Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘norman-finkelstein’

MJ Rosenberg Joins J Street, Calls My Criticism of Jesse Jackson Jr’s Aipac Junket ‘Bizarre’

Thursday, August 25th, 2011

UPDATE: MJ Rosenberg today apologized on his Twitter feed for his criticism of me.  He’s also levelled severe criticism against Adam Holland after becoming more familiar with his actual views about me, Israel and related matters.  It takes a big person and heart to do what MJ did and I appreciate it.  Please read what follows in this light.

At one time, I considered myself a friend and political ally of Media Matters columnist MJ Rosenberg.  But then, Norman Finkelstein was arrested by Israel after landing at Ben Gurion Airport on his way to visit a Palestinian friend who worked for B’Tselem.  Israel’s claims against Finkelstein were preposterous (even later, Israel barred Noam Chomsky from entering Israel to speak at a conference).  I wrote to a group of bloggers and human rights activists I knew to try to drum up opposition to his arrest.

Two of those I wrote to were exceedingly hostile to Finkelstein. One of them was MJ Rosenberg.  It shocked me at the time since I thought it was a betrayal of the values I thought progressives would adopt around this issue.  Many, including myself, disagree with Finkelstein’s views on some issues.  But that’s not the point.  The point is whether or not a democracy, whether it be the U.S. or Israel, should entertain unpopular ideas and those who espouse them.  Why should a true democracy need to shield itself from ideas it doesn’t like?  And if one democracy does this for one set of ideas, why shouldn’t another democracy suppress ideas your country holds dear?  And pretty soon you have a world that is deaf, dumb and blind to anything but what they wish to see, hear and say.

I don’t have a problem with banning a person who has violated the criminal laws of your country, but banning someone merely for their ideas is reprehensible.  We did this here to Tariq Ramadan during the Bush administration and Britain tried to do it to Sheikh Raed Salah recently in an incident that was largely provoked by anti-Muslim blogger, Michael Weiss.

Most people see Rosenberg as a progressive on the Israeli-Arab conflict.  But as you can see, he has his blind spots.  Similarly, he’s jumped into bed with pro-Israel blogger Adam Holland and J Street in their smear campaign against me for criticizing Jesse Jackson’s Jerusalem Post op-ed, in which he falsely accused the Palestinians of betraying the cause of non-violence in their campaign for statehood.  In this tweet, he called my attack on Jackson “bizarre,” without offering a shred of evidence to support the claim.  In fact, I doubt he read my post nor my post criticizing the Aipac junket which brought 81 Congressmembers to Israel, including Jesse Jackson.

Nor can Rosenberg find objectionable my views that Representatives who accept an Aipac junket are whoring and schnorring at the public trough since I’ve heard him say as much myself.  So what is it that J Street and Rosenberg find objectionable?  No one knows because they’re sloganeering via tweets rather than rational discourse.

In fact, I’ve dared Rosenberg to find a single idea in Jackson’s op-ed with which he agrees.  Similarly, I’ve dared Rosenberg to find a single idea in Holland’s blog with which he agrees.  Does MJ have a clue about who he’s jumped into bed with?  I doubt it just as I doubt J Street did when they wrote that my criticism of Jackson was “crazy, disgusting and racist.”  Do either of them realize that Adam Holland detests virtually everything they stand for?  Do they even know what he stands for?

When it comes right down to it I love them attacking me while they defend Jesse Jackson Jr. for joining Aipac’s Israel junket.  That’s a position I’ll gladly defend any day.

My sneaking suspicion is that this is somehow payback for the incredulity I expressed to Rosenberg when he so harshly attacked Norman Finkelstein.  If anything, this incident has taught me who my friends are and aren’t, and it’s confirmed that those you thought of as close to you politically can drift very far from those shores over time.

The Terror Industry and Anti-Jihadism, Who Benefits?

Thursday, September 16th, 2010

Norman Finkelstein coined the phrase the “Holocaust industry” in his book of the same name, to describe the nexus of Jewish groups, lawyers, politicians, and communal leaders who enrich their power and pocketbook by trumpeting the anti-Semitism threat and causing anxiety and paranoia among world Jewry as a result.  As a result of Finkelstein’s acute analysis, he’s earned outrage and scorn from those in the Jewish community who he has skewered.

For the past decade or more, since the 1990s demise of the Communist “menace” and its accompanying gravy train, neocons have turned to terror as their new bogeyman.  A new Terror Industry has sprung up and it is populated with the usual retired generals (William Boykin), former government officials (Bolton, Gaffney), corporate opportunists (Aubrey Chernick), ideologues and intellectual heavy-lifters (Pipes, Horowitz, Podhoretz, Peretz, Kristol).  Just as the Jefferson’s tree of liberty needed to be fed with the blood of tyrants, so the Terror apparatus needs to be fed with new political fodder.

Such is the effort led by Jewish pro-Israel neocons to turn anti-jihadism into the Terror Industry’s new mantra.

There at the creation was Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy.  You’ll recall that Gaffney was a middle-ranking member of Ronald Reagans’ Defense Department.  As early as 1990, Christopher Hitchens, before he became a parody of himself, wrote in his book, How Neo-Conservatives Perish,  about Gaffney’s prescience in grasping at the need for a new source of political power to replace the decline of Communism.  Since then, he’s become one of the go-to guys for all things hawkish, neocon and pro-Israel among policy wonks.

Today, Matt Duss wrote about a report on alleged American Muslim terror threats which was, I’m embarrassed to say, actually endorsed by three members of Congress.  Among them were Her Looniness Michelle Bachman and Peter Hoekstra, former chair of the House Intelligence Committee.  If you want a sense of what the national security agenda of a new Republican House majority would be read the report, Sharia: The Threat To America.

According to it, the new Muslim bogeyman is Shariah, about which the authors in their Times op-ed say:

Today, the United States faces a similarly insidious ideological threat:Shariah, the authoritarian doctrine that animates the Islamists and their jihadism…

Shariah is the crucial fault line of Islam’s internecine struggle. On one side of the divide are Muslim reformers and authentic moderates…

The other side of the divide is dominated by “Islamists,” who are Muslim supremacists. Like erstwhile proponents of communism and Nazism, these supremacists – some terrorists, others employing stealthier means – seek to impose a global theocratic and authoritarian regime, called a caliphate. On this side of the divide, Shariah is a compulsory system that Muslims are obliged to wage jihad to install and to which the rest of the world is required to submit.

For these ideologues, Shariah is not a private matter. They see the West as an infidel enemy to be conquered, not a culture and civilization to be embraced or at least tolerated. It is impossible, they maintain, for alternative legal systems and forms of government like ours to coexist peacefully with the end-state they seek.

…we need to come to grips with Shariah. Whether pursued through violent jihad or the stealthier techniques the Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad” or dawa (the call to Islam), Shariah rejects fundamental premises of constitutional governance and American society…

Here’s the money quote:

Shariah adherents – including a network of Muslim Brotherhood-connected organizations operating in the United States – are seriously pursuing civilization jihad in this country. Their agenda is about power, not faith…

…The endgame of Islamist ideology is the same whether pursued by terrorists or nonviolent activists: to extort American society into Sharia compliance.

The Sharia Report was sponsored by Gaffney’s CSP, and written by three former Cold Warriors turned anti-jihadis, among them James Woolsey and the National Review’s Andrew McCarthy.  In the Washington Times where he celebrated the release of the report he had the temerity to say that among the Muslims Pres. Obama invites to the White House for Iftar dinners might be members of Al Qaeda.  He’s also notorious for claiming that Pres. Obama “might” still be a Muslim.  He also claims that the current administration has “communicated submission” to America’s enemies.

Duss in his post, has identified an old familiar Jewish extremist face peeking out of the CSP woodwork, its general counsel, David Yerushalmi (ne Beychok).  When last seen in this blog, he had been banished by, of all people, Daniel Pipes for embarrassing the group, Stop the Madrassa (where he also was general counsel), with his ultra-extremist beliefs.  That group was the catalyst for the anti-Muslim backlash that led New York’s mayor and schools chancellor to demand the resignation of Debbie Almontaser, the founding principal of the Muslim charter school, the Khalil Gibran Academy.  She has successfully sued the city under an EEOC suit.

Though trained as a lawyer, Yerushalmi earns his living from the Terror Industry and its new anti-jihadi adjunct.  He has reportedly become Frank Gaffney’s “rabbi” when it comes to the study of Islamism and jihadism.  But where has Yerushalmi learned about Islam?  Does he have a graduate degree, even from as slanted a source as Bernard Lewis?  No.  Did he study Islam with any noted scholars (even non-Muslim)?  Doubtful.  What Yerushalmi has are some half-baked notions he’s either read in a book or developed out of his own paranoiac imagination about the Muslim menace.

Among Yerushalmi’s more wacky views: American Muslims should be confined to concentration camps for the threat they pose of overthrowing the government.  This is a quotation from his website:

The Congress of the United States of America shall declare the US at war with the Muslim Nation.

He and his anti-jihadi Gauleiter, Dave Gaubatz, orchestrated a “sting” against D.C. area local mosques by posing as worshippers and seeking to “out” the imams for their alleged support of jihad and terror.  You’ll recall this is the same Gaubatz whose son posed as an intern while working at CAIR and stole internal organizational documents which dad was hoping would prove CAIR’s commitment to a Sharia overthrow of the U.S. government.  Daddy G. just accepted a legal ruling that he must return the documents which his son had stolen.

Returning to the other Dave (Yerushalmi), giving the vote to African-Americans was a foolish idea.  He calls this “raw” or “liberal democracy” and he’s agin’ it.  Doesn’t think much of Abe Lincoln, either.  Says the Founding Fathers opposed democracy as well.  He may be one of the few Jewish white supremacists around.  He calls Bill O’Reilly a “secular progressive” and of Sean Hannity, he says he ”participates in the destruction of America’s national existence.”

He’s apparently learned a lesson or two about keeping his outlandish views under wraps because his website, SANEWorks (Society of Americans for National Existence), used to be publicly accessible and now is only available to those who pony up the $2,000 subscription fee.

At the press conference which featured the announcement of report, Matt questioned Gaffney about the origin of the notions of Islam found in it.  The former secured a damaging admission from the anti-jihadi wonk:

Noting some of the report’s broad and controversial claims about Islamic law, such as that all Muslims are duty-bound to wage jihad against unbelievers, I asked Gaffney how many actual Muslims or Islamic scholars he and his group had consulted with in writing the report. He could not name any, though he noted that he had consulted with various Muslims “over the years.”

So there you have it. A report on the threat posed by Islamic law to the United States, one of whose leaders admits to having started studying Islam only three years ago, whose authors admit consulting with no actual Muslims, produced by a think tank that has previously claimed that key members of the Obama administration are part of the Iran Lobby.

In short, this is all nonsense.  But it is very dangerous nonsense.  It is nonsense that could easily lead us into war with Iran. And that would be for starters.  These ghoulish hatemongers propose a holy war against 1.4-billion people.  They would have our country in a perpetual state of conflict, a latter-day anti-Muslim Sparta.  As for me, I prefer to be Athens any day.

We must say no to the Terror Industry and their anti-Muslim ideologues.  If they are ascendant in the national political debate, it means the destruction of everything many of us hold dear about this country.  And we’ll say Dick Cheney was a piker by comparison.

Jewlicious Promotes Finkelstein Book

Saturday, March 27th, 2010

It’s one of those delicious ironies of life when you find someone who is a true scumbag promoting a product that is actually virtuous.  There’s a sort of karmic realignment that somehow pleases.  So it was with a touch of wonderment and puzzlement I noted that David Abitbol features a flash ad for Norman Finkelstein’s new book, This Time We’ve Gone Too Far.  The book is a polemic against Israel’s Gaza war and represents every value and political idea about Israel that Abitbol detests.  The title of the book might also be a warning about some of Abitbol’s more egregious behavior.

I urge you to buy the book and raise Abitbol’s blood pressure a point or two.  And then go see the new documentary, American Radical: the Trials of Norman Finkelstein, and make Abitbol just the slightest bit apoplectic.

Abitbol is the kind of scuzz who will counterattack by lying and claiming that Norman Finkelstein and I are anti-Israel soulmates.  So I’ll deny him the pleasure of this lie (he’ll take advantage of others no doubt) by pre-empting it.  I pick and choose the issues on which I support or oppose Finkelstein.  And anyone who cares to actually do any research (something Abitbol has never heard of) will find that I’ve both praised and criticized the former.  But my real intent is to point out that Abitbol is either a hypocrite or allows his blog to promote something he detests.

Abitbol also believes in stealing copyrighted images of those he wishes to insult (like me) and displaying them at his blog with suitably demeaning and lying captions.  He panders to the worst prejudices common to some Jews.

UPDATE: I’ve learned that advertising is sold on Abitbol’s site by a third-party and that this individual was contracted by Finkelstein’s publisher to sell ads on Jewish blogs and websites.  How the publisher allowed the third party to sell ads for this book on this site is way beyond me.  Do advertisers ordinarily like having their products dissed on sites they pay to display their ads?  I now feature the book in my sidebar with a link to the publisher’s website.  If you’re a blogger I urge you to do the same.  Maybe we can offset some of Abitbol’s cynicism and biting of the hand that feeds him.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Dershowitz: Keep Those Lies Comin’

Monday, March 22nd, 2010


Those of you who remember the Canadian Jewish film, Lies My Father Told Me, might think of Alan Dershowitz virtually whenever he opens his mouth.  And regrettably he did so (lied, that is) once again at the Aipac national conference.  Dersh couldn’t resist the impulse to chew out Hadar Susskind, J Street’s policy director, who was crashing (by invitation I presume) the Aipac event.  Unfortunately for Aipac, there was a French camera crew that recorded the imbroglio (Aipac’s PR flack Josh Bloch threw them out for their trouble). Aipac can’t be happy that Dersh went “off message” and gave J Street such great YouTube coverage on their big day.

Among the lies Dersh unloaded on Susskind:

“You should ask yourself why Norman Finkelstein loves you.”

The only problem: Norman Finkelstein doesn’t “love” J Street.  He doesn’t even support J Street.  If anything Finkelstein would despise the group as being insufficiently strong in its views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Dersh also accuses J Street of having Zbigniew Brezinski speak at its national conference. Though Amy Spitalnick and Susskind immediately point out his error he blusters through it all and maintains his lie with a straight face.

In the next breath, Dershowitz says:

I’ll speak to anybody. I’ll speak to Hamas, I’ll speak to Hezbollah.

I’m going to go out on a limb and out Dershowitz Dershowitz. I’ll pay him real money if he can prove he has any substantive contact with any representative of Hamas or Hezbollah in the next six months. Put your money where your mouth is, Al.

Another lie:

Some of Israel’s worst enemies have signed on in support of J Street.

But the problem with Dershowitz’s lies is that they sound just credible enough when he utters them that you’re hoodwinked for just the amount of time it takes for him to escape to utter the next lie.  By the time you’ve cottoned onto him he’s three lies down the line from where you caught him.

What’s truly comic and idiotic about Dershowitz is that he actually attempts to advance the argument that if J Street was really serious about being pro-Israel they would join Aipac and attempt to turn it into the kind of organization they (J Street) would like it to be. Seriously. Dersh actually tells the J Street staff member:

What we do is resolve our differences internally and we speak with one voice. And we put out a consensus statement on [sic] one voice.

Folks, these are the Jewish dinosaurs speaking. And you remember what happened to T-Rex? The Dershes of the Jewish world will have some impact for some time. But the longer they try to get away with sclerotic thinking like this the less impact and credibility they will have on anyone.

Dersh also tells Susskind rather incredulously that: “You know there are those who think that Aipac is too far left.” As if the fact that Sheldon Adelson thinks Aipac is a bunch of Jewish commies has any significance whatsoever to anyone but Shelly Adelson & Alan Dershowitz and Howard Kohr. Inside Jewish baseball, Al. Who cares?

Dersh lets Susskind know that he doesn’t think Aipac is “too far right” or “too far right” but “neutral on these issues!” Neutral! What universe is he living in?

Ron Kampeas should spend more time reading Steve Clemons and he would learn that the faux Aipac press release distributed today supporting a settlement freeze was written in jest by Clemons.  Or at least if it wasn’t written by him, it was inspired by a mock Aipac press release he did write.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

‘Rachel’ Excluded from Seattle Jewish Film Festival

Sunday, February 14th, 2010


Last year, the San Francisco Film Festival bravely programmed the film Rachel, about the life and death of Olympia-raised pro-Palestine peace activist, Rachel Corrie.  As a result of the screening, the director of the Koret Foundation slammed both the film and the festival for supporting “anti-Israel propaganda.”  To its credit, the Festival didn’t cancel the film and didn’t back down in any substantive way.

The upcoming Seattle Jewish Film Festival has no such courage of its convictions.  The director took one look at the first image on screen and said: “No way:”

Beyond her hopes that Seattle’s festival will bring local Jews together rather than divide, Lavitt said she rejected Rachel first and foremost on quality, which she said was too incendiary and unwilling to see more than one side of the story. Unlike the stage play My Name is Rachel Corrie, in which Corrie’s character opens with her head under a sheet and shining a flashlight on her journal, “this film…begins with the body of Rachel Corrie in a morgue,” Lavitt said. “No dialogue could get your head past that.”

Notice the director says she rejected the film because of its poor quality and then quickly adds it was “too incendiary.”  Of the two, I think we know what the real reason for rejection was.  And apparently you can’t exhibit any film at the Seattle festival that includes images of a dead American girl killed by the IDF.

To view an interview with filmmaker Simone Bitton, watch this YouTube video.

Another film you won’t see this year in Seattle is American Radical: the Trials of Norman Finkelstein.  If you thought Rachel Corrie was too “incendiary,” Norman Finkelstein is downright inflammatory.  And Seattle doesn’t do controversy apparently.  The motto seems to be: don’t rock the boat.  Now here I always thought the purpose of great film and art was to provoke, to question, to trouble, to make you think about the big questions of Jewish identity.  In Seattle, there’s a six foot fence around these issues.

There is one excellent Israeli film the festival is featuring, Ajami, which is an unusual film in that it portrays the seamier side of Israeli life and the poor Tel Aviv-Jaffo neighborhood of Ajami.  Of course, it hasn’t hurt the film that it swept all major Israeli film awards and has been nominated for an Oscar. Clearly, liberal Zionists in Seattle feel comfortable with a film that Israel and the outside world has embraced even if it does deal with troubling notions of what it is to be an Israeli Palestinian in one of Israel’s poorest neigborhoods. But when it comes to discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you can forget about it. As far as the Seattle festival is concerned, the 2007 Gaza war never happened. BDS doesn’t exist and the Goldstone Report never happened. Let’s see if Ms. Lavitt is willing to program documentaries about these difficult issues in future festivals.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

American Radical: the Trials of Norman Finkelstein

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

The new documentary about Norman Finkelstein has premiered in Chicago and will be available shortly for screenings, purchase and rental.  It premiered at the Chicago Underground Film Festival this past weekend.  Colleges, universities and other organizations can purchase an Institutional DVD copy (sold with non-paying public performance rights) on Arab Film’s website here. Home Video DVD copies will be for sale in early 2010.

The blurb for the film says:

American Radical is the probing documentary portrait of American academic and activist Norman Finkelstein. A devoted son of Holocaust survivors, ardent critic of Israeli and US Mid-East policies, and author of six provocative books, Finkelstein has been at the center of many intractable controversies.Called a lunatic and a self-hating Jew by some and an inspirational, street-fighting revolutionary by others, Finkelstein is a deeply polarizing figure whose struggles arise from core questions about freedom, identity and nationhood. Following him as he presents his message to audiences around the globe, the film provides an intimate portrait of the man behind the controversy, giving voice to Finkelstein’s critics as well as his supporters.

…When Noam Chomsky first suggested to David Ridgen that he work with Finkelstein on a film project, Ridgen quickly became attracted to the idea. Having always been interested in individuals who take bold action, he knew that Finkelstein would make an ideal documentary subject, and he began working on AMERICAN RADICAL in 1997. Director Nicolas Rossier, who had begun putting together his own film about Finkelstein in 2001, joined forces with Ridgen in 2007 and the two have collaborated on AMERICAN RADICAL ever since. Says Rossier, “Some have accused Finkelstein of being a Holocaust denier in order to delegitimize his arguments. We would not have made a film on Finkelstein if we had any doubts on this matter. Norman Finkelstein is wired entirely through the prism of the Holocaust. His apartment is plastered with photos of relatives who were killed in the Nazi death camps.”

…According to John Sinno of Typecast Films, “(the film) not only examines some of the emotional and intellectual underpinnings that have made Professor Finkelstein an uncompromising and controversial figure, but it also provides glimpses of a private and sometimes vulnerable side to Finkelstein that is not experienced by attending his public appearances.”

Those who’ve followed the story of Finkelstein’s ejection from DePaul University for having the temerity to cross swords with Alan Dershowitz; and Finkelstein’s imprisonment by Israel after he attempted to visit his best friend in the West Bank–will be an excited at the prospect of this film, as I am.  And before all the haters sharpen their knives, let’s make clear that I am not a whole-hearted supporter or admirer of Norman Finkelstein.  But I believe he represents a legitimate, acute voice that needs to be heard concerning the issues that are close to his heart.  I don’t see him as always right.  But he’s always someone with whose ideas we should grapple.

Finkelstein to Invoke Law of Return if Israel Refuses Entry

Friday, July 11th, 2008

In an otherwise disdainful and painfully partisan profile of Norman Finkelstein written by Jewish Week reporter Stewart Ain, Norman Finkelstein reveals that he plans to meet with Israeli consular officials in September to get an undertaking from them that he will be allowed to enter Israel should he attempt to do so (he was recently deported by Israel due to his outspoken criticism of its policies):

Finkelstein is preparing for what may be his biggest fight, albeit one he doesn’t relish. He plans to go to the Israeli Consulate in New York in September to seek an assurance that he will be admitted in December. Such assurance, he said, would allow all concerned to “avoid the spectacle of me applying under the Law of Return [which gives every Jew the automatic right to acquire Israeli citizenship]. … It’s hard to see which side will find that more ridiculous.

“I don’t incite riots,” he continued. “I’m just going to see a friend in the occupied Palestinian territories. I’m not there to see Israel. I do not need for every facet of my life to be politicized. If Israeli authorities would just grant me a visa, I’ll move on.”

Finkelstein said he hopes to visit a Palestinian, Musa Abu Hashhash, who lives with his wife and children near Hebron. They first met in 1988 when Finkelstein went to Israel with a delegation from the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee and Finkelstein dedicated one of his books to the man, who works for B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights group.  He stressed that his visit to Israel would be a “private” affair and that he had “no interest in turning this into a political issue. … I don’t think they can deny me, and I don’t want to turn it into a test case for the Israeli High Court.”

If they refuse, and Finkelstein invokes the Law of Return and takes Israeli citizenship, it would no longer be possible to prevent him from visiting the country. I just wonder whether the IDF, in a fit of pique, will call him up for miluim (reserve duty). Then you’d have the added spectacle of the Israel critic refusing to serve and then being jailed as a seruvnik (refuser). Of course, all of this is doubtful since I don’t believe the army calls you for duty unless you’re physically in the country; and as someone who never served in any army I can’t see that he’d be much use to the IDF, even as a mere reservist.  But I’d never underestimate the willingness of the IDF and intelligence establishment to punish its critics.

There would be a delicious irony here: the Shin Bet attempts to make Finkelstein persona non grata in punishment for his outspokenness against Israeli policy toward the Arabs.  Finkelstein then one-ups them by becoming an Israeli citizen, a prospect that’s got to fill them with revulsion.  So which is worse: allowing Finkelstein to visit his friend in the West Bank unfettered?  Or standing on sordid principle and forcing your worst nightmare to become one of you?

Returning to the issue of Ain’s antagonism for his subject.  Let’s take but a single sentence out of an entire diatribe concealed as a piece of journalism:

No more loyal students, no more lectures to prepare, no more radio debates with his arch-enemy, Alan Dershowitz, no more national spotlight; Finkelstein is the man no one wants, and perhaps for good reason.

Just because Finkelstein doesn’t currently teach doesn’t mean he has no “loyal students.”  In fact, he has thousands of students he has taught who feel tremendous loyalty to him.  And while he may have no more college lectures to prepare, Finkelstein continues to lecture around the country.  In fact, he just spoke here in Seattle at the University of Washington Hillel.

It is yet another presumptuous statement to claim Finkelstein “has no more national spotlight” since his books are as relevant and as quoted as ever.  He continues to be an important part of the Jewish discourse on all the subjects about which he’s written including the Holocaust and Israel.

If Finkelstein is the “man no one wants,” then why did Ain want to interview him?  Why did a documentary filmmaker spend several years making American Radical about the former college professor; a film which promises to make a big splash when it is released.  The very statement is ludicrous.

I find it demeaning that Ain would ask Finkelstein whether, in his inability to secure college teaching work, he considered becoming a high school teacher; and it is unconscionable that Ain repeated the scurrilous Dershowitz charge that Finkelstein’s mother, an Auschwitz survivor, was a kapo.  How can Ain or his editors countenance such calumnies?  Did the reporter not research the collaboration charge by visiting Finkelstein’s website to see the powerful rebuttal he wrote?  And if he had, how could he possibly have found asking such a question to be in good taste?

Reading the profile I felt deeply embarrassed for Finkelstein that he should be treated so shabbily by the Jewish press.  This is yet another example of the parochialism and partisan nature of Jewish communal journalism in the face of controversial subjects related to Israel.

Steven Plaut’s Sockpuppet Defense

Monday, June 2nd, 2008

HNN did Steven Plaut the enormous and unwarranted favor of republishing his anti-Finkelstein bilge from Frontpagemagazine. I was rather shocked that a serious history website would provide a forum for a smearmeister like Plaut who, after all has no academic credentials to judge Finkelstein’s work. However, I was pleased that HNN published a defense of Finkelstein by Mark Levine.

What was passing strange about the comment thread for Plaut’s HNN piece was the appearance of a figure who clearly is a sockpuppet for Plaut himself. You’ll notice the shill ‘haim itzhak.’ If you read his comments carefully you’ll notice that he knows things about Plaut that pretty much only Plaut himself can know. He knows, for example, the fine points of his conviction (as twisted and distorted through Plaut’s filter) for libel by an Israeli appeals court. He knows the precise value of the Israeli shekel compared to the dollar on the date of the lower court ruling against him and the value on the date of the appeals court ruling. He knows that Plaut is a “professor” at the University of Haifa, rather than an adjunct as I claimed. Who other than Plaut (and Neve Gordon) would know that he’s appealed his case to the Israeli Supreme Court? One of his sock puppets claims Plaut to be “one of Israel’s leading academics.” Who, other than Plaut would make such a laughable claim? Finally, no one other than Plaut would use the typically Jewish brownshirt rhetoric of calling me a “kapo.” He’s a serial smearmonger against people like Neve Gordon and many others. It practically is his calling card.

But the sock puppetry that was the most hilarious was when ‘haim-itzhak-Plaut’ urged the real Plaut to sue me for libel. I replied, of course, that I’m ready and waiting to defend such a suit, my lawyers having developed a certain expertise in defending against frivolous libel suits.

I’ve alerted HNN’s editors of Plaut’s devious behavior and hopefully they’ll take some action against him since he’s clearly violated the site’s commenting policy:

In order to post comments on HNN’s discussion boards, readers must register their email address and provide their real name. Pseudonyms may be used but only with prior permission from HNN…The real, verifiable name of the poster must be made known to HNN, which will hold that information in strict confidence. Once a pseudonym has been assigned, the user must continue using only that pseudonym…

Though the fact that they published his piece to begin with makes you wonder at their editorial judgment.

Plaut is also known for circulating a celebratory “jingle” on the death of Prof. Tanya Reinhardt. When she died tragically of cancer he distributed a mock song “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead,” to the Alef list. He or someone in cahoots with him in turn deviously appropriated the e mail addresses of the Alef list to disseminate his “tribute.”

He is also strongly suspected of vandalizing the Wikipedia articles of multiple ideological adversaries. He is even suspecting of vandalizing his own article by removing factual information added there by others.

A stellar example of the human species.

UPDATE: in an earlier version of this post I claimed that a second commenter in the HNN thread, ‘art eckstein’ was also a sockpuppet for Plaut. Art Eckstein is actually a real person who teaches at the University of Maryland. I apologize for this error. However, my claim about ‘haim itzhak’ stands rock solid and I am firmly convinced of its accuracy.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE