Jews are bad.

Finkelstein has never said that JEWS are bad. He has said that SOME Jews are bad. Jews who exploit the Holocaust to extort funds fr. European parties who have no culpability for Holocaust crimes & who take these funds to line their nests. Jewish leaders who invoke the Holocaust to stir fear in the hearts of other Jews that the next Holocaust is just around the corner.

He has criticized Israel harshly. But critizing Israel harshly does not make someone an anti-Semite. it doesn’t even qualify as “anti-Jewish rhetoric.” You throw out great sound bites & slogans. Let’s dispense w. that & see some examples of F’s so-called “anti Jewish rhetoric.”

Hebrew is my first language

Then you should know the difference between a tof and a daled. You think because I corrected your transliteration mistake that I hate you or speak the “language of hatred???” Please. You’ll have to do better than that. I believe in precision in language and ideas. I have studied Hebrew since the age of 9, spent undergrad & grad yrs. studying Hebrew Lit in Israel, & a decade earning undergrad & grad degrees in Heb. Lit. Hebrew isn’t my first language & I’m not a perfect speaker. But if I make mistakes regarding Hebrew or other issues here I expect to be corrected (& am). Even people whose views I don’t like sometimes note mistakes which I acknowledge & correct.

And you should examine the tone of yr own comments here. Have you shown me any respect? If not, why would you expect me to roll out the red carpet for you? But I don’t hate you.

Finally, as to your statement “Pls. don’t try to quote transliterated Hebrew here unless you know what you’re talking about,” it’s just comical that you would jump on my transliteration as if that somehow disqualifies my ideas. (Spelling errors notwithstanding, Hebrew is my first language. What’s yours? The language of insults? The language of hatred? Tikkun Olam — ha.

Brownshirts? That was a loathsome analogy, and you know it. Such analogies serve only to distort and diminish the crimes of the Nazis.

Aw, get off yr high horse. What is truly loathsome is Alan Dershowitz and his gussied up schoolyard bully tactics against anyone who sees the need for balance in examining the I-P conflict. Dershowitz is an out of control monster, truly a repulsive human being.

As for the analogy–strong? Yes. Loathsome, not at all. I’m not diminishing or distoring the crimes of the Nazis by using the term “brownshirts.” If you bothered to read this blog you would find my work on the subject including a survivor oral history. I understand the singularity of the Holocaust. But just because the Holocaust was singular doesn’t mean there aren’t other human beings today who adopt qualities that are reminiscent of the worst in human nature.

No doubt, Finkelstein has enough fame that he will publish and earn a living from his books and the lecture circuit and not need an academic appointment. But should he wish to return, one has to wonder what university would hire him and be willing to risk the “hit” it would take from Dershowitz and his academic Brownshirts.

Brownshirts? That was a loathsome analogy, and you know it. Such analogies serve only to distort and diminish the crimes of the Nazis.

Ahmadinejad and Hitler are men of principle

I do not define mass murderers or those who advocate lunatic policies as “men of principle” & Finkelstein is certainly not in the same category. The fact that you would mention them in the same breath indicates that you’re engaging in propaganda rather than serious discourse.

When someone agrees with you, ie Finkelstein

You must’ve missed the post. I clearly stated that I don’t always agree w. Finkelstein. And he is hardly the issue. The issue more importantly is whether or not academia can tolerate a scholar w. views that diverge fr. the consensus w/o consigning him to oblivion as DePaul has done.

When someone disagrees with you, ie Plaut, they are a disgusting individual not deserving of mercy.

No, you disagree w. me. As far as I know you’re not a disgusting individual. If you can’t tell the diff. bet. Plaut & yrself then I’m not the person to explain the diff. to you.

What Finkelstein did to Dershowitz, accusations of plagiarism, are far more serious then what Plaut did to you

Now, that’s really going to endear you to me isn’t it? Would it hurt you to try to show some derech eretz to someone who feels injured by a deformed person like Plaut?

Of course a charge of plagiarism is serious. But Finkelstein didn’t make it lightly & merely because you say it’s serious doesn’t mean it’s not legitimate & accurate. Dershowitz is a foul individual of whom I’m fully prepared to belief just about the worst of anything he can put his hand to.

You fully approve of Israeli law when it comes to the the 18,000 dollar judgment against Plaut, which would not occur in the US.

The case wasn’t brought in the U.S. so how does the fact that it might not pass muster here have any bearing?

you condemn Israeli law when it comes to Asmi Bishara

First, the prosecutions are based on 2 diff. sets of laws. Plaut was prosecuted under Israeli civil law & Bishara under criminal law. If you don’t understand why someone might approve of the use of a civil law but have objections to an entirely diff. criminal law, well then again I’m not the person to explain it to you. Second, I don’t know that it’s the law so much I have a problem with. I more have a problem w. the misuses of the Shin Bet of the law or the ways in which it finesses the law & the fact that the court allows the Shin Bet to make a mockery of transparency & fairness in its approach to the case.

Wouldnt a better use of your time would be to take radioislam and ziopedia off the web than to defend Norman Fynkelstein

Why would you presume to tell me how to make the best use of my time? You make good use of yr time doing whatever you like & I’ll determine what my own priorities should be, thank you.

http://www.chomsky.info/books/power01.htm

Well, he got back one answer, from me. I told him, yeah, I think it’s an interesting topic, but I warned him, if you follow this, you’re going to get in trouble—because you’re going to expose the American intellectual community as a gang of frauds, and they are not going to like it, and they’re going to destroy you. So I said: if you want to do it, go ahead, but be aware of what you’re getting into. It’s an important issue, it makes a big difference whether you eliminate the moral basis for driving out a population—it’s preparing the basis for some real horrors—so a lot of people’s lives could be at stake. But your life is at stake too, I told him, because if you pursue this, your career is going to be ruined.