Norman Finkelstein and Tablet

David Samuels, Tablet Magazine's literary editor, produced a Q and A with Norman Finkelstein. Let me start with saying that interviews of this kind could be very helpful and revealing, and to a large extent this one was a success. Knowing a bit about the subject, I wasn't disturbed or surprised by his answers at all, but the introduction by David Samuels was another matter. Check this out:

Yet, like it or not, Finkelstein’s influence on public debate is by now undeniable, with his once-radical ideas having been embraced throughout the Jewish community, from his debunking of the idea of Israel as “a land without a people” and his diagnosis of a strain of American Jewish Holocaust obsession to his assertions of the immorality of the continuing Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

That was really disturbing. And I don't mean the "factual" part of this long sentence, that's easy to debunk. Like the sentence "A land without a people for a people without a land", whose history is interesting by itself, and which, of course, wasn't debunked by Finkelstein the fearless pioneer. You can read in the same link about some of the debunking that started when Norman Finkelstein wasn't yet planned*. To say that Finkelstein is the one whose "assertions of the immorality of the occupation" are in any way original is a pure fallacy. As for "his diagnosis of a strain of American Jewish Holocaust obsession": yes, we may have something original there, but let's not forget the curious situation, where a man, who spends most of his awake hours nailing the Jewish Holocaust obsession, is leeching on this same Holocaust financially, doing this so tirelessly and for so many years. And, of course, take into consideration (careful at that) this:

You simply can’t imagine what it was like growing up the child of Holocaust survivors.

I guess that Finkelstein doesn't even start to realize what, in fact, he is saying in that sentence. The ultimate irony of it will, most probably, be missed by him forever. But self-reflection was never a strong quality of this self-aggrandizing pompous git who, even when he is saying something to the point, succeeds to do it in a manner that will be a turn-off to a most sympathetic viewer:

Read more »

Norman Finkelstein - out of the closet finally

Norman Finkelstein's behavior doesn't present a big mystery. Of course, there are many who erroneously claim that he belongs to that funny and ill-defined sect called "self-hating Jews". I've always protested that definition, seriously wrong in most cases as it's wrong in Finkelstein's case - after all, is there something he hasn't done yet for self-aggrandizing and for self-love?

If Finkelstein suffers from surplus hate, it is directed at Israel. Visiting Lebanon as a celebrity guest of Hezballoons - it is quite an act of hate, you would agree. Although - even in this act our Finkelstein was quite focused on his own PR.

But now, I suggest, we may have found the problem of the character, whom I called some time ago "a pathetic individual that carries out some deep psychological trauma, expunged by academic community and living of the Holocaust memories in his own perverted way". We don't have to look further for the root cause of the trauma.

The discovery is related to the story about the decoy Jews in Amsterdam. It appears (thanks to Yitzchak Goodman aka Judeopundit) that Finkelstein stumbled upon an AP article on the subject. His response? Reposting the whole article without any comments, save the following headline:

Dutch police to undergo mandatory circumcision and will expose their traumatized “members” in public

Here is a snapshot of the relevant page from his site:

So, without further ado: this pointless (and not even approximately funny) headline is, in fact, a cry (or a wail if you will) of a tortured soul. This headline puts a finger on the sensitive or, rather, painful point. (Can a headline put a finger on something? Whatever, you know what I mean.)

Notice the "traumatized" in conjunction with "circumcision". A botched circumcision could get a man to a poor state of mind, for sure. One could understand that hate - of own's father who has chosen the mohel with a shaking hand, of his own people who persist in their habit of circumcising their young. Of the whole megillah, in short.

Yeah. It was a big mistake. Or should we call it a small mistake in this case? Whatever, and here is the result:

Finkelstein visiting a Hezbollah "freedom fighters" cemetery

Ehehe... A big schmuck with a small pipik, and this is the whole story? How sad indeed.

Norman Finkelstein: The BBC Legitimises a Crank

I would say "The BBC beats a dead horse", but this is the headline chosen for a Henry Jackson Society editorial (no link, unfortunately, the site is a bit of an enigma). So here is the full text:

The BBC has a strange set of editorial guidelines. A ccording to a leaked memo sent to BBC staff by the network’s senior manager, Abu Qatada – Al-Qaeda affiliate and indefinite London resident –can only be classified as a “radical” because to call him an “extremist” would be a “value judgment”. Yet apparently, the Beeb has no problem using the darkly suggestive term “Jewish lobby” to frame a debate over whether or not a certain ethnic minority in the United States has got a succession of US presidents “in thrall” to its demands.

Read more »

Open letter to Mike Sivier

In response to the previous post, Mike Sivier - the discoverer of Norman Finkelstein (or just because he planned to do so), Mike penned a new article, titled This revelation could throw the whole ‘anti-Semitism’ row into reverse. In this post, among other things, Mike drilled deeper into the mystery of the offending picture and discovered that... here I shall let the author speak for himself:

Vox Political can reveal today the origin of that image – the picture of Israel superimposed into the American Midwest that caused so much fuss last week, and This Writer can categorically state:

It is not anti-Semitic.

It was a reaction against proposals to forcibly relocate Palestinians from their homes in the West Bank, Gaza, or anywhere else claimed by the Israeli state, moving them into Jordan or even Saudi Arabia.

It was created for an article on a website called Redress Online [link removed], dated August 4, 2014. The site describes itself as “an independent, privately-funded, non-profit-making website dedicated to exposing injustice, disinformation and bigotry, and to providing thought-provoking interpretations of current affairs…

The site describes itself as it describes itself, as do many other similar sites. Should an experienced journalist take this description seriously without applying a bit of common sense? Because the picture, which Mike Sivier previously attributed to Norman Finkelstein is now attributed to the author of the Redress Online article. Take a deep breath - it is Gilad Atzmon.

I am not at all sure I understand now what kind of point Mike has intended to make, bringing up Atzmon to defend Finkelstein, but as a matter of common courtesy I have to respond. So:

Hi Mike,

Thanks for troubling yourself to respond. I shall try to answer your salient points one by one, instead of leveling general accusations that could hardly be addressed.

There is an interesting point to mention: your habit of putting the word “anti-Semitism” between quotation marks. The reason I find it interesting is that you've decided to be the judge of what is offensive or, in this case, anti-Semitic. Why don't you leave it to the target of the offense, namely Jews, to decide what is offensive to them? I remember reading about one of the leaders of African-American movement in US, who said that it is up to black people to decide what is offensive to black people. This should be something for all of us to think about, shouldn't it?

So, going back to the offensive picture, which you proclaim to be not anti-Semitic at all. First of all, again - the fact that somebody else has drawn it doesn't make it less offensive. Ms Shah doesn't get a get-out-of jail card for this reason. You are saying:

It seems clear he was saying there’s a world of difference between passing around a tongue-in-cheek image and actually going through with the action it suggested...

Indeed, there is a world of difference: the former is an act of anti-Semitism, as perceived by lots of people who viewed the picture and the latter is an act of ethnic cleansing. I can assure you than neither yours truly nor lots of people who have seen the picture are aware of its tongue-in-cheek background. It was, just as the taken out of context quote from MLK in that other picture you have used to defend Ms Shah, perceived by one and all as extremely offensive and yes, although I hate to use this word too frequently, very anti-Semitic.

Now to another point you made:

If Simply Jews knows of Atzmon, then it seems likely the site would have known of the Redress Online piece, but not one word about it is mentioned. Why not?

Sorry, Mike, I and many other people know about both Finkelstein and Atzmon, but not to the tune of following their copious writings on all sites all the time. The idea that I should know about every crappy publication like that is, frankly, a bit over the top. Believe it or not, I have a life.

To the next point:

Vox Political articles are often opinions – but always based on the facts available. That is where This Blog and Simply Jews part company, it seems.

If you indeed assign such weight to the facts, how come you are quoting statements from Atzmon without any shadow of criticism or a check with other source? Stuff like this:

The article itself states: “Israelis and other Zionists often call for a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict based on the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, namely, their “transfer” to Jordan or even Saudi Arabia.

You might really want to check this and, hopefully, not with Gilad Atzmon, Mike. Yep, there is a fringe group of right wing Israelis (I really don't know what is meant by "other Zionists") that might express such desires, but the all-embracing statement like the quoted could have been born only in the Jew-hating brain of Atzmon, that for sure.

This Writer was alerted on Twitter to an article about me on a site calling itself Simply Jews. It seems to be mostly a character assassination of Norman Finkelstein and the author of the Redress Online piece, one Gilad Atzmon, who is mentioned as having reblogged my article.

I disagree with your description of my post, Mike. Its main points were two, although not highlighted in any way, but I shall repeat them here:

You see, Mike, the map that calls for ethnic cleansing is offensive and racist, no matter who produced it. This is the first and the main point. And if someone else (Ms Shah in our case) publishes it again, it doesn't become less racist or less offensive. Which is the second point.

As for your reference to so called character assassination of Finkelstein and Atzmon: I really don't know much about you, and I am in a quandary here. So please help me out: could it be that you, a journalist, don't know anything about these two characters? If you do and still persist with the statement that what I said about them is a character assassination, I might have wasted my time. I offered you a link on Finkelstein in the previous post if you really need to get some info, and here is another link with some stuff about Atzmon. There is a lot more on the 'net, if you would only care...

Regards.

Charlie Hebdo murders and three paragons of hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is the claim or pretense of holding beliefs, feelings, standards, qualities, opinions, behaviors, virtues, motivations, or other characteristics that one does not actually hold. It is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another.

One of the side effects of the recent Paris events was showing the gap (or a chasm by now) between the supporters of freedom and what Salman Rushdie perceptively called "But Brigade" in a sharper contrast.

The author said there should be no conditions placed on free speech; anyone who does, he referred to as the “but brigade.” "The minute I hear someone say, 'Yes, I believe in free speech, but...' I stop listening," Rushdie said...

To present some of the “but brigade” mental shenanigans, I have chosen (arbitrarily, I know) three outstanding representatives of the clan.

1. Noam Chomsky, the Mastermind of the (last) Century.

The distinguished professor of linguistics who considers himself to be an expert on life, the universe and everything, is one of the foremost upholders of absolute and untouchable freedom of speech. Including freedom of speech of Holocaust deniers[1], with some of whom he seems to be on the best terms.

Our subject appears to be also a master of "do as I say, not as I do" hypocritical variety. How else would you explain this staunch supporter of freedom of speech brown-nosing the chieftains of Hizballah (in the picture above) - people for whom freedom of speech is as alien a concept as pickled pig's knuckles?

Of course, one could mention[2] that the famous fighter against capitalism, the valiant anarcho-syndicalist is not only a wealthy man but also accepts money from the capitalist institutions he so despises and invests money in corporations he reviles.

So this is the man CNN has chosen to pen an article on the subject of hypocrisy (yeah, no kidding): Paris attacks show hypocrisy of West's outrage. And what is the main thrust of the piece? Not only it is a great representation of the "but brigade" stance, it uses for the "but" part the NATO "missile attack on Serbian state television headquarters" in 1999. Just a reminder: Chomsky, while knowing practically nothing about the case, remains an unrepentant denier of Bosnian Genocide. This is the man that complains about Western hypocrisy.

The principle of using the "but" logic was brilliantly debunked by Howard Jacobson in his article Try ‘and’ instead of ‘but’ and.... I would say that the headline itself conveys very well the Jacobson's main point, but do not deny yourself another example of his prose. Especially since Chomsky is debunked there as well.



2. Norman Finkelstein, "world renowned political science professor"

The "world renowned" part will remain on the conscience of the interviewer and his editor, of course. If the Fink is world renown, it is not exactly because of his prowess in the dense forest of political science. His "fame" is stemming from his preoccupation with the so called "Holocaust industry" - the phenomenon of Jews profiting from Holocaust - that he himself "christened", described and continues to profit from as long as he is able to. If this is not a prime example of hypocrisy, show me a better one.

Not to be outdone by prof Chomsky (his hero), prof Finkelstein has also made the pilgrimage to Lebanon (see the picture above), to prove his loyalty to the values of Mr Nasrallah. But no, he is no hypocrite, of course.

And, returning back to the interview, prof Finkelstein was much cruder than prof Chomsky. He considers the cartoons by Charlie Hebdo to be "political pornography no different than Der Stürmer".

I have no sympathy for [the staff of Charlie Hebdo]. Should they have been killed? Of course not. But of course, Streicher shouldn’t have been hung. I don’t hear that from many people," said Finkelstein.

Smashing, that, but then prof Finkelstein is in a much tougher (financially speaking) situation than prof Chomsky. He has to work for his daily bread and, being found not exactly suitable for a job in US (I wonder why, after all even professors that share his political views haven't lend a hand to their stricken comrade, as the comrade himself testifies), he teaches something in Turkey (Sakarya University, whatever it means). So he must make himself likeable to his hosts, I assume. But no, no hypocrisy in that, not at all...

And of course, he found his "but" point too, not to worry:

The characterization by the French of Muslims as being barbaric is hypocritical considering the killings of thousands of people during France’s colonial occupation of Algeria.

Why didn't he add the burning of Jeanne d'Arc and Napoleonic wars will remain forever unknown, I'm afraid, but this is the nature of Poli Sci professors.

The subject of this post is on the left.

3. Hon. George Galloway, MP: tyrants brown-nosed, straw men slayed.

Being a politician, on top of his other gainful employments, Mr Galloway easily tops the list as far as his range of activities is concerned. Many a tyrant on this planet experienced the restorative effects of our subject's tongue on his posterior. Many a radio/TV transmitter blushed of shame, being forced to transmit the insufferable crapola spewing from this character's mouth.

This time was no exception. The bounder has outdone even the previous subject, prof Finkelstein, in his rabid speech:

George Galloway boldly declared “Je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo” during a damning address at a freedom of speech rally in Bradford on Saturday.

The Respect MP told a crowd of protestors gathered outside Bradford City Hall that the French government should be ashamed of themselves for standing by the “racist, Islamophobic, hypocritical rag” in the wake of the attacks in Paris that killed 17 people last week.

These are not cartoons, these are not depictions of the Prophet, these are pornographic, obscene insults to the Prophet and by extension, 1.7billion human beings on this earth and there are limits.

There are limits. There limits to free speech and free expression especially in France.

As you can see, this time Hon. George Galloway has succeeded to perform an ass-licking maneuver on a whole religion - no mean trick, I have to add. But then, years and years of practice lead to this shameful exhibition.

To conclude: the three protagonists of this post come from different backgrounds. All three are deeply damaged by some irreversible process or event in their lives, but this is a matter for a psychiatrist. It is easy, though, to find common symptoms: each one has visited Lebanon and served in his own lowly way this murderous terrorist outfit; each one is a liar and a hypocrite; all three hate Israel; etc. Given time and opportunity, I guess we'll see the three gracing the fledgling Islamic State capital, explaining to the world how just and awesome it is and how it should be understood in its true glory.

And we should fully expect each one of them explaining to us how hypocritical it is to object.

Yeah...

P.S. For the sake of fairness: Israel has its own set of blasphemy laws, preserving some remnants of a British rule.

In Israel, blasphemy is covered by Articles 170 and 173 of the penal code.[38][39]

Insult to religion

170. If a person destroys, damages or desecrates a place of worship or any object which is held sacred by a group of persons, with the intention of reviling their religion, or in the knowledge that they are liable to deem that act an insult to their religion, then the one is liable to three years imprisonment.

Injury to religious sentiment

173. If a person does any of the following, then the one is liable to one year imprisonment:

(1) One publishes a publication that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or sentiment of others;
(2) One voices in a public place and in the hearing of another person any word or sound that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or sentiment of others.

Fortunately, the 173.1 and 173.2 are not enforced too eagerly, if at all. The fact is that the latest edition of Charlie Hebdo could be obtained quite easily and freely here - albeit only as an Internet order.

Still shameful.

Addendum

Read more »

Time for subtlety?

Bob from Brockley, one of the best out there on the intertubes, discusses the differences between different kinds of anti-Semites, shades of anti-Zionism etc. Atzmon is used as a "beacon" of a kind, to be compared with other samples of anti-Semitic spectrum.

Says Bob:

I'm not sure what to think about all this. One thing I am sure of is that there are lots of different antisemitisms, including lots of different left antisemitisms, and they are not all as bad as each other or equivalent to each other, and they are not all genocidal in their logic. We need a sense of proportion and more calmness in approaching them. We hurt only ourselves through hysteria and paranoia.

In another post Bob contends:

On the other hand, I think it is Hoffmanesquely counterproductive for the UJS to treat Norman Finkelstein as analogous to Gilad Atzmon and Nick Griffin, and to picket Finkelstein at Leeds University, as the UJS have done. Finkelstein has said some unpleasant things and has some unsavoury views, but there is quite a lot of clear blue water between him and the Atzmons and Griffins we should be no platforming. Telling the world we can’t tell the difference is to seriously undermine our case.

I am not sure we have the luxury of analyzing the nuances and subtle differences, where, to take one example, Norman Finkelstein, deranged in his own way, could be less of anti-Semite than our beacon.

Finkelstein visiting a Hezbollah "freedom fighters" cemetery

Yes, the difference is definitely there, for all to see. However, as far as the damage and aggravation caused by such characters are concerned, Atzmon should by rights be considered a lesser factor, simply due to being too obviously deranged beyond the acceptable*.

(*) Of course, we can start discussing what "acceptable" means. No, it's beyond my limited patience right now.

Mike Sivier - the discoverer of Norman Finkelstein

Mike Sivier, a newspaper reporter for the best part of 20 years, according to him, was an unknown entity to me. It so happened that I've stumbled on a few posts by my Facebook friends who pointed to an article by Mike Sivier, titled Nobody bothered to check who created that “anti-Semitic” image Naz Shah retweeted, did they?. For a time the referred article was inaccessible for some reason, which only fired up my curiosity.

The article is available now, and isn't it an eye opener indeed! To remind you, the offending map (see above) was tweeted by Naz Shah, a Bradford West MP and, among other offensive tweets, was the reason for the lady's suspension, among several other recent scandals/suspensions.

So Mike Sivier studied the matter and came up with the following:

The map was posted in Norman Finkelstein Solution for Israel-Palestine Conflict‏, on Monday, August 4, 2014, on his blog [link omitted by me].

Professor Finkelstein is described by that hideously inaccurate Wikipedia as “an American political scientist, activist, professor, and author. His primary fields of research are the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the politics of the Holocaust, an interest motivated by the experiences of his parents who were Jewish Holocaust survivors.”

And here Mike triumphantly concluded, in bold letters for our better comprehension:

That’s right – it was posted by a Jewish gentleman.

To give another boost to our poor comprehension, Mike strengthened the message by the following addition, also in bold:

Not only that; he’s the son of two Jewish people who survived the Shoah.

And now comes the killing point:

It puts a different complexion on this whole issue, doesn’t it?

I shall try to answer this question using Mike's method, which assures full comprehension:

No.

You see, Mike, the map that calls for ethnic cleansing is offensive and racist, no matter who produced it. This is the first and the main point. And if someone else (Ms Shah in our case) publishes it again, it doesn't become less racist or less offensive. Which is the second point. Now to the less important matters.

Wikipedia, with all due respect, frequently misses some points. To start with, the person in question is definitely not a gentleman. As for his Jewishness, whatever genetic traces of it he possessed, all of them were thoroughly wiped out by his hate of the said Jewishness, his leeching on the Holocaust-related matters and his other behavior traits. In short, if you belong to a small group of people who consider Kim Philby and Lord Haw-Haw British, go ahead and consider Fink-elstein Jewish, but don't make a public issue of it, please, to avoid embarrassment. And it might do you good to learn that there are Jewish antisemites, as well as Jewish thieves, Jewish liars and Jewish murderers. As for his parents being Holocaust survivors: the parents don't have to pay for the sins of their son.

Going back for a second to the subject of Jewish antisemites. The article we are discussing was reposted in full by one Gilad Atzmon:

_http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/5/1/nobody-bothered-to-check-who-created-that-anti-semitic-image-naz-shah-retweeted-did-they_

Following the logic Mike Sivier applied to the case of Norman Finkelstein, the abbreviated version of Atzmon's CV will look like this: "A famous Jewish saxophone player, IDF paratrooper in the past, gentleman". The Sivier version of Atzmon's CV will certainly leave out some other details, like "Holocaust denier, Jew-hater, Israel-hater" and many others. The mere fact that a thoroughly repulsive character like Atzmon has chosen to repost one's article should lead one to some introspection, methinks...

A general remark: if you take the article discussed here on its own, it might be interpreted as a result of a well-meant attempt to defuse the explosive situation. The clumsy transfer of guilt from Naz Shah to a "Jewish gentleman", while not effective at all to justify the act by Ms Shah, could be explained by naivety of the author, although naivety in a veteran journo is a bit of a rarity. But looking at the other articles by Mike Sivier, where he fights tooth and nail against every single accusation of anti-Semitism aimed at this or another Labour figure, it becomes harder and harder to use the excuse of naivety.

What do you say, Mike?

Norman Finkelstein in Lebanon: when the unmentionable meets the unspeakable

Probably getting booted out from the DePaul university has exacerbated his all-consuming lust for visibility. Now he has found a way - after his other learned friend, who also went on a similar pilgrimage.

Finkelstein is known as a vocal American critic of Israeli policies in the region. He met with a Hezbollah commander in south Lebanon.

There is nothing better than that old quote from that post above:

Chomsky, he added "does not know that the Hezbollah arms scare the Lebanese people more than the Israelis." Chomsky obviously doesn'’t know that Hezbollah and its allies fought the Cedar Revolution by aligning themselves with the Syrian regime.

I am not sure whether Finkelstein, being groomed in PoliSci, doesn't know this, but it hardly matters, does it?

He told reporters that he thinks Hezbollah represents hope because “they are fighting to defend their homeland, they are fighting to defend the independence of their country, they are defending themselves against foreign …murderers.”

Yes, that too... And he didn't miss another photo op, cruising the cemetery of the "Lebanese victims", 70% of whom were Hezbollah "liberators".

What can I say? Expect a new book on the atrocities of Israeli murderers soon. And don't expect the Israeli victims to be mentioned in it.

A man must do what a man must do... for his income.

Cross-posted on Yourish.com.

Now for some carefully expressed glee

The DePaul University decision not to grant a tenure to Norman Finkelstein is carefully wrapped in the bureaucratic lingo. So we have decided to help you our with some more difficult passages.

He is a nationally known scholar and public intellectual, considered provocative, challenging and intellectually interesting, although the dossier reveals some division of opinion as to the soundness of some of his scholarship.

"Public intellectual" is a curious term even for the bureaucratic lingo. One expects a scientist (which title Finkelstein holds to for dear life) to be, you know, a scientific intellectual. "Public intellectual" sounds like... a motormouth, shall I say, to be polite.

...comments from the department minority report are critical of the accuracy of some of the evidence he uses in his scholarship and the cogency of some of his arguments.

Simply put - the man does not hesitate to invent some material he is in need of for an especially intellectual public performance.

The UBPT found his service at the departmental level to be limited, with no service at the college or university level.

In other words, our intellectual cannot spare time for mundane university business. Too busy sharpening his tongue for TV.

Criticism has been expressed for his inflammatory style and personal attacks in his writings and intellectual debates.

That means that, instead of trying to argue on a level, Mr Finkelstein will behave like a regular blogger - meaning spew some invectives to cover for his lack of knowledge or lack of arguments.

Well, what do we have here: a cheating, big mouthed, lazy and rude "scientist".

Being a regular blogger, I do not see a reason not to make the conclusion even easier for my readers:

Good bye, putz.

***

A urine-soaked gloat from a urine-soaked creature

It can't be said that I am an easily shocked innocent. Indeed, some people consider me to be as cynical as a tax man. But the post A Brief Comment on the Passing of Christopher Hitchens by the known Holocaust leech Norman G. Finkelstein was still a revelation to me.



As JudeoPundit put it, with a great deal of restraint and understatement I have to add, Finkelstein seems to want to avoid gloating over the death of Hitchens, but can't quite manage it. A few quotes from Finkelstein's revealing gloat:

When I first learned that Hitchens was diagnosed with an excruciating and terminal cancer, it caused me to doubt my atheism.

First Hitchens passed.

If that wasn’t burden enough to bear, the next day Vaclav Havel imploded.

The deep thinkers among us were now beside themselves with grief.

But then, on the third day, Kim Jong-il kicked the bucket.

Moe, Larry, Curly. Christopher, Vaclav, Kim.

Well, enough is enough, and any comment will be redundant, in my humble.

So, in the spirit of the above quoted, I would like to make a public commitment. If the hateful vermin croaks before I kick the bucket, I  promise not to say or write anything about the event. Aside of something light and friendly in the manner of  "The vermin bought the farm? Good."

Oh, and if you want to know why the urine imagery in the headline, just read the end of that hate-filled piece by the vermin.

Not an urban legen: just an on-line editor

Click on the picture below, read it and then proceed to the post.

When you read the first few lines of the WaPo article, it is not difficult to understand that the main participants of the story are: a monitor lizard, police officer that shoot it, police Lt. Michael T. Finkelstein and a resident that called 911.

Wouldn't you assume that the picture, seemingly attached to the article, should depict one of the four heroes of that article? Using the elimination method, one can easily conclude that a) this is not a monitor lizard, since the latter usually locomotes on all four; b) it is not a patrolman, since no mere patrolman will allow himself to appear on a photoshoot out of his uniform; c) this could hardly be the anonymous 911 caller, they are usually too shy to appear in newspapers.

So the picture is obviously of the somewhat eccentric Lt. Michael T. Finkelstein... Right?

No, because only after wasting your precious time on that superbly executed logical exercise, you notice the words: Photos of the day under the picture and realize that the picture, after all, doesn't have anything to do with the article.

Now, if you try to match the picture to the following text that offers a few possibilities: Syria agrees to..., Mubarak on trial, Yosemite fires, March on Washington..., you shall find yourself facing the same conundrum as before. No match, right? Unless March on Washington... nah.

So, all things considered, I prefer the eccentric Lt. Michael T. Finkelstein version. The least damaging to my sanity, I say.

I am, probably, going to raise myself a monitor lizard, training it from scratch. When it grows to the length of 8 feet, I shall take it to visit the WaPo building in search for the people responsible for the design of that page. Then we shall see...

Finkelstein - now to the business

It looks like Norman Finkelstein will be able eventually to dedicate all of his time to the business venture that brought him fame (or notoriety, as you will) and fortune - denouncing the so called "Shoa business". As usual, failing to notice the perverse situation he put himself into.

So, what else is new?

***

The Council Has Spoken!

Council Winners

• *First place with 3 2/3 votes! Joshuapundit –Tom Friedman Beclowns Himself On Israel – Again
• Second place*t* with 2 1/3 votes – The Right Planet-On Death ground
• Second Place *t* with 2 1/3 votes – The Razor- When I Met Salman Rushdie
• Third place with 1 1/3 votes – The Political Commentator- A talking horse? Is that really what this election is all about? (Video)
• Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote –Bookworm Room - Lemmings and herded cats — musings on Japan and America
• Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Independent Sentinel-Officer Phillip Cardillo Cannot Be Memorialized Thanks to Louis Farrakhan
• Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Noisy Room- Making Oregon a “Dry State”
• Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Simply Jews – Norman Finkelstein and Tablet
• Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Rhymes With Right – Romney Vs. Obama On Investment
• Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – The Colossus of Rhodey –A gay man’s view of the Chick-fil-A imbroglio
• Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – The Glittering Eye –The Marilyn Monroe Anniversary
• Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – The Mellow Jihadi – Winston Churchill, US Citizen

Non-Council Winners

• First place with 4 2/3 votes! – Victor Davis Hanson-California: The Road Warrior Is Here submitted by Joshuapundit
• Second place *t* with 1 2/3 votes – Jonathan S. Tobin –Palestinians Waiting for Obama to Win submitted by Gay Patriot
• Second place *t* with 1 2/3 votes – Yid With Lid – How the US Government Should Deal with the Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital Issue submitted by The Independent Sentinel
• Third place *t* with 1 vote -Confessions Of A Closet Republican -Honor Killings, the latest rash of Muslim Misogyny submitted by Simply Jews
• Third place *t* with 1 vote The Arabist -On the Attacks in the Sinai submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD
• Third place *t* with 1 vote - Barry Rubin –The Meaning of the Egypt-Israel Cross-Border Attack submitted by The Watcher
• Third place *t* with 1 vote - Seraphic Secret –Romney Is Right on Culture and the Wealth of Nations submitted by The Watcher
• Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote -Wired.Com –How Apple and Amazon Security Flaws Led to My Epic Hacking submitted by Bookworm Room
• Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote -Grand Blog Tarkin –The Jedi Way of War submitted by The Glittering Eye
• Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote -Paul Kengor/American Spectator – All in the (Political) Family submitted by The Noisy Room
• Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote -Gavin McInnes, Taki’s Magazine –Whose Country Is it, Anyway? submitted by The Razor

Howard Rotberg's affair

The story of Howard Rotberg's unfortunate encounter with two or three pro-Palestinian provocateurs, followed by boycott of his book The Second Catastrophe
by the biggest Canadian bookstore chain Chapters Indigo, was eerily reminiscent of an episode in life of a professor, the protagonist of The Human Stain by Philip Roth, probably one of the greatest books written in US in the last century. For people who haven't read the book yet (but should): the professor had a misfortune to use the word "spook" in his lecture. It so happens that quite a lot of years before this imaginary lecture took place, the word "spook" was used to indicate African Americans. And one of the students, needless to say - an African American with a grudge against our professor (Jewish to boot - well, he appears to hide his real origins, which are African-American, but it's too much of a story for a post) causes his academic demise by accusing him as a racist.

To make it even more eerie, The Second Catastrophe describes a similar misfortune caused by a careless expression in it's protagonist's lecture. Which doesn't matter a lot, since the real life mishap that changed Rotberg's life is even weirder.

A young man came in and sat in the second row. He picked up a copy of my book from the table, took a perfunctory look at it, and started interrupting me.

“You think all Muslims are terrorists,” he asserted.

“I do not,” I replied, as categorically as possible.

“Well, that’s what your book says,” he retorted.

And it gets better:

“He has no right to lecture if he is going to say things in support of Israel,” said the Palestinian.

It appears that some Canadian Palestinians have an interesting point of view on freedom of speech. And how is this for a coda?

Then the Iraqi started in. Again someone pleaded with him to be quiet so I could lecture. Then came the words that still ring in my ears: “He’s a fucking Jew.”

Well, and who gets punished for all this? Believe it or not, it's the "fucking Jew" himself. First of all, Chapters Indigo hastily issued a press release, where they blamed both sides of the incident:

Indigo spokesperson Sorya Gaulin said that while an author who'll draw a big crowd warrants security guards, "You wouldn't expect this behaviour at a discussion of a novel. The author's behaviour was inappropriate — we were seeing (that) on both sides."

But this was only an opening shot by Chapters Indigo. The next one was to remove the book in question from their shelves. Believe it or not, it was done indeed - I am quite far from Canada, so I am using Chapters Indigo site that says that the book is unavailable. Someone else will have to re-check the stores, if that someone disbelieves the author's word.

The punitive steps mentioned above were executed in spite of the easily available evidence by witnesses that there was nothing racist in Rotberg's lecture and subsequent behavior, even after he has been provoked. See this affidavit. The Chapters representative that issued the press release had the affidavit available in time to prevent its hasty wording. But no, in their zeal to clean themselves of any possible accusation, they have preferred to blame both sides.

Even assuming, for the sake of the argument only, that Howard Rotberg (an experienced lawyer who definitely knows very well the high price of hot-headed speech) has indeed uttered something damaging in the heat of the altercation with the provocateurs - how could this act have caused the withdrawal of the book from the Chapter Indigo stores?

Here I have come upon another interesting detail. I am told that the owners of this esteemed book vendor are Jewish. No, I wasn't expecting a preferential treatment of Howard Rotberg by Chapter Indigo. Still, the last thing I would expect of Jewish owners was their shabby treatment of their fellow Jew. Especially such an easy acceptance of the trumped up charges of racism.

But there is another angle I have (almost inadvertently, believe it or not) discovered. The esteemed book vendor, so sensitive to a merest whiff of politically incorrect behavior, doesn't see anything fishy (smell-wise) in displaying a book by Hitler (yes, the Adolf), an exotic edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or the infamous Holocaust Industry by Finkelstein. Yeah... but of course, these books don't clash with the new wave of "progressive thinking" as understood by some people in Canada.

All in all, a classic case of the racism card being played to its utmost by dirty manipulators. And not very clever manipulators, as it becomes clear from this funny chapter in the whole sad story. Still, they have succeeded (meanwhile) in suppressing one voice that wasn't toeing the "progressive" line.

I hope that "meanwhile" is going to end soon. Howard Rotberg is suing Chapters for financial losses caused by Chapters’ actions. He has chosen to bring it in Small Claims Court (maximum jurisdiction is $10,000) to simplify the matter and show it is not about money but the principle of what was done. Chapters should pay, albeit symbolically, for not protecting the right of Mr Rotberg to free speech, for unjustly accusing him in racism and for their bureaucratic zeal in persecuting Mr Rotberg by withdrawing his book from the shelves.

I hope some heads in the Chapters' empire will roll* and deservedly so. I don't tend to ascribe to malice what could be explained by stupidity. But stupidity needs to be punished as well.

Meanwhile you all can vote for Howard Rotberg by ordering his book here. And by downloading and reading his new book, which includes the story briefly touched upon in this post.

More info here and here and here. An interview with Rotberg here. And follow the (hopefully good) news on Howard Rotberg's new blog.

(*) Potential beheaders accidentally reading this sentence asked not to get overexcited. It is a figger of speech.

Cross-posted on Yourish.com.

The unbearable dilemma of an "anti-Zionist"

The famous Buridan's ass that is dying due to its inability to choose between two equally succulent and equidistant stacks of hay* has nothing on a rabid anti-Zionist**, one professor Francis Boyle.

You have, most probably, observed at least once in your life, a baby unable to choose between two different toys and unable to hold or play with both at the same time. The situation frequently creates some hilarious scenes and memorable snapshots to proud parents.

Here we have a case that, while hilarious, could hardly make the institutions of higher learning in United States of America proud. It rather shames the august Harvard University, where Boyle received a J.D. degree magna cum laude and A.M. and Ph.D. degrees in political science.

Professor Boyle doesn't like Israel. OK, you might say, many people don't like many countries or nations. With professor Boyle, however, this dislike is more of an obsession. So much so that when he starts venting his dislike, his whole education and cutting edge intellect, honed by Harvard and his exemplary experience, seem to go down the drain. So much so that, even when rehashing the usual conspiracy theory about us Elders owning the world, he is unable to keep the thread of his logic (yep, even a conspinut usually has a kind of warped logic). And, like that above mentioned baby, he can't choose between two different kinds of blame to assign to his much hated Zionists. Here he starts:

In fact, when it comes to US foreign policy to oppress the Palestinians, nothing has changed. Obama was bought and paid for by Zionists.

And here he continues:

As you well know, all the major US news media sources are Zionist – every one of them. Likewise, higher education, here, in America, has become predominantly Zionist in its orientation, since I entered college in 1968. As a matter of fact, if I were trying to become a professor today, the Zionists would make sure I could not become a professor – exactly as they did to my friend Norman Finkelstein at DePaul University.

By now, I hope, you are starting to get the general drift and the usual grim picture of the Zionist octopus holding the world in general and America in particular where it hurts and having its way with the said world. And you are relaxed in your armchair, seeing as how the learned professor is telling it all.

And suddenly professor sees and seizes a different toy:

We have to understand that historically, Israel has always been nothing more than a Jewish Bantustan, set up by the Western colonial powers, in the Middle East, to control and dominate the Middle East at their behest. It is that simple. Israel does now what the United States tells it to do.

Oops...

I don't know how you are going to sleep tonight. No, really, what with professor Boyle showing you two completely different evils, how would you know which one is real and which one is not? How do you know whether to watch for the monster under your bed or for the boogieman in your closet?

Are you confused? Even an Arab watcher, Professor Shibli Talhami, from Maryland University (and no great friend of Israel), is confused:

First he says that the Zionists control the US and its policies, and then he says that the US controls Israel, so I'm not sure what his position is.

But I think that I have explained this behavior in the beginning of the post. When professor Boyle grows up a bit more, he will definitely decide which one of the two toys is more suited to his needs. I am sure of that. Are you?

(*) It's actually a bit more complicated than two stacks of hay, see here.

(**) There is a difference, though. Our professor wouldn't croak of hunger.

Cross-posted on Yourish.com

Guardian deputy-editor deepens hole over Lord Ahmed

Then there is this to add to the posting on Lord Ahmed. It's also from the engage website, but shows Guardian Deputy-Editor Michael White using the Livingstone Formulation, as noted in the heading to the article.

Read and try not to throw up.

By: Brian Goldfarb

By the editor: for those short of patience here is the main part of the story:

Daniel Finkelstein is the Executive Editor and a leader writer of the Times. He tweeted: “Surprised to find our Lord Ahmed Jews story not in BBC radio news summaries…”

Michael White, Assistant Editor at the Guardian replied: “@Dannythefink I agree it’s a stinker and typical of double standards. Pity about the illegal settlements though. Best wishes”

Has somebody checked on Norman Finkelstein's well-being lately?

I used to actively despise the man, but now I am only concerned. His obsession has transformed him into a really sick victim - of his own hate, of course - but nevertheless a victim. Check this out:



Pitiful.

Durban renewal: The Holocaust is alive and well

At one end of the spectrum, the Norman Finkelstein psychopaths rant about the "Holocaust Industry." There are many who minimize not only the Holocaust, but the entire history of anti-Semitism. At the other extreme there are Jews who insist that their identity is centered around the Holocaust, and that only when they visited Auschwitz or participated in the march of the living did they feel truly Jewish. And there are non-Jews who somehow can only relate to Jews as objects of pity. That sort of morose identity, in my view, is not worth having, and it is not worth perpetuating and bequeathing to our children. It is certainly wrong to expect a "free pass" for anything Jews might do because of the Holocaust or anti-Semitism.

This was an excerpt from an superb post by Ami Isseroff. The ten minutes you'll spend reading it are really worth it.

Amy Winehouse in, Norman Finkelstein out

The Shin Bet security service detained and deported an American Jewish professor who is a prominent critic of the Israeli occupation when he landed at Ben-Gurion International Airport on Friday.

There are some official reasons for booting the creep out, but the real one is:

Grammy Award winning recording artist Amy Winehouse is due in Israel "within weeks" to undergo a drug rehabilitation program, according to the London-based Jewish Chronicle newspaper.

We have a small place here, Norm, and two of you will be just one too many, you see. But you can always visit your Hezbollah buddies instead.

This is close enough for us, I suggest. And the place is fitting.

Cross-posted on Yourish.com.

The Gaza problem - another take

It seems that I have waited long enough for the last stragglers to comment on this post. By now we can say with confidence that the whole gamut of political opinions is presented. Save a distinct Palestinian voice, which is a pity.

So, after keeping mum on the thread that has developed during the three or four days, I must do what is expected from me - to play an armchair general for a change.

First of all, to answer the question asked by Mikey:

Who is this Avraham Katz and why have you given space to such extreme views on your blog?

I don't know Avraham Katz personally, and from reading the comments it should become clear that there are even more extreme views around. But, Mikey and Paul, if I can quote Finkelstein, Sheikh Nasrallah, Ahmadinejad and Chavez, I am surely entitled to quote Avraham Katz. Another point you should understand: our government's inability to act (neither in the direction of peace nor the direction of war) is one of the reasons for people coming out with these outrageous ideas. Besides, it is all for good cause, which I intend to prove in a few moments. Anyway, the true answer is: I just needed a spark to get the discussion going and to get some people's opinions.

I wanted to start with people of Sderot*, and commenter Linda from UK made my job that much easier:

I've been to Sderot. What's the number of Israeli civilians who have died as a result of the missiles since they started? Five?

First of all, the number of people murdered by Qassams is 13 - today. Of course there are hundreds of wounded who will carry their pain and their injuries to the grave. But the psychological damage to the children of Sderot and the constant enforced play with death in the ugly form of the Russian (Gazan?) roulette with rockets instead of bullets during several years of constant threat - on what scale it is measured? This is what Wiki says about Nazis' V-2 attacks on London:

An estimated 2,754 civilians were killed in London by V-2 attacks with another 6,523 injured, which is just two people killed per V-2 rocket.

"Just two people"... hmm... Anyway, if you compare the respective population of the two places and follow the numbers, you shall see that the damage is comparable. Just imagine a well-wisher advising Londoners to ignore this at the time (well, I suspect there were a few who said it, actually). I doubt that the stiff upper lip advice would have worked. Definitely, a well-meaning advice to keep a stiff upper lip is not what people of Sderot will welcome. Their attitude to the government indecision and to the unending Qassams is close to that of some of the comments here: kill them all if you cannot stop the Qassams otherwise, many of them say. Ami, you may want to call each and every one of them "Jewish Eichmann", but I am not sure they will be in the mood to even start understanding you.

So, what can we do? To go with the clearly lunatic proposals you have seen in the previous post and some of the comments? To carpet bomb towns in Gaza for every Qassam? To kill a thousand/hundred thousands/... Gazans for every transgression?

There is war, ladies and gentlemen, and there is revenge. Sorry, Avraham and sorry Rabbi Eliyahu (not really) - what you are offering as a solution (later about its effectiveness) is revenge - senseless and bloodthirsty, which could be understood emotionally in the circumstances but could not be justified in any way.

Elder of Ziyon: with all due respect, taking a square kilometer for every Israeli victim has a few kinks. First of all, the plan pre-supposes more victims, which we all would prefer to avoid. Secondly, if you don't kill every inhabitant of that square kilometer, you are just moving your enemies and front line forward, and this logic will of necessity cause your plan to stop only after the whole planet is occupied by IDF (a corollary to it is that you will have to kill the whole population of the planet anyway).

Now to the other side of the scale: peace making. Gert, you are operating percentages of pro- and anti-peace Israelis without taking into account (although, I hope, with some understanding of) the dynamics of Israeli public opinion. The "disengagement" or, using a better term, evacuation of Gaza was preceded by high hopes of creating a first exemplary enclave of peace. We hoped that Gazans, left to their own devices and being inherently talented and enterprising people, will use the opportunity to turn to peaceful occupations and, with significant infusion of money (promised at the time) will turn Gaza into a shining beacon of prosperity and profitable coexistence with their neighbors. Nope. We all know what really happened.

Tell you a little secret, Gert: half a year of real peace and calm would have improved these percentages you so worry about to no end. But there is no Gandhi on the Palestinian side, no leader at all, to tell the truth (not that we are differently blessed).

And when you ask about the settlers in the West Bank - just remember that Olmert wanted (foolishly, as we all see now) to start removing settlements without waiting for any peace agreement. You know (or should know) the rest, so let's cut this crap.

So, unfortunately, it is war we are looking at, at least at the Gazan front. Of course, the current situation it is precisely what Hamas wants: bleed us slowly, provoke our retaliation, hopefully (for Hamas) with civilian casualties, generally make the life of Gazans close to impossible without actually starving them to death and prepare - first of all and above all - prepare for war. The more shahids the better.

And, unfortunately, our government is stalling, each time for different reasons. Either it is tension with Lebanon/Hezbollah or suspicious units movements on Syrian border or the gas line from the Gazan gas fields - whatever it is, Sderot comes last.

So, it is a war, and in the war you do what you do in a war. I absolutely agree with Yitzchak, Shlemazl, Meryl - there will be (is, in fact) no alternative to going in with overwhelming force (which will reduce casualties on both sides) and root out Hamas, Jihad and the whole alphabet soup of the terror network. Of course, there will be civilian casualties, especially knowing the endearing habit of Gazan "freedom fighters" to hide behind schools, kindergartens and civilians in general. But it is a war.

But this will be not enough (Meryl, we'll not be able to leave for a while) - Israel and all well-meaning partners should bring real economic prosperity to Gaza and stay there till a sane self-governing body is organized. And, of course, the teachers of hate, as Meryl says, should be stopped from spreading their poison.

It is a war, and our children in IDF will die. It is war, and they died protecting settlers in Gaza before the "disengagement", they died in Lebanon, they continue dying in the West Bank. It is a war, and I don't have anything consoling to say to myself and to all of us.

Now, as a purely theoretical exercise (for Dick, Avraham, Daled Amos and others): the collective punishment of the kind you see as a solution is not only morally unacceptable. Let's leave aside for a moment the moral aspect of carpet bombing or artillery barrage on a city - for the purpose of a "military exercise". What will, in fact, happen if such measure is taken? You must understand one simple thing - the people who will suffer the least are exactly the people you would like to go after, the terrorists. They are the most mobile, they are the best protected, they have the information and the shelters. So, as a result of your "strategy" you will kill the elderly, the children and the handicapped. In fact, doing precisely what Hamas/Jihad/... would want you to do.

The same, unfortunately, goes for the attempts to break the terrorists will by cutting of the electricity and fuel supplies - the terrorists will be practically untouched by these measures, having the means to take whatever they need.

And if you think for a moment that the Gazan masses, scared, starved and tired by the Israeli butchering of their dear and near, will raise and revolt against the only force that has arms at its disposal - you must be really naive...

Nope, gentlemen - it does not work morally and it does not work militarily. No way.

Meanwhile, at least from the news it looks like the indecision will continue for a while:

Israel has no plans for a large-scale invasion of the Gaza Strip in the near future, Defense Minister Ehud Barak told a Knesset committee Tuesday, according to meeting participants.

To conclude: I don't even dream about persuading most of you, folks (especially not my Jewish friends, who are, like I am, world champions of stubbornness). But I hope we could continue discussing the subject. Civilly.)

(*) Of course, it is not only Sderot, all the villages around Gaza who suffer from Qassams and mortars are included, with my apologies.

***