Chomsky's call for the destruction of Israel

[Oliver Kamm]

Following is my customer review for Amazon of Chomsky's 'Peace in the Middle
East?'

In his 1992 collection of interviews Chronicles of Dissent, Noam Chomsky
declared, of the Arab-Israeli conflict, that a two-state settlement was "the
only realistic political settlement, for the time being, in the past ten or
twelve years". It's fortunate that he inserted that chronological rider, for
it is a matter of record that twelve years before he gave that interview
(which was conducted in 1986) he was virulently opposing any such
arrangement. This book, published in 1974 and long out of print, is the
evidence. In it, Chomsky proposes "some form of socialist bi-nationalism ...
supported by an international socialist movement that does not now exist" as
the proper political arrangement in Israel and the disputed territories.
This scheme requires an element of explication: Chomsky here seriously
proposes not only an entirely speculative socialist order, but also the
abolition of the Jewish state. He makes the right of Jewish
self-determination subsidiary to his own ideological views, whether or not
anyone else - specifically any Jew or Arab living in the region - happens to
agree with them. It could be argued that, by proposing bi-nationalism,
Chomsky is opposing the state rather than Jewish nationalism as such. But
that is not the position advanced in this book. Rather, Chomsky argues that
a specifically Jewish state incorporating a large Arab minority must be a
denial of democracy. He thereby makes both a conceptual and a historical
error. It is perfectly possible for a state to reflect a dominant culture
and at the same time to be thoroughly democratic, provided that it
guarantees and respects the civil and political liberties of minorities.
That is precisely the position of constitutional democracies such as Great
Britain and the United States, both of which have powerful undercurrents of
civic nationalism allied to their democratic polities. Why should a Jewish
state be any different merely on account of its being Jewish?

Chomsky does not vouchsafe an answer to this quite fundamental question:
rather, he caricatures the animating philosophy of the Zionist movement in
order to make it appear anti-Arab. To that end, he gives a tendentious
account of the Biltmore Hotel conference of 1942, at which David Ben-Gurion
and his Labour Zionists acknowledged that their previously inchoate
agitation for a Jewish homeland had been superseded by the need for a Jewish
state. Chomsky claims that this conference thereby elided the distinction
between Ben-Gurion and his Revisionist adversary Jabotinsky. That is a
remarkable attempt to rewrite the history of Zionism, given that the Zionist
militia, the Haganah, was attempting at that moment to apprehend groups such
as the Irgun. Chomsky makes no allowance for either the essentially liberal
(and impeccably Wilsonian) argument for a Jewish state, or the exigencies of
the position of Ben-Gurion and the Zionist movement in general. The British
Mandatory authority was hardly sympathetic to Zionism, and indeed actively
impeded Jewish immigration to Palestine; Western governments had closed
their own borders to Jewish emigrants from Europe; and, of course, Nazi
Germany was attempting to kill every Jew in Europe. For Chomsky to present
the mainstream Zionist movement in those circumstances as somehow chauvinist
for demanding a Jewish state - at any time but especially at that time -
evidences poor historical judgement.

That is not merely a theoretical issue, for it carries damaging practical
implications. It denies the very legitimacy of a Jewish state regardless of
anything that state might do. Chomsky makes no reference to the security
dilemmas of Ben-Gurion and the pioneers of the Jewish state as they
struggled to defend themselves against Arab aggression and at the same time
crack down on terrorism committed against Arabs by maverick Jewish
fractions. Israel, in appallingly difficult circumstances, was attempting to
build a democratic (and, incidentally, socialist) polity, which granted
equal citizenship and full political rights to Arabs as well as Jews. There
are many aspects of Israeli society that fall short of the ideals of its
founders, but these have nothing to do with some inherent illegitimacy of
the notion of Jewish nationalism. They are part of the human condition; the
wonder is that Israel, having lived under a state of siege throughout her
life, is so open a society. Chomsky nowhere gives credit for this fact, and
instead proposes a scheme of bi-nationalism that, even at the time he wrote
it, bore no relation to the views of the Israeli Left and was absolutely
rejected by Israel's fiercely hostile neighbours. It is true that before the
founding of Israel some Zionist thinkers, notably Martin Buber, advocated a
bi-national state, but once the nascent Zionist movement took root in
Palestine that option proved entirely incapable of fulfilment. There was, in
short, no equivalent to Buber anywhere in the Arab world who favoured such a
scheme.

I have criticised this book for its hostility to Jewish collective identity,
but the lasting impression gained from reading it is of its political
unreality. Chomsky unabashedly proposes the abolition of the Jewish state,
and advances instead a proposal that "Palestinian Arab and Israeli have
equal rights in the whole territory of Mandate Palestine". In short, the
most extreme irredentist territorial claims of both sides come to fruition
in a utopian political scheme - at precisely the time that Israel, the
supposedly chauvinist state, was proposing territorial compromise with her
neighbours under the Allon Plan! Chomsky's anti-Israel tergiversations are
capable of various explanations, and there is one particularly obvious
explanation for his opposition to the notion of a Jewish state; nonetheless,
I don't think it's the right one in this case. Rather, Chomsky is here
displaying what the philosopher Leszek Kolakowski has identified as the
inherent totalitarianism of Marxism: the dream of a total unity, in which
such particularist characteristics as nationhood are assumed to be evidence
of 'false consciousness'. Though this book is a forgotten part of Chomsky's
oeuvre, it thus stands as a faithful expression of his ideology.

[Andy Newton]

Oliver Kamm wrote:

> He makes the right of Jewish
> self-determination subsidiary to his own ideological views

Self-determination is the domain of the individual. There is no "right"
to Jewish self determination any more than there is to Aryan self
determination.

> Chomsky argues that
> a specifically Jewish state incorporating a large Arab minority must be a
> denial of democracy.

A "specifically Jewish state" is a specifically racist idea, just as a
"Specifically Aryan Europe" was. Israel has no "right to exist", as it
is based on a foundation of racial segregation.

> He thereby makes both a conceptual and a historical
> error. It is perfectly possible for a state to reflect a dominant culture
> and at the same time to be thoroughly democratic, provided that it
> guarantees and respects the civil and political liberties of minorities.

Your implication that Israel guarantees and respects the civil and
political liberties of it's arab minority is laughable. The reason
Israel is not a true democracy is that not all men are created equal in
Israel, in the eyes of the government and the laws. Did you know that
Israel does not grant citizenship based on birthplace? Jews from all
over the world can instantly receive citizenship, meanwhile the same
rights are denied to Palestinians who have been living there for
centuries. Did you know that more than 90% of Israel's land is zoned as
Jewish only?

Did you know that special rights are granted to those who serve in the
military, and that ethnic Palestinians are denied the ability to serve
in the Israeli military? Did you know that Arabs in the "occupied
territories" must pay tax to Israel, and yet receive no representation
in the government? Jews can live in settlements within the occupied
territories, and have full voting rights. Meanwhile, Palestinians within
the same occupied territories have none.

> That is precisely the position of constitutional democracies such as Great
> Britain and the United States, both of which have powerful undercurrents of
> civic nationalism allied to their democratic polities. Why should a Jewish
> state be any different merely on account of its being Jewish?

Because neither of the nations you list above are founded on the premise
of racial or religious segregation.

> Chomsky does not vouchsafe an answer to this quite fundamental question:
> rather, he caricatures the animating philosophy of the Zionist movement in
> order to make it appear anti-Arab.

The anti-Arab nature of Zionism is something you would have to try very
hard to hide. There are hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who are
exiled, unable to return to their homes. How can you say this is not
anti-Arab?

The removal of Arabs bodily from Palestine is part of the Zionist plan
to "spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it
employment...Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the
poor must be carried away discreetly and circumspectly." Theodore Herzl,
founder of the World Zionist Organization Complete Diaries, June 12,
1895 entry.

Vladimir Jabotinsky (the founder and advocate of the Zionist terrorist
organizations): "Has any People ever been seen to give up their
territory of their own free will? In the same way, the Arabs of
Palestine will not renounce their sovereignty without violence." Quoted
by Maxime Rodinson in Peuple Juif ou Problem Juif. (Jewish People or
Jewish Problem).

"Zionist colonization must either be terminated or carried out against
the wishes of the native population. This colonization can, therefore,
be continued and make progress only under the protection of a power
independent of the native population - an iron wall, which will be in a
position to resist the pressure to the native population. This is, in
toto, our policy towards the Arabs..." Vladimir Jabotinsky, The Iron
Wall, 1923.

"We must expel Arabs and take their places." David Ben Gurion, future
Prime Minister of Israel, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs,
Oxford University Press, 1985.

David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): " If I were an Arab
leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we
have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how
could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been
Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault?
They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country.
Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe
Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.

Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 "We must do everything to insure they
(the Palestinians) never do return." Assuring his fellow Zionists that
Palestinians will never come back to their homes, "The old will die and
the young will forget."

David Ben-Gurion, one of the father founders of Israel, described
Zionist aims in 1948 thus: "A Christian state should be established [in
Lebanon], with its southern border on the Litani river. We will make an
alliance with it. When we smash the Arab Legion's strength and bomb
Amman, we will eliminate Transjordan too, and then Syria will fall. If
Egypt still dares to fight on, we shall bomb Port Said, Alexandria and
Cairo... And in this fashion, we will end the war and settle our
forefathers' account with Egypt, Assyria, and Aram"

"We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and
waiters" Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs,
1960. From "The Arabs in Israel" by Sabri Jiryas.

"Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both
peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the
Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to transfer
the Arabs from here to neighboring countries - all of them. Not one
village, not one tribe should be left." Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish
Agency's Colonization Department in 1940. From "A Solution to the
Refugee Problem" Joseph Weitz, Davar, September 29, 1967, cited in Uri
Davis and Norton Mevinsky, eds., Documents from Israel, 1967-1973, p.21.

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not
even know the names of these Arab villages, and I don't blame you
because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not
exist, .The Arab villages are not there either. Nahal arose in the place
of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibat; Kibbutz Sarid in the
place of Huneifis; and Kfar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al Shuman.
There is not one single place that did not have a former Arab
population." Moshe Dayan's address to the Technion, Haifa (as Quoted in
Ha'aretz, April 4, 1969).

There is more, if you want it.

> Chomsky makes no allowance for either the essentially liberal
> (and impeccably Wilsonian) argument for a Jewish state, or the exigencies of
> the position of Ben-Gurion and the Zionist movement in general.

The idea of conquering and ethnically cleansing lands is not what I
would call liberal.

<snip racist attempt to justify a state founded on a racist principle>

--

"There is no reason to accept the doctrines crafted to sustain power and
privilege, or to believe that we are constrained by mysterious and
unknown social laws. These are simply decisions made within institutions
that are subject to human will and that must face the test of
legitimacy. And if they do not meet the test, they can be replaced by
other institutions that are more free and more just, as has happened
often in the past." Noam Chomsky

[Craig Franck]

"Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3DAA8AE0...@xtra.co.nz...

> Did you know that special rights are granted to those who serve in the
> military, and that ethnic Palestinians are denied the ability to serve
> in the Israeli military?

The rational behind this is that service is compulsory, and
making Palestinians fight other Palestinians or Arabs is
probably worse than not letting them in at all. Jews who opt
out of military service for religious reasons (which is very
common) are in the same boat.

>Did you know that Arabs in the "occupied
> territories" must pay tax to Israel, and yet receive no representation
> in the government?

The tax is for services. I agree a non-voting member
would makes sense, like with the US and Guam.

>Jews can live in settlements within the occupied
> territories, and have full voting rights.

This isn't unique. Jews can settle in the US and still vote
in Israel if they keep dual citizenship.

>Meanwhile, Palestinians within
> the same occupied territories have none.

They have a vote in the PA.

You should actually be happy Israel is a democracy, since
that's what prevents total annexation of the territories: you
can't make them part of Israel without giving the people
living there full citizenship and remain a democracy.

--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY

[Andy Newton]

Craig Franck wrote:
>
> "Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3DAA8AE0...@xtra.co.nz...
>
> > Did you know that special rights are granted to those who serve in the
> > military, and that ethnic Palestinians are denied the ability to serve
> > in the Israeli military?
>
> The rational behind this is that service is compulsory, and
> making Palestinians fight other Palestinians or Arabs is
> probably worse than not letting them in at all. Jews who opt
> out of military service for religious reasons (which is very
> common) are in the same boat.

So an individual should never be put in a situation where they might
have to fight a member of their own race? Ridiculous. This is a racist
policy because it is basd on an assumption that people are not
individuals, but instead have a "loyalty" to their race that goes beyond
loyalty to their nation. What's worse is that not only is it not
compulsory for Palestinians to join the Israeli military for this
reason, but they are not *allowed* to join, even if they do want to.
That is racial discrimination, also known as racism.

> >Did you know that Arabs in the "occupied
> > territories" must pay tax to Israel, and yet receive no representation
> > in the government?
>
> The tax is for services. I agree a non-voting member
> would makes sense, like with the US and Guam.

See further down.

> >Jews can live in settlements within the occupied
> > territories, and have full voting rights.
>
> This isn't unique. Jews can settle in the US and still vote
> in Israel if they keep dual citizenship.
>
> >Meanwhile, Palestinians within
> > the same occupied territories have none.
>
> They have a vote in the PA.
>
> You should actually be happy Israel is a democracy, since
> that's what prevents total annexation of the territories: you
> can't make them part of Israel without giving the people
> living there full citizenship and remain a democracy.

I would vastly perfer the total annexation of the territories, if all
within the territoies were given the full rights of an Israeli citizen.
That would be much more preferable to the current situation.

Israel has a very convenient set up. You see, by keeping the "occupied
teritories" occupied and not annexed, they can deny the Palestinians the
rights of Israeli citizens, and tax them (for "services", of which they
receive far less than any Israeli area), and meanwhile, as the
Palestinians continue to fight their war as a seperate nation trying to
defend itself and liberate itself, the Israelis can treat them as a
domestic problem. The Israelis are trying to have it both ways, the best
of both worlds for them. They own the occupied territories (continuing
to build settlements there), receive taxes from the occupied
territories, and meanwhile dont have to recognise the Palestinians there
as Israeli citizens.

The problem with this of course is that Israel doesnt *want* peace with
the Palestinians. They dont want a democracy that recognises hundreds of
thousands of non-Jewish voters. They want to get rid of them. I can
produce quotes from modern Israeli leaders that states this quite
explicitly. The quotes in my previous post are also relevant.

What fascinates me most is that so many people forget about what America
fought for in the war of independance, and what the allies fought for in
world war 2. And of course, they never, ever try and put themselves in
the Palestinian's shoes, and wonder how they would react of China
conquered America based on some ancient holy scriptures, and treated
Americans the way the Palestinians are treated.

[Oliver Kamm]

I don't intend to spend time tearing apart this farrago, except to note:

1) the charge on its author's part that Jews are a race speaks volumes for
his assumptions.

2) the claim that 90% of land is allocated to Jews is, of course, utter
rubbish

3) the 'quotations', which Mr Newton has botched from a cut-and-paste job,
raise serious questions about ethics. Take the Ben-Gurion comment from
Teveth's 'Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs', page 189: Mr Newton snips
the next sentence: "He did not wish to do so, for 'all our aspiration is
built on the assumption - proven throughout all our activity - that there is
enough room for ourselves and the Arabs in Palestine.' " That is dishonest
and fraudulent conduct on Mr Newton's part, and we may consequently form our
own opinions on his general reliability and good faith.

There are many things one could say about this sort of behaviour, but
bigotry and fraud just about cover it.

"Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3DAA8AE0...@xtra.co.nz...
>
>

[Craig Franck]

"Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3DAB2E98...@xtra.co.nz...

>
> Craig Franck wrote:
> >
> > "Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3DAA8AE0...@xtra.co.nz...
> >
> > > Did you know that special rights are granted to those who serve in the
> > > military, and that ethnic Palestinians are denied the ability to serve
> > > in the Israeli military?
> >
> > The rational behind this is that service is compulsory, and
> > making Palestinians fight other Palestinians or Arabs is
> > probably worse than not letting them in at all. Jews who opt
> > out of military service for religious reasons (which is very
> > common) are in the same boat.
>
> So an individual should never be put in a situation where they might
> have to fight a member of their own race? Ridiculous.

No, but the relationship between Arabs and Jews is unique.
It's a biblical blood feud that seems resistant to the norms
of the modern world.

> This is a racist
> policy because it is basd on an assumption that people are not
> individuals, but instead have a "loyalty" to their race that goes beyond
> loyalty to their nation.

I'm curious as to just how much loyalty you think the average
Israeli Palestinian feels for the state of Israel.

>What's worse is that not only is it not
> compulsory for Palestinians to join the Israeli military for this
> reason, but they are not *allowed* to join, even if they do want to.
> That is racial discrimination, also known as racism.

I don't know why you refer to this as racism since Palestinians
and ethnic Jews are of the same race. I think the proper term
is cultural dissimilation. I agree that Palestinians should be able
to serve at some future time when things aren't as contentious.

> > You should actually be happy Israel is a democracy, since
> > that's what prevents total annexation of the territories: you
> > can't make them part of Israel without giving the people
> > living there full citizenship and remain a democracy.
>
> I would vastly perfer the total annexation of the territories, if all
> within the territoies were given the full rights of an Israeli citizen.
> That would be much more preferable to the current situation.

That would result in the destruction of the state of Israel.

> The Israelis are trying to have it both ways, the best
> of both worlds for them. They own the occupied territories (continuing
> to build settlements there), receive taxes from the occupied
> territories, and meanwhile dont have to recognise the Palestinians there
> as Israeli citizens.

I think we both agree that the settlements are a huge mistake
and should be abandoned as soon as possible.

> The problem with this of course is that Israel doesnt *want* peace with
> the Palestinians. They dont want a democracy that recognises hundreds of
> thousands of non-Jewish voters.

There are already a million Palestinian Israeli citizens. Adding
two million more would be a backdoor way for the Arabs
to destroy Israel.

> What fascinates me most is that so many people forget about what America
> fought for in the war of independance, and what the allies fought for in
> world war 2.

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and it's surrounded
by a sea of totalitarian dictatorships. Supporting Israel is in keeping
with the ideals of WWII.

> And of course, they never, ever try and put themselves in
> the Palestinian's shoes,

The Palestinians have a serious PR problem with all the suicide
bombers, I'll admit, but I think you underestimate the number
of people who feel sorry them and wish things would simmer
down over there. I personally feel they should have there own
state immediately.

[Andy Newton]

Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> I don't intend to spend time tearing apart this farrago, except to note:

In other words, you admit failure to counter-argue. This is also known
as an admission of defeat. The nit-picks, and resulting slander are
therefore rendered irelevant.

[Andy Newton]

Craig Franck wrote:
>
> "Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3DAB2E98...@xtra.co.nz...

> > So an individual should never be put in a situation where they might
> > have to fight a member of their own race? Ridiculous.
>
> No, but the relationship between Arabs and Jews is unique.
> It's a biblical blood feud that seems resistant to the norms
> of the modern world.

And this is something that should be condemned, no?

> > This is a racist
> > policy because it is basd on an assumption that people are not
> > individuals, but instead have a "loyalty" to their race that goes beyond
> > loyalty to their nation.
>
> I'm curious as to just how much loyalty you think the average
> Israeli Palestinian feels for the state of Israel.

The actual loyalty an average Palestinian probably has is not really
important -what is important is that an assumption has been made. The
basis of this assumption is morally despicable, hence my disgust.

> >What's worse is that not only is it not
> > compulsory for Palestinians to join the Israeli military for this
> > reason, but they are not *allowed* to join, even if they do want to.
> > That is racial discrimination, also known as racism.
>
> I don't know why you refer to this as racism since Palestinians
> and ethnic Jews are of the same race. I think the proper term
> is cultural dissimilation. I agree that Palestinians should be able
> to serve at some future time when things aren't as contentious.

That Palestinians and ethnic Jews are the same race or not is something
I have seen evidence for and against. Personally, I would prefer it be
true, as if it then became more widely known perhaps it would bend the
racism of some on either side. But I dont think it *should* be important
because there should not be racism in the first place.

I disagree that it should be at some future point that the doors to
Israeli military service are opened to Palestinians -it should be now. I
believe that any discrimination on the basis of race or religion is
wrong in all circumstances. This is merely one example of such in
Israel, and it only serves to make matters worse. When one group of
people have less rights than another, it is natural that racism forms
and there is contempt towards those in the group that is in control, and
giving itself preferential treatment. If treatment were equal, if all
were given the same rights, this cause of hatred and, ultimately,
violence, would be destroyed.

> > I would vastly perfer the total annexation of the territories, if all
> > within the territoies were given the full rights of an Israeli citizen.
> > That would be much more preferable to the current situation.
>
> That would result in the destruction of the state of Israel.

Since it is your claim, I will let you argue why before I agree or
disagree.

In any case, if you are talking about the state of Israel as a concept,
that is a result that would please me. The concept of Israel, as defined
by the Zionist movement, is one which I find morally reprehensible. More
further down.

> > The Israelis are trying to have it both ways, the best
> > of both worlds for them. They own the occupied territories (continuing
> > to build settlements there), receive taxes from the occupied
> > territories, and meanwhile dont have to recognise the Palestinians there
> > as Israeli citizens.
>
> I think we both agree that the settlements are a huge mistake
> and should be abandoned as soon as possible.

Yes.

> > The problem with this of course is that Israel doesnt *want* peace with
> > the Palestinians. They dont want a democracy that recognises hundreds of
> > thousands of non-Jewish voters.
>
> There are already a million Palestinian Israeli citizens. Adding
> two million more would be a backdoor way for the Arabs
> to destroy Israel.

I really need to know exactly what you mean by "destroy" and "Israel".
Also, to some extent, "Arabs". If by Arabs you simply mean the
Palestinians, I think you're wrong. If every Palestinian wanted every
Jew dead one side of this conflict would already be extinquished.

What needs to be looked at are the motivations for hatred from
Palestinians towards Jews. A great many of them have very ligitimate
grievances in terms of land taken from them and given to Jews. This is
something that could be fixed, through returning property to their
rightful owners, and through reparations where that is not possible.
Bear in mind this is something that many nations are already doing.

Secondly, equal rights would alleviate a lot of tension. If
discrimination is combatted first legally, then socially, the rug can be
pulled out from under the terrorist organisations. Without a struggling,
suffering people whose daily lives are negatively effected by the
Israelis, there will be no more recruits for suicide bombings. Long term
healing will be needed, but it is the right thing to do, and will have
the best result in the long term. The world pressured South Africa to do
it, now they need to pressure Israel to.

Obviously, Palestinians would have proper representation in the Israeli
government. I see this as nothing but positive. It will result in a
"different" Israel, of course, and you might term this a "destruction",
but I would call it a true democracy.

So yes, you could see this, from a certain point of view, as a
destruction of Israel by Arabs, but such a label does not stop it being
the best option. The other possibility is that you are talking about a
literal destruction of the physical Israel by the surrounding Arab
nations. I cant see this happening, not with the power of the Israeli
military, and it's big brother USA.

> > What fascinates me most is that so many people forget about what America
> > fought for in the war of independance, and what the allies fought for in
> > world war 2.
>
> Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and it's surrounded
> by a sea of totalitarian dictatorships. Supporting Israel is in keeping
> with the ideals of WWII.

As I've already mentioned, I do not consider Israel a true democracy.
Another thing I should mention so that it is very clear, I have no love
for Israel's neighbours. One important point though is that a nation
that is a democracy is not automatically "good" by it's very nature
-this seems to be one assumption you have made.

The actions of the Israeli government are just as evil as those of it's
neighbours. The fact that it is a democracy, and the fact that it's
neighbours are not is no reason to ignore the evil it has committed, or
to send billions of $ in military and economic aid to them.

> > And of course, they never, ever try and put themselves in
> > the Palestinian's shoes,
>
> The Palestinians have a serious PR problem with all the suicide
> bombers, I'll admit, but I think you underestimate the number
> of people who feel sorry them and wish things would simmer
> down over there. I personally feel they should have there own
> state immediately.

I am glad to hear that, even if we disagree on the method and specifics.

[Oliver Kamm]

"Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message

news:3DABE660...@xtra.co.nz...

>
>
> Oliver Kamm wrote:
> >
> > I don't intend to spend time tearing apart this farrago, except to note:
>
> In other words, you admit failure to counter-argue. This is also known
> as an admission of defeat. The nit-picks, and resulting slander are
> therefore rendered irelevant.

The point about slander is that it is, by definition, untrue. What I have
said about you is, however, demonstrably accurate. You are a fraud. I will
spell it out.

You offered the following snippet to this ng:

> "We must expel Arabs and take their places." David Ben Gurion, future
> Prime Minister of Israel, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs,
> Oxford University Press, 1985.

I have the book you cite (its author is Shabtai Teveth) in front of me. The
very next sentence, on page 189, reads as follows: "He [i.e. Ben-Gurion] did

not wish to do so, for 'all our aspiration is built on the assumption -
proven throughout all our activity - that there is enough room for ourselves
and the Arabs in Palestine.' "

So according to your source, quoting Ben-Gurion's words, Ben-Gurion did not
wish to supplant Arabs. That sentence being immediately adjacent to the one
you quote, it is clearly a deliberate decision on your part to omit it. And
the fact that you decided to truncate the quotation at exactly that point
you did demonstrates that you wanted to mislead this ng as regards
Ben-Gurion's views.

A couple of years ago the pseudo-historian David Irving was taken apart by
the High Court in the most damning libel judgement ever issued in the UK.
The judge determined that Irving had consciously falsified his source
material through, among other expedients, deliberately withholding relevant
context from quotations, and that he had done so in order to promote his
antisemitic ideology. That judgement clearly describes your own conduct as
well. You can play games as much as you like, but I'm afraid the evidence is
beyond argument: you are a cheat and a fraud.

Mr Newton's dishonesty having been exposed, let me now turn to an issue that
might be puzzling other ng members. Why would Ben-Gurion have said the
sentiments quoted in deliberately dishonest truncated form by Mr Newton - is
it not a contradictory statement? The answer is that it is, indeed
contradictory, and the contradiction is explained by the fact that
Ben-Gurion almost certainly did not in fact intend to say "We must expel
Arabs and take their places". What he actually meant to say was "We do not
wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places".

The quotation comes from a handwritten letter by Ben-Gurion to his son in
which he crossed out initial formulations and substituted others. A careful
textual look at the document indicates that Ben-Gurion rote but then
accidentally crossed out, with a long brush stroke from the adjacent line,
the words 'do not' (ve-ein), leaving the sentence as 'we need' (anu
tsrihim'). On this, see Efraim Karsh, Fabricating Israeli History, 1997, and
Benny Morris, A New Look on Central Zionist Documents, Alpayim, 12, 1996.

None of this, however, has any bearing on the essential point on which I
started, which is that Mr Newton is a cheat and a fraud.

[Andy Newton]

Oliver Kamm wrote:

> The point about slander is that it is, by definition, untrue. What I have
> said about you is, however, demonstrably accurate. You are a fraud. I will
> spell it out.

This is why your argument falls apart:

http://www.al-awda.org/famous_quotes.htm

This is my source for this quote.

Fraud is an act of deliberate deception. Your carefully constructed
contention is based on a false assumption.

Your reply is very interesting though. By creating such thorough attack
on my character, carefully worded in semi-legalese, you have
demonstrated that it is not for lack of time or writing ability that you
fail to reply to my original post. Instead you make it damningly clear
that it is a failure to address the points that impedes your ability to
repond with anything more than poorly founded character attacks, and
attention to insignificant details.

[Craig Franck]

"Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3DABF1F9...@xtra.co.nz...
>
> Craig Franck wrote:

> > No, but the relationship between Arabs and Jews is unique.
> > It's a biblical blood feud that seems resistant to the norms
> > of the modern world.
>
> And this is something that should be condemned, no?

I think this is something that needs to be carefully understood
and considered.

[...]

> The concept of Israel, as defined
> by the Zionist movement, is one which I find morally reprehensible.

Well, we certainly disagree about that.

I see the situation as a reverse ghettoization. Jews (Christians
or anyone else for that matter) aren't welcome in most Middle
East Arab states. 600,000 Jews fled Arab lands after the state
of Israel was formed. Only instead of winding up with one huge
refugee camp, you have a successful and prosperous country.

All Zionism states is a Jewish state should be comprised of a
majority of Jews. I agree it is sort of a tribal mentality, but it
is also a reaction to horrendous historical considerations.

If Mormons were being persecuted throughout the United
States and the world, I could see them flocking to Utah in an
attempt to form some kind of homeland and stand their ground.

> > There are already a million Palestinian Israeli citizens. Adding
> > two million more would be a backdoor way for the Arabs
> > to destroy Israel.
>
> I really need to know exactly what you mean by "destroy" and "Israel".
> Also, to some extent, "Arabs". If by Arabs you simply mean the
> Palestinians, I think you're wrong.

[...]

> So yes, you could see this, from a certain point of view, as a
> destruction of Israel by Arabs, but such a label does not stop it being
> the best option. The other possibility is that you are talking about a
> literal destruction of the physical Israel by the surrounding Arab
> nations. I cant see this happening, not with the power of the Israeli
> military, and it's big brother USA.

I think you are being extremely naive. The moment the population
of Israel is less than 50% Jewish, it's going to be 1948 all
over again. I shudder to think how an Israeli army that is 50%
Palestinian is going to respond to an attack by an Arab neighbor.

You are going to have a civil war in Israel at the exact moment
Israel needs to be at its strongest. Then the US is going to have
to invade, which would make for a regional conflict rather than
something confined to a piece of land the size of New Jersey.

> As I've already mentioned, I do not consider Israel a true democracy.
> Another thing I should mention so that it is very clear, I have no love
> for Israel's neighbours. One important point though is that a nation
> that is a democracy is not automatically "good" by it's very nature
> -this seems to be one assumption you have made.
>
> The actions of the Israeli government are just as evil as those of it's
> neighbours.

I don't see how you can say that. If you had to pick one
country in the Middle East to live in, which one would you
choose?

>The fact that it is a democracy, and the fact that it's
> neighbours are not is no reason to ignore the evil it has committed, or
> to send billions of $ in military and economic aid to them.

I think it's money well spent. Many people in this country
feel a commitment to Israel, and it's much cheaper to support
them and let them defend themselves than have to go over
there and do it ourselves.

[Andy Newton]

Craig Franck wrote:
>
> "Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3DABF1F9...@xtra.co.nz...
> >
> > Craig Franck wrote:
>
> > > No, but the relationship between Arabs and Jews is unique.
> > > It's a biblical blood feud that seems resistant to the norms
> > > of the modern world.
> >
> > And this is something that should be condemned, no?
>
> I think this is something that needs to be carefully understood
> and considered.
>
> [...]

Religious bigotry is one of the banes of humanity. It is a powerful
motivator towards creating death and suffering. I dont see how it could
be considered otherwise. Are you saying it is not something that should
be condemned? Is it not something we should attempt to eliminate?

> > The concept of Israel, as defined
> > by the Zionist movement, is one which I find morally reprehensible.
>
> Well, we certainly disagree about that.
>
> I see the situation as a reverse ghettoization. Jews (Christians
> or anyone else for that matter) aren't welcome in most Middle
> East Arab states. 600,000 Jews fled Arab lands after the state
> of Israel was formed. Only instead of winding up with one huge
> refugee camp, you have a successful and prosperous country.

Tell that to the Palestinians, and take a look at the occupied
territories. Israel could be the most prosperous nation in the world,
and that would not change the fact that it was founded through brutal
bloodshed, and has driven at least as many people into lives of misery
as it saved.

Think about what you're saying. You are saying it is alright for a group
to strive for a nation that is ethnically or religiously pure, and to
achieve such goals through ethnic or religious cleansing. As long as the
result is a nation that is prosperous for those within the founding
group, it is alright.

This is exactly the same as Nazi Germany. Hitler wanted an Aryan Europe,
and so he started rounding up and disposing of Jews and other
"undesirables". His methods were slightly different, but his objective
was the same, an objective that as a concept you are endorsing.

> All Zionism states is a Jewish state should be comprised of a
> majority of Jews. I agree it is sort of a tribal mentality, but it
> is also a reaction to horrendous historical considerations.

I happen to believe tribal mentalities are something that should be
combatted. Wherever you divive humanity into ethnic or religious
groupings, you set the stage for group judgements, stereotypes, and
eventually hostilities. Ethnic or religious seperatism or apartheid is
no basis for a nation.

> If Mormons were being persecuted throughout the United
> States and the world, I could see them flocking to Utah in an
> attempt to form some kind of homeland and stand their ground.

If they did so with the goal of creating an ethnically or religiously
pure state that would be as bad as Israel. If they decided form the
onset that this was to be their home (based on some ancient holy texts
that bear no relevance to any living there today), and that the
indigenous population would have to be "adjusted" and controlled such
that there would always be a Mormon majority, and that all non-Mormons
would have less if not no rights, they would be just as bad as Israel.

> > I really need to know exactly what you mean by "destroy" and "Israel".
> > Also, to some extent, "Arabs". If by Arabs you simply mean the
> > Palestinians, I think you're wrong.
>
> [...]
>
> > So yes, you could see this, from a certain point of view, as a
> > destruction of Israel by Arabs, but such a label does not stop it being
> > the best option. The other possibility is that you are talking about a
> > literal destruction of the physical Israel by the surrounding Arab
> > nations. I cant see this happening, not with the power of the Israeli
> > military, and it's big brother USA.
>
> I think you are being extremely naive. The moment the population
> of Israel is less than 50% Jewish, it's going to be 1948 all
> over again. I shudder to think how an Israeli army that is 50%
> Palestinian is going to respond to an attack by an Arab neighbor.

I think most Palestinians want to live peacefully. I think the fact that
there arent more suicide bombings than there are is good evidence of
this. There will only be problems in this situation if the now minority
Jews continue to discriminate, legally and socially, against the
Palestinians.

There are two ways to end terrorism. Option 1 is kill everybody. Option
2 is removing the cause of terrorism. Dont give young Palestinians
something to die for. Give them peaceful, prosperous lives, like the
Jews have.

> You are going to have a civil war in Israel at the exact moment
> Israel needs to be at its strongest. Then the US is going to have
> to invade, which would make for a regional conflict rather than
> something confined to a piece of land the size of New Jersey.

Are you aware of the concept of MAD? Mutually Assured Destruction. None
of Israel's neighbours will attack. They may be governed by totalitarian
dictatorships, but they're not stupid. Israel has nukes, and it's
closest ally, the USA, has nukes. Neither would be afraid to use them if
faced with a full scale invasion of Israel, and Israel's neighbours know
this.

> > As I've already mentioned, I do not consider Israel a true democracy.
> > Another thing I should mention so that it is very clear, I have no love
> > for Israel's neighbours. One important point though is that a nation
> > that is a democracy is not automatically "good" by it's very nature
> > -this seems to be one assumption you have made.
> >
> > The actions of the Israeli government are just as evil as those of it's
> > neighbours.
>
> I don't see how you can say that. If you had to pick one
> country in the Middle East to live in, which one would you
> choose?

I can say that easily. Have a look at the history of the region. Which
is the nation that has, time and time again, been the aggressor? If you
answered Israel's neighbours, you are wrong.

Your question does not relate to the measure of evil and the comparisson
to Israel's neighbours. How comfortable I personally would feel, given
my ethnic background and culture, is completely irrelevant.

> >The fact that it is a democracy, and the fact that it's
> > neighbours are not is no reason to ignore the evil it has committed, or
> > to send billions of $ in military and economic aid to them.
>
> I think it's money well spent. Many people in this country
> feel a commitment to Israel, and it's much cheaper to support
> them and let them defend themselves than have to go over
> there and do it ourselves.

As long as you are comfortable with supporting a racist and religiously
bigoted nation responsible massive turmoil and unmeasurable suffering in
the midle east, not to mention comfortable with the potential
retalliation on the part of Israel's victims, that is your choice.

[Josh Dougherty]

Andy Newton <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3DACC760...@xtra.co.nz>...

> Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> > The point about slander is that it is, by definition, untrue. What I have
> > said about you is, however, demonstrably accurate. You are a fraud. I will
> > spell it out.
>
> This is why your argument falls apart:
>
> http://www.al-awda.org/famous_quotes.htm
>
> This is my source for this quote.
>
> Fraud is an act of deliberate deception. Your carefully constructed
> contention is based on a false assumption.

My guess is he'll now respond by attacking "al-awda.org" as terrorist
or nazi or whatever else, which may or may not be valid or relevant,
since i'm not familiar with it. But, expect it to come either way.

But the interesting point is that the source in question and Oliver's
key "next sentence" is unclear as to its relation to the first quote.
Is it from the same speech? The same year? Does it have any
relationship to the original quote, other than that they appear to
assert the opposite of each other, and then being hand-picked by the
author discussed below?

Here's what he says:

> I have the book you cite (its author is Shabtai Teveth) in front of me.
> The very next sentence, on page 189, reads as follows:
> "He [i.e. Ben-Gurion] did not wish to do so, for 'all our aspiration
> is built on the assumption - proven throughout all our activity -
> that there is enough room for ourselves and the Arabs in Palestine.' "

Why would Ben-Gurion put forth two exactly contradictory statements
like this? So, which is his real postion? Were they spoken to the
same audience or not?When was each spoken, and what would the
audiences for each quote likely have wanted to hear in each case, and
was he just lying to them? If so, in which case?

Oliver has immediately assumed that the latter is the "real" position
and I'm not sure why. Certainly the author editorializing with "He
did not wish to do so, for..." is not enough, and in fact, depending
on the allegiances and ideological leanings of the author, could even
be a subtle attempt to lead objective readers astray, and thus would
warrant Oliver's principled denounciations of "fraud". All we have
are two seemingly contradictory quotes. Has the first quote been
exposed as a fraud? It doesn't seem so. Perhaps Ben-Gurion has, or
perhaps not.

If Ben-Gurion were to be held to the same standard as Chomsky has been
in this ng very recently, such an apparent contradiction between two
isolated quotes, even if of widely disparate origin, in itself would
be sufficient for discrediting him completely for all time. But here
the seeming contradiction is hand picked and held up first by the
author and again here by Oliver not as a condemnation, nor even a
seemingly hypocritical curiosity, but as a defense and a vilification.
It makes one wonder why?

but, Oliver answers this question when he informs us:

> The answer is that it is, indeed contradictory, and the contradiction
> is explained by the fact that Ben-Gurion almost certainly did not in
> fact intend to say "We must expel Arabs and take their places". What
> he actually meant to say was "We do not wish and do not need to expel
> Arabs and take their places".

Ohhhhhh. So, you see it's all been cleared up now. Surely Ben-Gurion
"meant to say" the *exact opposite* of what he said.

And furthermore:

> A careful textual look at the document indicates that Ben-Gurion
> rote but then accidentally crossed out, with a long brush stroke
> from the adjacent line, the words 'do not' (ve-ein), leaving the sentence

> as 'we need'...

So, you see it's obvious that he mistakenly crossed out "do not wish
and do not need" with an errant "long brush stroke", while instead
leaving the "we" in tact and managing to make "must" appear somehow,
possibly something in the translation. This benign error has
apparently confused many a reader, but thankfully certain interested
parties have put the document to a "careful textual look" and have
cleared up the mistake.

You Mr. Newton assumed that Ben-Gurion meant exactly what he said in
the quote, and didn't see that he obviously meant the exact opposite
of what he said.

You also failed to include another curious contradictory quote, of
some as yet unknown origin or relation to the first, chosen by this
author Teveth to follow the first quote after a short editorial
comment.

And finally, you have failed to either know about or adhere to the
"long brush stroke" theory as put forth by whichever interested
parties took a "careful textual look" at this letter.

This overwhelming evidence should make it clear to all that your
intentional "fraud" on the readers of this ng has been exposed, and
that you are also now completely discredited for all time.

Josh

[Andy Newton]

Josh Dougherty wrote:

<snip>

> This overwhelming evidence should make it clear to all that your
> intentional "fraud" on the readers of this ng has been exposed, and
> that you are also now completely discredited for all time.
>
> Josh

Classic, thanks mate ;)

[Spyder]

..and then "Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> said:

<snip>

Are you planning on pulling him up on any issues that are relevant to the
discussion? I enjoy reading page-long articles filled with semantics, and
name calling as much as the next guy, but I'd like to know if there's going
to be any real content from you.

This isn't a flame. It's just that there are a lot of posts here so I need to
be selective in order to save time.

[Oliver Kamm]

"Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message

news:3DACC760...@xtra.co.nz...

>
>
> Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> > The point about slander is that it is, by definition, untrue. What I
have
> > said about you is, however, demonstrably accurate. You are a fraud. I
will
> > spell it out.
>
> This is why your argument falls apart:
>
> http://www.al-awda.org/famous_quotes.htm
>
> This is my source for this quote.
>
> Fraud is an act of deliberate deception. Your carefully constructed
> contention is based on a false assumption.

Let me get this straight: your defence against the charge of fraud is that
... you're a fraud.

You now claim absolution from your grossly selective quotation with the
defence that you'd never read the book in the first place but just
cut-and-pasted a block of text from a web site. So when you cited Shabtai
Teveth's book as your source, your source was in fact not Shabtai Teveth's
book at all. You were lying. Indeed, your citing various books as sources
was, in its entirety, a lie. Kindly inform this ng just how many of these
books, which you have claimed are your sources, you have consulted and
checked, never mind read.

Your conduct speaks for itself, but do you even have the slightest *notion*
of what intellectual standards consist in? At any rate, you have given a
rather comprehensive account of yourself as a liar, a cheat and a fraud.

[Nathan Folkert]

jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote in message news:<eee564bd.02101...@posting.google.com>...

[snip]

> If Ben-Gurion were to be held to the same standard as Chomsky has been
> in this ng very recently, such an apparent contradiction between two
> isolated quotes, even if of widely disparate origin, in itself would
> be sufficient for discrediting him completely for all time. But here
> the seeming contradiction is hand picked and held up first by the
> author and again here by Oliver not as a condemnation, nor even a
> seemingly hypocritical curiosity, but as a defense and a vilification.
> It makes one wonder why?

Oliver Kamm was not involved in the discussion that you cite here, so
this speculation is irrelevant. It seems you have a problem with the
"widely disparate origins" of the quotes that I chose. As I noted in
that post, this was neither the only nor the best example available.
I chose it because both examples were widely and recently discussed in
the newsgroup -- they were readily available to me and would be
accessible to the audience. If you prefer, you can look at Chomsky's
behavior toward his critics at the time of the Faurisson quote. Even
when I was a Chomsky fan, I had to concede that Chomsky's accusations
and name-calling directed toward critics and intellectuals at the time
and later was hypocritical when compared to Chomsky's defense of
Faurisson.

From an old post of mine:

"Interestingly, while Chomsky's opponents get extremely riled up about
him calling Faurisson a 'relatively apolitical liberal', I have not
seen any of them question his attribution of 'Stalinist' or 'fascist'
to any western intellectual he's criticized, which suggests to me
either that they have looked into this and determined that the
intellectual in question indeed was a Stalinist or fascist, or that
they were simply fabricating their 'interest' in Chomsky's
mischaracterization of someone's political views in an attempt to
cover for their own campaign of mudslinging. Nonetheless, I take it
for granted that everyone has a certain level of prejudicial
viciousness in their attacks on others, and that everyone has a
certain level of hypocrisy regarding this behaviour, and I doubt that
Chomsky's is much worse than anyone else's.

"Considering that the point of the paragraph in which Chomsky says
that <based on what he'd read Faurisson only appeared to be some kind
of apolitical liberal> was to castigate the French intelligentsia for
drawing conclusions about others without credible evidence, you would
think that this would be a greater area of research for those truly
'intellectually curious' about such matters. Of course, to do so
would require the critic to concede that the paragraph was not
intended to 'whitewash' a Nazi, but rather to chastise French
intellectuals. But since the former is truly what most critics are
after, this is not a viable option."
(http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.GSO.4.21.0012250106220.15230-100000%40fable9.Stanford.EDU)

You should take a look in there. I make the same rationalizations
that some of the people made in the more recent thread. I was a
pretty clever Chomsky fan; maybe you can find a useful argument or
two.

My attitude toward Chomsky's character has obviously soured somewhat
since then, but this point was so obvious even when I was a fan that I
thought it would be rather uncontroversial today.

- Nate

[zztop8970-]

"Josh Dougherty" <jbd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eee564bd.02101...@posting.google.com...
<snip>

> > A careful textual look at the document indicates that Ben-Gurion
> > rote but then accidentally crossed out, with a long brush stroke
> > from the adjacent line, the words 'do not' (ve-ein), leaving the
sentence
> > as 'we need'...
>
> So, you see it's obvious that he mistakenly crossed out "do not wish
> and do not need" with an errant "long brush stroke", while instead
> leaving the "we" in tact and managing to make "must" appear somehow,
> possibly something in the translation. This benign error has
> apparently confused many a reader, but thankfully certain interested
> parties have put the document to a "careful textual look" and have
> cleared up the mistake.

They have indeed.
Have you read or seen the original document being discussed here?
Have you read Mr. Karsh's book, Mr. Dougherty?
Do you find it lacking in academic rigor, in methodology, or otherwise?
Please do spell out your exact grievances against this scholar, and I hope
you can come up with something more substantial than the idiotic thesis
advanced by Mr. Newton that he's to be dismissed becuase he's a professor
at King's College.

[Craig Franck]

"Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3DACDA91...@xtra.co.nz...
>
>
> Craig Franck wrote:

> > I think this is something that needs to be carefully understood
> > and considered.

> Religious bigotry is one of the banes of humanity. It is a powerful

> motivator towards creating death and suffering. I dont see how it could
> be considered otherwise. Are you saying it is not something that should
> be condemned? Is it not something we should attempt to eliminate?

Yes, it should be eliminated. But so many Israel bashers think
Israel should proceed as if it doesn't exist.

For example, the idea that everything would be fine if the
Palestinians just had their own state doesn't take into account that
the people currently blowing themselves up think Tel Aviv is
occupied territory. People in Saudi Arabia and Egypt are going to
hate Jews regardless of what happens to the Palestinian refugees.

In fact, they like the fact that there are all those Palestinian
refugee camps since they are their ace in the hole to get rid
of Israel.

> Think about what you're saying. You are saying it is alright for a group
> to strive for a nation that is ethnically or religiously pure, and to
> achieve such goals through ethnic or religious cleansing.

No, I'm not. You're arguing about a country that doesn't
exist. 15% of Israeli citizens were Arabs right from the start.
Now it's 20%. How is that ethnic or religious cleansing?
Why are Christian welcome to come there and settle? Why
is Arabic an official state language, for God's sake? Why are
Israeli intellectuals allowed to roam the streets criticizing the
government when any Nazi worth his salt will tell you the
first thing you need to do is extinguish all rational thought
when you want to institute insane policies?

>As long as the
> result is a nation that is prosperous for those within the founding
> group, it is alright.

Israeli Arabs have one of the highest standards of living in
the Arab world. If you're an Arab, you would be far better
off living in Israel than Egypt. That's a fact.

> This is exactly the same as Nazi Germany. Hitler wanted an Aryan Europe,
> and so he started rounding up and disposing of Jews and other
> "undesirables". His methods were slightly different, but his objective
> was the same, an objective that as a concept you are endorsing.

That's a lie. People who compare Israel to the Nazis are
so blinded by hate for the state of Israel that they form
irrational conceptions about what's going on over there. The
only reason that particular comparison is made is to rub their
noses in the holocaust. If you don't hate Jews, stop making
that comparison because you are just playing into the hands
of those who do.

> I happen to believe tribal mentalities are something that should be
> combatted. Wherever you divive humanity into ethnic or religious
> groupings, you set the stage for group judgements, stereotypes, and
> eventually hostilities. Ethnic or religious seperatism or apartheid is
> no basis for a nation.

Then you should be bashing the hell out of Saudi Arabia, not
Israel.

> I think most Palestinians want to live peacefully. I think the fact that
> there arent more suicide bombings than there are is good evidence of
> this.

I can't believe this statement. There aren't more suicide bombers
because Israel has cracked down on them so hard in their war
on terrorism. This has crippled their ability to carry out attacks and
convinced anyone with any common sense that suicide bombings
just make thing worse for their cause.

> There are two ways to end terrorism. Option 1 is kill everybody. Option
> 2 is removing the cause of terrorism. Dont give young Palestinians
> something to die for. Give them peaceful, prosperous lives, like the
> Jews have.

That doesn't work. Where are all the African American and
Native American Indian suicide bombers? Saying a group either
gets social justice now or you can expect terrorism will never work,
since so many groups have major gripes about past and present
treatment.

>They may be governed by totalitarian
> dictatorships, but they're not stupid.

Yes, they are. You are talking about societies who peaked
culturally about 500 years ago. It's been all down hill from
there.

> > I don't see how you can say that. If you had to pick one
> > country in the Middle East to live in, which one would you
> > choose?
>
> I can say that easily. Have a look at the history of the region. Which
> is the nation that has, time and time again, been the aggressor? If you
> answered Israel's neighbours, you are wrong.

If Jordan didn't let itself get suckered into attacking Israel,
they never would have lost the West Bank in the first place.
So that's a pretty ironic statement in a discussion about the
Palestinians.

> Your question does not relate to the measure of evil and the comparisson
> to Israel's neighbours. How comfortable I personally would feel, given
> my ethnic background and culture, is completely irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant when you consider who Israel has for
neighbors. The fact that you could live a descent life in Israel
as an Arab or a Jew or a German proves you wouldn't be in
some Nazi-like society if you went to live there.

[Andy Newton]

Craig Franck wrote:
>
> "Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3DACDA91...@xtra.co.nz...
> >
> >
> > Craig Franck wrote:
>
> > > I think this is something that needs to be carefully understood
> > > and considered.
>
> > Religious bigotry is one of the banes of humanity. It is a powerful
> > motivator towards creating death and suffering. I dont see how it could
> > be considered otherwise. Are you saying it is not something that should
> > be condemned? Is it not something we should attempt to eliminate?
>
> Yes, it should be eliminated. But so many Israel bashers think
> Israel should proceed as if it doesn't exist.

It should be made to. The process of liberating minds from religious
indoctrination will be a difficult and slow one, but there are steps we
can take to see that if it still does exist, at least it's real world
effects are limited.

> For example, the idea that everything would be fine if the
> Palestinians just had their own state doesn't take into account that
> the people currently blowing themselves up think Tel Aviv is
> occupied territory.

All of Israel is occupied territory, if not from a legal perspective,
from a logical perspective. That is one of the reasons why I do not
think simply giving the Palestinians a seperate state is the best answer
to the Israeli/Palestinian problem. Sharing will be difficult, but the
reasons for it being so can be eliminated over time, and the end result
will be better for both sides of the conflict.

> People in Saudi Arabia and Egypt are going to
> hate Jews regardless of what happens to the Palestinian refugees.

So? I am not saying it isnt a bad thing, obviously it is, but I dont see
how it bears relevance to Palestinian/Israeli relations unless Israel
has external hostilities, which for reasons previously discussed will
not happen.

> In fact, they like the fact that there are all those Palestinian
> refugee camps since they are their ace in the hole to get rid
> of Israel.

Evidence?

> > Think about what you're saying. You are saying it is alright for a group
> > to strive for a nation that is ethnically or religiously pure, and to
> > achieve such goals through ethnic or religious cleansing.
>
> No, I'm not. You're arguing about a country that doesn't
> exist. 15% of Israeli citizens were Arabs right from the start.
> Now it's 20%. How is that ethnic or religious cleansing?

Ethnic or religious cleansing does not need to be total. I'm sure you
will not argue agains the fact that Israel's leaders and most of the
Jewish majority are determined to see that they maintain their majority.
They are determined to see that there will never be a right of return
for those currently exiled from their homes. The methods they use are to
remove those who might become a majority. Keeping a few "token"
minorities does not mean that their primary goal is not one of religious
or ethnic domination, and does not mean their racist and bigoted methods
and practises of enforcing this are not to be classified as ethnic or
religious cleansing.

> Why are Christian welcome to come there and settle? Why
> is Arabic an official state language, for God's sake? Why are
> Israeli intellectuals allowed to roam the streets criticizing the
> government when any Nazi worth his salt will tell you the
> first thing you need to do is extinguish all rational thought
> when you want to institute insane policies?

It only makes sense to completely silence dissent if it becomes a real
threat. The Israeli population seems to be largely supportive of it's
government's actions.

> >As long as the
> > result is a nation that is prosperous for those within the founding
> > group, it is alright.
>
> Israeli Arabs have one of the highest standards of living in
> the Arab world. If you're an Arab, you would be far better
> off living in Israel than Egypt. That's a fact.

Only if you are one of the few to be given Israeli citizenship. The fact
that so many are not, and so many are not able to return to their
rightful homes means your point isnt particularly affective.

> > This is exactly the same as Nazi Germany. Hitler wanted an Aryan Europe,
> > and so he started rounding up and disposing of Jews and other
> > "undesirables". His methods were slightly different, but his objective
> > was the same, an objective that as a concept you are endorsing.
>
> That's a lie. People who compare Israel to the Nazis are
> so blinded by hate for the state of Israel that they form
> irrational conceptions about what's going on over there.

Do I have to pull out quotes again? It is no secret that the Zionist
movement is all about creating a Jewish State, for Jews, by Jews. This
is the principle their government enforces. The situations the
Palestinians are forced to live in, and the fact that so many were
removed from their nation entirely is also no secret. The superior
rights awarded to non-Palestinian Israeli citizens is no secret. These
arent irrational conceptions, these are facts.

What you are seeing is a more intelligent version of Nazism. Their
methods are more subtle, and details have been changed, but the basic
principles are the same.

> The
> only reason that particular comparison is made is to rub their
> noses in the holocaust. If you don't hate Jews, stop making
> that comparison because you are just playing into the hands
> of those who do.

I will not refrain from making a valid comparisson just because others
do so with ill intentions.

> > I happen to believe tribal mentalities are something that should be
> > combatted. Wherever you divive humanity into ethnic or religious
> > groupings, you set the stage for group judgements, stereotypes, and
> > eventually hostilities. Ethnic or religious seperatism or apartheid is
> > no basis for a nation.
>
> Then you should be bashing the hell out of Saudi Arabia, not
> Israel.

I actually bash just about everyone on this issue, just ask the
multitude of unwilling listeners amongst my friends ;)

It just happens that Israel is one of the prime examples of why I am
right. Saudi Arabia may be governed on the same principles, but the
effects are not nearly of the same magnitude, their situation is very
different and the level of suffering caused by it there is not even
comparable. Israel is also unique in that not only is it built on a
foundation of evil, which others are also, it puts this evil into
practise to a far greater degree than others, and yet while other
nations are usually seen for what they are and condemned by most who are
aware of this, Israel has a great many apologists, and a confused public
(particularly American) too often decide to side with their's ally,
simply because allies of America must be good and just, because america
must be good and just.

In other words, I could criticise Saudi Arabia and others, but everyone
would simply agree with me, and the issue of Israel would be drowned out
by the sound of my getting patted on the back for my profound
proclamations.

This is actually quite closely related to Oliver's arguement regarding
condemnation of terrorism. I think it should go without saying. You
know, or at least I would hope you have gathered to some degree, what my
reasons for criticising Israel are. I would appreciate it if you would
give me the benefit of the doubt that I would apply the same criticism
consistently to others.

> > I think most Palestinians want to live peacefully. I think the fact that
> > there arent more suicide bombings than there are is good evidence of
> > this.
>
> I can't believe this statement. There aren't more suicide bombers
> because Israel has cracked down on them so hard in their war
> on terrorism. This has crippled their ability to carry out attacks and
> convinced anyone with any common sense that suicide bombings
> just make thing worse for their cause.

Are you attempting to insinuate that I do not believe suicide bombings
make things worse for their cause? If so, I take offense. My point
related to the number of attacks, which I should have really expanded
upon to include all hostilities, and the population. If the entire
population were enraged to the point where, given the majority, they
would commit genocide, then why would they let their minority status
stand in the way of more attacks? Surely if they all were bent on
slaughtering every single Jew, we would see a lot more attacks,
especially suicide bombings, than we do. Israel's having cracked down on
suicide bombings is not important. Before Israel began taking action,
even at the height of the suicide bombings we did not see a level of
hostility nearly large enough to indicate that anything more than small
factions would be willing to pursue the goal of complete genocide
against the Jews.

> > There are two ways to end terrorism. Option 1 is kill everybody. Option
> > 2 is removing the cause of terrorism. Dont give young Palestinians
> > something to die for. Give them peaceful, prosperous lives, like the
> > Jews have.
>
> That doesn't work. Where are all the African American and
> Native American Indian suicide bombers? Saying a group either
> gets social justice now or you can expect terrorism will never work,
> since so many groups have major gripes about past and present
> treatment.

I hardly think that African Americans and Native American Indians are
suffering the same level of discrimination and oppression as the
Palestinians. Remember though, the height of the civil rights movement.
In the case of the US, laws were changed, and the concerned groups were
given protection under the law from much of the discrimination there had
been . There of course has been major progress on the social front, as
with legal backing for equal rights discrimination and oppression have
had to become much, much more subtle than they used to be. We cannot say
what would have resulted if the US government had not changed laws to
protect the rights of minorities. So we cannot say for certain that we
would not have seen a situation more similar to Israel/Palestine if this
had not happened.

So I see the example of African American's and others as support for my
claim. Although terrorism had not become a factor, I think it likely
that it would have. Certainly I hope we can agree that the concerned
groups would not have lay down and accepted the status quo. But instead
option 2 was taken and the motivation for causing terror was destroyed
before it fully matured. If not destroyed, then weakened significantly
enough that peace is maintained, if uneasy at times.

> >They may be governed by totalitarian
> > dictatorships, but they're not stupid.
>
> Yes, they are. You are talking about societies who peaked
> culturally about 500 years ago. It's been all down hill from
> there.

No, they are not, and the second part of your answer is a complete non
sequitur.

As disgusting as many of these dictator's moral fibres may be, not one
of them is stupid enough to take action that will assuredly result in
the complete annihilation of their nation. The destructive power of
nuclear weapons is not unknown to them, and the willingness of the US
and it's allies to use them is not a secret. They will not attempt some
futile effort to invade when they know full well what the consequences
are.

These people are bad people, yes, but they are not psychopaths. These
arent action movie villains, whose sole purpose is to cause evil in the
world, at any cost including not only their lives, but the lives of all
in their nation, and the physical land that is their home.

> > I can say that easily. Have a look at the history of the region. Which
> > is the nation that has, time and time again, been the aggressor? If you
> > answered Israel's neighbours, you are wrong.
>
> If Jordan didn't let itself get suckered into attacking Israel,
> they never would have lost the West Bank in the first place.
> So that's a pretty ironic statement in a discussion about the
> Palestinians.

It was Israel that was the aggressor. It was a brilliant plan. First,
Israel starts amassing forces on it's borders, and encroaching onto
neighbouring territory. This was designed specifically to cause the
surrounding nations to start amassing forces of their own. Israel now
used this as an excuse to conduct lightening strikes against it's
neighbours, claiming pre-emptive attack to defend itself.

"[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument
with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension.
Toward this end it may, no - it must - invent dangers, and to do this it
must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge ... And above all - let
us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally
get rid of our troubles and acquire our space."- from Israeli Prime
Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries in 1955.

"We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to
do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the
Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the
tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get
annoyed and shoot ... And then we would use artillery and later the air
force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of
the war, were not a threat to us."- Moshe Dayan, the Defense Minister
who gave the order to conquer the Golan Heights, quoted from the NY
Times, May 11, 1997.

Getting back to the point of this little discussion, these are not the
aims and acts of a "good" nation.

> > Your question does not relate to the measure of evil and the comparisson
> > to Israel's neighbours. How comfortable I personally would feel, given
> > my ethnic background and culture, is completely irrelevant.
>
> It's not irrelevant when you consider who Israel has for
> neighbors. The fact that you could live a descent life in Israel
> as an Arab or a Jew or a German proves you wouldn't be in
> some Nazi-like society if you went to live there.

If we are talking about having Israeli citizenship, then the question
becomes even less relevant. The discrimination against
Israeli-Palestinians is something that is wrong and that needs to be
stopped, and it is important to talk baout the Israeli-Palestinians to
demonstrate the point about Israel's inherently Racist and religiously
bigoted nature. But it's importance is completely eclipsed by that of
the plight of the non-Israeli Palestinians, thsose living in the
"Occupied Territories", and those exiled in surrounding nations.

[Andy Newton]

Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> "Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3DACC760...@xtra.co.nz...
> >
> >
> > Oliver Kamm wrote:
> >
> > > The point about slander is that it is, by definition, untrue. What I
> have
> > > said about you is, however, demonstrably accurate. You are a fraud. I
> will
> > > spell it out.
> >
> > This is why your argument falls apart:
> >
> > http://www.al-awda.org/famous_quotes.htm
> >
> > This is my source for this quote.
> >
> > Fraud is an act of deliberate deception. Your carefully constructed
> > contention is based on a false assumption.
>
> Let me get this straight: your defence against the charge of fraud is that
> ... you're a fraud.

I dont think you even know what fraud means. To repeat, fraud is an act
of *deliberate* deception. You are assuming that the quote I provided
was not accurate to the best of my knowledge.

I did not cite the URL as my source because it is not the source of the
quotes. Consider the complications that would arise if writers had to
not only cite the original sources, but the entire journey of the quote
from the original document through who knows how many transmission
mediums before it reached them personally.

I'm sure I do not need to point out to the readers that once again,
Oliver has failed to provide anything more than petty and tiresome
personal attacks, continuing to dodge the issues.

[Andy Newton]

zztop8970- wrote:

> Please do spell out your exact grievances against this scholar, and I hope
> you can come up with something more substantial than the idiotic thesis
> advanced by Mr. Newton that he's to be dismissed becuase he's a professor
> at King's College.

I can find no interpretation of the above sentence that does not come
out as a blatant lie. I have not attempted to dismiss anybody.

[iHĞ]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 23:14:21 +0100, "Oliver Kamm"
<olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>do you even have the slightest *notion*
>of what intellectual standards consist in?

Do you, Oliver Kamm?

I'll take it as read (no pun intended) that you're correct about that
Ben-Gurion quotation. But that's one of ten 'quotations', as in your
phrase, "the 'quotations', which Mr Newton has botched from a
cut-and-paste job, raise serious questions about ethics". Are you
suggesting that the others are also missing retractions or
corrections, or are you just making hay out of that one (as it
appears, misleading) item to avoid dealing with any of the rest?

Moreover (and I'm not being sarcastic here) I'd be very impressed if
you've never quoted anyone without first reading or checking the
original source.

Finally, are you the same Oliver Kamm who recently wrote to The
Guardian newspaper:

"George Bush's terminology (Letters, October 9 ) in fact derives from
George Orwell, writing in Partisan Review in 1942: "If you hamper the
war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other.
Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the
present one. In practice, he that is not with me is against me."
However uncomfortable for some Guardian readers, the logic remains
unassailable."

[ http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,808695,00.html ]

A quotation missing a certain *retraction*, as another Orwell reader
of apparently higher "intellectual standards" pointed out:

"Unfortunately for Oliver Kamm, in 1944 George Orwell renounced his
1942 Partisan Review article, confessing that he had been driven to
use language he regretted by "the lunatic atmosphere of war".

In any case, surely Mr Kamm isn't suggesting that George W might have
read or understood anything written by Orwell."

[ http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,810440,00.html ]

[Josh Dougherty]

"zztop8970-" <no...@tospeakof.com> wrote in message
news:3dae2...@news1.prserv.net...

>
> "Josh Dougherty" <jbd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eee564bd.02101...@posting.google.com...
> <snip>
> > > A careful textual look at the document indicates that Ben-Gurion
> > > rote but then accidentally crossed out, with a long brush stroke
> > > from the adjacent line, the words 'do not' (ve-ein), leaving the sentence
> > > as 'we need'...
> >
> > So, you see it's obvious that he mistakenly crossed out "do not wish
> > and do not need" with an errant "long brush stroke", while instead
> > leaving the "we" in tact and managing to make "must" appear somehow,
> > possibly something in the translation. This benign error has
> > apparently confused many a reader, but thankfully certain interested
> > parties have put the document to a "careful textual look" and have
> > cleared up the mistake.
>
> They have indeed.

Perhaps. What makes you say so?

> Have you read or seen the original document being discussed here?

No. Have you? I'd assume the original document is written in Hebrew,
which I wouldn't know how to read, so I'd have trouble checking the
assertion against the document anyway.

> Have you read Mr. Karsh's book, Mr. Dougherty?

No.

> Do you find it lacking in academic rigor, in methodology, or otherwise?

I wouldn't know.

> Please do spell out your exact grievances against this scholar

N-o-n-e.

I don't know whether his work is worthy of praise or greivance. I
wouldn't, and don't, simply take at face value that the assertion
contained therein must be unquestionably correct or an unbiased
account, anymore than I should automatically assume it to be a lie or
a piece of propaganda devised to whitewash an inconvenient statement
from the record. I would hope that I'd generally follow such a policy
when hearing any assertion, but I also particularly wouldn't do so
with claims on this topic, given the often sharply disparate
interperetations, ideological slants, propaganda or even outright lies
that often surronds anything having to do with Israeli/Palestinian
history.

However, it would seem that you otoh may be taking things at face
value, unless you can answer your first two questions to me in the
affirmative, and the third in the negative, and unless you've also
answered any possible counter arguments that have since been put
forward to this theory in Karsh's book. Unless that is the case, I
would find your assertion of "They have indeed." at the beginning of
your reply to be pretty suspect.

But, none of that was the point.

For the sake of illustrating the point, let's just assume that the
assertion in the Karsh book is unquestionably accurate, that the quote
is a result of a "long brush stroke" error and it really was intended
to say the exact opposite of what it was understood to say for at
least 12 years if not longer, given the dates of publication of the
two sources in question (Teveth '85 & Karsh '97).

The relevant point on this is of course that there was no reason to
assume
that Mr. Newton even knew about the "long brush stroke" theory
regarding
this quote. Or, possibly he had heard of it but had some reason to
disbelieve it, and instead believes that the quote as originally
understood,
prior to the "careful textual analysis" and as printed in the Shabtai
Teveth book, is accurate. I'd assume the former, that he'd never even
heard of it, but I can't be sure, again not really relevant.

In either case, it of course defies Oliver Kamm's assertion of
"intentional
fraud" on the part of Mr. Newton, and instead brings up the question
of
intentional slander, apparently with the goal of intentional character
assasination to avoid debate, on the part of Mr. Kamm, against Mr.
Newton.

For, unless both the "long brush stroke" theory can be proven as
unquestionably and irrefutably correct, *and* it was known that Mr.
Newton knew about it and knew it to be correct and intentionally
suppressed it in favor of misleading readers with a false quote, you
have not met the definition of anything even
approaching "fraud" on Mr. Newton's part. As such, jumping to
publicly accuse him of intentional fraud, and indeed proclaim him as
being "a fraud", with no grounds for doing so does, however, begin
approaching slander.

Did Mr. Kamm know that Mr. Newton knew about the L.B.S. theory?
If not, he would first need to ascertain this information before even
considering condemning Mr. Newton as a "fraud" and a liar. If Mr.
Kamm
*did* somehow already know that Mr. Newton knew about L.B.S., then it
would seem the appropriate course of action, still before jumping to
proclaim Mr. Newton as a "fraud", would be to bring up this curiosity
and demand of Mr. Newton that he explain why he put forth the quote
anyway. Then, it must be ascertained whether the reasons given had
any merit or not, or were even debatable, possibly ensuing in a debate
over the merit of L.B.S. itself.

If none of these criteria have been met, which it doesn't appear they
have, then Mr. Kamm's only possible plausible claim against Mr. Newton
on this score would have been one of ignorance, that Mr. Newton did
not have sufficient facts regarding the quote and its accuracy, and
has therefore put forth something that Mr. Kamm believes to be false.
And that alone is certainly not intentional fraud by Mr. Newton.

So, it would seem to me that Mr. Kamm had no basis whatsoever for
proclaiming Mr. Newton to be "a fraud" and thus, he's put forth a
slanderous claim.

> and I hope you can come up with something more substantial than the
> idiotic thesis advanced by Mr. Newton that he's to be dismissed becuase he's
> a professor at King's College.

Haven't seen this thesis of Mr. Newton's, did he put it forth in this
thread? I checked this ng on Google, in a search for "Andy Newton"
and
"Karsh", but it turned up nothing except the earlier post by Oliver
Kamm in
this thread. I then also checked for "Andy Newton" and "King's
College", and nothing. So where is this coming from?

Again irrelevant. I don't believe I'd put forward the college at
which he's employed as a reason for dismissal of his work. And again,
the value of his work, whatever it may be, was not the point.

Josh

[Rotgo]

..and then Andy Newton <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> said:

> I dont think you even know what fraud means. To repeat, fraud is an act
> of *deliberate* deception. You are assuming that the quote I provided
> was not accurate to the best of my knowledge.
>
> I did not cite the URL as my source because it is not the source of the
> quotes. Consider the complications that would arise if writers had to
> not only cite the original sources, but the entire journey of the quote
> from the original document through who knows how many transmission
> mediums before it reached them personally.
>
> I'm sure I do not need to point out to the readers that once again,
> Oliver has failed to provide anything more than petty and tiresome
> personal attacks, continuing to dodge the issues.

Oliver must be made to pay the ultimate price for his cowardly acts of
Barbarism!

[M J Carley]

In the referenced article, "Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> writes:

>You now claim absolution from your grossly selective quotation with
>the defence that you'd never read the book in the first place but
>just cut-and-pasted a block of text from a web site. So when you
>cited Shabtai Teveth's book as your source, your source was in fact
>not Shabtai Teveth's book at all. You were lying. Indeed, your citing
>various books as sources was, in its entirety, a lie. Kindly inform
>this ng just how many of these books, which you have claimed are your
>sources, you have consulted and checked, never mind read.

Regarding selective and distorting quotation, an interesting example
appeared in the Guardian last week:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,808695,00.html
(first item)

with a response:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,810440,00.html
(third item)
--
`To tell the truth, let us be honest at least, it is some considerable
time since I last knew what I was talking about.'

http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/

[Nathan Folkert]

ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) wrote in message news:<H44AEq.4F...@bath.ac.uk>...

> In the referenced article, "Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> writes:

[snip]

> Regarding selective and distorting quotation, an interesting example
> appeared in the Guardian last week:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,808695,00.html
> (first item)
>
> with a response:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,810440,00.html
> (third item)

The controversy surrounding post-9/11 use of Orwell apparently began
around a Washington Post article by Michael Kelly.

The alleged repudiation actually spans two articles by Orwell. One is
available on the internet
(http://home19.inet.tele.dk/w-mute/AIP48.htm), but it doesn't say what
critics of Kelly and Kamm say that it says -- Orwell does not
repudiate the claim that pacifism was, in fact, helpful to the Nazis.
Rather, he regretted implicitly attributing to all pacifists pro-Nazi
_motivations_ (or, rather, ignoring or underplaying the difference
between motivation and effect, the "subjective" and the "objective"),
as the actual motivation of the pacifist might make a significant
difference in predicting his behavior in certain situations (the
example Orwell gives is that a pacifist who was sincerely anti-Nazi
would not personally betray state secrets to the Nazis, therefore it
is important to know which pacifists are honest and which are Nazis).
Or so I read it.

It is clear that Orwell still believed that many pacifists, especially
in the intellectual and radical community, were, in fact, motivated by
pro-Nazi sentiments (and, when ultimately required to make a choice,
as in France, actually became Nazis), and some time later he writes on
this at length (e.g., in his Notes on Nationalism
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html).

The other essay does not appear to be online, and I'm a little
skeptical of what it might say given the apparent inaccuracy of those
quoting the article that is online and the fact that no one seems to
quote more than one phrase ("lunatic atmosphere of the war") from this
article. It would be helpful if someone posted it here.

The Orwell article in question can be found in Volume 3 of Collected
Essays, Journalism, and Letters of George Orwell, 1968 on page 289. I
don't have access to a copy of the book right now, though I could go
to the library and look it up in the near future.

This is mostly for curiosity and interest. I don't actually agree
with Kamm and Kelly that this logical is applicable to today (at least
not at an individual level. There is an argument to be made that it
applies among nation-states, but then only in terms of cooperation on
curbing terrorist activity or eliminating terrorist cells, not in
terms of conventional warfare against other nation-states).

- Nate

[Jeffrey Ketland]

Nathan Folkert wrote in message
<4b923300.02101...@posting.google.com>...

Anyone familiar with Orwell is familiar with all of this stuff (and if sane,
agrees with it, for obvious reasons). Actually, in one of the articles
(perhaps in one of the "As I Please" sections in Volume 3, I don't have it
nearby either) he mentions an actual overlap between pacifists and British
Union of Fascists. But, there's no comparison between the present situation
(vis-a-vis Iraq or vis-a-vis the "war against terrorism") and WW2.

In fact, in the present situation (entirely unrelated to WW2), this
revolting claim made by Kamm and others is itself quite a clear
authoritarian tactic to silence criticism. Actually, it's an disgraceful
insult to the cherished memory of people (like my grandad) who stood on a
beach in Dunkirk being bombed by the Nazis. The Nazis controlled the whole
of Europe. They had destroyed almost everything. The war against the Nazis
(like the war against the fascists in Spain) was an obviously _just war_.
This is obvious---a point made by Orwell, repeatedly.

On the subject of Kamm: of course, he is aware of all of this, but holds
(hardly secret) extreme right-wing views, which have been detailed here:
--- sympathetic to Pinochet's fascist regime in Chile,
--- opposed to third world debt relief programmes,
--- opposed to the NI peace process,
--- an admirer of Ronald Reagan's pro-fascist policies, etc.
These put him even out on the far _right_ of the Tory party. Hence his
systematic _charlatanism_, viz. his delusional refrain "we committed
leftists"---i.e., Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Augusto Pinochet, etc.
By "committed" he must mean deserving of mental treatment!

All of this is, in any case, is transparent, and was detailed in Orwell's
"Notes on Nationalism" which I read over 20 years ago, along with almost all
of Orwell's works, essays, novels and the excellent Crick biography (Kamm is
very good example of almost all of the traits that Orwell describes:
atrocity-denial, indifference to fact; irrational defence of every aspect of
one's "unit", etc., etc.).

In the real world of facts, outside Kamm's postmodern ranting and raving,
George Orwell was a lifelong Tribune socialist and anti-communist (like
myself, btw), who fought in Spain for the republican government (c.f.,
Allende) against the fascist forces (c.f., Pinochet). Moreover, Orwell had
many anarchist and pacifist close friends (is it the front of Volume 2 he is
standing with George Woodcock, the author of _Anarchism_?). Orwell would
have simply laughed his head off at Kamm's pathetically delusional and
pretentious charlatanism. In fact, along with Russell and Einstein, Orwell
has been a hero of mine since childhood (I met various "radicals" and Trots
at university and always found them mostly silly, although they had good
hearts), and to see Orwell's name dragged through the dirt by the delusional
ravings of a right-wing liar like Kamm is simply revolting.
Btw, I don't reply to his pompous, patronizing and disgusting posts because
they are dishonest to a level I have rarely encountered.

--- Jeff

[Craig Franck]

"Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3DAE4268...@xtra.co.nz...

> What you are seeing is a more intelligent version of Nazism. Their
> methods are more subtle, and details have been changed, but the basic
> principles are the same.

Well, we are just going to have to disagree about this.

But you are hate mongering and misusing the language when
you equate Israel with Nazism. The German Nazis were bent
on the extermination of the Jewish race through mass murder.
That's the association that is formed by 95% of the people
who hear the term since they understand that what made
them Nazis was not that they hated and mistreated Jews and
other minorities, but rather they had a plan to exterminate
them. Where it not for this fact they wouldn't stand out in
history as anything other than a bunch of totally out of control
white guys who thought they were better than everybody else
and were therefore hell-bent on ruling the planet. That's actually
a fairly common delusion.

Calling Israel kinder, gentler Nazis since they just want to keep
Arabs out of the armed services as opposed to shoving them
into ovens is not being intellectually honest in the use of the
term. Even having a citizenship test based on race or religion
doesn't rise to being a Nazi.

You are also being naive about the force this term carries.
Why do some people like comparing doctors who perform
abortions to Nazis? Because if they are Nazis, then if something
bad happens to them, they are probably just getting what
they deserve. It's actually part of a dehumanization campaign.

[Andy Newton]

Craig Franck wrote:
>
> "Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3DAE4268...@xtra.co.nz...
>
> > What you are seeing is a more intelligent version of Nazism. Their
> > methods are more subtle, and details have been changed, but the basic
> > principles are the same.
>
> Well, we are just going to have to disagree about this.

I'm disappointed that you would cut so much out of the discussion to try
and end it in some kind of stalemate, on a single point. It might seem
to an observer that you are attempting to draw attention away from the
issues you no longer feel you can argue, and onto this single issue
where you are more confident. I do not wish to be hostile, because I
appreciate that you have been willing to contribute in a constructive
manner (Unlike Oliver who instantly began resorting to cowardly personal
attacks) , but I feel I must consider the areas you have removed from
the discussion conceded in my favour.

> But you are hate mongering and misusing the language when
> you equate Israel with Nazism. The German Nazis were bent
> on the extermination of the Jewish race through mass murder.

I think this is a simplistic view. I think the racial policies of the
Nazi Germany were very confused and inconsistent with the Nazi ideals
-the exceptions made to numerous half-jew's in the German military,
sometimes signed by Hitler himself, is well documented, for example.
"Hitler's Jewish Soldiers", by Bryan Mark Rigg, is one book that deals
exclusively with this.

> That's the association that is formed by 95% of the people
> who hear the term since they understand that what made
> them Nazis was not that they hated and mistreated Jews and
> other minorities, but rather they had a plan to exterminate
> them.

As I said, I think this is a simplistic view. Certainly, the Nazi ideals
were of total racial purity, and yet they found it too difficult to
realise given the significant numbers of patriotic Germans who did have
Jewish ancestry to some degree. So basically what we have is an ideal
that is based around there being a "master race", who should accordingly
be dominant, and that Europe should be clean of non-aryans, and yet the
reality was that Hitler made alliances with non-Aryan nations, and made
a significant number of exceptions for partial Jews.

I think this relates very closely to Israel. Zionist beliefs are very
clear about their ideals -the desire for a greater Israel, a religious
belief that they are the "chosen people" (bears striking resemblances to
the "master race" idea). And just as Nazi Germany did not conduct itself
with absolute rigidness to the foundations of Nazism, so too it seems
Israel does not adhere completely to the Zionist dream, instead taking
exterior concerns into consideration and making exceptions. And, of
course, both movements have Z in their names, an obviously evil
character.

> Where it not for this fact they wouldn't stand out in
> history as anything other than a bunch of totally out of control
> white guys who thought they were better than everybody else
> and were therefore hell-bent on ruling the planet. That's actually
> a fairly common delusion.
>
> Calling Israel kinder, gentler Nazis since they just want to keep
> Arabs out of the armed services as opposed to shoving them
> into ovens is not being intellectually honest in the use of the
> term.

I have to say I am becoming annoyed with your determination to, not so
much build a strawman, as distort perception of my position. Or perhaps
I am reading too much into what may be a misunderstanding. So that it is
clear, my comparissons between Israel and Nazi Germany are not based
solely on civil rights concerns between Israeli citizens of different
ethnicity or religion. It is important, yes, but the bigger point is
related to a lot more that than. Primarily it is about the ideals of
Zionism. They are very easily compared to the ideals of Nazism. It is
also about comparing the actions of the two states, especially with
respect to treatment of Palestinians who do not hold Israeli passports.
Additionally, their history of exterior aggression can be compared. As I
have mentioned, Israel is conducting itself in a slightly more subtle
style, and certainly it has proven far more affective in the propaganda
war than Germany was, externally in any case, internally both were
equally and stunningly affective. The motivations strike alarming
parallels, and the goals are almost identical. In methods they differ
only in scale and subtlety, but taken all together the comparisson is,
in my mind, quite valid.

> Even having a citizenship test based on race or religion
> doesn't rise to being a Nazi.
>
> You are also being naive about the force this term carries.
> Why do some people like comparing doctors who perform
> abortions to Nazis? Because if they are Nazis, then if something
> bad happens to them, they are probably just getting what
> they deserve. It's actually part of a dehumanization campaign.

Firstly, I think in context of the entirety of my argument, it should be
clear to anybody that my goal is not to hatemonger or incite hatred and
prejudice, or to dehumanize, I have emphasized at least once my dislike
for tribalism and group judgements.

Secondly, I am not concerned if, as you state in your unqualified
declaration further up, 95% of people subscribe to a simplistic view of
Nazis. I do not feel that I should adjust my position, or reconstruct my
argument in such a way as to cater to ignorance, no matter the
popularity of such perspectives.

[Andy Newton]

I think it's a shame that some of the extreme far right wish to silence
debate by attempting to label the language necessary to debate as
abusive and off-limits.

It might be interesting to see a comparisson between this list and a
list of stories and statements that can be found in the old testament.

[Nathan Folkert]

"Jeffrey Ketland" <ket...@ketland.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<aonhp1$kh9$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...

> Nathan Folkert wrote in message
> <4b923300.02101...@posting.google.com>...

[snip]

> >This is mostly for curiosity and interest. I don't actually agree
> >with Kamm and Kelly that this logical is applicable to today (at least
> >not at an individual level. There is an argument to be made that it
> >applies among nation-states, but then only in terms of cooperation on
> >curbing terrorist activity or eliminating terrorist cells, not in
> >terms of conventional warfare against other nation-states).
>
> Anyone familiar with Orwell is familiar with all of this stuff (and if sane,
> agrees with it, for obvious reasons). Actually, in one of the articles
> (perhaps in one of the "As I Please" sections in Volume 3, I don't have it
> nearby either) he mentions an actual overlap between pacifists and British
> Union of Fascists. But, there's no comparison between the present situation
> (vis-a-vis Iraq or vis-a-vis the "war against terrorism") and WW2.

There is a comparison, actually, as I noted above, though I haven't
decided if I agree with it.

If one is referring to individuals, there is no comparison -- the
pursuit of al Qaeda does not require support and cooperation from
every citizen, it does not require that people buy war bonds or ration
their eggs or collect scrap metal or turn the lights off two hours
early every night.

If one is referring to nation-states, however, there is a reasonable
argument that states which allow international terrorists to operate
without reasonable measures to prevent or punish attacks on other
states are aiding the terrorists and are a threat to international
peace and security. Why? Because other states cannot take measures
to defend themselves, their citizens, and their interests against an
enemy in another soverign territory short of war or violation of
sovereignty. (This argument, again, does not apply in the case of a
war against Iraq, for whose actions no other state, and certainly no
private citizen, can be reasonably held accountable, but rather only
for the pursuit of al Qaeda and other international terrorist
organizations.)

In my previous post, I was interested in Orwell only, and not
particularly interested in Kamm's arguments. On second thought,
however, Kamm was probably referring to the responsibilities of
nation-states, not the responsibilities of private citizens. This
was, of course, what Bush was referring to in his speech, and it was
mentioned in the letters to which Kamm was responding.

This is probably not an argument that I would make, but I don't think
it's unreasonable.

[snip]

- Nate

[johnebravo836]

Jeffrey Ketland wrote:

[snip]

> In fact, in the present situation (entirely unrelated to WW2), this
> revolting claim made by Kamm and others is itself quite a clear
> authoritarian tactic to silence criticism. Actually, it's an disgraceful
> insult to the cherished memory of people (like my grandad) who stood on a
> beach in Dunkirk being bombed by the Nazis. The Nazis controlled the whole
> of Europe. They had destroyed almost everything. The war against the Nazis
> (like the war against the fascists in Spain) was an obviously _just war_.

That being the case, why would it have been wrong to confront Hitler
militarily much earlier, before he was well on his way to grabbing most
of continental Europe? If a military confrontation is inevitable, then
what's wrong about facing it earlier rather than later, if that would be
advantageous?

[Jeffrey Ketland]

johnebravo836 wrote in message <3DB06270...@yahoo.com>...

IMO, Britain and France should not have tolerated the events in Germany in
1933-9. Appeasement was a _right-wing_ policy. The Hitler supporters and
appeasers were Tories, the effete ruling class, Lord Beaverbrook's Daily
Mail, etc. Adolf was doing a "jolly good job" (fighting those damn commies,
etc.). There were exceptions, of course, such as Churchill (but Churchill
was unusual). The opposition to fascism came from the Left. In my view,
Britain should have built up its armaments in preparation, and so should its
European neighbours. The Nazi regime could have been destabilized. There are
lots of things. They didn't happen---partly because the guys in power (i.e.,
the Right) thought Hitler was a nice guy. My view is not essentially
different from Orwell's.
I don't accept that there is a military threat analogy between Germany 1938
and Iraq 2002. Saddam is "in a box", as some have put it.

--- Jeff

[Jeffrey Ketland]

Actually, I disagree. If I had good reason to suspect my next-door
neighbours were Al Qaeda terrorists, I'd ring the police. That just seems an
elementary moral duty.

>If one is referring to nation-states, however, there is a reasonable
>argument that states which allow international terrorists to operate
>without reasonable measures to prevent or punish attacks on other
>states are aiding the terrorists and are a threat to international
>peace and security. Why? Because other states cannot take measures
>to defend themselves, their citizens, and their interests against an
>enemy in another soverign territory short of war or violation of
>sovereignty. (This argument, again, does not apply in the case of a
>war against Iraq, for whose actions no other state, and certainly no
>private citizen, can be reasonably held accountable, but rather only
>for the pursuit of al Qaeda and other international terrorist
>organizations.)

OK. I agree. But recall that the US itself can be accusing of training and
supprting terrorism (Fort Benning, etc.,) and similar arguments will apply.
You might disagree, but there's an argument there. Al Qaeda and allied
fundamentalist nutters will remain a
serious problem, presumably for the foreseeable future. The methods I would
advocate would be judicial, consonant with international law, etc., based on
police co-operation and so on. In Britain, the methods used against the IRA
in the 70's and 80's were often highly counter-productive. In any case, no
one suggested bombing Dublin (or Chicago).
In my view, the current US strategy will be massively
counter-productive---the US is sleepwalking (if anything, encouraging the
growth and support for fundamentalist Islamist nutters). If the US was
serious about helping to extend the principles of liberal demcoracy to the
world, then there are lots of way to do this and that would be a good start.
The problem is that, in many cases, the US doesn't give a hoot about
democracy or human rights, and this (to some extent) lies at the root of the
problem.

>In my previous post, I was interested in Orwell only, and not
>particularly interested in Kamm's arguments. On second thought,
>however, Kamm was probably referring to the responsibilities of
>nation-states, not the responsibilities of private citizens. This
>was, of course, what Bush was referring to in his speech, and it was
>mentioned in the letters to which Kamm was responding.

On Orwell's arguments in relation ot WW2, pacifism, etc. I agree with
Orwell. Orwell was referring to a tiny group of pacifists in his arguments
(and speculations about the overlap of the Peace Pledge Union and
the British Union of Fascists), and certainly never intended to impugn the
motives or values of the majority of pacifists, or members of the Peace
Pledge Union, or pacifist christian groups, etc. They were wrong, true, but
their motives were decent enough.

It's been a long time since I read it, but Orwell's essay "Who are the War
Criminals?" (volume 3, I think) is a nice discussion of the overall
appropriation of blame (you know, the usual arguments: are _we_ to blame for
some of what happened?, etc).

>This is probably not an argument that I would make, but I don't think
>it's unreasonable.

One problem is that Orwell never made any such arguments _in general_. WW2
was an altogether specific thing, and quite different from earlier (e.g.,
WW1) and later wars (e.g., Vietnam, etc.). Note the attitude of both Russell
and Einstein in both cases. Russell and Einstein both famously pacifist
about WW1. Indeed, Russell imprisoned for criticizing the stationing of US
troops in Britain. Both supported the Allied effort in WW2 to protect
democracy from the totalitarian scourge.

I do recall Orwell discussing this argument in relation to WW2 and India.
(Roughly, his argument was that Indians should support the British war
effort against the Nazis, and then aim for independence after the Nazis were
beaten. He criticized the idea that India should subvert the war effort, or
offer neutrality, etc., because of the colonial question. I'll look it up if
you're interested.)
My understanding of these arguments by Orwell here is that he was referring
specifically to WW2 (and with a stretch, to future confronation with Soviet
Union). He was not referring to old-fashioned imperialist power politics
(something he fiercely opposed).

--- Jeff

[Oliver Kamm]

"Jeffrey Ketland" <ket...@ketland.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message

news:aopu8t$9j2$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
> IMO, Britain and France should not have tolerated the events in Germany in
> 1933-9. Appeasement was a _right-wing_ policy. The Hitler supporters and
> appeasers were Tories, the effete ruling class, Lord Beaverbrook's Daily
> Mail, etc. Adolf was doing a "jolly good job" (fighting those damn
commies,
> etc.). There were exceptions, of course, such as Churchill (but Churchill
> was unusual). The opposition to fascism came from the Left.

We will certainly all be impressed with the fact that Mr Ketland managed to
undertake an extensive and vast study of 20th century history and never to
have been told of the Nazi-Soviet pact or the strong support given by
European Marxist leaders in the 1930s to Hitler's regime (e.g. Jacques
Doriot).

I'd ask for your money back, old bean.

[zztop8970-]

jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote in message news:<eee564bd.02101...@posting.google.com>...

> "zztop8970-" <no...@tospeakof.com> wrote in message
> news:3dae2...@news1.prserv.net...
> >
> > "Josh Dougherty" <jbd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:eee564bd.02101...@posting.google.com...
> > <snip>
> > > > A careful textual look at the document indicates that Ben-Gurion
> > > > rote but then accidentally crossed out, with a long brush stroke
> > > > from the adjacent line, the words 'do not' (ve-ein), leaving the sentence
> > > > as 'we need'...
> > >
> > > So, you see it's obvious that he mistakenly crossed out "do not wish
> > > and do not need" with an errant "long brush stroke", while instead
> > > leaving the "we" in tact and managing to make "must" appear somehow,
> > > possibly something in the translation. This benign error has
> > > apparently confused many a reader, but thankfully certain interested
> > > parties have put the document to a "careful textual look" and have
> > > cleared up the mistake.
> >
> > They have indeed.
>
> Perhaps. What makes you say so?

I, unlike you, have read Prof. Karsh's book, and thus know what I'm
talking about.

>
> > Have you read or seen the original document being discussed here?
>
> No. Have you? I'd assume the original document is written in Hebrew,
> which I wouldn't know how to read, so I'd have trouble checking the
> assertion against the document anyway.

Then how dare you question _anyone's_ interpreation of a document you
have not seen, and could not read even if you had?

>
> > Have you read Mr. Karsh's book, Mr. Dougherty?
>
> No.
>
> > Do you find it lacking in academic rigor, in methodology, or otherwise?
>
> I wouldn't know.
>
> > Please do spell out your exact grievances against this scholar
>
> N-o-n-e.
>
> I don't know whether his work is worthy of praise or greivance. I
> wouldn't, and don't, simply take at face value that the assertion
> contained therein must be unquestionably correct or an unbiased
> account, anymore than I should automatically assume it to be a lie or
> a piece of propaganda devised to whitewash an inconvenient statement
> from the record. I would hope that I'd generally follow such a policy
> when hearing any assertion, but I also particularly wouldn't do so
> with claims on this topic, given the often sharply disparate
> interperetations, ideological slants, propaganda or even outright lies
> that often surronds anything having to do with Israeli/Palestinian
> history.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just write a rather long
piece, ridiculing the claim that Ben-Gurion's cited letter was in fact
misrepresented by the quote in al-awada?

That is, you did not merely take a neutral stance, you implied Mr.
Karsh's work, cited by Mr. Kamm, was biased, slanted or even outright
lies.

And you did all this without having read the work in question, or
knowing the first thing about its author.

>
> However, it would seem that you otoh may be taking things at face
> value, unless you can answer your first two questions to me in the
> affirmative, and the third in the negative,

I can, and do.

>and unless you've also
> answered any possible counter arguments that have since been put
> forward to this theory in Karsh's book.

The only arguments I'm aware of are the self-contradictory assertions
by Benny Morris that (a) someone other than Ben Gurion "vandalized"
the handwritten letter [in Alpayim, vol.12, 1996], or that (b) Ben
Gurion himself did it [In Journal of Palestine Studies, vol.27 no.2,
1998], and that (c) the IDF used modern technology to decipher the
crossed out words.

One notes that (a) contradicts (b), and that (c) shows Morris has
never seen the document with his own eyes (it is quite possible to
make out the crossed out words with the naked eye)

Should I give serious consideration to such self-contradictory
counter arguments that are not based on an anlysis of the actual
document, especially given the fact that Morris has admitted he has
lied (or as he euphimistically puts it 'streched the truth") to make
his point?

> Unless that is the case, I
> would find your assertion of "They have indeed." at the beginning of
> your reply to be pretty suspect.

So, you assume things which are incorrect, and based on that baseless
assumption, accuse me of providing "pretty suspect" accusations.

How about asking first?

[Oliver Kamm]

"Jeffrey Ketland" <ket...@ketland.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<aonhp1$kh9$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...

>
> Anyone familiar with Orwell is familiar with all of this stuff (and if sane,
> agrees with it, for obvious reasons). Actually, in one of the articles
> (perhaps in one of the "As I Please" sections in Volume 3, I don't have it
> nearby either) he mentions an actual overlap between pacifists and British
> Union of Fascists.

It's unfortunate that 'anyone familiar with Orwell' is a population
range that does not include Mr Ketland. It's from Notes on
Nationalism: "Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks
which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the
type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and
that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the
fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which
their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the
Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of
membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts.
Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the
intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to
feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the
intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and
successful cruelty." Those who have read Chomsky's professed
anti-militarism alongside his slavish approval of totalitarian causes,
such as the Viet Cong, will see immediately what Orwell was getting at
here.

But, there's no comparison between the present situation
> (vis-a-vis Iraq or vis-a-vis the "war against terrorism") and WW2.

Absolutely: al-Qaeda wants to kill all Jews and wants to get its hands
on weapons of mass destruction, whereas Nazi Germany, erm .... Think,
Mr Ketland.

>
> In fact, in the present situation (entirely unrelated to WW2), this
> revolting claim made by Kamm and others is itself quite a clear
> authoritarian tactic to silence criticism. Actually, it's an disgraceful
> insult to the cherished memory of people (like my grandad) who stood on a
> beach in Dunkirk being bombed by the Nazis. The Nazis controlled the whole
> of Europe. They had destroyed almost everything. The war against the Nazis
> (like the war against the fascists in Spain) was an obviously _just war_.
> This is obvious---a point made by Orwell, repeatedly.
>
> On the subject of Kamm: of course, he is aware of all of this, but holds
> (hardly secret) extreme right-wing views, which have been detailed here:
> --- sympathetic to Pinochet's fascist regime in Chile,
> --- opposed to third world debt relief programmes,
> --- opposed to the NI peace process,
> --- an admirer of Ronald Reagan's pro-fascist policies, etc.
> These put him even out on the far _right_ of the Tory party. Hence his
> systematic _charlatanism_, viz. his delusional refrain "we committed
> leftists"---i.e., Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Augusto Pinochet, etc.
> By "committed" he must mean deserving of mental treatment

Mr Ketland has lost it here; he really must calm down and take a
course, which he certainly needs, in basic epistemology and formal
logic. It's not a good idea to make ostensibly ex cathedra statements
that turn out to be falsifiable, and certainly not ones that turn out
to be both falsifiable and very silly. I have never uttered a word of
sympathy with Pinochet's repressive regime, while so far from opposing
debt relief initiatives I have spent a significant part of my career
designing them - notably debt-equity swaps, which allow an indebted
country access to new funds while not losing the ability to attract
long-term foreign direct investment owing to an unanticipated rise in
her cost of capital. What Mr Ketland appears not to be comfortable
with - and there's nothing much I can do about it - is a leftist with
a brain and a mind. I have been pretty effective in popularising
leftist notions ever since I was chairman of the Oxford Universoty
Labour Club in the early 1980s: I marched against nuclear weapons and
in favour of Third World liberation then, and I am consequently
delighted that the US and Great Britain are shortly to invade Iraq to
make it both free of nuclear weapons and free of a right-wing tyranny.
I spent the last Parliament as adviser to the Independent MP, Martin
Bell, who managed to overturn the biggest Conservative majority in the
country in the 1997 general election, and I'm pleased that many of the
ideas in his election manifesto, which I wrote, replicate the leftist
positions that I express on this ng.

>
> All of this is, in any case, is transparent, and was detailed in Orwell's
> "Notes on Nationalism" which I read over 20 years ago
, along with almost all
> of Orwell's works, essays, novels and the excellent Crick biography (Kamm is
> very good example of almost all of the traits that Orwell describes:
> atrocity-denial, indifference to fact; irrational defence of every aspect of
> one's "unit", etc., etc.).

If Mr Ketland hasn't picked up Notes on Nationalism for 20 years, I
can see why he's so hazy on Orwell's output, and unfortunately he
won't have learnt much from Crick's banal and uncomprehending work.
Others shoud try Jeffrey Meyers' Orwell: Wintry Conscience of a
Generation.

>
> In the real world of facts, outside Kamm's postmodern ranting and raving,
> George Orwell was a lifelong Tribune socialist and anti-communist (like
> myself, btw), who fought in Spain for the republican government (c.f.,
> Allende) against the fascist forces (c.f., Pinochet). Moreover, Orwell had
> many anarchist and pacifist close friends (is it the front of Volume 2 he is
> standing with George Woodcock, the author of _Anarchism_?). Orwell would
> have simply laughed his head off at Kamm's pathetically delusional and
> pretentious charlatanism. In fact, along with Russell and Einstein, Orwell
> has been a hero of mine since childhood (I met various "radicals" and Trots
> at university and always found them mostly silly, although they had good
> hearts), and to see Orwell's name dragged through the dirt by the delusional
> ravings of a right-wing liar like Kamm is simply revolting.
> Btw, I don't reply to his pompous, patronizing and disgusting posts because
> they are dishonest to a level I have rarely encountered.
>
> --- Jeff

Well, this is interesting, because in fact there is a clear and very
good reason that Ketland dropped off the ng for several months and, as
he admits, is now very wary indeed of ever getting a debate with me. I
won't leave my audience guessing, but will merely paste below the last
post that I addressed to Mr Ketland before he fled. The reason he sank
without trace is not hard to infer from the exchange below: it must
have taken Mr Ketland a long time to remove enough of the egg from his
face to allow him to see the screen.

Here it is:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeffrey Ketland wrote:

>
> Are you saying that Chomsky knew what Faurisson had written?

Of course I'm saying that: it's common knowledge.

> What evidence
> do you have?

Chomsky's own words, of course - in 'Quelques commentaires
elementaires sur le
droit a la liberte d'expression', printed as the preface to
Faurisson's _Memoire
en defense_.

Chomsky states that he read an article by Pierre Vidal-Naquet in
Esprit,
September 1980: "I was considerably more surprised to read in _Esprit_
(September 1980) that Pierre Vidal-Naquet found the petition
``scandaleuse,''
citing specifically that fact that I had signed it "

That article (which is reprinted as the first chapter of
Vidal-Naquet's
_Assassins of Memory_, 1992, originally published in French as _Les
assassins de
la memoire_ in 1987) contains the following summary of the beliefs of
Faurisson
and his fellow-deniers (pages 18-19 of the book cited above): "It is
Faurisson
who stands within revisionist truth [i.e. the real nature of the
Holocaust
denial movement] when he proffers his famous formula: 'Never did
Hitler either
order or accept that anyone be killed for reason of race or religion'
(Verite,
p. 91). The 'revisionists', in fact, all more or less share several
extremely
simple principles.....[Vidal-Naquet goes on to list these beliefs,
including the
following.] 2. The 'final solution' was never anything other than the
expulsion
of the Jews towards eastern Europe, their 'repression', as Faurisson
elegantly
puts it (Verite, p. 90). Since 'most of the Jews of France came from
the east',
it may be concluded that it was never anything more than their
repatriation, a
bit as when French authorities repatriated Algerians, in October 1961,
in their
'native douars'. 3. The number of Jewish victims of Nazism is far
smaller than
has been claimed.... Faurisson, for his part, (almost) divides the
million
[claimed by his fellow deniers Butz and Rassinier] in two: a few
hundred
thousand deaths in uniform (which is a fine demonstration of valor)
and as many
killed in 'acts of war' (Verite, p. 197). As for the death statistics
for
Auschwitz, they 'rose to about 50,000 (ibid.). 4. Hitler's Germany
does not bear
the principal responsibility for the Second World War. It shares that
responsibility, for example, with the Jews (Faurisson in Verite, p.
187), or it
may even not bear any responsibility at all."

Mr Ketland will now be wishing he hadn't asked for evidence that
Chomsky knew
all along what Faurisson stood for, but I'm afraid the evidence is
there, in the
public domain, provided by Chomsky himself.

> Chomsky said he _didn't know_ what Faurisson had written.

As I have just demonstrated, we know how to characterise that
statement in one
little word.

>
> In any case, this is not even relevant--

How convenient, and predictable. Ketland demands evidence that Chomsky
was aware
of Faurisson's apologetics for Nazism, but - presumably anticipating
the
oncoming steamroller - he announces in advance that he won't let it
disturb his
quasi-religious faith. That's his privilege: I'm not concerned with
whether
Ketland is discomforted or not by empirical evidence, I'm just
concerned with
the facts of the case. And the fact of the case is that, on *the
evidence of
Chomsky himself*, he knew all along the nature of Faurisson's beliefs,
e.g. that
the Jews bore responsibility for the War.

> since we are talking about
> Faurisson's civil liberties, not the content of his views (which Chomsky
> rejects).

On the contrary, Chomsky *does* talk about the content of Faurisson's
views. He
states that the man who he knows believes that the Jews bore
responsibility for
the war may be described as "a sort of relatively apolitical liberal".

> Chomsky's point is that even if one has read every single word of
> Faurisson's work, one is _still_ justified in defending Faurisson's civil
> liberties.

On the contrary, while I in fact do believe that, Chomsky's point was
a rather
more extensive and tendentious claim, namely that Faurisson's
apologetics for
Nazism are not evidence of anti-Semitism, indeed that the man is 'a
sort of
relatively apolitical liberal'

>
>
> The rest of your message is the usual solipsism, unrelated to evidence.
> E.g., you quoted a phrase of Faurisson's which has no relation to Chomsky
> whatsoever. This tactic is normally called a "smear". Orwell would have been
> interested in this tactic.
>
> -- Jeff

I would recommend that before being tempted to use a technical term
again, Mr
Ketland look up the meaning of the word 'solipsism'. If I were a
solipsist, I
would hardly be spending my time educating him or anyone else on this
ng.

So far from being a 'smear', it is a matter of record that Chomsky was
fully
aware when he wrote his testimonial to Faurisson of the latter's's
belief that
requiring Jewish children to wear a yellow star was a defensive
measure to
protect German troops. Vidal-Naquet had quoted this precise statement
in
correspondence with Chomsky, but Chomsky preferred to hide this
evidence of
Faurisson's Nazism (or, as he puts it "such charges have been
presented to me in
private correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail
here", even
though Vidal-Naquet gave him full permission to reproduce all
correspondence
between them).

Oliver Kamm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Oliver Kamm]

"Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message

news:3DAE4438...@xtra.co.nz...

Mr Newton is absolutely determined to show he has no conception of
scholarship or ethics. His source is NOT a single one of the books cited -
as may be inferred from the fact that in answer to my question of how many
of them he has read, he ... pretends the question wasn't asked. His source
is block of text on the Internet that he has cut and pasted. Accordingly he
has run into all sorts of trouble by replicating fraud. But more to the
point, he is himself a fraud, by claiming that he was citing books. The
proposition that I expect him to find the route by which books got garbled
into a witless and fraudulent item in cyberspace is one of the most obtuse
and ignorant remarks I've ever seen. Those of us with a sense of
intellectual standards don't expect you to investigate transmission on the
Internet, Mr Newton: we expect you to CONSULT THE BOOKS YOU CITE. You
haven't done that; you haven't even got the faintest glimmering of the
notion that that is what researchers do. Your behaviour towards this ng is
as discourteous and ignorant as can be imagined: you lie about your sources,
claiming authority from books; you make no attempt event to check the books
you fraudulently cite, thereby perpetrating someone else's fraud that you're
too idle and ill-informed to discover for yourself; and then you whinge
about how rotten it is that you're expected to do some work rather than be
congratulated on knowing how to cut-and-paste.

Let me advise you very strongly that in future when you want to cite your
source, you cite your *actual* source rather than lie about it. As is is,
owing to my sharp eye - which certainly didn't need to be sharp to catch out
this particular bit of rank dishonesty, you've brought this ng and not least
yourself into disrepute. You are, in short, a liar, a cheat and a fraud, and
this ng will be able to make its mind up about your good faith and
intelligence.

You're also a featherhead: how gullible can you get, to accept without
question and apparently without asking for evidence some anonymous tip from
a fraudulent web site that Israel allocates 90% of land to Jews? David
Irving commits fraud in the service of antisemitic bigotry, but he's not an
ignoramus. So there's one difference between you and him.

[Oliver Kamm]

iH <talk...@talk21.com> wrote in message news:<60osquom90v84i30j...@4ax.com>...

> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 23:14:21 +0100, "Oliver Kamm"
> <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >do you even have the slightest *notion*
> >of what intellectual standards consist in?
>
> Do you, Oliver Kamm?

Certainly do, and I'm going to have some fun at your expense in this
missive, old bean.

>
> I'll take it as read (no pun intended) that you're correct about that
> Ben-Gurion quotation. But that's one of ten 'quotations', as in your
> phrase, "the 'quotations', which Mr Newton has botched from a
> cut-and-paste job, raise serious questions about ethics". Are you
> suggesting that the others are also missing retractions or
> corrections, or are you just making hay out of that one (as it
> appears, misleading) item to avoid dealing with any of the rest?

I'm pointing out that Mr Newton is a liar and a fraud who claims to be
citing books but has never actually consulted them. Consequently he's
too idle as well as ignorant to have detected the fraud that his
source, viz a web site, sought to promulgate. I do not happen to own
the other books that Mr Newton, a fraud, copied down from his own
fraudulent source, and I do not consider it a fruitful activity to
expend time destroying the credibility of something and someone that
has already been exploded. I think it highly likely however that the
act of fraud I have identified on the part of the web site is
replicated in the other instances: it is a well-established logical
principle, viz. deduction, to reason from a general principle that is
established, such as that Mr Newton is a fraud, to a specific
application. It is Mr Newton's task to show us that he has genuinely
researched the propositions he has advanced, and provide evidence for
them. He hasn't and he can't: he's a fraud.

>
> Moreover (and I'm not being sarcastic here) I'd be very impressed if
> you've never quoted anyone without first reading or checking the
> original source.

Heavens above: you're easily impressed. Of course I always check
original sources or cite the secondary source (i.e. 'quoted in...')
that quotes it. That's what anyone with a respect for intellectual
standards does; Mr Newton however is not of that type, as evidenced by
his giving as sources things he's never laid eyes on. You aren;t
either, as evidenced by your complete absence of respect for scholarly
standards and the inevitable howlers that you will perpetrate as a
result.

And speaking of howlers committed by you, fasten your safety belt
because we're just about to run into a classic ....

>
> Finally, are you the same Oliver Kamm who recently wrote to The
> Guardian newspaper:
>
> "George Bush's terminology (Letters, October 9 ) in fact derives from
> George Orwell, writing in Partisan Review in 1942: "If you hamper the
> war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other.
> Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the
> present one. In practice, he that is not with me is against me."
> However uncomfortable for some Guardian readers, the logic remains
> unassailable."
>
> [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,808695,00.html ]
>
> A quotation missing a certain *retraction*, as another Orwell reader
> of apparently higher "intellectual standards" pointed out:
>
> "Unfortunately for Oliver Kamm, in 1944 George Orwell renounced his
> 1942 Partisan Review article, confessing that he had been driven to
> use language he regretted by "the lunatic atmosphere of war".
>
> In any case, surely Mr Kamm isn't suggesting that George W might have
> read or understood anything written by Orwell."
>
> [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,810440,00.html ]

I certainly am the same Oliver Kamm - and you are an almost
unbelievably stupid interlocutor. You have done EXACTLY what I said
you would do. You have not bothered to check a source, have you? Had
you troubled to check Orwell directly, rather than rely on someone
else's account, you would know that the second correspondent you cite
is talking rubbish. Orwell NEVER repudiated his remarks that I quoted,
and The Guardian is now facing up to the fact - as it always does in
such cases, because it's an honourable newspaper that speedily
corrects its mistakes, and I have been discussing this case with them
only today - that it allowed through a claim that was not verified and
is false. See my response in this thread to Nathan Folkert for the
axtual references.

And in the meantime, I hope you've learned a valuable lesson. You
presumed, because you were too idle and incompetent to check the
primary sources, that someone claiming a proposition that accorded
with your prejudices had to be telling the truth and had 'higher
intellectual standards' than I. And you've thereby, to a potential
readership of the entire Internet, made yourself look very, very silly
indeed. Sleep well.

[Oliver Kamm]

ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) wrote in message news:<H44AEq.4F...@bath.ac.uk>...

> In the referenced article, "Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> writes:
>
> >You now claim absolution from your grossly selective quotation with
> >the defence that you'd never read the book in the first place but
> >just cut-and-pasted a block of text from a web site. So when you
> >cited Shabtai Teveth's book as your source, your source was in fact
> >not Shabtai Teveth's book at all. You were lying. Indeed, your citing
> >various books as sources was, in its entirety, a lie. Kindly inform
> >this ng just how many of these books, which you have claimed are your
> >sources, you have consulted and checked, never mind read.
>
> Regarding selective and distorting quotation, an interesting example
> appeared in the Guardian last week:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,808695,00.html
> (first item)
>
> with a response:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,810440,00.html
> (third item)

Regarding selective and distorting quotation, Mr Carley has just made
a fool of himself on a grand operatic scale, and it's splendid to
watch. I refer him to my accompanying reply to Mr Folkert, who has
done the same research I have to discover that the second
correspondent to The Guardian, who so easily swayed Mr Carley, was
talking rubbish. And you, Mr Carley, swallowed it, hook, line, sinker,
rod and fisherman's waders. You did precisely what the fraudulent Mr
Newton did, and what the correspondent to The Guardian did: you were
too idle and incompetent to check a primary source, so decided to
download a web site instead. And now the evidence of your stupidity is
on the World Wide Web. I can only say that I find it astonishing you
occupy an academic post, because you;re manifestly unfit to hold it.

[Oliver Kamm]

nfol...@cs.stanford.edu (Nathan Folkert) wrote in message news:<4b923300.02101...@posting.google.com>...

My thanks go to Mr Folkert, who is as ever ahead of the game. His
account of Orwell's remarks is exactly right, and he has completely
accurately identified the errors made by the second correspondent to
The Guardian. I have in fact been talking only in the last couple of
days with The Guardian about their having inadvertently let through
that lady's howler, and discussing rectifying it (for The Guardian, to
its credit, does correct significant errors as soon as it finds them).

The lady who claimed that Orwell had retracted his 1942 remarks which
I quoted was, of course, talking nonsense. Like Mr Newton, who falsely
claimed to have consulted the works he cited while in fact having got
no further than a web site, this lady failed to consult Orwell at all
and merely got as far as a web article by a know-nothing anti-war
activist.

The facts of the case are these. In his As I Please column in Tribune
on 8 December 1944, Orwell regretted having implied that all pacifists
had pro-Fascist motivations, as opposed to effects. But at no time did
Orwell renounce his 1942 article or repudiate his judgement that, "If

you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that
of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a

war as the present one." Indeed, in Notes on Nationalism (May 1945) he
explicitly identified "a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real
though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and
admiration of totalitarianism". Readers of Chomksy or Pilger will know
the type Orwell was alluding to.

Some anti-war campaigners, eager to replicate each other's urban
legends rather than read Orwell himself, have been doing exactly what
Mr Folkert states: eliding two different articles and generally giving
a wholly unreliable account. The other essay that Mr Folkert cites but
has not read is, as he rightly infers, nothing at all to do with the
claim made by my interlocutor that Orwell recanted his 1942 article.
It is the London Letter to Partisan Review dated December 1944; the
relevant passage reads as follows:

"I have tried to tell the truth in these letters, and I believe your
readers have got from them a not too distorted picture of what was
happening at any given moment. Of course there are many mistaken
predictions (e.g. in 1941 I prophesied that Russia and Germany would
go on collaborating and in 1942 that Churchill would fall from power),
many generalisations based on little or no evidence, and also, from
time to time, spiteful or misleading remarks about individuals. For
instance, I particularly regret having said in one letter that Julian
Symons "writes in a vaguely Fascist strain" – a quite unjustified
statement based on a single article which I probably misunderstood.
But this kind of thing results from the lunatic atmosphere of war, the
fog of lies and misinformation in which one has to work and the
endless sordid controversies in which a political journalist is
involved."

London Letter to Partisan Review, December 1944, in The Collected
Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, Volume III – As I
Please, page 293.

So there we have it. Orwell wasn't recanting his views at all. He was
apologising for the fact that he had made a specific personal
criticism of one writer that he now felt was unfair. So much for the
notion that Orwell has been misused by warmongers like me and Michael
Kelly.

>
> This is mostly for curiosity and interest. I don't actually agree
> with Kamm and Kelly that this logical is applicable to today (at least
> not at an individual level. There is an argument to be made that it
> applies among nation-states, but then only in terms of cooperation on
> curbing terrorist activity or eliminating terrorist cells, not in
> terms of conventional warfare against other nation-states).
>
> - Nate

The terrorist organisations cannot exist without a state to support
them, while conversely the state that supports them is liable to enter
into a symbiotic relationship with the terrorists. (This is why it was
so disingenuous of the peace movement to complain that we hadn't
tested the Taliban's willingness to hand over bin Laden. The Taliban
*couldn't* hand over bin Laden.) So we need to strike at both the
terrorists and the states that nsuppor them, as Bush said in September
last year. The ideology we are fighting is definitely as malevoent and
nihilistic as anything seen in Europe sixty years ago. That is why I
consider Orwell's remarks are equally applicable to today's
circumstances. As Kelly said, those who opposed our bombing of
Afghanistan were objectively pro-terrorist.

[Craig Franck]

"Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3DAF99E1...@xtra.co.nz...

>
> Craig Franck wrote:
> >
> > "Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3DAE4268...@xtra.co.nz...
> >
> > > What you are seeing is a more intelligent version of Nazism. Their
> > > methods are more subtle, and details have been changed, but the basic
> > > principles are the same.
> >
> > Well, we are just going to have to disagree about this.
>
> I'm disappointed that you would cut so much out of the discussion to try
> and end it in some kind of stalemate, on a single point. It might seem
> to an observer that you are attempting to draw attention away from the
> issues you no longer feel you can argue, and onto this single issue
> where you are more confident. I do not wish to be hostile, because I
> appreciate that you have been willing to contribute in a constructive
> manner (Unlike Oliver who instantly began resorting to cowardly personal
> attacks) , but I feel I must consider the areas you have removed from
> the discussion conceded in my favour.

I thought we were talking past one another.

For example:

I wrote:
>> No, I'm not. You're arguing about a country that doesn't
>> exist. 15% of Israeli citizens were Arabs right from the start.
>> Now it's 20%. How is that ethnic or religious cleansing?

You wrote:
>Ethnic or religious cleansing does not need to be total. I'm sure you
>will not argue agains the fact that Israel's leaders and most of the
>Jewish majority are determined to see that they maintain their majority.
>They are determined to see that there will never be a right of return
>for those currently exiled from their homes. The methods they use are to
>remove those who might become a majority. Keeping a few "token"
>minorities does not mean that their primary goal is not one of religious
>or ethnic domination, and does not mean their racist and bigoted methods
>and practises of enforcing this are not to be classified as ethnic or
>religious cleansing.

I point out that the population of Arabs went up in Israel by
30%, and you say ethnic cleansing "need not be total."

Huh? If they keep cleansing Arabs at this rate, Jews will indeed
be the minority of Israel's population in just a few generations,
regardless of what the stated goals of Israel's leaders are.

You also just called one fifth the population of Israel "a few
'token' minorities." What can I say to that? If you can convince
yourself "ethnic cleansing" is going on in the face of those numbers,
I can't say anything to dispel you of that notion.

> > But you are hate mongering and misusing the language when
> > you equate Israel with Nazism. The German Nazis were bent
> > on the extermination of the Jewish race through mass murder.
>
> I think this is a simplistic view.

It's not simplistic. The Nazi's distinguished themselves through
the Holocaust and nothing else. That's all. The fact that you've
found other similarities doesn't impress me or most other people
I speak with.

[...]

> I think this relates very closely to Israel. Zionist beliefs are very
> clear about their ideals -the desire for a greater Israel, a religious
> belief that they are the "chosen people" (bears striking resemblances to
> the "master race" idea).

Okay, stop there. Why not compare those Zionist beliefs to those
of Southern Baptists who think America is God's "chosen country"?
(Baptists and Jews are bosom buddies at the moment, even though
many Christians are convinced Christ is coming back to wipe 2/3
of them off the planet and take over Israel. Now *that's* some
freaking kick-ass ethnic cleansing...)

George Bush himself thinks that's why the US is now the world's
only Super Power. Is George Bush a Nazi? [One minute he's
plowing through the back streets of Kennebunk Port, Maine,
drunk off his ass, the next he finds Jesus and is the Leader of the
Free World -- do not underestimate the impact of this conversion
of his on his thinking.]

A great many groups in the US think WASPs are God's chosen
people. Honest to God. There are much more realistic comparisons
about Israel you could make other than Nazis. What's happening
is Israel is perhaps making many of the same mistakes a great many
others have made before (and continue to do so now), but all you
can focus on is Nazis because that's the comparison that hurts the
most given their history with them. That's the main reason I find the
comparison so shameful.

> And, of
> course, both movements have Z in their names, an obviously evil
> character.

Now you're scaring me.

> Secondly, I am not concerned if, as you state in your unqualified
> declaration further up, 95% of people subscribe to a simplistic view of
> Nazis. I do not feel that I should adjust my position, or reconstruct my
> argument in such a way as to cater to ignorance, no matter the
> popularity of such perspectives.

Well, you ought to, because you're marginalizing yourself. I got
an e-mail from someone following this thread questioning why I'd
bother getting into a debate with someone who compares Israel to
Nazi Germany. I said you raised some reasonable points and I
thought I could convince you to find better comparisons to make.

[Andy Newton]

Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> "Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message

> news:3DAE4438...@xtra.co.nz...

> > I dont think you even know what fraud means. To repeat, fraud is an act
> > of *deliberate* deception. You are assuming that the quote I provided
> > was not accurate to the best of my knowledge.
> >
> > I did not cite the URL as my source because it is not the source of the
> > quotes. Consider the complications that would arise if writers had to
> > not only cite the original sources, but the entire journey of the quote
> > from the original document through who knows how many transmission
> > mediums before it reached them personally.
>
> Mr Newton is absolutely determined to show he has no conception of
> scholarship or ethics.

I am frankly shocked that you have the gall to lecture me on the matter
of scholarship and ethics. My understanding of scholarship and ethics is
that when an argument is made, it must be defended. And if it is not
defended, it is to be considered conceded, and accordingly discarded.

My reply to you was one of addressing a number of criticisms you made of
a particular work of Noam Chomsky. I do not completely agree with the
position of Noam Chomsky on all of the issues you raised, but I found a
number of arguments you made against him to be contrary to both my
opinions and the facts, hence my reply.

You have not defended your criticisms of Noam Chomsky. You have ignored
a multitude of facts and quotes provided. You have made 4 replies to me
directly in this thread, and in each of them have failed to defend your
criticisms. You made three small "notes", but in the very same post
admitted that you were not prepared to defend your claims.

I have been very generous to you, Oliver. And by the way, call me Andy
from now on, there is no need for this semi-legalese nonsense. But as I
was saying, I have been very generous to you, Oliver, because I have
given you no less than 5 days to come up with some sort of
counter-argument. Instead, you have used this time to focus on only one
of 10 quotes I provided, and attempted to create a smoke screen of lies
and rhetoric to engage in ad-hominem attacks on my character.

Lets be honest here. We arent "researchers", we are a couple of guys
with time on our hands and opposing viewpoints. You have tried to draw
attention away from the fact that you are not able to formulate
counter-arguments with this smear campaign of yours. This is an informal
debate, Oliver, that is the nature of Internet discussion. The semantics
and nitpicking you are engaging in make you look foolish, especially in
light of the fact that myself and Craig Franck have been able to have a
constructive discussion in this very thread, while you flounder,
clumsily trying to hide the truth about your argument, and weasel out of
defending it.

Here's an interesting little fact our readers might be interested in. In
my original reply to you, I provided 989 words of new material to the
debate. By my most generous estimates, your reply addressed only 74 of
those words.

You are right about one thing Oliver, this newsgroup will be able to
make its mind up about good faith and
intelligence, yours and mine both.

--

"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the
nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and
refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by
convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better
sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." — Mark
Twain

[Andy Newton]

Craig Franck wrote:
>
> "Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3DAF99E1...@xtra.co.nz...
> >
> > Craig Franck wrote:

> > > Well, we are just going to have to disagree about this.
> >
> > I'm disappointed that you would cut so much out of the discussion to try
> > and end it in some kind of stalemate, on a single point. It might seem
> > to an observer that you are attempting to draw attention away from the
> > issues you no longer feel you can argue, and onto this single issue
> > where you are more confident. I do not wish to be hostile, because I
> > appreciate that you have been willing to contribute in a constructive
> > manner (Unlike Oliver who instantly began resorting to cowardly personal
> > attacks) , but I feel I must consider the areas you have removed from
> > the discussion conceded in my favour.
>
> I thought we were talking past one another.

An assumption you should not have made. Typically, where a person thinks
their point has not been properly addressed, they call on their opponent
to either address the point more directly, or to clarify how the reply
already given relates to the original point.

> I point out that the population of Arabs went up in Israel by
> 30%, and you say ethnic cleansing "need not be total."
>
> Huh? If they keep cleansing Arabs at this rate, Jews will indeed
> be the minority of Israel's population in just a few generations,
> regardless of what the stated goals of Israel's leaders are.

Remember that we are talking about a movement who are not afraid to
employ terrorism, to forcefully remove hundreds of thousands of people
from their homes, and to treat many, many more absolutely appallingly.
Their record shows that human rights abuses to not concern them. They
have done all of this in the name of gaining and maintaining domination
over this piece of land.

We know their goals. We know what they are willing to do to reach their
goals. Tolerance, if it can be called such, of Arab's as Israeli
citizens at the moment, while they are still a minority, is no
indication at all that they will abandon their goals, which they have in
the past, and continue in the present to strive for, through any means
necessary.

I'm having trouble reconciling your statements here with your previous
comments. You believe that if there was a right of return for exiled
Palestinians, and if Palestinians in the occupied territories were given
Israeli Citizenship, Israel would be destroyed, correct? Does that not
mean then that in a few generations, as you say, Israel will be
destroyed because the Arab-Israeli population grows to become larger
than the Jewish population? You understand the goals of Zionism, and
with that being the case, how can you believe that this will be
accepted? Surely the Israeli government will act in the way it has
always done, and swiftly act to ensure this does not happen?

> You also just called one fifth the population of Israel "a few
> 'token' minorities." What can I say to that? If you can convince
> yourself "ethnic cleansing" is going on in the face of those numbers,
> I can't say anything to dispel you of that notion.
>
> > > But you are hate mongering and misusing the language when
> > > you equate Israel with Nazism. The German Nazis were bent
> > > on the extermination of the Jewish race through mass murder.
> >
> > I think this is a simplistic view.
>
> It's not simplistic. The Nazi's distinguished themselves through
> the Holocaust and nothing else. That's all. The fact that you've
> found other similarities doesn't impress me or most other people
> I speak with.

Forgive me if I ignore your appeal to the authority of "most other
people" you speak with. The fact is that there have been few popular
movements founded upon the same level of racism/religious bigotry that
Nazism and Zionism are, and that also were willing and able to act upon
these principles and cause such great suffering in the world. The church
through the Spanish Inquisition might be comparable on a much smaller
scale, most religions probably, but Nazism and Zionism stand out. These
are world class affairs.

> > I think this relates very closely to Israel. Zionist beliefs are very
> > clear about their ideals -the desire for a greater Israel, a religious
> > belief that they are the "chosen people" (bears striking resemblances to
> > the "master race" idea).
>
> Okay, stop there. Why not compare those Zionist beliefs to those
> of Southern Baptists who think America is God's "chosen country"?

I despise them also! I am against all religious fundamentalism.

> (Baptists and Jews are bosom buddies at the moment, even though
> many Christians are convinced Christ is coming back to wipe 2/3
> of them off the planet and take over Israel. Now *that's* some
> freaking kick-ass ethnic cleansing...)

Yes it is, one important difference to note would be that these
fundamentalists are not trying to do the job themselves. I would like to
see their religious fundamentalism abolished, but in the meantime, as
long as they leave the ethnic cleansing to Christ, they will only be
causing limited suffering and death, by comparison.

> George Bush himself thinks that's why the US is now the world's
> only Super Power. Is George Bush a Nazi? [One minute he's
> plowing through the back streets of Kennebunk Port, Maine,
> drunk off his ass, the next he finds Jesus and is the Leader of the
> Free World -- do not underestimate the impact of this conversion
> of his on his thinking.]

I really dont see why this is relevant. I dont like Bush. I think he's
an evil man. And I do criticise Bush, and most certainly criticise US
foreign policy. you are trying to find some sort of inconsistency in my
condemnation, there is none.

> A great many groups in the US think WASPs are God's chosen
> people. Honest to God. There are much more realistic comparisons
> about Israel you could make other than Nazis.

Well, lets have them.

> What's happening
> is Israel is perhaps making many of the same mistakes a great many
> others have made before (and continue to do so now), but all you
> can focus on is Nazis because that's the comparison that hurts the
> most given their history with them. That's the main reason I find the
> comparison so shameful.

You admit, in a round-about way that they are making many of the
mistakes of Nazi Germany, and so is the comparison not valid? Their
history is not relevant to it's validity. We can discuss the comparison
being "shameful", if you'd like, but I would like it if first you would
admit that there are enough similarities that a dispassionate comparison
can be made.

This entire section of our discussion though, reminds me something else
I thoroughly dislike -political correctness.

> > And, of
> > course, both movements have Z in their names, an obviously evil
> > character.
>
> Now you're scaring me.

You're scared by that? That's nothing. Turn around.

;)

I was simply trying to lighten the mood. Never said I was a comedian.

> > Secondly, I am not concerned if, as you state in your unqualified
> > declaration further up, 95% of people subscribe to a simplistic view of
> > Nazis. I do not feel that I should adjust my position, or reconstruct my
> > argument in such a way as to cater to ignorance, no matter the
> > popularity of such perspectives.
>
> Well, you ought to, because you're marginalizing yourself. I got
> an e-mail from someone following this thread questioning why I'd
> bother getting into a debate with someone who compares Israel to
> Nazi Germany. I said you raised some reasonable points and I
> thought I could convince you to find better comparisons to make.

I came to accept a long time ago that many of the things I believe
probably do not mesh with the public, or the majority of the public's
perceptions. I think it was this realisation that allowed me to free
myself from a certain culture, a culture of political correctness, of
tradition, a culture of "social norms". I dont want to cater to the
lowest intellectual or moral common denominators. I know that sounds
really elitist and arrogant, I dont mean it to sound that way, all I am
saying is, I dont feel obliged to take people's emotional hang-up's into
consideration, it isnt relevant, it shouldnt be relevant.

If this person would like to address me directly, I'm willing to discuss
their concerns, but they should keep the above in mind. And if you are
able to convince me that there are other comparisons that are more
valid, so be it.

[Andy Newton]

Craig Franck wrote:

I understand what you are trying to do, and if you succeed I will be
pleased for I will have been provided with another example to use in
comparing with Israel, but basically such an example would need to fit
these criteria to be as or more valid than the Israel/Nazi Germany
comparison:

- A belief in group superiority, divinely granted or otherwise, and
corresponding disregard for the rights of others not in their group
- A belief in a holy-land/homeland that should be taken/expanded and
belong to/be controlled by their group
- Willingness to put the above beliefs into practise through any means,
including outright slaughter, detainment, oppression, and forced removal
of populations, and annexation of neighbouring nations
- Successfuly uses propaganda to garner great public support for the
above actions
- Performing the above on a large scale, both in terms of numbers of
people affected (at least hundreds of thousands of people), and affect
on international politics (involving more than one or two other
nations).

Nazi Germany and Israel both fit all of these criteria, which is why
they seem to me like the perfect comparisson. I cannot think of one
alternative that is better suited to comparison with Israel.

[Spyder]

Character attack.

> His source is NOT a single one of the books cited
> - as may be inferred from the fact that in answer to my question of how
> many of them he has read, he ... pretends the question wasn't asked.

Pot kettle black.

> His
> source is block of text on the Internet that he has cut and pasted.

That's not even a sentence. It is however safe to assume it was supposed
to be an attack on "cutting and pasting". I imagine that when Ollie rules
the world CTRL, x, c, and v keys will be removed from keyboards.

> Accordingly he has run into all sorts of trouble by replicating fraud.
> But more to the point, he is himself a fraud, by claiming that he was
> citing books.

Character attack, false fraud definition, inventing crime.

> The proposition that I expect him to find the route by
> which books got garbled into a witless and fraudulent item in cyberspace
> is one of the most obtuse and ignorant remarks I've ever seen.

Lack of comprehension skills.

> Those of
> us with a sense of intellectual standards don't expect you to
> investigate transmission on the Internet, Mr Newton: we expect you to
> CONSULT THE BOOKS YOU CITE.

Appeal to non-existant authority that is 'we'.

> You haven't done that; you haven't even got
> the faintest glimmering of the notion that that is what researchers do.

Unreasonable expectations of available resources. Unreasonable
expectations of how much effort required for people to make you look like
an idiot.

> Your behaviour towards this ng is as discourteous and ignorant as can be
> imagined: you lie about your sources, claiming authority from books; you
> make no attempt event to check the books you fraudulently cite, thereby
> perpetrating someone else's fraud that you're too idle and ill-informed
> to discover for yourself; and then you whinge about how rotten it is
> that you're expected to do some work rather than be congratulated on
> knowing how to cut-and-paste.

Unreasonable expectations of available resources. Unreasonable
expectations of how much effort required for people to make you look like
an idiot.

> You are, in short, a liar, a
> cheat and a fraud, and this ng will be able to make its mind up about
> your good faith and intelligence.

Character attack, pot kettle black, lack of proper fraud definition, lack
of proper cheat definition, drawn conclusion on no basis.

> You're also a featherhead: how gullible can you get, to accept without
> question and apparently without asking for evidence some anonymous tip
> from a fraudulent web site that Israel allocates 90% of land to Jews?
> David Irving commits fraud in the service of antisemitic bigotry, but
> he's not an ignoramus. So there's one difference between you and him.

And an Ad hominem to close things off.

[Dan Clore]

You need a lesson in basic logic, Ollie. Try drawing a Venn
diagram with the categories "leftist", "supporter of
Hitler", and "opponent of Hitler".

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
All my fiction through 2001 and more. Intro by S.T. Joshi.
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro

Lord We˙rdgliffe and Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Said Smygo, the iconoclast of Zothique: "Bear a hammer with
thee always, and break down any terminus on which is
written: 'So far shalt thou pass, but no further go.'"
--Clark Ashton Smith

[Spyder]

..and then olive...@tiscali.co.uk (Oliver Kamm) said:

> As Kelly said, those who opposed our bombing of
> Afghanistan were objectively pro-terrorist.

"Black and White" logical fallacy.

[Nathan Folkert]

olive...@tiscali.co.uk (Oliver Kamm) wrote in message news:<40cd7d30.0210...@posting.google.com>...

[snip]

> Some anti-war campaigners, eager to replicate each other's urban
> legends rather than read Orwell himself, have been doing exactly what
> Mr Folkert states: eliding two different articles and generally giving
> a wholly unreliable account. The other essay that Mr Folkert cites but
> has not read is, as he rightly infers, nothing at all to do with the
> claim made by my interlocutor that Orwell recanted his 1942 article.
> It is the London Letter to Partisan Review dated December 1944; the
> relevant passage reads as follows:

Russil Wvong likes to quote a particular passage of Orwell that seems
remarkably relevant to the current discussion:

"Much of the propagandist writing of our time amounts to plain
forgery. Material facts are suppressed, dates altered, quotations
removed from their context and doctored so as to change their
meaning."
(http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html)

Actually, this passage seems to be relevant to just about every thread
in the Chomsky newsgroup.

[snip]

- Nate

[Jeffrey Ketland]

Oliver Kamm wrote in message
<40cd7d30.02101...@posting.google.com>...

>"Jeffrey Ketland" <ket...@ketland.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<aonhp1$kh9$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...

[usual Kamm-esque drivel and lying snipped]

>> On the subject of Kamm: of course, he is aware of all of this, but holds
>> (hardly secret) extreme right-wing views, which have been detailed here:
>> --- sympathetic to Pinochet's fascist regime in Chile,
>> --- opposed to third world debt relief programmes,
>> --- opposed to the NI peace process,
>> --- an admirer of Ronald Reagan's pro-fascist policies, etc.
>> These put him even out on the far _right_ of the Tory party. Hence his
>> systematic _charlatanism_, viz. his delusional refrain "we committed
>> leftists"---i.e., Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Augusto Pinochet,
etc.
>> By "committed" he must mean deserving of mental treatment
>
>Mr Ketland has lost it here; he really must calm down and take a
>course, which he certainly needs, in basic epistemology and formal
>logic.

While I find your lying repulsive and prefer not to argue with charlatans,
I'll reply to this stupid and moronic claim.
In the real world of facts (something you're uninterested in---a trait
Orwell described), I have a PhD in mathematical logic from LSE (btw,
examined by a world-famous Jewish professor of mathematical logic, who also
happens to think that Sharon is a war criminal).
In the real world of facts, I have proved a number of theorems concerning
the conservation of restricted versions of Tarski's T-scheme over arithmetic
base theories. Ask anyone who knows about the subject, you ignoramus.
In the real world of facts, I teach epistemology of science (presently at
Leeds, Department of History and Philosophy of Science), defending the
realist views of the likes of Einstein, (later) Russell, Orwell, Sokal &
Bricmont, etc. (whose political views I also happen to share).

Now, Kamm, you pusillanimous right-wing charlatan who claims to be have
expertise in formal logic, a question: can you give us an example a
recursively enumerable but non-recursive set? I'm waiting.

--- Jeff

[Oliver Kamm]

"Jeffrey Ketland" <ket...@ketland.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message

news:aos118$chn$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...

> examined by a world-famous .... [yawn]

I am well aware of your claims to competence, Mr Ketland, because, if you
recall, you scatter them like confetti when you've been tripped up on
matters of critical thinking - which is to say (recall the exchange on
Faurisson which led to your flight from this ng many months ago), rather
frequently - and have nothing left to respond with. That is why I said it.
If you enter my name, your name and 'logic' or 'Tarski' into the search
engine you will see that you have tried to pull this one on an incredulous
ng before. I can only say that you have excellent grounds for your
intellectual insecurity.

[Jeffrey Ketland]

Oliver Kamm wrote in message <3db1c...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>...

Comical. Right. So, you've been exposed as a fraud---you're entirely
uninterested in _real world facts_ (a trait Orwell mocked in "Notes on
Nationalism"---in your case, the right-wing Tory nationalist).

If you're interested in facts, here's the theorem I proved. Take first order
PA and extend with the restricted Tarski T-scheme. The result is
conservative. This is (roughly) Theorem 1 of Ketland "Deflationism and
Tarski's Paradise" MIND 108 (1999). Easily checked.
Or read my review of Geoffrey Stokes "Popper: Science, Politics and
Philosophy" in The British Journal for Philosophy of Science 51 (2001),
where I discuss (and defend) Tarski's work and Popper's correct
interpretation of Tarski as defending the correspondence theory.

Back to poor old Kamm. Let's see: who now looks like a pompous, patronizing,
and incompetent little liar? Who now looks like the pretentious charlatan,
lecturing others on "courses in formal logic"?

By the way, I'm waiting for an example of a recursively enumerable but
non-recursive set. Surely a Oxford-educated genius like you knows such
things?

Keep digging, idiot.

--- Jeff

[Craig Franck]

"Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3DB0D0B4...@xtra.co.nz...

> I'm having trouble reconciling your statements here with your previous
> comments. You believe that if there was a right of return for exiled
> Palestinians, and if Palestinians in the occupied territories were given
> Israeli Citizenship, Israel would be destroyed, correct?

That's correct.

> Does that not
> mean then that in a few generations, as you say, Israel will be
> destroyed because the Arab-Israeli population grows to become larger
> than the Jewish population? You understand the goals of Zionism, and
> with that being the case, how can you believe that this will be
> accepted?

Because growth from the Arab population already in Israel
is not producing militant radicals like the West Bank or Gaza
is. I feel that most of them will be willing to live peacefully with
their Jewish neighbors. Very few terror attacks come from
Israeli Arabs.

I also feel the notion of what a Jewish state should or can be
has been modified by the reality of the situation and 50 years
experience. I don't think your average Israeli citizen today is
as strong a Zionist as Israel's founding fathers were. Israeli
X-Geners want peace and prosperity more than anything else.

> Surely the Israeli government will act in the way it has
> always done, and swiftly act to ensure this does not happen?

I don't think so. I know how you feel about them, so I'm
sure you're imagining the absolute worst. I have stated in
another thread that I believe Nazi Germany went collectively
insane immediately before WWII. Since I don't believe the
population of Israel are collectively out of their minds or
evil people, I'm certain some kind of sane solution to what-
ever problems face them will be worked out.

Also, the only reason I made the point is it destroys your
claims of ethnic cleansing.

> You admit, in a round-about way that they are making many of the
> mistakes of Nazi Germany, and so is the comparison not valid?

I never admitted that. I said:

"What's happening is Israel is perhaps making many of the
same mistakes a great many others have made before (and
continue to do so now), but all you can focus on is Nazis
because that's the comparison that hurts the most given their
history with them. That's the main reason I find the
comparison so shameful."

You're the one with the Nazi fixation. I do think Israel has
made major mistakes, but nothing that would justify such a
comparison.

> Their
> history is not relevant to it's validity. We can discuss the comparison
> being "shameful", if you'd like, but I would like it if first you would
> admit that there are enough similarities that a dispassionate comparison
> can be made.

Their history is the only reason the comparison is being made.

If Russia killed six million Jews in WWII, Jew haters would
be saying how Israel is now acting like the Russians did. I fully
believe you would probably get sucked into making that
comparison as well, even though you would insist it is through a
scholarly treatment of the facts that you've come to form this
outrageous conclusion.

I do feel a little better since you've confided you think George
Bush is an evil man, since it now appears you are quite liberal
with the term. If you think Bush is evil, I can imagine you'd hate
the leaders of Israel even more. I don't particularly like the
man either, but the fact you think the United States would elect
a truly evil man to its highest office is very telling.

[Andy Newton]

Craig Franck wrote:
>
> "Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3DB0D0B4...@xtra.co.nz...
>
> > I'm having trouble reconciling your statements here with your previous
> > comments. You believe that if there was a right of return for exiled
> > Palestinians, and if Palestinians in the occupied territories were given
> > Israeli Citizenship, Israel would be destroyed, correct?
>
> That's correct.

If your views on this matter have no changed, why did you snip this area
of our discussion after my fourth reply to you?

> > Does that not
> > mean then that in a few generations, as you say, Israel will be
> > destroyed because the Arab-Israeli population grows to become larger
> > than the Jewish population? You understand the goals of Zionism, and
> > with that being the case, how can you believe that this will be
> > accepted?
>
> Because growth from the Arab population already in Israel
> is not producing militant radicals like the West Bank or Gaza
> is. I feel that most of them will be willing to live peacefully with
> their Jewish neighbors. Very few terror attacks come from
> Israeli Arabs.

Have you stopped to consider why? What is the difference between
Israeli-Arabs and Palestinians? Ethnically, religiously, they are the
same. There is only one difference betweeen Israeli-Arabs and
Palestinians, and that is Israeli citizenship.

This is why Israel needs to drop the farce, formally annex the occupied
territories, and grant the Palestinians Israeli citizenship. Give them
the rights and opportunities that Israeli-Arabs have. If you are right
about Israeli-Arabs today, then most Palestinians will be willing to
live peacefully.

They will be subject to the discrimination Israeli-Arabs endure today,
but they will still be much better off. And if the discrimination can be
tackled, things will be much better still.

Think about who suicide bombers are. Suicide bombers are people who have
suffered all their lives under brutal Israeli oppression. Chances are
they have lost family members in the conflict. Their lives are so
miserable that they are willing to die if it grants them some revenge.

Without these people, there wont be any new terrorist recruits. Without
these people, there wont be any more suicide bombings. The only question
is how to get rid of these people. As I have mentioned earlier, there
are two ways of doing this. You can kill them all. The other way is
treating them like human beings, respecting their rights, granting them
the opportunities they deserve so they can live happy lives. Dont give
them something to die for. Dont give them pain and grief that can be
used to fuel hatred.

Israeli-Arabs dont cause terrorism because they dont have something to
die for, they have reason to value their lives, even if they are still
treated as second class citizens.

> I also feel the notion of what a Jewish state should or can be
> has been modified by the reality of the situation and 50 years
> experience. I don't think your average Israeli citizen today is
> as strong a Zionist as Israel's founding fathers were. Israeli
> X-Geners want peace and prosperity more than anything else.

The leadership of Israel has, if anything, only hardened their views
with regards to the Palestinians. Whether the general population is
willing or not to live in peace is irrelevant if they continue to put
these people into power.

> > Surely the Israeli government will act in the way it has
> > always done, and swiftly act to ensure this does not happen?
>
> I don't think so. I know how you feel about them, so I'm
> sure you're imagining the absolute worst. I have stated in
> another thread that I believe Nazi Germany went collectively
> insane immediately before WWII. Since I don't believe the
> population of Israel are collectively out of their minds or
> evil people, I'm certain some kind of sane solution to what-
> ever problems face them will be worked out.

They are not out of their minds, and neither was the population of Nazi
Germany. They were manipulated. It is a very easy thing to do, Hitler
did it then (with the help of expertise from the US advertising
industry, believe it or not), Israel's leaders have always done it, and
Bush is doing it now. The population is easy to control if you
manufacture a threat, and argue only in purely emotive terms.

> Also, the only reason I made the point is it destroys your
> claims of ethnic cleansing.

Not at all.

I cleaned my kitchen bench before. But it's not clean. There's no way I
will have gotten rid of all of the germs and so forth that were there. I
am tolerant of the germs that remain because it would be more bother
than it is worth to get it completely clean. But I still say that I
cleaned it, because I made it more clean than it was before -I performed
the act of cleaning

Ethnic clenasing does not need to result in total ethnic cleanliness. If
it did, then Hitler did not practise ethnic cleansing, because of the
Jewish soldiers, and soldiers jewish families he tolerated, which I
mentioned earlier. I would also be very surprised if the ethnic
cleansing Slobodan Milosevic performed was total, ensuring complete
ethnic cleanliness.

If ethnic cleansing needs to result in a completely ethnically clean
nation or area or whatever, then it has never been performed. If we
accept a definition of ethnic cleansing as it is applied to Nazi
Germany's ethnic cleansing, and so many other examples, then Israel's
actions in forcefully removing so many Palestinians from their homes was
indeed ethnic cleansing.

> > You admit, in a round-about way that they are making many of the
> > mistakes of Nazi Germany, and so is the comparison not valid?
>
> I never admitted that. I said:
>
> "What's happening is Israel is perhaps making many of the
> same mistakes a great many others have made before (and
> continue to do so now), but all you can focus on is Nazis
> because that's the comparison that hurts the most given their
> history with them. That's the main reason I find the
> comparison so shameful."
>
> You're the one with the Nazi fixation. I do think Israel has
> made major mistakes, but nothing that would justify such a
> comparison.

It seemed as if you were admitting that, because you admit they are
making mistakes that others have made before, before leading on to "but
all you can focus on the Nazis", which implies that they are within the
group of "a great many others" you had already mentioned.

but again, I urge you to addres the list of similarities I provided in
my other post.

> > Their
> > history is not relevant to it's validity. We can discuss the comparison
> > being "shameful", if you'd like, but I would like it if first you would
> > admit that there are enough similarities that a dispassionate comparison
> > can be made.
>
> Their history is the only reason the comparison is being made.

You are ignoring the second reply I made to you then. The victims of the
Nazi holocaust could have been Eskimos or Aborigines, and the comparison
would still be valid.

> If Russia killed six million Jews in WWII, Jew haters would
> be saying how Israel is now acting like the Russians did. I fully
> believe you would probably get sucked into making that
> comparison as well, even though you would insist it is through a
> scholarly treatment of the facts that you've come to form this
> outrageous conclusion.

I would only make that comparison if Russia were to have fitted the
following criteria:

- They had a belief in inherent genetic(or other) Russian superiority
- They had a belief that Russia and a number of surrounding nations
should belong exclusively to Russians and be controlled by Russians (on
an ethnic or religious or other basis), and non-Russians should be
removed, or tolerated only in small numbers
- They mounted a campaign to enforce these beliefs
- They successfuly used propaganda to garner great public support for
the
above actions

This isnt about Jews. Please get that very clear. The race, religion, or
other group that suffers as a result of these kinds of beliefs and
policies does not matter. If anything it is actually unfortunate for my
argument that it was the Jews that suffered the most as a result of Nazi
Germany performing the above, because I run into situations like this
where the emotions of the matter are wrongfully included as part of the
debate.

I want it really clear. The reasons why I compare Israel to Nazi Germany
have nothing to do with the Jews, and everything to do with the contents
of my second last reply to you.

> I do feel a little better since you've confided you think George
> Bush is an evil man, since it now appears you are quite liberal
> with the term.

It is not a matter of my being liberal with the term. It is a matter of
individuals to whom the label applies being in ample supply. I think we
have enough to discuss on our hands without extending this to an "Is
Bush evil" debate, but some very short reasons:

- Bush is a party to the evil that Israel commits. He has not made any
attempt to stop or slow the military and economic aid given to Israel.
- Bush is a man that is willing to sacrifice his citizen's freedoms,
supposedly on the basis of national security
- Bush is a man that wishes to wage an illegal war (that will see many
innocent deaths at the hands of US forces) and is willing to do so
unilaterally, on a hypocritical foundation of lies and half-truths

I do not need to be liberal in my application of the term evil in order
to apply the word to this man.

> If you think Bush is evil, I can imagine you'd hate
> the leaders of Israel even more. I don't particularly like the
> man either, but the fact you think the United States would elect
> a truly evil man to its highest office is very telling.

See above.

[Oliver Kamm]

Dear me: I cannot emphasise enough how much it pains me to have got under Mr
Ketland's skin, but it fear it cannot be helped. Not having made an Internet
search for Mr Ketland as he, with a rather odd obsessiveness, has for me, I
cannot verify that he is, as he claims, an academic in the field of
epistemplogy and logic, though he has made this claim with a suspiciously
desparate insistence before, several times. It is certainly possible - Mr
Carley, after all, is an academic, while not knowing that scholarly
procedure requires one to verify sources before quoting them in evidence -
but, on the only evidence available to me, it seems unlikely.

"Jeffrey Ketland" <ket...@ketland.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message

news:aoso01$jtt$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...

[Oliver Kamm]

Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:<3DB108FF...@columbia-center.org>...

> Oliver Kamm wrote:
> > We will certainly all be impressed with the fact that Mr Ketland managed to
> > undertake an extensive and vast study of 20th century history and never to
> > have been told of the Nazi-Soviet pact or the strong support given by
> > European Marxist leaders in the 1930s to Hitler's regime (e.g. Jacques
> > Doriot).
> >
> > I'd ask for your money back, old bean.
>
> You need a lesson in basic logic, Ollie. Try drawing a Venn
> diagram with the categories "leftist", "supporter of
> Hitler", and "opponent of Hitler".
>

I'm sure Mr Clore's remark means something to him. Unfortunately, it
merely draws attention to Mr Ketland's own lack of facility with
twentieth-century European history. Nazism found some of its strongest
*support*, not opposition, in the ranks of the far Left. The Right
included some shameful appeasers, and occasionally an outright Nazi
(the name of the Conservative MP Captain Ramsey comes to mind); the
far Left included masses of collaborationists and outright supporters
of Fascism. Being a leftist myself (though of the democratic variety)
I look on this dispassionately and merely record it for Mr Ketland's
benefit, as this is clearly all new to him.

France's leading collaborationist, Laval, was a stalwart of the very
small group of pro-Lenin and anti-war socialists in 1914-18, so he
naturally found an outlet for his political sympathies in the
disgraceful Hoare-Laval Pact. Jacques Doriot, as I have mentioned, was
a leader of the French Communists in the 1930s, who then split with
the Comintern because the Comintern would not endorse a popular front
with the Social Democrats against fascism - and then founded his own
pro-fascist and antsemitic party, the Parti Populaire Francais.
Bombacci in Italy adopted a similar course of Communist pro-Fascism.
Gramsci was a close ally of Mussolini right through to Mussolini's
'defencist' campaigns. Strange but true. Actually, given that both
sides expounded totalitarian ideologies, it's true but not especially
strange. That's why, more recently, the curious alliances of Noam
Chomsky are no real surprise either.

[Oliver Kamm]

Andy Newton <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3DB0C437...@xtra.co.nz>...

> Oliver Kamm wrote:
> >
> > "Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:3DAE4438...@xtra.co.nz...
>
>
>>

> I am frankly shocked that you have the gall to lecture me on the matter
> of scholarship and ethics. My understanding of scholarship and ethics is
> that when an argument is made, it must be defended. And if it is not
> defended, it is to be considered conceded, and accordingly discarded.

Thank you for confirming my observation that scholarly standards and
ethics are unknown to you. As Hubert Humphrey reportedly said, the
right to be heard does not entail the right to be taken seriously. In
order to be taken seriously in discussion and debate, it is necessary
to earn respect. You haven't done that, because you have been caught
out lying. In fact, caught out in ten lies, because you gave ten
sources, not one of which was accurate. You then compound this
disgraceful conduct by expecting those who have exposed both your own
fraud and that of your real and sole source - an Internet site - to do
your research for you. No, old chap, we are not 'two guys' having a
debate on a matter of common concern: one of us has a respect for
scholarly methods, of which an axiom is to be honest and accurate in
one's source material, and the other has so little respect for this ng
that he imagines he can fob us off with outright fraud and dishonesty,
as well as retailing the most preposterous antisemitic libels and
fatuous fictions without a shred of evidence or inquiry (e.g. your
rhetorical question whether I knew that 90% of the land of Israel is
allocated to Jews). David Irving was exposed as a fraud in the service
of antisemitic ideology in a court of law, and no one bothers to
respond to him; you certainly will get no better treatment for your
fraud and antisemitic apologetics. You have still, incidentally, not
answered the question how many of your ten cited books you have ever
consulted, let alone read, and this ng will draw its own conclusions
about your reputability, intellectual resources and good faith.

[Josh Dougherty]

"zztop8970-" <zzto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:35d69502.02101...@posting.google.com...

> > > They have indeed.
> >
> > Perhaps. What makes you say so?
>
> I, unlike you, have read Prof. Karsh's book, and thus know what I'm
> talking about.

Having read his book has not much bearing on anything I was previously
talking about regarding Kamm and Newton, but it's nice that you've
read it, and I hoped you enjoyed it.

In any case, the fact that you've read his book is not enough for me
to believe the case is closed. So, I'm still unclear as to what makes
you say so.

> > > Have you read or seen the original document being discussed here?
> >
> > No. Have you? I'd assume the original document is written in Hebrew,
> > which I wouldn't know how to read, so I'd have trouble checking the
> > assertion against the document anyway.
>
> Then how dare you question _anyone's_ interpreation of a document you
> have not seen, and could not read even if you had?

First, you did not answer the question.

but anyway....

I did poke a some fun at the seeming convenience of such an excuse for
the
quote, but I did not accuse or claim it to be false because I don't
know it to be. If the latter, accusing it or the author of falsehood,
is what you mean by "questioning" it, then I did not do so.

If, however, by "qestioning" it, you mean that I've alluded that it
seems convenient and could be less than accurate, then yes I did.
Why? Precisely because I have not seen it or read it, and even if I
had, that would not be enough for me to conclusively proove that the
'how-and-why' interperetation
offered is the correct one. Also because many other people have seen
it, and for at least 12 years, and apparently still do, interperet it
to mean what Mr. Newton quoted.

So, would you have me assume someone else's interperetation as fact
when i
don't know it to be fact, and when many others before and since have
interpereted it to mean something entirely different, and when it's
even unclear whether such an assertion about the motivation of a
decades old crossing-out of words could ever be proven definitively
true or false, simply because that someone has stated that it's a
fact?

Speaking generally, It seems you think someone must assume an
assertion true unless they've done all the research necessary to prove
it false. That, to me is roughly equivalent to me assuming that it's
a lie. I do neither. I've assumed it could either be true or false.
You say how dare I question his interperetation. I say how dare I
accept the interperetation without question.

> > > Have you read Mr. Karsh's book, Mr. Dougherty?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > Do you find it lacking in academic rigor, in methodology, or otherwise?
> >
> > I wouldn't know.
> >
> > > Please do spell out your exact grievances against this scholar
> >
> > N-o-n-e.
> >
> > I don't know whether his work is worthy of praise or greivance. I
> > wouldn't, and don't, simply take at face value that the assertion
> > contained therein must be unquestionably correct or an unbiased
> > account, anymore than I should automatically assume it to be a lie or
> > a piece of propaganda devised to whitewash an inconvenient statement
> > from the record. I would hope that I'd generally follow such a policy
> > when hearing any assertion, but I also particularly wouldn't do so
> > with claims on this topic, given the often sharply disparate
> > interperetations, ideological slants, propaganda or even outright lies
> > that often surronds anything having to do with Israeli/Palestinian
> > history.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just write a rather long
> piece, ridiculing the claim that Ben-Gurion's cited letter was in fact
> misrepresented by the quote in al-awada?

You are wrong. That was not the point of my piece, which i've already
stated. I did poke some fun at the seeming convenience of such a
revision,
but that was not an accusation of falsehood. It was merely a
secondary
point only relevant as it was linked to the primary point of my piece
which
was ridiculing the accusation that Mr. Newton was a "fraud", for
reasons stated previously. There was more to that point than this
assertion by Karsh, but on that point I was poking fun at the notion
that Mr. Newton must have known about this somewhat obscure revision,
and that there could have been no possible valid reason why might not
choose to adhere to this pretty convenient explanation had he known
about it, and therefore, he must be a "fraud".

> That is, you did not merely take a neutral stance, you implied Mr.
> Karsh's work, cited by Mr. Kamm, was biased, slanted or even outright lies.

I don't believe I implied that. I took what I believe is in fact a
neutral
stance, assuming that it could either be true or false, as well as
being
a pretty convenient discovery for wiping an inconvenient quote from
the
record, whether it be true or false, and therefore certainly worthy of
a
good degree of skepticism before just accepting it as fact.

This point is directly related to my actual implication, which is that
there's no justification for accusations of fraud against Mr. Newton
because he either did not know about this particular revision, or
because he had a legitimate reason to believe the first quote. I did
not, like Mr. Kamm with Mr. Newton, accuse the author of "fraud"
without first having some basis on which to
make such a claim. That was the point of my 'rather long piece', and
one
you have ignored.

> > However, it would seem that you otoh may be taking things at face
> > value, unless you can answer your first two questions to me in the
> > affirmative, and the third in the negative,
>
> I can, and do.
>
> >and unless you've also
> > answered any possible counter arguments that have since been put
> > forward to this theory in Karsh's book.
>
> The only arguments I'm aware of are the self-contradictory assertions

If you're not aware of some other valid argument that may exist, then
you
are guilty of "fraud" according to Mr. Kamm's standards.

> by Benny Morris that (a) someone other than Ben Gurion "vandalized"
> the handwritten letter [in Alpayim, vol.12, 1996], or that (b) Ben
> Gurion himself did it [In Journal of Palestine Studies, vol.27 no.2,
> 1998], and that (c) the IDF used modern technology to decipher the
> crossed out words.
>
> One notes that (a) contradicts (b),

I don't know Benny's arguments on this, but I see a couple logical
curiosities
already. First, why is it a problem that (a) contradicts (b)? And
second, does (a) have to contradict (b)?

On the first point, if (a) were actually correct, for instance, it
would still contradict (b), and if they were both incorrect, they
would still contradict each other. So, what does that have to do with
anything?

Or if, for instance, Morris put forth (a) in 1996, but then upon
further study, came to believe (b) in 1998, the two would still
contradict each other, and that would not mean that (b) is
automatically false. In short, the fact that they contradict does not
prove either one of them false. To discover that, you'd have to give
"serious consideration" to the argument given, something you admit you
have not done.

And on the second point, it's not a given that the two propositions
are contradictory at all. Ben Gurion could have done it himself, and
someone else could have also "vandalized" it. So, what makes you say
they're contradictory?

In either case you're seeming dismissal of these arguments without any
serious consideration at all because, as you say, "(a) contradicts
(b)" already poses a number of problems on logical grounds.

> and that (c) shows Morris has never seen the document with his own eyes (it
> is quite possible to make out the crossed out words with the naked eye)

(Is the document in English or Hebrew? I'm still not sure on this.
Do you read Hebrew? And have you read the document? You did not
answer this last time.)

I'm at a loss since I haven't seen Benny's arguments, but might the
'modern
technology' been employed to determine the trajectory of the 'long
brush
stroke' during the 'careful textual analysis', thus trying to
determine
whether the 'long brush stroke' was a mistake or not, and thus the
technology was not used merely to "make out the crossed out words"?
For if the crossed out words were plainly evident with the naked eye,
what was involved in, and what was the necessity for, the "careful
textual analysis" described by Mr. Kamm?

> Should I give serious consideration to such self-contradictory
> counter arguments

As I've described above, it would seem so.

So, you have denied to even give any "serious consideration" to even
the one counter argument you cite, let alone any others that might
exist (you not knowing about any other such counter-arguments or
citing them making you a "fraud" by the standards operating in this
thread).

> that are not based on an anlysis of the actual document,

I don't know what he put forward, so I couldn't say how much a look at
the actual document would have to do with what he's putting forth as a
counter-argument to Karsh's counter-argument. As I said, the fact
that the
document might show that words were crossed out doesn't automatically
lead
to the conclusion that you accept as fact. It requires much more than
this before you can prove the actual motivation of such a
crossing-out, or who actually did it, why and what it means. It's not
clear to me that such a thing could even be proven definitively true
or false at all. And, it's even less clear how important looking at
the document is of value for this. Once you've determined that words
have been crossed out, what more value is to be had from the document?
The motivations are still left unclear.

> especially given the fact that Morris has admitted he has
> lied (or as he euphimistically puts it 'streched the truth") to make
> his point?

I don't know. It depends on what he's said he's "stretched the truth"
about, what he meant by that and how he did so, before one could
determine
whether or not that would negate everything he has to say. Such a
statement could merely be a convenient excuse for someone who doesn't
want to give his arguments consideration, to exploit, exaggerate or
misprepresent such a statement, when it has no bearing on all kinds of
points he may have made that are entirely valid.

> > Unless that is the case, I
> > would find your assertion of "They have indeed." at the beginning of
> > your reply to be pretty suspect.
>
> So, you assume things which are incorrect,

I don't believe so. If you reread the paragraph to which you're
responding, you should see that I have not.

> and based on that baseless assumption, accuse me of providing "pretty suspect" accusations.

I believe that's also wrong, obviously, since it follows from the
previous incorrect assertion.

I didn't assume that, nor did I accuse it. This is clear in that i
said
that it "would seem" you "may be"....."unless", and then proceeded to
put forward the criterion to which you could respond, in effect posing
your own questions back to you, thereby offering you the opportunity
to prove that what I considered a possibility, but did neither assume
to be the case nor use as a basis for accusation, was not the case.

> How about asking first?

While I didn't phrase the point specifically in the form of a
question, I surely asserted nothing more than a possibility based on
the questions posed back to you, clearly leaving a place, and indeed
an invitation, open for you to respond to the specific curiosities I
outlined for you, and the opportunity to answer them appropriately,
(which you have now done on most counts) before making any definitive
assertions about you or your statements. As such, I've made neither
an "assumption" nor an "accusation" against you, but you otoh have now
done so against me, by falsely accusing me of doing so.

If I wanted to "assume" something and make an "accusation", I might
say you'd misrepresented this deliberately so you could frame a
response to make it look as if i'd done something "fraudulent". But,
since I don't wish to "accuse" without knowing the motivation, I'll
give you the benefit of the doubt, and "assume" it was likely an
honest misinterperetation of my paragraph, and that hopefully my
explanations above illustrate your interperetive error adequately.

Josh

[Andy Newton]

Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> Andy Newton <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3DB0C437...@xtra.co.nz>...
> > Oliver Kamm wrote:
> > >
> > > "Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:3DAE4438...@xtra.co.nz...
> >
> >
> >>
> > I am frankly shocked that you have the gall to lecture me on the matter
> > of scholarship and ethics. My understanding of scholarship and ethics is
> > that when an argument is made, it must be defended. And if it is not
> > defended, it is to be considered conceded, and accordingly discarded.
>
> Thank you for confirming my observation that scholarly standards and
> ethics are unknown to you. As Hubert Humphrey reportedly said, the
> right to be heard does not entail the right to be taken seriously. In
> order to be taken seriously in discussion and debate, it is necessary
> to earn respect. You haven't done that, because you have been caught
> out lying.

There have been no lies, you are playing a disgraceful semantics game.
The sources I listed are the sources of the quotes, nothing will change
that fact.

Nothing will change the fact that in 5 replies to me, you have still
been unable to defend your argument.

Nothing will change the fact that at best you addressed 7.5% of my
original post, and have *already* admitted defeat.

You are a coward. You have manufactured a pathetic excuse to weasel out
of having to reply, an escape clause designed in some desperate measure
to try and save face. Your desperation shows, Oliver, and it's
embarassing.

You have replied to 7.5% of my original post, and you expect me to
respond in full? I will respond, Oliver, once you grow the balls to
tackle my argument in it's entirety.

[Andy Newton]

For those following along, here are alternative references for the same
quotes provided in my original post.

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/jew/who_is_the_terrorist.htm
http://www.stlimc.org/front.php3?article_id=3215&group=webcast
http://www.fredriknorman.com/archives/mt/000471.php
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/palestinians.html
http://www.mideastjournal.com/zionquotes1.html
http://www.abdulmalik.net/israeliquotes.php
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/Martin_Webster_01.htm

Unless Oliver can provide very good reasons that each and every one of
these sites should be disregarded, his continued refusal to address more
than 1 of the 10 quotes I provided does not appear as scholarly as he
would hope.

[Josh Dougherty]

zzto...@yahoo.com (zztop8970-) wrote in message news:<35d69502.02101...@posting.google.com>...

> I, unlike you, have read Prof. Karsh's book, and thus know what I'm
> talking about.

If you don't mind, since you've read Karsh's book, I have another
question. From what I can gather, Karsh blames Benny Morris for
misrepresenting this quote, it seems, in Morris' book "Birth of the
Palestinian Refugee Problem" from 1989.

Yet Oliver Kamm has just cited the same quote as printed by Teveth in
his book from 1985. So, wouldn't Teveth have been the one that
deviously misrepresented the quote first?

Josh

[Josh Dougherty]

"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:40cd7d30.0210...@posting.google.com...

> Andy Newton <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3DB0C437...@xtra.co.nz>...
> > Oliver Kamm wrote:
> > >
> > > "Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:3DAE4438...@xtra.co.nz...
> >
> >
> >>
> > I am frankly shocked that you have the gall to lecture me on the matter
> > of scholarship and ethics. My understanding of scholarship and ethics is
> > that when an argument is made, it must be defended. And if it is not
> > defended, it is to be considered conceded, and accordingly discarded.
>
> Thank you for confirming my observation that scholarly standards and
> ethics are unknown to you.

Scholarly standards and ethics would seem to assume that someone who
fraudulently accuses someone of "fraud" would own up to it, instead of
merely dropping it and trying to bury it by immediately flip-flopping
to a different accusation of "fraud", this time on a rather thin (and
desperate looking btw) technical pretext.

> As Hubert Humphrey reportedly said, the
> right to be heard does not entail the right to be taken seriously. In
> order to be taken seriously in discussion and debate, it is necessary
> to earn respect. You haven't done that,

pot-kettle-black.

> because you have been caught out lying.
> In fact, caught out in ten lies, because you gave ten
> sources, not one of which was accurate. You then compound this
> disgraceful conduct by expecting those who have exposed both your own
> fraud and that of your real and sole source

You mean his *2nd* "fraud" right Oliver? There was another accusation
of "fraud" against him prior to this one. Do you remember that one?
It was fraudulent on your part.

> - an Internet site - to do your research for you. No, old chap, we are not 'two guys' having a
> debate on a matter of common concern: one of us has a respect for
> scholarly methods,

Oliver, this is not a term paper. It is a newsgroup discussion. He
appears to have cited sources as they were cited in his source. To
make vitriolic accusations of "lying" and "fraud" and so forth on this
technical nitpick is rather lame and transparent. You can not argue
on the points, so you first jump to immediately assasinate him on
character grounds and accuse him of "fraud". This first attempt of
yours was exposed as fraudulent itself, so you jump to new, and even
thinner, grounds to try the same another way.

If your goal was to have a discussion on the actual issue, and you
actually had any serious concern with "scholarly methods" (which i
don't believe you do, except where convenient for personal attack
against those who disagree with you), what you would do is merely
inform him, so that he could proceed accordingly henceforth, that you
think he should have cited the website he got the quotes from, not
just cited the sources that the website cited as the sources, and why.
Having that difference behind you, you could then continue your
debate of your disagreements. Since he has now cited both, and since
the notion that his not doing so initially was some devious attempt at
deception is pretty baseless, a person with the goal of discussion on
the issues would then proceed with the debate. But, that is not your
goal. Your goal is to construct ad hominem attacks on any who
disagree with you, and do so by any means of personal attack
available, and always avoiding any debate, and obviously avoiding
having to admit to any errors in one of your earlier personal attacks.

> of which an axiom is to be honest and accurate in
> one's source material, and the other has so little respect for this ng
> that he imagines he can fob us off with outright fraud and dishonesty,
> as well as retailing the most preposterous antisemitic libels and
> fatuous fictions without a shred of evidence or inquiry (e.g. your
> rhetorical question whether I knew that 90% of the land of Israel is
> allocated to Jews). David Irving was exposed as a fraud in the service
> of antisemitic ideology in a court of law, and no one bothers to
> respond to him; you certainly will get no better treatment for your
> fraud and antisemitic apologetics. You have still, incidentally, not
> answered the question how many of your ten cited books you have ever
> consulted, let alone read, and this ng will draw its own conclusions
> about your reputability, intellectual resources and good faith.

You're a laugh Oliver.

Josh

[Josh Dougherty]

"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3da9c...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>...
> Following is my customer review for Amazon of Chomsky's 'Peace in the Middle
> East?'
>
> In his 1992 collection of interviews Chronicles of Dissent, Noam Chomsky
> declared, of the Arab-Israeli conflict, that a two-state settlement was "the
> only realistic political settlement, for the time being, in the past ten or
> twelve years". It's fortunate that he inserted that chronological rider, for
> it is a matter of record that twelve years before he gave that interview
> (which was conducted in 1986) he was virulently opposing any such
> arrangement. This book, published in 1974 and long out of print, is the
> evidence. In it, Chomsky proposes "some form of socialist bi-nationalism ...
> supported by an international socialist movement that does not now exist" as
> the proper political arrangement in Israel and the disputed territories.
> This scheme requires an element of explication: Chomsky here seriously
> proposes not only an entirely speculative socialist order, but also the
> abolition of the Jewish state. He makes the right of Jewish
> self-determination subsidiary to his own ideological views, whether or not
> anyone else - specifically any Jew or Arab living in the region - happens to
> agree with them. It could be argued that, by proposing bi-nationalism,
> Chomsky is opposing the state rather than Jewish nationalism as such. But
> that is not the position advanced in this book. Rather, Chomsky argues that
> a specifically Jewish state incorporating a large Arab minority must be a
> denial of democracy. He thereby makes both a conceptual and a historical
> error. It is perfectly possible for a state to reflect a dominant culture
> and at the same time to be thoroughly democratic, provided that it
> guarantees and respects the civil and political liberties of minorities.
> That is precisely the position of constitutional democracies such as Great
> Britain and the United States, both of which have powerful undercurrents of
> civic nationalism allied to their democratic polities. Why should a Jewish
> state be any different merely on account of its being Jewish?

Having not yet argued Oliver's initial assertion here, I'll do so now.

The difference is quite obvious. The current majorities in the United
States or Great Britain may be transitory. For instance, a white
majority could become a minority and the states could still remain the
United States and Great Britain. Meanwhile, if the majority in "the
Jewish State" someday became non-Jewish, you no longer have the
"Jewish State". Therefore, the concept itself necessitates the
determined maintainence of a specific majority, and thus,
discrimination against or removal of any rising minority.

Josh

[James A. Donald]

--
On 18 Oct 2002 17:19:05 -0700, olive...@tiscali.co.uk
(Oliver Kamm) wrote:
> It's unfortunate that 'anyone familiar with Orwell' is a
> population range that does not include Mr Ketland. It's from
> Notes on Nationalism: "Pacifist literature abounds with
> equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to
> mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to
> those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps
> excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France,
> the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their
> English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to
> the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some
> small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union
> and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise
> of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All
> in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it
> appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly
> inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty."
> Those who have read Chomsky's professed anti-militarism
> alongside his slavish approval of totalitarian causes, such
> as the Viet Cong, will see immediately what Orwell was
> getting at here.

In both communism and nazism there are both religious and
sexual elements. Power and cruelty is both worshipped and also
sexually desired, with the sexual element being foremost in
nazism, and the religious element foremost in communism.

The desire to commit murder in place of genital forms of sex,
or as a substitute for genital forms of sex, is a fairly common
sexual deviation. The most practical way of accomplishing this
perverse desire is to abolish private property. To engage in
this practice safely, one must first create an overwhelmingly
powerful apparatus, an apparatus so powerful that it can commit
dreadful crimes without repercussions, thus necessarily an
apparatus that owns everything. In other words, communism, or
some similar system.

Many of those who have abolished private property have
displayed little interest in genital sex, and intense interest
in the minute details of murdering large numbers of people. We
may conclude that amongst socialists who have achieved power,
this sexual preference was very common. Presumably the same is
true of socialists who have not achieved power, but in their
cases it is less visible.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Q/Ubb9kFhAWwae1UOV4HtWBPeBJhC5WNpTwZU7hO
4DvLtoGVy9CU68YdbjiBHxaAiR4oJeNQhfQvMyScS

[Jeffrey Ketland]

Oliver Kamm wrote in message <3db26...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>...

>Dear me: I cannot emphasise enough how much it pains me to have got under
Mr
>Ketland's skin, but it fear it cannot be helped. Not having made an
Internet
>search for Mr Ketland as he, with a rather odd obsessiveness, has for me, I
>cannot verify that he is, as he claims, an academic in the field of
>epistemplogy and logic, though he has made this claim with a suspiciously
>desparate insistence before, several times. It is certainly possible - Mr
>Carley, after all, is an academic, while not knowing that scholarly
>procedure requires one to verify sources before quoting them in evidence -
>but, on the only evidence available to me, it seems unlikely.

An internet search is quite _trivial_ and presumably justified if one is
interested in _facts_. At least that's what I teach in my course on the
epistemology of science. Kamm is welcome to attend---this week, Lakatos'
criticism of Popper's naive falsificationism.
Interested readers can check School of Philosophy, Division of History and
Philosophy of Science, University of Leeds at http://www.leeds.ac.uk.
Kamm's postmodern attributions of "unlikely" to _easily_ _checkable_ _facts_
is indicative of the dishonesty described by George Orwell in his "Notes on
Nationalism". It's called "indifference to objective reality". Orwell would
have laughed his head off at Kamm's repeated exemplification of such traits.
Kamm "yawned" when such facts were mentioned. Curious. Presumably a trait
picked up at Oxford.

Sad to say but quite comical, poor old Kamm decided to lecture me on "formal
logic", I pointed out the relevant _facts_. Again, easily checkable (see,
e.g., British Logic Colloquium webiste at Dept of Computer Science,
University of Birmingham (UK) and search for "recent PhD's in mathematical
logic").

In short, Oliver "Pinochet-Prize in Logic" Kamm has comically skewered
himself in public with his pretentiousness and charlatanism. A nice example
of the "fake reasoner", to use Susan Haack's terminology. And now Kamm
quivers in shame, his bloated and pretentious ego pricked by reference to
trivially verifiable facts. He could just admit that he was wrong, a feature
of normal rational inquiry.
Hilarious, but instructive.
(Btw, don't top post)

--- Jeff

[M J Carley]

In the referenced article, "Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> writes:

>It is certainly possible - Mr Carley, after all, is an academic,
>while not knowing that scholarly procedure requires one to verify
>sources before quoting them in evidence - but, on the only evidence
>available to me, it seems unlikely.

Consider the evidence:
-you didn't know that there is no Nobel prize in economics;
-your quotation of Orwell in the Guardian was corrected within
two days.

And you feel free to say that I can't get facts right? Unlike you, I
work in a field that adheres to certain standards of evidence, where
facts are facts whatever your opinion of them and which remain facts
whatever your view of their implications. My published work is in
peer-reviewed journals and has been read (before acceptance) by
experts who consider it worthy of publication.

You, on the other hand, are an economist.
--
`To tell the truth, let us be honest at least, it is some considerable
time since I last knew what I was talking about.'

http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/

[Jeffrey Ketland]

M J Carley wrote in message ...

>In the referenced article, "Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk>
writes:
>
>>It is certainly possible - Mr Carley, after all, is an academic,
>>while not knowing that scholarly procedure requires one to verify
>>sources before quoting them in evidence - but, on the only evidence
>>available to me, it seems unlikely.
>
>Consider the evidence:
> -you didn't know that there is no Nobel prize in economics;
> -your quotation of Orwell in the Guardian was corrected within
> two days.
>
>And you feel free to say that I can't get facts right? Unlike you, I
>work in a field that adheres to certain standards of evidence, where
>facts are facts whatever your opinion of them and which remain facts
>whatever your view of their implications. My published work is in
>peer-reviewed journals and has been read (before acceptance) by
>experts who consider it worthy of publication.
>
>You, on the other hand, are an economist.

I sympathise, Michael. Oliver Kamm is indeed a curious combination of
postmodern pretentiousness (lecturing the poor stupid masses on
logic---we've noted his incompetence), right-wing fanaticism ("welcoming"
Pinochet's fascist coup), a fantastically and comically inflated ego,
disinterest in facts and evidence, etc. Bertrand Russell, George Orwell,
Karl Popper and many others have tried to analyse the traits that generate
the fanatic.

Commenting on this sort of thing, the epistemologist Susan Haack wrote:

"Sham reasoning, in the form of "research" bought and paid for by bodies
with an interest in its turning out this way rather than that, or motivated
by political conviction, and fake reasoning, in the form of "scholarship"
better characterized as a form of self-promotion, are all too common. When
people are aware of this, their confidence in what passes for true declines,
and with it their willingness to use the words "truth", "evidence",
"objectivity", "inquiry" without the precautionary use of scare quotes. And
as those scare quotes become ubiquitous, people's confidence in the concepts
of truth, evidence, inquiry, falters; and one begins to hear ... that
concern for truth is just a kind of superstition -- which ... in turn
encourages the idea that there is, after all, nothing wrong with sham or
fake reasoning." (Susan Haack 1996: "Concern for truth and why it matters",
in Gross, Levitt & Lewis (eds.), The Flight from Science and Reason, 1996,
p. 61).

--- Jeff

[Oliver Kamm]

"Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message

news:3DB282C8...@xtra.co.nz...

>
> There have been no lies, you are playing a disgraceful semantics game.
> The sources I listed are the sources of the quotes, nothing will change
> that fact.

Mr Newton, you have already admitted to this ng that your source for these
'quotations' was an Internet site, not the 'sources' you had originally
cited. It's there in black and white. You were therefore lying when you
claimed to be quoting books. That is unethical and unscholarly.

[whine snipped]

Your posting comprised a series of lies about what you had read, along with
fraud perpetrated by those whose 'research' you had plagiarised and claimed
as your own, and claims of staggering bigotry and ignorance. You are a liar,
cheat and fraud, who has to this day still not answered the question of how
many of his supposed 'sources' he has actually consulted. On the basis of
this farrago you even descended to pro-Nazi apologetics of an unspeakably
vile character. You even have the quaint notion that once your essential
dishonesty and incompetence have been exposed it makes no difference
whatever to your claims to be taken seriously or indeed politely. I am a
charitable man, Mr Newton, but I am not a soft touch.

[Oliver Kamm]

"Josh Dougherty" <jbd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eee564bd.02102...@posting.google.com...

> Scholarly standards and ethics would seem to assume that someone who
> fraudulently accuses someone of "fraud" would own up to it, instead of
> merely dropping it and trying to bury it by immediately flip-flopping
> to a different accusation of "fraud", this time on a rather thin (and
> desperate looking btw) technical pretext.

This poster appears not quite with it. Mr Newton provided a number of
'sources' for his quotations. I checked one of them and found that the
'quotation' was fraudulent in that it had been carefully truncated to
provide a different account from the author's and subject's. Given that Mr
Newton had claimed this as his source, I naturally assumed that he was
telling the truth in this, and therefore that he was himself the perpetrator
of the fraud. I am a trusting soul, and it had not crossed my mind that Mr
Newton would have lied to us in the first place about what his source was.
In order to get out of the bind he was in, Mr Newton then confessed that the
source he had cited was in fact not his source at all. He thus confirmed
that he was a liar and a fraud, though not for the same reason that the
source of the 'quotation' was a liar and a fraud. Given that he had claimed
to be the provider of the 'quotation' from the book he cited, you must apply
to Mr Newton for why he made this dishonest claim, not me. I can hardly be
held accountable for someone else's lies: I am not telepathic.

[Oliver Kamm]

Well, now: I have humoured Mr Ketland as he requested, and clicked the link
that he posted, though I'm bound to say that my interest in EASILY CHECKABLE
FACTS about Mr Ketland does not extend quite as far as Mr Ketland's rather
unhealthy obsession with EASILY CHECKABLE FACTS about me, and that is not
because I am inherently uninterested (Mr Ketland might care to note the
existence of this word, which is not a synonym for 'disinterested') in
EASILY CHECKABLE FACTS. It took me to the home page of Leeds University. No
sign of Mr Ketland there, so I typed the name 'Ketland' into the search
engine. And sure enough, a picture of a gentleman of that name and with a
rather pressing need for both a decent haircut and a crash diet duly
appeared. Moreover, he appears to teach political theory with reference to Z
magazine - which is a bit like teaching classical Greek with reference to
The Beano. But we must deal in probabilities. Hume sagely raised the
question of accounts of the miraculous and their status as supports for
belief, and I try to adapt similar principles in my own approach to the
world. It does seem to me more likely that our own Mr Ketland - if that is
indeed his real name - is merely using a coincidence of name, for nothing in
his posts to this ng would indicate any competence whatever in formal logic
and epistemology: rather the opposite, given the regular incidence of
logical fallacies. More likely still, Mr 'Ketland' is not really of that
name at all, but has set up a notional e-mail account under that name.
Plenty of people do adopt noms de plume from total strangers whose names
they happen to see advertised. Either of these scenarios seems to me more
inherently likely than that a noted university would employ someone of our
Mr 'Ketland's' conceptual apparatus to teach undergraduates logic. I may be
wrong, but I think it unlikely.

"Jeffrey Ketland" <ket...@ketland.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message

news:aous89$sum$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...

[Oliver Kamm]

"M J Carley" <ens...@bath.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:H4AMIF.Aw...@bath.ac.uk...

> In the referenced article, "Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk>
writes:
>
> >It is certainly possible - Mr Carley, after all, is an academic,
> >while not knowing that scholarly procedure requires one to verify
> >sources before quoting them in evidence - but, on the only evidence
> >available to me, it seems unlikely.
>
> Consider the evidence:
> -you didn't know that there is no Nobel prize in economics;
> -your quotation of Orwell in the Guardian was corrected within
> two days.
>
> And you feel free to say that I can't get facts right? Unlike you, I
> work in a field that adheres to certain standards of evidence, where
> facts are facts whatever your opinion of them and which remain facts
> whatever your view of their implications. My published work is in
> peer-reviewed journals and has been read (before acceptance) by
> experts who consider it worthy of publication.
>
> You, on the other hand, are an economist.
> --

I appear to have touched a raw nerve; can't think why.

Mr Carley is clearly not someone to let empirical research stand in his way,
so let me point out that, having made an ass of himself by retailing a
'correction' that was not in fact correct, he cannot simply brazen it out by
pretending Mr Folkert and I are presenting some speculative hypothesis when
we record what Orwell said. On the contrary, we are quoting Orwell - and in
context. Mr Carley has made the catastrophic error of allowing his
ideological predilections to become father and mother to the thought: he has
not gone to the primary sources, just as the correspondent to The Guardian
failed to do, preferring - poor sap - to cut-and-paste a web site rather
than check her facts. If Mr Carley is going to maintain, with my
interlocutor in The Guardian, that Orwell withdrew the words I quoted from
him, then I suggest he quotes us Orwell's retraction - in full, in context,
and with references to the primary source. And if he cannot do that - and he
cannot - then I suggest he learn his lesson and in future research his
claims before presenting them. I am taken aback by the notion that Mr Carley
should be a professional academic while being unacquainted with the
axiomatic academic obligation to research claims rather than retail them
second- (or in this case third-) hand; I know Bath University well, and I
cordially advise him that on this evidence he is wholly unfit to be there.

There is indeed a Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of
Alfred Nobel, known to everyone, not least its recipients, as the Nobel
Prize in Economics. And, while financial economics is my specialist field, I
am not professionally an economist. So Mr Carley's grasp of empirical
research is as strong as ever; I'm sure his mother loves him, nonetheless.

[zztop8970-]

"Josh Dougherty" <jbd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eee564bd.02102...@posting.google.com...

> "zztop8970-" <zzto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:35d69502.02101...@posting.google.com...
> > > > They have indeed.
> > >
> > > Perhaps. What makes you say so?
> >
> > I, unlike you, have read Prof. Karsh's book, and thus know what I'm
> > talking about.
>
> Having read his book has not much bearing on anything I was previously
> talking about regarding Kamm and Newton, but it's nice that you've
> read it, and I hoped you enjoyed it.

Having read his book has an immense bearing on the specific comment that you
made which I was replying to, namely, the following excahnge:

"[JD, sarcasm] but thankfully certain interested
parties have put the document to a "careful textual look" and have
cleared up the mistake.

[Z] They have indeed.

[JD] Perhaps. What makes you say so?"

You have snipped (in your most recent post) the question I was responding
to, creating the impression I am indeed replying with an irrelevant point.
If you did this without malice, I suggest you take more care in the future,
as this refelects poorly on you. If this was intentional , we can pretty
much end the debate right here, as you espose dishonest debating techniques.

>
> In any case, the fact that you've read his book is not enough for me
> to believe the case is closed. So, I'm still unclear as to what makes
> you say so.

Ands what will be your standard of evidence, considering you will not tale
the trouble to research this on your own?

>
> > > > Have you read or seen the original document being discussed here?
> > >
> > > No. Have you? I'd assume the original document is written in Hebrew,
> > > which I wouldn't know how to read, so I'd have trouble checking the
> > > assertion against the document anyway.
> >
> > Then how dare you question _anyone's_ interpreation of a document you
> > have not seen, and could not read even if you had?
>
> First, you did not answer the question.

I have not see the original, but have seen reproductions of it, in numerous
works.

>
> but anyway....
>
> I did poke a some fun at the seeming convenience of such an excuse for
> the
> quote, but I did not accuse or claim it to be false because I don't
> know it to be.

My bad, then. Where I come from, "poking fun" at an argument implies you do
not belive it to be true, but I guess things are different where you come
from.

> If the latter, accusing it or the author of falsehood,
> is what you mean by "questioning" it, then I did not do so.
>
> If, however, by "qestioning" it, you mean that I've alluded that it
> seems convenient and could be less than accurate, then yes I did.
> Why? Precisely because I have not seen it or read it,

Have you been to the moon on any of the Apollo missions, Mr. Dougherty?
Assuming you haven't, do you similarly have doubts as to the reality of the
moon landings?
If we all had to limit ourselves to accepting only things we personaly saw,
there wouln't be much debate on ANY topic.

> and even if I
> had, that would not be enough for me to conclusively proove that the
> 'how-and-why' interperetation
> offered is the correct one. Also because many other people have seen
> it, and for at least 12 years, and apparently still do, interperet it
> to mean what Mr. Newton quoted.

Ah, you're critically wrong here. In this thread, the only person who
interperets it to mean what Mr. Newton quoted, is Benny Morris, a self
professed strecher of truths. Teveth, while quoting BG, clearly does NOT
subscribe to the interpretation espoused by Mr. Newton, as was clearly
demonstrated by Mr. Kamm.

But even if it was more than just Morris, even if "many other people"
thought the same thing, the above amounts to the logical fallacy of
argumentum ad populum, surely you realize that.

>
> So, would you have me assume someone else's interperetation as fact
> when i
> don't know it to be fact,

I would have you assume that, absent any counter argumet (which you have not
proffered), absent any criticism of the work in question (which agian, you
can't offer, not having read it), you accept the opinion of an authority on
the topic, a reputable scholar whose area of expertise is precisely this
subject, who has published numerous works on it.
That is the normal manner of debate, scholarly or otherwise.
Simply saying "I don't accept it" is not a counter argument.

> and when many others before and since have
> interpereted it to mean something entirely different,

Argumentum ad populum. A logical fallacy.

> and when it's
> even unclear whether such an assertion about the motivation of a
> decades old crossing-out of words could ever be proven definitively
> true or false, simply because that someone has stated that it's a
> fact?

That "someone" is an authority on the topic, a reputable scholar whose area
of expertise is precisely this subject, who has published numerous works on
it. He has not simply asserted a fact, he has researched the topic and
examined the source material. Unless you can come up with a reasonable
counter argument (Argumentum ad populum doesn't count), yes, you'd have to
accept it. That is the way debates work.

>
> Speaking generally, It seems you think someone must assume an
> assertion true unless they've done all the research necessary to prove
> it false. That, to me is roughly equivalent to me assuming that it's
> a lie. I do neither. I've assumed it could either be true or false.

Actually, this is the assumption that YOU are making, Mr. Dougherty. You are
the one that claimed one can't judge Mr. Karsh's work because you personaly
did not read it. That is, you've discounted any and all arguments made by
Mr. Karsh, on the grounds that you have not read them.

> You say how dare I question his interperetation. I say how dare I
> accept the interperetation without question.

You and I are not on equal footing here, Mr, Dougherty. I have seen the
document in question, you haven't. I can read the original document - you
can't. And I have read a scholarly work by an authority on the topic - while
you haven't. In short, your position amount to merely refusing to accept an
interpreation by an authority, for no other reason than it runs counter to
your beliefs.

>
> > > > Have you read Mr. Karsh's book, Mr. Dougherty?
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> > > > Do you find it lacking in academic rigor, in methodology, or
otherwise?
> > >
> > > I wouldn't know.
> > >
> > > > Please do spell out your exact grievances against this scholar
> > >
> > > N-o-n-e.
> > >
> > > I don't know whether his work is worthy of praise or greivance. I
> > > wouldn't, and don't, simply take at face value that the assertion
> > > contained therein must be unquestionably correct or an unbiased
> > > account, anymore than I should automatically assume it to be a lie or
> > > a piece of propaganda devised to whitewash an inconvenient statement
> > > from the record. I would hope that I'd generally follow such a policy
> > > when hearing any assertion, but I also particularly wouldn't do so
> > > with claims on this topic, given the often sharply disparate
> > > interperetations, ideological slants, propaganda or even outright lies
> > > that often surronds anything having to do with Israeli/Palestinian
> > > history.
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just write a rather long
> > piece, ridiculing the claim that Ben-Gurion's cited letter was in fact
> > misrepresented by the quote in al-awada?
>
> You are wrong. That was not the point of my piece,

It was a secondary point, as you concede below.
It was a point I chose to argue, and you will either argue it, or back down
from it.

> which i've already
> stated. I did poke some fun at the seeming convenience of such a
> revision,
> but that was not an accusation of falsehood. It was merely a
> secondary
> point only relevant as it was linked to the primary point of my piece
> which
> was ridiculing the accusation that Mr. Newton was a "fraud", for
> reasons stated previously. There was more to that point than this
> assertion by Karsh, but on that point I was poking fun at the notion
> that Mr. Newton must have known about this somewhat obscure revision,
> and that there could have been no possible valid reason why might not
> choose to adhere to this pretty convenient explanation had he known
> about it, and therefore, he must be a "fraud".

Mr Kamm accused Mr. Newton of being a fraud for two reasons, neither of them
is the one mentioned by you.
Mr. Netwon was accused of being a fraud for citing as a source a document he
has never seen, rather than the secondary or tertiary source where he
actually read it. This point is not in dispute by anyone in this debate,
including Mr. Newton himself. This "fraud" my not be as serious as cooking
the books at Enron, but it is fraud nonetheless. Should you doubt this, I
recommend you look up the word's definition in dictionary.
The second reason is that Mr. Newton's secondary source provided an out of
context, partial quote, that misleadingly leads the reader to belive that
Teveth holds the exact opposite opinion of the one he actualy holds. While
Mr. newton may have been ignorant of this, this does not absolve his cited
source from being dishonest, and does not make Prof. Karsh's scholarly work
into an "obscure revision". The secondary source (al-awda.org) is a fraud,
and we are now left with the question of whether Mr. Netwon knew this to be
the case, in which case he is obviously a fraud, or cited it out of
ignorance, in which case Mr. Kaqmm can fall back on the first instance of
Mr. Newton's deceit

>
> > That is, you did not merely take a neutral stance, you implied Mr.
> > Karsh's work, cited by Mr. Kamm, was biased, slanted or even outright
lies.
>
> I don't believe I implied that. I took what I believe is in fact a
> neutral
> stance, assuming that it could either be true or false, as well as
> being
> a pretty convenient discovery for wiping an inconvenient quote from
> the
> record, whether it be true or false, and therefore certainly worthy of
> a
> good degree of skepticism before just accepting it as fact.

agian, in my neck of the woods, poking fun at at an argument implies you don
not give it much credence. You are obviosly used to different standards.

>
> This point is directly related to my actual implication, which is that
> there's no justification for accusations of fraud against Mr. Newton
> because he either did not know about this particular revision, or
> because he had a legitimate reason to believe the first quote.

the legitimate reason for accusations of fraud against Mr. Newton is that he
cited as a source a document he has never laid eyes on, rather than the
secondary or tertiary source where he actually read it. This is not in
dispute by anyone on this thread.

> I did
> not, like Mr. Kamm with Mr. Newton, accuse the author of "fraud"
> without first having some basis on which to
> make such a claim. That was the point of my 'rather long piece', and
> one
> you have ignored.
>
> > > However, it would seem that you otoh may be taking things at face
> > > value, unless you can answer your first two questions to me in the
> > > affirmative, and the third in the negative,
> >
> > I can, and do.
> >
> > >and unless you've also
> > > answered any possible counter arguments that have since been put
> > > forward to this theory in Karsh's book.
> >
> > The only arguments I'm aware of are the self-contradictory assertions
>
> If you're not aware of some other valid argument that may exist, then
> you
> are guilty of "fraud" according to Mr. Kamm's standards.

Ah, no. You nead to reread Mr. Kamm's arguments. He has never advanced the
theory that one needs to be aware of all arguments that may exist. He has
claimed that one needs to honestly attribute quotes to their sources, and
that a partial out of context quote is not an honest representation of an
author's opinions.

>
> > by Benny Morris that (a) someone other than Ben Gurion "vandalized"
> > the handwritten letter [in Alpayim, vol.12, 1996], or that (b) Ben
> > Gurion himself did it [In Journal of Palestine Studies, vol.27 no.2,
> > 1998], and that (c) the IDF used modern technology to decipher the
> > crossed out words.
> >
> > One notes that (a) contradicts (b),
>
> I don't know Benny's arguments on this, but I see a couple logical
> curiosities
> already. First, why is it a problem that (a) contradicts (b)?

When one tries to argue a point, it is useful when one sticks to a certain
poisiton, and not argue that both "X" and "not X" are true.
I'm sorry you're having problems with this simple concept.
Perhaps I can illustrate a pratical implication of this: Say I was to argue
against Morris' position in Alapayim, spend considerable time proving it is
BG who crossed out the words - and end up proving my adversary's point,
which is Morris' posiiton in JPS.

> And
> second, does (a) have to contradict (b)?

Unfornutately, yes. It's either BG who crossed it out, or not BG who crossed
it out. Such is the nature of logic.

>
> On the first point, if (a) were actually correct, for instance, it
> would still contradict (b), and if they were both incorrect, they
> would still contradict each other.

Ah, sorry, no. (a) and (b) cannot bot be incorrect. on states X, the other,
not X.

>So, what does that have to do with
> anything?
>

when one argues without the benefit of logical argumentation, as you do, it
does not have much to do with anything..

> Or if, for instance, Morris put forth (a) in 1996, but then upon
> further study, came to believe (b) in 1998, the two would still
> contradict each other, and that would not mean that (b) is
> automatically false.

That would be true iif Morris described what led to his change of heart, and
retracted (a). He has done neither.

> In short, the fact that they contradict does not
> prove either one of them false.

It proves, conclusively, that one is false. It may be that Morris only came
to realize that (a) is false two years after he claimed it, but that would
still not change the fact that it is false, and was false when Morris
claimed it.

> To discover that, you'd have to give
> "serious consideration" to the argument given, something you admit you
> have not done.
>
> And on the second point, it's not a given that the two propositions
> are contradictory at all. Ben Gurion could have done it himself, and
> someone else could have also "vandalized" it. So, what makes you say
> they're contradictory?

That is not what Morris claimed. In(a) he claimed someone other than BG
crossed out the lines. in (b) he claims BG did it. Those are two
contradictory statements.

>
> In either case you're seeming dismissal of these arguments without any
> serious consideration at all because, as you say, "(a) contradicts
> (b)" already poses a number of problems on logical grounds.

Sadly for you, it does not.

>
> > and that (c) shows Morris has never seen the document with his own eyes
(it
> > is quite possible to make out the crossed out words with the naked eye)
>
> (Is the document in English or Hebrew? I'm still not sure on this.

You haven't been paying attention then, have you?
It was made quite clear in Mr. Kamm's post that the document is in Hebrew,
to the point of giving you the exact Hebrew words that were crossed out.
Don't tell me you've smeared Mr. KamM without even bothering to read his
argument?

> Do you read Hebrew?

Yes.

>And have you read the document? You did not
> answer this last time.)

Yes.

>
> I'm at a loss since I haven't seen Benny's arguments, but might the
> 'modern
> technology' been employed to determine the trajectory of the 'long
> brush
> stroke' during the 'careful textual analysis', thus trying to
> determine
> whether the 'long brush stroke' was a mistake or not, and thus the
> technology was not used merely to "make out the crossed out words"?

do yourself a fovor then, and start reading about the topics you are
debating.
Mr. Morris' calim is precisely that which you have claimed it is not,
namely, that modern technology was used to make out the crossed words.

> For if the crossed out words were plainly evident with the naked eye,
> what was involved in, and what was the necessity for, the "careful
> textual analysis" described by Mr. Kamm?

What was invloved is analyzing the flow of pen strokes to see that the
crosses out words were done with the same stroke that crossed out the
subsequent line.
The textual analysis was required to reconcile the obvious contradiction
between the line containing the crossed out words, and obvious statements to
the contrary made elsewhere by BG, that did not include any crossed out
segements.

>
> > Should I give serious consideration to such self-contradictory
> > counter arguments
>
> As I've described above, it would seem so.

Ah, no.

>
> So, you have denied to even give any "serious consideration" to even
> the one counter argument you cite, let alone any others that might
> exist (you not knowing about any other such counter-arguments or
> citing them making you a "fraud" by the standards operating in this
> thread).

Agin, you need to reread Mr. Kamm's arguemnt. You are misrepresenting them
to the point where you own claims my be described as fraud.

>
> > that are not based on an anlysis of the actual document,
>
> I don't know what he put forward, so I couldn't say how much a look at
> the actual document would have to do with what he's putting forth as a
> counter-argument to Karsh's counter-argument. As I said, the fact
> that the
> document might show that words were crossed out doesn't automatically
> lead
> to the conclusion that you accept as fact. It requires much more than
> this before you can prove the actual motivation of such a
> crossing-out, or who actually did it, why and what it means. It's not
> clear to me that such a thing could even be proven definitively true
> or false at all. And, it's even less clear how important looking at
> the document is of value for this. Once you've determined that words
> have been crossed out, what more value is to be had from the document?
> The motivations are still left unclear.
>
> > especially given the fact that Morris has admitted he has
> > lied (or as he euphimistically puts it 'streched the truth") to make
> > his point?
>
> I don't know. It depends on what he's said he's "stretched the truth"
> about,

he said it about this very topic - the issue of the existance of a
pre-planned scheme to get rid of the Arab population. Specifically,
Karsh had shown he either misinterpreted or deliberately misrepresented BG's
position in a speech where BG of 1937.

>what he meant by that

he meant what people usually mean when they say they stretched the truth -
that he lied to get a point across.

>and how he did so

he did so in writing. The quote is "'Karsh appears to be correct in charging
that I "stretched' the evidence to make my point.'", and it appeared,
according to Karsh, in "Refabricating 1948," by Morris, p. 83.
[http://www.meforum.org/article/207/]

>, before one could
> determine
> whether or not that would negate everything he has to say.

I have not claimed it negates everythings he has to say - this is yet
another case of a deliberate misrepresentation of my position, You are quote
adept at that.
I said his claims regarding a master plan to trasfer arabs should not be
given serious consideration, since we have his own admission that he
streched the truth on that point.

> Such a
> statement could merely be a convenient excuse for someone who doesn't
> want to give his arguments consideration, to exploit, exaggerate or
> misprepresent such a statement, when it has no bearing on all kinds of
> points he may have made that are entirely valid.

I repeat my suggestion that you educate yourself about these topics. yes, in
the theortic realm, statements my be offered as convenient excuses. Such is
not the case here.

[Jeffrey Ketland]

Oliver Kamm wrote in message <3db32...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>...

Kamm, you are a pathetic idiotic incompetent liar.
http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/Staff/Staff1stpage.htm

--- Jeff

[Spyder]

..and then "Jeffrey Ketland" <ket...@ketland.fsnet.co.uk> said:

> Kamm, you are a pathetic idiotic incompetent liar.
> http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/Staff/Staff1stpage.htm
>
> --- Jeff

So much for Ollie's so called "scholarly methods".

[Jeffrey Ketland]

Spyder wrote in message ...

Indeed. He seems to inhabit a lunatic postmodern universe.
As Orwell put it:

"Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist
is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also --- since he is
conscious of serving something bigger than himself --- unshakeably certain
of being in the right." ("Notes on Nationalism", Collected Essays,
Journalism and Letters, Volume 3, p. 412).

--- Jeff

[James A. Donald]

--

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 16:03:24 -0700, "zztop8970-"
<no...@tospeakof.com> wrote:
> You have snipped (in your most recent post) the question I
> was responding to, creating the impression I am indeed
> replying with an irrelevant point. If you did this without
> malice, I suggest you take more care in the future, as this
> refelects poorly on you. If this was intentional , we can
> pretty much end the debate right here, as you espose
> dishonest debating techniques.

Look who is talking. You have lied about me and many others.
You use change of subject as form of reply to inconvenient
facts. You use childish and offensive debating tactics.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG

tjAjIuE6CX56yy/Y5ZwAHBLeq/wGdWa0mbCgVVq0
42m4dp8mn0vcoe5RhCIOEMUs6FY+vCoPWKi9AAZN+

[James A. Donald]

--
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:46:22 +0100, "Oliver Kamm"

> Mr Newton, you have already admitted to this ng that your
> source for these 'quotations' was an Internet site, not the
> 'sources' you had originally cited. It's there in black and
> white. You were therefore lying when you claimed to be
> quoting books. That is unethical and unscholarly.

If he admitted it, he was not lying, merely giving citations
incorrectly, or with insufficient and thus misleading detail,
something everyone does on usenet, along with typos, and claims
made from memory which cannot readily be supported by citation,
and which grew slightly inaccurate in the recollection.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG

Kk9pBZr0dFTPhDA9NmjT9T+4wnJFWMAEbVEPzWSp
4qt1UXj5+8o/9U/3idzhS5U44RlIXTAPB6sbWAo/o

[James A. Donald]

--
"Oliver Kamm"

> This poster appears not quite with it. Mr Newton provided a
> number of 'sources' for his quotations. I checked one of them
> and found that the 'quotation' was fraudulent in that it had
> been carefully truncated to provide a different account from
> the author's and subject's. Given that Mr Newton had claimed
> this as his source, I naturally assumed that he was telling
> the truth in this, and therefore that he was himself the
> perpetrator of the fraud. I am a trusting soul, and it had
> not crossed my mind that Mr Newton would have lied to us in
> the first place about what his source was.

A more plausible account of the same facts is that Newton was
misled by untruthful sources that he wanted to believe, and
inadvertently misled others.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG

w45bVr8QwWhS4Hx1n3qwa5Ot7sP5yGcAyqa4QdoN
4D0Rp3RZnQs0pootwpnhfetFeNGMiIU2KJszL9+iv

[James A. Donald]

--

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 23:14:45 +0100, "Oliver Kamm"
<olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> Well, now: I have humoured Mr Ketland as he requested, and
> clicked the link that he posted, though I'm bound to say that
> my interest in EASILY CHECKABLE FACTS about Mr Ketland does
> not extend quite as far as Mr Ketland's rather unhealthy

> obsession with EASILY CHECKABLE FACTS about me,]

Which did not stop you from making assertions about Jeffrey
Ketland that one could easily check, but ddi not.

> Moreover, he appears to teach political theory with reference
> to Z magazine - which is a bit like teaching classical Greek
> with reference to The Beano.

A web search for Dr Jeffrey Ketland gives us

http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/Staff/Staff1stpage.htm

Which describes him as a lecturer and researcher in
mathematical logic, as claimed, and as you could have easily
checked.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG

TEE0VIB5Q0oEEE7wzpesOk1QyVTZ4HqOC5Z5vMk/
4AFa0ykcgN3pG8nw7aHLNgytdUNDuNDzWNBZk0BRa

[zztop8970-]

"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:ggl6ru023djjc6igb...@4ax.com...

> --
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 16:03:24 -0700, "zztop8970-"
> <no...@tospeakof.com> wrote:
> > You have snipped (in your most recent post) the question I
> > was responding to, creating the impression I am indeed
> > replying with an irrelevant point. If you did this without
> > malice, I suggest you take more care in the future, as this
> > refelects poorly on you. If this was intentional , we can
> > pretty much end the debate right here, as you espose
> > dishonest debating techniques.
>
> Look who is talking. You have lied about me and many others.

Where, pray tell, have I lied about you?
FWIW, exposing your lies is not the same as lying about you.

> You use change of subject as form of reply to inconvenient
> facts.

I have responded to a point raised by Mr. Doughrety. If this point is a
"change of subject", he's the guilty party.
By definition, a response to a point raised earleir in the debate cannot be
a "change of subject", unless the previous was.

>You use childish and offensive debating tactics.

I am sorry of I offend you. If you are offended easily, by having your lies
and ignorance exposed, its best you stay out of USENET.

[Josh Dougherty]

"zztop8970-" <no...@tospeakof.com> wrote in message
news:3db33...@news1.prserv.net...

>
> "Josh Dougherty" <jbd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eee564bd.02102...@posting.google.com...
> > "zztop8970-" <zzto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:35d69502.02101...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > They have indeed.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps. What makes you say so?
> > >
> > > I, unlike you, have read Prof. Karsh's book, and thus know what I'm
> > > talking about.
> >
> > Having read his book has not much bearing on anything I was previously
> > talking about regarding Kamm and Newton, but it's nice that you've
> > read it, and I hoped you enjoyed it.
>
> Having read his book has an immense bearing on the specific comment that you
> made which I was replying to, namely, the following excahnge:
>
> "[JD, sarcasm] but thankfully certain interested
> parties have put the document to a "careful textual look" and have
> cleared up the mistake.
>
> [Z] They have indeed.
>
> [JD] Perhaps. What makes you say so?"
>
> You have snipped (in your most recent post) the question I was responding
> to, creating the impression I am indeed replying with an irrelevant point.

If it created that impression, that was not my intent. I still don't
believe it has any relevence, for reasons which I will illustrate
further down. You have serious logical fallacies going on in your
arguments, and a blatant misinterperetation of what I was even arguing
about, and Kamm's original argument, to which the "sarcasm" was
directly relevant.

> If you did this without malice, I suggest you take more care in the future,
> as this refelects poorly on you.

Fine. Point noted. I'll try to leave any possible relevent pre-text,
even when it becomes cumbersome and seemingly unnecessary. My only
intent for removing past text was because the posts of our exchange
are becoming quite long, and it would save time and band-width and
make it easier on ourselves if unnecessary past text were removed.

So i can be sure, do you frown on any removal of any previous text
whatsoever, no matter what the relevance? Or is it selective?

> If this was intentional , we can pretty much end the debate right here, as
> you espose dishonest debating techniques.

I see that you never fail to illustrate some devious motives on my
part, but I did this because the pre-text was becoming a bit
cumbersome. It seemed as
good a place as any to start. And we both knew exactly what we were
responding to and, if there was any question, could have easily looked
at the previous
post. Come on Z, you're just throwing shit at a wall here.

(Just so you know, you may snip all the above if you don't feel it
necessary to continue on this particular line, and I won't accuse you
of dishonest debating techniques.)

> > In any case, the fact that you've read his book is not enough for me
> > to believe the case is closed. So, I'm still unclear as to what makes
> > you say so.
>
> Ands what will be your standard of evidence, considering you will not tale
> the trouble to research this on your own?

Don't bother. I retract my question to you. The more relevant points
follow below.

> > > > > Have you read or seen the original document being discussed here?
> > > >
> > > > No. Have you? I'd assume the original document is written in Hebrew,
> > > > which I wouldn't know how to read, so I'd have trouble checking the
> > > > assertion against the document anyway.
> > >
> > > Then how dare you question _anyone's_ interpreation of a document you
> > > have not seen, and could not read even if you had?
> >
> > First, you did not answer the question.
>
> I have not see the original, but have seen reproductions of it, in numerous
> works.
> >
> > but anyway....
> >
> > I did poke a some fun at the seeming convenience of such an excuse for the
> > quote, but I did not accuse or claim it to be false because I don't
> > know it to be.
>
> My bad, then. Where I come from, "poking fun" at an argument implies you do
> not belive it to be true, but I guess things are different where you come
> from.

Yes, they are. "Poking fun" at it does not mean I believe it's not
true, specifically as the context of "poking fun" was not directed at
Karsh, but at the prospect that Newton must have known Karsh's thesis
and might have no possible reason for believing something different.

As I've stated here, I believed it could either be true or false, and
which you continue to misunderstand woefully below regarding my
argument with Mr. Kamm's proclamation.

>
> > If the latter, accusing it or the author of falsehood,
> > is what you mean by "questioning" it, then I did not do so.
> >
> > If, however, by "qestioning" it, you mean that I've alluded that it
> > seems convenient and could be less than accurate, then yes I did.
> > Why? Precisely because I have not seen it or read it,
>
> Have you been to the moon on any of the Apollo missions, Mr. Dougherty?
> Assuming you haven't, do you similarly have doubts as to the reality of the
> moon landings? If we all had to limit ourselves to accepting only things we
> personaly saw, there wouln't be much debate on ANY topic.

reductio ad absurdum.

Having heard an assertion for the first time on a topic such as the
one in
question, I have no reason to operate on the belief that it is true.
This is not only because I have not seen it itself, but also because I
have not carefully researched it and the counter arguments, as well as
further considerations of its accuracy and whether such a proposition
could even be proven as definitively true or false, and because there
are others who've proposed the contrary.

Given a neutral reading of your thesis, and given that I haven't as
yet formulated solid counter-arguments for each, I must believe *all*
the arguments here are true. I must believe Teveth's, that the quote
said "We must expel..." but that it meant something different in the
bigger picture. I must believe Morris' that the quote said "We must
expel..." and BG apparently believed precisely that. And, I must
believe Karsh', that it meant the opposite and was apparently a
devious translation error on the part of Morris, even though he was
apparently not the first to do it. I must believe all of them to be
true without question, simultaneously.

That's ridiculous. I'm not going to accept any of them until I have
further information.

As such, whether you like it or not, I am *not* going to accept it as
true.
I am going to do as I've done so far, which is consider that it could
be
true or false. iow...the rational and neutral position.

> > and even if I had, that would not be enough for me to conclusively proove
> > that the 'how-and-why' interperetation offered is the correct one. Also
> > because many other people have seen it, and for at least 12 years, and
> > apparently still do, interperet it to mean what Mr. Newton quoted.
>
> Ah, you're critically wrong here. In this thread, the only person who
> interperets it to mean what Mr. Newton quoted, is Benny Morris, a self
> professed strecher of truths.

No. Morris and Teveth both asserted that the quote said the same
thing. I'll explain below.

> Teveth, while quoting BG, clearly does NOT subscribe to the interpretation
> espoused by Mr. Newton, as was clearly demonstrated by Mr. Kamm.

That was not what I meant by "interperetation". I meant
interperetation of
what the words themselves actually say on the document. Mr. Teveth
subscribes, in the source cited, to the *quote* saying "We must
expel..", as did Benny Morris. Teveth also seems to have done so
before Morris.

Teveth, in his editorial interperetation of the quote, chooses to pick
another quote of unkown relation to the first, to put that quote
alongside the first and argue that BG must not have meant what Teveth
agrees (with Morris) that he said. They may differ on what the quote
means in the bigger picture, but they have, and what I meant above,
interpereted the quote as saying the words "We must expel...". They
both interpereted the quote as having said that, as apparently have
others since.

> But even if it was more than just Morris, even if "many other people"
> thought the same thing, the above amounts to the logical fallacy of
> argumentum ad populum, surely you realize that.

First of all, it does not amount to "argumentum ad populum" because I
have not proposed that the others must be true, and Karsh false,
because they are greater in numbers. Saying that I put forth such a
position does, however, amount to a fallacy on your part.

But secondly Z, your argument would amount to even less than
"Argumentum ad Populum", it would seem to be "Argumentum ad
individulum"!

You insist I must believe as truth Karsh's account automatically upon
first hearing without question, with no other background information.
But then surely, to do so, this would mean that I must discard
Morris', Teveth's and others as false, also without question and
having no background information. That's obviously ridiculous. You
insist I must accept Karsh as true because I have not formulated a
strong counter-argument, yet this entails that I must discard Teveth
and Karsh without having formulated a strong counter-argument.

That would amount to "Argumentum ad indivdulum" I suppose, assuming
the one must be right over the two. Surely that can't be what you
believe, so what would be the reason, given that I had no particular
counter-arguments for any of the three propositions, that you'd demand
that I should have accepted karsh as true and discarded the others?
If I were to do that, that would sure look a lot like "ideological
bias" on my part.

Or, if your standard was simply consistent, that a scholar's work must
be accepted as truth unless a solid counter-argument were formulated
by me, and if you did assume that I should bias acceptance toward
Karsh over other arguments to which I have also not formulated solid
counter-arguments, I must then accept all of them.

I must all of them as true and simultaneously hold the belief that the
quote says "We must expel.." and also "We must not expel...", with
three different meanings in total. I must believe that all of these
are true simultaneously and proceed as such, because after all, I
believe the moon landing right? And, since I have not as yet
formulated a solid counter-argument to each of these scholars, I must
surely operate on the belief that they are all true simultaneously.

> > So, would you have me assume someone else's interperetation as fact
> > when i don't know it to be fact,
>
> I would have you assume that, absent any counter argumet (which you have not
> proffered),

Nope. I have not proffered any. Therefore, at this point, I believe
it could be either true or false. I also believe Morris' and Teveth's
could be either true or false. That seems logical to me.

But, I am obviously in the wrong on this and, as you insist, must
instead accept Karsh as true because I have not proffered a
counter-argument. At the same time, I have also not proffered a
counter argument to Teveth or Morris, so...by your logic, and by me
accepting Karsh, I must dismiss them as false without having proffered
a counter argument. Such would be the "normal manner of debate".

> absent any criticism of the work in question (which agian, you
> can't offer, not having read it), you accept the opinion of an authority on
> the topic, a reputable scholar whose area of expertise is precisely this
> subject, who has published numerous works on it.
> That is the normal manner of debate, scholarly or otherwise.
> Simply saying "I don't accept it" is not a counter argument.

See above. The same is true for Morris and Teveth, so it would seem,
I must
simultaneously believe all three positions are completely true, unless
I can
formulate a sturdy "counter argument" for each.

Wrong. I believe all are possibly true, and possibly false, until
that time as I can get enough information to feel comfortable
accepting one over the others, or possibly accepting another
possibility altogether.

> > and when many others before and since have
> > interpereted it to mean something entirely different,
>
> Argumentum ad populum. A logical fallacy.

That's plainly erroneous as I have not said the "many others" account
is accurate because they are greater in numbers. I have said that
there are contrary positions, none of which I am capable of proving
true or false with counter-arguments at this point. As such I must
assume that all of them may be true or false, which I have done, and
which you claim is incorrect. I must instead accept Karsh as true,
since I have not formulated a counter-argument to his position, and
therefore discard the others as false, since I have not formulated a
counter-argument to their position. iow..the "normal manner of
debate" where you come from.

See Z, if it's a fallacy for me not to immediately accept what this
one
scholar in the field has said without question, how is it not a
fallacy for me to immediately disregard these "many others" in favor
of the one scholar?

That's ridiculous. And furthermore, it is not the fallacy you
describe, because I do not accept that the interperetation of these
"others" are true simply because they out-number Karsh. I assume that
either Karsh or any of the contrary arguments of the others could be
either true or false.

> > and when it's
> > even unclear whether such an assertion about the motivation of a
> > decades old crossing-out of words could ever be proven definitively
> > true or false, simply because that someone has stated that it's a
> > fact?
>
> That "someone" is an authority on the topic,

So are the others you'd have me discard immediately in favor of Karsh
without having formulated counter-arguments to any of them.

> a reputable scholar whose area
> of expertise is precisely this subject, who has published numerous works on
> it. He has not simply asserted a fact, he has researched the topic and
> examined the source material. Unless you can come up with a reasonable
> counter argument (Argumentum ad populum doesn't count)

First of all, I have not put forth "Argumentum ad populum" because,
first I
have not even put forth a counter argument, as I take no position on
the truth or falsehood of Karsh's account. And second, I have not
comitted that fallacy because I have not taken the position that the
account of the others must be true because they are greater in
numbers. I have merely put forward that there are contrary positions,
none of which I know to be true or false at this point. So, this
assertion of "Argumetum ad populum" is a logical fallacy of your own.
If you're going to use the big words, make sure they apply first.
They can't just sound smart, they must be accurate.

> yes, you'd have to accept it. That is the way debates work.

No, it's not. If that were the way debate works, I'd have to
currently and
simultaneously believe that at least three different and contradictory
interperetations are each absolutely correct.

> > Speaking generally, It seems you think someone must assume an
> > assertion true unless they've done all the research necessary to prove
> > it false. That, to me is roughly equivalent to me assuming that it's
> > a lie. I do neither. I've assumed it could either be true or false.
>
> Actually, this is the assumption that YOU are making, Mr. Dougherty.

Yes, the assumption I am making is that any could be true or false.
Is that what you meant? Or did you mean my assumption is that it's a
lie? If so, No, that is not any assumption I'm making.

> You are the one that claimed one can't judge Mr. Karsh's work because you personaly
> did not read it. That is, you've discounted any and all arguments made by
> Mr. Karsh, on the grounds that you have not read them.

I have not discounted them. They could be accurate arguements.

> > You say how dare I question his interperetation. I say how dare I
> > accept the interperetation without question.
>
> You and I are not on equal footing here, Mr, Dougherty. I have seen the
> document in question, you haven't.

So what? You may have enough information to feel comfortable
believing it's
truth or falsehood. I do not, and as such do not take a position on
its truth or falsehood. Likewise, I do the same with Morris and
Teveth.

> I can read the original document - you
> can't. And I have read a scholarly work by an authority on the topic - while
> you haven't. In short, your position amount to merely refusing to accept an
> interpreation by an authority, for no other reason than it runs counter to
> your beliefs.

You're making this up, and it's nonsense. You're trying very hard to
construct such an absurdity though. Yes, I refuse to accept the
interperetation as true at this point, because I don't know it to be
true. I don't accept Morris' interperetation as true either, on the
same grounds.

> > > > > Have you read Mr. Karsh's book, Mr. Dougherty?
> > > >
> > > > No.
> > > >
> > > > > Do you find it lacking in academic rigor, in methodology, or otherwise?
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't know.
> > > >
> > > > > Please do spell out your exact grievances against this scholar
> > > >
> > > > N-o-n-e.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know whether his work is worthy of praise or greivance. I
> > > > wouldn't, and don't, simply take at face value that the assertion
> > > > contained therein must be unquestionably correct or an unbiased
> > > > account, anymore than I should automatically assume it to be a lie or
> > > > a piece of propaganda devised to whitewash an inconvenient statement
> > > > from the record. I would hope that I'd generally follow such a policy
> > > > when hearing any assertion, but I also particularly wouldn't do so
> > > > with claims on this topic, given the often sharply disparate
> > > > interperetations, ideological slants, propaganda or even outright lies
> > > > that often surronds anything having to do with Israeli/Palestinian
> > > > history.
> > >
> > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just write a rather long
> > > piece, ridiculing the claim that Ben-Gurion's cited letter was in fact
> > > misrepresented by the quote in al-awada?
> >
> > You are wrong. That was not the point of my piece,
>
> It was a secondary point, as you concede below.

Taken out of context however, as you are doing with it, it loses quite
a
bit. You have misinterpereted the meaning of my critique of Kamm's
argument and you have misinterpereted Kamm's original arguement below.
That
must first be cleared up before we can even proceed, and is essential
to understanding the nature of my "sarcasm", which I have already
stated repeatedly was not an accusation of falsehood toward Karsh's
work.

> It was a point I chose to argue, and you will either argue it, or back down
> from it.

I believe I'm arguing it, but you have already evidenced serious
logical fallacies in the framework of your argument, and below, a
severe misinterperetation of what I was arguing with in the first
place.

>
> > which i've already
> > stated. I did poke some fun at the seeming convenience of such a revision,
> > but that was not an accusation of falsehood. It was merely a secondary
> > point only relevant as it was linked to the primary point of my piece which
> > was ridiculing the accusation that Mr. Newton was a "fraud", for
> > reasons stated previously. There was more to that point than this
> > assertion by Karsh, but on that point I was poking fun at the notion
> > that Mr. Newton must have known about this somewhat obscure revision,
> > and that there could have been no possible valid reason why might not
> > choose to adhere to this pretty convenient explanation had he known
> > about it, and therefore, he must be a "fraud".
>
> Mr Kamm accused Mr. Newton of being a fraud for two reasons, neither of them
> is the one mentioned by you.

That is incorrect. They are precisely the only actual grounds
operative in Mr. Kamm's attack. See below.

> Mr. Netwon was accused of being a fraud for citing as a source a document he
> has never seen, rather than the secondary or tertiary source where he actually read it.

No Z. That is Mr. Kamm's *2nd* accusation of fraud, the one he's
using now. That one appeared after the one I argued against, and
after my post to which you are responding.

Kamm's argument in question was his initial argument in which he
accused Newton of "fraud" while operating under the assumption that
Newton had personally referenced each of the cited works for the
quotes. The arguments made by Oliver in that context were slanderous
and worthy of considerable "sarcasm", which I supplied.

Secondly, the fact that the context of Mr. Kamm's arguments turned out
to be false does not change the fact that Mr. Kamm engaged in
slanderous and false claims in the context he believed to be the case
when he was making those arguments.

> This point is not in dispute by anyone in this debate,

Yes, it is. What you describe is what kamm is *now* arguing, not what
he
was arguing when I responded. So, you and I are not even on the same
page as to what position I was arguing in the first place. You are
mistaken on the whole premise, and clearly much more on top of it.

> The second reason is that Mr. Newton's secondary source provided an out of
> context, partial quote, that misleadingly leads the reader to belive that
> Teveth holds the exact opposite opinion of the one he actualy holds.

That is also false, and that is the first false claim in Mr. Kamm's
first assertion of "fraud".

It's quite simple. Secondary source quoting by Mr. Newton was not at
issue in Mr. Kamm's response, nor in my response to him. It is not an
issue here, but rather is another issue entirely. We must proceed as
such, and look at the arguments as they were given then, and in what
context.

Mr. Kamm argued that the source quote for BG's "We must expel.."
statement as taken from Teveth's book is "fraudulent" because of
omitted "context" from Teveth's book. However, that source quoting is
accurate and no necessary "context" was omitted. It is quoted
accurately from Teveth's book, as Teveth himself quoted it.

Teveth, after quoting the statement, *then* chose to make an editorial
argument as to the meaning of the first quote in relation to a 2nd
quote that he then chose to add, but has no specific relation to the
first. In short, these are Teveth's own beliefs and editorial
interperetations that he himself added to the quote in question in
order to make his own arguments about the quote.

What Mr. Teveth believes to be the big-picture meaning of the quote is
irrelevant. No subsequent author who's quoting the first quote ("We
must expel") is obligated to include such an editorial interperetation
of a previous author. Teveth's book as the source, is just that. The
quote was quoted and sourced accurately.

Those authors who follow don't have to abide or include Mr. Teveth's
own editorial analysis of the quote, nor his arbitrarily chosen
supplementary quotes, when they wish to reprint the first quote.
Authors who follow may have a different editorial analysis. Mr.
Teveth's analysis is completely irrelevent. What "belief Mr. Teveth
holds" is not an issue, nor must they be represented by anyone using
the book as a source for the quote.

What's at issue is what BG said. Teveth's book is proof that the
quote was made, with those words, by BG. Thus it is a fine source for
the quote itself, whatever editiorial interperetation a subsequent
author may wish to draw from it, and regardless of what editorial
interperetations Teveth chose to draw from it in his book.

> While Mr. newton may have been ignorant of this, this does not absolve his
> cited source from being dishonest,

Yes it does because it was not dishonest. The only grounds on
which to base that would be that he cited the qoute out of context,
which
he did not. As I've described, Teveth's chosen editorial arguements
and supplementary quotations are not now the inextricably linked
"context" for that quote. They are irrelevant to the quote and its
accuracy.

And, Oliver's second grounds was the proposition that Mr. Karsh proved
that the words Mr. Teveth's original attributed to be BG were false.
And, the only way this could entail "fraud" on the part of Mr. Newton,
was if it was known that Mr. Newton knew about Karsh's argument, and
could have no possible reason for still believing the first quote.

Those are the two grounds on which the original accusation of "fraud"
were made, and they are both fraudulent themselves, NOT because it
turned out that Mr. Newton hadn't quoted them from the books himselr,
nor because Mr. Kamm assumed he had, but because they were fraudulent
accusations in and of themselves, within the framework that Mr. Kamm
was operating in the first place.
Had the framework been exactly as Mr. Kamm assumed, they would be
fraudulent accusations on their own terms, as I've just described
above.

> and does not make Prof. Karsh's scholarly work into an "obscure revision".

Of course it does. There's no reason to assume that Mr. Newton knew
about
it and therefore no reason to base an accusation of fraud on such an
assumption.

> The secondary source (al-awda.org) is a fraud,

How so Z?

Because they didn't accurately reflect "Mr. Teveth's beliefs" along
with the quote of Ben Gurion?

You are making the same fraudulent case that Oliver made in his
originally assumed framework.

> and we are now left with the question of whether Mr. Netwon knew this to be
> the case, in which case he is obviously a fraud,

It's not obvious at all. You are making logical errors all over the
place.

One: the quote is not a fraud of "context" as Mr. Teveth's beliefs are
not
the context of the quote. Mr. Teveth's beliefs are irrelevant.

Two: putting forth Karsh's arguments is no basis for a "fraud"
accusation
unless Karsh could be proven unquestionably accurate *and* unless it
was known
that Mr. Newton knew about it, knew it to be unquestionably accurate
and
printed the false quote anyway.

None of those criteria had been met. As such, the initial accusation
of fraud was slanderous.

After this had been exposed, only *then* did Mr. Kamm switch to a new
accusation based on the technical point about secondary source
materials. And this is after, and not relevant to, the post of mine
to which you are responding.

That fraudulent accusation by Mr. Kamm is what I was poking fun at,
*and* it
is not necessary for me to assume Karsh's arguements false. The
degree to
which they were the target of ridicule, which was very little, had
only
relevence to the degree as it was being *assumed* by Mr. Kamm that Mr.
Newton *must* have known about these arguements and that he could have
no possible reason in the world for believing something else, both
criteria being necessary before Mr. Kamm's arguement of "fraud" could
be anything but slanderous.

And, all this must be understood in order to understand the nature of
my "sarcasm" and what it was really implying. In short, I think you
have made a major something out of a minor nothing, and proceeded to
harangue me over a point which had little to do with anything, and
when you don't even understand the necessary pretexts for the whole
discussion, or the point in question.

> or cited it out of ignorance, in which case Mr. Kaqmm can fall back on the
> first instance of Mr. Newton's deceit

which one? not accurately reflecting "Mr. Teveth's beliefs" as to the
meaning of the quote of Ben Gurion?

> > This point is directly related to my actual implication, which is that
> > there's no justification for accusations of fraud against Mr. Newton
> > because he either did not know about this particular revision, or
> > because he had a legitimate reason to believe the first quote.
>
> the legitimate reason for accusations of fraud against Mr. Newton is that he
> cited as a source a document he has never laid eyes on, rather than the
> secondary or tertiary source where he actually read it. This is not in
> dispute by anyone on this thread.

Yes it is. Those are Mr. Kamm's *2nd* grounds for accusation, the
one's he's using now, and not the ones to which I was responding in
the post to which you are now responding.

His first grounds for the accusation of "fraud" amounted to two facts:
One, that Mr. Newton did not accurately reflect "the beliefs of Mr.
Teveth" in his quote of BG, and two: that he didn't know about Karsh's
account, and would have no possible reason to believe otherwise if he
did.

Both grounds are fraudulent basis for allegations of fraud.

> > I did not, like Mr. Kamm with Mr. Newton, accuse the author of "fraud"
> > without first having some basis on which to
> > make such a claim. That was the point of my 'rather long piece', and one
> > you have ignored.
> >
> > > > However, it would seem that you otoh may be taking things at face
> > > > value, unless you can answer your first two questions to me in the
> > > > affirmative, and the third in the negative,
> > >
> > > I can, and do.
> > >
> > > >and unless you've also
> > > > answered any possible counter arguments that have since been put
> > > > forward to this theory in Karsh's book.
> > >
> > > The only arguments I'm aware of are the self-contradictory assertions
> >
> > If you're not aware of some other valid argument that may exist, then
> > you
> > are guilty of "fraud" according to Mr. Kamm's standards.
>
>
> Ah, no. You nead to reread Mr. Kamm's arguments.

I don't think so. I think you do. I think you also need to rethink
your undestanding of the "normal manner of debate".

> He has never advanced the theory that one needs to be aware of all arguments
> that may exist.

That is what his theory amouned to with the initual use of Karsh's
arguments. Karsh's thesis was apparently proof that Mr. Newton had
comitted
"fraud" and it was never ascertained that Mr. Newton even had heard of
Karsh's theory. Therefore, it follows as the basis for this that if
you Z are not aware of all the counter-arguements out there, you are
guilty of fraud.

> He has claimed that one needs to honestly attribute quotes to their sources,

Again, that is NOT what he was arguing when I responded. That came
later, and after my post to which you are responding. Thus, it is not
relevant to what we are discussing here, because it was not relevant
to what I posted.

> and that a partial out of context quote is not an honest representation of an
> author's opinions.

It is not a partial out of context quote in the case of Teveth because
Teveth's opinions are not the quote's "context", as I've described.

But, you should re-read your sentence and keep it in mind for
something I bring up further down regarding your quote from Benny
Morris, a case where it would have considerable relevance.

> > > by Benny Morris that (a) someone other than Ben Gurion "vandalized"
> > > the handwritten letter [in Alpayim, vol.12, 1996], or that (b) Ben
> > > Gurion himself did it [In Journal of Palestine Studies, vol.27 no.2,
> > > 1998], and that (c) the IDF used modern technology to decipher the
> > > crossed out words.
> > >
> > > One notes that (a) contradicts (b),
> >
> > I don't know Benny's arguments on this, but I see a couple logical
> > curiosities
> > already. First, why is it a problem that (a) contradicts (b)?
>
> When one tries to argue a point, it is useful when one sticks to a certain
> poisiton, and not argue that both "X" and "not X" are true.

It may be helpful, but that does not prove either false.

> I'm sorry you're having problems with this simple concept.

I'm not.

> Perhaps I can illustrate a pratical implication of this: Say I was to argue
> against Morris' position in Alapayim, spend considerable time proving it is
> BG who crossed out the words - and end up proving my adversary's point,
> which is Morris' posiiton in JPS.

Who is the "adversary" in your above scenario?

> > And
> > second, does (a) have to contradict (b)?
>
> Unfornutately, yes. It's either BG who crossed it out, or not BG who crossed
> it out. Such is the nature of logic.

No, it's not. However, I've become skeptical as to the nature of your
logic, considering all the fallacies above. BG could have done a
crossing out, *and* someone else could have also "vandalized" it,
manipulating the cross-out of BG.

> > On the first point, if (a) were actually correct, for instance, it
> > would still contradict (b), and if they were both incorrect, they
> > would still contradict each other.
>
> Ah, sorry, no. (a) and (b) cannot bot be incorrect. on states X, the other,
> not X.

(a) and (b) could both be incorrect depending on what was assumed as
to motivations.

> > Or if, for instance, Morris put forth (a) in 1996, but then upon
> > further study, came to believe (b) in 1998, the two would still
> > contradict each other, and that would not mean that (b) is
> > automatically false.
>
> That would be true iif Morris described what led to his change of heart, and
> retracted (a). He has done neither.

(b) could still be true if he'd done neither, so could (a).

> > In short, the fact that they contradict does not
> > prove either one of them false.
>
> It proves, conclusively, that one is false.

So let's say it does. Then, clearly the falsehood of the other is not
proven.

> It may be that Morris only came
> to realize that (a) is false two years after he claimed it, but that would
> still not change the fact that it is false, and was false when Morris
> claimed it.

So, if such is the case, then he was wrong about (a). Such does not
prove (b) false. The fact that (a) was false and he was wrong about
(a) does not prove that he must be wrong about (b). Or is it that
when someone is wrong about something once, they must then be wrong
henceforth? Getting inside your logic is an interesting journey.

> > To discover that, you'd have to give
> > "serious consideration" to the argument given, something you admit you
> > have not done.
> >
> > And on the second point, it's not a given that the two propositions
> > are contradictory at all. Ben Gurion could have done it himself, and
> > someone else could have also "vandalized" it. So, what makes you say
> > they're contradictory?
>
> That is not what Morris claimed. In(a) he claimed someone other than BG
> crossed out the lines. in (b) he claims BG did it. Those are two
> contradictory statements.

In point (b) what does BM claim was BG's motivation for crossing it
out?

> > In either case you're seeming dismissal of these arguments without any
> > serious consideration at all because, as you say, "(a) contradicts
> > (b)" already poses a number of problems on logical grounds.
>
> Sadly for you, it does not.

Hmm, I think it still does actually. But, happily for me, I guess, so
many more problems on logical grounds have appeared from you, that
there's plenty to work with, regardless of what conclusions we reach
as to BM's argument.

> >
> > > and that (c) shows Morris has never seen the document with his own eyes
> > > (it is quite possible to make out the crossed out words with the nakedeye)
> >
> > (Is the document in English or Hebrew? I'm still not sure on this.

> You haven't been paying attention then, have you?

Apparently, I missed this point, but it would seem I've been paying
attention considerably more than have you, since you are arguing an
assertion from Kamm that was not even operative in Kamm's initial
post, or my response to it.

> It was made quite clear in Mr. Kamm's post that the document is in Hebrew,
> to the point of giving you the exact Hebrew words that were crossed out.
> Don't tell me you've smeared Mr. KamM without even bothering to read his
> argument?

I've read it, and understood it much more clearly than you have. For
you are proposing that I was responding to an argument about secondary
source quotes, an argument he did not even make at the time, and you
also failed to understand the fraudulent nature of both his assertions
in the initial accusation.

You did however gather the point that the document was in Hebrew, a
rather irrelevant point to my arguments, but nonetheless, one that
I've horribly failed to remember from Kamm's initial post, an obvious
sign of my total lack of credibility according to the "normal manner
of debate"

> > I'm at a loss since I haven't seen Benny's arguments, but might the 'modern
> > technology' been employed to determine the trajectory of the 'long brush
> > stroke' during the 'careful textual analysis', thus trying to determine
> > whether the 'long brush stroke' was a mistake or not, and thus the
> > technology was not used merely to "make out the crossed out words"?
>
> do yourself a fovor then, and start reading about the topics you are debating.

You know what Z, let's do ourselves a favor. I'll stop asking you
questions about BM's argument, since I don't know them. Meanwhile,
you go back and look at Kamm's argument, the premise for the whole
discussion in the first place and rectify all the amazing logical
fallacies that you've commited and compounded on top of one another up
to this point.

> Mr. Morris' calim is precisely that which you have claimed it is not,
> namely, that modern technology was used to make out the crossed words.

So be it. But, again, just like with the ending arguments you'd
snipped from the previous post, I did not "claim" that to be so. I
posed a question to you. Also a sign of my lack of credibility
apparently.

(snip)

> > So, you have denied to even give any "serious consideration" to even
> > the one counter argument you cite, let alone any others that might
> > exist (you not knowing about any other such counter-arguments or
> > citing them making you a "fraud" by the standards operating in this
> > thread).
>
> Agin, you need to reread Mr. Kamm's arguemnt. You are misrepresenting them
> to the point where you own claims my be described as fraud.

Z, this is wholly laughable. I am not the one misrepresenting Kamm's
arguments. It is you who does not even remember the argument Kamm was
making when I responded. And, now we have you alluding that I'm being
"fraudulent" again. YOU need to reread Kamm's argument, specifically,
the one in question here, NOT the one he's switched to since and that
I wasn't responding to.

(snip)

> > > especially given the fact that Morris has admitted he has
> > > lied (or as he euphimistically puts it 'streched the truth") to make
> > > his point?
> >
> > I don't know. It depends on what he's said he's "stretched the truth"
> > about,
>
> he said it about this very topic - the issue of the existance of a
> pre-planned scheme to get rid of the Arab population. Specifically,
> Karsh had shown he either misinterpreted or deliberately misrepresented BG's
> position in a speech where BG of 1937.
>
> >what he meant by that
>
> he meant what people usually mean when they say they stretched the truth -
> that he lied to get a point across.
>
> >and how he did so
>
> he did so in writing. The quote is "'Karsh appears to be correct in charging
> that I "stretched' the evidence to make my point.'", and it appeared,
> according to Karsh, in "Refabricating 1948," by Morris, p. 83.
> [http://www.meforum.org/article/207/]

(Reminder) Z said: "a partial out of context quote is not an honest

representation of an author's opinions."

Your quote of Morris sounds an awful lot like a partial quote, or a
subordinate clause...with a "BUT" or further explanatory text from
Morris omitted. The quote appears to have been removed from context
and used first by Karsh, then by you here. I find it hard to believe
that Morris said this one sentence and left it at that. Surely he had
some explanatory information as to the nature of this, and perhaps
explanation debunking the impression the sentence would leave if
intentionally omitted from such explanation.

And, this is such a case (unlike with Teveth on BG) where the opinion
of this speaker (Morris) actually matters, since his words and
position is what is at issue. Having removed his explanation, it
would appear that fraud is being comitted by the standards you and
Kamm were falsely applying to Newton and/or al-awda.org with Teveth's
quote, a situation that was a false application since Teveth's opinion
were not relevant in that case.

> >, before one could
> > determine
> > whether or not that would negate everything he has to say.
>
> I have not claimed it negates everythings he has to say - this is yet
> another case of a deliberate misrepresentation of my position, You are quote
> adept at that. I said his claims regarding a master plan to trasfer arabs
> should not be given serious consideration, since we have his own admission
> that he streched the truth on that point.

apparently removed from context.

> > Such a
> > statement could merely be a convenient excuse for someone who doesn't
> > want to give his arguments consideration, to exploit, exaggerate or
> > misprepresent such a statement, when it has no bearing on all kinds of
> > points he may have made that are entirely valid.
>
> I repeat my suggestion that you educate yourself about these topics. yes, in
> the theortic realm, statements my be offered as convenient excuses. Such is
> not the case here.

Depending on your response above, it may be the case, and you may be
comitting what you so outragedly, and falsely, accused of Mr. Newton
regarding context of quoting.

Please redress all your logical fallacies throughout, and also reread
Kamm's point and mine again so that you may know what it is you are
blabbing about.

Josh

[Andy Newton]

Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
> "Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3DB282C8...@xtra.co.nz...
>
> >
> > There have been no lies, you are playing a disgraceful semantics game.
> > The sources I listed are the sources of the quotes, nothing will change
> > that fact.
>
> Mr Newton, you have already admitted to this ng that your source for these
> 'quotations' was an Internet site, not the 'sources' you had originally
> cited. It's there in black and white.

The sources I originally cited are the original sources. Nothing will
change that fact.

Nothing will change the fact that in 6 replies to me in this thread, you

have still
been unable to defend your argument.

Nothing will change the fact that at best you addressed 7.5% of my
original post, and have *already* admitted defeat.

You will no doubt reply once more citing your pathetic technicality as
an escape clause, and every time you do you only make yourself look more
like an ass. Maybe you'll throw in some token variation, like an attack
on my grammar or typing, and spice things up with some new ad-hominems
(though you must be close to emptying your repertoire, having already
deployed your most powerful attack, the "pro-Nazi apologist"
accusation).

But by all means, continue your masochistic determination to disgrace
your own name. It's painful watching you humiliate yourself Olly, but
I'll keep watching -driven by the same kind of sick interest that
motivates passers by near road accidents to slow, and stare. Instead of
blood and torn flesh, there is the tattered remains of your credibility.
Instead of smashed glass and crushed metal, there is the lifeles hulk of
your tired, faulty argument.

See you next post, Olly.

[Oliver Kamm]

"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message

news:v7m6ru8j4i9mse90d...@4ax.com...

> --
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 23:14:45 +0100, "Oliver Kamm"
> <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > Well, now: I have humoured Mr Ketland as he requested, and
> > clicked the link that he posted, though I'm bound to say that
> > my interest in EASILY CHECKABLE FACTS about Mr Ketland does
> > not extend quite as far as Mr Ketland's rather unhealthy
> > obsession with EASILY CHECKABLE FACTS about me,]
>
> Which did not stop you from making assertions about Jeffrey
> Ketland that one could easily check, but ddi not.
>
> > Moreover, he appears to teach political theory with reference
> > to Z magazine - which is a bit like teaching classical Greek
> > with reference to The Beano.
>
> A web search for Dr Jeffrey Ketland gives us
>
> http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/Staff/Staff1stpage.htm
>
> Which describes him as a lecturer and researcher in
> mathematical logic, as claimed, and as you could have easily
> checked.
>
> --digsig

Dear me: the curse of the literal-minded. I am perfectly well aware that
there is a lecturer of the name of Jeffery Ketland. My point is that our Mr
Ketland's facility with logic, as with political history, is plainly
deficient, for reasons I have set out. This is an easily checkable fact.

[Josh Dougherty]

"Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3db32...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>...

> "Josh Dougherty" <jbd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eee564bd.02102...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Scholarly standards and ethics would seem to assume that someone who
> > fraudulently accuses someone of "fraud" would own up to it, instead of
> > merely dropping it and trying to bury it by immediately flip-flopping
> > to a different accusation of "fraud", this time on a rather thin (and
> > desperate looking btw) technical pretext.
>
> This poster appears not quite with it. Mr Newton provided a number of
> 'sources' for his quotations. I checked one of them and found that the
> 'quotation' was fraudulent in that it had been carefully truncated to
> provide a different account from the author's and subject's.

And there lies your error: "author" and "subject". It had not been
truncated to provide a different account from the subject's. The
quote of the subject was reprinted just as it was printed by Teveth in
his book.

The "author's" (ie: Teveth's) opinions, otoh, as to the meaning of the
quotation are not relevant. What is relevant is that the subject
spoke the words. Teveth's book is merely the source proof of this.

Each subsequent author that wishes to reprint those words spoken by
Ben Gurion is not obliged to abide by or include Teveth's editorial
opinions about the quote, or any subsequent quotes he chose to add
afterwords for illustrating his own editorial interperetations about
it.

Mr. Teveth's opinions, or any other quotations he chose to include in
his own analysis, do not become the inextricably linked "context" of
the quote. They are irrelevant as to the accuracy of the citation.

Your next error had to do with citing Karsh's argument as a ground for
Mr. Newton's "fraud", given that you would have had no basis for
assuming that Mr. Newton even knew about such claims, a requirement
before it would amount to "fraud" or "lying", but that's another
story.

> Given that Mr Newton had claimed this as his source, I naturally assumed that
> he was telling the truth in this, and therefore that he was himself the
> perpetrator of the fraud.

Given that assumption, your accusation of "fraud" on those grounds is
still completely erroneous, as I've just described.

> I am a trusting soul, and it had not crossed my mind that Mr
> Newton would have lied to us in the first place about what his source was.

Your new grounds for accusation, secondary source quoting, was not
operative then. Within the grounds that you yourself assumed as the
framework, your initial accusation was fraudulent.

> In order to get out of the bind he was in, Mr Newton then confessed that the
> source he had cited was in fact not his source at all. He thus confirmed
> that he was a liar and a fraud, though not for the same reason that the
> source of the 'quotation' was a liar and a fraud.

The source of the quotation was not a liar nor a fraud. Your grounds
for claiming so were, and remain, fruadulent.

> Given that he had claimed to be the provider of the 'quotation' from the book
> he cited, you must apply to Mr Newton for why he made this dishonest claim,
> not me. I can hardly be held accountable for someone else's lies: I am not
> telepathic.

Such is not relevant to my claim. You did not need to be telepathic.
You were erroneous within the very grounds you assumed, rightly or
wrongly, were the case in the first place, and not because those
grounds turned out not to be the correct ones. If everything you had
assumed to be the case were correct, you were still making slanderous
claims of fraud and lying against him within the very grounds in which
you chose, rightly or wrongly, to operate. That is revealing about
your methods of debate and confrontation with adversaries, as your
attempt to make these facts disappear without owning up to them.

Josh

[Jeffrey Ketland]

Oliver Kamm wrote in message <3db38...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>...

What a weirdo you are. Not sure who this postmodern construction of yours
"our Mr Ketland" is, but plain old me---right here in Meanwood, Leeds---is
still wondering about your example of a recursively enumerable set which is
non-recursive? Pretty simple "formal logic", apparently an area of expertise
of yours. Take a look at Boolos & Jeffrey, or Bell & Machover, etc. (btw,
it's Jeffrey, not "Jeffery").

--- Jeff

[Jeffrey Ketland]

Oliver Kamm wrote in message <3db38...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>...

What a weirdo you are. Not sure who this postmodern construction of yours

[Jeffrey Ketland]

Oliver Kamm wrote in message <3db38...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>...

What a weirdo you are. Not sure who this postmodern construction of yours

[Spyder]

..and then "Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> said:

> Dear me: the curse of the literal-minded. I am perfectly well aware that
> there is a lecturer of the name of Jeffery Ketland. My point is that our
> Mr Ketland's facility with logic, as with political history, is plainly
> deficient, for reasons I have set out. This is an easily checkable fact.

Your opinions are NOT checkable facts.

[M J Carley]

In the referenced article, "Oliver Kamm" <olive...@tiscali.co.uk> writes:

>Mr Carley is clearly not someone to let empirical research stand in
>his way, so let me point out that, having made an ass of himself by
>retailing a 'correction' that was not in fact correct, he cannot
>simply brazen it out by pretending Mr Folkert and I are presenting
>some speculative hypothesis when we record what Orwell said.

I made no such pretence. I pointed out that you were corrected in the
letters page of the Guardian.

>On the contrary, we are quoting Orwell - and in context. Mr Carley
>has made the catastrophic error of allowing his ideological
>predilections to become father and mother to the thought: he has not
>gone to the primary sources, just as the correspondent to The
>Guardian failed to do, preferring - poor sap - to cut-and-paste a web
>site rather than check her facts. If Mr Carley is going to maintain,
>with my interlocutor in The Guardian, that Orwell withdrew the words
>I quoted from him, then I suggest he quotes us Orwell's retraction -
>in full, in context, and with references to the primary source.

A link to the whole article is below. The relevant paragraphs, I
think, are these:

We are told that it is only people's objective actions that matter,
and their subjective feelings are of no importance. Thus pacifists,
by obstructing the war effort, are `objectively' aiding the Nazis;
and therefore the fact that they may be personally hostile to
Fascism is irrelevant. I have been guilty of saying this myself more
than once. The same argument is applied to Trotskyism. Trotskyists
are often credited, at any rate by Communists, with being active and
conscious agents of Hitler; but when you point out the many and
obvious reasons why this is unlikely to be true, the `objectively'
line of talk is brought forward again. To criticize the Soviet Union
helps Hitler: therefore `Trotskyism is Fascism'. And when this has
been established, the accusation of conscious treachery is usually
repeated.

This is not only dishonest; it also carries a severe penalty with
it. If you disregard people's motives, it becomes much harder to
foresee their actions. For there are occasions when even the most
misguided person can see the results of what he is doing. Here is a
crude but quite possible illustration. A pacifist is working in some
job which gives him access to important military information, and is
approached by a German secret agent. In those circumstances his
subjective feelings do make a difference. If he is subjectively
pro-Nazi he will sell his country, and if he isn't, he won't. And
situations essentially similar though less dramatic are constantly
arising.

`As I please', Tribune, 8 December 1944

http://home19.inet.tele.dk/w-mute/AIP48.htm

So Orwell says that it is `not only dishonest' to use the
`objectively' helping Fascism line but admits to having used such a
dishonest argument himself.

>There is indeed a Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory
>of Alfred Nobel, known to everyone, not least its recipients, as the
>Nobel Prize in Economics.

So it is not a `Nobel prize', i.e. a prize established by Nobel.

>And, while financial economics is my specialist field, I am not
>professionally an economist.

So you practice financial economics but you are not an economist?

[Dan Clore]

Oliver Kamm wrote:
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:<3DB108FF...@columbia-center.org>...
> > Oliver Kamm wrote:

> > > We will certainly all be impressed with the fact that Mr Ketland managed to
> > > undertake an extensive and vast study of 20th century history and never to
> > > have been told of the Nazi-Soviet pact or the strong support given by
> > > European Marxist leaders in the 1930s to Hitler's regime (e.g. Jacques
> > > Doriot).
> > >
> > > I'd ask for your money back, old bean.
> >
> > You need a lesson in basic logic, Ollie. Try drawing a Venn
> > diagram with the categories "leftist", "supporter of
> > Hitler", and "opponent of Hitler".
> >
> I'm sure Mr Clore's remark means something to him.

Yes it does, but apparently not to Ollie, who would have
disovered a basic logical fallacy in his reasoning if he had
done his homework.

--
Dan Clore

Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
All my fiction through 2001 and more. Intro by S.T. Joshi.
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro

Lord Weÿrdgliffe and Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Said Smygo, the iconoclast of Zothique: "Bear a hammer with
thee always, and break down any terminus on which is
written: 'So far shalt thou pass, but no further go.'"
--Clark Ashton Smith

[Jeffrey Ketland]

Dan Clore wrote in message <3DB3C322...@columbia-center.org>...

>Oliver Kamm wrote:
>> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:<3DB108FF...@columbia-center.org>...
>> > Oliver Kamm wrote:
>
>> > > We will certainly all be impressed with the fact that Mr Ketland
managed to
>> > > undertake an extensive and vast study of 20th century history and
never to
>> > > have been told of the Nazi-Soviet pact or the strong support given by
>> > > European Marxist leaders in the 1930s to Hitler's regime (e.g.
Jacques
>> > > Doriot).
>> > >
>> > > I'd ask for your money back, old bean.
>> >
>> > You need a lesson in basic logic, Ollie. Try drawing a Venn
>> > diagram with the categories "leftist", "supporter of
>> > Hitler", and "opponent of Hitler".
>> >
>> I'm sure Mr Clore's remark means something to him.
>
>Yes it does, but apparently not to Ollie, who would have
>disovered a basic logical fallacy in his reasoning if he had
>done his homework.

When Ollie lectured me on logic, I set him a bit of homework, which is this:

Give an example of a recursively enumerable set which is non-recursive.

He's a clever kid. Ahxfooord an' all. Sure he'll get it soon.

--- Jeff

[Josh Dougherty]

"Jeffrey Ketland" <ket...@ketland.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<aonhp1$kh9$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> On the subject of Kamm: of course, he is aware of all of this, but holds
> (hardly secret) extreme right-wing views, which have been detailed here:
> --- sympathetic to Pinochet's fascist regime in Chile,

Gosh, certainly a "comitted leftist" wouldn't hold such views.

I makes me wonder if Oliver Kamm had come out to "condemn" the recent
attempts by right-wing forces to wage a coup and overthrow a
democratically elected president in Venezuela. If not, what does this
say about his "qualities as a moral authority"? Certainly he wouldn't
be "soft on crime and soft on facism", nor would I hope that such
failure to condemn such an act might be a sign that he's less than an
"ally in the stuggle against such barbarism".

Josh

[James A. Donald]

--
James A. Donald:
> > Look who is talking. You [zztophave lied about me and many
> > others.

zztop8970-

> Where, pray tell, have I lied about you? FWIW, exposing your
> lies is not the same as lying about you.

It is when you fail to produce any evidence that I have even
erred, let alone lied.

James A. Donald:

> > You use change of subject as form of reply to inconvenient
> > facts.

zztop8970-

> I have responded to a point raised by Mr. Doughrety. If this
> point is a "change of subject", he's the guilty party.

In your debates with me you have repeatedly seized on some
trivial irrelevancy or engaged in legalistic refusal to
understand in order to make a tu quoque argument, to turn the
thread around from the issue being discussed, to some matter no
one is interested in discussing, and then loudly declared the
failure of others to respond to this irrelevancy as evidence of
wrongdoing.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG

A2RmiiPTFOC7vhCtVndWNeaMvEu9pufwyVB7gRTX
4hQWRniCJU2QaHKhtyCrn+8zPU3lXNt/dTvrpf4Kb

[James A. Donald]

--
Oliver Kamm:

> > > > We will certainly all be impressed with the fact that
> > > > Mr Ketland managed to undertake an extensive and vast
> > > > study of 20th century history and never to have been
> > > > told of the Nazi-Soviet pact or the strong support
> > > > given by European Marxist leaders in the 1930s to
> > > > Hitler's regime (e.g. Jacques Doriot).
> > > >
> > > > I'd ask for your money back, old bean.

Dan Clore:

> > > You need a lesson in basic logic, Ollie. Try drawing a
> > > Venn diagram with the categories "leftist", "supporter of
> > > Hitler", and "opponent of Hitler".

Oliver Kamm

> > I'm sure Mr Clore's remark means something to him.

Dan Clore:

> Yes it does, but apparently not to Ollie, who would have
> disovered a basic logical fallacy in his reasoning if he had
> done his homework.

The point of this elliptical conversation is that Clore is
claiming that it is trivially obvious that most leftists were
not supporters of Hitler, but in fact of course, Hitler had
widespread left wing support from the most notable radical
leftists of the day, notably George Bernard Shaw and Jack
London. When I read US papers in the late 1930s, it seems
impossible to tell progressives from nazis. Nazism was widely
seen as FDR's progressive policies carried out more vigorously
and enthusiastically.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG

lW5NGWoKhevlDGIywtsdSXbNpGFzsbWLQu+ZGtuL
4yG8/ndjhTsWgoitG+KXgw/ZbwoEhMqw7qpIY+t1W

[James A. Donald]

--
Oliver Kamm:

> > Mr Carley is clearly not someone to let empirical research
> > stand in his way, so let me point out that, having made an
> > ass of himself by retailing a 'correction' that was not in
> > fact correct, he cannot simply brazen it out by pretending
> > Mr Folkert and I are presenting some speculative hypothesis
> > when we record what Orwell said.

M J Carley

> I made no such pretence. I pointed out that you were
> corrected in the letters page of the Guardian.

Any fool can write a letter. Others pointed out that letter
was wrong.

This does not say what it is claimed to say -- that few
pacifists were subjectively pro nazi.

--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG

aUjzGFtjpw8lFrPrxbQQtmUDz94ujO42dpZB4mJ9
4Yv65fwLBQK9/KHrnXApmHGPlJ3cGs07neDZHoyWh

[M J Carley]

In the referenced article, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> writes:

>M J Carley
>> I made no such pretence. I pointed out that you were
>> corrected in the letters page of the Guardian.
>
>Any fool can write a letter.

Indeed.

>Others pointed out that letter was wrong.

And I am saying that Orwell was wrong.

<snip>

>This does not say what it is claimed to say -- that few
>pacifists were subjectively pro nazi.

I made no such claim. I claim that Orwell was wrong when he said that
if you oppose one side you `objectively' support the other and I claim
that Orwell said so.

Incidentally, there is no evidence that many pacifists were pro-Nazi.
If they were pro-Nazi, in what sense could they have been pacifist?

[Craig Franck]

"Andy Newton" <san.n...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:3DB22BE1...@xtra.co.nz...
>
>
> Craig Franck wrote:

> > I do feel a little better since you've confided you think George
> > Bush is an evil man, since it now appears you are quite liberal
> > with the term.
>
> It is not a matter of my being liberal with the term.

I'm afraid it is. It permeates all of your posts. It's why I don't
respond to every point, since almost everything is wrong right
from the get go.

You are now using the term "evil" in the same way you use the
term "Nazi." While you put a great deal of thought into your
criticisms of Israel, for most it is just a way of short-circuiting
all debate and rational consideration. Since Israel is basically
an evil Nazi regime, even the slightest whisper of a notion that
there could be some logical justification for their actions is
pushed completely out the door. Even the act of looking for
a justification of something evil becomes tainted since it's implied
there can be none.

> It is a matter of
> individuals to whom the label applies being in ample supply. I think we
> have enough to discuss on our hands without extending this to an "Is
> Bush evil" debate, but some very short reasons:
>
> - Bush is a party to the evil that Israel commits. He has not made any
> attempt to stop or slow the military and economic aid given to Israel.
> - Bush is a man that is willing to sacrifice his citizen's freedoms,
> supposedly on the basis of national security
> - Bush is a man that wishes to wage an illegal war (that will see many
> innocent deaths at the hands of US forces) and is willing to do so
> unilaterally, on a hypocritical foundation of lies and half-truths
>
> I do not need to be liberal in my application of the term evil in order
> to apply the word to this man.

The problem with all this is, of course, I myself and about half
the US population (perhaps more) all support Bush's agenda
on this matter. In fact, a lot of the people I speak with wish he'd
commit more "evil" at a faster rate and are willing to personally
help out in anyway they can. So you just labeled 130 million
Americans "evil," yet you don't think you have a problem with
how you use the term. You also refuse to see how labeling
people "evil' or "Nazi" just makes it all the more easier for acts
of violence to be committed against them.

At least I am now convinced you're not a Jew hater, since you
seem to apply this rhetoric to just about anyone who you have
a strong moral disagreement with, the noteworthy exception
of Palestinian suicide bombers perhaps being the most disturbing
part of your posts.

--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY

[zztop8970-]

James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message news:<5478ruku9comkj1f2...@4ax.com>...

> --
> James A. Donald:
> > > Look who is talking. You [zztophave lied about me and many
> > > others.
>
> zztop8970-
> > Where, pray tell, have I lied about you? FWIW, exposing your
> > lies is not the same as lying about you.
>
> It is when you fail to produce any evidence that I have even
> erred, let alone lied.

I'll repeat my question, since you appear to have missed it:

Where, pray tell, have I lied about you?

As to your current missive, even if it were true (and it is not) that
I had
failed to produce any evidence that you erred, that would not be lying
about you.

Now, if you want to see a (very) partial list of cases where you have
either lied or erred, I will gladly refer you to the following:

- You have erronously claimed that exile was not a common feature of
ancient history in mesopotamia and canaan
[<3cbeec1b...@west.usenetserver.com> ]

- You have claimed that from the signing of Oslo until feb 1994, the
Palestinians gave Israel peace, i.e, undertook no hostile activities
against it. [<3cefcc36...@west.usenetserver.com> ]

- You have lied that the murderous attack on the TIPH personnel was
carried out by Israelis, in response to an alleged TIPH report
exposing Israeli misconduct [<3ce3f586...@west.usenetserver.com>
]

- You have claimd both that TIPH was "doing a reasonable job" as well
as that TIPH was "never able to function effectively"
[<3ce3f586...@west.usenetserver.com> and
<3ceb099c...@west.usenetserver.com> , both in the same
thread!!]

- You have erronously claimed that TIPH stopped functioning after the
attack on its personnel [<3ceb099c...@west.usenetserver.com>],
and we even have your admission of this error " it is true that the
TIPH continues to function, contrary to what I said" in
<3ce45421...@east.usenetserver.com>

You have claimed Israel does not permit Gazans to drill wells [
<3cd64bc...@west.usenetserver.com> ]

and so on and so forth..
You are a pathetic little liar. Don't make me bring out more examples.

> James A. Donald:
> > > You use change of subject as form of reply to inconvenient
> > > facts.
>
> zztop8970-
> > I have responded to a point raised by Mr. Doughrety. If this
> > point is a "change of subject", he's the guilty party.
>
> In your debates with me you have repeatedly seized on some
> trivial irrelevancy or engaged in legalistic refusal to
> understand in order to make a tu quoque argument,

I'll take that as a concession that you were not able to find any such
case in my current exchange with Mr. Dougherty.

> to turn the
> thread around from the issue being discussed, to some matter no
> one is interested in discussing, and then loudly declared the
> failure of others to respond to this irrelevancy as evidence of
> wrongdoing.
>

I refer you to the debates listed above, on TIPH, on Gazan wells, on
Assyrian policy of exile, on the circumstances surrounding the Hebron
massacre in 1994. Each one is a case where one of the major points
raised by you was challenged, and exposed your errors or deceit.