"The genocidal barbarism of the Nazi forces has been well documented. What hitherto has been little known is the fate of fifteen million German civillians who found themselves at the mercy of Soviet armies and on the wrong side of new postwar borders. All over Eastern Europe, the inhabitants of communities that had been established for many centuries were either expelled or killed. Over two million Germans did not survive."

"One night in April 1945 soldiers burst into our home awakening my family. They grabbed my mother and tore her wedding ring and earrings off. With nothing but the clothes on our backs and a few small bundles under my mother's and grandmother's arms we were driven into the dark. I was petrified as I clung to my grandmother and we joined the large crowd in the middle of the street. The whole town was taken in this manner and herded out of Karlsdorf to the airport just outside the town. We were put into hangers, which were surrounding by a high barbed wire fence. We slept on the bare, cold and damp dirt floor. No heat was provided, so that condensation from the people breathing would rise to the ceiling and in the morning, as it cooled off, it would drip down on us like rain.

Throughout Yugoslavia , all ethnic Germans were put into concentration camps and became prisoners of the state. We lost our citizenship and all our property was confiscated. I, too, at the tender are of four, was considered a political prisoner and a threat to the security of Yugoslavia. From 1945 to 1949, we suffered starvation, beatings, mass murders and slave labor." -Testimony of Survivor Elisabeth Walter

But Deborah Lipstadt insists that this woman did not survive a holocaust!

Deborah Lipstadt insists that the more than 2 million people who died because of the starvation, beatings, mass murders and slave labor did not die in a holocaust. Deborah Lipstadt insists that the more than 2 million people, who were targeted and who died because of what ethnicity they were, did not die in a holocaust.

(For more of the Testimony of Survivor Elisabeth Walter, see p100 of A Terrible Revenge : The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans )

I asked Lipstadt about signing a petition to help bring Shlomo Morel to justice. I mentioned to her that Morel was responsible for the deaths of Germans who died in concentration camps (under the conditions survivors like Ms. Walter have testified to) It was Lipstadt who brought up the question of whether I thought they died in what could be called a holocaust. I said yes. She was making the point that it wasn't a holocaust. In fact, several minutes later, when I was talking to someone about the 2 million ethnic Germans that died after WWII, Lipstadt felt it necessary to interject, "Two million Germans did not die after World War II." I called her a "denier."

There were others who attended her talk at Barnes & Noble who totally denied that Jews had murdered Germans in camps! Note that they didn't dispute how many Germans were murdered at the hands of Jews, they totally denied that it had happened at all!!! The irony and hypocrisy is incredible. What is commonly referred to as "Holocaust Denial" is actually a dispute about specifics of the Holocaust, what we have here is actual denial. A denial that is total and not simply a dispute over specifics, numbers, methods, intent or scope.

There are people who share the blame for keeping so many people in ignorance about the enormous, horrific reality that the German civilians, men, women, children and babies suffered after WWII. Lipstadt is one of them. Lipstadt calls John Sack's book An Eye for an Eye "not a good book." When I said it had been coroberated by 60 minutes, she scoffed at the idea that that should mean something. The woman is in denial. An Eye for an Eye had been fact-checked by 60 Minutes and they found eight eyewitnesses in addition to the eyewitnesses John Sack had found. An Eye for an Eye was fact-checked by three major magazines and a paper whose editor said, "It may be the most accurate story in the history of American journalism." An Eye for an Eye was corroborated by the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune. Historians hired by major newspapers in Germany went to the German Federal Archives and wrote, "The facts are true," "The facts are right," "The facts are iron-bound."

When John Sack worked seven years on the book that exposed the details a holocaust that many want to suppress, he anticipated an extremist might resort to calling him a "Nazi." He expected that exposing crimes against humanity committed by Jews would result in some sort of slander "from the extremities." But he didn't expect the tactic from eminent Jewish intellectuals.

"Never in my wildest speculations did I suppose that an eminent intellectual on a TV network would refer to "A man called John Sack" and another intellectual would say, ""Well first of all, these people are anti-Semites, second of all they're neo-Nazis."" John Sack, An Eye for an Eye p.173

"The eminent intellectual was Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic, the other intellectual was Deborah Lipstadt, the author of Denying the Holocaust, and the program was The Charlie Rose Show of December 16, 1993." John Sack, An Eye for an Eye p.235

"When I wrote An Eye for an Eye, I hadn't guessed that people would call it a monstrous lie. A lot of it, afterall, had been fack-checked by three major magazines and a paper whose editor said, "It may be the most accurate story in the history of American journalism." A lot of it, after all, had been fact-checked by 60 Minutes, which found eight eyewitnesses who I hadn't, so I hadn't guesses that the titles of some reviews would be False Witness and The Big Lie. "

".. the reviewers say that An Eye for an Eye isn't true, that what I wrote there never happened at all.

Please! Much of An Eye for an Eye had been fact-checked by California magazine, fact-checked by GQ, and, for the Village Voice, fact-checked by a woman who is the Fact-Checker from Hell. She and I checked every single word, even if we had to call up Poland." And when, after two weeks of this, night and day, we were finally done, the editor of the Voice gave an interview saying, "This may be the most accurate story in the history of American journalism."

"It was corroborated by the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune. Historians hired by major newspapers in Germany went to the German Federal Archives and wrote, "The facts are true," "The facts are right," "The facts are iron-bound.

... The Jewish paper Forward said, "Sack is transparently writing docudrama.""

Shlomo Morel Must Stand Trial for Crimes Against Humanity

At the end of World War II, thousands of Jews set up 1,255 concentration camps for German civilians -- German men, women, children and babies. There Jews beat, whipped, tortured and murdered the Germans. "Why, then, for fifty years did people suppress the news of Shlomo Morel? I'd have thought that a man who commanded a concentration camp, who Jews and Germans testified killed thousands of prisoners, who was wanted in Poland but who fled to the Middle East - I'd have thought that Shlomo's story was well worth telling, but Shlomo's not German but Jewish, he didn't flee to Syria but Israel, and for almost fifty years not one American newspaper mentioned him." p 176 "An Eye for an Eye" John Sack But still to this day, there are people in positions of influence and power who sit on their hands and do nothing to help bring Shlomo Morel to justice. What did you know and when did you know it Ms. Lipstadt? Poland is demanding the extradition of Shlomo Morel. Israel continues to refuse, the hypocrisy is disgusting. Why are people in Jewish Studies and Holocaust Studies doing nothing about this man who is accused of crimes against humanity, a Jewish man accused of the deaths of hundreds of Germans in a postwar detention camp? This is happening now: "Morel, 86, faces charges of crimes against humanity in relation to more than 1500 inmates at a camp in southern Poland, many of whom perished in "barbaric" circumstances." - January 3, 2005 The Sydney Morning Herald John Sack also exposed the ugly fact that many acted to suppress the book An Eye for an Eye. It got even uglier for John Sack.

"People say they'll sue me, they'll destroy me, they'll kill me. One man takes my driver's license, writes down my address, and says, "If you write about me, I will call the Israeli Mafia."", John Sack reveals.

This isn't the first time I have heard about Jews doing this to Americans, threatening with the use of Israeli force to silence Americans. This vicious tactic some Jews have used against Americans in order to scare them into not talking. Threats of violence or death if they dared talk about things that Jews think puts them in a bad light. In fact, communicating on Craigslist, someone made a similar threat to me about contacting the Mossad. Another time, for daring to point out historical facts about Israeli hijacking, someone emailed me threatening to cut off my fingers. I forwarded that email to the FBI.

Talking with people I get a sense that these manipulations and threats have made an impact on American society with respect to what Lipstadt would call "moral authority." I have talked with people who think Jews simply would not commit crimes against humanity as opposed to other groups that would! Average people deprived of the chance to hear about certain facts, like the horrific concentration camp crimes of Shlomo Morel, end up with a distorted view of the world.

This is the threat I received: "i will be there soon... and soon you shall not have fingers to type with... see you in a few. "
That threat emailed to me was for posting this information:
"The first airplane hijacking in the Middle East also falls outside the canon: Israel’s hijacking of a Syrian airways civilian jet in 1954, with the intent “to get hostages in order to obtain the release of our prisoners in Damascus,” who had been captured on a spy mission in Syria (Prime Minister Moshe Sharett). Sharett accepted the “factual affirmation of the US State Department that our action was without precedent in the history of international practice.” In October 1956, the Israeli air force shot down an unarmed Egyptian civilian plane, killing 16 people including four journalists, in a failed attempt to assassinate Field Marshall Abdul Hakim Amar, second to President Nasser, at a time when the two countries were not in a state of war. This was a preplanned operation, thus unlike Israel’s downing of a Libyan civilian airliner with 110 killed as it was lost in a sandstorm two minutes flight time from Cairo, towards which it was heading. This February 1973 action took place while Israeli airborne and amphibious forces were attacking Tripoli in northern Lebanon, killing 31 people (mainly civilians) and destroying classrooms, clinics, and other buildings in a raid justified as preemptive. All of this was (and is) dismissed as insignificant, if even noticed. The reaction to Arab terrorism is quite different." Israeli terrorism

Read about another death threat, this one targeting a journalist by the name of Alison Weir. Libelous accusations were made as well.

davi wrote, " it makes you wonder why irving resists people labeling his hatred of Jews as anti-Semitism."

It doesn't make sense. The "Holocaust Denial" label is a manipulative propaganda tactic Lipstadt uses, an honest look at the facts shows this to be the case. But some people don't want the facts aired.

davi wrote, "since Irving has been convicted of libel"

No, he wasn't convicted, he lost his libel suit against Lipstadt. Irving wasn't on trial for libel, he was suing for libel. A Judge unwilling to take an honest look at the facts sided against Irving in Irving's suit against Lipstadt that she libeled him.

You really don't have a grasp on the basic issues yet you are so sure you know the facts. You don't know the facts and it is a disgrace that such ignorant people take swipes at C-SPAN.

It is a disgrace that Media Matters participates in a vicious campaign against C-SPAN and of libeling David Irving. It is grotesque, manipulative and dishonest to use a propaganda term like "Holocaust Denier" to describe Irving. Media Matters is now attacking the best thing on TV.

You and Media Matters should support C-SPAN's efforts at fairness, they happen to be correct because most people are not getting all the facts. It would come as a surprise to many, I am sure, to learn that Mr. Irving has documented evidence of the massive shooting of Jews and has written and talked about gassings taking place at Auschwitz so the term "denier" is simply slander.

Has everyone forgotten the OJ trial? Just because OJ was not convicted does not mean he was not guilty. Just because Libstadt was not convicted of libel does not mean that she was not guilty.

The woman simply twists things into untruths in order to serve her agenda and she doesn't want people heard that expose her dishonesty. Case in point, she has just removed all the comments from her blog because she claims, "most of them filled with drivel trying to prove all sorts of absurd things, e.g. Irving is not a denier and he did not lose the lawsuit."
This is a perfect example of how she deceives readers. The fact is no one argued that Irving "did not lose the lawsuit", what was argued was that Irving should not have lost the lawsuit! This is yet another example of Lipstadt dishonestly portraying a situation so that she can win her ideological battle. What as shame people don't look into the facts before they trash the best thing on TV. Read the links at my blog, they go into more detail.

"debunking the idiots" wrote, "But look at it this way. If I said that only fourteen people died at the Battle of Gettysburg, although explicitly pointing out that those fourteen people died miserably, while claiming that all the other deaths were part of some historical conspiratorial fraud, wouldn't you be justified in calling me a "Gettysburg denier" for having denied the central facts of the battle?"

I wrote, "Fourteen people!?! You have totally distorted the whole thing, and proved my point."

"debunking the idiots" asked, "How about pointing out the distortion, instead of merely making a claim?"

debunking the idiots, when you use a number extremely low like fourteen as an example of a "Gettysburg denier" you prove my point. 14 out of the total deaths at Gettysburg? (there is not complete agreement on the total deaths but we could use the total of 10,000) " At least 10,000 soldiers were killed or mortally wounded in the three-day Battle of Gettysburg." -Killed in Action:  Eyewitness Accounts of the Last Moments of 100 Union Soldiers Who Died at Gettysburg

Lipstadt must have given you the wrong idea of what Irving thinks the total number of Jews is who died in the Holocaust. You can't think it is fair to equate 14 out of 10,000 to something between 1,000,000 out of 6,000,000 to 4,000,000 out of 6,000,000. Come on! Lipstadt clearly has libeled the man if you think that the percentages between those comparisons are anywhere close. Take what Irving said the number of deaths were at the least: 1,000,000. Do you realize that you are saying that 17% of the total is about the same as estimating 0.14% of the total? Using that percentage, you think Irving thinks only 8,400 Jews died in the Holocaust????

Clearly, the term "Holocaust Denier" libels Mr. Irving. An honest look at the facts shows this to be the case. It is dishonest and manipulative to call Irving a "Holocaust Denier. " Clearly people are deceived about what Irving actaully says about the Holocaust. This person calling themsleves "debunking the idiots" posting on Libstadt's blog makes the comparison of a "Holocaust Denier" with that of a hypothetical "Gettysburg Denier". In the example, the hypothetical "Gettysburg Denier" thinks only 14 people died at the Battle of Gettysburg!! Do you see how extremely unfair that is to Mr. Irving? Do you see that Lipstadt has libeled Irving since this is the false impression people are getting when they hear Lipstadt's term?

"The most "insidious" forms of Holocaust denial, Lipstadt suggests, are "immoral equivalencies": that is, denying the uniqueness of The Holocaust. This argument has intriguing implications." p70 The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering
by Norman Finkelstein

grotesque, manipulative and dishonest.

The vicious attacks on David Irving and C-SPAN

As I pointed out, a vicious campaign is being waged that is grotesque, manipulative and dishonest. Ms. Lipstadt is defaming Irving and she is gloating over her power fight with C-SPAN. Ms. Lipstadt is a game player, she cannot honestly say that people are not being deceived when she uses the term "Holocaust Denier" and that it is causing unnecessary anguish for many people.

I am sure many people hearing about the "Holocaust Denier" would be SHOCKED to learn that it is actually Lipstadt's outragous lie.

I am sure people would be shocked to learn that
Irving said at the Libel Trial, "I do not deny that there was some kind of gassing at gas chambers in Birkenau, it is highly likely that there was." (Emphasis mine. For the layperson it should be explained with regards to the words "Birkenau" and "Auschwitz" that it is often refered to as "Auschwitz-Birkenau" or the "Auschwitz camp at Birkenau") and keep in mind that Irving said this at the trial with Lipstadt, the very trial Lipstadt's book is about!

Not Libel?

As evidenced on Lipstadt's own blog, people do get the wrong idea because of Ms. Lipstadt's use of the term "Holocaust denier."

As I pointed out on her blog, Ms. Lipstadt has made people think that Irving denies that Jews died in camps or were killed in camps. For example, the "Jewish Press Online" compared Irving's opinion to "denying that African-Americans were enslaved." You can see how outrageous that is, Lipstadt has succeeded in libeling the man.

And not wanting to be libeled by Ms. Lipstadt is not the same as trying to "silence Lipstadt".

And to compound the wrong of giving people the idea that Irving denies that Jews died in camps or were killed in camps, Ms. Lipstadt tries to keep him from getting a fair hearing which could clear it up! (so people can continue to get the false impression) If not her intent, will Ms. Lipstadt issue a press release that clears it up for the people who are mislead by her term? Will Ms. Lipstadt issue a press realize that says, "Just to be clear, Irving does not deny that Jews died in camps or were killed in camps." If not, why not? It is wrong to knowingly label a man so that many people think he denies that that Jews died in camps or were killed in camps. Ms. Lipstadt is a game player, she cannot honestly say that people are not getting the wrong idea when she uses the term and that it is causing unnecessary anguish for many people. As evidenced in this blog, people do have the outragous notion Irving denies that Jews died in camps or were killed in camps and that is Lipstadt's doing and it is grotesque, manipulative and dishonest.

Lipstadt seems to be enjoying her dirty work, she writes with childish enthusiasm, "AP Wire and bloggers catch the C-Span-Spin Wave!"

Trying to explain it to Richard:

Richard, as I have tried to explain, what Deborah Lipstadt is doing is wrong .

Irving is a man that believes that Jews were killed in great number and has documneted specific conversations of Germans talking aout the shootings. Irving is a man who believes that the Jews died in concentration camps. Irving is a man who believe that Nazis not only killed Jews with mass shootings but also killed Jews in concentration camps.
Now does that sound like a "Holocaust Denier?

If your first reaction to what I am writting is that I must be wrong about what Irving thinks then you prove my point that using the term "Holocaust Denier" to describe David Irving is grotesque, manipulative and dishonest.

Irving wrote, "If this biography were simply a history of the rise and fall of Hitler's Reich it would be legitimate to conclude "Hitler killed the Jews." He after all had created the atmosphere of hatred with his speeches in the 1930's; he and Himmler had created the SS; his speeches, though never explicit, left the clear impression that "liquidate" was what he meant. For a full-length war biography of Hitler, I felt that a more analytical approach to the key questions of initiative, complicity, and execution would be necessary. Remarkably, I found that Hitler's own role in the "Final Solution"-whatever that was-has never been examined." -David Irving London, January 1976
and January 1989

What Deborah Lipstadt is doing is wrong, she is CREATING the false impression that Irving and others think that Nazis did not kill Jews. She has done harm, causing unnecessary anguish with her arrogance and dishonesty.

and Richard's "Lipstadt caliber" response:
"Representative Press, it is amazing that you alone have discovered that Mr. Irving is not a Holocaust denier. And it is even more amazing that you sent Richard Cohen an email telling him that. Pray tell us how you managed to do that when there has never been an email address for Mr. Cohen posted on the Washington Post website. I guess your imaginary email is as accurate as your imaginary discovery about Mr. Irving. I don't know what you are smoking, Representative Press, but it can't be good for your heath. " comment on Roger Simon's misguided article (the result of Washington Post's Richard Cohen's inaccurate article March 17, 2005: "Fairness" at C-SPAN

example of Mr. Cohen's innaccuracy: He writes that "To Lipstadt's statements about the Holocaust, there was Irving's rebuttal that it never happened -- no systematic killing of Jews, no Final Solution and, while many people died at Auschwitz of disease and the occasional act of brutality, there were no gas chambers there." Now simply look at what Irving wrote above, Irving mentions the Final Solution! Look at what Irving said at the Libel Trial, "I do not deny that there was some kind of gassing at gas chambers in Birkenau, it is highly likely that there was." (Emphasis mine. For the layperson it should be explained with regards to the words "Birkenau" and "Auschwitz" that it is often refered to as "Auschwitz-Birkenau" or the "Auschwitz camp at Birkenau") and keep in mind that Irving said this at the trial with Lipstadt, the trial Lipstadt's book is about!

Attacking C-SPAN

emails and posts regarding the attacks on C-SPAN:

Dear Mr. Maoz:

Bellow is a copy of an email I sent to Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen. It applies to you as well:

Dear Mr. Cohen:

C-SPAN is the best thing on television, you should do some research before you start attacking and slandering a great resource.

C-SPAN is doing a terrific job and it is wrong of you to try to intimidate the people working there.

C-SPAN's decision to allow David Irving to be heard was fair, not a "cockeyed version of fairness" as you described it. It is not "mindless" to give the C-SPAN viewers the chance to hear the facts some people are ignorant of or unwilling to let others know.

C-SPAN viewers might discover that use of the term "Holocaust Denier" to describe David Irving is grotesque, manipulative and dishonest. Mr. Irving has documented evidence of the massive shooting of Jews and has written and talked about gassings taking place at Auschwitz. Withholding these facts is journalistic malpractice. What you and Deborah Lipstadt are doing is wrong. You and Ms. Lipstadt owe C-SPAN an apology. I hope to see a correction in your paper.
--------------------------
my post over at Lipstadt's blog:

You gloat, "Methinks they have been inundated with protests." Ms. Lipstadt, what you are doing is a disgraceful, how dare you try to intimidate C-SPAN.

Your use of the term "Holocaust Denier" to describe David Irving is grotesque, manipulative and dishonest. Mr. Irving has documented evidence of the massive shooting of Jews and has written and talked about gassings taking place at Auschwitz.
You don't make these facts clear to people.

You do such harm to public discourse and now you have the nerve to attack C-SPAN.
--------------------------
my email to C-SPAN:

Dear Ms. Doebele:

Ms. Deborah Lipstadt is now gloating about people criticizing C-SPAN. She writes on her blog, "Methinks they have been inundated with protests."

I hope you don't let people that want to suppress free speech intimidate you.

I support you and C-SPAN's efforts at fairness and with regard to Mr. Irving, you are correct again. Those not wanting Irving to receive a fair hearing are using manipulative and dishonest tactics. It would come as a surprise to many, I am sure, to learn that Mr. Irving has documented evidence of the massive shooting of Jews and has written and talked about gassings taking place at Auschwitz so the term "denier" is simply slander. Lipstadt's game only works if people don't get to hear these facts which is why she goes to such lengths to keep Irving from being heard.

You wrote, "In reality, the Arab states shouldn't have invaded to try to destroy Israel"

Wait a minute, we need a reality check here. The dominant Zionist agenda going back to the father of ZIonism was an extremist racist agenda of ethnic cleansing and Jewish supremacy. Herzl, the Father of Zionism wrote, "Immigration is consequently futile unless based on an assured supremacy" as early as 1895 as he plotted the removal of non-Jews for Palestine. The Zionists are the ones that pushed to divide up the land but clearly as a step towards taking over all of Palestine. In reality the Jews did not accept Partition because they immediately violating the terms starting months before May 1948. In 1938 Ben-Gurion said to other Zionists, “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.” Sure enough, after the creation of the state in 1948, Menachem Begin made clear how serious the “Jews accepting the UN partition” was in reality, “The partition of the Homeland is illegal . It will never be recognized. he signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever." he declared.

Keep in mind, the UN partition plan was a proposal and was not binding, it is off the wall to insist that the Palestinians "should have accepted" it. It violated the will of 67% of the people in Palestine, why the heck "should" they accept it? What happened to the principle of democracy and self determination?

Critical facts are often omitted when the history is presented and this leads to a very distorted view of what happened in 1948. The misleading story often told is that "Jews declared Israel and then they were attacked." The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the UN proposed Jewish State. What happened between Nov 1947 and May 1948 was already an attack on the part of the Jews. Jews who were 33% of a population had no right to "declare" that they were dividing up the land! And Arab armies moved in to areas that had been proposed for the Palestinian State because it was clear the Jews were grabbing it all. And keep in mind that the Zionists were not sincere about allowing the UN proposed Palestinian State to emerge, the Zionists conspired with Jordan to prevent it and that is what Jordan and Israel did.

The "right to exist" think is a propaganda ploy. What it masks is the reality of what Zionists consider "existing" which means to them a system of discrimination against non-Jews and Jewish supremacy. That is like asking blacks in the early 1800's to accept the US's "right to exist" and insisting that without slavery America didn't "exist" so you are in effect asking blacks to accept the "right" of slavery to exist.

It is not unreasonable to insist that Jews in Israel live as we expect Jews to live in America, which means without a system of discrimination against non-Jews.

You wrote, "If France and Japan will not agree to allow unlimited Arab immigration it's time to end both states. ... Any country which does not allow unlimited Arab immigration is inherently racist"

No one is calling for unlimited Arab immigration. What is called for is upholding the right of return. The people who were terrorized out of their homes and from their land have the right to return with their families. These people were pushed off their land because the racist Zionists deemed them the "wrong" religion.

Israel was accepted into the United Nations on condition that it accept the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees. Israel stated it agreed to comply with the Right of Return but after it got itself into the UN it refused to honor it. (another example of the devious and outrageous actions of the "Jewish State".) [another example that Americans are ignorant of]

And what about the thousands of non-Jews who didn't leave and yet still had their homes and land stolen? In the first 8 years, the Jewish State took away a staggering 50% of all the land owned by Palestinians remaining in Israel. The shocking fact is some 39,000 Palestinians who never left were robbed anyway! "Israel seized property and land from some 39,000 Palestinians who escaped expulsion and remained in Israel. It was never retuned, and these individuals never received compensation although they are citizens of Israel." (see endnote 67 The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace by Cheryl A. Rubenberg )

What is the root problem of the Israel and Palestine conflict?

The root problem of the Israel and Palestine conflict is that the Jews running Israel are unwilling to allow non-Jews to have equal rights. That is the fundamental problem and cause of the conflict. These Jews are Zionists with the agenda to continue the Jewish supremacy in that land. That is the cause of the conflict and why it continues. What the Zionists basically demand is that non-Jews must accept permanent second class status, continued discrimination and unresolved thefts and ethnic cleansing.

You wrote, "All this shows is that Israel should have gotten rid of all of them when they had the chance. Israel was attacked. "

That is ANOTHER Zionist lie. the lie is that "Israel was attacked" when the fact is that the Zionists had already attacked from Nov 1947, that is MONTHS before MAY 1948.

You push the Zionist lie that it is wasn't the Jews who attacked FIRST. let me explain this to you, The misleading story often told is that "Jews declared Israel and then they were attacked."

The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the proposed Jewish State. This is a critical fact often omitted when the history is presented and this leads to a very distorted view of what happened in 1948. n practice, Zionists did not accept the UN Partition Plan. Zionists seized areas beyond the proposed Jewish State and did not recognize the International Zone. Using force and terrorism months before May 1948, Jews seized land beyond the UN proposed borders. The UN Plan was used as a pretense for taking over most of Palestine. http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelHistory.html

you can't use terrorism, drive 300,000 people from their homes and seize most of the land and claim that that is not an attack!!!!! WHAT the Jews did WAS AN ATTACK! Stop spreading lies that Arabs were the agressors, what the Jews did was a massive act of agression and they struck FIRST. Got that? LOOK at the history, you act like all the events from Nov 1947 to May 1948 never happened!!! During those months Zionists were commiting horrific crimes of rape, massacre, theft, torture, and ethnic cleansing.

"Rape, massacre, theft, torture, ethnic cleansing: these are not crimes which nations can defend with ease - especially when unearthed by their own historians. Israel recently faced this most troubling predicament. Combing through declassified state archives, Israeli scholars of the past twenty years have discovered their nation was founded upon the mass expulsion and deliberate destruction of the native Palestinian people. Israel, it turned out, was far more Goliath than David. Since this presented somewhat of a public relations problem for a state still engaged in brutalizing Palestinians and stealing their land, a new self-justifying rationale needed to be authored. " http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=7378

The self described liberal going by the name praktike complains, "Do we really need a big report to determine this?"

praktike is complaining that people would want to do a report to determine "the potential influence exerted on the intelligence community, and possible manipulation of intelligence itself, by the Bush administration."
praktike apparently is so subservient to power that he is annoyed that anyone would dare examine how the powerful manipulate the system.

I explained to praktike that we don't want these kinds of things to continue endlessly. You really don't want to confront the wrongs of US officials, you really love sweeping things under the rug.

praktike wrote,"thinking, c'mon, is there anyone who genuinely does not believe that the Bush administration hyped the threat, went beyond the intelligence, etc.?

I reply:
You really distort things for yourself. Yes there are MANY people that don't get it.
And it is important to point out that the intelligence was distorted because "Nuances, qualifications and caveats were dropped" MOST people think that people simply got it wrong as opposed to an intentional distortion and omission of the intelligence reports. There was so much pressure to find an excuse for the war that original intelligence assessments were removed from final reports.

and even if there were WMD, the war was illegal! We are supposed to be a nation of laws. Why are so many people ignorant of these basic facts? Well it is largely because the so called "liberal media" didn't report the fact that the US violated laws which we are bound to uphold by our own Constitution. Our Constitution makes it clear, those that rush to support the Iraq war ignorantly violate the fundamental basis of America. The sad fat is that the thousands that swore oaths to the US Constitution have violated that oath. Yes folks, we signed the UN CHarter which is an international treaty and the Constitution explicitly states that treaties become law of the land. (those serving power sweep this fact under the rug)

Most Israeli apologists regurgitate the lie that it was the Palestinians' own fault that their homes and land were stolen because "they decided to leave" as part of some sort of an organized Arab plan. This has been exposed as another Zionist propaganda lie decades ago. But even one of the premises of that propaganda is a lie. The premise is that Palestinians that did not leave and instead remained in what became Israel did not have their homes and land were stolen. This is a false premise and has been exposed as well:
For those who thought it was only the Palestinians who fled and were refused entry back into Israel that lost property and land without reparations, this book is a wake up call. In the first 8 years, the Jewish State took away a staggering 50% of all the land owned by Palestinians remaining in Israel. The shocking fact is some 39,000 Palestinians who never left were robbed anyway! "Israel seized property and land from some 39,000 Palestinians who escaped expulsion and remained in Israel. It was never retuned, and these individuals never received compensation although they are citizens of Israel." (from endnote 67) The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace by Cheryl A. Rubenberg

From the excellent article Racists Feel “Intimidated” Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing at Columbia:

"Enter the “new anti-Semitism.” This doctrine turns reality on its head, declaring criticism of Israel’s racist behavior to be itself racist – “anti-Semitic.” Empathy for Palestinians being beaten, bullied, and bulldozed out of existence, the doctrine goes, is nothing but some disguised expression of Jew-hatred. Goose-stepping Germans and uprooted Palestinians are portrayed as part of the same unbroken line of anti-Semitism, even though those inhabiting concentration camps today – the largest ever to exist,” says Israeli historian Baruch Kimmerling - are the Palestinians themselves. (2) But no matter. Abusing the memory of Holocaust victims to shut down criticism of Israeli crimes – crimes unearthed mostly by Jewish historians - may be obscene, but it is also effective."

"For the next five months, Stewart must wear an electronic anklet so authorities can track her every move. She'll be allowed no alcohol, and can only leave for 48 hours, for so-called "gainful employment," reports CBS News Correspondent Joie Chen" - http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2005/03/04/national/main678022.shtml


"only"? I don't quible with the wording really, the amount of hours is really surprising. House arrest does not sound that bad at all. For many Americans 48 hours comes close to the amount of hours they are out of their house anyway.

I posted this over at a web site called "liberals against terrorism" They ask, What is terrorism? Who is a terrorist?

There is a short hand answer to what terrorism is:

If they attack us, it is terrorism.
If we attack them, it is not terrorism.

Most of the arguments about terrorism are simply arguments trying to conform with the above definition. Twisted logic is used because any honest definition of terrorism exposes the ugly reality of what "we" are doing. What must be avoided is any conclusion that exposes what "we" are doing is terrorism or what they are doing isn't terrorism. "Terrorism" and "terrorist" are politically charged words used for propaganda purposes, that is why it is so contentious. People defining the word "terrorism" know the goal is to conform to the short hand definition I mentioned above, the only question is what "reasoning" needs to be used to get there.

We all agree that ending the killing of civilians is our objective. It is time then to admit that saying you "had to" kill civilians does not change the facts on the ground. Facts that people have imposed on their lives and facts that result in the deaths of others. Saying that you "had to" kill civilians does not absolve you of the crime. I agree with the point that "Any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation" The UN definition is fine but it does mean that the US is engaging in terrorism.

I don't see how the the attacks on the Cole could be considered terrorism since civilians were not targeted at all. Also, not all of those that are fighting against the specific US foreign policies are willing to kill civilians nor do all of them approve of killing civilians. Mir Aimal Kasi went to the CIA headquarters in Langley,Virginia and shot CIA employees Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett outside in 1993. Mir Aimal Kasi said, "What I did was a retaliation against the US government for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel ." Mir Aimal Kasi once professed a love for this country, his uncle testified. "He always say that 'I like America, I love America and I want to go there,'" Amanullah Kasi said at a sentencing hearing for his nephew, Mir Aimal Kasi . Kasi's roommate, who had reported him missing after the shootings, told police that Kasi would get incensed watching CNN when he heard how Muslims were being treated. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Kasi said he did not approve of the attack on the World Trade Center because innocents were killed. He understood, however, the attack on the Pentagon, the symbol of government might. Motives for 9/11 Terrorist Attacks

Alison Weir exposes more of the media's game playing to serve the Israeli agenda:

(emphasis mine-Tom)
"The LA Times' notion of "relative calm"
Alison Weir, The Electronic Intifada, 25 February 2005 Alison Weir is Executive Director of If Americans Knew.

Well, I just got hung up on again. This time by an editor on the Los Angeles Times foreign desk. He didn't give me his name.

I had called and attempted, as politely as possible, to give him a correction for the story on the Times' website tonight. This will probably be their front-page lead news story tomorrow morning.

The trouble is, their headline and lead paragraph are just plain wrong. And now, of course, they'll stay wrong in the paper tomorrow.

The headline proclaims: "Palestinian Suicide bomber Shatters Calm of late." The lead sentence then goes on to state that this bomber "shattered a months-long period of relative calm..."

The fact is, however, that the truce and this "calm" were shattered long before this. The last suicide bombing against Israeli civilians was Nov. 1, 2004. It took three Israeli lives. Since that time, while Israelis have basked in "relative calm," 170 Palestinian men, women, and children have been killed.

During this LA Times' "relative calm," another 379 Palestinian men, women, and children were injured and maimed. Anyone who has been to the West Bank or Gaza knows what this means: leg bones splintered, intestines torn open, teeth shattered.

Also, of course, during this "calm" over 8,000 Palestinians have been sitting in Israeli prison cells, routinely abused and grotesquely humiliated; over 300 of them children.

None of this mattered to the editor I talked to. He explained that the story said relative calm. When I tried to question this adjective, he hung up the phone. So I guess I'll just have to explain this word for myself.

Maybe he means that relative to 7 Israeli deaths, 170 Palestinian deaths are insignificant. Maybe he means that relative to Israeli grief, Palestinian grief is basically unmentionable. Maybe he means that relative to the weeping of Israeli mothers and fathers, the weeping of Palestinian mothers and fathers - multitudes more of them - is negligible.

Maybe he means that relative to his power, my attempt to set the record straight is laughably feeble.

Over all, I guess what he means is relatively obvious:

That he can run what he wants, distort what he desires, lead with his lies. I guess he means that facts don't matter, truth is irrelevant, and deceit the order of the day.

I guess he means that Americans are pawns, readers are sheep, and people will just keep swallowing whatever the media choose to dish out.

I hope you'll tell him he's wrong: 800-528-4637 / readers.rep@latimes.com
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3638.shtml

This isn't the first time that the newspapers have distorted the basic facts about the Israel/Palestine conflict. see Anti-Zionist Notes
Courageous Journalist Alison Weir

You wrote,"Um, how about relying on a NEUTRAL investigative team before you accept the word of former Saddam administration officials. Who knows where his loyalties lie? "

That fact is that this is the current Iraqi government which was established under US influence.
The fact that these allegations have been made is a story in itself. that should be reported

It should have been reported as "Allegations made by ... etc." (the fact that this is what the Iraqi Health Ministry is reporting that the US has done these things is news itself. Any way you slice it, it is news in itself (unless you instictively serve state power and are want to sweep things under the rug)

The media is unwilling to report the allegations. You can make any excuse for why the allegations were made by the Iraqi Health Ministry but the fact that they have said these things is news in itself. Think about it. This is the problem with the people who have it in there heads that "the media is liberal" and "they would report things critical of the government". People who believe "the media is liberal" don't realize that what gets reported is selected and that there are things that the media decides not to report.

Your response ignores the fact that the Iraqi Health Ministrymade these allegations and that is news in and of itself. THINK. Are the allegations true or not? If not and things are made up by someone with "loyalties to Saddam" then that is news! Think about this, if you want to claim that someone in the new Iraqi government is fabricating war crimes against the US then can we say that US efforts to create a model of a desirable Middle East government have failed to some degree? It is a serious charge, ignoring that the charge has been made is not a valid response. (people wonder how crimes could< happen like this. It happens because when allegations are made, the media is UNWILLING OR RELUCTANT to report them.)

You wrote,"Try verifying with multiple sources BEFORE saying something is possible."

No, that would be going towards proving something happened, it is not necessary for saying something is possible. given the track record and the fact that the US possesses these weapons and has a history of using weapons like this is enough to give it some serious thought. apologists for state power are unwilling to do this.

The media has shown that it is not eager to report these things, first of all they would have to make an effort to try to find out things the military doesn't want known. Look at the fact that the allegations were made and yet mainstream media is unwilling to mention this allegation. The fact that Dr Khalid ash-Shaykhli held a press conference in the Health Ministry building and reported that these things is news itself, why didn't mainstream media suits think so?

As far as reliable stories of war crimes, the US military concluded that they did occur with regard to Vietnam has the mainstream media made this clear? when we heard the constant bashing of Kerry about his testimony why didn't the mainstream media report that the US Army has verified ever single allegation that Kerry had listed. Everything that Kerry said the Vietnam Vets had told him turns out to have happened! "John Kerry is being pilloried for his shocking Senate testimony 34 years ago that many U.S. soldiers—not just a few "rogues"—were committing atrocities against the Vietnamese. U.S. military records that were classified for decades but are now available in the National Archives back Kerry up and put the lie to his critics." - Nicholas Turse, "From the National Archives: New proof of Vietnam War atrocities" SEE LINK: villagevoice.com

WHY DIDN'T MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORT THAT? Also see: Denying Facts and Mmbracing Myths

War Crimes:  Iraqi Medical Team Reports that US Forces used Poison Gas on Fallujah

(With the track record that US officials have, this should be seriously investigated.)
"Dr Khalid ash-Shaykhli, a representative of the Iraqi Ministry of Health who was authorized to assess health conditions in al-Fallujah after the end of the major battles there, announced that the surveys and studies which a medical team did in al-Fallujah and subsequently reported to the Ministry confirm that US forces used substances that are internationally prohibited -- including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals -- in the course of its attacks on the city." Iraqi Health Ministry confirms use by American occupation forces of internationally prohibited weapons in its attacks on al-Fallujah Mafkarat al-Islam (David Irving's newsletter linked to the story and points out: Not in your local newspaper? Iraqi Health Ministry says American occupation forces used nerve gases and poison gases in attack on al-Fallujah )

"[The US government] has been compelled to accept elections, to accept the defeat of its chosen favorite, to allow Iraqis to write a constitution. The state of the outrageous and illegal economic conditions imposed by the CPA is uncertain. A leading plank of the winning Shi’ite alliance was a timetable for withdrawal of the US-UK forces. Both Washington and London flatly refuse, and the US has already announced that its forces will stay into 2007. The elected leadership is under plenty of pressure to accept what the Wall St Journal calls “vague promises” of eventual withdrawal. But it’s uncertain whether the US can sustain it’s long-term plan to keep Iraq under US military control, by means of a dependable client state.

The main factor that has caused the US to back down is mass non-violent resistance, including huge demonstrations, Sistani fatwas, etc. It should be regarded as a triumph of non-violence, I think. The “insurgents” are not a major problem for US planners. The US has such overwhelming reserves of violence that in that arena it will never have much trouble. But nonviolent resistance is a different matter." - Noam Chomsky Backing Down to Iraqi Nonviolence

No shame at all

Dirty and dishonest, the agenda Bush serves does it again.

"some of the Republicans behind the controversial Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads that challenged the war record of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry are now targeting AARP, an advocacy group for people age 50 and older, for opposing President Bush's plan for Social Security reform.
The group, called USA Next, claims AARP's real agenda is anti-military and pro-gay marriage. An Internet ad featuring such claims was the opening salvo in a $10 million campaign to support Bush's policy and discredit its opponents."
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=539132&page=1
http://www.socsec.org/