements in education and culture, for the life of me I cannot see how it is a good thing that 1% of the local population has such a gigantic over-representation, that this 1% in turn represents the extreme Right of that community, that they use their gigantic over-representation to twist and distort the news to suit their ideological agenda and that this plain fact is kept utterly uncommented upon.
    Similarly when ‘Rich Lists’ of the most successful and avaricious business parasites are published in this country, one never sees or hears comment on the incredible over-representation of Jews, not even in praise of their legendary ‘business acumen’. Reality is itself verboten, lest people draw the wrong conclusions. And, of course, this imposed silence, this bare-faced exercise of media power to shut down comment, only empowers those who will use these facts to peddle really anti-Semitic ideas. Of course, this is the intended result. The greater the growth of real anti-Semitism, the easier it is to slander all criticism of overwheening Judaic money power and influence, and its use to protect the rogue racist state of Israel. In the end the Zionists cannot succeed unless they gain absolute control of all the media, and turn it into a chorus of adulation for the Holy State. The last vestige of truth-telling and unbiased opinion, or even opinion biased in a manner other than to the Right, is the internet. I have been expecting action against it for years, and I see the proliferation of despicable laws that equate anti-Israel criticism with ‘anti-Semitism’ as the thin end of the wedge.

  41. Max Shields said on July 25th, 2009 at 7:23pm #


    There will be no two-state solution…unless what exists between Gaza and the West Bank is a form of a “state”. That, clearly, is the “writing on the wall”.

    I’ve presented the injustice of a two-state solution; and the impracticality of it ever being implemented.

    The “settlements” are part of the continuing accumulation of land through outright thievery, a conquest that will not simply be “overturned” by a US intervention or a change of Israeli imperialism or UN Security Council actions.

    If you can answer the question, why should Israel stop expanding and taking Palestinian land? Why should they “agree” to a two-state solution? Asymmetrical war has given them the overwhelming advantage. Their “enemies” are what sustain the Zionist state. Peace virtually ends its reason for being and makes it vulnerable to a return of indigenous peoples.

    One state is the only just solution. A state which allows full right of return of all Palestinians and retribution. It is a waste of time to talk of any sort of two state solution. The land cannot be equitably divided into two states. At best two states would create a loser (Palestinians) and a winner (Israel); essential what exists today. Two-states is a cruel illusion that buys time as Israel continues to expand and push Palestinians into the “sea”.

  42. bozh said on July 26th, 2009 at 7:28am #

    max, in saying people saw writing on the wall, i meant to say [or shl have said explicitly], some people are seeing destruction of a palestinian state.
    as to how many of ‘jews’ who protest US/israeli policy towards pal’ns are now for one-state sollution, one canonly take a guess: perhaps one in a thousand?
    how about amers? give me a guess please! tnx

  43. B99 said on July 26th, 2009 at 11:00am #

    Curiously – or not – Jews are very active in the struggle against the occupation. Virtually all but Christian orgs (obviously) have Jewish participation. This is a good thing. In theory it enables the group to address Jewish congregations and other associations of Jews who don’t trust gentiles (Arab or Anglos) one iota. On the other hand, some Jews tend to be soft on Israel in the sense that both sides come under some criticism (Pal behavior not viewed as ‘helpful’) while other Jews tend to see the struggle as a Jewish thing, their frame of reference is Jewish culture or religion – and they may want Anglos to take a back seat). And then there are those who are just working out their relationship with the parents by daring to be different. So it is a mixed bag – BUT, if Jews in America are going to tear themselves away from Zionism, it is essential to have Jews in the movement. No one else can do this for them.

    Even though, Jewish participation against the occupation is high, Jewish participation in things pro-Israel is far higher, far more paranoid and far more ugly. And it is well-moneyed relative to those orgs and people who are against zionism. The pro-Israel group is super-well-organized, and participation is made easy – turn out for fundraisers, regular donation opportunities, or put up for a night or two an Israeli who is on a speaking tour of sorts.

    Finally, most Americans would not dream of joining a justice for palestine group. They either have no dog in that fight or see both sides at fault – and usually, blame Palestinians for their own woes. So relative participation is very low. (Yet, college campuses are often very lively places for activism.)

    Mulga – It used to be that the quest for diversity meant hiring more minorities at the expense of the majority whites. As it turns out, it seems that minorities are now fairly well represented, but the whites who were replaced were mostly gentiles. Jews are over-represented in public life by leaps and bounds. The principal reason for this is that Jews tend to hire Jews (and also that high-income Jewish families have high-status plans for their offspring). This sort of ‘ethnic-nepotism’ is common among immigrant groups, but it wanes by the time of the second or their generation, as children and grandchildren out-marry, identify as white rather than say, Czech, and otherwise join the ranks of ‘ordinary’ America. This is not nearly so true of Jews, who after several generations still hire and promote with an eye toward their own kind. My evidence for this is anecdotal – but I think it is true to no small degree. If one were to raise the issue of diversity, one would likely be accused of Jew-hatred.
    Many or most Jews in the public sphere are on the liberal end of the spectrum – and if in the entertainment sector, as vapid on politics as any gentile. But it would be a minority of Jews who think Israel is wrong. They will not cross the Rubicon on Israel. This often does not matter, in the case of say, a weather or sports reporter. (But the NYTIMES never misses a chance to drop in a feature story about some Israeli who is hoping to make it in some sport.) But in the instance of Wolf Blitzer, or any number of ‘experts’ who appear on CNN, etc., the history and views of the individual definitely influences the tenor of the discussion.

    A related phenomenon is the high Jewish presence (and self-censorship by gentiles) in the print media which always skews a story to the official Israeli line. For instance, Israel killed two ‘suspected’ terrorists, the wording from Tel Aviv Propaganda, rather than two ‘alleged’ terrorists. In truth, the two men may not have been armed but merely approached the no-mans land Israel controls in Gaza. But the print media will use the Israeli provided adjective which dispels any doubt about the two victims. Or maybe the newspaper refers to the Jewish suburban ‘neighborhood’ of Har Homa, when Har Homa is not really a neighborhood but a settlement. Palestinians rarely get the benefit of living in a neighborhood – they live in ‘areas’ – as in Silwan is a Palestinian area.

    Max – you stand a fair chance of being right that Israel will not permit a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel. But I think we all understand pretty well that the call for a one-state solution is an intellectual exercise with no basis in immediate reality or that of the near future. Once the two-state solution is closed down, we are left with the no-state solution. Now, that might not preclude Palestinians from continuing to struggle for justice down the road (unless they are ‘transferred ‘far and wide) but that struggle will have to depend on weight of numbers in a changing regional demography. And by then, maybe global climate change will have made the Levant dry as a bone.

  44. kalidas said on July 26th, 2009 at 12:57pm #


    “A related phenomenon is the high Jewish presence (and self-censorship by gentiles)”
    That’s priceless.
    Do you mean “self censorship” as in an offer they can’t refuse?

    “Even though, Jewish participation against the occupation is high”

    “But it would be a minority of Jews who think Israel is wrong.”
    Well, which is it?

    When the chips are down and more is at stake than a little retribution, tsk.,tsk., do you truly believe the Jews, and I do mean the Jews, exactly as they refer to themselves, are going to defy their Jewishness/culture/secret hearts?

    Give me an effing break.

    Even at the so-called demonstrations in NYC or any big city there are never more than a few dozen Jews at most.
    And that’s on a good day with the sun shining and Starbucks afterwards.

    Bozh hits on the truth, even if reluctant to just come out and say it.
    One in ten thousand would take a mighty big puff on that pipe to believe.
    Considering the incredibly blatant racism (oh to be a fly on the wall) and mass psychosis, if not downright “ponerology” extant.

  45. B99 said on July 26th, 2009 at 1:20pm #

    Kalidas – More like an implied threat they can’t refuse. If a reporter writes too many stories (or sentences) from a Palestinian point of view, s/he will be accused of bias in reporting either because the pro-Israel crowd complains to the newspaper or because the departure in reporting is noticeable to the editor. Too much of that and the reporter will find himself covering neighborhood block parties instead. Same applies up the chain – to the editor and and editor in chief. Ultimately, no one wants to offend the owner, who can make heads roll if he is embarrassed by ‘biased’ coverage.

    Jewish participation is high in pro-justice activist groups relative to gentile participation in those groups (remembering that Jews are now under 1.9% of population). It is a minority of Jewish-Americans that think Israel is wrong.

    I don’t know what Jews will ‘defy’ Jews were not always Zionists, the notion of Israel got popular somewhere between the release of the movie Exodus (1960) and the 1967 War by which time Jews in NYC were ape-shit with happiness over the quick victory. Until this change, the Jewish concern was largely for the safety of world Jewry – and the US was felt to be the best guarantor of that. It could be at some point, that if Israel is thought to be too vulnerable, there may be another paradigm shift.

    At demos it can be hard to tell who is Jewish. In activist groups the ethnic makeup of every person is readily known.

    As for one in a thousand Jews favoring a one-state solution, we’d have to compare that to the non-Jewish ratio for it to be useful. We’d also have to know how many favor a two-state solution, how many want either Jew or Palestinian to disappear altogether, and how many are clueless.

  46. kalidas said on July 26th, 2009 at 1:29pm #

    And I might add the incredibly sadistic and diabolical defamation and extortion of ALL German people, seemingly in perpetuity, is not only seen as “OK,” is it accepted totally and unequivocally.

  47. B99 said on July 26th, 2009 at 1:49pm #

    Yes, the Goldhagen thesis is that all (virtually, anyway) Germans are guilty of aiding Nazism. If this holds for Germans, what does it say about Jews in Israel who vote for reactionary parties time after time?

  48. kalidas said on July 26th, 2009 at 1:51pm #

    B99, yes, an offer they can’t refuse, implied threat, whatever.
    Six of one..

    Point is, it’s not exactly self censorship anymore than saying Koreans calling Kim Jong-Il awfully good looking and a great guy, is self censorship.
    I think it’s called, well, FEAR.

    And this doesn’t apply only to “media” but also applies full spectrum, baby. From the man on the street to the General at the Pentagon, to the Congress, to Obama, to Sarkozy, to Merckel.
    I’m sure you know this.
    If you have any doubts, give it a whirl and you’ll soon see just how highly esteemed and valued a guy you are to “them” and yes, once again I said them.
    Go ahead, disagree just once on Israel or the mass psychosis of their incredible overblown paranoia, among other things..

    As for comparing and ratios, just try doing that when it’s not in Jewish interests to do so, as obviously your point is. I dare you. Point out, oh, lets say the enrollment at Harvard (or anywhere else), the banking industry, the porn industry, the slave trade of old, etc., etc. etc. Good luck!

    One state, two state, is all baloney. You know it and I know it so why waste words and breath on this?
    Want to guess the ratio of Arabs who agree the so-called Israelis are in no way serious?
    Who cares, they’re not Jewish.

    And therein lies the rub.

    Thanks for your thoughts and especially your self control.

    If I would have (and I have) offered the same links as Gary offers above, I would be shunned for sure. A specialty of so many self righteous intellectuals.

  49. B99 said on July 26th, 2009 at 2:34pm #

    Fear perhaps. Reporters, most of them I believe have little trouble falling in line. They do want to please their bosses. If there was fear it dissipates quickly, with ‘correct’ reporting. Besides, in the case of Israel, most were raised as we all were, reading the official line. They long ago absorbed the standard wisdom, and have little trouble sticking with the program.

    Things to change a bit over time. The nightly news shows used to handle the conflict with an Israeli (or sometimes American) Jew who would debate (if we could call it that) with a state dept hack. Now at least, Palestinians are usually allowed to represent themselves. Of course, the Israeli usually gets the last word – and on occasion when the Palestinian is unopposed (something that used to never happen) he is often spoken to in a derisive tone while a lone Zionist is spoken to in terms of deference.

    I waste words and breath on the Palestinian issue as an academic exercise, an intellectual exercise, a moral exercise, and as a tax-paying citizen. Four good reasons I think. My efforts may be no more effective than that of a butterfly flapping in China – but I do get some satisfaction out of it. Essentially however, the Palestinians are on their own. They’ve known that for a long time. They are a brave people.

  50. Max Shields said on July 26th, 2009 at 3:14pm #

    B99, No-state could in fact be the solution; states being what they are.
    So I don’t see that alternative as a negative outcome. The status quo is zero-sum with Israel holding the entire deck. Why give it up? To share is to forgo the “Jewish/Zionist” state. Why would Israel do that?

    The state of Israel was conceived as a zero-sum game. It’s existence depends on the continuation of the status quo and even an escalation of fear-mongering and demonization…there is for such a pathological state enough demonization.

    This is not a state that negotiates. Perhaps it saw a simple means of triangulation through Jordan and Egypt. But the Palestinians can never know that kind of “conclusion”. Israel will never “surrender” its stranglehold on Palestinian lands because it would be self-destructive.

    Now, the alternative is a single-state, or call it no state solution which sees the implosion of the Zionist state, probabaly through a variety of circumstances: collapse of US support due to US economic collapse; the continued population inconcruities that tip the scale toward the Palestinians; the ecological peaks that do not allow the Zionist state to continue to exist and thus internal discontent.

    It just does not seem probable that Israel can continue to sustain it the tension and the wherewithall to dominate over time. It could be precipitous or not. But two states is an illusion..it may seem nice and tidy, but it has no place in reality.

  51. bozh said on July 26th, 2009 at 4:05pm #

    in interpersonal and internt’l relationships, sanity produces win-win result or a mutually satisfying agreement.
    it was obvious even from first zionist congress at basle in 1897 that ‘zionists’ were on a mission that cld not be brought about humanely.
    once one obtains land, etc., inhumanely, it can only be defended by inhumane means.
    ‘zionistic’ insanity will end. Nazistic insanity ended also .
    for world to recover its sanity, it must utterly eradicate insanity going on in expalestine.
    it is true that we’ve endured insanity for at least 10K yrs. But can we do that forever? Not likely! S’mthing, and not just warming, may doom us unless we finally use our sanity. tnx

  52. B99 said on July 26th, 2009 at 6:46pm #

    Max – by ‘no-state’ – I meant for the Palestinians. The Jews already have their state. And there really is nothing on the horizon for one to think otherwise.

    The state of Israel was indeed conceived as a zero-sum game. But that doesn’t mean that the Palestinians are playing that game. They have been fighting for a small share of the pie for decades (while simultaneously fighting for survival). And now the one-staters are telling them to wait wait a few generations until the balance of power or demographics or something changes so they can take advantage of the opportunity live with the Jews.

    As important as US aid is for Israel, it won’t collapse from loss of this aid. Its but a small fraction of the total economy. They would surely feel the loss though. But it is not an existential threat. In fact, Netanyahu talked of dispensing with aid so that Israel is not beholden to the US. However, he couldn’t resist the handout.
    It should go without saying that if Israel is not willing to part with any of Palestine it is certainly not going to pursue union with the Palestinians. Israel may indeed have to reorganize itself at some point for reasons we cannot pinpoint this far in advance but to jump from demographic or environmental pressures to one one-state is a speculative leap.

  53. B99 said on July 26th, 2009 at 6:48pm #

    Bozh – Palestinians have endured the insanity for more than 60 years – or about 90 depending on when you want to start counting. The one-staters are suggesting they wait what, another 60, 90, 120?

  54. rachamim ben ami said on July 27th, 2009 at 12:52am #

    I love all the deep thinking here! Here, try this on for size:

    In 1919 both groups were offered their own states. The Arabs (i.e. “Palestinians”) were offered more than 70% of ALL land and nearly 60% of all arable land. At this time mind you, the “land” included Israel, Gaza, the so called “WB” AND Jordan!

    The Arabs refused out of hand while the Zionists accepted unequivocally. In 1920 the Arabs launched terrorist attacks against Jews…

    Due to the Arab refusal the Brits lopped off Jordan in 1921 and set up a client state for ‘Abdallah al Shariff of Mecca (Hashemite Monarchy).

    All the while the Jews offered no organised or official response to the Arab terrorism which peaked in 1929 but continued until 1936, at which time the Arabs upped the ante by going into open rebellion against the British.

    At this point the Zionists began fighting back.

    All the while the Arabs refused offer after offer, so that when 1947 came, and the UN Vote on Partition, they decided to go for broke.

    After losing their gambit, badly, and throwing 475,000 Arabs into flux they became “Professional Refugees,” with connivance of despotic Arab leaders who have pimped this dynamic for all it is worth.

    The UNRWA is a huge money making machine backed by petrol dollars and an unimaginable ideological investment that precludes any real progress ever taking place. Why try and solve a dynamic that allows you to brutally terrorise your own nation with an almost carte blanche laissez faire attitude?

    If you are being pressed for democratic reforms, simply go on the offencive with state run media, loosen up control on the right kinds of street demonstrations at the opportune times and like Mubarak and Assad you too can rape your own People.

    There are 22 Arab Nations even without the PA or HAMAS. Israel’s historic lands include all of Gaza, modern Israel, the so called “WB, almost all of Jordan and much of Sinai and southern Lebanon and yet, Israel has ALWAYS agreed in principle to co-exist with the “Palestinians.”

    This despite the cold hard fact that no nation named “Palestine” has EVER existed, nor has there EVER been an Arab Nation on ANY of the afore mentioned lands until almost the middle of the 20th Century, and then ONLY because of Colonialism (French and English).

    What nation on the planet would even be asked to give up more than 81% of its ancestral lands? Yet Israel has ALWAYS been willing!

    Does Israel ask too much? Recognition of its right to exist on that paltry 19%? The right to do so without having to have 400,000 of its citizens existing within 12 seconds of bomb shelters for 8 years?

    Simply read the HAMAS Charter, you know, that cute book that claims that the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is non-fiction. THEN see if you think Israel should be concerned.

  55. Mulga Mumblebrain said on July 27th, 2009 at 11:50pm #

    Our new golem, Mr Bel Ami, waxes hysterical concerning Israel’s ‘birthright’ and its ‘ancestral lands’. The problem dear golem, is that the Jews were never more than one of a multitude of tribes that have lived in Canaan for tens of thousands of years. For the vast majority of that period there was no such tribe as the Jews. When the Jews were present, they lived much of the time in easy or uneasy co-existence with others. After the Roman devastation of the first century AD, many of the Jews left, but many stayed. Some of them stayed true to their faith, some converted to Christianity and later some to Islam. At the time that the Zionist idea, a typically arrogant European colonial project, was concocted, Herzl and later Ben-Gurion both acknowledged that the Palestinians were the descendants of the Jews, amongst others.
    Most of the Jews who demand the right of return to Israel, are descended from tribes that converted to Judaism in the years after the Roman dispersal, and have no roots in Canaan whatsoever. When the European colonial powers, responding to Judaic financial pressure, gave away another people’s land to foreign interlopers, it was based on nothing more than religious faery tales and the arrogant and racist assertion that Judaic claims to the land trump those of the indigenous, whose roots go back millenia.
    I love your compendium of arrogant Zionist lies, not that we haven’t seen them all before. The ideology behind such raucous truth-twisting is that of absolute supremacism, the innate belief that Judaic lives are vastly more valuable than those of the ‘two-legged animals’ you have been brutalising for generations. A good example is your whining about the poor 400,000 Israelis living near their bomb shelters. The hundreds of thousand more Gazans, of course, have no bomb-shelters, and while Hamas et al’s ‘rockets’ killed 14 precious Israelis, the Israelis, with high explosives, DIME munitions, white phosphorus, flechettes etc, killed over one thousand even before the cowardly carnage recently that killed 1400. Just what is it about you Zionazi racists that makes you so totally indifferent to the deaths of the untermenschen you are crushing? Just what is the psychology of those who never cease whining about their children having to play in bomb shelters, when they fly at supersonic speed over Gaza, night after night, driving Gazan children into madness, and exercise a medieval siege that has left Gazan children stunted, anaemic and malnourished, and who incessantly vilify, smear and attempt to intimidate those who stand up for their victims? Why, in short, are Judeofascists such vicious racists and completely cynical hypocrites?

  56. mary said on July 28th, 2009 at 12:02am #

    Gary Corseri’s fine article has produced some interesting and helpful comments here.

    The screening of a documentary film about Rachel Corrie at a Jewish Film Festival has provoked a huge row in San Francisco.


    Amid all the shrill accusations of ‘self-hating Jew’ and being ‘anti-Semitic’ which he has no doubt received, I applaud Mr Stein, the festival Director, for acknowledging the need for a wider discussion without the prejudice and spite – “The furor is much larger than this one film or this one speaker,” said Peter L. Stein, the festival’s executive director. “It reveals a rift in our community that we all need to help understand and hopefully heal.”

    Hopefully there will also be a recognition of the injustice done to Rachel and her family and that eventually the person who killed her will be brought to trial.

    PS I have not read any of the 1250 (and counting) comments below the actual article!

  57. Max Shields said on July 28th, 2009 at 8:09am #


    First, I’m not a “one-stater” telling anyone to “wait” or do anything.

    I agree that Palestinians are not rolling over, which is why, as I’ve repeated elsewhere, Palestinians, when given a choice overwhelmingly see a single regional “state” as the only real solution.

    A two-state is not a solution for the reasons I’ve repeated. You cannot “divide” what is there and have a viable “state”. Ecologically it is just unsustainable. Waterway access, drinking water, arable land all of which is under Israeli control…you cannot…divide the baby. It is one slice of inhabitable slice of Earth, not two.

    Making this a case of simply negotiating two pieces of land may feel cozy and good…but the Palestinians would in the end be deprived of any kind of a chance at being made even faintly whole. Unrest would continue…

    All of this is smothered in a stalemate with Israel continuing to steal more and more land. And the US simply says “don’t do that”. Where are the consequences? Who’s drinking all the water? You think this is going to change B99 with two-states?

  58. B99 said on July 28th, 2009 at 8:40am #

    Max- But the so-called one-state-solution is a mere intellectual exercise. There’s no chance of that happening. Palestinians know this, which is why they have favored a state in all of WB&G for decades.

    Likely, the only way to an eventual one-state solution is one-step at a time, as the Jews did it.

  59. Max Shields said on July 28th, 2009 at 9:11am #

    B99 we are going in circles. The “two-state” is an illusion, on paper and without the slightest chance of solving the problem. It is a poke in the eye to the Palestinians and the Israelis aren’t even interested in that faux solution.

    I understand your argument. There was this Oslo “agreement” and if we could just…. but it’s all a shame. It’s a road to nowhere. It sounds like a solution until you begin to take it seriously…than it evaporates.

    I’m not much for states, but I don’t see an agreement whereby Palestinians would have, as part of a “two-state” agreement, a full fledged military

  60. Max Shields said on July 28th, 2009 at 9:15am #

    I’m less sold, B99, on the incremental approach you suggest. Over many many years it would come to be, but that is an evolution that is beyond any of the living. What will the Earth look like then? Who knows?

    I appreciate your desire for a fair solution, but I see nothing of value (in fact, I think the two-state is more intellectual theorizing than a one state – the latter is a natural solution, I would argue.) It is people who stand between a just and viable solution, not intellectuals.

  61. B99 said on July 28th, 2009 at 9:31am #

    Rach – Who offerred the Zionists nearly 30% of Palestine in 1919? And by what right?

    By 1920 Jewish efforts at colonization and hegemony were not only manifest on the ground and in the lives of the native people, but were openly avowed by the WZO. Naturally, the natives resisted, and the Zionists, protected by the British army, struck out at the natives.

    Britain had no legal right to ‘lop off’ Transjordan. This is all Arab land. Britain’s only obligation was to remove itself from the region as promised.

    The Jews, in order to conquer the country, organized terror militias. These militias are the ancestors of today’s IDF (actually IOF). Arab resistance to the British was due to Britain being the occupying power whose open declaration was to set up a Jewish enterprise in this Arab country. Jews responded by biting the hand that fed them – carrying out terror attacks on their benefactors, the Brits.

    As per the UN General Assembly recommendation, (like all G.A. recommendations) the Palestinians were within their legal rights to reject the effort to give their country away to European interlopers. For the UN, that meant going back to the drawing board to come up with another arrangement. For the US, that meant withdrawing its support for partition. For the Brits, it meant abandoning the country to Zionist marauders. For the Jews, it meant drawing up plans for ethnic cleansing of non-Jews. For the Palestinians, it meant the violent expulsion of 750,000 from their homes, land, and country. They still have the keys and deeds to their property and want nothing but to return home.

    Since then, Israeli-Jews have been under the constant barrage of the Zionist propaganda machine operated by the government of Israel with the co-operation of the media, both of which instill racial propaganda into the minds of forever paranoid Jews, who in turn raise their children to leave the country upon graduation of high school and shoot the cvilians of neighboring countries all in the interest of Erez Israel.

    There are 22 Arab nations that have offerred recognition and full trade with Israel if it returns to its pre-67 borders. Israel has refused this offer of peace because it prefers a bigger Israel to peace. It can do this because it is armed to the teeth by the US and because its own Jewish population is brainwashed and paranoid.

    Israel has no historic lands. In 1947 there was no one on Earth called an Israeli. However, there had been people called Palestinian for more than 2000 years. The notion of an ‘Israeli’ is a creation of whole cloth, one that had to be molded out of disparate Jewish groups from around the world – none of whom had any notion of being Israeli. Israel is ahistorical – it is a 20th century creation by Euro-Jews and Britain.

    It should be understood that Arab nations predate Israel, and but for betrayals by the British and French, all of southwest Asia would be an Arab state (these same betrayals made Israel possible).

    Until ‘Sabras’ were increasingly born in Israel, Jews could only make claim (and lived in peace with fellow Palestinian Arabs) on Jerusalem city and a few small communities. What Israel is demanding today is that Palestinians give up all rights – in fact, give up their very existence – to 100% of their ancestral land – and give it to colonists from abroad.

    Weight of numbers. Israel kills the native people at a ten to one ratio – that is, to make Israel ever larger, Israel is willing to lose one Israeli for every ten Palestinians it kills.

    Simply read every zionist charter in their history. They all call for a Jewish state in all of Palestine. There is no room for non-Jews in this racialized state. They back it up with bombs and missiles, poison gas, and collective punishment. In short, race-based ethnic cleansing.

    Is it no wonder Israel is the routinely regarded as the most hated nation in the world? That its people are dreaded as visitors in Europe?

    The clock is ticking on Israel. Tick-tock.

  62. B99 said on July 28th, 2009 at 10:34am #

    Max – If we are thinking we are solving a problem then the entire exercise is pointless. We will go to our graves and there will still be a problem – a major humanitarian problem – pretty much regardless of how many states we favor. The idea is to get a material piece of land for Palestine before the Palestinians are disappeared from history. They then have an eternity to get back the rest. The basis for this Palestinian state comes from the expressed wishes of the Palestinian people, from the three decades position by Palestinian political representatives (and now also by Hamas), from the position of the United Nations with all but one of its 192 members signed on, from the World Court, from the 22 Arab League states, and from a large minority (majority?) of Israelis.

    There is no institutional backing I can think of for one-state. This could change and glacial forces have been known to move over time – or perhaps make a leap – but at this point, and for the last 30 years, and likely for the forseeable future – there is no reason to believe there will be much movement on this. If Palestinians make it known that one-state (with Jews intact) is what they want – I will follow their lead if I am still alive. In the meantime, the voices promoting one-state are largely those of activists and intellectuals. Doesn’t make them bad people, just people without portfolio.

    I am not now nor ever have been a supporter of Oslo. (I long ago critiqued Oslo for the Friends Committee on National Legislation – the Quakers). My biggest fear with Oslo was that Arafat had given away the entire store – always a danger with him. Pretty close to it as it quickly turned out.

    The major difficulty is getting Israel to negotiate as a people interested in the long-term interests of the region. That requires a paradigm shift on the part of Israelis, one they cannot accomplish without considerable political pressure from the US (accompanied by pressure from other players) – a nation we know full well to be under the spell of the Israel-First crowd. That, in turn, requires Jews in US to actively re-evaluate their positions – whether “Jewishly’ interested in Israel’s survival or as humanitarians. For the most part, only Jews can lead other Jews out of their racist mindset, the rest of us are ignored and abhorred. The establishment of soft-zionist and non-zionist Jewish orgs as a counter to the reactionaries who control this realm gives US congress members an alternative outlet for their vote (remembering that senators and reps largely have no more love for Israel than does the average talking parrot) – and there is some evidence that many would like another option but live in fear. Those non-reactionary orgs are growing on so-called J-street in DC. In a nutshell, this is a domino scenario, with some things playing out simultaneously, with varying importance, that could result in political movement on the issue. It could play out something like this or not, the winds of change can’t be precisely known.

    As I see it, Palestine and the world has to insist on a Palestinian state with all the rights accorded states – and that means a bona fide military, control over water and other resources, communications, borders, etc. Gotta resolve the refugee issue too. There are many other full-state requirements as well that Israel has to relent on – but will do so only under true pressure.

  63. NorthStar said on August 3rd, 2009 at 2:51am #

    Well I will tell you straight out,Israel has no right to exist,Israel with U,S.A. Zionist did 911,the FED RESERVE is another ongoing RIP OFF by ISRAEL,the holocaust is an overblown figure to compel perpetual pity and support for the Terrorist state of Israel.This little fraction of land and the CRIMINALS therein aided by Zionist criminals afar cause almost ALL the trouble of the entire planet.Defend the JEWISH people lets say you were a lawyer of long ago defending the expulsion from WHEREVER and you have to defend them for being expelled over 80 times it would sure be hard to blame it on anyone else but YOUR CLIENT THE JEWISH PEOPLE.But yet it is NEVER,EVER the JEWS FAULT.Do you not have the sense to own up to your VIOLATIONS in OTHER peoples lands .I am sick of Israel first poor ,persecuted Israel .It is PLAIN to see the reason people are ,jailed for being deniers is IT IS ALL A BIG FAT OVERBLOWN ,FABRICATED LIE.In need of Hate laws to ensure silence of all VALID arguments .Maybe Hollywood could just once do a movie critical of JEWS OR ISRAEL.God knows they have blasted everyone ELSE but Israel or them as people.Marlon Brando said when it comes to making THAT kind of TRUTHFUL film, why then,,,,they circle the wagons.It is a pathetic double standard that the WORLD is justifiably SICK OF.I am correct on all my points and you know it………

  64. Rehmat said on September 13th, 2009 at 9:44am #

    Holocausts – Too many to remember

    Personally, I tends to agree with Dr. Norman Finkelstein mother’s interpretation of Holocaust: “Jews or anyone else doesn’t has the monopoly over Holocaust.”

    Jewish religious text mention two Jewish Holocausts carried out by Romans. According to Jewish holy book Talmud (Gittin 57b): “Four billion Jews were killed by the Romans in the city of Bethar – While Gittin 58a claims that sixteen million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by the Romans. The Book of Esther tells the story behind Jewish festive holiday of Purim, which is based on the slaughter of 75,000 non-Jewish Persians on the order of King Ahasueros (Xerxes) on the advice of his Jewish Queen Esther and Jewish prime minister Mordecai.

    After entering Jerusalem on July 15, 1099 – the Christian Franks under the command of Godfrey of Bouilion slaughtered the entire Muslim and Jewish population (over 70,000) during the next three days. ……….