70 thoughts on “Wiesel: ‘If I Lie About Thee, O Jerusalem’ – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. “Clearly, while Jews were ready to die for Jerusalem they would not kill for Jerusalem.”

    I really HATE this habit of always claiming the moral high ground for Israel. (Think of that sickening remark by Golda Meir: “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.” Given the amount of children killed since her time, I suppose the ‘Arabs’ can never be forgiven now.)

  2. If you like Elie Wiesel…But if you don’t have any special feeling for him…

    Oh, I have special feeling for Elie Wiesel all right. I find it him a completely despicable human being. As a supposed great humanitarian he is a hypocrite. He has further shamed himself with that ad, which is little more than a pack of lies. I despise the man.

  3. ‘If I Lie About Thee, O Jerusalem, i am being true to me.’ – the weasel.

    “if i tell the truth about anything, strike me dead.” – the weasel.

  4. He is a part of the listing, as required by law, of the packaged meal titled The Holocaust. And, as the Bible might say had its scribes been so inclined, “By his propaganda shall ye know him and the company he keeps.”

  5. Yikes. Can I say you are too kind to Mr. Wiesel? That ad is beyond logic, rhetoric, religion or propaganda. It’s meaningless gibberish. Nothing is above or beyond politics and for sure Jerusalem is the textbook example of a city deeply enmeshed in politics for all of its history. Israel’s politicians failed to integrate the city for the past 62 years. Not just Jew-Arab integration but also and more seriously they failed at secular-religious integration. After such massive sociological abdications it’s amazing that Wiesel dares to say a word. And yet. Really, you are too nice.

    1. Well, what CAN you say about a professional Holocaust victim that would not be too kind? Worse yet, what can you say that would not be too kind about a professional Holocaust victim who poses as the world’s greatest humanitarian, and who at the same time cannot spare a syllable, let alone a shred of compassion, let alone a tear, let alone a syllable about the millions of Palestinians who are suffering every minute of every day at the hands of the Jewish State he so ardently supports?

  6. To a standing ovation of the 4,500 Americans attending the recent AIPAC conference with topic ”Israel: Tell Your Story” – whose loyalties are more toward a foreign country (Israel) than the US – Zionist entity’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Bibi) declared: “The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3000 years ago and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today. Jerusalem is not a settlement. It’s our capital”.

    Now, one doesn’t need a PhD in world history to figure out that Bibi was lying from both sides of his Zionist mouth. Even Israeli professor Shlomo Sand has admitted in his book ‘When and how Jewish people were invented?‘ that modern Jewish people were invented a little more than a century ago. Therefore, Jewish people could not be building Jerusalem 3000 years ago. However, they have been Judeazing Jerusalem city since 1948 when half the Arab Muslim-majority city of Jerusalem (Western) was awarded by the world’s western powers to the European Jews who were not welcomed in the Christian Heartland. The Jews then occupied the Eastern part of Jerusalem with the help of the same western powers in 1967.

    Historically, Jerusalem existed under the name “Salem” during the time of prophet Abraham 2000 years ago – and Abraham was certainly not an Israelite or a Jew. The entire city was demolished by Babylonians in 586 BC. and rebuilt seventy-year later by Cyrus, the King of Persia, who could not be a Jew. In 40 BC Romans occupied Jerusalem and incinerated the Temple of Solomon (Masjid-e-Aqsa, mentioned as “the Far-away mosque” in the Holy Qur’an).

    Palestine has existed, though not as an independent state, for over 10,000 years. Its inhabitants have been Jebusites (the ones’ who most probably built the city), Cannanites, Phoenicians, Hittites, Aramaeans, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Arabs, Franks and Turks. Part of Palestine was ruled by Israelite under the name of “Kindom of Judea and Samara” until they were defeated and taken as slaves or expeled by Babylonians, Greeks, Romans and Persians between 171 BC and 135 CE. The City of Jerusalem was handed over to Muslim Army by the Christian Patriarch Sofronius in a public ceremony. Muslims found out that the ruins of Temple of Solomon were used as the city garbage dump. Under the orders of Khalifah Umar Ibn Khattab (ra), the site was cleaned of garbage and handed-over to the Chaief Rabbi of Jerusalem, who in gratitude declared the Khalifah as the “Promised Jewish Messaih”. Sheikh Imran Nazar Hossein in his book Jerusalem in the Quran exposes the Zionist lies about their Biblical claim on the Holy Land.

    1. I haven’t read Sand’s book, but Rehmat, your post isn’t overly accurate. Nobody knows if there was a real Abraham, but if there was he lived sometime in the period between 1500 and 2000 B.C.E, not 2000 years ago. Maybe that was a typo on your part. Nobody claims Abraham was a Jew–he’s the legendary ancestor of both Arabs and Jews. And this claim that Jews as a people were invented 100 years ago seems bizarre. Perhaps it hinges on what it means to be a “people”.

      I know that there’s a scholarly fight over the extent to which the Old Testament writings (to use the term we Christians use) are historically accurate, but I think it’s a mistake mixing up the cause of Palestinian rights with that. Fundamentalists of both the Jewish and Christian variety don’t care what scholars say about the Bible’s historical accuracy and if you’re not a fundamentalist you shouldn’t think that Jewish ownership of the land 2000 years ago justifies ethnic cleansing of Palestinians today. (And even fundamentalists should ask themselves whether the God spoken of by the prophets would be happy with Israeli oppression today.)

    2. Yawn. Do we really need this? This sounds just as stupid and farfetched as some of those things the most ardent supporters of the ‘Zionist entity’ claim.

      1. Even if it is all true – and it is quite possible that at least some of it is – it is irrelevant. The Jews’ claim based on ancient history is completely bogus anyway, and bogus claims are easily replaced with new bogus claims when proven to be bogus.

    3. Richard, Richard, Richard-
      What happened to your posting rules? I clearly recall that you said it is forbidden to either deny the existence of the Palestinian OR THE JEWISH PEOPLE here. Get on the ball!

      BTW-This is certainly a garbled view of history. I wonder how they cooked it up? If it is indeed typical of how Muslims view history, it certainly will make peace between Jews and Muslims in the country harder to achieve.

      1. Cool yr jets & give me a chance. Besides, what I like about this blog’s comment threads is that readers/commenters take things in their own hands & monitor them for wack jobs and other nonsense, which is what happened in this case. Did you note that commenters w. whom you have absolutely nothing in common politically actually took this indivudal to task? It would be nice if you would note & acknowledge this. They too are interested in maintaining a high standard of discourse and high credibility.

        1. 21/04/10
          An Open Letter to Peace Nobel Laureate, Mr. Eli Wiesel
          In the spirit of the Israeli Memorial Day, which I and my family are commemorating, now the 14-th year, due to the fall of our dear son Ziv, I do approach you, with reverence, with awe, due to the your unprecedented prestige, within the Jewish and International communities. This prestige is, without any doubt, due to your intensive activity as a “messenger to mankind, whose struggle to come to terms with his own personal experience of total humiliation and of the utter contempt for humanity shown in Hitler’s death camps, as well as his practical work in the cause of peace, atonement and human dignity”. However, I, also, confront my Prime Minister, Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, who asked you, according to Israeli Media to intervene, with the U.S president, to soften his position with respect to his demands from the Israeli Government and to plead the Israeli government’s arguments with the American public.
          According to all the publications, your relations with the President of the United States, Barack Obama, are most friendly and with a significant extent of mutual appreciation. This is most encouraging! Following the mood, existing in Israel, the U.S. president does receive a lot of insults and accusations of Anti-Semitism and Anti- Israeli, which are expressed, by many, emphasizing his second name –Osama- to identify his Muslim origin, which is suspected to be the cause for his unbalanced attitude, towards Israel. Although I understand, only a little, of the domestic politics of the U.S., I dare to say that I am impressed with President’s Obama, social ideology; his readiness to identify with the weak populations, who lack sufficient means, a position which provides fresh wind, to the politics of the preceding administration.
          More so, the position of the U.S. president, with respect to international aspects, bears witness, that is fortunate for us and for the whole world, that a peace oriented approach, which does not advocate military solutions; which does not grant preference to violent aggressiveness; which raises the banner of mutual and gradual disarmament of destructive arms, is now dominating in the White House.
          I can only guess that this, world view, is common denominator of both of you – yours from the human aspect of mutual relations between an individual and the society and of the President, from the political and international aspect of mutual relations among nations.
          The ad published in U.S. papers is, of course, the outcome of the expectations from this friendship. It is also, the trigger for my expectation that you will submit to the President, the position of the Peace Camp in Israel, as well. This is the camp, which is branded, by the Premier supporters, in his party and of the coalition parties, as traitors to the Zionist idea; as defeatists, who are scared of more wars and more victims; as Jews who lost their faith in the right of disownment of another nation from it’s land and home; as heretics who will not submit to God’s promise to resettle every piece of land, in the land of our forefathers, even if it requires eternal occupation.
          Please Mr. Wiesel, present to your President, also the message of this segment of the nation who is sick and tired of continuous wars; who believes in the sanctity of life for the Israeli and Palestinian children; who is disgusted by the terrible actions of uprooting olive trees; who cannot condone the irrational blockage in front of the checkpoints; who aches the construction of the separation wall- the ugly, concrete wall, which divides the main streets of the Palestinian villages and towns; not to mention the ongoing military raids and the “non intentional, accidental” inflictions of “non participant” and “non armed” citizens.
          We, at the Israeli peace camp, are collaborating with the Palestinian Peace camp, and believe that the obligation of the U.S., under the leadership of President Obama is to engage all means to bring to an end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; to end occupation and to ensure security for the citizens of Israel; to promote the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, alongside the State of Israel, whose capital will be East Jerusalem and will cultivate fair, neighboring relations with Israel.
          We, who work for peace and mutual reconciliation, want to continue to live here, without sacrificing our children to the Moloch of wars and dead; without burying our dead in military cemeteries; without being blasted in buses and shopping malls; without mourning our dear ones on memorial days; without living in fear and without sanctifying heroism. We want! But, apparently, we are unable! We need you, Mr. Wiesel and Mr. Obama! We cannot rely on our Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. We don’t need Sheikh Jarrah; Ramat Shlomo and Silwan; We are not obligated to settle in Kdumim; Izhar and Nokdim; We have no right to build in Palestinian quarters of East Jerusalem and to engage in a blockade around Gaza.
          Yes! It would have been preferable to be masters of our destiny. We, actually, perform in that way, at times of war. We are unable to do it for the sake of peace. We don’t know to unite for the sake of peace. Give us hope! Better a future of forced peace than a present of optional wars.
          Dr. Jona Bargur
          Parents Circle- Forum of Bereaved Israeli and Palestinian Families for Peace and Reconciliation.

    4. First, this comment thread does not exist for you to pimp your blog, so don’t. The URL goes. Second, read my comment rules. The next time you break even a single one, you’re gone. Third, you’re full of crap and I have no idea where you learned yr history, but even Shirin, who is no Zionist stooge has problems w. yr lax historiography.

      So, no more boring falsified historical lectures. No more pimping yr blog. And follow the rules.

  7. Donald – before acting like Bibi against Richard Goldstone – should not you suppose to have read professor Sand’s book?

    Abraham did exist as Jesus – but then I would not give a hoot if someone doesn’t believe in their existence. There are over one billion people who don’t believe the existence of God. Furthermore, Abraham is the center-point of all three Monotheist religions (Israelite, Christianity and Islam) – but not the ancestor of the modern day Jews who are the offsprings of Khazarian Turks and African Berbers. Two sons of Abraham could not have produced the entire Arab and Hebrew population.

    The reason the Christian Fundamentalists (Evangelists) and Zionist Jews are sleeping in the same bed – because both have to grind their own axe. Evangelists believe that a powerful Jewish presence in Palestine would hasten the second-coming of their Lord Christ who will convert Jews to Christianity and whosoever refuses to convert – would be put to death. Zionist Jews – on the other hand, want to use the powerful Christian West to wage wars against the Muslim world – with the end result both the Christian world and Muslim world become an easy prey for the Zionist elite to create a One World Government under Jewish domination.

    But, it seems Islamic Republic has thrown a spanner in the Zionist dream – Thus the war against that “Hitler” Ahmadinejad.

    1. None of this matters, Rehmet, not if one is talking about Palestinian rights. I don’t doubt there’s quite a mixture of peoples who make up the ancestors of modern day Jews, though I don’t pretend to know what percentage comes from which groups–why should anyone care?

      1. The Khazars and Berbers stuff isn’t what bothered me, Richard. I don’t find the Khazar converts story to be entirely implausible, although its importance and significance has been grossly exaggerated. What I find insufferable is the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world shtick. This guy is clearly not an anti-Zionist merely, but a classical anti-Semite, and not a terribly sophisticated one at that. There is no more legitimate place in the world for people like that than there is for the anti-Islam hate crowd.

        1. I’ve heard that he posts similar crap at lots of other websites. I don’t know whether he’s a provocateur or more or less what he appears to claim to be. Whatever the case is, he’s trouble.

          I don’t want to make any judgments about the issues of the origin of the Jewish people. I have enough trouble figuring out how to save latter-day Israel fr. destruction w/o delving into something as profound as Jewish origins.

    2. OK, dude, now you’ve really crossed a red line. I can deal with the Khazar stuff, which is irrelevant and useless to delegitimize Zionist claims to Palestine, but is nevertheless somewhat plausible, but when you start with the One World Government under Jewish domination crap, otherwise known as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, you have revealed yourself as an anti-Semite, and therefore useless in any meaningful, or even remotely interesting discussion.

      Take your anti-Jewish hate speech elsewhere. Don’t try to peddle it here. It won’t fly, not with any of us.

    3. Abraham did exist as Jesus…

      Prove it. Prove that Abraham, or Jesus for that matter was a real person and not pure legend, or an enhanced composite of several people as so many legendary figures have turned out to be. And after that, prove that it even matters whether Abraham was an actual person who was actually born in what is now southern Iraq, and who actually did all the things he supposedly did. And prove that it matters whether Moses actually existed; or whether there every really was a fellow named Noah who built an arc; or whether modern-day Ashkenazim are descended from any of them; or more significantly whether it matters one iota whether they are descended from Abraham or Noah, or from Khazarian and Berber converts.

      And if you really actually give a damn about justice for the Palestinians, try focusing on something that will actually promote that instead of on trying to delegitimize the Jewish claim on Palestine based on silly, irrelevant criteria that even if valid will never convince anyone with a real brain, including little old anti-Zionist me.

      Oh, yeah, and try to understand that the most significant reality in today’s world is that there are a few million Jews who make their homes in what is now called Israel, and who have human rights that are exactly equal to those of the Palestinians their predecessors displaced. Their human rights need to be accommodated now too.

      Idiots like you really piss me off.

      1. fellow named Noah who built an arc

        I suppose Noah, whether real or myth, might have built an arc, but what made him famous was building an ark, I guess.

      2. Their human rights need to be accommodated now too.

        This statement really moved me.

        I suppose Noah, whether real or myth, might have built an arc

        Good catch! I didn’t even see that error. And very funny to boot.

  8. What has Wiesel forgotten here? That Jerusalem doesn’t “belong” to the Jewish people any more than it belongs to Christians or Muslims whose history here is just as deep.

    Richard, you might be interested in this:
    Jacques Gauthier, a non-Jewish Canadian lawyer who spent 20 years researching the legal status of Jerusalem, has concluded: “Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, by international law.”
    Jacques Gauthier is not some random crank. He was recently appointed by the Canadian government as president of Canada’s International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development.

    Also, the text of Wiesel’s ad is historically inaccurate:

    Since King David took Jerusalem as his capital, Jews have dwelled inside its walls with only two interruptions, when Roman invaders forbade them access to the city and again, when under Jordanian occupation…

    He omits the 88-year period of Crusader rule. (Saladin famously allowed the Jews to live in Jerusalem again after he defeated the Crusaders.) I think this is a telling omission: don’t offend Christians.

    1. I can’t imagine on what this Jacques Gautier bases his legal opinion on Jerusalem, but it certainly differs from every other respectable legal opinion ever voiced, not to mention that it turns the law directly on its head. The first question that comes to mind is “how much did they pay him for that?”

      1. Despite what Peter says, it does look like a pet project by a random crank. I looked at the link (Arutz Sheva), it says “Jacques Gauthier, a non-Jewish Canadian lawyer who spent 20 years researching the legal status of Jerusalem, has concluded: “Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, by international law.” (…) The dissertation runs some 1,300 pages, with 3,000 footnotes.”
        I can imagine how arguing that Jerusalem belongs to ‘the Jews’ (not Israel even, but ‘the Jews’) can be quite complicated.

        (By the way, I love the “non-Jewish Canadian lawyer” bit. Is Arutz Sheva suffering from clichés about Jews or are they suggesting that if some gentile even thinks they can have Jerusalem it just has got to be true?)

        They mysteriously continue by saying that “Gauthier had to present his thesis to a world-famous Jewish historian and two leading international lawyers – the Jewish one of whom (they are really obsessive about this) has represented the Palestinian Authority on numerous occasions,” but we do not hear who these members of the committee are, even though they are apparently ‘leading’ and ‘world-famous’, nor from which university Gauthier received his PhD. (I have not been able to find out.)

        According to Arutz Sheva, the argument goes like this: “The UN resolved that the City of Jerusalem shall be established as a separate entity under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations. The regime was to come into effect by October 1948, and was to remain in force for a period of ten years, unless the UN’s Trusteeship Council decided otherwise. After the ten years, the residents of Jerusalem “shall be then free to express by means of a referendum their wishes as to possible modifications of regime of the City.” The resolution never took effect, because Jordan controlled eastern Jerusalem after the 1948 War of Independence and did not follow its provisions. (…) Given Jerusalem’s strong Jewish majority, Gauthier concludes, Israel should be demanding that the long-delayed city referendum on the city’s future be held as soon as possible. Not only should Israel be demanding that the referendum be held now, Jerusalem should be the first order of business. “Olmert is sloughing us off by saying [as he did before the Annapolis Conference two months ago], ‘Jerusalem is not on the table yet,’” Gauthier concludes. “He should demand that the referendum take place before the balance of the land is negotiated. If the Arabs won’t agree to the referendum, there is nothing to talk about.”

        So THIS means that “Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, by international law” ?!!

        As to Human Rights and Democratic Development: Originally it was an organization that functioned independently of the Canadian government, but apparently there was a ‘hostile takeover’ of the organization a couple of months ago. The Harper government appointed a certain Braun, Matas (a lawyer for B’nai Brith) and Van Pelt (described as a Christian fundamentalist) to the board. “Following a particularly hostile board meeting in January 2010, the organization’s president, Rémy Beauregard, died of a heart attack, and board members Sima Samar and Payam Akhavan resigned. Subsequently 45 of the centre’s 47 staff demanded Braun’s resignation, accusing him of “a pattern of harassment”, and four members of the board requested “a full investigation of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Beauregard’s death, with a focus on the role and conduct of the board” (Wikipedia)
        The grievances include the fact that the new majority in the board has decided to abandon programs the organization deems important (such support for victims of sexual violence in the Congo) and has forbidden all contact with groups in the Middle East that criticize Israel, as well as the human rights council of the United Nation in Geneva. The complaints about harassment have to do with the fact that the new board views the organization as too pro-Arab and has started to make enquiries concerning the ethnic background of employees and ‘whether they speak Arabic’. It is this new board which has appointed Jacques Gauthier as the interim President of Human Rights and Democratic Development.

        1. The PhD is from the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva. (I did not find out who the committee members were.)
          Arutz Sheva’s summary of its conclusions is totally off the mark though, as it seems to be the case that Gauthier has come up with a trick (the long delayed referendum) that would make it possible for Jerusalem to be officially recognized as the capital of Israel based on international law.

          1. That anything from Arutz Sheva is far off the mark is anything but surprising. Arutz Sheva makes Fox News look positively moderate and balanced by comparison.

        2. The resolution never took effect, because Jordan controlled eastern Jerusalem after the 1948 War of Independence and did not follow its provisions.

          Oh – and Israel DID follow its provisions in West Jerusalem – after ethnically cleansing it, of course?! Hmmmmmmm.

  9. Shirin – You proves to be a Zionist Hasbara bitch trying to pretend to be an unbaised Jew-Arab debater.

    An for your information – “The Protocols” are not a fake document but were written by Baron Rothschild. Checkout your Zionist Jew brother, Hanry Makow PhD, on his blog.

    And for you Richard – I don’t need to “pimp” my blog which receives an average of 150 visitors each day with maximum of 3,812 visitors of April 16, 2010. You see, as a “pen friend” of Gilad Atzmon – I love to pulldown the pants of Zionists cowards who pose themselves as “friends of Palestinians”.

    Chao and Shalom!!!

      1. Henry Makow PhD’s blog should definitely be taken very seriously. It starts with:

        “Canadian Serial Killer Linked to Elite Satanists?”

    1. Shirin a Zionist? And the Protocols were real?

      Yet more evidence for my theory that the internet allows for contact between parallel universes. This is why one runs across so many bizarre assertions. So what I’m wondering is if Spock’s homeworld got blown up in the Star Trek movie in your reality, or if the dinosaurs have gone extinct. But I probably won’t find out, as I have this suspicion Richard is going to ban you.

    2. You proves [sic] to be a Zionist Hasbara bitch

      You’re banned on 3 counts. First, for violating my comment rule about ad hominem attacks. Second, for lying and saying that Shirin, who actually is anti-Zionist, is something she is not. Third, for being a friggin’ idiot and offending my sensibilities. Go back to the rock you came from…

  10. FYI, “Rehmat” is also known as Shaukat, the classic anti-Semite, who can be found here, note his signature at Pravda


    Same exact post from his blog, also known as the serial cut and paster of his own bullpucky complete with urls always posted at the end when posting on OTHER people’s blogs in order to obtain the numbers he espoused above.

    In case you didn’t know this Rehamat/Shaukat, there is really no room in the Palestinian debate for anti-Semites such as yourself. It not only detracts from the legitimate human rights of the Palestinian people, it plays DIRECTLY into the hands of the right-wing Zionists who can hold people like YOU up to the world as anti-Semites, AH the reason poor Israel needs to do what it does.


  11. Richard, I didn’t know you were running a kindergarten. It sounds just like a school yard in here: “Nya Nya”, “Did so.”, “Did not.” I’ll check back in again when the level of conversation gets back up to high school.

    Nothing personal. It’s not you, it’s your readers – illiterate, ignorant, some of them.

      1. Shirin, your sarcasm aside, I do try to at least stay on subject. My real complaint is that when Richard posts an article, after about three or four comments responding to his subject, the discourse deteriorates into ad hominem arguments about matters completely unrelated to his original post: Khazars, Abraham, etc., by such commenters as Donald, Rehmat, Elizabeth, Bar_Kochba, who veer off into their personal ideologies of Zionist history and implying that those who don’t agree with them are anti-Semites,etc. Most of them ignorant of history and written in such illiterate prose, that they are painful to read. I have no problem with people wishing to express dissident opinions, but let’s at least address the questions Richard raises. Richard writes stimulating pieces and I think we at least owe him the respect to respond accordingly.

        1. If you’d bothered to read the posts before going off on your rant, you’d have noticed that Rehmat came in and started up on his theories and the rest of us objected to his raising the side issue. And Richard was happy to see the rest of us intervene. So evidently the rest of us are to blame for doing exactly what you are doing–complaining about someone raising a side issue, except that you have elevated yourself to a higher plane of commenter–the person who can issue complaints about the other commenters without himself distracting from Richard’s original post.

          Incidentally, I appreciated the godawful grammatical construction of the sentence where you accused some of us of writing illiterate prose. Your subconscious evidently has a sense of humor even if you don’t.

          It sounds like you are lashing out because maybe you think we are too quick to pull the “antisemite” card. I don’t think so, not in this case. Rehmat defended the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as an authentic document.

        2. Incidentally, I find Wiesel contemptible on the I/P issue, but didn’t find the need to join the amen chorus. But if you wanted to add substance to the thread, you could have tracked down his idiotic editorial written in the NYT some years back, aptly characterized by Christopher Hitchens (back when he was sane) as “Wiesel words”, rather than simply repeating Hitchens’s rather obvious pun. Here it is, Nakba denial and all. We knew less about the Nakba then (or rather, Westerners dependent on Israeli archives and Benny Morris’s research knew less), but even in 2001 this was inexcusable–


        3. Are you seriously equating Donald and Elisabeth to the Rehmat character, and even to Bar_Kochba? And are you seriously suggesting that someone who spouts classical anti-Semitic nonsense of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion sort should not be called out as an anti-Semite? My god! I was once called an anti-Semite because I criticized Al Franken as a supposed progressive for speaking at a pro-Israel rally during the Gaza massacre. It hadn’t occurred to me that I should hold progressive Jews to a different standard than I hold progressive gentiles, and it still doesn’t, but I sure as hell know classical European anti-Semitism when I see it, and I sure as hell am not going to keep it politely to myself.

          And if you are suggesting that Donald and Elisabeth are ignorant of history and write “illiterate prose” then we are not reading the same Donald or the same Elisabeth. I find them both knowledgeable on the things they write about, and quite as literate as you are, if not moreso.

          You really were far off the mark on this one, Gene.

          1. Sorry, everybody. Looks like I touched some sensitive nerves. Happy to see your reactions. But I stand by what I wrote.

          2. It would be wiser to just admit that you had not properly read the thread before you reacted.

          3. Are you seriously equating Donald and Elisabeth to the Rehmat character, and even to Bar_Kochba?

            Yes, I scratched my head when I read that Donald and Elisabeth were thrown in with Rehmat and Bar Kochba. That’s a rather too broad brush I think. Maybe we can tone down the verbal pugilism a bit?

          4. Well, Gene, you’ll have to forgive your intellectual inferiors when they read something like what you posted at the very beginning–“Wiesel is a weasel”. I will admit that as a kindergartener, this was above what the average five year old could have typed, but it gave no indication that you set standards any higher than that. Perhaps you could have searched for an interesting link to some other stupid thing Wiesel has written, as I just did, or posted something other than a common garden variety pun if it really offends you to see material of such low quality. Clearly that wasn’t your problem here, even if you said it was. The antisemitism theme was your problem. Perhaps you are a fan of Sand’s book and thought you were being called an antisemite by implication. Well, no, you weren’t. At any rate, it’s for you to make clear what your problem was, rather than spray random hypocritical insults around. You can’t say it was because of the intellectual level when your own contributions to the thread are none too impressive and you can’t say it’s disrespect for Richard when Richard was clearly happy the rest of us were taking on Rehmat.

          5. Donald, you had it right the first time (“If you’d bothered to read the posts before going off on your rant, you’d have noticed that Rehmat came in and started up on his theories and the rest of us objected to his raising the side issue.”)

            For some reason Gene is just not willing to admit he had merely ‘scanned’ the posts, instead of really following the thread, when he wrote his comment.

          6. Donald, you wanted a link: http://www.counterpunch.org (Apr. 21), article by Esam al-Amin. As a compliment to this you might wish to read Hajo Meyer’s book, “The End of Judaism: An Ethical Tradition Betrayed”. Meyer is also a Holocaust surviver who takes the exact opposite view of things from Wiesel.

          7. Great to see that you know Hayo Meyer! He is a truly admirable person, the founder of Another Jewish Voice in the Netherlands. (I actually named my youngest son after him.)

          8. Good for you Elizabeth. I just had lunch today with his representative and the reviewer of his latest book (not yet translated from the German), who also interviewed him on his first book. I will be putting on a conference and dinner for him in Geneva, in June, I hope. Yes, he is indeed a remarkable person.

            I have earlier sent to Richard links to youtube videos of Meyer. Perhaps he can post those links for all to access.

          9. That would be great.

            As a survivor of Auschwitz, when a took a stance in public this had an impact of course, and he was attacked as a traitor. He remained really calm and just said “liever een verrader dan een dader”. (This bon mot rhymes in English as well: “Better a traitor than a perpetrator (of crimes).”

            I would love to see those interviews.

          10. Elizabeth, if Richard can’t post those video links, and if you don’t mind exposing your email address, I can forward them directly to you.

          11. Richard, could you pass on my email address to Gene? (Or post the video links perhaps?)

          12. Looks like I touched some sensitive nerves.

            You should not mistake touching sensitive nerves with making a fool of yourself. And unfortunately, you are compounding the error by insisting upon standing by your original silliness. You have something to offer here. Try sticking to that.

  12. I’ll read your link later today, Gene. Thanks for that–I was a little steamed at your insult, but am curious to read about whatever substantive issue was driving your reaction.

    1. Donald, I wasn’t consciously trying to insult anyone in particular. I was speaking about the general quality of the comments and the bickering back and forth about issues quite unrelated to the original subject. If I occasionally mix up the names of who writes the posts – sorry, just chalk it up to age.

      As far as my comment about Wiesel, I didn’t think I had to add more than what Richard had already said, and I was merely seconding him. For me, the weasel is no longer worthy of consideration.

      1. I read your link and agreed with it. I think I first started reading about Wiesel as a less than saintly figure in one of Chomsky’s books (maybe “The Fateful Triangle, but I’m not sure). He’s sort of a textbook case of how great suffering does not necessarily ennoble people, even if in this case it gives him an undeserved aura of saintliness.

        Hajo Meyer’s book sounds interesting too, though I’m not sure if I’ll purchase it or not. (I’m going to assume it’s not the sort of thing that will be in my local library, though I’ll check.)

  13. Elizabeth, google the gentleman’s name and then if you look at the top it gives you options, “video” is one of the options.
    Anyone wanting to find them can do so that way.

    1. Thanks, but the results are often a mixed bag so you spend ages clicking this video and that until you have found a good example.

          1. Oh you are right Elizabeth. I’m on a small screen laptop and didn’t see the “more” at the bottom. Apologies, I was just posting not just for you but for anyone else who might want to find them if the links didn’t get posted (richard’s blog goes into moderation mode when you post too many links) Sorry, I didn’t have any motive other than to point people who may not know how to find them that wanted to.

          2. No problem, I understand. And I have meanwhile received Gene’s handpicked selection.

  14. “Meyer is also a Holocaust surviver who takes the exact opposite view of things from Wiesel.’

    meyer does not believe israel has a right to exist.

    1. The whole “Israel’s right to exist” business is bogus, and an obvious P.R. ploy. What other state demands or is considered to have the “right to exist”? The reality is that a bunch of European Jews did not have the right to migrate to, colonize, and take over Palestine, ethnically cleanse it, and turn it into a European Jewish state.

      I don’t recognize Israel’s so-called “right to exist”. However, now, given the situation today, we all are obligated to recognize the human rights of Israel’s citizens – all of them, Jewish and not. Israeli Jews did nothing wrong by being born and growing up there, and neither did those Jews who immigrated there. Those people have rights, and those rights must be considered. Those rights do not include, however, the right to live in a Jewish state.

    2. I agree with what Shirin says. As to Meyer: He just thinks that Jews and non-Jews should have equal rights in Israel. That may mean Israel does not have the right to exist as a ‘Jewish’ state, but it does not mean more than that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *