Adina Rosenthal's piece is remarkable for the degree to which she misrepresents the positions of her opponents and indeed attempts to slime them. Anybody who is in the least bit familiar with the work of Norman Finkelstein knows that is far from being a Holocaust denier. In fact, as he repeatedly states in his writings. both his parents were Holocaust survivors. The fact that Ms Rosenthal should choose to repeat this slander against Finkelstein in her article undermines the credibility of her piece as a whole. She also misrepresents the position of Ted Honderich as well. On the question of Israel/Palestine, Honderich is very much a two-state guy. He accepts the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state that should, in his opinion, exist within roughly its pre-1967 borders. It is true that Honderich defends the moral legitimacy of Palestinian terrorism. But by the same token he has also defended the moral legitimacy of the Zionist terrorists of the 1940s (Lehi and Etzel), given that in his opinion, the establishment of a Jewish state was a moral imperative in light of the Holocaust. Thus, he wrote in
"Terrorism for humanity":

"The state of Israel ought of course to have been constructed out of a part of Germany after the genocide of the Jews. But that it had to be established somewhere is a kind of moral datum, certainly in accord with the the principle of of humanity. So too, to my mind, given what seemed to be the necessity and the particular possibilities at the time, was it right that Israel was set up where it was, partly by way of Zionist terrorism for humanity, and despite its being an historic injustice to another people."

Ms. Rosenthal is most fortunate to be studying at Oxford. It is too bad, that on the evidence of her article, she has not been making the best use of the opportunity that has been afforded her.

On the contrary, Ms. Rosenthal made very good use of her time at Oxford. She saw first hand the fallen British Empire in its death throes.

The fallen British Empire that dearly clings to its remaining scattered outposts on Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, the Virgin Islands, Australia.

I suggest that Palestine be given a home in a land that earnestly supports it, the tottering United Kingdom. I feel certain that Ken Livingstone would welcome these poor people with skills honed by years of study at the feet of Yassir Arafat, PLO, PFLP. Perhaps British journalist Alan Johnston can reunite with his former captors.

On the other hand, the so-called Palestinian people have suffered at the hands of their bretheren. Certainly Saudi Arabia or Iran or the Islamofascist Regime of iran would be willing to donate some oil rich property to their fellow Arab/Muslims. By the way, wasn't it the British who drew the borders of Iraq, ignoring tribal boundaries, setting the stage for conflict? Or was it just standard practice by the British to Divide and Conquer.

I'm guessing that in 1948, when the British fled "Palestine", they expected the Jews to be decimated as they were in WW2 Europe. But to their bitter astonishment, the Jews of Israel defeated the attacking Arab armies.

That must have been another shock to the former Empire.

In my previous comment, I took Ms. Rosenthal to task for misrepresenting the views of both Norman Finkelstein and Ted Honderich, and for slandering Finkelstein as a Holocaust denier. Eddie in his defense of Ms. Rosenthal blows a lot of smoke over the decadence of the British Empire (no real disagreement there) and other matters, but leaves my two points concerning Ms. Rosenthal's article in The Jewish Advocate completely untouched. So can I take it that Eddie concedes those two points? I can hardly see how he could do otherwise. But what then of Ms. Rosenthal's general veracity and credibility? As I said before, I think it is a pity that Ms. Rosenthal has chosen to misuse the great educational opportunity that has been afforded to her at Oxford University. While I realize that it is hardly unusual for the graduates of the great universities to go on and prosper in careers devoted to spin-doctoring and other forms of dissimulation, I am old fashion enough to believe that we should expect more from the graduates of such institutions. Too bad Eddie doesn't.

The only one sliming anyone here is you, Jim F. I will give you one thing, I think it is a mistake to call Finkelstein a Holocaust denier -- something that is generally taken to mean that a person believes the event did not take place. I don't believe Finkelstein does that, he simply minimizes it out of all significance and mocks and scorns anyone who disagrees with him on that, though he himself never fails to make use of his own tangential connection when it suits him.

Your defense of Honderich is hardly convincing, and his (and your) comparison of the pre-state Jewish "terrorists" to the utterly depraved monsters we see operating in places like Gaza today is more of an indictment than an argument for the defense.

The fact that you're the kind of guy that would show up to defend characters like Finkelstein and Honderich, and slime someone like Rosenthal is about all I need to know about you as well.

Well, Solomon, perhaps as long as we are sliming people, you might wish to slime the memory of the late Raul Hilberg, who was known as the "dean of Holocaust studies" in the US. He had a rather different take on Finkelstein than you do, and was up to the time of his death, a defender of Finkelstein when he was fighting for tenure at De Paul.

For example in an interview with Hilberg that appeared in Logos , in an article, "Is There a New Anti-Semitism? A Conversation with Raul Hilberg"

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_6.1-2/hilberg.htm

Hilberg had this to say of Finkelstein:

---------------------------------------
Q: What are your thoughts on the current debates over how to interpret the Holocaust and its legacy in the work of people like Norman Finkelstein or Daniel Goldhagen?

Hilberg: Well Finkelstein is now maligned all over the place. There were obviously lobbies who tried to dislodge him from his position. Finkelstein is a political scientist. I believe he has a PhD degree from Princeton and, whatever you may think of Princeton, this is a pretty strong preparation to be a professional political scientist. He wrote to me a couple of times. He was the first one to take Goldhagen seriously. He attacked Goldhagen in a very long essay which I could never have written because I would have never had the patience. Goldhagen is part of an academic group that in my kind of research is a disaster...

Q: Why is that?

Hilberg: Because [Goldhagen] was totally wrong about everything. Totally wrong. Exceptionally wrong. In other words, this whole fury of his
anti-Semitism was, at the root, that it was especially eliminationist anti-Semitism, was totally absurd. He talks about anti-Semitism among
Germans, Estonians, Ukrainians, Latvians, and Lithuanians, but where did this unique eliminationist anti-Semitism come from? It is just totally absurd. I mean, totally off the wall, you know, and factually without any basis. Finkelstein took this seriously. I took it less seriously, but I was a latecomer in attacking this Goldhagen fellow.

Now Finkelstein had a second point, which, in my opinion, was one hundred percent correct and that is that the response to the issue of the Swiss
banks and German industry, which had coincided during the War, was not only coercive on the part of the Jews who mobilized, but also on the part of all the insurance commissioners, the Senate, the House, and the critical committees. The only thing they could not break through was to the courts,which still have independence. So they lost at court, but they threatened people like Alan Hevesi in New York. They could make threatsbecause Swiss banks wanted to expand here. For Finkelstein, this was naked extortion and I'm
not sure who agreed with him except for me and I said so openly. In fact, I said so to the press in maybe seven countries.

The press did not expect my answer. The World Jewish Congress was led by a man who was appeared to be from his own autobiographical statements to b totally, not even average, but like a child almost. What this tycoon, who took over the World Jewish Congress, was saying was totally preposterous. The claims lawyers, joined by the World Jewish Congress, made an incredible display of totally inappropriate behavior.

Now when he talks about the Arabs, some Jews feel that he is also anti-Zionist, that he is anti-Israel; that he seems to always emphasize the
suffering of the Arabs. I do not join him in this particular venture because I have my own view, but you cannot say he is altogether wrong either. Would you like to be an Arab citizen in Israel? Think of the doors that are closed. You may eat better and have a better income than if you lived in a slum in Cairo. The great irony is that the economic condition of Israeli Arabs is considerably better than the proletariat in some other Arab countries, but a person needs something more. A person needs a feeling of dignity. Think of the security check points. It is a life that certainly something ought to be done about it in one way or another. This particular battle cannot be fought forever. It cannot be. The Israelis will tire of it. The Israelis will simply tire of mistrusting people. It is not possible to go on this way forever. Finkelstein has the corner on the germ of correct vision in these matters because he is pretty sharp. More often than not, especially with regard to these other matters like Goldhagen and the Swiss banks he has been right.

Fortunately, I can read Finkelstein and watch him and come to my own conclusions. Hilberg said, "I have my own view." So do I.

When I said, I had seen "about all I need to know about you as well," that was meant to be read as "Good day to you..." Get it?

I don't know that I would trust Prof. Hillberg to know his P's from the Q's when it comes to making assessments about Finklestein's knowledge and understanding of the P/I conflict. If you read this part from the quote you will see wh yI'm saying that:

"The great irony is that the economic condition of Israeli Arabs is considerably better than the proletariat in some other Arab countries, but a person needs something more. A person needs a feeling of dignity. Think of the security check points. It is a life that certainly something ought to be done about it in one way or another."

Apparently, he does not differentiate between an Israeli-Arab and a Palestinian. And that means his conclusions are not based on reality but on a misshapen representation of reality.

To clarify: An Israeli Arab is a citizen of the state of Israel. There are no checkpoints interrupting the life of Israeli Arabs. They have all the dignity they deserve under the law and in any decent society.

The fact that Hillberg confuses the two populations not only diminishes his authority to judge in this matter but also degrades his endorsement of Finklestein to the point where it is quite irrelevant. Clearly he didn't know what he was saying, and Jim F. should have cottoned on to this flaw before he provided this quote.

Noga jumps on Hilberg because he apparently was clear in distinguishing between Israeli Arabs and Palestinians in the occupied territories. We can grant them point, but its really irrelevant to what Hilberg was trying to say about Finkelstein, which is that he admired his scholarship concerning the Holocaust while disagreeing with him concerning Israel and Zionism (but conceding that Finkelstein had legitimate points to make on those issues too).

Anyway, it is interesting to note that last May he appeared on Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" program to speak on behalf of Finkelstein, along with Avi Shlaim. See:

http://tinyurl.com/36pad2

The above comment should read:

Noga jumps on Hilberg because he apparently WASN'T clear in distinguishing between Israeli Arabs and Palestinians in the occupied territories. We can grant them point, but its really irrelevant to what Hilberg was trying to say about Finkelstein, which is that he admired his scholarship concerning the Holocaust while disagreeing with him concerning Israel and Zionism (but conceding that Finkelstein had legitimate points to make on those issues too).

Anyway, it is interesting to note that last May he appeared on Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" program to speak on behalf of Finkelstein, along with Avi Shlaim. See:

http://tinyurl.com/36pad2

"In my previous comment, I took Ms. Rosenthal to task for misrepresenting the views of both Norman Finkelstein and Ted Honderich, and for slandering Finkelstein as a Holocaust denier."

Here Ms. Rosenthal is wrong. Norman finkelstein is not a Holcaust denier, but a Holocaust Revisionist – one that spins a new “truth” to advance his goals of destroying Israel. You must be aware that Finkelstein is loved by unabashed Holocaust deniers and other anti-semites. You are judged by your friends.

"Eddie in his defense of Ms. Rosenthal blows a lot of smoke over the decadence of the British Empire (no real disagreement there) and other matters, but leaves my two points concerning Ms. Rosenthal's article in The Jewish Advocate completely untouched. So can I take it that Eddie concedes those two points?"

Here you are partly correct. Britain is not just “decadent”, but hypocritical, two-faced. It’s the pot calling the kettle black, with a smug Oxford accent. Also I see you sidestepped my examples of British occupation.

"I can hardly see how he could do otherwise."

I cannot account for your biases and lack of insight.

"But what then of Ms. Rosenthal's general veracity and credibility? As I said before, I think it is a pity that Ms. Rosenthal has chosen to misuse the great educational opportunity that has been afforded to her at Oxford University. While I realize that it is hardly unusual for the graduates of the great universities to go on and prosper in careers devoted to spin-doctoring and other forms of dissimulation, I am old fashion enough to believe that we should expect more from the graduates of such institutions. Too bad Eddie doesn't."

This "debate" further diminishes Oxford. Too bad Jim F. is so enamored of “kangaroo courts”.

Does Jim F. really belive that you have honest debate with a panel solely stacked with people who have a visceral hate of Jews and "Zionists"? It’s laughable. Something that Franz Kafka would have written about.

Too bad for the enemies of Jews and Israel that the Israelis are NOT the unarmed Jews of WW2 Europe.

Eddie wrote:

"Here Ms. Rosenthal is wrong. Norman finkelstein is not a Holcaust denier, but a Holocaust Revisionist – one that spins a new “truth” to advance his goals of destroying Israel. You must be aware that Finkelstein is loved by unabashed Holocaust deniers and other anti-semites. You are judged by your friends."

More importantly, Finkelstein's work was defended by the late Raul Hilberg, who was the founder of Holocaust studies, as an academic discipline. (I have already provided a couple of references to where Hilberg explicitly defended Finkelstein). That impresses me far more, given that Hilberg knew far more about that subject than either of us could ever hope to know. Yes, we are indeed judged by our friends.

I am not sure what you mean when you call Finkelstein a "Holocaust Revisionist." Finkelstein explicitly endorses what he calls " the conventional view of the Nazi holocaust - i.e, an assembly-line, industrialized killing of the Jews. ." as being "correct, and that the conventional figures on those killed are (more or less) correct." (See:
http://www.olokaustos.org/saggi/interviste/finkel-en4.htm).
On more than one occasion, he has asserted that he takes Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews as the authoritative study of the Holocaust. The admiration for Finkelstein that has been expressed in neo-Nazi circles is a based on a willful misapprehension (by them) of his work. Finkelstein himself has addressed that issue when he says:

"The main reason Holocaust revisionists embraced my book is that the Holocaust industry immediately pigeon-holed it as Holocaust denial to deflect unanswereable criticism. Had it not been labeled Holocaust denial by the Holocaust industry, I doubt Holocaust revisionists would have supported it. There's not a single word in the book that can be interpreted as Holocaust denial. Rather the contrary, I insist throughout the book that the conventional view of the Nazi holocaust - i.e, an assembly-line, industrialized killing of the Jews - is correct, and that the conventional figures on those killed are (more or less) correct. One main point of the book is that it is the Holocaust industry that has become the main purveyor of Holocaust denial in the world. If there were a single word in the book that in any way supported Holocaust denial, why would the world's leading
authority on the Nazi holocaust, Raul Hilberg, repeatedly endorse the book? Of course I would have preferred if Holocaust revisionists didn't support me - just as I'm sure that many critics of the former Soviet Union would have preferred if right-wing fanatics hadn't supported them."

Perhaps, you can do us the favor of explaining what you mean when you call Finkelstein a "Holocaust Revisionist." Given the fact that Hilberg explicitly defended Finkelstein's work, especially in regards to the Goldhagen controversy and the critique of the reparations lawsuits against the Swiss banks, perhaps you also regard Hilberg to have been a Holocaust revisionist too?

Anyway, after Finkelstein opened the discussion, it's amazing how many other got into the act, often while ignoring him (or smearing him, if they mentioned him at all), while endorsing his major conclusions. Even Commentary got into the act when back in 2000 they published an article by Gabriel Schoenfeld which was harshly critical of the ways that attorneys and many Jewish organizations have handled the issue of Holocaust reparations. See his article "Holocaust Reparations--A Growing Scandal," Commentary (September 2000).

Not long after that Commentary article appeared, Christopher Hitchens wrote in The Nation in the September 18, 2000 issue, that:

"WELL, Jesus Christ -- as Senator Joseph Lieberman would want to say -- it ought not to take Commentary magazine to give serious attention to the fleecing of Holocaust victims and the exorbitance of Holocaust profiteers. Yet I open my September [2000] issue of this neocon album and find that the most salient article is contributed
by Gabriel Schoenfeld and titled "Holocaust Reparations -- A Growing Scandal."

"The likelihood is that no such essay would have been commissioned or printed if it were not for a book by Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, which is currently occupying a word-of-mouth position somewhere between samizdat and "not in front of the goyim." Of course, Schoenfeld knows his duty, and makes as short a work as he can of Finkelstein himself. As a defender of Palestinian rights, a "follower of Noam Chomsky" and a scholar who exposed the anti-German vulgarities of Daniel Goldhagen, Finkelstein enjoys no rights that Commentary is bound to respect. But this is of no consequence."

"Schoenfeld concludes on the available evidence that the sudden boom in Holocaust litigation is most often exemplified by Edward Fagan, an obscure personal-injury lawyer from San Antonio, Texas who claims to have signed up 31,000 clients in record time. For his role in the Swiss settlement, he submitted to the court a bill for $4 million, or $640 an hour. The average pension that Holocaust survivors today receive from the German government is $640 a year."

Anyway, if that be "Holocaust revisionism," then I say we need more of that, whether from Norman Finkelstein or others. What we don't need is sort of slanderous bullshit that we got out of Adina Rosenthal. We have had far too much such pollution of public discourse already.