Understanding the Palestinian Movement
By Francisco Gil-White. He is a fierce defender of the Jewish people and has made a study of their history. Visit Historical Investigative Research to see the extent of his revolutionary work. He has just completed the Part 4 of his four part series on “Understanding the Palestinian movement“. Take the time to read all parts and for that matter also read his other artilces including The Crux of WORLD HISTORY
Introduction
As you may recall from Part 1, even anti-Zionist historian Nathan Weinstock recognizes that the ‘Palestinian movement’ in British Mandate ‘Palestine’ was not exactly admirable. It was, he says, “deformed by racism.” Racism against whom? The British? That should be the first hypothesis for a movement that Weinstock calls “the Palestinian anti-colonialist movement,” because the British were the occupying imperialist/colonialist power in charge. But no, as Weinstock himself concedes, this movement was racist against the Jews (Zionist or not, mind you). Weinstock’s admission that the ‘Palestinian’ movement’s flag was anti-Jewish racism is important because it comes from someone who would like to defend the justice of this movement.
Precisely in order to defend this movement, Nathan Weinstock would like you to think that the violent racism of so-called ‘Palestinian’ Arabs was “understandable” because, he claims, the Zionist Jews and the British were “clearly” allied with each other against the Arabs (see Part 1). This representation is absurd. As Weinstock himself admits,
1) the British imperialists were helping the Arabs kill Jews (see Part 1); and as Weinstock also admits,
2) the Arab feudal lords in ‘Palestine’ incited racist violence against the Jews in order to create a climate to intimidate fellow Arabs who might want to get along with the mostly socialist Jews, the better to further exploit the downtrodden Arab commoners (see Part 3)
Therefore, it is amazing that Weinstock, who says he is an anti-imperialist Marxist, should not defend the interpretation that the British ruling class and the Arab ruling class were allied against ordinary Arabs and Jews. After all, as I also show in Part 3, the Zionist Jews had no role in oppressing the Arabs; on the contrary, the Zionist Jews were indirectly and directly helping to end the oppression which the Arab (effendi) feudal lords made the ordinary (fellahin) peasant Arabs to suffer.
Nathan Weinstock would also like you to think that this allegedly ‘Palestinian’ movement was an _expression of a Palestinian Arab “national consciousness.” But this is quite impossible. As I show in Part 1, the ideology of this movement was just plain old anti-Jewish racism, of the traditional sort in the Muslim world, and quite comparable — notwithstanding Weinstock’s loud protestations to the contrary — to the traditional European anti-Jewish racism that produced the Shoah (Holocaust). Moreover, as I show in Part 2, ‘Palestine’ as such never existed, and neither was there ever any such thing as an ‘Arab Palestinian’ population with a ‘Palestinian identity,’ much less Weinstock’s alleged “national consciousness.” Most of the so-called ‘Palestinian Arabs,’ as I also show in Part 2, were immigrants from elsewhere attracted by the economic boom that the Zionist Jews created when they transformed a desolate land into an oasis.
So, although Nathan Weinstock may refer to the racist movement that killed innocent Jews in British Mandate ‘Palestine’ as the “Palestinian anti-colonialist movement,” the well-documented facts suggest that this movement had absolutely nothing to do with fighting colonialism. On the contrary, the aristocratic Arab leaders of repeated terrorist violence against ordinary Arabs and Jews were directly sponsored and assisted by the colonialist British Mandate government and the colonialist British military, as I will document below in some detail. It was this British sponsorship and assistance that initially set in motion the so-called ‘Palestinian movement.’ Later, the Nazis would also sponsor it. And after that, the United States.
Anybody who chooses to defend the ‘Palestinian movement’ should do so in full awareness of the facts documented below.
The roots of Arab (Palestinian) anti-Semitism are deep and form the crux of all the problems in the Middle East. In the book by Bernard Lewis, “The Middle East,” Lewis gives the following interesting historical facts to support the article, “Understanding the Palestinian Movement.” These quotes show the depth of hatred towards Jews in the region long before 1948 and the lengths the Arab population would go to keep non-Muslims out. The same applies today.
Page 348: “As far back as 1933, immediately after Hitler’s accession to power, the British-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni, made contact with the German consul to declare his support and offer his help.”
Page 349: ” Rashid Ali (pro-Axis Iraqi leader) fled and later joined the Mufti in Berlin. Among the many who supported or sympathized with the Axis during the war years….Nasser recorded his sympathy and his disappointment at Germany’s defeat; Sadat, according to his own memoirs, was a willing co-operator in German espionage.”
Page 349: “At first sight, this enthusiasm for the Nazi cause seems very strange. Nazi racism cannot have had much appeal for a people who, according to Nazi pseudo-science, were themselves racial inferiors. Nazi propaganda, in so far as it was specifically anti-Jewish rather than generally anti-Semitic, had considerable support.” He goes on to say, “Nevertheless, significant numbers of Arabs favoured the Germans, who sent Jews to Palestine, rather than the British, who tried to keep them out.”…”The Nazis in particular, by preaching hatred of Jews, were able to exploit a problem which they themselves had in large measure created.”
Page 351: “During the war, two requests were repeatedly made to the warring parties - by Jewish organizations in London and Washington, urging their governments to bomb death camps in Auschwitz; by the Mufti’s office in Berlin, urging the German government to bomb Tel Aviv…
Comment by Gary Gerofsky
— June 14, 2006 @ 7:51 am
Good work, Gary
Comment by Ted Belman
— June 14, 2006 @ 11:11 am
In order to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, the following misrepresentations promulgated by the Arabs need to be refuted.
1. “the plight of the Palestinian refugees”
2. “suffering of the Palestinian people”
3. “occupied Palestinian lands”
4. “struggle for liberation from Israeli occupation and oppression”
These are all lies that are prolonging the conflict and bringing more suffering to both sides. Francisco’s meticulous, scholarly research contributes immensely to refuting these lies and revealing the truth.
Comment by izwick
— June 14, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
Gil-White’s work should be a wakeup call to all of us, especially the Jewish people!
Comment by rvictor
— June 14, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
Ted,
this article by Dr. Gil-White that you have posted is suberb. Every pro-Arab,pro-Islamist argument given by the Western media and many Western intellectuals and political leaders is completely demolished.
What argument is this? The oft-repeated argument that claims that the Palestinian Arabs
are “an oppressed people” and that supposedly, “…the Zionist Jews stole their land and have oppressed the Palestinians ever since”.
An honest Gentile scholar like Dr.Gil-White - an immensely great friend of the Jewish people and Israel - who knows the truth and can irrefutably prove it too with cold hard facts and rigorously documented,impeccable research(and is not afraid to do so) is what the Jewish people and Israel need so much right now.
The indisputable fact demonstrated by Dr. Gil-White, that the Zionist Jews did NOT steal the Palestinian Arabs’ land and that Jews have NOT been oppressing Palestinian Arabs ever since the creation of the state of Israel (more like the other way around) is a timely reminder of how the Western media repeats the same lies over and over thousands of times until these lies become their version of “the truth”.
All of the anti-Israeli,anti-Jewish/anti-Semitic lies propagated by the Western media, intellectuals and politicians: e.g., the justifications/reasons given for the Arabs’/Islamists’ terrorism against Israel and the West and the suicidal appeasement of the Arab-Islamists is thrown out the window.
Ted Belman’s decision to have Dr. Gil White’s vastly important work published on IsraPundit is to be deeply commended,being crucial at this moment in Israel’s history and is an absolutely essential service for not only all of our fellow Jews both living in and outside Israel, but also for the Gentile Western public that has been so thoroughly duped and misled by their media and political leaders.
WELL DONE, Ted, Dr.Gil-White and Israpundit!!
Shalom,
Nathan Pearlstein.
Comment by Nathan Pearlstein
— June 14, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
Ted,
I almost forgot. To our Serbian friends of Israel reading Israpundit (I know there are quite a few of you out there!) PLEASE don’t get discouraged,good Serbian people! Dr. Gil-White, being dedicated to the truth, will also continue to defend your people from the easily disproven lies of the Islamist terrorists, Western media, intellectuals and politicians!
The Jewish and Serbian people have the same enemies today as they did sixty years ago: primarily Islamists and Nazis and their despicable (albeit politically correct and fashionable) lies spread by the Western mass media.
Keep visiting and contributing financially to Dr.Gil-White’s vastly important work at HIR in the defense of Israel and Jewry, everyone!!!
Shalom,
Nathan Pearlstein.
Comment by Nathan Pearlstein
— June 14, 2006 @ 6:37 pm
Nathan,
a great big DITTO from me on both your comments!! I couldn’t have said it better myself!! Well done Ted, IsraPundit and Francisco Gil-White.
Long live Israel and Jewry!!!
Peter Robert North.
http://nato-media-lies-exposed.blogspot.com
Comment by Peter Robert North
— June 14, 2006 @ 6:47 pm
Recommended for bookmarking: Tell The Children The Truth.
Comment by Shy Guy
— June 15, 2006 @ 1:03 am
Dear all,
All you say above is correct. But there is one thing, one particular characteristic, which sets Gil-White’s work apart from other pro-Jewish authors that I know of, and that characteristic, should be clearly noted: Gil-White’s research on Israel has NEVER been consistently refuted by any other scholar or specialist. And this is not new, because before I read his extensive work on Israel and the relationship between Jewish and Western civilizations I had already read his work on Yugoslavia and the 1990s war, which struck me deeply, and has never been refuted.
In fact, his work is not “only” a defense of the Jewish people as such. It is part of a broad research which encompasses the entire history of the Western civilization based on the most recent advancements in the field of evolutionary anthropology. Although thinking Jews may tend to view his work emotionally, given our desperate need for a minimally fair approach to the Arab-Israel conflict, the strength of his work, as opposed to those of Pipes or Dershovitz, is precisely in its scientific approach. He is no political activist. He is a scientist, which means he could only be possibly refuted by a fellow scientist. In this regard I think it is much worth reading his debate with some other specialists in Middle East history. As soon as I find the link, I’ll post it here.
Comment by Alex
— June 15, 2006 @ 3:52 am
Alex, is there a building that you meet in with your fellow Gil-White co-religionists? Holy moly… There is nothing scientific about opinions and interpretation. He does good research and brings many facts to the table and I appreciate that in his writing. But I’m still capable of recognizing the he weaves his research and presentation with his own opinions and interpretation - which I agree with in many cases, but not all. You couch your praise of him as “scientific” and therefore make him out to irrefutable, which would be a direct contradiction of “scientific” to begin with. He presents his thesis and backs it up with good data. But at the end of the day, it’s still only a thesis.
Comment by Peretz Rickett
— June 15, 2006 @ 4:11 am
Peretz
I am not defending Francisco here, and he can do that himself, as can Alex. It is your comment that there is nothing scientific about opinions (your word) and interpretations.
You need to explain that, could you please?
Comment by Felix Quigley
— June 15, 2006 @ 5:35 am
Peretz
This issue is very important to me. I want to make it crystal clear what I said above.
Note I am not discussing whether Francisco Gil-White is correct or not. That discussion has to take place because the issues are vital.
I am questioning what you said because and I may be wrong I interpret it as the position of a relativist.
All human knowledge is an approximation of reality, it cannot be absolute because nature continually changes and politics is part of this nature.
But within that it is possible to have an absolute knowledge about phenomena. The basic laws which Newton discovered remain valid, though Einstein was able to move this knowledge forward in certain respects.
So also in studying social phenomena we know from our research that the Palestinian Arabs as they are now called are interested only in destroying Israel. That is an Absolute Truth.
This to me is not a religion. It is not an opinion in that sense. It is an Absolute Truth. The human brain is capable of that.
In all endeavour Relativism is really a curse.
Comment by Felix Quigley
— June 15, 2006 @ 5:51 am
OK, I’ll explain.. and it has about as much to do with relativism has the price of bat guano in Antarctica.
A fact is a fact. For example, there are dinosaur bones, and that is a fact. Judging from the size of the bones, many were quite large, and that is a fact. You ever seen the movie Juraissic Park? Great flick. Remember the little dino that spit acid? Remember the dinos that hunted as a team? Those are in the movie based on actually theories of scientist about different bones and fossil records. It’s good conjecture, based on evidence, but it’s conjecture nonetheless. There is no way to know for sure the behavior of those extinct animals without traveling back in time and observing it first hand. It’s unverifiable. It might be true, but it might not. It cannot therefore be construed as fact.
Same goes for much of Gil-White’s work. He presents facts. He digs up even some of the most obscure stuff, and I always learn something new. Then he draws conclusions based on patching these facts together. I think he’s right in his conclusions many times, but that doesn’t change his conjecture into fact. I’m not saying he’s not reliable - he is. I’m just saying that I am capable of distinquishing when he presents a fact and when he presents his interpretation of what the fact means. Aren’t you?
Comment by Peretz Rickett
— June 15, 2006 @ 6:54 am
It is essential that rational analysis and *documented* research on the Arab-Israeli conflict of the type performed by Francisco Gil-White be given more coverage. As someone who was once vehemently antiZionist (for Humanitarian reasons), it took the kind of rational and documented analysis of the kind performed by Jared Israel and Francisco Gil-White to convince me to seek out a bigger picture.
Unfortunately, most Zionists I’ve encountered discredit themselves by regurgitating absurdities and supporting the brutal US (not American) attack on Iraq. Frequently, when confronting antisemites on forums such as http://melbourne.indymedia.org/, my efforts have been negated by some “Zionist” coming along and dancing around the same or similar absurdities/logical fallacies as the antisemites. One of the effects of this frustrating dynamic is that outside observers rapidly lose interest, as there is very little intellectually interesting about a slanging match!
While I still have issues with certain aspects of Zionism (as I do with all “isms”), it is very clear to me now that Israel/Zionism is not the primary source of evil in the Middle East.
Comment by Nigel
— June 15, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
Peretz,
You wrote:
It is regrettable that you interpreted what I said negatively. I never said that a ’scientific approach’ is perfect or needs no improvement. What I said is that it takes a scientist - or, I should have added, any person who studies the subject in question seriously - to refute him. To be honest, I never met or had any significant exchange with Gil-White’s acquaintances. If you view his work as arousing a ‘religion’ type of reaction, then YOU are probably projecting your own impression on people who admire his work. In fact what you say adds nothing to my position, for example, since I myself do not agree with some of Gil-White’s interpretations. But here we are wasting time with hairsplitting, since you appreciate his work and agree with a lot of his conclusions, isn’t it? After all, if you don’t know, as you certainly don’t, whether or not Gil-White’s admirers agree with all his interpretations, then your position, judging from what you stated above, is just as much that of a ‘co-religionist’ (to use your pejorative term) as that of those you call ‘co-religionists,’ isn’t it? So your overreaction to my post would only make any sense if you at least provided us with some refutation of Gil-White’s work, so we could discuss it (although you could easily do that without overreacting just as well).
As far as your reasoning above about opinions, interpretations and science, I find a little flaw on it: you start off by stating that there is nothing scientific about opinions and interpretation. Then, after explaining why you appreciate Gil-White’s work, you conclude by saying that irrefutability is unscientific. This makes your reader wonder what science means for you. You give us a hint by saying that “…he does good research and brings many facts…but I’m still capable of recognizing that he weaves his research…with his own opinions and interpretations.” Your text suggests that ‘research and facts’ constitute science, while opinions and interpretations don’t. But how is your reader to reconcile this with your conclusion that irrefutability is unscientific? If irrefutability is unscientific and refutability is a condition for interpretation, it follows that science is [at least partly] based on interpretation, isn’t it? Therefore, you contradict yourself by saying that “there is nothing scientific about interpretation.”
Now to the point: since facts alone are not science (but rather the way we analytically connect them, that is, interpretation); since research is a means to achieve an end, namely a thesis; and since a thesis is in principle refutable (as your expression “only a thesis” indicates), it follows that science is necessarily ALSO interpretation. Now, having established this, it is important to define what differentiates Gil-White’s work from those of other social scientists (or journalists or political activists for that matter), for THIS is the point of our discussion.
My view, as the result of having read a lot of his work as well as works by authors who defend theses opposite to his: HE IS HONEST. What does that mean in this case? It means that he doesn’t create proses that purposely contradict the logical connection between facts, as Nathan Weinstock - an anti-Zionist author he has cited from a lot lately - did. For example, if a collection of facts clearly allows us to establish that the British allied with the Arabs, cooperating with them to destroy the Zionist project, it takes dishonesty to distort it into concluding that the British colluded with the Jews to strip the Arabs of their rights over ‘their’ land. Nevertheless, this is what some increasingly popular scholars do, whom Gil-White exposes and refutes by showing us that they contradict themselves.
Finally, I have taken the burden myself of checking Gil-White’s sources and have been able to find about 95% of them to be authentic (the remaining 5% were not available at the places I had access to). Then I checked for coherence of his interpretations. Sometimes I wouldn’t like his style, which is at times agressive and overemphatic, but no consistency problems and no sophistry aimed at alleviating obvious contradictions. To me what that means is that he is more of a real scientist than most other people dealing with the problem in question. Therefore, his ‘interpretations’ are much more likely closer to reality than his opponents’.
It also follows from the above that serious refutations or critiques of Gil-White’s work are most welcome and needed, for they may contribute to improve even more the accuracy of his work.
Alex
Comment by Alex
— June 16, 2006 @ 2:32 am
Contrary to the adoring comments about Francisco Gil-White, some reminiscent of the North Korean media describing Kim Il Sung, Francisco Gil-White is often remarkably ignorant about the Mid East, and all too often, he is also an ugly liar.
Ignorance: A few months ago Gil-White wrote a piece in which he said that by rejecting the British government’s late 1930s offers to settle European Jews in Tanganyika and elsewhere in Africa, Jewish leaders were welcoming the Holocaust. Only after I attacked him on Arutz Sheva, did Gil-White make a slight addition to said article, inserting a note stating that he had been unaware that, around the time of the so-called settlement offers, the British had issued the (famous) White paper banning Jewish settlement in Palestine! Gil-White supposedly did not know that the government’s so-called offers were a PR trick, so that when British Zionists said “No! Give us immigration to Palestine!” the government could portray them as not caring how many Jews died. So the British government’s attack on Jewish leaders in 1939 was very much the same as what Gil-White argues (still!) in his article about the land settlement offers.
Ugly lies: An example of what is unquestionably Gil-White’s intentional deception is his series on the Palestinian Movement, of which Part 4 was posted on this page. This series revolves around an endless attack on Nathan Weinstock, who more than 37 years ago wrote “Le Sionisme contre Israël” [”Zionism against Israel”], half of which was translated into English under the inaccurate title, “Zionism False Messiah.”
There are sufficient errors and distortions in Gil-White’s treatment of Weinstock to fill a book. For example, he neglects to even mention that “Le Sionisme contre Israël” had a second half, which dealt with post 1948 Israel. This second half was deliberately omitted by the English publishers, because in it Weinstock wrote that any leftwing position on the Middle East had to start with full support for Israel’s legitimacy and right to exist. Why does Gil-White likewise omit mention of this text? Will he again plead ignorance, as he did regarding the British White Paper? The omnipotent scholar, who fails to know only the most basic facts about his subject matter.
But Gil-White is worse than ignorant; he unquestionably deceives when he creates the impression that Weinstock today thinks the way he thought in 1969, when “Le Sionisme contre Israël” appeared.
Writing about Weinstock, often in the present tense, Gil-White never tells us that Weinstock has done a complete about face on the Middle East, specifically rejecting the arguments he made in his late 20s.
This is most serous. A central rule of academic scholarship is that in critiquing another scholar’s views, one must – of course! – acknowledge an about-face. For a supposed scholar not to tell readers that an opponent has reversed his opinions is the same as for a butcher to give false weight. The intellectual equivalent of a crime; in both cases, the public is robbed.
In 1969 Weinstock thought the Palestinians had a national movement. In 2003, he publicly stated that this was not a national movement at all, but a “movement” motivated by hate, with the goal of slaughtering the Jews.
Gil-White cannot this time plead ignorance, because when the website I edit, Emperor’s Clothes, published the first news in English of Weinstock’s very important about-face, Gil-White was my assistant editor. He proof read the text of my introduction to Weinstock’s article, “Stories of Dogs,” which TENC translated from the original French, and which we put on the internet in English, German and Italian.
So Gil-White knows that, as an appendix to “Stories of Dogs,” we published a letter from Weinstock where he wrote, addressing the editors of the Metula News Agency:
[Quote from Weinstock’s letter starts here]
Since you quote me in passing, I feel I have to make it clear that I formally and explicitly disassociate myself from all these pseudo-analyses tending, directly or indirectly, to justify (to call things by their real names), the liquidation of Israel, while implicitly accepting “incidentally” that of the Israelis themselves.
This is why I have prohibited my publisher from reissuing “Zionism - False Messiah.” Let me add that, while I naively believed - an error of youth - that this book could fuel a constructive discussion leading to Israeli-Palestinian coexistence, I came to realise that this had been unforgivable naivety on my part: the book served only to salve the conscience of avowed and unconscious anti-Semites.
Finally, time did not stop in 1969 and I have not remained motionless like a pillar of salt. Since then I have in fact published a number of things of a different kind of interest. I will take the liberty of mentioning only one here: the translation of the Warsaw ghetto diaries of Hillel Seidman, archivist of the kehilla (Du fond de l’abîme, published by Plon, “Terre humaine”). —
[Quote from Weinstock’s letter ends here]
As if Francisco Gil-White’s suppression of this information was not sufficiently mind boggling, Gil-White does more. He attacks Weinstock for failing to discuss the very issues that are the focus of Weinstock’s 2003 article, which Gil-White proofread in 2003, and of Weinstock’s subsequent book, which I mentioned in my introduction!
Case in point: Gil-White attacks Weinstock for failing to discuss the horrible abuse of Jews in mid-19th century Palestine. Gil-White quotes historian Arnold Blumberg, by way of illustrating what Weinstock has supposedly not discussed, and then Gil-White writes:
“[…] I want you to stay with this image: the landless, property-less Jewish worshippers climbing just the allowed few steps at the Temple Mount, accosted with flying garbage by gleeful Arabs who taunt them as the Turkish authorities smile with ‘amused contempt.’”
If, as I hope, you will read Weinstock’s piece, you will see that it begins with Weinstock stating that, despite Karl Marx’s hostility to Jews, even Marx told the truth about the suffering of the Jews in mid- 19th century Palestine! Here is Weinstock’s quote from Marx, who was writing in 1859:
“Nothing equals the misery and suffering of the Jews at Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called hareth-el-yahoud, this quarter of dirt between Mount Zion and Mount Moriah, where their synagogues are situated - the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance, insulted by the Greeks, persecuted by the Latins and living only upon the scanty alms transmitted by their European brethren. […] ‘Attending their death,’ says a French author, ‘they suffer and pray. Their regards turned to that mountain of Moriah, where once rose the temple of Solomon, and which they dare not approach, they shed tears on the misfortunes of Zion, and their dispersion over the world.’”
Similarly, Gil-White faults Weinstock for not presenting defense of dhimmitude as a key basis of the Arab movement. But again, Weinstock in fact makes this very argument – and indeed, makes it a good deal better than Gil-White - in “Stories of Dogs”.
Along with lying about Weinstock’s views, Gil-White slanders him, suggesting that Weinstock relishes the deaths of Jews. (This is a charge Gil-White often makes against Jews he attacks.) This charge is particularly noxious in the case of Weinstock, who is perhaps the greatest Holocaust scholar writing in French. This is documented by TENC editor Samantha Criscione in a work she is now completing, and which I hope to post on Israpundit, thus undoing some of the harm done by Israpundit’s publication and adoration of Gil-White’s anti-scholarly attack on Weinstock.
In conclusion, we know why the antisemitic left denies Weinstock’s current views. They do not want people to know that left wing intellectuals, such as Weinstock (and, to offer another, of course more modest, example, myself) can defend Israel against the fascism of the Arab movement. Yes, we know full well why the pro-fascist left lies. What’s Gil-White’s motive?
Jared Israel
Emperor’s Clothes
Comment by Jared Israel
— June 16, 2006 @ 5:50 am
Peretz
Thanks for reply. I will return to this relativism issue again. Quite simply, my position is this. it is the most important issue faced by us in the revolutionary movement, and the Jewish movement is that. Relativism is the death of all knowledge. I made it clear I was separating this out from discussion of Francisco´s work. It is connected with that but it is connected with every writer.
More later in the future. Just to say peretz I admire your political positions on Israel and I agree with you in everything. There you are anything but a relativist. Let’s not get bogged down at this point. I will return…
Comment by Felix Quigley
— June 16, 2006 @ 7:54 am
I am not entering into this debate at this point, ie today. I have still not studied Francisco´s Part 4 in detail. I will return though.
Note that above I said that Alex and Francisco can speak for themselves.
But the intervention of Jared bears out my main thesis..
What we need in the revolutionary movement, of which the Jewish issue is central, is an open debate of the issues.
I actually wrote to Ted some days ago and said that I thought some of Francisco’s articles should be aired. And I was planning to write and ask that Jared’s material - re the Prime Minister of Montenegro - should also be aired on Israpundit.
My basic position in politics is this.
I do not want any person placed on a pedestal. But I do want the political views and positions of all tendencies up there for debate and discussion.
I call this the United Front and it is not my idea, it comes out of the revolutionary Left movement, I learned it from reading the writings of Leon Trotsky on France and on Spain in the 1930s. (And I am not an “ist” of any kind.)
It means full unity against the common enemy, but within that unity full freedom to discuss and criticise.
This is exactly what we have with Jared’s intervention above. That makes me very satisfied indeed.
A word on the quote from Karl Marx.
I have always thought this was the most vital piece of writing you are likely to find. Note that this piece has been carefully hidden by the neo-Left of today, who as you will all agree, are not exactly in the category of seekers after the truth.
I will return to this debate probably in a separate article for Israpundit. My views do not coincide with either jared or Francisco. I have my own independent position. I need first to study Part 4.
Comment by Felix Quigley
— June 16, 2006 @ 8:09 am
REPLY TO JARED ISRAEL, by Francisco Gil-White
I don’t remember seeing ad hominem attacks on Jared Israel’s website Emperor’s Clothes. What I have seen there is rather excellent documentation and analysis. So I find what Jared Israel has written here surprising. He compares me to Kim Il Sung in order apparently to suggest that my readers cannot honestly like me, though he paradoxically describes their behavior as “adoration.” It appears that Jared Israel is upset that anybody should approve of me. But these are not scientific issues, so I will focus on the substance of Jared Israel’s criticisms.
Jared Israel begins by attacking my “ignorance.” This one is a fair criticism (notwithstanding the less-than-urbane manner in which he makes it). It is true that when I wrote my piece on the failures of the mainstream Jewish leadership in the United States and Britain during the Shoah, I missed one very important fact: Malcolm MacDonald, the Colonial Secretary, was not trying to help any Jews when he suggested a settlement scheme for Jewish refugees in Northern Rhodesia (modern Zambia). He was, as Jared Israel correctly says here, attacking the Jews, deflecting the fact that he was forbidding Jewish refugees to settle in British Mandate ‘Palestine.’ It was, indeed, a trick. My mistake was a consequence of the fact that I was relying on the work of historian Frank Shapiro, who did not make a point of Malcolm MacDonald’s duplicity, and also a consequence that, at the time, I had not studied British Mandate ‘Palestine,’ and hence was ill-informed about Malcolm Macdonald in general. Due to my ignorance, at the time, I had represented Malcolm MacDonald as “well meaning.” When Jared Israel pointed the error on Arutz Sheva (though he did not call it an error, but imputed to me a desire to apologize for an antisemite), I corrected it immediately.
This sort of thing will happen again. And it has happened before. For example, I misidentified Edgar Bronfman Sr. as Edgar Bronfman Jr., in another piece, and even used Edgar Bronfman Jr.’s picture. A reader pointed out the error, and I corrected it. I have never made a claim to infallibility, or to omniscience. No scientist can. But I do my best to tell the truth. When I make a mistake, and somebody points it out, I correct it. I make it very easy for readers to spot any mistakes in my work, and my readers (including Jared Israel) point them out, so they are corrected, and over time the website becomes more and more accurate, though I try to be as accurate as I can in the first place. This is what scientists do. There is no requirement that scientists be perfect. On the contrary: science works because, as a community, we are looking for mistakes in our colleagues’ work, and then we point out the errors. One hopes this can be done politely.
Now it is my turn to point out an error, concerning Jared Israel’s remarks about my piece on the Jewish leadership in the US and Britain during the Holocaust.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/leaders1.htm
According to Jared Israel, I said that “Jewish leaders were welcoming the Holocaust.” I did not. What I did was quote what Reform Rabbi Stephen Wise replied to Neville Chamberlain when Chamberlain (who was certainly an antisemite, there is no implied apology for Chamberlain here) suggested to Wise that Jewish refugees from Hitler might settle in Tanganyika. Stephen Wise’s reply was the following: “I would rather have my fellow Jews die in Germany…” Notice that Stephen Wise did not say, “I would rather have my fellow Jews settle in Palestine.” And I point out also that the quote is documented in a book written by an admirer of Stephen Wise: Urofsky, M. I. 1982. A voice that spoke for justice: The life and times of Stephen S. Wise. Albany: State University of New York Press. (p.304).
In my piece, I commented that “Stephen Wise got his wish.” My remark was therefore specific to Stephen Wise, not to Jewish leaders in general. Jared Israel has taken offense at this comment, but I didn’t invent what Stephen Wise said. If Jared Israel wants to give Stephen Wise’s words a different interpretation, he is welcome to defend it. However, I think this will be difficult, because Stephen Wise, after the Holocaust had begun and everybody knew it (in fact, Stephen Wise was the first American Jew to know this was happening), allied with the antisemites in the Roosevelt administration and moved heaven and earth to sabotage Peter Bergson’s (alias Hillel Kook’s) effort to rescue the desperate European Jews. The documentation on Stephen Wise’s activities makes it easy to defend the view that he had zero concern for the Jewish lives that were being lost to Hitler’s slaughter in Europe, and I have presented this documentation in my piece. Jared Israel is welcome to defend a different hypothesis, if he thinks this is possible.
One of the points I make in that piece is that in order to defend the Jewish people, those Jewish leaders who attack the Jewish people must be opposed. To defend treasonous Jewish leaders is to attack the Jewish people, and this is a moment when the Jewish people needs to defend itself from its current leaders, who are giving away the Jewish state to a movement spawned by Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution, as I document in Part 4 of “Understanding the Palestinian Movement.”
Jared Israel also accuses me of “ugly lies.” This is in reference to my repeated criticisms of historian Nathan Weinstock. As if he had peered into my own mind, Jared Israel confidently asserts that my writings on Weinstock are “an example of what is unquestionably Gil-White’s intentional deception.” This is once again an ad hominem attack. It is also a remarkably strong charge; Jared Israel’s defense of it is, by contrast, weak.
By way of defending Nathan Weinstock, Jared Israel begins by objecting to the English translation of Weinstock’s book: “Zionism: False Messiah.” I doubt that this translation did not have Weinstock’s approval, but in any case the title certainly does agree with the content of the book, which is an attack on Zionism. One only has to read Alan Adler’s 1978 interview of Moshe Machover, which Weinstock places first by way of introduction to his book, to get the feel. Adler begins by stating that “Israel has in the past played a vital role in securing Western interests in the Arab world.” This is utterly false, and it was as obvious in 1978 as it is now. The claim that Israel advances imperialist US interests in the Middle East is part of the continuation of the Czarist Russian and German Nazi (Protocols of Zion) propaganda that made a lot of absurdly frightened gentiles think that the Jews were everywhere secretly in power, and which produced the Shoah. I have refuted such views in my book “Is the US an Ally of Israel.”
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/ihrally.htm
In that book, I show that the US was opposed to the creation of Israel, and voted in favor only because the Soviet Union was going to vote in favor. I also document that the US tried to destroy Israel in the war of 1948 by placing an arms embargo on the Israelis (while stating in public that it no longer recognized the Jewish state), a policy that was in tandem with the British policy of using their yet-unevacuated troops to assist the Arab offensive, and to send captured Nazi officers to lead and advise the genocidal Arab armies of 1948 (the British policy was documented on the internet for the first time by Jared Israel on Emperor’s Clothes). I also show in my book that US foreign policy continued along the same lines, allied with the Arabs against Israel, year after numbing year.
So Weinstock’s book opens with an outright lie that is the most dangerous kind of antisemitic propaganda. Adler’s interview with Machover continues by offering an interpretation of Israel as a colonialist state, and a defense of so-called “Arab nationalism.” Enough said.
As I show in my series on the Palestinian movement, Nathan Weinstock’s book is one attack after another against the Zionist movement, which he claims was a colonialist movement in alliance with the British that was oppressing the Arabs, and one defense after another of what he calls the “Palestinian anti-colonialist movement” which, according to him, was an expression of Arab “national consciousness.” Nathan Weinstock does this in utter defiance of the facts that he himself presents, and despite Nathan Weinstock’s own admission that the so-called “Palestinian anti-colonialist movement” flew under the flag of anti-Jewish racism.
Jared Israel asserts that the second half of Weinstock’s book (which he says the publishers omitted in the English translation) was not as bad as the first half because Weinstock defended “Israel’s right to exist.” Jared Israel asks whether I will again plead ignorance. I will. I didn’t know the second half had been omitted from the English translation. When I take a book out of the library the first thing that occurs to me is not that the book is missing its second half. But it hardly matters, here. If in the omitted second half of the book Weinstock defended Israel’s right to exist, Weinstock once again attacked Israel. To defend Israel’s right to exist is to raise the question in the reader’s mind of the legitimacy of Israel. If somebody were to defend France’s right to exist people would begin wondering whether France has a right to exist. The reason nobody wonders is that nobody defends France’s right to exist. What Nathan Weinstock should have done is demonstrate the illegitimacy of the so-called ‘Palestinian movement.’ It is the ‘Palestinian movement’ that has no right to exist, for the following reasons:
All four points above are demonstrated in my series “Understanding the Palestinian Movement.”
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov.htm
Finally, Jared Israel says that Nathan Weinstock has done an about face, and he characterizes it as a very serious breach of scientific ethics that I don’t point this out. What I think is a serious breach of scientific ethics is Nathan Weinstock’s book, and whether or not he has made an about-face, his book (and many books like it), have done serious damage to the Jewish people, so they need to be refuted, whether or not the author has made an about face. Jared Israel is correct that I am aware of Nathan Weinstock’s about face, but I have made no reference to it because I do not have good reasons to think that it is sincere. In my view, anybody who takes the trouble to read Nathan Weinstock’s book will likewise be skeptical of this about face, because Nathan Weinstock’s own documentation in “Zionism: False Messiah” already roundly refuted Nathan Weinstock’s own interpretations in “Zionism: False Messiah.”
In his passionate defense of Nathan Weinstock, Jared Israel’s urges us to read Weinstock’s recent letter, where Weinstock disavows his earlier work. I think people indeed ought to read this letter. In it, Weinstock says:
Those who read Weinstock’s book will be able to form their own opinion concerning the plausibility that Weinstock’s absurd and antisemitic interpretations could possibly be a consequence of his “naiveté.” An “error of youth”? How can “youth” explain the fact that Weinstock’s interpretations obviously contradicted his own data in such a way that he attacked the Jewish state and people. For that, an ideology is needed; “youth” will not suffice.
Francisco Gil-White, Historical and Investigative Research
www.hirhome.com
Comment by gilwhite
— June 16, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
It’s been a rather sad experience to see a great scholar like Jared Israel violently attacking another great scholar, Francisco Gil-White, whose work has so much in common, so many of the qualities of Jared Israel. Since I’ve been following and trying to keep up with the hard work of these two remarkable men for the last five years, I will address a couple of issues arising from the dispute above.
The works of the two scholars above are so rare, so completely independent from any of the current political trends, and they have been revealing so many facts and realities unknown by the public (mostly due to deceptive propaganda put together by the Western ruling elites and their collaborators) that it makes no sense for one to speak of the other’s ‘ignorance.’ After all, if most Jews of today knew and understood only half of Gil-White’s knowledge (and the same holds about Jared Israel), Jews in Israel and the Diaspora would probably not be so appallingly unprepared to fight this century’s increasingly fiery antisemitic tide.
It is true, as Jared Israel says, that Francisco Gil-White did not mention Nathan Weinstock’s late work Histoire de Chiens, in which Weinstock discusses the role played by ‘dhimmitude’ in the Arab total rejection of the State of Israel. However, it is NOT true that Nathan Weinstock did a complete about-face on the Middle East, as Jared Israel argues. Jared Israel refers us to an article by Weinstock which was published in a French magazine, carrying the same title as Weinstock’s book Histoire de Chiens (‘Stories of Dogs’), then translated into English and published by Emperor’s Clothes (link is provided by Jared Israel in his post above). But that article is only an abstract of Weinstock’s book. And those who read the entire book (as I did), only available in French, will realize that, despite Weinstock’s correction of his own old errors, he repeats in the new book some of the deceptive proceedings criticized by Francisco Gil-White in the old one.
According to Gil-White it is remarkable that an author who identifies the fact that the British colluded with the Arabs to destroy Zionism and kill Palestinian Jews (as Weinstock does in his old book) would conclude, in the same book, that Zionism was a colonial enterprise aiming at dispossessing Palestinian Arabs.
Well, in Histoire de Chiens Weinstock corrects that old mistake and attributes it to his old blind Trotskyism (Weinstock, 2004, p. 189), but in order for one to identify this as a “complete about-face” it is necessary that one not accept as a fait accompli, much less a morally correct condition, the establishment of an ‘Arab Palestinian state,’ the purpose of which is the destruction of the Jewish state. Nevertheless, this is precisely what Nathan Weinstock does in Histoire de Chiens, thus making the same kind of mistake that Francisco Gil-White correctly identifies in the earlier Zionism, False Messiah. If Weinstock describes dhimmitude, attributing the Arab rejection of any Jewish rights over their old land to it, and identifies Arafat – the PLO-Fatah leader of Palestinian Arabs – as an incurable terrorist (Weinstock 2004,ps. 173-179), how can Weinstock then defend the idea of a ‘Palestinian state’ which he knows would at best be ruled by the PLO-Fatah? Given that Weinstock is a highly regarded intellectual, how could he simply fail to connect these most basic dots?
The answer is in Weinstock’s understanding of the 1948 war. His main source for that crucial period in Israel’s history is Benny Morris’s Righteous Victims – an extensive book dedicated to accusing Zionist Jews of creating most of the problems that Palestinian Arabs have had ever since 1948. Therefore, even if one concedes that Weinstock has done an about-face of some sort (abandoning the cult of Trotskyism for example), the only consequence of such about-face is to tell people that Israel has a right to exist and is not a colonial power fully responsible for Palestinian Arab misfortune.
The fact that Jared Israel publicly abhors Morris’s work reveals an apparently insoluble contradiction in his attack against Gil-White. After all, how is it possible to defend that Weinstock really did “a complete about-face” if Weinstock’s main source about the most crucial period in Israel’s history is a historian that Jared Israel himself has proved to be dishonest?
Given the above, it seems to me that Jared Israel has not read Weinstock’s Histoire de Chiens, having relied only on the abstract of the book that Weinstock published in the French magazine that Jared Israel provides the link for.
Despite all my huge respect for Jared Israel’s unique work, the above shows that Gil-White is nothing like a liar or ignorant of his subject matter. Since the works of both Jared Israel and Francisco Gil-White have much more in common than they have differences, my conclusion is that Jared Israel’s disproportionate attack against Gil-White is motivated by personal issues unrelated to their (in fact our) subject matter.
Alex Eisenberg
Comment by Alex
— June 17, 2006 @ 3:01 am
Right
(I wrote the following last night before reading Alex and francisco and I leave it as written. I have also written an article which I will post now. I work at home post from an internet shop)
1. I find the opening paragraph by Jared Israel really not on at all. Having at last got a chance to look closely at Francisco’s Part 4 of this series, and having glanced again through the other 3 parts, I think it is way over the top to make a reference to Kim Il Sung and to infer that those who have praised Francisco’s work in these articles are like the followers of that rotten dictatorship. How unapt both in spirit and actual fact!
2. Second point of difference and this time it is with both writers. I pick up in Paragraph 2 of Jared’s Comment. When he says “Only after I attacked him on Arutz Sheva, did Gil-White make a slight addition to said article”. My disagreement here, and it is a damned big disagreement indeed, having been a supporter of tenc from nearly the beginning and still very much am, is that I have not seen any mention of this on either of their websites. On www.tenc.net or on www.hirhome.com. I do apologise if I am wrong. But if I have a website and I disagree with my former Assistant Editor, first place I put that is on my site. I owe it to my readers. I had not read the above.
3.The above issue of Tanganyika was, as I remember, in an article in which Francisco was taking up the issue of the PRESENT Jewish leadership organizations, and what this could mean for the future of the Jews and the possibility of a future genocide. This was an article which I must say Israpundit did not publish or refer to in any way. The actual issue of the Tanganyika offer can be argued, I suspect, many ways. But it was not the central core of that article, as I remember it without rereading, which was the utter crisis of leadership inside the Jewish community. Then AND now! I am very wary of the way that Jared presents this. It is a most sensitive subject but one that we cannot avoid dealing with. At least Francisco took it on. This article was ignored by Ted.
4. On the issue of Arthur Weinstock I am with Jared Israel. I distinctly remember that article on Emperors New Clothes because it brought to my attention for the first time, and I think it was Weinstock who did it, the article which Karl Marx had written for an American newspaper. Marx hated journalism and he did it solely to pay some bills. He spent most of his life pouring over books in the British Library, so much so that I believe he there occupied a special seat. Marx was biased against Judaism (to put it no stronger) but what interested me was that when he went to Jerusalem he more or less used the same empirical approach that he had employed in all those hours in the British Library. Marx gathered the facts and then reached some concise conclusions. In that frame of mind Marx did not allow bias get in his way. It is the method of science, the method of a social scientist.. I remember the clever way that Weinstock told us about this article and how he linked it to the hatred of those who today call themselves “Marxists” or “Leftists” to Israel. So Weinstock had revised his views fundamentally and it is simply very, very wrong indeed for Francisco not to raise this in the most graphic way. Especially that it is also such a telling point against the present neo-Left who have striven to hide that particular article and to hide Weinstock’s conversion. Jared is dead right on that and I apologise for not reading these articles earlier.
5. This point is harder to make and I am uncertain of it. But here goes anyway. Having said that Francisco is unethical really in not stating very clearly indeed that he is talking about a man who had revised those opinions, even if that revision is inadequate it is still an attempt at revision, the survey which Francisco makes of those earlier opinions of Weinstock do serve a purpose which is to undo some of that damage which Weinstock has done. And he did do great damage for a long time. Also I find in Jared’s quote of Weinstock some things which maybe are not all that precise on Weinstock’s part. When he says for example “Since you quote me in passing, I feel I have to make it clear that I formally and explicitly disassociate myself from all these pseudo-analyses tending, directly or indirectly, to justify (to call things by their real names), the liquidation of Israel, while implicitly accepting “incidentally” that of the Israelis themselves.
This is why I have prohibited my publisher from reissuing “Zionism - False Messiah.” Let me add that, while I naively believed - an error of youth - that this book could fuel a constructive discussion leading to Israeli-Palestinian coexistence, I came to realise that this had been unforgivable naivety on my part: the book served only to salve the conscience of avowed and unconscious anti-Semites.
Finally, time did not stop in 1969 and I have not remained motionless like a pillar of salt. Since then I have in fact published a number of things of a different kind of interest. I will take the liberty of mentioning only one here: the translation of the Warsaw ghetto diaries of Hillel Seidman, archivist of the kehilla (Du fond de l’abîme, published by Plon, “Terre humaine). — ”
I warn the reader I am not very familiar with this but I am not actually sure that Weinstock has dealt with that past writing which Francisco quotes. If only he Francisco had placed it in its proper perspective!”
Whether it can be explained away as naivity or youthfulness is another matter. I think not.
Finally to sum up for the moment:
Generally though we can all take unpleasant remarks on the chin and it soesn’t worry me too much still…The tone of Jared Israel’s comments and also the whole way this dispute is being aired by both are very distasteful to me and I will tell you why. I was reading Emperors New Clothes from quite an early stage – I came upon it exactly the same time I came upon Israpundit. I was over the moon about both. From being isolated teaching supply in London (a hard number anyhow) I was especially attracted to the method Jared used, that of sourcing material. It was a very scientific approach and it was done very thoroughly. Francisco joined after writing some stupendous articles centred on the Media and its treatment (lies) on Yugoslavia. He became Assistant Editor. But one day he was no longer there and I only learned this when I happened upon his new website called www.hirhome.com. I may be wrong but it seemed to me a very secretive split.
These are the points I want to make about this.
a. In a revolutionary environment, and this is it, all differences of a political opinion should be out in the open.
b. There clearly were major differences behind this split.
c. These differences were suppressed from the readers of both their sites.
There certainly was no mention of Francisco’s departure on www.tenc.net. Francisco told me that he was writing so much material that tenc could not publish so he left. I told him basically to wise up, that he was not dealing with an amateur, that I felt there were major differences. And left it at that.
I really strongly dislike this method of proceeding. I am for a United Front, where we operate a common defence against the enemy. For example now I consider that the defence of Steven Plaut is our Number One priority. But within that common unity there is fierce debate on the way forward. I am very, very critical of Ted and the Jewish movement in general for ignoring the horrible persecution of the Serbs by those very enemies that the Jews face every waking hour, especially the arch enemy the Media. I am critical of Joseph also on this. But criticism is OK. With free exchange of views we can see the correct way forward.
Jared and Francisco have done fantastic work. But they operated a closed circle, a kind of very efficient research unit, and not a unit based on revolutionary principles. Otherwise there would have been an open disclosure of political differences. That leaves me very wary of this present latest development here.
I will always follow their work with great interest and will insist that Israpundit gives their work every chance. I do insist that their work is part and parcel of the Jewish movement and of the revolutionary movement.
Comment by Felix Quigley
— June 17, 2006 @ 7:20 am
Note: In my response, below, I have posted lengthy quotations from Nathan Weinstock’s book, “Histoire de chiens” (”History of Dogs”), which is the subject of several of the comments, but which nobody has quoted.
In his apologia for Francisco Gil-White (comment #20), Alex Eisenberg tries to do two things:
1) He tries to identify me with Gil-White. This is absurd. It is true that for a couple of years I rewrote a large part of Gil-White’s work. (E.g., I wrote some of the well-known piece on Israel, posted on Arutz Sheva, e.g., the section on dhimmitude, and exhaustively rewrote the rest.) But Gil-White and I are now profoundly different. For example, I consider his claim, that the US is trying to destroy Israel, to be ludicrous. Yes, the US has an Islamism-encouraging policy which is quite dangerous to Israel. But this is a far cry from Gil-White’s insupportable assertion, that the US has had, for many years, the goal of destroying Israel. (If the US did, Israel would very possibly have been destroyed long ago.)
2) Eisenberg’s second goal is, by making a big attack on Nathan Weinstock’s book, “Histoire de chiens” (”Story of Dogs”) to divert attention from Gil-White’s disastrous response to my charges (see Gil-White’s comment #19). Gil-White openly confirms my accusation that he often writes in ignorance and spreads ugly lies; moreover, he provides evidence of worse.
I do not make these charges from personal pique, as Eisenberg absurdly claims, but because Gil-White and his Moonie-like followers (see for example Pearlstein, comment #5) are a danger to the defense of Israel, a danger for whose existence I, alas, bear some responsibility, since for some time I made the error of promoting Gil-White, who was under attack at University of Pennsylvania.
Even if Alex Eisenberg were right about Weinstock’s current book - I have translated some of the book, below, so you can see that Eisenberg is not right - it would not, as Eisenberg claims, refute my charge that Gil-White often writes from ignorance. Gil-White admits that until two months ago: “I had not studied British Mandate ‘Palestine,’ and hence was ill-informed about Malcolm Macdonald in general.” (Comment #19)
Let that sink in. Gil-White’s followers refer to him as one of a select few “specialists in Middle East history,” who is better than “Pipes or Dershovitz” (Alex, comment #9). And this great scholar confesses to having written about all aspects of Middle East history when he “had not studied British Mandate ‘Palestine,’” – meaning, he had not studied Arab-Jewish relations from 1919 to 1948.
Gil-White confesses to being “ill-informed about Malcolm Macdonald in general,” precisely when he wrote an article attacking Jewish leaders (e.g., Baron Rothschild) for rejecting Secretary of State for the Colonies MacDonald’s phony land offers!
This is not some “great scholar” (Alex Eisenberg, comment #20). This is, in the most generous interpretation, a dangerously loose cannon.
More: In comment #19, Gil-White explicitly defends the practice of writing without knowledge, calling it “science” and then, compounding the felony, he equates the errors that result from his lack of knowledge to the corrective process involved in scientific experiment. With that, Gil-White could be dismissed as another post-modern fruitcake, except that unfortunately he is dangerous. A serious problem.
I have posted excerpts from his piece dealing with British land resettlement offers at These excerpts are most revealing. As you read them, mentally edit out the militantly pro-Jewish rhetorical flourishes, and what is left? What is left is the charge, made in common by Gil-White, by fascist Arabs, and by the antisemitic right and left, that Zionists rejected British offers to resettle Jews even though this would have saved Jewish lives, and did so either because they preferred to see the Jews dead (Gil-White makes this claim regarding Rabbi Wise) or they didn’t care (that’s essentially Gil-White’s attack on Baron Rothschild.) The only thing Gil-White doesn’t say is that the Zionists supposedly wanted Jews to die in order to create sympathy for Israel. But that anti-Israel accusation, which has been repeated so many times, would occur to many Gentiles – especially since Gil-White implies that Rothschild had some devious, hidden purpose. (Precisely the way in which antisemites always attack Rothschild…)
When I attacked Gil-White on Arutz Sheva for repeating these antisemitic slanders, he did not correct the error. He only inserted a little box criticizing Malcolm MacDonald, and kept everything else the same. The excerpts I have posted on TENC were copied minutes ago from his website.
So to give Gil-White’s writing the kindest spin, his is an ignorance that sometimes spontaneously supports the most antisemitic arguments.
Alex Eisenberg writes (comment #20) that in the book “Story of Dogs,” Weinstock supposedly calls for the creation of a fascist Palestinian state – this is blatantly false – and that therefore Gil-White cannot be called a liar.
But I didn’t say Gil-White lied about the book; I said he lied by intentionally withholding the fact that Weinstock had reversed his views, a fact known to Gil-White because he was helping with Emperor’s Clothes in 2003 when we learned of the change. Gil-White openly admits that he decided not to tell people about Weinstock’s about-face because, he claims, he knew Weinstock could not be sincere, given what he wrote 37 years ago (See Gil-White’s comment #19). So Gil-White rejected Weinstock’s new book a priori.
The imperative to acknowledge an opposing scholar’s current views – especially if he says he has changed his mind – is not obviated by a claim that said scholar is still wrong (Eisenberg’s claim) or that he is insincere (Gil-White’s claim). One may make such accusations, of course, but first one must quote the content of the opponent’s views, so that people know what he is saying now.
This Gil-White did not do. He attacked Weinstock in the present tense about what he wrote 37 years ago, without even mentioning that Weinstock says he now rejects those views and has published a major book renouncing his former views and prohibited the publication of “Zionism: False Messiah.” (I have translated the section of Weinstock’s current book, where he discusses “Zionism: False Messiah,” in Excerpt 2, below). By not telling people about Weinstock’s avowed change, Gil-White was lying in a way that fundamentally violates academic standards. An academic proven to have done such a thing could be in the gravest trouble, for example, losing tenure. And correctly so.
As for Gil-White’s argument that because, 37 years ago, Weinstock presented correct facts but wrong conclusions, and that therefore Gil-White knows Weinstock cannot have sincerely changed his mind – this argument is simply bizarre. The only way to KNOW what is in a book is to read it. Yet Gil-White refused to do so, he says, because he knows, a priori, that Weinstock is insincere.
Alex Eisenberg, who says he has read the book, claims Weinstock supposedly does not make a complete about face because he still supports a Palestinian fascist state. Here’s Eisenberg:
“[…]in order for one to identify this [i.e., Weinstock’s stance in his current book - ji] as a “complete about-face” it is necessary that one [he means Weinstock –ji] not accept as a fait accompli, much less a morally correct condition, the establishment of an ‘Arab Palestinian state,’ the purpose of which is the destruction of the Jewish state. Nevertheless, this is precisely what Nathan Weinstock does in Histoire de Chiens, thus making the same kind of mistake that Francisco Gil-White correctly identifies in the earlier Zionism, False Messiah.” (Comment #20)
But now look – here is what Alex Eisenberg wrote me and Gil-White on December 21, 2005:
I have posted Alex Eisenberg’s email in full at http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite.htm
Here is the translation of the text from “Story of Dogs,” which Eisenberg posts in French in his email:
As you can see, Weinstock does not call for a PLO state. It’s just not what he’s talking about. He does use the French word, “pays,” which may be translated country, home, region, nation, or state. I translated it ‘country’ but it could arguably be translated ‘home area.’ In any case, he certainly does not a call for a state run by the PLO, as Alex Eisenberg now claims (comment #20).
Below is my translation of the concluding page of Weinstock’s “Story of Dogs.” It is clear that Weinstock is addressing the extreme Left, trying to undo the damage he has done. Here’s Weinstock:
Weinstock addresses himself to the extreme Left because he wants to make good a terrible mistake he made almost four decades ago. Thus his book does not deal, one way or another, with the issue of a Palestinian state. It addresses itself instead to the reality of life-on-the-ground, to the horrible nature of the Palestinian movement, worshipping death, and to the extreme Left’s stance, which neatly dispenses with Israel, justifying what is in fact antisemitic murder, behind a screen of dogmatic political formulas, babbling about Zionism – murder justified by ancient cant.
Without the support of the extreme Left, the Palestinian Arab fascists would lose their phony ‘Marxist-Leninist’ cover. If Gil-White were sincerely interested in helping Israel, why didn’t he embrace “Story of Dogs” - written by the man best positioned of anyone in the world to reach extreme Leftists - this text in which, without restraint, Weinstock renounces his past positions and, by doing this with generosity and honesty of feeling, gives Leftists an example of how to withdraw in dignity from their disastrous endorsement of genocide?
Why did Gil-White, whom his groupies say is the greatest of all possible friends of the Jews, hide from his readers what Weinstock has now written? Why do he and his groupies fight to smear Weinstock’s new book, lying, as Alex Eisenberg does, about the contents of “Story of Dogs”? Isn’t it interesting that, claiming to write from ignorance, Gil-White just happens to denounce Rothschild, favorite target of the Catholic Church and other antisemites, while supporting Malcolm Macdonald, thus taking the central antisemitic stance used to attack the creation of Israel? Isn’t it noteworthy that he recently spent four articles attacking Weinstock – the most important convert to the pro-Israel side from the extreme Left - without so much as mentioning that Weinstock has given us a book that is, in itself, the best argument against the stance of the extreme Left, coming, as it does, from the man who was its leading scholarly source?
If our enemies did not have Gil-White, they would invent him..
Jared Israel
Emperors Clothes
Comment by Jared Israel
— June 17, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
From Jared Israel - Minor correction to text above
Above, I stated that I had posted the excerpts from the Gil-White article where he condemned Baron Rothschild for rejedcting Malcolm MacDonald’s (phony) offer to resettle European Jews in Rhodesia For some reason the url did not take. Here it is, again
http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite.htm
Comment by Jared Israel
— June 17, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
“Moonie like follower” of Francisco Gil-White?
and ipso facto, “a danger to Israel”?
So, according to your “logic” above, Jared, because Francisco happens to be a Gentile whom defends Israel and the Jewish people passionately - and I am all for this - I am now somehow a “Moonie like follower” of Gil-White and therefore a “danger to Israel”?! This is utterly ludicrous and a stupid insult.
Don’t make me get a hernia from too much laughter,Jared.
Jared, I think you have been smoking too much weed or else having an LSD flashback from the 1960’s which has rotted your brain.
How’s that for logical deduction/reasoning ability? Rather like your “Moonie like follower” and “danger to Israel” comments above.
It appears that your ad hominem attacks against Gil-White are just a reflection of you being jealous of him being admired by more and more Jewish people as time goes by - you wish that it was YOU and not him.
Nathan Pearlstein.
Comment by Nathan Pearlstein
— June 18, 2006 @ 12:06 am
I am not familiar with the writing of Jared Israel.
I have read some of Prof. Gil-White’s work. I have disagreed with the conclusions Gil-White comes to when they are bound up in conspiracy theories and that there has been an ongoing anti-Semitic cabal in successive American Administrations with considerable influence in the Oval Offic which has as its objective the destruction of Israel or that that objective has been the goal of all Presidents.
In spite of not agreeing with how Prof. Gil-White intereprets the facts he states, I am always nonetheless better informed for having read his work than not.
Given that others have spoken well of Jared Israel’s academic and scholarly qualifications, I will be making a point of reading his articles as well. Whether I am in agreement with Jared Israel’s conclusions, I expect I will have benefited from the read just as I have with reading Prof. Gil-White’s work.
Reading between the lines however of Jared Israel’s comments regarding Prof. Gil-White, it is fairly clear they did not part company on good terms.
Jared Israel might be right that Prof. Gil-White’s scholarship abilities may be somewhat lacking or inferior to his. Even Prof. Gil-White appears to acknolwedge Jared Israel’s great intellect, insight and abilities as do many in this forum.
There is however much hostility and arrogance pouring forth from Jared Israel against Prof. Gil-White.
Jared Israel seems to have lost some perspective and proportionality for he puts his academic sniping against Prof. Gill-White ahead of the fact that both he and Prof. Gill-White are pro-Israel advocates.
Regardless of his obvious great intellect and abilities Jared Israel has convinced me by his diatribes against Prof. Gill-White that he is an arrogant bully when it comes to attacking those he disagrees with and furthermore he has demonstrated an abysmal lack of good manners.
Nonetheless, I intend to start reading what Jared Israel has to say, because I can only become better informed in the process. I will just have to be careful not to get on Jared Israel’s bad side.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— June 18, 2006 @ 11:32 am
I wish to return to this issue
Above Francisco writes this:
“Finally, Jared Israel says that Nathan Weinstock has done an about face, and he characterizes it as a very serious breach of scientific ethics that I don’t point this out. What I think is a serious breach of scientific ethics is Nathan Weinstock’s book, and whether or not he has made an about-face, his book (and many books like it), have done serious damage to the Jewish people, so they need to be refuted, whether or not the author has made an about face. Jared Israel is correct that I am aware of Nathan Weinstock’s about face, but I have made no reference to it because I do not have good reasons to think that it is sincere. In my view, anybody who takes the trouble to read Nathan Weinstock’s book will likewise be skeptical of this about face, because Nathan Weinstock’s own documentation in “Zionism: False Messiah” already roundly refuted Nathan Weinstock’s own interpretations in “Zionism: False Messiah.”
This seems to me to be very confused and we cannot afford confusion in this era.
We know that Weinstock was really looked up to by the neo-Left enemies of Israel because of his initial views.
Then came his retraction in which he instructed his publishers to stop publishing his earlier book any more.
Not only that, but he drew our attention to the writings of a mascot of the neo-Left, but not any old mascot this time. In this case it was as they say the real MacCoy. It was Karl Marx himself.
I pointed out why this was so important.
1. Marx was biased against Judaism. He was a self-hating Jew. This is a very important concept and lies behind the political positions of Rosa Luxemburg also. It had deep significance for the whole way that things developed (or more accurately degenerated) inside Bolshevism and inside Stalinism. I do not have to say how important all this was post 1948, the Arab Wars, the horrible anti-Semitic literature produced under the Breznev era etc etc. So very, very important.
But 2. Despite his bias Marx reported what he saw when he visited Jerusalem in the 1860s and his report is a total refutation of everything the neo-Left preach. That Zionists are colonialists and that they simply arrived in “Palestine” and kicked the “Palestinians” out. Marx explained in the clearest of prose that when he visited that the Jews were in a MAJORITY.
And all this I read in Weinstock´s refutation of his earlier stance.
I am with Jared on this issue and against Francisco and Alex, make no mistake about that.
I do have differences with Jared on other issues but these will be fought out in the open as far as I am concerned.
I want to say something further about the issue of the Palestinian state.
It is possible that Weinstock does support this. I cannot comment upon it.
But I can say that the last time I read an Irish writer called Mark Humphries who claims he is pro-Israel he also was for a Palestinian state as a solution.
Now it also happens that I had a little hiccup here with a prominent Irish journalist called Richard Delevan. Judging from the easy interview he gave to the Palestinian ambassador to Ireland I think that he too is of a similar mind to Humphries, he also is for a Palestinian state.
Yet I now know that these two and others come under attack from the fascist neo-Left in Ireland.
What to do then! These two may be similar to Weinstock on this issue.
Against the anti-Semitic fascists of Ireland I would defend them, that is what!
But within that unity against the common enemy I would attempt to reinvigorate a struggle to destroy their concept of a Palestinian state.
I could then also apply more or less the same to Olmert, and even to Peres. In the event say of an imminent nuclear wipe-out of Israel I would offer my defence to those two and to anybody else under attack from the fascists.
But only in order to expose their rotten politic views and especially their worst possible policy of a Palestinian state. (And this is why earlier I went back to the concept of a United Front.)
In other words, the only thing that is important here is the DISCUSSION in front of the masses of the ordinary people, because they are the only force that can actually stop the Islamofascists.
Jared writes:
“Without the support of the extreme Left, the Palestinian Arab fascists would lose their phony ‘Marxist-Leninist’ cover. If Gil-White were sincerely interested in helping Israel, why didn’t he embrace “Story of Dogs” - written by the man best positioned of anyone in the world to reach extreme Leftists - this text in which, without restraint, Weinstock renounces his past positions and, by doing this with generosity and honesty of feeling, gives Leftists an example of how to withdraw in dignity from their disastrous endorsement of genocide? ”
In the above I disagree rather strongly with the term the “extreme Left”.
This is the centre of the argument. This so-called Left is now in large measure in support of Islamofascism. They are not Left. I call them neo-Left and this is a vital distinction.
Also Weinstock may have provided an example as Jared suggests. But he also posed a big threat to this neo-Left and that is why these people have striven to hide this turn by Weinstock, why they have striven so hard to hide that article by Karl Marx, and why they have hidden so assiduously the Hajj Amin Nazi roots of “Palestinianism”. All so vital for educating a new layer among the youth who can break and leave for dead this old encrusted and reactuionary NEO-left.
So on this cental question, Alex and Francisco have got it very wrong indeed. It is of the greatest importance and has nothing to do with goupies etc. This development is positive because the discussion is in the open which is why I support the publication on Israpundit of many different views.
Comment by Felix Quigley
— June 18, 2006 @ 11:54 am
I truly enjoy reading commentaries by the great scholars such as Dr. Gil-White, Jared Israel, Felix Quigley and many others I will not names for the sake of time; however, as as absorbing these debates are, they do very little in solving the Israeli- Palestine problem. The quandry is very simple: The Arabs want all of Israel while killing or enslaving Jews. The Israelis have two different quests: 1. the conservatives of the right wish to claim Israel as the land that G-d gave them. These patriots are willing to lay down their lives in order to preserve Israel as a Jewish State. 2. The liberal left wing is in favor of giving the Arabs their own country by giving up what Israel occupies today. They are willing to accept the “Road Map” and/or agreements forced upon the Israelis by foriegn countries who encourage appeasement toward the mastery of the Arabs. They are afraid for their lives and living with the wealth they have accumulated.
The USA and the EU are willing to fight their advasaries when they are threatened, but will not allow the Jews to defend themselves from terror. As stated by some of the scholars, The USA and , especially, Great Britain, are not friends of Israel; therefore, it behooves us to stand up and do what ever is necessary for our own existance.
I will not try to debate the scholars because they discuss theories. I prefer to discuss action. As a veteran of two wars, I see the nessessity to fight our enemies, destroy our enemies and to deport all Arabs who wish to do us harm, without asking permission of the other countries who say ” do as we say but not as we do”. Putting off this action only delays what is inevitable while our enemies get stronger.
Comment by Ed D
— June 18, 2006 @ 4:07 pm
Dear all:
This is my first comment at israpundit. I read an analysis about the beach bombing days ago, that is all i knew about this site.
Nut let me first quote Quigley, bolding my changes upon his words (not many, indeed):
“The tone of Jared Israel’s comments and also the whole way this dispute is being aired by both are very distasteful to me and I will tell you why. I was reading Emperors New Clothes from quite an early stage – I came upon it exactly the same time I came upon Israpundit (this i stated clear in my intro). I was over the moon about both. From being isolated analyzing phone fraud in Madrid (a hard number anyhow) I was especially attracted to the method Jared used, that of sourcing material. It was a very scientific approach and it was done very thoroughly. Francisco joined after writing some stupendous articles centred on the Media and its treatment (lies) on Yugoslavia. He became Assistant Editor. But one day he was no longer there and I only learned this when I happened upon his new website called www.hirhome.com. 3 monthes or so ago I may be wrong but it seemed to me a very secretive split.
These are the points I want to make about this.
a. In a revolutionary environment, and this is it, all differences of a political opinion should be out in the open.
b. There clearly were major differences behind this split.
c. These differences were suppressed from the readers of both their sites. AND ARE. Funny as it seems, you can only find them when Jared comments anything FGW writes outside Hirhome, like here or at Arutz Sheva. This is absurd.
There certainly was no mention of Francisco’s departure on www.tenc.net. Francisco told me that he was writing so much material that tenc could not publish so he left. I told him basically to wise up, that he was not dealing with an amateur, that I felt there were major differences. And left it at that. I have further info, but that is something the two subjects should air or not, instead of let their readers and friends go guessing what happened.
I really strongly dislike this method of proceeding. I am for a United Front, where we operate a common defence against the enemy. ”
Ok Quigley, I would have written the above if you had not done before.
As for Jared, the one day you wake up and all the job FGW had signed and done and written dissapears from TENC. You ask him, and he says nothing. So when FGW was his friend, all right, good job. When he leaves, ok, he respects what he wrote. When they argue in the open at Arutz Sheva, Jared gets rid of FGW’s previous work.
And FGW says nothing about this or his previous works at TENC.
So, if we are discussing the moral qualities of FGW and Jared, it seems they have something private we should discare about. And following this, when Jared rebutts FGW in the open about minor things (mind you fellows, the two main subjects discussed by the two authors in this series are a salt grain in the sea when compared with their work about media, yugoslavia, us politics, israel…)
Are we making a case here about a professor and his advanced pupil in a private fight or are we here taking the common front of noticing wether, in the main, both their work is interesting for us all?
By the way, Jared is not working very much lately, as we can see at tenc (except for erasing FGW comments), and FGW seems (as Jared points out) a bit lazy in working out some analysis on how the relationship of the left with jews started and developed and is now.
We don’t help them work discussing who is right in these subtleties; we help them if we help them be friends and work together again.
The old wise man should be proud of the trees he planted, and help them grow, even though they might seem too big now, it shall not be forgotten who planted and watered them.
What if you Jared and Francisco go have a beer or whatever you drink and sign an interesting article on how the left dealt with jews and or zionism from Marx on?
That, not these discussions on Weinstock, would be great. That would help millions join your cause (don’t forget it; it is the same and let me ask you please, not only yours; ours too).
A friend
Jose Lopez
Comment by jose lopez
— June 18, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
When it comes to Nathan Weinstock issue I must say I agree with Jared Israel. I have read Francisco Gil-White’s work and knowing from Mr.Israel’s site that Mr.Weinstock has admitted he had done an about face since the book “Zionism - the false messiah” was first published, I was surprised that Mr.Gil-White was quoting from that book without mentioning the change of heart from Weinstock’s side. In my humble opinion it was a dishonest thing to do. Mr. Gil-White is perfectly free not to believe the sincerity of Mr.Weinstock’s about face and there is absolutely nothing wrong in that, but he should let the readers know that Nathan Weinstock has in fact changed his opinion on the Middle East crisis and then give his reasons as to why he(Gil-White) is sceptical.
That said, I believe that some of the language Mr.Israel uses in inappropriate and does him no favours at all. Mr.Israel, what is the point in calling some of the readers who commented favourably Mr.Gil-White’s text “moonie-like followers” and “groupies”? Has it not occured to you that their favourable comment came precisely because they were not aware of the facts about Nathan Weinstock you revealed?
Comment by Witch-king of Angmar
— June 19, 2006 @ 6:55 am
From Jared Israel to Witch-king of Angmar:
You write that you agree with me that Francisco Gil-White was dishonest in suppressing the news that Nathan Weinstock had completely changed his views. On the other hand, you criticize me for calling some supporters of Gil-White “Moonie-like”:
It is probable that most of Gil-White’s readers did not know the facts about Weinstock and therefore were taken in by what you correctly describe as Gil-White’s dishonesty. But didn’t you notice that not all who praised Gil-White were honest? For example, Alex (that’s Alex Eisenberg) wrote:
Alex Eisenberg, author of the above, translated a few articles for Emperor’s Clothes and even corresponded with me and Gil-White about Weinstock, so of course he knew that Nathan Weinstock had publicly about-faced on the PLO as early as 2003. Alex Eisenberg’s December 21 email to me and Gil-White included, as an attachment, his scan of the last two chapters of Weinstock’s latest book, “Story of Dogs,” including material from p.184 and pages 189-190. I have posted this material in comment 22, in boxes labeled Excerpt 1 and Excerpt 2. This material shows that Weinstock explicitly rejected the politics of the Palestinian Arab movement with its “erotically charged worship of death.” And Alex knew, from this material, that Weinstock had repudiated his youthful book, “Zionism False Messiah,” with its “propositions which I cannot reread without shame,” saying that the neo-Left had used him as “a ‘useful idiot’ whose Judaism washed it in advance of every suspicion [of antisemitism].”
Since Alex had sent this research to Gil-White 7 months ago, Alex knew that Gil-White had lied by writing four articles slandering Weinstock as currently supporting the PLO. Fully aware that Gil-White slandered Weinstock, Alex praised Gil-White, writing - and this is really something - that the big difference between Gil-White and Weinstock is that “HE [GIL-WHITE] IS HONEST.” And then, later, when I raised my criticism of Gil-White’s suppression of the truth about Weinstock, Alex passively lied by failing to tell us that 7 months ago he emailed Gil-White the scan of Weinstock’s last two chapters, meaning that Gil-White knew what was in Weinstock’s book. And Alex actively lied by claiming that Weinstock had called for a PLO state.
The behavior of Alex Eisenberg is not the behavior of someone who was misled by Gil-White, but of someone who is working with Gil-White to mislead others.
When I referred to some of Gil-White’s supporters as “Moonie-like,” I had in mind comments 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. Why did I use that term? For the same reason, I believe, that Peretz Rickett wrote:
I referred to them as “Moonie-like” first of all because the language they used is the language of hyper-enthusiasm for The Leader, typical of sects. Hence we are subjected to adjectival inflation, with “Dr. Gil-White - an immensely great friend of the Jewish people” (comment 5) and “Dr. Gil-White’s vastly important work” (comment 6); with the chanting of slogans of praise, such as “WELL DONE, Ted, Dr.Gil-White and Israpundit!! “ (Comment 5) and “Long live Israel and Jewry!!! “ (comment 7); and with the statement – a warning to potential dissenters – that the Leader is infallible, from Alex Eisenberg, who, having approved comments 4, 5, 6 and 7 by stating that “All you say above is correct,“ writes, in comment 9, that Gil-White is unique because his “research on Israel has NEVER been consistently refuted by any other scholar or specialist“ and that “he could only be possibly refuted by a fellow scientist.“ Why write this, if not to warn us ordinary mortals not to dare to challenge Gil-White?
In all the discussion groups I read, and I read many, I never see anyone anywhere make these kinds of sect-like comments about a pro-Israel writer. Never. And these frankly chilling comments were made in regard to Gil-White, who has admitted, on this very page, that as of 4 April 2006, when I attacked him on Arutz Sheva:
I also compared comments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 to the North Korean media. Why? Because in both cases the purpose is to create an atmosphere of intimidation in which people naturally hesitate to entertain critical thoughts. Having observed the performance of sect-like political groups for many years, it was my educated guess that comments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 represented an organized effort to create a wave of intimidation surrounding Gil-White. Having observed this, I therefore intervened.
Next I will post a response to Bill Narvey, in which I will show how Francisco Gil-White falsified documentation in order to smear Rabbi Stephen Wise, the leader of the Zionist movement in the US in the 1930s and early-mid 1940s, accusing him of wanting the Holocaust, which is exactly what is said by the worst antisemites about pre-World War II Zionist leaders.
And then, examining Gil-White’s patronizing and antisemitic dismissal of Dr. Raphael Medoff, chairman of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, I will offer my answer to the question: ‘Why does Gil-White falsify data to smear well-known Jews?’
Jared Israel
Emperor’s Clothes
Comment by Jared Israel
— June 19, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
How Francisco Gil-White Falsified Documentation to Slander Rabbi Stephen Wise as Wanting the Holocaust
To Bill Narvey,
Bill, responding to my accusations against Francisco Gil-White, you wrote:
I understand that when bitter conflicts occur, it is natural to suspect personal motives. However, I am not engaged in academic sniping, nor is this a personal conflict. In your comment, you suggest that you a) trust Gil-White’s facts and b) you consider him to be motivated by a desire to defend Israel.
Reading Gil-White’s recent work, I have found that a) he deceives his readers, going so far as to falsify documentation in order b) to slander prominent Jews. This is not something he has done just once, with Nathan Weinstock. It is something he has done as a pattern.
I will for the moment reserve my opinion as to what is behind Francisco Gil-White’s pattern of deception. For now, let me present more evidence that he does do it. (I have already presented evidence that he did this with Nathan Weinstock. See my comments #16, #22 and #30.)
I will prove that Gil-White lied in at least three ways when he attacked Rabbi Stephen Wise.
In the article in question, entitled “How the mainstream Jewish leadership failed the Jewish people in World War II,” and archived here solely for educational purposes (i.e., so that you may study this text exactly as it is now, whatever changes may be made on Gil-White’s website) – in it, Gil-White argues that Rabbi Stephen Wise wanted the Holocaust. This charge is important not only because it smears a deceased leader of world Zionism, but because it thereby lends the support of a supposedly pro-Israel writer (Gil-White) to the accusation, made by antisemites, e.g., PLO leaders, that Zionists wanted the Holocaust. (The accusation, which we have all heard, is that Zionists wanted a Holocaust so there would be world sympathy for the creation of a Jewish State.)
Gil-White starts his article in the most sensational way, with the following block of text, indented, in italics, right at the beginning:
Am I being fair? Did Gil-White really mean to say Wise wanted the Holocaust? On the Israpundit discussion Website, Gil-White wrote:
Three quick points. First, when Francisco Gil-White slanders Rabbi Wise, head of the American Jewish Congress and the leading Zionist in the USA for many years, he is not slandering only Rabbi Wise. Indeed, Gil-White’s article is entitled “How the mainstream Jewish leadership failed the Jewish people in World War II,” and by stating in his opening words that when the Holocaust occurred, the leading American Zionist “got his wish,” Gil-White is clearly suggesting that Wise was not alone.
Second, please note that in his statement, quoted above, Francisco Gil-White refers to Rabbi Wise’s “remark.” Keep that term “remark” in mind, because we shall refer back to it when we get to Lie #3.
And third, in his article, as it was originally posted, and as it is still posted today (21 June), Francisco Gil-White said nothing about Chamberlain being an antisemite. That description appears only in Gil-White’s comment on Israpundit, as quoted above. And notice that, even in the Israpundit comment, where Gil-White states that Chamberlain was an antisemite, Gil-White still insists that Rabbi Wise wanted the Holocaust.
Francisco Gil-White’s slander of Rabbi Stephen Wise includes at least three forms of deception:
1) A lie by false implication of expert knowledge;
2) A lie by diverting readers through sensationalism; and
3) Lies by falsification of documentation.
The lies in group #3 may be the most blatant, but these are all lies, and their existence necessitates an answer to the question: why did Gil-White lie with such energy in order to slander Rabbi Wise?
Lie #1: Lie by false implication of expert knowledge, namely, that of course Gil-White wouldn’t make such an accusation unless he knew what he was talking about.
To claim that Rabbi Wise, a world Zionist leader, wanted the Holocaust is to make the most extreme accusation. Neo-Nazis and anti-Israel Arab leaders accuse pre-war Zionist leaders of wanting the Holocaust in order to justify the creation of Israel. These people are motivated not by knowledge but by a desire to undermine support for Israel. But other than them, nobody I know of except Gil-White has charged that a Zionist leader such as Rabbi Wise wanted the Shoah.
And unlike the Arab leaders, Francisco Gil-White presents himself as a supporter of Israel and an historian. Indeed, on his website he flaunts his supposed status, emphasizing how far removed he and his colleagues are from ordinary people:
And Francisco Gil-White does not present himself as just any historian. On his website he has posted a book, or the first chapters of a book, which will, we are told, encompass several thousand years of history and span the globe. It has the modest title, “The Crux of World history.”
Gil-White’s ultra-elevated status has been asserted on Israpundit, for example by his close associate, Alex Eisenberg, and by others, apparently swept up in Gil-White fever.
Alex Eisenberg writes:
And:
This hyperbole is apparently infectious. Texts are generally presented in a matter-of-fact fashion on Israpundit. But in his introduction to part 4 of Gil-White’s four-part series on the Palestinians, throughout which series Gil-White misportrays Holocaust scholar Nathan Weinstock as rejoicing in the deaths of Jews, Israpundit editor Ted Belman describes Gil-White’s writing as “revolutionary,” calling him “a fierce defender of the Jewish people” and telling readers, “Take the time to read all parts and for that matter also read his other articles…”
With all this hype, one would naturally assume that Gil-White’s comments about Rabbi Wise were based on considerable knowledge of British policy, which of course is what Rabbi Wise was responding to.
One would be wrong.
On 16 June 2006, Gil-White stated that when he wrote this article, in January 2006, and indeed, as late as April 2006, when I attacked him on the Arutz Sheva website:
He didn’t know about Palestine Mandate history and Malcolm MacDonald when he wrote an article half of which was about British government conflicts with Jewish leaders over offers to resettle Jews in Africa, conflicts directly related to Palestine Mandate history and Malcolm MacDonald.
By failing to tell his readers that when he accused Rabbi Wise of being an advocate of the Nazi’s Final Solution, he did not know about the issues, Gil-White was of course deceiving his readers. This is worsened by the fact that, at the same time, his website (i.e., he himself) and his followers and others were praising him as the most knowledgeable, indeed, scientific and revolutionary of historians, one who was writing a book called “The Crux of History.”
Lie #2: Lie by using sensationalism to divert from having presented zero evidence.
As noted, Gil-White presents his claim that Rabbi Wise wanted the Holocaust in the most dramatic way: as a block of text, indented, in italics, at the start of the article. He has a set-up, then some white space, and then the portentous statement: “Rabbi Wise got his wish.” And on the side of the page, there is a picture of a grim-faced man, identified as Rabbi Wise.
The effect of this presentation is so chilling that one may be excused for not noticing the paucity of evidence. For example, nowhere in the article does Gil-White tell us when Rabbi Wise allegedly made this statement. Was it immediately after the Evian Conference? During that 1938 affair, convened to discuss the problem of where to send Jewish refugees from Hitler, the British had made clear that they did not want any Jews sent to Britain. If, after the British performance at Evian, British Prime Minister Chamberlain, notorious as the appeaser of Hitler, had made some flippant and perhaps, in context, insulting suggestion to Rabbi Wise about settling Jews in Tanganyika, one might even forgive Rabbi Wise for punching Chamberlain in the face, let alone giving him an “over-my-dead-body” response. Similarly, if the alleged confrontation between the two men had occurred shortly after the announcement of the White Paper, eliminating Palestine as an escape destination, one could imagine a similar response to such a Chamberlain remark.
Moreover, there is something else Gil-White’s sensationalism causes one not to notice: Gil-White never quotes Chamberlain. Exactly what did Chamberlain allegedly say? What were his exact words? Does Gil-White know? If he does, why doesn’t he quote him? And if he does not, how can he gauge Rabbi Wise’s alleged response?
As demonstrated below by my detective hunt starting from Gil-White’s cited source, apparently there was no direct confrontation between Wise and Chamberlain about this issue. But I am getting ahead of myself. The point here is that, by presenting the alleged confrontation, and Rabbi Wise’s alleged statement, in such a sensationalist manner, Gil-White diverts attention from the fact that he hasn’t fulfilled the most minimal requirement of “proper historiography” - mentioning the date when something has allegedly occurred, and telling us what both sides allegedly said!
So here we have a second kind of lie – the disguising of a lack of basic information, by means of sensationalism worthy of the lowest, gutter-rag journalism.
Lie #3: Lies by direct falsification of documentation.
One is so conditioned to accept uncritically the printed word, that it was only after looking at the alleged quote from Rabbi Wise a dozen times that I noticed that it ends in three dots – an ellipse! Some of the text has been removed.
Using a truncated quotation may be perfectly honorable, or it may constitute the worst kind of deceit.
It constitutes falsification if, by quoting partially, one hides any information that might to any extent possibly be construed as contradicting anything one is trying to prove. This is true in direct proportion to the extremity of one’s argument. And in this case, of course, Francisco Gil-White’s argument is of the most extreme.
In order to determine whether Gil-White has falsified by deletion of text, we have to look at his source. I went to footnote [1] and found that Gil-White does not simply list his source, he emphasizes its credibility, writing:
I searched for the Urofsky book in the online library database, the ‘Minuteman Catalogue,’ which covers most school and public libraries in Eastern Massachusetts. It gave 20 listings for Urofsky, a nonfiction writer specializing in Jewish and legal issues, but there was nothing about Rabbi Wise. One fellow who works on Emperor’s Clothes suggested that from what he’d observed about Francisco Gil-White, he had probably found the quote in an online fishing expedition. I searched online but couldn’t find the Urofsky book – and then I remembered. I had introduced Gil-White to Questia, an online archive that allows one to search through hundreds of thousands of books and documents looking for a phrase or phrases. For example, if one wanted to find something that could be used to make Rabbi Wise appear to be calling for the Holocaust, one could enter “Rabbi Wise” and “death” or “dead,” etc. You get the idea.
I went to Questia and sure enough, they had the Urofsky book. On p. 304, I found the quote, including the part that Gil-White had deleted. Here it is with the deleted part in bold:
Restoring the part that Gil-White had deleted, the quote makes sense. Wise was apparently outraged because Chamberlain was suggesting that Jews should go to a colony that Chamberlain, the notorious appeaser, might very well turn over to Germany as soon as the Jews arrived. In any case, Rabbi Wise obviously was not calling for the deaths of Jews. Rather, he was making an “over-my-dead-body” statement. If, as Gil-White suggested in his 16 June comment (#19), Rabbi Wise had instead responded, “‘I would rather have my fellow Jews settle in Palestine,’” even though Chamberlain’s government had cut immigration to Palestine to a trickle and refused to let refugee Jews into Britain, Wise would have been kissing Chamberlain’s fanny. You know, being an Uncle Tom, a step-and-fetch-it kind of Jew.
Gil-White had indeed falsified the quotation, the better to falsely portray Rabbi Wise’s tough defense of Jews as being a violent attack on Jews. He had doctored the evidence in order to slander a key Jewish leader.
But it gets worse.
In general, and especially when considering the validity of an extreme accusation, the rule of thumb is to dig down as close to a primary source as possible. In footnote 38, Urofsky, a popular biographer, gives his source for the Wise quotation, so of course, Gil-White had this information.
I searched Questia for Feingold’s book, and in a short time was looking at page 124.
Examining the Rabbi Wise quote in Feingold’s book, I found that Urofsky had slightly miscopied Feingold’s text; a few words were different. None of it altered the meaning, but one change did indeed matter. As is not shown in Urofsky’s book, there is an ellipse. In other words, Feingold had deleted something else when he copied the quotation from wherever.
Here is Feingold’s quote, with the second half, the part cut by Gil-White, highlighted in bold:
So far Gil-White’s “proper historiography” has him making the most extreme accusation even though, he now states, he knew nothing about the subject matter; doctoring Rabbi Wise’s alleged statement to hide the reasons for his anger; and using Urofsky when in fact Urofsky was just passing along a quote miscopied from somebody else who, it turns out, had also deleted material from the original.
And it gets worse.
Feingold’s source for the quotation is indicated in footnote 118:
So, without much trouble, we get to the original source - Rabbi Wise.
This book is a 1944 compilation of over a decade of Rabbi Wise’s articles from the Jewish magazine, Opinion. This indicates another Gil-White falsehood: the Wise quote, thrice altered and thrice removed from the original source, was not, as Gil-White wrote in his comment #19, a “remark.” It was not, as he wrote in his article, something Rabbi Wise “said on the eve of the Nazi genocide.” (My emphasis) Based on a trail of evidence easily followed from the Urofsky book, it was not said at all. It was part of a magazine article, included in a book.
Stephen Wise’s 1938 article, entitled “America Has Spoken,” is worth reading (though I do not claim it is the “Crux of History”), so I have posted it on Emperor’s Clothes. I hope that reading his words will wipe out the effect on Jews of the hideous accusation, now circulating the Internet, that, according to Gil-White, supposedly “a fierce defender of the Jewish people,” Zionist leader Wise wanted the Holocaust. You can read Rabbi Wise’s article in full on Emperor’s Clothes. Or you can go to Questia and get a free week’s subscription, and access the whole book.
Below I have posted two paragraph’s from Rabbi Wise’s article. But first, let me once again post Gil-White’s doctored version of the Rabbi Wise quotation, falsely presented as something he said and then give you the real quotation.
First the doctored version, courtesy of Gil-White:
Now Rabbi Wise, undoctored:
I think you will agree that these read like the words of a man committed to the defense and dignity of his people, the modern equivalent of the Jews who died rather than submit to Roman slavery at Masada. And this is especially true when you read the words in context. To provide that context let us first look at another paragraph from the same article. This is quoted from p. 109 of Rabbi Wise’s book:
And then this section, from page 110, including the text Francisco Gil-White falsified in order to slander Rabbi Wise. I have indicated the part omitted by Gil-White by putting it in bold:
I will continue my discussion of Francisco Gil-White’s falsifications, aimed at slandering prominent Jews, in my next comment. Yes, there are more. As I said, it is a pattern.
Jared Israel.
Emperor’s Clothes
Comment by Jared Israel
— June 21, 2006 @ 7:32 am
Prior to my last comment (#31), exposing lies against Rabbi Stephen Wise, I wrote that I will soon be examining Francisco Gil-White’s demeaning attack on Dr. Rafael Medoff, whom I misidentified as Chairman of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies. He is in fact Director of the Institute; David S. Wyman is the Chairman.
Jared Israel
Emperor’s Clothes
Comment by Jared Israel
— June 21, 2006 @ 6:42 pm
Jared,
Thank you for your very informative comments responding to my comments and further elaborating on the facts and reasons you have taken issue with Prof. Gil-White.
I accept the sincerity of your saying your attack on the integrity of Gil-White’s research and stated fact base upon which he draws his conclusions is not motivated by any feelings of animosity towards him on your part.
Still there is more than disappointment registering in your words in taking Gil-White to task for mis-statements and sensationist conclusions.
I too have noted Gil-White takes a sensationalist approach to what he is advocating, which approach some may describe as revolutionary thinking.
Whether one is pro or anti-Israel, it is important that one does not immediately accept holus bolus what the author says because it accords with one’s own views or sympathies. Rather, such articles should be read keeping in mind whether facts cited are pure, complete or a mix of fact and opinion, whether conclusions fairly and logically flow from such facts and whether the facts cited are in accord with one’s own recollection of material facts or at least those facts one can relatively easily check if one is a keener to understand.
To the extent I am able, I have tried to follow that caution and that is I guess what has led me to question a number of Gil-White’s conclusions.
Though I have not agreed completely or at all at times with Gil-White’s conclusions still I felt I had benefited from what I did read of his historical writings.
As regards your comments, I am inclined to accept them as they do appear to be researched to the n’th degree.
Your taking issue with Gil-White is in respect of specific points he is making. You would not however I assume take issue with all that Gil-White is saying since, he like you writes from a pro-Israel/Jewish perspective.
I presume therefor that you are making the same demand on him as you do for yourself that Gil-White be absolutely faithful to the facts and the whole of the facts such as they are.
Ted Belman bringing Prof. Gil-White’s writing to the attention of Israpundit followers has I think been very worthwhile.
Your comments and analysis regarding Gil-White’s writing is also most worthwhile and important.
Not only am I pleased that you have taken the time to contribute to this forum even if it is to go after Gil-White as it were, I hope you continue to share your knowledge and contribute your very well informed views and excellent insights on other matters either in your posted comments here or by Ted Belman publishing your articles on other topics.
I will however, as indicated be trying to find the time to read more of your views from your website “Emperor’s Clothes”.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— June 22, 2006 @ 9:10 am
While it may be understandable that an old warrior for Israel’s sake will instinctively defend “family and friends”, right or wrong, I will maintain that this matter is too serious to be sacrified on the altar of pure romanticism.
Professor Gil-White’s confrontation with the “poverty of new historicism” is both timely and necessary, cost whatever it may. Israel can no longer afford the fifth column propaganda of these self hating “historians”.
Comment by Per
— June 22, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
Sorry Bill, but I do not see how anyone can “benefit”, as you said, from reading Mr. Gil-White after it has been proven that he writes terrible (and false) accusations against Jews, deliberately falsifying data. Jared Israel’s dissection of Gil-White’s lies about Rabbi Wise, above, reminds me of Professor Efraim Karsh’s famed dissection of the lies of Benny Morris.
What Gil-White has done is not “sensationalist”, it is shameful.
Janice Rubin
Montreal
Comment by Janice
— June 22, 2006 @ 6:49 pm
REPLY TO JARED ISRAEL (CONCERNING NATHAN WEINSTOCK), by Francisco Gil-White
There are a number of things that Jared Israel writes above that require a reply. Here, I will address Jared Israel’s defense of Nathan Weinstock. I will stray from the personal issues and stick to questions of logic and evidence.
According to Jared Israel, I am guilty of serious lapses in scientific ethics because I attacked Nathan Weinstock’s 1979 book “Zionism: False Messiah” and did not recognize that Nathan Weinstock has recently made what Jared Israel calls an ‘about face’ in his 2004 book “Histoire de Chiens.” I replied, above, that I did not have good reasons to think that Nathan Weinstock’s ‘about face’ was genuine.
In the following piece, entitled “On the Supposed ‘About Face’ of Some anti-Israeli Historians,” I demonstrate that Jared Israel is wrong about Nathan Weinstock:
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/about_face.htm
The demonstration is not difficult. What I show is that, according to Jared Israel’s own published standards, Nathan Weinstock is “worse than Arafat.”
Why do I say this? Because Jared Israel wrote a piece for Israel National News (Arutz Sheva) in which he attacked Benny Morris’ fraudulent representation of the War of 1948, where, with distortions, lies, and fabrications, Morris accused the Israeli Jews of supposedly carrying out a campaign of atrocities and ethnic cleansing. In Jared Israel’s view, this makes Benny Morris “worse than Arafat,” he explains, because it is one thing for an antisemitic terrorist gentile to attack the Jews, but Benny Morris is Jewish.
In “Histoire de Chiens,” Nathan Weinstock makes a passionate defense of Benny Morris’s interpretation of the War of 1948. And he does this, mind you, despite the fact that Efraim Karsh’s refutation of Morris’s lies, which Jared Israel extolled in his Arutz Sheva piece, was published in 1999, whereas Weinstock’s “Histoire de Chiens” was published in 2004, giving Weinstock plenty of time to notice. This is not the only demonstration in my piece that Nathan Weinstock’s supposed ‘about face’ is a phony.
As I pointed out above, scientists can commit errors. What is unethical is when they make a defense of something that they know is not true. If Jared Israel finds my demonstration that he has made an error satisfactory, then I will expect him (at least) to remove his defense of Nathan Weinstock from Emperor’s Clothes:
http://www.tenc.net/letters/vilkelis.htm
In other words, I will expect him to do what I did when Jared Israel pointed out that my interpretation of Malcolm MacDonald’s offer to settle refugees from Hitler in Northern Rhodesia as “well meaning” was in error: I corrected this interpretation.
If Jared Israel finds my demonstration insufficient, then I will expect him to explain why.
Francisco Gil-White, Historical and Investigative Research
www.hirhome.com
Comment by gilwhite
— June 22, 2006 @ 8:17 pm
Hello Janice,
I would just like to suggest that you ponder the following:
1) Have you read most of the articles by Francisco Gil-White about Jews and Israel? I have re-read the most important ones after Jared Israel’s attack and have concluded that, whatever stylistic disagreements one might have with his style (sensationalist or not, etc.), it is impossible to say that the man is attacking the Jews or means any evil against them, as Jared is trying to have us believe. His chronology of US-Israel relations alone (which you can read at http://www.hirhome.com/israel/ihrally.htm) not only completely disproves what you say. It proves the opposite through careful documentation.
2) The Gil-White text that Jared has attacked is only the first in a series of four texts named “The Problem of Jewish Self-Defense,” which you can see on the www.hirhome.com website first page. Well, even if I hadn’t read any of that, I would expect any title, whatever title, coming from someone who is trying to slander Jews, EXCEPT that one. A Jew-hater could opt for any label, even for his/her most subtle attack against Jews, EXCEPT of course “Jewish Self-Defense”!! For those who read that Gil-White text, it is very clear what his aim is when he attacks the behavior of some Jewish leaders. He is analyzing a pathology developed in post-antiquity Jewry which consists of a weak self-defense, which helps clarify the apparently inexplicable attitudes of Jewish leaders as opposed to the attitudes of non-Jewish leaders. And this is true regarding the State of Israel today, for example, whose leaders have been directing the country to destruction.
3) Jared Israel’s attack is, in my view, much more a result of Gil-White’s choice of language - which is really strong - than the actual content of his text, which Jared simply doesn’t attack. Jared’s critique of Gil-White’s scholarship would only be complete if he provided a full refutation of Gil-White’s proposed thesis as exposed in the text (which is not about attacking Rabbi Stephen Wise). I have checked Rafael Medoff’s article about the Peter Bergson (Hillel Kook) group - which is one of Gil-White’s sources in a footnote - and found it very important, as it shows how unacceptable Rabbi Stephen Wise’s behavior was when dealing directly with Roosevelt on the issue of saving Jews from the Holocaust. So, EVEN IF Jared Israel has found a potential big problem with Gil-White’s quotation, one cannot judge Stephen Wise’s biography by just looking at what Stephen Wise wrote. After all, any political leader can write nice words and act not as nicely. So it is also necessary to check what other Jews thought about Stephen Wise. And those who know about the history of Peter Bergson’s heroism and success in the US (also among non-Jews) and Stephen Wise’s crazy attacks against him and his group will immediately understand what Gil-White’s point is in the text which Jared attacks.
Alex
Comment by Alex
— June 23, 2006 @ 5:18 am
Alex, let me suggest that you “ponder” Mr. Israel’s comment #31.
You state that Jared Israel criticised Francisco Gil-White over “stylistic disagreements” or just “choice of language”. This is false. Mr. Israel has proved that Mr. Gil-White deliberately doctored a quotation, took it out of context and used it to smear Zionist leader Rabbi Wise as wanting the death of his Fellow-Jews. This is not a question of “style”. It is lies and libel.
And this defamation that Zionist leaders wanted the Shoah is exactly what anti-Semites of all shades (right and left) use to attack Israel and all of us Jews.
I have been fighting this filthy libel all my life and I am shocked that I must now start to fight it on Israpundit.
Comment by Janice
— June 23, 2006 @ 7:44 am
Janice, you overstate your case supporting Jared Israel’s criticism of Prof. Gil-White.
Jared’s attack on Prof. Gil White’s stated fact base in respect of Rabbi Wise and N. Weinstock includes an ad hominum aspect to it and one that by implication suggests that because of those errors, none of Prof. Gil-Whites writings have any credibility.
If I am wrong in attributing that to Jared Israel, I am not wrong in attributing that kind of thinking to you. Your thinking defies reason.
I think Prof. Gil-White has explained his thinking regarding Weinstock and in that regard, he makes a case that his comment is fair.
As for Rabbi Wise, I think Prof. Gil White has yet to answer that. I too would like to see how he justifies what he said or whether he will back off and concede a mistake pointed out by Jared Israel.
While you are to be applauded for fighting what you call filthy libel all your life, I think you are jumping the gun to take Jared Israel’s specific criticism of some things Prof. Gil White has written and generalize that to impugn the scholastic integrity of all that Prof. Gil White has written.
Absent a lot more proof, it is over the top to characterize Prof. Gil White in respect of all his works as engaging in filthy libel.
Clearly, based on Jared’s information, Prof. Gil White did misquote Rabbi Wise and apparently that calls his conclusions in that regard into question. If Jared has it right, Prof Gil White will acknowledge that and also acknowledge his comments were both wrong and hurtful.
I suggest to you that you stand back from the extreme statements you are making as regards your total faith in Jared Israel and your total lack of faith in Prof. Gil White.
Absent a lot more proof than Jared’s specific criticisms or allegations of mistakes on Prof. Gil White’s part that warrant generalizing the attack on Prof. Gil White’s scholastic integrity, I am not prepared to jump the gun as you have and buy into that kind of thinking.
As I said, Jared implies a broader attack on the scholastic integrity on Prof. Gil White, while he points out only several specific instances of errors on the part of Prof. Gil White.
Jared was unfair to generalize beyond his specific criticisms without an offer of proof and it is unfair of you Janice to generalize as you have.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— June 23, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
Bill, I am taken aback by your latest post, first of all by the tone you adopted towards Janice for daring to speak out in agreement with me. You wrote to her:
This misrepresents what Janice wrote, in her comments #35 and 38. (She suggested nothing about total faith.) Aside from that, the tone implies some unnamed punishment if Janice does not “stand back,” which is not a phrase one uses when one is trying to persuade, but rather a phrase used to intimidate, by letting somebody know that she has taken an action she may have reason to regret.
Second, I was puzzled by this admonition to Janice:
Yesterday, commenting on my post #31, easly accessibly by hyperlink here, you wrote to me
So yesterday what I wrote about Gil-White was “most worthwhile and important,” but today it is “unfair” – even though I have posted nothing in the interim.
In your remarks to Janice, you state:
I did not argue that Gil-White had made a mistake. As you can see from comment #31, I proved that he doctored his documentation. This was of necessity a conscious act, intended to deceive. The purpose of Gil-White’s deception was to support his slanderous charge that this Jewish leader, Rabbi Stephen Wise, wanted the Holocaust.
Finally, regarding your remark to Janice that:
I have made more than “an offer of proof.” I have posted thousands of words in a few days, proving a good deal, and I am preparing much more. I have still other examples of doctoring, and I have a more general critique of misuse of documentation. I have made a promise to post mor; I will deliver.
Jared Israel
Emperor’s Clothes
Comment by Jared Israel
— June 23, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
Jared,
Janice used of the phrase “filthy libel” to describe Gil-White’s misquote regarding Rabbi Wise that you revealed to be in badly in error. I do not know that I would go that far to characterize the error. You have stated that the misquote was deliberate. From what you have advised, I cannot understand why he would deliberately misquote and then accuse the Rabbi that he wanted Jews to die in Germany.
I am interested in how Gil White responds because it sure seems that you have him boxed in in that regard. I cannot imagine how he will be able to deflect your evidence, other than confess his sin, correct his article and promise to do better next time.
As I previously indicated I do not accept his conspiracy based conclusions and some other conclusions he poses and I have trouble with his sensationlist style of weaving facts to conclusions.
What I was reacting to was Janice implying that Gil White generally engages in filthy libel regarding all Jews. To that extent, I believe she goes too far because generally Gil White does write supportively of Israel and Jews.
Janice,in post # 35, referring to your critique of some of what Gil White had written and in particular, a misunderstanding or being ignorant of something to do with MacDonald (I have forgotten the point you made Nathan Weinstock and Rabbi Wise:
In post 38 Janice says,
Both these statements by Janice expand the accusation of defaming a specific Jews Weinstock and in particular Rabbi Wise to defaming all Jewish leaders.
The response by the way by Gil White regarding Weinstock seemed subject to your further comment, a basis to come to a different conclusion than you have about whether Weinstock has fully and unequivocally recanted the views he held in his youth.
As indicated, Gil White is a pro Jewish/Israel writer, regardless of whether he is misguided, a less than fully adept scholar or so taken away by his sensationalist ideas that he stretches beyond reason to support his views.
When it comes to those who write anti-Semitic/anti-Israel pseudointellectual garbage, I have no hesitation in not only taking their arguments apart, but I relish the chance to crush them whole.
While I have no problem with your point by point attack on the basis of some of what Gil White has written, I was somewhat taken aback by the way you are doing it. As I said what comes through your words is more than just an attack on what Gil White says, but a personal attack on his whole being by broadly attacking his entire integrity.
My point to both you and Janice who I think has gone farther than you have as yet, to virtually hold Gil White in total contempt, is that I require a whole lot more to cast Gil White, a person who is pro-Israel/Jewish as actually being the opposite of what he appears to be.
For reasons stated before, I have found what I did read of Gil White’s work, valuable even though I did not generally acceptw his main conclusions wherever they seemed to derive from conspiracy theories or were too sensationalist for me to swallow.
There are a number of contributors and commentators much more knowledgable and smarter than I and whom I respect who believe in Gil White and are impressed far more with him than I.
Because of that and my nature being that I need a lot of convincing, I therefor need more evidence before I write him off as a complete quack.
What I wrote about my being impressed with your writing, ideas, knowledge, logic, insights and apparent scholarly integrity stands.
You however not only surgically sliced and diced Gil White as regards those matters you took issue with him on, I felt that in suggesting he is a liar, dishonest, etc. was while specific to the points you were making, seemed to go beyond that and to that extent I thought it was also an unfair ad hominum attack.
In any event what you pointed out about Gil White’s edited quote from Rabbi Wise, could only have been deliberate. As I said, I hope Gil White does respond to that charge for that so far is the most serious one.
I am not as you can now see I think, not defending Gil White. I do not know him beyond his writing which while I too have for other reasons, found wanting as noted, still felt it was worthwhile reading his work for the reasons mentioned.
As for defending Gil White, I will leave that to Gil White and others who feel so inclined.
I just do not like personal attacks. All I am saying is stick to slicing and dicing his scholarship and writing, but leave him some dignity to be able to walk away, unless of course your evidence is incontrovertible and warrants crushing the man whole.
I am not questioning you have a lot more proofs or evidence to offer, but is it not enough for you to just discredit his writings and scholarship?
Comment by Bill Narvey
— June 23, 2006 @ 8:58 pm
I have received a threat from Francisco Gil-White.
Bill, in your last comment, #41, you wrote, regarding the points I raised in my comment #31 and comment #40, that:
Well, checking my email box, I find that Gil-White has, in a manner of speaking, ‘responded’ to my charges, although not out in the open, on Israpundit.
Below is the text of the unsolicited email I have received from him, in full. I have put his text in bold to separate his words from the header information. I have not replied privately to this email.
Three points about this.
1) For purposes of authentication, if anyone wishes, they may write to me at emperors-clothes.com and I will forward them Gil-White’s email.
2) Gil-White’s threat appears to be that he will circulate online, including on Israpundit, a statement that I am an “arch-leftist who has been known to call himself a Marxist.” Based on this threat he warns me to “Think carefully about your next move.”
Regarding my “next move” I don’t make “moves.” I expose lies.
As for being ‘outed’ as a Leftist, let me say for the record that I proudly consider myself part of the anti-Fascist Left, which hopefully will some day replace the Fascist Left (e.g., Ramsey Clark) or what Felix Quigley calls the neo-Left. The Anti-Fascist Left is IMHO best reflected by the 1948 Nation magazine Memorandum to the UN, which I have posted online. My politics are no secret - I wrote a two-part article on Arutz Sheva called “Confessions of a Once-Hopeful Leftist.”
From my experience, two things reveal the most about public people. One is what they lie about. This is because lies are dangerous to the liar - there is always the possibility of exposure. And therefore, when public people lie it is because the lie is important. So that tells me it was important for Gil-White to get people to believe that when the Holocaust happened, in Gil-White’s words, “Rabbi Wise got his wish.” The second thing that is most revealing about public people is when they resort to threats, since this also puts them at risk - i.e., a threat may backfire. That Francisco Gil-White would take the considerable risk of threatening me now by email suggests that he is afraid of what may yet be exposed.
Jared Israel
Emperors Clothes
Comment by Jared Israel
— June 24, 2006 @ 3:03 am
I intend to put together a few comments on all of this this weekend and post hopefully on Monday.
Basically I will repeat what I said earlier, one of the keys to this is the political experiences in Yugoslavia.
Strange that in a way, because the Jewish movement pretty well disregarded what was happening there, if not openly siding with the NATO cum UN enemy in the slicing apart of a nation.
But in a general sense at this stage. I appeal to our Jewish friends that the issues being discussed here are going to be of the most fundamental importance for the future of the Jewish cause.
The situation is most critical. The preparations of the enemy are very far advanced and the crisis in the Jewish leadership is most acute.
Either that crisis of leadership is resolved or the Jews face a terrible tragedy.
I believe that is what is at stake in this discussion. More anon!
Comment by Felix Quigley
— June 24, 2006 @ 6:36 am
This entire line of argument surely illustrates the intellectual poverty of invective. I got an email inviting comment on this exchange as an example of “Jewish leadership and scholarship” - probably meant ironically. Most of the protagonists seem to be worthy of each other.
The statement:
is a masterpriece of non-sequitor, and the arguments built around it are therefore fatuous. The fact that X doesn’t like Benny Morris doesn’t prove anything about Benny Morris or about X. Norman Finkelstein and Efraim Karsh, from two ends of the political spectrum, both don’t like Benny Morris. So what?
Unfortunately, debate about Israel and Zionism and “Jewish” issues quickly degenerates to personal accusations, innuendo and even threats against life and limb. I am surprised nobody has called anyone a Nazi or a Kapo yet. Is Weinstock in the Massada2000 hit list of self-hating Jews? Is Jared Israel? Have they been attacked by Steve Plaut.
This sort of reprehensible discussion is characteristic of the deplorable invective generated by such debates. See
Invective as a substitute for thought: Other Jews and Zionists as “the enemy”.
Being the subject of an attack by certain malevolent self-appointed gurus of the right or left can be evidence that the target of the attack is a decent person and has achieved something of note that has made it worthwhile to call them names. It might be evidence, but it is not proof. Being attacked by someone like Gil-White is par for the course for anyone who refuses to believe that the Deir Yassin Massacre didn’t happen or that Menachem Begin was not God’s gift to humanitarianism, just as any assertion that Zionists don’t all have horns and tails will elicit bullying from fans of Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein. Discrediting ideas just because the people who originate them are ‘leftists,’ ‘Marxists’ or ‘Zionists” is puerile and dangerous, even if it acceptable in this forum.
Ami Isseroff
Comment by Ami
— June 24, 2006 @ 8:26 am
Jared,
Regarding the exchanges between you and Gil White, some of the pro Gil White comments from Alex Eisenberg and Felix Quigley, the anti-Gil White comments from Janice Rubin and my comments being against personal attacks calculated to attack a person’s character in the process of attacking what they say, I am inclined to Ami Isseroff’s comments, though he expresses himself much better than I have.
I do not know that I would go so far to use the word represhensible, but what I have tried to express is that I found your comments and Janice Rubin’s, unseemly.
Gil White’s so called threat as you put it is also unseemly, though it makes no sense to me.
I think the article he wrote was well stated, factual as far as I could tell and his questioning whether Weinstock had indeed made a 180 degree turn in his thinking was fair.
In that article, Gil White approvingly quoted you extensively. I would have thought you would have acknowledged that in a positive way.
The so called threat to include a last paragraph adds nothing to the piece he wrote and in terms of questioning why you would be an ardent defender of Weinstock’s about face is a pointless non-sequitor.
The comment that Ted Belman is angry with you and the supplemental comment if added to his article and will stay up forever sounds childish.
It just seems so off the wall, out of character and pointless that I am left to wonder whether in this age of sophisticated internet technology that was actually written by Gil White.
I had noted in an earlier post that Gil White’s comments regarding your defence of Nathan Weinstock seemed reasonable and fairly made. You have not responded, just as Gil White thus far has not responded to your taking him to task for, as you put it, deliberately misquoting Rabbi Wise to attribute to him something terrible that Rabbi Wise did not say and which would be apparent from reading the entire quote from Rabbi Wise.
As for you sayingI proudly consider myself part of the anti-Fascist Left, what is the point of that chest pumping and what the hell does that description mean anyway. or have anything to do with anything.
What you say is what is important to me and I expect most of the other readers and not your political leanings. If it appears your political leanings are influencing unduly or otherwise what your are seeking to convince others is the truth of the situation as you see it, I expect most of us would pick up on that and raise that with you.
As far as I can tell, you and Gil White are pretty much on the very same side on the big issues. Taking Gil White to task on specific errors, deliberate or otherwise is fair enough, but why do it as you have? It seems almost petty when as I said as near as I can see you and Gil White are on the same side.
As I see it, I still think there is something of a personal vendetta going on that in these exchanges was initiated by you. If Gil White did write you as it appears he did, both you and Gil White have lost your perspectives and sense of proportion.
It seems that both you and Gil White are articulate pro-Jewish/Israel spokepersons. While you may be the better researcher and Gil White may be given to scholastic lapses as you claim, you both, apart from minor differences both see the big picture the same way and to that extent are allies and not competitors or enemies.
Disagree with each other’s point of view and challenge each other on various points as you will, but keep it fair, keep it courteous and avoid inflammatory language and accusations. We all will benefit and become better informed from reading such exchanges between the two of you who are both knowledgeable, talented and insightful.
It will however be a shame if both you and Gil White lose sight of that big picture and persist in personal attacks and name calling.
It does neither of you any honour to get caught up in accusations and counter accusations, even if you can make out a case, which can be made in a far more respectful manner.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— June 24, 2006 @ 10:25 am
To Bill Narvey and all Israpundit readers,
I agree with most of what you said above, Bill, although I haven’t seen Gil-White attacking Jared wholesale or calling him names in public. What they do privately should not be anybody’s business.
What I don’t understand is why we are not discussing the contents of the Gil-White’s text(s) that have prompted Jared’s reaction on this forum. This is what matters to all of us, isn’t it?
I do not agree with you, Bill, that Jared is a better researcher than Gil-White. In my view the two of them are equally very capable. And the proof thereof is easily verifiable in the exchange above. Jared has identified a couple of important problems in Gil-White’s work, and Gil-White has done the same regarding, for example, Jared’s serious mistake in portraying Weinstock for what he is not. In fact, Jared’s current defense of Weinstock and previous attack against Benny Morris can only prove the obvious, namely that Jared DID NOT read the entire “Histoire de Chiens” by Weinstock, since Weinstock’s stance on the events that culminated with the creation of the State of Israel is taken from Benny Morris (Weinstock wrote more than one footnote acknowledging that). So how could Jared accuse Gil-White so violently of slandering Weinstock if he hasn’t even read the entire Weinstock book?
But I will not go as far as saying that Jared is falsifying things on purpose, as he accuses Gil-White of doing, although anyone determined to destroy his (Jared’s) reputation could take advantage of his misrepresentation of Weinstock to do it (by saying that Jared took Weinstock’s final words of repentance for granted without checking the preceding content in the book, or even worse, withheld the preceding content for deceiving purposes, which would be the equivalent of what Jared has done to Gil-White).
In sum, I think we can only learn from this exchange if we stick to the discussion of the texts involved and check them carefully for our own information. Many of the comments posted above are a result of not looking carefully into the object of our exchange. Other than that, let’s read the works of these two men, as we have a lot to learn from their unique research (yes, they are unique), and forget about their personal differences.
Now I just want to make a correction: Jared Israel wrote above that I am Gil-White’s “close associate.” I don’t know where he took this idea from. My collaboration with Gil-White has never been different from my collaboration with Jared. All I have done for the two of them - because I find their work to be of utmost importance - was to write translations (for free) of some of their articles on Israel and Jews, plus give them occasional opinions of mine about their texts, both by e-mail and phone calls (I never met them physically to this day). This clarification is important because Jared’s “close associate” term may convey the idea that my defense of Gil-White’s work is less neutral than the other readers’.
Comment by Alex
— June 24, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
Various comments:
1- The debate should be about the Mufti and not about Jared Israel vs Gil-White. I found the following at Gil-White’s Web site:
“How mainstream Diaspora Jewish leaders are failing the Jewish people toda… A full documentation of their activities would keep us here forever, so I will focus on a number of prominent examples that will be sufficient to make my case: people such as Arthur Hertzberg, Edgar Bronfman, Abraham Foxman, Sara Ehrman, Noam Chomsky, Daniel S. Abraham, Gail Pressberg, Bernard Henri Lévy, Thomas Friedman, Dennis Ross, Daniel Kurtzer, and Aaron David Miller.”
—
There is surely something wrong with the thinking of someone who puts Abe Foxman and Dennis Ross in the same list as Noam Chompsky. Gil-White’s idea seems to be that only he is a good Zionist, and anyone who disagrees with him about facts or policy is an anti-Zionist - including most Israelis.
I would like to believe that there were no massacres committed and no Palestinian Arabs forced to leave Israel but it is not so, and attempts to make believe otherwise make us look ludicrous. I received in the mail an article by Gil-White that insists that there was no massacre at all at Deir Yassin, based on the dubious study of Mort Klein and relying on the even more dubious record of Uri Milstein. Milstein asserts many things that can be disproven. As several independent observers and eye-witnesses verified details of Meir Pail’s story: women and children shot in the corners of houses, and not killed by explosions as Milstein claimed; people shot in the quarry. Everyone in Jerusalem also saw the shameful victory parade of the Irgun-Lehi. Milstein and others claim that Deir Yassin was shooting at the road. There is a huge ridge separating Deir Yassin from the road that blocks any possibility of shooting at the road, and the people would have had to pass through Givat Shaul to get to the road. Anyone who has ever been to Jerusalem knows that ridge. It is fruitless to make absurd claims and then indignantly yell “anti-Semite” at people who object. The fact that “only” a hundred or so people were murdered and not 254 is accepted by Palestinian sources and doesn’t change the facts. Denying Deir Yassin and other atrocities just makes Zionist advocates look absurd. This is not the place to document other cases. Benny Morris “improved” quotes from Ben Gurion and others to make it look like transfer was an important part of Zionist ideology but the basic facts he cited cannot be denied.
Regarding the 1936-1939 uprising it is much more complicated than “Peasants revolt” versus “not peasants’ revolt” See The Arab uprising in Palestine. Husseini didn’t start it, he coopted it after Qassam was killed. Izzedin-El Qassam started it. The peasants were mostly upset because of a few years of bad drought. Qassam, a Syrian preacher, leveraged on their discontent. Since Husseini didn’t represent any peasants and never represented any peasants it was hardly a peasants revolt after he took over.
Regarding Husseini, there is no doubt he was a Nazi and no doubt too that the Yishuv understood this, and that not surprisingly, the War of Independence was fought as a war of survival, explaining some of the massacres and the attitude that we are like Czechoslovakia kicking out Sudetens Germans. The comparison is apt. Someone with the proper resources should do a meticulously documented study of the Mufti and his connections with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, as well as his announced plans for murdering the Jews of Palestine. I told part of the story here:
Hajj Amin El Husseini
His role in the Axis coup in Iraq - which was instigated primarily by him, is documented here:
The pro-Axis coup in Iraq and the Mufti Hajj Amin el Husseini
He escaped from the Nurenberg Tribunals while awaiting trial in France.
I was amazed to find that Arab Palestinians and even some Israeli historians did not understand why the Mufti’s picture is at Yad vaShem.
Unfortunately as time goes by documents are lost and it becomes more and more difficult to make the accusations stick.
Comment by Ami
— June 25, 2006 @ 4:14 am
Ami,
To speak of the Irgun’s excesses or murders at Deir Yassin and their celebrating that event shameful, mischaracterizes the significance of that incident by guaging it by today’s standards and further, takes it out of the context what the circumstances within which that incident occurred.
Further, in the Palestinian propaganda rhetoric today I seem to recall that in suggesting Israeli leaders were terrorists, the accusation is limited to Deir Yassin and the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. Of course with the latter, if the Jews were terrorists in bombing the Kind David Hotel, the Palestinians fail to note that the Jews gave a 10 minute or so warning that was not heeded. No Palestinian terrorist ever gave such warning.
For a Jew or Israeli to beat his breast and confess as a sin the deaths Irgun were responsible for at Deir Yassin in response to Palestinian/Arab and sympathizers’ accusations is to admit a moral equivilence between the countless historical Jew hate filled terrorist acts of the Arabs/Palestinians and the one, two or 3 incidents that might be laid at the feet of the Jews.
That is so outrageous it cannot be allowed to stand.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— June 25, 2006 @ 11:33 am
Gerry Gordon writes,
Gil-White’s reductio ad absurdum that the U.S. antisemitic quandary in the 1930’s and mid 1940’s coupled with the prominence of the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism and the diffident Zionist leaders like Rabbi Stephen Wise lead to adoption of Nazi genocide didn’t help.
We still have chilling evidence that U.S. inaction on Jewish refugee emigration at the pre-war Evian conference, the condonement of the British Foreign Office stopple of beleaguered European Jewish emigration into the Palestine mandate in 1939, the infamous WWII Bermuda conference and inaction on bombing of the Auschwitz death camp contribute to Gil-White’s dark view.
But Gil-white had a scholarly predecessor, Professor David Wyman, author of “The Abandonment of the Jews” and “Race Against Death-the latter co-authored with Raphael Medoff.”.
What Rabbi Wise and mainstream Jewish leadership at the time could be castigated for was their sabotage of the doughty band of Palestinian revisionists-Jabos all- lead by Rabbi Kook’s nephew, Peter Bergson. Bergson’s promotional genius brought vividly to the American public the imminent destruction of European Jewry through free ads in the Hearst newspaper chain, demonstrations at the White House with 400 rabbis, pageants with brilliant music by Kurt Weil, librettos by Ben Hecht, actors like Paul Muni and Edward G. Robinson.
The overwhelming House and Senate resolutions in 1944 requesting rescue of European Jews fell on deaf ears inside the White House, but not in the offices of Secretary of Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and his largely non-Jewish and able staff who confronted him and roused him into action against a stony anti-Semitic State Department under Secretary of State Cordell Hull-he with his Jewish wife- and his heinous antisemitic Undersecretary Breckenridge Long-who consistently denied every opportunity to bring Jewish refugees to safe havens in the U.S. or liberated areas including the Palestine mandate.. Many of us who have delved into these disturbing events believe that John J. McCloy at the War Department scotched U.S. military rescue aid including the Auschwitz bombing proposal. Ultimately McCloy blamed it on Roosevelt who had the advices of his chief speechwriter, Judge Samuel Rosenman to pay the rabbis no heed-just fed his patrician Hudson Valley barony social discrimination manque despite his Dutchess county neighbor, Morgenthau’s entreaties.
After all whom did Roosevelt meet at Casablanca in 1943 and later on his way back from the infamous Yalta conference in 1945 close by his death. As noted in the book “An Army at Dawn: the War in North Africa 1942-1943″ by author Rick Atkinson, the King of Morocco who met with Roosevelt wanted the US to quell Jews in his Kingdom- keep them in dhimmitude-remember the initial assault by Muslims against U.S. troops who landed in North Africa was because they mistook the “white stars” as being emblematic of Jews. Meeting Saudi king Ibn Saud on Roosevelt’s weary trip back in 1945 from the ultimately disastrous Yalta meetings with “Killer Joe” Stalin and a troubled Winston Churchill was requested by our anti-Semitic State Department because they saw post war the kingdom’s oil reserves as being of primary strategic interest economically. The Jewish quest for a state of their own in the middle east would have been a distraction from that effort-the meeting took place before the bulk of the death and concentration camps were discovered by advancing British and American forces in the west who had yet to breach the Rhine river approaches to the Nazi heartland in Germany. The Russians on the other hand in 1944 and by January had uncovered the great Jewish killing grounds in the east.
So, one could see why Gil-white would draw the conclusions that he did and raise the controversies that many have responded to with comments to his postings at Israpundit.
Comment by Ted Belman
— June 25, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
Bill, as regards your attack on me above, #39, you wrote:
And:
Let me make it simple for you. To claim that any Zionist leader wanted the Shoah is a filthy libel. Libel because it is an untrue attack, and filthy because it is the most vicious accusation one can make against any Jew, let alone a leading Zionist.
Francisco Gil-White made the accusation that leading Zionist Rabbi Stephen Wise “got his wish” with the Shoah. Francisco Gil-White made this accusation about Rabbi Wise through the falsification of a quotation. This falsification has been proven by Jared Israel (above, #31).
You say:
My conclusion that Mr. Gil-White doctored the data to defame Rabbi Wise is not a matter of faith. I have faith in G-d, not in people. I have taken a free one-week subscription to Questia and checked all the sources: Mr. Israel is telling the truth.
The logical conclusion is that Francisco Gil-White’s claim that Zionist leader Rabbi Stephen Wise got his wish when his fellows-Jews died is libellous. Libellous because as has been proved this vicious accusation is based on falsified data.
Gil-White still has this filthy libel on his website.
Comment by Janice
— June 25, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
Bill
You do me a big disservice here when you imply I am a supporter of Francisco. I am much more of an independent character than that.
On the comment which Ted made about Roosevelt Paul Johnson in his History of the Jews made the point that in his opinion if Rossevelt had not died and been replaced by Truman then there would have been NO Jewish state of Israel set up at all, because Roosevelt was becoming more and more anti-Semitic as the months passed, coming under the influence more and more of the State Dept.
Bill I am really disappointed that you line up in any way with this guy Ami Isseroff.
Now Isseroff is part of the Jewish movement and I am committed to defend his right to his views. That is what I call the United Front, to ensure that the discussion can take place.
But I defend Isseroff only in order to destroy his political line.
So he writes above:
“I would like to believe that there were no massacres committed and no Palestinian Arabs forced to leave Israel but it is not so, and attempts to make believe otherwise make us look ludicrous. I received in the mail an article by Gil-White that insists that there was no massacre at all at Deir Yassin, based on the dubious study of Mort Klein and relying on the even more dubious record of Uri Milstein. Milstein asserts many things that can be disproven. ”
Let me tell you Ami Isseroff:
Just because you insert the adjective “dubious” on the work of Klein and Milstein does not make it so.
Who is being the charlatan here Ami? Well actually yourself.
So please get off your high horse. I do not think it is a good idea here on Israpundit because we will knock you down pretty fast.
Or else back up your scurrilous remark that patriotic Jews enacted a “massacre” at Deir Yassin.
This is the scandal and lie that has been peddled around the byways and hiways of my own native country (Ireland) by the Palestine Solidarity Group and various forms of Irish petty bourgeois republicanism, and in general by haters of Israel.
Comment by Felix Quigley
— June 26, 2006 @ 7:14 am
The way this discussion of the issues raised in Francisco’s work on the Palestine Movement has taken a different turn than I would have anticipated.
We are facing a situation where:
1.The Jewish movement itself is threatened with wipe-out at the hands of Islamofascism armed with nuclear weapons.
2.A very big section of the ruling classes in Europe and in the United States simply cannot be relied upon to save Israel and the Jews. There are differing theories on how much the ruling governments in the EU and in the US are motivated by anti-Semitism, whether this anti-Semitism is conscous and full-blown, and whether they operate in a unified way in their hatred of Israel. Whatever that may be I think it is very safe to say that these ruling governments cannot be relied upon and the Jews of Israel and the Diaspora should not place reliance on them.
These two propositions place an enormous importance on the very leadership of the Jews themselves.
Whether Jared is correct or not on the issue of Francisco’s treatment of Steven Wise it is unfortunate that the direction of his attack has removed one of the biggest lessons of the Yugoslavian experience.
As Diane Johnson pointed out the Serbs, never mind the Yogoslavs, were very disunited and the US and EU classes in power were well aware of this as early as the mid-80s, as of course were the Islamofascists.
I fear the same disunity exists among the Jews, in Israel and in the Diaspora. The centre of this disunity is located in the reactionary way in which Bolshevism (The Left) developed. After many years and many experiences this eventually worked its way through to the kind of leaderships which were in place at the time of the setting up of the Israeli state, especially into the 50s and 60s.
It means that secularism in Israel is much more akin to a reactionary and narrow dogma than it is to a liberating theory. Much of this is based on sheer ignorance, especially ignorance of the pivotal role that Judaism played in the formation of the Jewish nation and in holding this nation together during the long years of persecution and isolation
And all of this was on view when Sharon and his clique in Israel were expelling religious Jews and patriotic Israelites from the Gaza. It was so bad, and so close to reactionary dictatorship, that this clique in the leadership of Israel, and in the leadership of Israeli Jews, trained a special police corps which were trained in this hatred for Judaism.
(At this point I just wonder what was the political line of Ami Isseroff as Jews were being beaten blue and black by fellow Jews of Israel to kick them out of the Gaza. I do wonder and that will prompt me to investigate. Now if he defends the Deir Yassin Big Lie then anything is possible)
That is only one sign of the present dangers from the leadership which Jews have inherited as they face enormous struggles for survival.
The big danger to the Jews and the state of Israel does come from the “Peace” Movement. In this case peace means war and obliteration and Israel is badly in need of a fighting leadership. It has not got it and if left in the hands of Olmert and co in a relatively short period of time Israel as an independent nation will cease to exist.
Whatever about his use of that quotation Francisco was absolutely right to tackle this issue of Jewish leaders. It is a delicate subject indeed and it is a clear case of opportunism to be jumped on by Jared over the issue of Wise. Francisco was right to tackle the historical role of Jewish leaders at the time of the Holocaust.
I say it is opportunism because jared nor Janice has said a word about the main content of that particular article, or series of articles, which was the nature of Jewish leaders, then and now.
Francisco is an academic researcher and he does have the interests of the Jewish people at heart. He is not a revolutionary and he does not understand revolutionary strategy and tactics. Unfortunately there is not substitute for that in this period.
I am not fully versed in the life of Wise and I will not say too much. I do suspect that there are probably parallels with many of the Jewish leaders we see around us today.
Morton Klein of the ZOA is a case in point. Whenever I look through the output of ZOA one thing stands out – good intentions and with that a reliance on the United States governing class to aid Israel. The path to hell is paved with good intentions and we have already discussed how reliance on the US and EU governing classes is highly risky. Klein would argue that there is no alternative. What if there were though!
Dialectics is the struggle of opposites, but in order for there to BE a struggle there has to be a unity.
I would propose a United Front with Klein and the ZOA. As part of the Jewish movement, and of the revolutionary movement I would defend the right of Klein and the ZOA to put forward their political programme. This is the Unity part. In the context of this Unity I feel the need to subject the ideas of ZOA to a merciless criticism.
In relation to Wise, likewise, Francisco ignored the unity side of the equation, and this can actually lead to great problems.
But he did raise the issue of Jewish leadership. I repeat, if the present Jewish leadership remains unchallenged, then they will certainly lead to a tragedy for the Jews.
I have mentioned earlier here that I thought that there was a danger that the great lessons of the Yugoslavian experience for the Jews will be wasted. Great work has been done by tenc on this but it is not the first time that positives have turned into their opposites.
The way this debate has went gives an unenviable choice between:
1. providing a cover for Jewish leaders who will betray (Jared)
2. attacking Jewish leaders outside the context of the United Front
For me it is neither. Jewish leaders must be placed under the most severe criticism. But it must be done in a certain manner, from a position of a United Front with these leaders.
The issues behind this debate actually touch on Israpundit. I am struck by the similarities between Israpundit now, and Emperors New Clothes at the time of the Yugoslavian tragedy. It is possible to get everything right and still lose because power is not in our hands.
There is a force which can ensure victory for the Jews. This involves the masses of ordinary Americans, the masses of ordinary Jews in Israel, and the ordinary people in every country even though at present the Media has their minds twisted and their thoughts on Israel distorted.
In the article criticised Francisco does come forward with a gem of knowledge of which I was unaware. The American working class did come out in some force because of the iniative of one man. What would it have been like if there had been an organised cadre in existence, which took as its starting point not what the democrats or republicans would do, but what the American people would do to stop the Hoplocaust. It could have been stopped.
This brings us back to Israpundit. It affirms that this is no academic discussion. What is at stake here is the prevention of another Holocaust of Jews.
The weak point in the Sharon cum Bush attack on the religious Jews who were being expelled from Gaza was the fighting response of the Jewish youth in that area. It was clear that these youth (many older people too of course) were very, very committed and very idealist in the best sense. They were also very courageous.
These websites of ours which are devoted to the Jewish cause (despite the differences nasty things that they are!) in the way they are set up they are necessarily propagandist. A great reliance on the “Word”; nothing wrong with that, of course, that is how we have to start the ball rolling.
I propose a change by Israpundit, and followed by tenc and by Hirhome as well as others. The last time on Gaza we were powerless. We all did our best but let us learn.
Let us immediately start a fighting fund in order that we may be able to make direct contact with these young fighters in Israel. Not just Israel either, let us make contact with the group who organised the pro-Israel demonstrations in Germany recently, which may be a very significant development.
Jared and Francisco are part of the Jewish and revolutionary movement. We need a United Front and we need a practice and we need to bring some fresh forces in.
We can either send good sensitive people out there, to help and to learn, or we can use our friends who are already there. We could take some small steps at first. Try to make contact with religious Jewish youth.
All with a view to build a cadre leadership, which understands the situation and which is very, very flexible and able to act quickly.
Comment by Felix Quigley
— June 26, 2006 @ 7:33 am
Janice
You seem to be stuck in a groove, the groove of “this filthy libel against Rabbi Wise”.
What have you to say about the overall political direction of the politics of Wise, in relation to his reliance on the American ruling Government of Roosevelt.
Do you think this could have contributed to the ability of the Nazis to carry through the Holocaust.
On the issue of when the allies know about the Holocaust well Hitler had kindly written it all down for them in the early 20s.
But more specifically it is very well known that Jan Karski, Polish political envoy for the Polish Underground Government brought exact details of what was happening in the death camps in 1942, so Roosevelt of course knew. Karski had travelled specially across to London with the details.
Comment by Felix Quigley
— June 26, 2006 @ 7:41 am
To Janice,
First of all, I did not attack you Janice. I pointed out that you were being unreasonable to seize on one apparent falsehood Gil White stated which you called a filthy libel and then generalize that to say Gil White makes false allegations against Jews.
Your statement from post #35:
You again make the same kind of generalized accusation of Gil White in your post # 38:
If you read all of what I have said before and after your posts, you will see that I am not defending Gil White’s edited quote about Rabbi Wise. I had hoped however Gil White would respond specifically to Jared’s comments regarding Rabbi Wise and explain himself. What Jared has pointed out regarding Rabbi Wise demands explanation and a recantation if Gil White has no defence to Jared’s accusation in that regard.
As for Jared’s accusation against Gil White regatrding Nathan Weinstock, Gil White appears to have provided a reasonable answer that calls for Jared to reply to, whowever Jared has yet to do so.
You will also note that what troubled me about Jared’s attack on Gil White was not so much with the substance of what he said, for I do not have information to challenge him on that, except to the extent I may have, but with the personal attacks on Gil White which I find unseemly and unnecessary to get the point across.
Further as I noted, Gil White’s writings, in spite of citing some facts that Jared takes issue with and as regards Rabbi Wise, with apparent good justification, is pro Jewish/Israel.
FYI, I too fight against those who defame and demonize Jews, but I try to limit my defence and counter attacks to the particular person, group or situtation that attacks Jews or Israel and not generalize, unless there is good evidence to do so and when there is I tend to cite that evidence I rely on.
To Felix:
You say to me:
I did you no disservice Felix. I was going from memory of things you have written as regards Gil White’s writings. In that regard, I believe you have been more accepting of Gil White’s conclusions than I.
Ever since Gil White’s writings were first introduced by Ted on Israpundit, I have made clear that I have difficulty accepting certain conclusions Gil White comes to. Generally speaking that difficulty lies with some of his conclusions seemingly deriving from conspiracy theories.
I have also made clear that I am not generally dismissive of Gil White’s writings.
Suggesting you may be more accepting of Gil White’s writings than I in no way suggests you are not an independent character.
You go on to say:
When it comes to Ami Isseroff, I do think he is exceedingly knowledgable, bright, insightful and an excellent writer.
That said, just like with Gil White, I have also before taken issue with things Ami has said and conclusions he has reached. That should have been apparent to you in reading my post # 48 which is just the most recent instance where I have taken issue with Ami.
I have found value in reading the views of both Gil White and Ami Isseroff notwithstanding that I take issue with both of them on certain matters.
I also can see that Jared Israel is another bright bulb on the pro-Jewish/Israel scene and I look forward to reading more of what he has to say. No doubt in time I will find things to disagree with him on as well.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— June 26, 2006 @ 8:29 am
REPLY TO JARED ISRAEL (CONCERNING STEPHEN WISE), by Francisco Gil-White
I notice that Jared Israel has not replied to my demonstration that he is wrong about Nathan Weinstock.
I shall now reply to his comments regarding Stephen Wise. In Comment #31, above, Jared Israel accuses me of having presented “falsified documentation” in order “to slander Rabbi Stephen Wise as wanting the Holocaust.”
What is the criticism, specifically? At the top of an article that I wrote on Stephen Wise and other American and British Jewish leaders during the Holocaust, entitled “How the Mainstream Jewish Leadership Failed the Jewish People in WWII,” I quoted Rabbi Stephen Wise saying, “I would rather have my fellow Jews die in Germany…” Jared Israel claims that I quoted Stephen Wise out of context.
In other words, Jared Israel believes it is possible to apologize for what Stephen Wise said.
I hold that the following statement is true by inspection (that is, true without requiring an explanation):
OBVIOUSLY TRUE STATEMENT: On the eve of the German Nazi extermination of the European Jewish population, which this was, it is unacceptable for the foremost leader of the Jewish community in the United States, which Stephen Wise was, to begin a sentence with, “I would rather have my fellow Jews die in Germany…”
In other words, there simply is no context that one can provide, before or after the sentence fragment that I quoted, that will render Stephen Wise’s sentence acceptable to anybody who does not already feel contempt for Jews. For demonstration, I submit Jared Israel’s heroic display of his talents in the service of rendering what Stephen Wise said
acceptable, and which fails.
In conclusion, since no context can make what Stephen Wise said acceptable, I quoted just the beginning of his sentence, which economically and dramatically communicates the contempt that Stephen Wise felt for the Jewish people. What I did was fine.
But what really matters, in the end, is not whether I misused that particular quote. If had done so I would simply remove it and issue a retraction. Nothing much hangs on it, and my article would remain.
What does my article show? That Stephen Wise, this man whom Jared Israel has attempted to defend, moved heaven and earth to sabotage the effort to rescue the desperate European Jews, even as the ovens were burning. This means that, according to Jared Israel’s own published standards, Stephen Wise is worse than Adolf Hitler. I shall now demonstrate this.
(I emphasize, however, that I will demonstrate that Wise is worse than Hitler according to Jared Israel’s published standards, not my own; if I myself was forced at gunpoint to choose between Wise and Hitler to be locked in a room with, I would choose Wise).
Jared Israel wrote an article for Israel National News (Arutz Sheva) entitled; “Benny Morris: The Kiss that Kills”; where he attacked Benny Morris.
This Jared Israel did with justice, because Benny Morris wrote a fraudulent history of the War of 1948, where Morris literally made up stuff in order to attack the Israeli Jews with the accusation that they had supposedly had a policy of ethnic cleansing against the Arabs. In Jared Israel’s judgment, this makes Benny Morris “worse than Arafat.” Here is his reasoning:
In the middle of a terrorist war against the Israeli Jews, Benny Morris wrote lies that help the terrorists who murder innocent Jews, and which make the defense of Israel difficult. In Jared Israel’s opinion, this makes him “worse than Arafat” because “Arafat is not an Israeli Jew.”
Well, as bad as Benny Morris is, what Stephen Wise did is worse. Stephen Wise energetically sabotaged the defense of desperate European Jews who were being slaughtered by Hitler during the Holocaust, even as they were being slaughtered; in other words, Stephen Wise materially assisted one of the greatest catastrophes ever to befall humankind. In Jared Israel’s view, the fact that Stephen Wise was Jewish should increase, not decrease, his guilt. At least this would be consistent with the way he has judged Benny Morris. This would then make Stephen Wise, according to Jared Israel’s standards, worse than Adolf Hitler.
So Jared Israel has attempted to defend a man who, according to his own published standards, is worse than Adolf Hitler. Anybody who thinks that I am exaggerating is invited to read my article on Stephen Wise.
The reason that I wrote my piece on Stephen Wise is that there is widespread ignorance about him among Jews, in part because the organizations that he founded, such as the World Jewish Congress, are powerful in the world of today’s Jews, and these organizations have therefore kept most Jews from understanding what he did. Another reason is that current Jewish leaders, who inherited Wise’s position of leadership and even his specific institutional offices, are behaving much in the manner of Stephen Wise, as I have explained in a companion piece: http://www.hirhome.com/israel/leaders2.htm
Unless the Jewish people wake up to this, such Jewish ‘leaders’ will once again succeed in sabotaging the defense of the Jewish people, and we will once again face Catastrophe — all of us, not just the Jews, because when antisemites acquire enough power to kill millions of Jews, as they did in WWII, everybody else pays a cost, too.
Finally, concerning the email that Jared Israel has characterized as a threat (see Comment #42), I certainly did send it, but it is not a threat. I was within my rights to post the paragraph in question at the bottom of my demonstration that he is wrong about Nathan Weinstock. But I didn’t, not right away. Why? Because without that final paragraph, my demonstration that Jared Israel is wrong about Nathan Weinstock is a celebration of Jared Israel’s work, and not yet an open attack on him. The reason I wrote my piece like that is that I wanted to give Jared Israel an opportunity to make a public retraction. He has refused this opportunity, and so I have now posted the paragraph.
Francisco Gil-White, Historical and Investigative Research www.hirhome.com
Comment by gilwhite
— June 26, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
I am educated, but I’m not a scholar, so I speak from my heart and my mind, being a devout Zionist whose dedication is to the saving of Israel.
The bickering between all of these scholars is a “he said and he said and they said”, which, in my opinion is similar to the Hasidic Jews in Jerusalem in ‘48 who refused to pick up a rifle, not only for self protection but to protect others. Quite frankly, trying to understand these quibbles has put me to sleep.
Let’s put this issue to bed and consentrate on the issue of the past several days and what must be done. The fact that the IDF has not started an offense against the Pals is before now is disgusting and shows what Olmert and Peretz’s phylosophy is, should be the wake up call for all Israel and Jews worldwide.
The “wake up call” was mentioned in one of the earlier comments, but if the arguments continue there will be nothing to wake up to.
Comment by Ed D
— June 26, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
Francisco,
I have read your posted reply #55 to Jared and I must say I find it disappointing, if not specious.
You have stated that
I beg to differ and no it is not fine.
Not only must an historian be fair, accurate and complete in citing facts, attributable quotes, and sources of information upon which analysis proceeds and conclusions are drawn and reached, but an historian must also appear to be fair in all those respects.
In my view, while you may have an argument that you were in fact fair in quoting only a part of what Rabbi Wise was reported to have said said, you have opened yourself up to criticism that you do not appear to be fair.
You did lift a brief part sentence from the whole statement of Rabbi Stephen Wise which you quoted thusly:
Jared Israel notes that brief lift comes from the following total quote which I presume you do not take issue with:
If as you contend, the partial quote you referred to should be readily apparent to all that it is not acceptable in any context, then why not quote the entire passage, seize on those words you actually quoted and dismiss the balance of what words were attributed to Rabbi Wise as in no any way changing, altering or otherwise softening or excusing the first words used by him?
People whether famous or not, have at times spoken rashly in a way that does not communicate their true feelings or they could have said it better so that their words would not be misinterpreted or taken out of context.
Today, notable people who do mis-speak on matters of some import to the public or on issues of interest to the media have their words almost immediately broadcast on radio and T.V or published in the print media. If the words are controversial or the meaning capable of misinterpretation, the speaker is immediately challenged and has the opportunity to clarify what he meant. Whether the public accepts the explanation or not, apart from what they might want to believe, depends on whether the speaker gave a credible and acceptable explanation.
Back in the 1930′ - 40’s the words of Rabbi Wise would not have been transmitted to the public or the Jewish community as those words may have been transmitted today. Further, those words would not necessarily have come to a broad spectrum of the public, the Jewish community or the media in any event.
Further those words may have been what Rabbi Wise told someone he had said to another and those words were recorded for posterity’s sake, to be read again in future by any researcher interested in Rabbi Stephen Wise or in the times he played some role in.
I have not re-read all of Jared’s previous postings in this regard, but I think he has taken you to task as regards Rabbi Wise for misquoting him as noted above and thereby casting false aspersions on his character.
I disagree with Jared to an extent. In taking the view that you have about Rabbi Wise, I think one must go further than Jared in his saying you took a part of Rabbi Wise’s words out of the context of the whole of the pertinent quoted passage.
In my view, to paint a fair picture of someone as you say you have of Rabbi Stephen Wise, you must not only refer to what he said in the context of the whole passage you quote from, it is further incumbent upon you to consider that quote in the context of all other major statements by Rabbi Wise and his deeds and then analyze all his words and deeds in the context of the times he said and did those things.
I am surprised frankly that you did not respond to Jared in that fashion, for to an extent at least, that is what you sought to do in your article, “How the mainstream Jewish leadership failed the Jewish people in World War II” which I have now read.
I must confess that as I began to read your article, I found I was wanting to reject your premise, for I had great difficulty accepting it. I did read further as objectively as I could.
I am not sufficiently familiar with this era of American Jewish history to know whether you have fairly and completely set out the history to support your conclusions, though some of what you said about the anti-Semitic or indifferent attitude of Americans at the time, I had some passing knowledge of.
On concluding your article, I was not satisfied you had reached the right conclusion that Rabbi Wise and some other Jewish leaders were motivated to act as they did out of a sense of deliberately not caring for the European Jews, what was happening to them or that Rabbi Wise and other Jewish leaders deliberately acted to keep America from taking steps to stop Hitler’s genocide of the Jews.
If you are correct however that the thinking and actions of Rabbi Wise and his associate leaders resulted in unwittingly aiding Hitler to continue his genocide of the Jews by standing in the way of America taking measures to stop him, that could I think also be explained in terms of narrow mindedness, a failure to truly appreciate what was happening, ego, selfishness, self aggrandisement and other human weaknesses that can twist one’s mind from doing the right thing.
Over the centuries, Jews have endured deadly anti-Semitism. Quite often it was reported in history that the Jewish attitude was to be silent or it would make things even worse. In fact within the context of those times in earlier centuries, such thinking may well have been warranted.
You have noted such thinking on the part of Rabbi Wise. While such thinking may not have had a place in a 1930 - 1940 American society, that Jewish reaction to say and do nothing for fear that Jews would suffer even greater harm from anti-Semitism may still, in spite of by then being an irrational view, have worked on the minds of those Jews who were raised with that history of Jewish reaction to anti-Semitism in mind.
Perhaps that sentiment and a different view as to what was in world Jewry’s best interest may have accounted for Rabbi wise’s differences of opinion compared with Peter Bergson, who by his words and deeds, you make out to be the hero and Rabbi Wise the anti-hero.
Further, Francisco, you have analyzed that era and Rabbi Wise’s role in it with both the benefit of hindsight and with the mind of a man living in 2005. You have not in your article dealt with trying to understand what Rabbi Wise said or did in the context of the times he lived in.
As I advised I do not know nearly enough of the history you recount and the people you have quoted to take issue with your article save for my having found other reasons, less negative and pejorative to account for why Rabbi Wise said and did what you say he said and did.
Finally as regards the e mail you wrote to Jared, while I do not think it is a threat per se, it does sound ominous and in a way threatening.
Having said that, I repeat what I earlier wrote.
I think the comment you told Jared that you would add to your article, “On the supposed ‘about face’ of some anti-Israeli historians” which you now have done, makes no sense whatsoever. It actually undermines your article in the sense that you approvingly quoted Jared Israel extensively in that article and note or imply he is an authority you rely on to make your point.
By adding your comment at the end of your article you attack Jared Israel’s credibility as you have. That consequently undermines the point you made in your article in reliance on Jared Israel as an authority whom you wind up trying to discredit in a manner clearly unconnected with the thrust of your article.
Why not just re-write your article and make your point relying on someone else you consider an authority.
Having first implicitly lauded Jared as an authority and then adding a paragraph to discredit him, it is almost like you have shot yourself in the foot.
This rivalry between you and Jared is not really serving any purpose. I hope for both your sakes you find a way to end it and get back on track of writing articles.
If either of you want to take issue with the other, let it be done in a civil, respectful and informative manner for the benefit of informing readers and limit attacks to only what one says and which does not characterize who one is.
Those are my thoughts.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— June 26, 2006 @ 11:08 pm
Bill
You write about Isseroff the following:
“When it comes to Ami Isseroff, I do think he is exceedingly knowledgable, bright, insightful and an excellent writer. ”
I do not know he may be all of those things.
But that is not the most important thing about Isseroff Bill.
If his piolitical views are not totally demolished in front of the Israeli people, then there is no chance that Israel can survive as a nation. I hope to shortly say something more on this in a separate article.
On the question of Rabbi Wise and Peter Bergson. Is it true that when Bergson came to the US that he immediately was supported by followers of the Irgun, and that Rabbi Wise was opposed to Bergson at least in part on that basis?
If that is the case then we are back once again to the historical split inside Zionism.
This has also come up in my investigation of Isseroff, who repeats the slander that there was a “massacre” at Deir Yassin.
In this he also attacks without evidence the article by Morton Klein and by Uri Milstein.
Can I come back to what you wrote in answer to Isseroff:
“To speak of the Irgun’s excesses or murders at Deir Yassin and their celebrating that event shameful, mischaracterizes the significance of that incident by guaging it by today’s standards and further, takes it out of the context what the circumstances within which that incident occurred.
Further, in the Palestinian propaganda rhetoric today I seem to recall that in suggesting Israeli leaders were terrorists, the accusation is limited to Deir Yassin and the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. Of course with the latter, if the Jews were terrorists in bombing the Kind David Hotel, the Palestinians fail to note that the Jews gave a 10 minute or so warning that was not heeded. No Palestinian terrorist ever gave such warning.”
You seem to call above the Deir Yassin event shameful. Is that how you see it? Then if that is the case you really are rather close to Isseroff.
I thought it was well proven that the Deir Yassin “Massacre” was an awful hoax, made more awful because it implicated a large section of the Jewish establishment in creating that hoax.
For myself, though I clearly have differences with both, I would OBVIOUSLY refuse to place their names (Jared and Francisco) in the same sentence or context as Isseroff.
Comment by Felix Quigley
— June 27, 2006 @ 6:55 am
Felix,
In your posting you have made several points that you touch on in your following summation:
You obviously have judged whatever Ami Isseroff has said by the political leanings you have attributed to him.
I have judged Ami, Jared and Francisco, not by their politics, but by what I have read of their writings irrespective of their political leanings.
I will not disassociate myself from thinking well of all of them in the terms I have previously expressed.
That said, you seem to be overlooking that in spite of my regard for all of them, I do not accept all they say and therefor have taken issue with them in respect of certain things they have said or the way they have expressed themselves.
I am no student of history nor have I ever professed a deep extensive knowledge of history. That for me is a weakness in contributing my views in forums such as this. It is a weakness I do not have the time to correct, though in following this forum, I have learned more than I knew before.
As regards the so called Irgun massacre at Deir Yassin I had understood it much in the terms you express, except that I had read that there were good and strategic military reasons for the Irgun to have done what they did.
Ami, like Jared and Francisco are far more knowledgable of Middle East, Jewish and Israeli history than I.
It is not I that called Deir Yassin a shameful event in Jewish history pre-Israel, but Ami has so characterized it in saying the Irgun did not have good and strategic military reason to go in and kill the Arab residents of Deir Yassin.
I have deferred to Ami’s obvious superior knowledge of that event.
Felix, in saying that because I have deferred to Ami’s recitation of the Deir Yassin history, I must be really close to Ami Isseroff, implying further perhaps that I share Ami Isseroff’s politics.
In saying that Felix, you are doing to me what Jared has accused Francisco of doing to Rabbi Wise’s memory by having extracted a part of what Rabbi Wise had said and drawn conclusions from that part which part could not fairly be interpreted in isolation because the true meaning of Rabbi Wise’s words that Francisco extracted could only come from reading those words in the context of the whole of Rabbi Wise’s words.
In saying that Felix, I am not characterizing your taking my words out of context from the whole of my post #48 which responds to Ami Isseroff’s post # 47, as Jared so poorly characterized Francisco’s motives and integrity for having done so.
I would however ask you to again read my post # 48.
It should be abundantly clear that while I deferred to Ami Isseroff’s stated history of Deir Yassin, I still strongly disagreed with him to the extent that his comments were taken out of context of the whole situation and events leading up to Deir Yassin and moreso that to accept the event as Ami states it without more, egregiously draws an unacceptable moral equivilence between perhaps several or so wrongs Jews did to Arabs in both pre and post Israel days and the countless hate inspired wrongs Arabs and Palestinians have inflicted upon the Jews to this day.
In conclusion, while I obviously will be mindful of the politics of the writer, I try to not let that unduly influence my judgment as to the merit of what they have to say.
Where the politics of the writer however appears to be unduly influencing their analysis and conclusion over where the evidence and facts objectively lead, it is they by their own slavish adherence to their politics that undermines the value of what they have to say. That too, I am mindful of.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— June 27, 2006 @ 8:47 am
There is a political chasm between us and Isseroff. Believe me. More later on this.
Comment by Felix Quigley
— June 28, 2006 @ 6:04 am
Bill
I feel I am not a researcher in the sense of Jared and Francisco. I have political differences with them, I do think, on the issue of method.
Life to me is too short. I research only with a view to action.
I am totally convinced now that a revolutionary party or leadership will not emerge in Israel or anywhere spontaneously. It must be conscously built.
We need a party of a new type there.
It will incorporate the lessons of the research of people like that but research by itself is inadequate. As I said we need a party.
Yet if we understand the lessons of Yugoslavia, especially the extent to which the lies of the Media went, then it can guide us in what is required.
Now many good Jewish people know about the lies of the Guardian etc in relation to Israel. Believe me, the lies in relation to Yugoslavia were even more extreme.
And we have to ask, and they ask, was there a conspiracy involved and how could it work?
Now there are certain principles involved here in Isseroff. He attacks the research of Morton Klein and Uri Milstein.
Now the Klein article is just fantastic. It is very detailed.
It makes me so angry that Isseroff dismissed Klein in a few words. I think Isseroff called him “Mort”.
I am not a Jew. I would never call him Mort. As if I was on a buddy relationship with him. I hate that because he Isseroff at the same time slandered his article or more precisely dismissed it.
Some people here often say they are not knowledgable etc.
But we are all facing a situation where we just HAVE to get to grips with knowledge.
This debate here. I NEVER accepted the terms of Jared. I have widened the discussion out and Isseroff has come up. That has taken us to the very heart of the Israeli and International Peace Movement, which is the very end of the future of Israel if not challenged
All the best Bill and Gary
Comment by Felix Quigley
— June 28, 2006 @ 6:29 am
Hi Felix,
I must confess I have not read the details of the history of Yugoslavia as Francisco and Jared have presented them, so I cannot comment as I do not know their significance to this discussion.
As for Isseroff, I thought you gave him far more attention than was warranted. He is but one person who holds some different views than most who participate in this forum.
I did note however he is disdainful of Chomsky. It proves to me that while assigning political leaning labels to people may be a convenient shorthand to stereotype how they think, labelling is not reliable in every instance.
I do not think it was worth getting upset about Isseroff being dismissive of Klein’s research and conclusions.
If Isseroff was well positioned to win general acceptance of his views on Deir Yassin or any other issue that we may differ on, then it would be worth getting upset about and making your own efforts to stand in his way to ensure your view would be the preferred view.
As for challenging Isseroff’s peace movement to the extent it seeks to portray a reality that we disagree with, it is important to do so.
There are however many such movements in and outside of Israel, not to mention Israeli voices that support the Palestinians over Israel.
What Felix do you propose in order to take them all on?
This rhetorical question of you only serves to underline that it is no easy task to get the general world public and indeed the majority of the Israeli public to be as dismissive of the ideas that peace activists such as Isseroff’s group promote.
I had expected Francisco to respond to my comments regarding his explanation regarding Jared’s concerns about misquoting Rabbi Wise, but he hasn’t and it appears Jared too has lost interest in this discussion thread so perhaps this is a good time to just leave it and get on to other things.
Regards,
Comment by Bill Narvey
— June 28, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
We need a party of a new type there.
The components of a movement exist and will come together at some point in time. At the present the movement is both consciously and unconsciously being built.
The movement is somewhat dormant now because it weak. It is weak not because the people who will make it up are not passionate, but because they are a minority lacking power. As it comes together it will become organized, gaining mass and momentum.
I think also that when it emerges - at least as formidable force - it more than likely will be spontaneous.
What is missing is a catalyst; though it is possible that prolonged failure of the status-quo could gradually cause a shift (I highly doubt this because it should have already happened if that were the case)but a gradual shift would lack momentum.
What I am convinced will happen is that Israel will face a cataclysm. The situation will become incontrovertible and so dire due to failed policies of the past and present that Israel will be facing imminent destruction; a shift will then take place out of desperation and the lack of any other realistic option.
Comment by RandyTexas
— June 28, 2006 @ 3:43 pm