Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[TheRedWorm]

Excuse me for not following this thread closely, but have our Jew Haters explained yet why they love Hitler and the Nazis so much? The general drift from the Jew Haters seems to be that the Jews were asking for it. Here's another group that suffered under the Nazis our Jew Haters probably don't much care for. Were they asking for it too?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_228454d739be8f08a9.jpg[/qimg]

Generally speaking the adolph fanbois don't answer direct questions. They all seem to have a severe problem with honesty.

 

[dafydd]

Generally speaking the adolph fanbois don't answer direct questions. They all seem to have a severe problem with honesty.

Saggy and 911 never answer questions,never tell us why they have the hots for Hitler and never tell us why they hate Jews.

 

[Wahrheitseeker]

The gas chambers are one essential element of the holocaust for which there is extremely weak evidence. Cremation of bodies is an element of the holocaust for which there is no doubt. Crematoriums were built and bodies were incinerated in these crematoriums. They did not burn bodies as quickly or easily as the official holocaust story claims. They weren't completely reduced to ash so that nothing remained. And nobody was burned in a pit. But bodies were cremated. Don't lump gassing and cremation together.

This is a very flawed approach.

First, there exists a late August 1942 Auschwitz document detailing some of the on-going planning for future crematoria. In the document, Kurt Prüfer connected the delivery of ovens to the "bathing installations for special actions." Around this same time, we have the diary entries of German physician Dr. Johann Kremer detailing his experience with those "special actions."

Second in September 1942, while in discussions with the camp staff over the amount of ovens, Prüfer noted that despite his estimates of the cremation capacity at 2650 per day (nearly 80,000 per month), the camp official was demanding more ovens. In June 1943, the Auschwitz camp estimated that their crematoria could cremate nearly 5000 bodies per day.

Surely alarm bells must be going off in your head that the camp was willing to part with so many lives every day? As a non-extermination camp, the crematoria capacity is ridiculous. How can you operate a satisfactory labor camp when you are cremating nearly the whole labor force every month? Illogical and absurd. Such capacity only makes sense with an ongoing extermination program (hence references to the special actions).

Finally, there is the late January 1943 Auschwitz document regarding the construction of Krema II. The document notes that preparations could be made so that by mid February, "cremation with simultaneous special treatment is made possible." Of course, construction progress was too low, and the building did not become operational until March.

So for Auschwitz, gassing and cremation very much are 'lumped together'.

 

[truethat]

This is a very flawed approach.

First, there exists a late August 1942 Auschwitz document detailing some of the on-going planning for future crematoria. In the document, Kurt Prüfer connected the delivery of ovens to the "bathing installations for special actions." Around this same time, we have the diary entries of German physician Dr. Johann Kremer detailing his experience with those "special actions."

Second in September 1942, while in discussions with the camp staff over the amount of ovens, Prüfer noted that despite his estimates of the cremation capacity at 2650 per day (nearly 80,000 per month), the camp official was demanding more ovens. In June 1943, the Auschwitz camp estimated that their crematoria could cremate nearly 5000 bodies per day.

Surely alarm bells must be going off in your head that the camp was willing to part with so many lives every day? As a non-extermination camp, the crematoria capacity is ridiculous. How can you operate a satisfactory labor camp when you are cremating nearly the whole labor force every month? Illogical and absurd. Such capacity only makes sense with an ongoing extermination program (hence references to the special actions).

Finally, there is the late January 1943 Auschwitz document regarding the construction of Krema II. The document notes that preparations could be made so that by mid February, "cremation with simultaneous special treatment is made possible." Of course, construction progress was too low, and the building did not become operational until March.

So for Auschwitz, gassing and cremation very much are 'lumped together'.

This.


See if the argument is that it was a "labor camp" then let's accept that for a moment.

Either this is one of the most atrociously stupid run labor camps or there was something else going on.

Deniers rely on rejecting the witness accounts because of exaggeration and or outright lies. And these certainly did occur. It is not shocking to anyone who has studied the situation. In fact it is to be expected.

Deniers are taking the handful of accounts that are dubious for the reasons we've discussed and using them as a "slippery slope" type of argument.

However there were plenty of witnesses and by plenty I mean THOUSANDS who were not under duress when giving their testimony. Most of these were the Germans themselves.

But hey, why let reality get in the way of your decision to disbelieve.

 

[tsig]

I don't see how someone can possibly mistake a live person or baby tossed into burning pits or whether that even happened at all.

The soap was a lie no?

It was still a tragedy to be forcefully deported and put to labor, but that also means those people had every reason to lie and exaggerate. The question is what exactly happened in those camps.

Here is a survivor insisting the soap story was true:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH10Xf2D0jg

Actually I would think people will either remember it very clearly or lose the memory all together due to the trauma.

You look at the evidence. Not just testimonies. It was by looking at the evidence that they concluded they didn't make soap. Looking at the evidence for gas chambers and the death toll and it doesn't seem to add up.

Oh look! A dogged determination to shift focus.

 

[Saggy]

Uh, sorry, no, Nelson didn't commit the NTS fallacy. There are genuinely no respectable historians who deny the Holocaust.

Respectable doesn't mean that someone, somewhere respects someone. It implies a more general accolade, a better choice of word would have been reputable. That you for example might respect Irving doesn't turn him into a respectable historian. Irving would only be a respectable or reputable historian if there were a general consensus in either academia or society as a whole that they were respectable.



And I stand by them, but whatever I might have said about deniers in other contexts is not relevant to this thread. Contrary to your claim that I was engaging in 'name-calling', I have not actually called deniers any names in this thread. You can quote me to show otherwise, but you're not going to be able to.




I'm sorry, Saggy, but I and many others have read Butz, Rudolf, Graf et al and come to the well-founded conclusion that they don't make convincing arguments and in many cases don't know what they are talking about.

But that's not actually the crucial issue here. NONE of these authors have compiled a sufficiently comprehensive sample of Holocaust memoirs or testimonies to be able to sustain an empirically founded generalisation about all Holocaust memoirs or testimonies. Graf wrote a short little book in which he nitpicked away at 30 Auschwitz testimonies. But as it happens there are at least 10,000 testimonies and memoirs. Clearly, any work which tries to generalise from just 30 examples when the sum total of examples is in five figures cannot be taken very seriously, even before we look at the quality of Graf's claims.



Nope, sorry, that is exactly the kind of fantasy that does not have any basis in reality. Neither USHMM nor Yad Vashem nor any other major institution vets the publication of memoirs.

As we can clearly see in the Misha Defoncesca case. Defoncesca's memoir was seen by Lawrence Langer, a professor at Simmons College who is now retired (emeritus), and Langer expressed his disbelief in the story. Langer had written a well-respected study of Holocaust testimonies but was otherwise unaffiliated with your fantasy 'nexus'. Raul Hilberg was also consulted and also said he didn't believe her story. But Hilberg WAS part of the US Holocaust Memorial Council. Yet even his views did not carry enough weight to convince the small independent publisher, Mt Ivy Press. Later on, a quite well known organisation, Facing History and Ourselves, heavily involved in Holocaust education, also stated that the memoir was probably bogus.

Therefore, whatever nexus or central committee or Industry or whatever other fantasy hive mind you think exists regarding the Holocaust could not stop the publication of a pos fraud despite their clear reservations about it.

Stop trying to change the subject with your crappy Gish Gallops and predictable denier talking points.



The logic is very simple.

There are approximately 4 living people who are currently or have been employed as university faculty in the United States that have gone on the record as either denying the Holocaust (Butz, Siddique) or offering strong support to Holocaust deniers in such a manner that they might as well be considered deniers (Macdonald) or are considered deniers (Martin). None of them have any demonstrable expertise in history and only one of them has actually published a book on the subject (Butz) which appeared 36 years ago.

This group of academics can be contrasted with the figure of 170,000 university faculty in the US, across all subjects.

4 out of 170,000, and that's ignoring the fact that one of them is retired.

Why so low? Ah, says Saggy, because the Zionists control the universities and the Holocaust is taboo

Unfortunately the Zionists were unable to stop the following professors from getting tenure at American universities and then using their chairs to make severe criticisms of Israel, up to and including its right to exist at all:

Noam Chomsky
John Walt
Stephen Mearsheimer
Richard Falk
Rashid Khalidi
Juan Cole
Judith Butler
Tony Judt (RIP)

and this hardly even scratches the surface.




and now he's been reinstated.

I must say that I consider it extremely dubious to have an adjunct tutor, who hasn't even finished a doctorate, teaching masters-level courses. In the UK this is almost entirely unheard of.

Respectable doesn't mean that someone, somewhere respects someone.

Look, the teacher in the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy doesn't agree that he is wrong when the fallacy is called, he tries some pathetic arguments that a 'true' Scotsman really doens't like haggis. There is no way in hell that you can successfully argue that anyone who disagrees with employed western academics writing under their own name is not respectable. It's the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy in spades, complete with the subsequent whining when called, as you have graciously supplied.

I have not actually called deniers any names in this thread.

I think we all owe Nick Terry a debt of gratitude

Therefore, whatever nexus or central committee or Industry or whatever other fantasy hive mind you think exists regarding the Holocaust could not stop the publication of a pos fraud despite their clear reservations about it.

Stop the fraud? They gladly participate in every fraud. DeFonseca was finally outed when she was sued by her publisher, or some such nonsense. Note: this isn't worth looking up. The nexus participates fully in every fraud as long as it can.

Unfortunately the Zionists were unable to stop the following professors from getting tenure at American universities and then using their chairs to make severe criticisms of Israel, up to and including its right to exist at all:

Noam Chomsky
John Walt
Stephen Mearsheimer
Richard Falk
Rashid Khalidi
Juan Cole
Judith Butler
Tony Judt (RIP)

Not so fast ! I'm not familiar with all the names, but Chomsky, Walt, and Mearsheimer are all explicit Zionists (def: a Zionist believes Israel has a right to exist on Palestinian land as a Jewish state), so I don't expect the Zionists would oppose them. The Zionists have prevented Finklestein from maintaining gainful employment, but he is a Zionist too. So, I think you may have fewer non-Zionists on your list than you have holocaust deniers. You're not making a case that way at all. But, I wasn't going there, anyhow.

Edit: It is an interesting point, how many non-Zionist western academic historians are there? One? Name him. Can't name Siddique as he ain't a historian.

Thanks Nick ! This could be better than the argument re: holocaust deniers.

 

[Wroclaw]

It is an interesting point, how many non-Zionist western academic historians are there? One? Name him. Can't name Siddique as he ain't a historian.

Non-Zionist or anti-Zionist? Or you aware there's a difference?

FYI, it does not make someone a Zionist if, after it already existing for 63 years, they believe that Israel has a right to continue existing. Things not assessed in such a definition:

* Presence or absence of nationalist philosophical underpinning
* Belief about ultimate status of the Palestinian territories
* Belief about ultimate status of Jerusalem
* Acceptance of the historical narrative proposed by the New Historians

And more.

In short, I believe Israel has a right to exist, but I also believe Palestine has a right to exist in the pre–June 1967 borders, including East Jerusalem.

But I don't consider myself a Zionist. I consider myself post-Zionist.

And if you don't know that word, then you don't belong in the discussion.

 

[Wroclaw]

BTW, Chomsky only accepted Israel's right to exist because the Palestinians under Fatah had done so.

 

[Wroclaw]

If Kageki's point is that parts of the historical narrative are now known to be false, then I suppose, quite literally, EVERY FREAKING PERSON IN THIS THREAD CONCEDES THAT POINT.

However, if he is unaware that the Holocaust is not unique in this respect and that you don't throw out verified testimony because some was false, then he's too stupid to talk to.

 

[Saggy]

Non-Zionist or anti-Zionist? Or you aware there's a difference?

FYI, it does not make someone a Zionist if, after it already existing for 63 years, they believe that Israel has a right to continue existing. Things not assessed in such a definition:

* Presence or absence of nationalist philosophical underpinning
* Belief about ultimate status of the Palestinian territories
* Belief about ultimate status of Jerusalem
* Acceptance of the historical narrative proposed by the New Historians

And more.

In short, I believe Israel has a right to exist, but I also believe Palestine has a right to exist in the pre–June 1967 borders, including East Jerusalem.

But I don't consider myself a Zionist. I consider myself post-Zionist.

And if you don't know that word, then you don't belong in the discussion.

Here's the way I see it, the whole point of Zionism is the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. You are a Zionist if you support the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine.

Now, as for non-Zionists, there are two varieties, the strict non-Zionist, a good example is Helen Thomas, who thinks the European Jews in Palestine should go back to where they came from, and the 'one state' non-Zionist who accepts the existence of the European Jews in Palestine but not a Jewish state, and supports a one state pluralistic democratic solution to Israel/Palestine problem.

I believe poor Nick Terry will have a difficult time finding a single non-Zionist western academic historian. This is truly a remarkable insight.

 

[truethat]

If Kageki's point is that parts of the historical narrative are now known to be false, then I suppose, quite literally, EVERY FREAKING PERSON IN THIS THREAD CONCEDES THAT POINT.

However, if he is unaware that the Holocaust is not unique in this respect and that you don't throw out verified testimony because some was false, then he's too stupid to talk to.

Uh huh. Wonders why our deniers have grown silent.

 

[Saggy]

If Kageki's point is that parts of the historical narrative are now known to be false, then I suppose, quite literally, EVERY FREAKING PERSON IN THIS THREAD CONCEDES THAT POINT.

However, if he is unaware that the Holocaust is not unique in this respect and that you don't throw out verified testimony because some was false, then he's too stupid to talk to.

One unique aspect, of many, is that if you publicly disagree with the historical narrative of the holocaust, you can be thrown in jail in many countries. Forget that one?

 

[Wroclaw]

One unique aspect, of many, is that if you publicly disagree with the historical narrative of the holocaust, you can be thrown in jail in many countries. Forget that one?

No. I didn't mention it because there is no logical or necessary link between the above point and whether the history as recorded is true or false.

Unless you can demonstrate one.

And you can't.

By the way, it's illegal in Poland to deny communist crimes. It's illegal in France to deny the Armenian genocide. Do you therefore think that neither of those things happened?

 

[dafydd]

By the way, it's illegal in Poland to deny communist crimes. It's illegal in France to deny the Armenian genocide. Do you therefore think that neither of those things happened?

That's all part of the worldwide Evil Jooish Conspiracy. Just ask Saggy.

 

[Dogzilla]

.
No, TT did not say that. Zie said that it was "only human". It is also only human to want to care for our children.

Does this mean no one ever abuses or neglects their kids?

It's only human to display emotion.

Does this mean that everyone cries at the end of "Old Yeller?"

It's only human not to want to die.

Does this man that no one ever puts themselves in possibly deadly situations?

Do you really want to go there?
.

Truethat said: "Of course, people lying and exaggerating is only human." So, you're right. He didn't say that people lie all the time. But if it's "only human" to lie and exaggerate, isn't that the same as saying it's only natural to lie and exaggerate? That dissembling is the natural state of affairs?

Do you really want to compare deception to a maternal instinct?

.
Straw man much?

Don't need to. Your tin man and lion are easy prey.

Can you point to anyone, anywhere who says we should 'just believe' a survivor -- let alone for this reason?
.

Well then what should we do with witness testimony what with deception being as "human" as the maternal instinct or self-preservation?

.
Yes, yes it was. And trauma can do some strange things to the traumatized. Each in different ways -- that's only human. But here's the thing: trauma tends to be personal. Which is why the hostages in the Norrmalmstorg robbery (note that only ~25% of hostages react this way) came to sympathize with Jan Erik Olsson -- but none of them ever disputed he was there to rob the bank.

So what's the point? What does this say about eye witness veracity?

So, if your thesis is correct, all of the survivor testimony has to be tossed. Okay. What about the testimony of the Nazis themselves, the documentary evidence, the physical evidence, the demographic evidence?

No, if your thesis is correct, all survivor and perpetrator testimony must be tossed unless it can be backed up with documentary or physical evidence.

What happened to Henio?
.

Don't know. Don't care.

 

[Wroclaw]

Here's the way I see it, the whole point of Zionism is the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. You are a Zionist if you support the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine.

It isn't as easy as that.

While I would have said the above definition was correct before May 1948, it became largely irrelevant after that point. And if it weren't irrelevant before then, it became definitively irrelevant in June 1967, when it became abundantly clear that Israel wasn't going anywhere.

People who take no position on Israel are properly called non-Zionist. People who oppose the existence of the state of Israel in any form are properly called anti-Zionist.

People like me, who view the goal of Zionism, i.e., a Jewish state in Palestine, as having been accomplished and, therefore, dedicate our energy to addressing Israel's problems other than existential ones, are properly called post-Zionist.

Now, as for non-Zionists, there are two varieties, the strict non-Zionist, a good example is Helen Thomas, who thinks the European Jews in Palestine should go back to where they came from

No, that is anti-Zionism.

It's also rank idiocy. The vast majority of Jews living in what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories were born there. You can't expect these people to pick up and leave. It's complete unrealistic.

That's the principal problem with people like Helen Thomas. She isn't hateful, I don't think. Rather, she has no concept of reality. In short, it is as realistic to expect five million Jews to go live somewhere other than Israel as it is for an equal number of Palestinians to give up their goal of statehood. Since neither is possible, the two realities must be integrated; thus, the one- or two-state solutions.

and the 'one state' non-Zionist who accepts the existence of the European Jews in Palestine but not a Jewish state, and supports a one state pluralistic democratic solution to Israel/Palestine problem.

Actually, people who fall into this group are anti-Zionist, non-Zionist, and post-Zionist.

Chomsky is anti-Zionist and supported this position for years
Many Orthodox Jews are non-Zionist and support such a solution
Plus, this solution has gained support among post-Zionists in recent years

I believe poor Nick Terry will have a difficult time finding a single non-Zionist western academic historian. This is truly a remarkable insight.

You flatter yourself.

Too much

 

[Wroclaw]

Do you really want to compare deception to a maternal instinct?

It's slightly off-topic, but you know our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, i.e., the great apes? Know what they do? They lie. So apparently is serves some evolutionary purpose, likely a very primitive survival mechanism.

No, if your thesis is correct, all survivor and perpetrator testimony must be tossed unless it can be backed up with documentary or physical evidence.

I for one say that's fine by me. I will jettison all testimony unless it is corroborated by other evidence. Ilene Zisblatt? She's gone. Wiesel? Gone too.

 

[kageki]

It's slightly off-topic, but you know our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, i.e., the great apes? Know what they do? They lie. So apparently is serves some evolutionary purpose, likely a very primitive survival mechanism.



I for one say that's fine by me. I will jettison all testimony unless it is corroborated by other evidence. Ilene Zisblatt? She's gone. Wiesel? Gone too.

Is the testimony you rely on mainly from the Germans like Hoess or Gerstein?

I know there are other parts of the Holocaust, but the primary interest is the gas chambers at Auschwitz.

 

[Nick Terry]

Respectable doesn't mean that someone, somewhere respects someone.

Look, the teacher in the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy doesn't agree that he is wrong when the fallacy is called, he tries some pathetic arguments that a 'true' Scotsman really doens't like haggis.

And I'm sorry again, Saggy, but you saying that this is NTS doesn't make it so. Much like you redefining Zionist doesn't make your definition the dictionary one.

There is no way in hell that you can successfully argue that anyone who disagrees with employed western academics writing under their own name is not respectable. It's the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy in spades, complete with the subsequent whining when called, as you have graciously supplied.

Unfortunately, Saggy, this is not Alice in Wonderland and you are not the Queen who gets to make up what words mean. Here are the synonyms and antonyms for 'respectable'

Synonyms: admirable, appropriate, august, becoming, befitting, comely, conforming, correct, creditable, decent, decorous, dignified, done, estimable, fair, honorable, mediocre, moderate, modest, nice, ordinary, passable, presentable, proper, redoubtable, redoubted, reputable, reputed, respected, satisfactory, seemly, sublime, suitable, tolerable, upright, venerable, virtuous, well-thought-of, worthy Antonyms: bad, corrupt, dishonest, dishonorable, unrespectable, unworthy


As I pointed out already, the better word in Nelson's claim would be reputable, which is a synonym of respectable.

One antonym, ie opposite, of respectable is 'dishonest', which is pretty much how Holocaust revisionists are perceived.

I have not actually called deniers any names in this thread.

I think we all owe Nick Terry a debt of gratitude

Nonetheless I have not pulled my punches. I have just stated that Holocaust deniers are generally perceived as dishonest. That's not actually name-calling, what would be name-calling is saying that deniers are dishonest little ******.

Therefore, whatever nexus or central committee or Industry or whatever other fantasy hive mind you think exists regarding the Holocaust could not stop the publication of a pos fraud despite their clear reservations about it.

Stop the fraud? They gladly participate in every fraud. DeFonseca was finally outed when she was sued by her publisher, or some such nonsense. Note: this isn't worth looking up. The nexus participates fully in every fraud as long as it can.

You keep on saying this, but keep on ignoring the circumstances of the case in question. Neither USHMM nor Yad Vashem endorsed Defonseca, invited her to give a talk at their museums, said anything nice about her or otherwise promoted her.

Sooner or later you will have to acknowledge that not everything related to the Holocaust is run through USHMM or Yad Vashem or can be controlled, dictated or organised by them.

Unfortunately the Zionists were unable to stop the following professors from getting tenure at American universities and then using their chairs to make severe criticisms of Israel, up to and including its right to exist at all:

Noam Chomsky
John Walt
Stephen Mearsheimer
Richard Falk
Rashid Khalidi
Juan Cole
Judith Butler
Tony Judt (RIP)

Not so fast ! I'm not familiar with all the names, but Chomsky, Walt, and Mearsheimer are all explicit Zionists (def: a Zionist believes Israel has a right to exist on Palestinian land as a Jewish state),

No, that isn't the accepted definition of a Zionist. Zionism was a political movement inside the Jewish diaspora, beginning in the late 19th Century, which sought to create a Jewish state in the Biblical homeland of Palestine. After 1948 the primary aims of Zionism were fulfilled, because the state of Israel was founded. Ever since then the main context in which it makes sense to speak of Zionists are if one is discussing Jewish activists who seek to encourage more diaspora Jews to make aliyah to Israel.

Christian Zionists used to be known as Restorationalists, and encompass those Christians, mostly dispensationalists and thus Protestant fundamentalists, who believe for theological reasons that it is important that the Jews return to their Biblical homeland. Mormons, too, have believed that it is theologically important that the Jews returned to Palestine. This is the only other group that one can label as Zionist.

Catholics, Anglicans, and most diaspora Jews are in fact non-Zionist. It does not matter to Catholics or Anglicans whether Israel exists or not on theological grounds. They can choose to acknowledge Israel or ignore it, without this making them "Zionists".

Anti-Zionists are those who oppose the aims of the original Zionist movement and since 1948 the term has come to mean those who oppose the existence of the state of Israel. Merely criticising Israel for its actions is not necessarily anti-Zionism, though many critics of Israeli behaviour who stop short of wanting Israel to cease to exist actually embrace the term.

Your apparent definition of Zionist actually expands to include the very large percentage of the population of the planet who has no active desire to see Israel cease to be, and doesn't actually give Israel very much thought on a day to day basis. Because it is so expansive, it is a nonsensical definition, and is not in current use.

so I don't expect the Zionists would oppose them. The Zionists have prevented Finklestein from maintaining gainful employment, but he is a Zionist too.

Good grief, do you realise the topsy-turvy logic you have created for yourself? The Zionists opposed the tenure of one of their own? OH RLY? You must be kidding me.

Finkelstein cannot, under any circumstances, be described as a Zionist. He does not live in Israel, he does not support Israeli actions and is a major known critic of Israel, he is vocally pro-Palestinian. This is what he said when asked about Israel during the Gaza operation

It has been a long time since I felt any emotional connection with the state of Israel, which relentlessly and brutally and inhumanly keeps these vicious, murderous wars. It is a vandal state. There is a Russian writer who once described vandal states as Genghis Khan with a telegraph. Israel is Genghis Khan with a computer. I feel no emotion of affinity with that state. I have some good friends and their families there, and of course I would not want any of them to be hurt. That said, sometimes I feel that Israel has come out of the boils of the hell, a satanic state[63]
​

Under no stretch of the imagination can Finkelstein be described as a Zionist.

Just because someone doesn't want to see Israel erased from the world map does NOT make them a Zionist.

So, I think you may have fewer non-Zionists on your list than you have holocaust deniers. You're not making a case that way at all. But, I wasn't going there, anyhow.

Edit: It is an interesting point, how many non-Zionist western academic historians are there? One? Name him. Can't name Siddique as he ain't a historian.

Thanks Nick ! This could be better than the argument re: holocaust deniers

I can name a great many non-Zionist western academic historians, Saggy: approximately 95% of them at a guess. That's because non-Zionist covers the overwhelming majority of the world's population. There are a few overtly Zionist historians and a number of anti-Zionist historians. That's it.

Am I meant to poll my colleagues and ask the medievalists whether they even care about Israel? Do they have to express a negative opinion of Israel or be damned as 'Zionists'? What level of opposition to Israel is sufficient for you to save someone, Jewish or otherwise, from being called a Zionist? Do they have to strap on explosive vests or is demonstrating in front of the Israeli embassy enough for you?

Jesus Christ....

 

[Wroclaw]

Jesus Christ....

Sort of a proto-Zionist. Very Jewish, very nationalist...