Lie after Lie after Lie for Israel

In the article, The Case Against Alan Dershowitz Public Committee Against Torture in Israel vs. Dershowitz, Regan Boychuk exposes more of Dershowitz's lies in the service of Zionism. Boychuk writes, "In the course of arguing that Israeli authorities no longer torture Palestinians, Dershowitz claimed he had a long conversation with the Israeli human rights organization, Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI), in which PCATI not only conceded that there was no longer any torture for them to investigate, but that they refused to change their name because it helped them attract media attention. Although organizers of his lecture wore shirts arrogantly proclaiming, “Dersh knows more than you”, I decided to check his claim."
And Boychuk finds that Dershowitz is lying, "PCATI was still reporting that “Instances of torture, abuse, prisoners held incommunicado and excessive violence against [Palestinian] detainees continue to grow in both numbers and severity”, while “interrogators and perpetrators of torture, their commanders and superiors enjoy impunity.”

Norman Finkelstein also exposes Dershowitz as a liar in his new book Beyond Chutzpah : On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History

Finkelstein documents the fact that apologists for Israel contrive controversy. "Whenever Israel comes under international pressure, another media campaign alleging a global outbreak of anti-Semitism is mounted." "The core analysis of Beyond Chutzpah sets Dershowitz's assertions on Israel's human rights record against the findings of the mainstream human rights community. Sifting through thousands of pages of reports from organizations such as Amnesty International, B'Tselem, and Human Rights Watch, Finkelstein demonstrates that Dershowitz has systematically misrepresented the facts."


"A very solid, important and highly informative book. Norman Finkelstein provides extensive details and analysis, with considerable historical depth and expert research, of a very wide range of issues concerning Israel, the Palestinians, and the U.S."--Noam Chomsky, author of Hegemony or Survival America's Quest for Global Dominance also available at Powell's: Hegemony or Survival

Bush Fascists Remove Citizens from Town Hall

ALEXANDER YOUNG: Well, on Monday, March 21, at an event billed as a “conversation on saving Social Security,” I and two friends, Leslie Weise and Karen Bauer, decided to go down and participate in this dialogue. Unfortunately, we were evicted before the President arrived by an as yet unnamed man, because of the content on the bumper sticker of my friend's car. That bumper sticker said, “No more blood for oil.”

AMY GOODMAN: And so, you went from the car, what, a parking lot?

ALEXANDER YOUNG: Right. We were parked in the parking lot, stood in line for a half an hour or so, went and sat down in the audience and then were forcibly ejected by a person who was posing as a secret service agent.

AMY GOODMAN: Why did you think he was a secret service agent?

ALEXANDER YOUNG: Previous to our entry, he had pulled aside a couple of friends of mine. Leslie and Karen were pulled aside and were told to wait for the secret service to arrive. And this man appeared and started threatening them, telling them that they would be sent to prison and arrested if they pulled anything while they were inside.

AMY GOODMAN: And then?

ALEXANDER YOUNG: And then, this is the same individual who came and grabbed us from the audience and started pushing and shoving us out of the hall.

AMY GOODMAN: On what grounds?
read more ... Three People Forcibly Removed From Bush "Town Hall" Meeting on Social Security

A Craigslist poster writes, "The arab nations have been in a declared state of war with Israel since her establishment in 1948"

WAIT A MINUTE!!

It is misleading to say "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.
To put it in plain English: Zionist Jews had already attacked by the time May 1948 rolled around and Zionist Jews "declared Israel" (33% of a population insisting something upon the majority of the people, what right did they have to do this? That was not democracy, it was a violation of the rights of 67% of the people in Palestine. ) The attack by Zionist Jews was already under way and had been for months by the time some of the Arab nations responded.

This is a very important thing for everyone to understand. Read more here: NOTE: 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. 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.

The Craigslist poster also wrote, "The "Palestinians" are as much a part of that antagonistic arab polity as any."

Your comment is literally delusional. You are either ignorant or you are intentionally spreading falsehoods in order to serve Zionist Israel. know

"antagonistic" are you nuts? It is the Zionists that plotted to ethnically cleanse Palestine and they executed that plan!You think non-Jews in Palestine should have been happy to be oppressed, slaughtered and ethnically cleansed? You think the Palestinians should be happy that you deny their very existence with your smart ass habit of putting the word Palestinians in quotes. England referred to Palestine DECADES before Zionist Israel existed and the people that come from a place have a name. If you are from Africa you are an African, what a disgusting and racist Zionist tactic you use by putting the word Palestinians in quotes. Zionism is truly disgusting. You are as sick as a KKK member or an racist white South African citizen posting on craigslist and mocking Black people. Oh and that is an explicate example of a comparison between South Africa and Israel which you asked for. Survey: Israel yet to grasp concept of democracy The craigslist comments are such ugly propaganda of the same arguments spread by what is called "hasbara"

A Craigslist poster responds, "Hey buddy, I think you are losing it there!!! I see you reposted the same historically distorted shit that you always post."

Put up or shut up. Don't just make a claim, back it up with something for God sakes.
You are not presenting ANY facts to support your delusion, shouldn't that make you think?

A Craigslist poster responds, "You can use loaded phrases like "ethnic cleansing" and "Zionists on the attack" but it does not change the fact that you are distorting and twisting history."

Again, don't just make a claim, make an attempt to present a shred of evidence to try to dispute what I have posted.

A Craigslist poster argues, "there would not be a single "Palestinian" refugee if the arabs have not been seeking to annihilate the Jews since 1948"

Are you actually retarded? What did I just spell out to you? It is the Zionists that are the aggressors, THEY are the ones that pushed into Palestine with the intention of driving out non-Jews,. They are extremist racists and they were doing their dirty work BEFORE 1948. Can you get that into your head? Did you even read what I posted? The Zionists were systematically targeting people because they were the "wrong" religion, they weren't Jewish so they had to be pushed off their land. What kind of fanatical Zionist zealot are you that you stupidly go back to 1948 when I already pointed out to you that Zionists had already been attacking well before that? And it is disgusting the way you distort what was happening. What happened was a response in the form of armed struggle against a racist regime that had ethnically cleansed 300,000 non-Jews and was continuing to ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands more. It was not "seeking to annihilate Jews", it was a military response to the Zionist terrorism that was killing, injuring, violating and ethnically cleansing them. It is clear that you dishonestly attempt to play off the Holocaust to distort what the Zionists were doing. It is especially disgusting because the Zionists have absolutely no right to invoke the Holocaust to justify anything that they have done or are doing. With respect to the Holocaust, the Zionists contribute to the ongoing wrong where Shlomo Morel continues to escape justice. Israel and many Jewish Studies and Holocaust Studies Intellectuals should be ashamed of themselves. They are hypocrites! SEE: Shlomo Morel Must Stand Trial for Crimes Against Humanity and "The facts are true" "The facts are right" "The facts are iron-bound."

Faurisson petition

MrMyke asks about the Faurisson petition and provides a link to the text of the petition, "... have you read the petition Chomsky signed? In it Chomsky by signature calls Faurisson "respected” cites his "extensive research" and uses the words "strongly support". Hardly seems "misleading" then merely to say Chomsky supports Faurisson, yes?"

Text of petition:

“Dr. Robert Faurisson has served as a respected professor of twentieth-century French literature and document criticism for over four years at the University of Lyon-2 in France. Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive independent historical research into the ‘Holocaust’ question. Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him. Fearful officials have even tried to stop him from further research by denying him access to public libraries and archives. We strongly protest these efforts to deprive Professor Faurisson of his freedom of speech and expression, and we condemn the shameful campaign to silence him. We strongly support Professor Faurisson's just right of academic freedom and we demand that university and government officials do everything possible to ensure his safety and the free exercise of his legal rights. ” 

MrMyke, thank you for the link to the text. Reading the petition can you not see that your characterization of what the petition says is inaccurate and unfair? In the context of what you call "Holocaust Denial" you complain that "Chomsky by signature calls Faurisson "respected." But that is extremely misleading. Reading the petition we see that "respected" refers to Faurisson's work at the University of Lyon-2.

See: "Dr. Robert Faurisson has served as a respected professor of twentieth-century French literature and document criticism for over four years at the University of Lyon-2 in France. "

You complain that the petition cites Faurisson's "extensive research." Actually the petition refers to "extensive independent historical research" in a separate sentence. A fair reading of it means it is not referring to Faurisson's work at the University of Lyon-2 which is what the word "respected" was restricted to. The word "independent" makes that clear. The sentence reads, "Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive independent historical research into the "Holocaust" question." Omitting the word "independent" is misleading, is it not? Note that you are not the only one that I have seen drop that word. In fact Werner Cohn (http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html) omits the word and Rachel Neuwirth (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4157) cites Cohn's version.

If we apply the standard you seem to want to apply to others, for example David Irving, should you, Cohn, and Neuwirth be banished forever from public discourse because of your dishonesty?

And you complain that the petition "uses the words "strongly support"". The final sentence makes it clear what is supported in the petition: "We strongly support Professor Faurisson's just right of academic freedom and we demand that university and government officials do everything possible to ensure his safety and the free exercise of his legal rights. ”

Note that Rachel Neuwirth also omits the final sentence that I just quoted! (see http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4157) The sentence that explicitly states what it is that is being supported, "Professor Faurisson's just right of academic freedom, and it demands that officials of the university and government "ensure his safety and the free exercise of his legal rights."

Chomsky writes about Cohn, "That Cohn is a pathological liar is demonstrated by the very examples that he selects."

News Flash: I won the Mega Millions!

I got "4" and "19" and the MEGA BALL "22". That means I am a Sixth Prize Level Winner along with 5,529 other people. I won 10 bucks! Sweet.

This is great, I am on a roll. This Friday I am going for the First Prize level, wish me luck.

The details of the Irving/Lipstadt Trial are a lot more complicated than most people realize.

For example, Lipstadt did indeed spread a false report about Irving. Lipstadt writes in her current book, "After my book was published I learned that this report was indeed false." p72 "History on Trial"

Lipstadt is still misleading people about basic facts. At her talk at Barnes & Noble she talked about a Dachau survivor being grateful to her for fighting Irving in court. This gave the false impression that Irving denies Dachau! And to claim, as Lipstadt does, that Irving says "some Jews may have died, but just a few" is a malicious lie. Irving said on day 2 of the trial, "whether it was of the order of millions or not, I would hesitate to specify, but I would say it was certainly more than one million, certainly less than four million"

Lipstadt has a pattern of untruth. She pulled the comments off her blog complaining that some people were saying "that Irving did not lose the trial". Now that is just stupid, the woman distorts things. NO ONE posting comments on her blog said Irving didn't lose, what was said was that Irving should not have lost the trial. See the difference? Lipstadt's version is as dishonest as her term "Holocaust Denier"

There is such an immature, arrogant and dishonest approach by Lipstadt and others to this entire thing. On page 107 of her book we learn that one of her lawyers at her trial, Rampton, dishonestly acted like he could not remember the name of the Institute for Historical Review. Like a child Rampton asks Lipstadt, "Did it scare you when I could not remember its name?" Pretending not to remember is Rampton's game he reveals to Lipstadt, "this was my way of showing how insignificant an organization I think it is."

Lisptadt's campaign against C-SPAN is vicious and dishonest. She writes on her blog, " Finally, I was not trying to deny Irving a right to speak. I was simply refusing to be pushed into a debate which is no debate and with someone who is a proven liar. How can you debate a liar?"

First of all, C-SPAN was not asking her to debate Irving. Second, her damn book is about the trial with Irving, there is nothing wrong with C-SPAN wanting to show Irving talking about the trial too. All C-SPAN was trying to do was give its audience a chance to hear Irving's version of the trial. For God sakes this vindictive campaign against C-SPAN (the best thing on TV) is disgusting AND it is also hypocritical: In her book's notes p 312, Lipstadt writes "For Irving's version of his youth and his legal travails, see www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/PQ17Libel/Background220170.html" There are even more links to Irving's web site in the notes of her book, here is another from page 315: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Inner/Circle.html

And speaking of hypocrisy, are the intellectuals of Jewish Studies and Holocaust studies going to continue to sweep this under the rug?: 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. Lipstadt had the gall to refer to Jewish author John Sack as one of the "anti-Semites" and "neo-Nazis" for daring to write a book about the actions of the Jews who ran these concentration camps.

Troy writes, "yes, calling Irving a racist is a fair cop IMV; but Irving sued Lipstadt on more than just this"

It may be fair to call Irving a racist but not with regard to the libel trial because Irving didn't sue Lipstadt for calling him a racist. Irving sued over specific things Lipstadt had written, he didn't mention "racist" and I don't think she wrote that in her book. (she may or may not have but since Irving wasn't suing about it, it should not have been an issue at the trial and it was not fair to use it in the decision)

In fact in Irving's "Statement of Claim", "The Words Complained of" does not mention "racist" but the first thing Irving mentions in his complaint is the part of the book where Lipstadt writes that he had agreed to appear at that conference. Irving explains "The Natural or Ordinary Meaning of the Words Complained of" is that he was "agreeing to appear in public in support of and alongside violent and extremist speakers including representatives of the violent and extremist anti-Semitic Russian group Pamyat and of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah and of the fundamentalist Islamic organization Hamas" and that a false report claiming he did libeled him.

The fact is Lipstadt was wrong on that point. She admits in her latest book, "I learned that this report was indeed false." p72 "History on Trial"

Why the Judge did not find in his favor on this point is beyond me. I think the Judge felt pressure with all this "history on trial" nonsense. The case was not about that but rather if Lipstadt had libeled him. Introducing this "racist" stuff when Irving was not suing about that was unfair in my opinion. Even racists can be libeled. Being a racist or not has nothing to do with if one has been libeled or not on the points Irving raised.

And what the hell does Lipstadt's term "dangerous" spokespersons for Holocaust denial supposed to mean? What exactly is "dangerous" about it even if he was denying the Holocaust? The woman is reckless.

American Mainstream Media is avoiding reporting on the AIPAC Scandal

A shake-up in the Jewish lobby (article from Haaretz which is an Israeli newspaper):
"The Web site of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the Israeli lobby in Washington, bears a quote from The New York Times, testifying that this is the most important organization in its influence on American's relations with Israel."

I was going to point this out too.

The Haaretz article continues: "In academic and political literature in the United States, as well as in the world media, AIPAC is usually referred to as the pressure group with the greatest influence on foreign policy in the U.S. capital, and as a model for lobbying activity in Congress and in the U.S. administration.

In spite of the sense of crisis in the wake of the ongoing FBI investigation of the leaking of security material to Israel, and the temporary dismissal of two senior workers, the lobby is attempting to broadcast an atmosphere of business as usual. "

and the media is playing along with that plan. As I pointed out, mainstream media is clearly reluctant to report on this scandal. Someone posting comments over at Media Matters resents my use of the term "scandal." In fact, the guy (or gal) resorts to calling me "nothing but a neo-nazi sympathizer in a $1.99 Chomsky fright mask" My crime, apparently, is using the term scandal "even before it rises to the level of a credible accusation." The guy ignores the fact that the Israeli press is reporting it, (and some American Jewish press like "Forward" and "The Jewish Journal")?and the fact is credible accusations have been made, that is what the grand jury is about! "Top officials at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have appeared before a grand jury and two senior staffers have been placed on paid leave" but the libelous commenter at Media Matters ignores these facts.

Another Haaretz article points out: AIPAC Probe / AIPAC works to preserve clout in U.S.
"In the seven months since Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin was accused of passing classified documents to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the pro-Israel lobby has been struggling in two arenas: First, to extricate itself from the investigation without any indictments being issued, and second, to preserve its political clout in Washington's corridors of power.

The second arena is the more problematic one. "AIPAC has lost a lot of its power," says a Capitol Hill source who follows AIPAC closely. But the fact that the source refused to be identified by name means that AIPAC is still a force to be reckoned with in the capital's political industry."

Well exactly. This is an honest reporter, reporting the facts. Notice that this isn't an American news outlet but an Israeli one. In Israel, a reporter can report on these kinds of things. I would point out that the fact that mainstream media is reluctant to report on this scandal shows there is "still a force to be reckoned with" that influences what mainstream media covers. That should be obvious from a google news search of AIPAC. ( I will put the archived search results on my web site to illustrate the situation) And this isn't the only example of this servile reporting (or non-reporting in this case.)
The AP article is written conforming to an Israeli government agenda. The settlements are illegal regardless of what the Israeli government says.

"Maybe somebody could explain how this is "conservative misinformation." I'm failing to see the problem."

Media Matters apparently has an agenda beyond that. Notice that Media Matters apparently can't see a major defect of mainstream media, namely the servile reporting when it comes to Israel. Mostly it takes the form of not reporting things. A dramatic example of the way the media behaves is the current AIPAC scandal. Check this out: search AIPAC and notice that American mainstream media is avoiding this, notice how foreign press and Israeli press covers it but American press isn't. I have been searching this and finally the fine newspaper the Christian Science Monitor dared to report about the FBI probe of AIPAC but of course the rest of the media is avoiding it. Want to see something dramatic? Search AIPAC at the NEW YORK TIMES web site and notice that they haven't reported what is going on. Seems Media Matters suffers the same blind spot that the NYT does.

Media Matters has made themselves look bad by jumping on C-SPAN like this. C-SPAN is the BEST thing on TV, it is a shame that Media Matters-is doing this. C-SPAN did nothing wrong. It is outrageous for Lipstadt to think she can write a book about a trial between her and Irving and to insist that C-SPAN cannot show Irving talking about the trial too if they want to show Lipstadt. Lipstadt is dishonest when she refers to what C-SPAN wanted to do as a debate. C-SPAN was not asking Lisptadt to debate Irving.

Lipstand's term "Holocaust Denier" is a propaganda term, she knows damn well she is misleading people about what Irving actually thinks. In America we are supposed to value free speech. Media Matters, for God sakes, C-SPAN is the best thing on TV, would you please have some decency and leave it alone? And by the way, is everyone going to let someone actually accused of crimes against humanity get away with it because people are afraid to confront a certain agenda?

"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.