On Thursday, September 8, 2005 at 10:11:47 AM UTC-10, Ian Pace wrote:
> (the point about including OT in a subject heading where necessary is a fair
> one, I will do so in future)
> "SG" <SGG...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126208978.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Who Is Norman Finkelstein?
> > Alan Dershowitz writes who he is. Ian Pace is about as imaginative and
> unpredictable as a Hanon exercise so I can tell you he will ignore the
> plethoras of quotes (with attributions and footnotes at the original
> link
> http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/Chapter_16.pdf
> > and attack Dershowitz personally, as an alleged plagiator or as a
> proponent of torture against terrorists or else. Whatever. Read the
> content and especially the revealing quotes about Finkelstein's true
> profile. The truth is that the essay excerpted below offers not such a
> rosy view of Norman Finkelstein, one of the handful of Jewish persons
> Ian Pace actually does not hate. If it came to that that a reputed
> German historian accuses Ian Pace's historical "authority" of
> antisemitism, that speaks for itself. (By the way, Peter Novik, who
> calls Finkelstein's work garbage, is by no means a "Zionist" or a
> pro-Israeli himself, on the contrary. Even him, who Finkelstein claims
> inspired his work, described Finkelstein's "glory"-bringing book as "a
> twenty-first century updating of the 'Protocols of the Elders of
> Zion'".)
>
> A vast number of replies to Dershowitz can be found on Finkelstein's site -
> www.normanfinkelstein.com . Do read the sections on Dershowitz's plagiarism
> ( http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=1 - explored in more
> detail in 'Beyond Chutzpah') and see how plausible they look. It's not
> surprising that Dershowitz isn't best disposed towards him, about
> three-quarters of 'Beyond Chutzpah' is devoted to a comprehensive refutation
> of the claims made in Dershowitz's 'The Case for Israel'. Finkelstein's book
> is heavily researched and footnoted, mostly using reports from Amnesty
> International and Israel human rights groups. One might also watch the now
> legendary debate between Dershowitz and Finkelstein on Democracy Now in late
> 2003 - that can be watched online here -
> http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/24/1730205&mode=thread&tid=38 .
> It should also be remembered that Dershowitz is the lawyer who has written
> that 'most of my clients are guilty', advocates torture and the retributive
> demolition of Palestinian villages, and also defended the actions in Abu
> Ghraib.
> As for Novick on Finkelstein (one might consider Novick's motivations
> considering that part of Finkelstein's work is a critique of Novick), here
> is Finkelstein's reply:
> A Reply to Peter Novick
>
> To Debate or to Defame? A reply to Peter Novick
> by Norman G. Finkelstein
> A notable feature of British discussion of The Holocaust Industry (hereafter
> HI) is the strident and shrill denunciations of my book as strident and
> shrill. Professor Peter Novick of the University of Chicago has now entered
> the fray. He told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that HI is "trash" (Richard
> Allen Greene, "Critic of Holocaust groups creates controversy in London," 29
> July). In his Jewish Chronicle review ("A charge into darkness that sheds no
> light," 28 July), Novick is no less hysterical. He maintains that my book is
> replete with "false accusations," "egregious misrepresentations," "absurd
> claims," and "repeated mis-statements." To answer these charges, there's no
> alternative except to juxtapose the respective claims of Novick and myself
> against the source material I cite in the footnotes. Tedious as this
> exercise may be, it nonetheless sharply illuminates the intellectual
> standards of my critics. Before doing so, however, I want to take note of a
> curiosity in Novick's review.
> Nearly the whole of chapter one of HI is devoted to a critical examination
> of the central thesis in Novick's book, The Holocaust in American Life. In
> line with mainstream interpretations, Novick argues that the fears American
> Jews harbored in June 1967 of a "second Holocaust" in Israel first awakened
> memories of the Nazi holocaust; and Israel's international isolation after
> the October 1973 war exacerbated those fears, moving the Holocaust center
> stage. If this were the case, I asked, why didn't American Jews remember the
> Holocaust after the 1948 war when Israel confronted a much greater threat to
> its survival, or after the 1956 war when Israel was much more isolated
> internationally? Nowhere in his review does Novick even attempt to answer
> these objections. Indeed, rather than enter a debate he opts to defame.
> Apart from my alleged misrepresentations of Novick's own book which he never
> clearly identifies, I count five specific charges of "absurd"
> misrepresentation against me:
> "Absurd" claim #1: During the debate on Hitler's Willing Executioners,
> Daniel Jonah Goldhagen initiated a libel suit against Canadian historian
> Ruth Bettina Birn and the Cambridge Historical Journal on account of her
> critical book review, and ferociously denounced me for situating the success
> of his book in a political context. Professor Charles Maier of Harvard
> University posted a lengthy intervention on the H-German website. In HI, I
> report - falsely, according to Novick - that Maier "ultimately" only found
> the criticisms of Goldhagen "really distasteful and reprehensible." The last
> paragraph of Maier's posting reads in full:
> Finally, I would like to say that I find two aspects of this unfolding
> situation really distasteful and reprehensible. First, "The Historical
> Journal" cited the upcoming Birn review in its advertising with language
> which suggested that the Birn review would demonstrate (and did not merely
> argue) that DJG's scholarship was woefully deficient. I do not believe that
> a scholarly journal should exploit the potentially sensational value of a
> piece that will discredit an author even for what might be the worthy end of
> encouraging subscriptions. This action, it seems to me, would give some
> support to a subsequent finding of malice. Second, and more serious, the
> explanations being resorted to that DJG's book was to be understood as the
> work either of an Orthodox Jewish community or a Zionist lobby or in any way
> related to the political or public goals of American Jews (or a segment
> thereof), is a fanciful and inflammatory speculation. It makes no sense, but
> even if it were thought to be true, it is irrelevant to the judgment we make
> about the work.
> Nowhere else does Maier mention anything "distasteful and reprehensible."
> "Absurd" claim #2: In HI, I report - falsely, according to Novick - that the
> American Jewish Committee (AJC) "endorsed the death penalty for the
> Rosenbergs." My footnoted source is Shlomo Shafir, Ambiguous Relations: The
> American Jewish Community and Germany Since 1945 (1999). Turning to the
> cited page, we read:
> The AJC's cooperation with right-wing anti-Communist groups such as the
> All-American Conference to Combat Communism was strongly criticized by
> liberal groups in the Jewish community. In 1952-53 the Committee went as far
> as actively endorsing the death penalty for Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who
> had been found guilty of spying for the Soviet Union. (p. 136)

(Recent Y. upload):

Ethel Rosenberg new book by Anne Sebba