The AZM [American Zionist Movement] Gets the Message

I just learned that the AZM is revising its 8 heroes of Hanukkah web page. They screwed up -- as I noted in the previous post -- and they moved quickly to rectify their mistake. Good for them.

The AZM [American Zionist Movement]: Absurd and Out of Touch

Are the folks at AZM [the American Zionist Movement] living under a rock? Are they completely out of touch?

My friend Rela Geffen, Past President of Baltimore Hebrew University, has alerted me to the fact that someone at the organization decided to put together a Hanukkah game on their web site. They singled out 8 Hanukkah heroes.

All men. Yup, all men.

They are men of accomplishment without doubt.

But couldn't these folks have found one woman to celebrate?

Golda Meir?

Henrietta Szold? [She created the MOST successful Jewish organization in the world and one that has had a tremendous impact in Israel...]

Nehama Leibovitz? [One of the great Torah teachers of all time.]

Hannah Senesh? [She showed more bravery than some of the leaders who sat in Tel Aviv. She died to save her people.]

Rachel? [one of Israel's great poets]

Alice Shalvi? [considered the "mother" of Israeli feminism and a winner of the Israel Prize. The prize committee described her as having been "revolutionary and courageously trailblazing, with intellectual integrity and long-term vision."]

Rabbi Naamah Kelman [the first Israeli woman to be ordained]

Didn't it seem strange to the AZM folks to look at 8 photos of Jewish heroes and not see one woman? Did they notice and not care or -- and this is even more frightening -- did they not even notice?

And sometimes organizations wonder why they become irrelevant.

I am not asking for 4, i.e. parity. Just one or, maybe to be a bit greedy, two.

If you want to see how it could be done check out the website of the Jewish Women's Archive, a great organization that I have always thought was highly relevant but, after my encounter with the AZM, am even more convinced of the fact.

Or maybe we should get the AZM folks a subscription to Lilith

Film on Free Speech: Irving Gets a Starring Role

The filmmaker who included David Irving in his film An Independent Mind [see previous post] defended his decision to do so. In an article in the UK online magazine Totally Jewish the filmmaker presents himself -- rather proudly -- as having bucked criticism and done the brave thing.

The problem is that the guy gave Irving a chance to spout, not just odious views, but misstatements of fact and he apparently did not even know how to challenge them. [That was what my trial was all about.]

It's one thing to argue that people with disgusting views have a right to freedom of speech. They do [unless they engage in incitement].

But since when does a person who just spouts lies and distortions and inventions have to be celebrated?

Obviously such a liar has a right to speak but what person in their sane mind would believe that they have to give them a platform?

Obviously Rex Bloomstein, the filmmaker did.

The film, celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in particular Article 19 which states 'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.'

Rex Bloomstein has made The Longest Hatred: The History of Anti-Semitism and KZ which tells the story of Mauthausen concentration camp.

Bloomstein told the publication that he "thought long and hard" about including Irving in the film, but said: "In the end, I thought it was right to include him and I would have to accept that the decision would be met with some controversy."

He also said: "Irving is someone who reflects the limits of freedom of expression. He epitomises repellent views which make us aware of the limits of freedom of expression. It would be derelict not to include someone who challenges how we look at that freedom."

This guy does not get it. It's not a matter of right or wrong. It's a matter of judgment.

Why give someone who is simply twisting the truth and lying a platform?

Did Bloomstein, possibly unconsciously so, want to show how brave he is? How willing he was to buck criticism? I think dense is a far more accurate term.

Sometimes, just because lots of people criticize you, does not mean you're are right. [With apologies to the originator of the line: Just because I am paranoid does not mean everyone isn't out to get me.]

[For my views on outlawing Holocaust denial see here.]

Irving to Appear on UK's Channel 4: Have They Completely Lost Their Minds?

From today's Guardian

by Oliver Marre

[....]

On Tuesday night, C4's offshoot channel, More4, is showing a 90-minute documentary, An Independent Mind, in celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[....]

According to the puff: 'This unique film gives a voice to eight characters from around the world who have fought to exercise their right to free speech.'

What C4 doesn't say is that the film's eighth and final hero is Irving. The timing is fortunate for Irving, if not for the rest of us, since he's currently trying to flog his self-published misery memoir.

[....]

As Irving objects to being called a Holocaust denier and is in the habit of writing to newspapers that do so, I've gone in search of a better description. His personal website offers Hitler's walking stick for sale, refers repeatedly to Jews as 'nice folks' (including during a magnificent attempt to ally himself to John Cleese, because the comedian is divorcing his wife, who is Jewish) and carries links to his flattering biographies of Hitler and Goebbels. Any suggestions?

Historian Michael Burleigh reviews History Lesson: A Race Odyssey by Mary Lefkowitz

Michael Burleigh, the British historian, in his review of Mary Lefkowitz's book History Lessons, demonstrates how history can be rewritten on some of America's finest campuses with the support of the administration all in the name of not making a fuss.

If should give those of us who think Holocaust denial could never gain traction on campus -- which includes me -- some pause.

Murdering History: The Holocaust was the Allies' Fault

Former New Statesman editor, Peter Wilby, has come up with an absurdly stupid self-serving argument in the name of attacking the Iraq war.

In an article in The Guardian he argues that, now that all the other reasons for the Iraq war have proved to be a bust, war supporters fall back on the claim that it was worth it because it got rid of a terrible dictator, just like World War II.

He then goes on to passionately argue that the only reason the Allies went to war against Hitler was for self-interest not for moral reasons.

This is, of course, is a complete straw man. No historian worth his or her salt argues anything but that. Wilby seems to believe that because they entered the war for self-interested reasons nothing they accomplished has any moral value.

But where he goes way over the top is when he argues that the Jews would have been better off if the Allies had not gone to war against Germany.

Would the Holocaust have happened if there had been no war or if the western democracies had acted against Nazi Germany earlier? We can never know - though it is likely that, if Britain had made peace in 1940 after the fall of France, the Jews would have been sent to Madagascar. What is certain is that the war prevented any concerted attempt at rescue.

Wilby ignores the fact that Madagascar would have meant a slow death for the Jews. It was uninhabitable particularly for millions of urban people. it was meant to be a place where Jews would die not thrive.

Furthermore, as blogger Marko Attila Hoare points out, Britain controlled the naval routes to Madagascar so it would have had to cooperate with Nazi Germany to get the Jews there.

He then goes on to take his argument to even more absurd heights, that by going to war resources that the Allies would have used to help the Jews were diverted to fight the war.

Resources used to help Jews would be diverted from the war. . Any mass movement of refugees ran the risk of the Germans planting agents among them. Oil supplies were too vital to Britain to risk upsetting Arabs by evacuating them to Palestine. Any of the suggested swaps - Jews for German POWs, for example - might suggest allied weakness. Besides, why should the allies assist Hitler to rid Europe of Jewry? The best we could do, as Anthony Eden, the British foreign secretary, observed in 1944, was to "hope that the German government will refrain from exterminating these unfortunate people".

What makes him think that the Allies, who in Evian in 1938 would not open their doors to Jewish refugees, would have run to help the Jews?

Moreover, he seems to have convinced himself that Hitler would not have gone to war with the USSR and, in the course of so doing, would not have murdered millions of Jews. With an assurance that the West would not fight him, Hitler would have wasted no time in declaring war on the USSR. He wanted their lebensraum and he wanted their resources to allow the German people to live in luxury.

He might well have won and, if so, millions of more people -- among them many more Jews -- would have been murdered.

Wilby can be against war in general and the war in Iraq all he wants [who precisely is for war? And who, with the exception of John McCain and George Bush, still believe in the rectitude of this war?] But he should not murder history in the process.

Supporter of Holocaust Denier Named by Swiss Government to Position of "Expert" on UN Human Rights Council

According to the JTA, Jean Ziegler, a man who praised a Holocaust denier as one of the "leading thinkers of our times" has been appointed by the Swiss government as an "expert" to, get this, the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Not only has Ziegler praised the denier, Roger Gaurady [aka Garaudy] but he has asserted, according to the JTA that "his critics are puppets of his Western opponents ."

U.N. Watch has protested to the Swiss government which made the appointment. The Swiss have brushed off these and other critics.

This is really an outrage... Though UN critics are probably shrugging their shoulders and saying: "So what else is new?"

Actually, there is something else. Also appointed to the position of an expert was Richard Falk, emeritus professor at Princeton, who, according to the JTA, has compared Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to Nazis.

What a nice way to start the day....

[Thanks to Ben Blumenthal of Brussels for alerting me to this.]

Brits believe Churchill a myth and Sherlock Holmes is real

According to a poll conducted in Britain, close to a quarter of Brits think Churchill was a myth but over 50% of them think Sherlock Holmes was real. I have no idea how the poll was conducted or if it is really reliable. It does make one pause.

Bad Taste from the Netherlands

Boomerang, a merchant in the Netherlands, has coupled Anne Frank's image with a kaffiah, the Arab headdress which has become a symbol of international terrorism. It's really disgusting.

Thanks to Little Green Footballs for finding this.

Ms. Magazine's "stupidity" and prejudice sparks a reaction

There will be a press conference today protesting the outrageous action by Ms. Magazine in rejecting the ad by the American Jewish Congress celebrating the fact that three women have achieved pinnacles of professional success in Israeli government.

Columbia professors going to apologize to Ahmadinejad?

[Edited and links added November 12th]

According to the Tehran Times a group of Columbia professors is going to Tehran to apologize to Ahmadinejad for President Lee Bollinger's comments to him when the Iranian president visited that campus in fall 2007.

[Note: This report has not been officially confirmed and, if it does go, it will not be an official Columbia delegation.]

Maybe, while they are there, they might ask about the young boys who were hung for homosexual activities [maybe that's why Ahmadinejad said there are no homosexuals in Iran they have all been hung...].

They might ask about those professors who have been punished and imprisoned by the government for speaking their mind.

They might also ask about the people who had a hand and a foot amputated because they were convicted of stealing

They might also ask about the woman who was stoned for killing her husband. The woman, age 23, was married at age 15 to a man who apparently abused her.

They might ask about the Amnesty International report that, by mid-October 2007, 250 people have been executed in Iran so far this year – 21 of them on the morning of September 5th alone. This includes children. Iran has been described by human rights organizations as the last executioner of children.

They might ask about the 30 people hung during July and August as part of a suppression of efforts to spread democracy. [One of the reasons we know about the hangings is that they were done publicly. Even Texas doesn't do that.]

They might ask why Dr. Esfandiari, who was held in solitary confinement for 105 days, was arrested in the first place.

My guess is that they won't ask any of these things because they will be too busy groveling and they are more worried about Ahmadinejad's freedom of speech than that of the people who have been persecuted by this regime.

[Maybe Gandhi's grandson will say something about this....except that he's too busy condemning Israel and all Jews for their culture of violence.]

Ms. Magazine suffers from a major attack of the stupids [if not worse than that]

Apparently Ms Magazine declined to accept an ad from the American Jewish Congress which featured three Israeli women who have reached the highest levels of success in their country.

The New York Sun reports that the advertisement, which was prepared by the American Jewish Congress, included pictures of three Israeli women who have reached the pinnacle of success in their fields: the president of the Israeli Supreme Court, Dorit Beinisch; Israel's foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, and speaker of the Knesset, Dalia Itzik. The text under the picture read: "This is Israel."

Though Jewish leaders -- correctly -- called this an anti-Israel act, Ms. defended itself by claiming to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that because two of the women photographed belong to the same political party, the advertisement showed favoritism.

Gimme a break.

This is the magazine that opened so many women's eyes to the subtle -- and not so subtle -- impact of sexism and discrimination against women.

For it to behave in this fashion is beneath contempt. I wish I subscribed to MS. so I could cancel my subscription.

Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul and the neo-Nazis

The Internet has been buzzing the past few days -- if not more so -- with charges that there are connections between Ron Paul and a hodgepodge of neo-Nazis, White supremacists, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the like. Some of them have blogged about their supposed meetings.

The charges and counter charges -- which are enough to make your head swim -- first surfaced in mid-November. They have resurfaced again.

One thing, however, seems pretty certain: Paul's adamant refusal to decline their support, denounce their views, or return the funds they have given him.

And this man raised $6m in one day last week on the Internet.

What happens when rumors are really just lies?

The Washington Post's cartoonist Tom Toles has poked some barbed comments at his paper's treatment of some false rumors, i.e. lies, being spread about Obama.

Toles' cartoon was prompted by how the Post handled a story concerning the false reports afloat that Obama is secretly a Muslim who will take the oath of office on a Koran. Whatever you think of the inexperienced Senator from Illinois, this is completely untrue.

The Washington Post, in writing about it, presented "both sides of the issue" and discussed the rumors [aka lies] without explicitly stating that the story is just false. The Post's Lois Romano's defended the way in which the paper presented the story. Since this discussion has become so heated, Romano said, the Post's

editors decided it was in the readers interest to address it. I have heard people say that they won't support Sen. Obama because they read he doesn't put is hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. He has denied this -- so airing some of this and giving him a chance to deny its accuracy could be viewed as setting the record straight.

This is, as Salon's Glenn Greenwald observes, patently absurd. The Post should have called these rumors what they are: lies. To compound matters the Post gave the story the following headline:

Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him

What the Post should have done, Greenwald notes, is what the New York Times did yesterday in a story on how Giuliani uses statistics about his supposedly stellar mayoral record.

All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong . . . .An examination of many of his statements by The New York Times, other news organizations and independent groups have turned up a variety of misstatements, virtually all of which cast Mr. Giuliani or his arguments in a better light.

Why am I blogging about this? Because of the decided parallel to how the media often handles claims by Holocaust deniers. Mercifully, this has been less the case with David Irving's contentions since he lost his attempt to sue me for libel. His claims about the Holocaust were exposed as lies and fabrications.

I wonder however if we will soon see the Washington Post presenting "both sides" of the Holocaust denial argument.

Presenting two sides is a good thing when there are two sides. But one "side" is a complete lie it should unequivocally be treated as such.

The Washington Post failed that test.

Oxford Union: Controversy Growing

According to the Guardian the controversy over the appearance at the Oxford Union by David Irving and Nick Griffin is growing.

There probably will be an ugly scene there tonight when it takes place. Irving is blaming the Jews, whom he dubs the "traditional enemies" for the opposition. Truth be told, my guess is that he is LOVING every minute of it. The bigger the crowd through which he will have to push his way tonight, the happier he will be.

The shame should be directed at the Oxford Union. If they wanted a debate on Free Speech there are many acredited experts with various views on the topic they could have invited.....

They may be smart but they have trouble reasoning... or. as some folks would say. they are missing a measure of sechel [wisdom]

Oxford Union: Muddled reasoning

The statement issued by Luke Tyrl, the president of the Oxford Union, is a clear example of really muddled thinking. He begins by arguing that Griffin and Irving are:

not being given a platform to extol their views, but are coming to talk about the limits of free speech.

If they are not being given a chance to expound on their views then why does Tyrl go on to say:

What is more, they will be speaking in the context of a forum in which there will be other speakers to challenge and attack their views in a head to head manner.

Obviously he expects them to use the opportunity to expound on their views. He then contends that "that pushing the views of these people underground achieves nothing." Mr. Tyrl seems not to understand that there is a vast difference between pushing views "underground" and simply not giving them a platform at the Oxford Union. Would he say that anyone with a controversial view who has not been privileged to speak at the Union has been driven "underground"? Clearly not.

Moreover he argues that the best way to deal with these people is "to crush these people in debate ." How does he propose "debating" someone such as David Irving who is a proven liar and falsifier of history?

He contends that "it's patronising to suggest that Oxford students aren't intelligent enough to debate with these people."

Challenging someone such as David Irving has little to do with intelligence, it has to do with knowing how he is lying and distorting the facts. And as smart as Oxford students may think they are, just because they are at Oxford does not mean they have the knowledge -- Mr. Tyrl does not seem to recognize the difference between intelligence and knowledge -- to catch a liar who distorts and falsifies.

It is simply hubris to assume that just because you are an Oxford student you automatically have the expertise to pinpoint his lies.

More distressing than the invitation itself is the confused reasoning -- if one can call it that -- of the president of the Union.

Oxford Union: Irving and Griffin to appear

Well it looks like it is official. The members of the Oxford Union, one of the most prestigious debating societies in the world, have voted to invite these two men to appear at the Union on Monday night.

The vote was 2-1 in favor.

The Union's president keeps justifying the invitation in that they were not invited to share their views but to speak about free speech. The president of the Union told the BBC that

"They will be speaking in the context of a forum in which there will be other speakers to challenge and attack their views in a head to head manner."

The fallacy is that on issues of free speech I doubt whether there will be any difference of opinion.

In some perverse fashion I would rather they had been invited to express their views and then, rather than to debate them, to have them properly demolished by the students.

Truth be told, neither of these men deserve this platform. Maybe the students who invited them will go study with the professors at Columbia who thought a coveted platform at that university should be extended to Holocaust and homosexuality denier Ahmadinejad....

Oxford Union: A perceptive observation by The Half-Blood Welshman

See The Half Blood Welshman's comments on the absurd invitation to David Irving, whom a BBC official has stupidly called a "controversial historian."

Someone should remind this BBC dolt that three different judicial entities in England called him or affirmed his being called a liar and a falsifier of history who misrepresents, misconstrues, omits, and perverts the available evidence. According to the judgment, he "treated the historical evidence in a manner which fell far short of the standard to be expected of a conscientious historian."

The Judge had many other less than complimentary things to say about him all of which would essentially disqualify him from being considered an historian.

Oxford Union: Vote today on whether David Irving should appear

The Oxford Union members will be voting on whether David Irving should be allowed to speak.

The outcry against his appearing has been pretty widespread including 2000 people who apparently signed a petition. In addition, Defence Secretary Des Browne and Television presenter June Sarpong withdrew from participating at other events at the Union to express their opposition to the invitation to Irving and Griffin.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams condemned the invites in an exclusive Jewish News interview. The President of the Union, Luke Tyrl, told the online paper, the Jewish News:

“I decided to invite Griffin and Irving to take part in a free speech forum to show that we are not afraid of taking on their views. I find both individuals to be odious, their ideas awful and abhorrent."

Regarding the students who support Irving and Griffin coming he said: These are not people who are sympathetic to the far-right but students who believe in tackling extremism head on."

This is an example of really muddled thinking. No one at the Union seems to support either Irving's or Griffin's views.

By inviting them to a forum on free speech the students tied their own hands. They were presenting them as victims who have been silenced. More importantly, the students at the Union essentially support Irving and Griffin's right to express their opinions. Therefore the end result of the meeting would be a vote for them.

In the end probably neither will appear but they will have gotten more column inches in the press than many more newsworthy topics.

Dropping the Holocaust from textbooks: A Crazy Rumor Persists with a change of continent

[Blogging on the M60 bus in NYC]
edited November 21

A couple of months ago there was a rumor floating around about the UK [as in United Kingdom... you will see shortly why I mention the obvious] dropping the teaching of the Holocaust from its curriculum

It was completely false and was scotched by many people, including then Chancellor Gordon Brown.

Well, proving that nothing absurd ever disappears [hence the persistence of antisemitism], the rumor is back, except now it is about the University of Kentucky [UK, get it??].

And it comes with a completely absurd call for action. The newly added paragraph reads:

It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated while the German and Russian peoples looking the other way!

Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets. This e-mail is intended to reach 40 million people worldwide!

Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world. How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center 'never happened' because it offends some Muslim in the U.S.??????

These numbers make no sense and historically inaccurate. ["German and Russian peoples"? What's this about Russians looking the other way? Last time I checked Russian/Soviet citizens were among the largest number of victims of World War II, not the Holocaust.]

Then to make matters worse some person has added the following addendum:

Let's not forget the Demoncrat's in the House Defunding of the South Vietnamese in the 1970's leading to the slaughter of unknown millions (estimates 1.8 to 3.2 million) Vietnamese and Cambodians by Pol Pot's Camere [sic.] Rouge and Ho Chi Min's invasion of the South in a short 18 months to two years. That is more than the USA killed in over ten years while in country.

Even if Univ of Kentucky had dropped teaching of the Holocaust - WHICH IT HAS NOT -- what does the Democrats' action in 1970s have to do with it.

Some people have way too much time on their hands.