Spanish paper: (David) Irving 'expert' on WWII

[Mosby]

First the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet cited freedom of the press as its justification for accusing IDF soldiers of harvesting Palestinian organs. Now the Spanish daily El Mundo is using the same argument to defend including Holocaust denier David Irving among its list of experts to be interviewed this week to mark 70 years since the start of World War II.

An interview with Irving, who served time in an Austrian prison for his Holocaust denial, is scheduled to appear in the paper on Saturday, a day after an interview with Yad Vashem's chairman Avner Shalev.

When Israeli Ambassador to Spain Raphael Schutz learned of the plans, he wrote a letter to the newspaper, saying it was obscene to include Irving in the list of experts and give him an esteemed platform. Such exposure, Schutz argued, lent Irving credibility.

Schutz's letter appeared in the paper on Wednesday.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251804476311&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Unbelievable.

[LeftishBrit]

1. Expert liar...

and no it's not unbelievable. The Europaean press, especially though not exclusively on the Right, can be as dodgy as Fox News.

Here is Melanie Phillips writing in the Daily Hate-Mail and in the unenviable position of having to choose between bashing the Holocaust-deniers and bashing the EU. The latter wins, of course:

www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=617

[Mosby]

2. Is El Mundo considered RW?

Isn't it a pretty mainstream paper in Spain? Irving is probably the most notorious Holocaust denier alive today, asking him to comment on WWII is like asking David Duke to comment on the US Civil rights movement. It's unconscionable.

[shira]

3. touting Irving as a respected expert is only unconscionable to some, but sadly antisemitic sentiment

....is increasingly more acceptable these days among the most "enlightened".

Pathetic.

[Lithos]

4. Pathetic is right

David Irving deserves to be called many things, but "expert" isn't one of them.

L-

[Violet_Crumble]

6. While it's definately pathetic touting him as an expert on WWII...

..doing so doesn't necessarily mean the touter is antisemitic. If it's being done for a bit of a shit-stir, or to cause controversy, or because they're 'trying to make a point' and don't really mean what they say at all, then it's not antisemitic - it's stupid and pathetic. The only thing he could truly be labelled an expert at is Holocaust denial..

In this case the action of the Israeli ambassador to Spain were exactly what I'd expect and think is a reasonable reaction. There was no demanding a foreign govt apologise for something part of its media says, there was a letter to the newspaper itself....

[shira]

7. the point is, this crap is steadily becoming more acceptable - it's a big problem

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Holocaust denial is definately a big problem....

And how to deal with it is one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't situations, though I tend to believe Holocaust deniers must be confronted and not ignored, even though by confronting them, the deniers are being given what they crave, which is attention, and any attention to them gets twisted into their views being validated because people are arguing against them. The best book I've read on Holocaust denial is 'Denying History: Who says the Holocaust never happened and why do they say it?' and if I'm remembering correctly it gave a really good explanation of the tactics deniers use and how they at times manage to trick their way into reputable history journals, and also manage to plant doubt in the minds of people who have only a basic knowledge of the Holocaust...


http://www.amazon.com/Denying-History-Holocaust-Never-Happened/dp/0520216121

[shira]

9. i don't limit the problem to just holocaust denial

the Swedish rumors are just as nasty and dangerous as any other rumors against small groups of Jews - like the lobby, the jewish run media, the Elders of Zion, jews poisoning wells, jews killing christian boys for their blood in matza, the Jenin massacre hoax, Muhammad al-Dura, 1100 gazan civilians killed, Israel = Apartheid, Genocide, Colonialism, Ethnic Cleansing, etc...

those false rumors against some Jews tend to result in repurcussions against other Jews elsewhere.

giving credibility to holocaust deniers or anyone else who lies and spreads false rumors against Jews is a growing problem.

many people are incapable of distinguishing between rumors/propaganda and fact.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Well, you can think whatever you like. I'm talking about Holocaust denial...

I've got issues with three things in there - Jenin, Muhammed al-Dura, and the deaths during OCL. None of them are antisemitic, and none of them are hoaxes. If you want to have a sensible discussion about Holocaust denial, I'm so there, but if you just want to start saying silly things about the I/P conflict, then yr on yr own...

On edit - are you for real? You list people using the term ethnic cleansing as being antisemitism, yet you used the term ethnic cleansing to refer to the removal of Israeli settlers from the West Bank. I really don't understand how that logic works....

[shira]

11. holocaust denial as well as spreading false rumors against various Jewish groups is antisemitic

even if not in intent - the effect is the same.

Reports on Jenin 2002, Muhammad al-Dura, and Gazan deaths during OCL (all being hoaxes) aren't significantly different than the Swedish libel or any other libel that makes life difficult for other Jews worldwide - all being false stories about some "bad" Jews.

the ethnic cleansing charge, once again, in addition to other false, bogus charges is antisemitic and follows along the same lines as any other false rumor leading to other Jews being harmed.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. You appear to have totally ignored most of what I said to you....

The discussion wasn't about what *you* think is antisemitic - it should be apparent by now that I consider the way you fling that label around to be stupid, so I'm not sure what you think you achieve by ignoring what I said in my post and repeating the same crap over again. Go back and read what yr replying to. None of the three things you say are hoaxes or antisemitic are anything of the sort, and yr abusing the term, which in itself is a dangerous thing to do considering that people who label just about anything as antisemitism are like the boy who cried wolf, and when they try to point out the real thing, people will be so sick and tired by then that they won't be listening. Criticism of Israel isn't antisemitism, and as yr a very annoying person, I'm going to be more precise than usual and point out that Holocaust denial isn't necessarily antisemitic, as there are some other reasons for people to deny it happened which I won't repeat as I'm aware you were already told only a day or so ago in another thread...

On ethnic cleansing - if you want to label yr own views on that antisemitic, who am I to stop you? ;)

[shira]

18. you can't be taken seriously if you really believe a Jenin massacre 2002 happened, or that the IDF

is responsible for al-Dura's death.

As for the 1100 out of 1400 Gazans being civilians, that too is complete bullshit as well:
http://www.jewishblogging.com/blog.php?bid=188770

see, the cool thing is that you can cross-check PCHR to find that at least 300 of those "civilians" are in actuality combatants.
:)

the count is actually 342, so if you add that to the 300 PCHR claims, that's 642 out of 1400 - almost a 50/50 split.....which is better than NATO standards and for that matter, better than any other military in the history of warfare involved in such a battle. Ergo, reports that the IDF is evil for what happened in Gaza is nothing but another blood libel - given that no other military has ever fought such a battle cleaner than the IDF (Jenin 2002 is an even better example given the circumstances and numbers of combatants/civilians killed by the IDF, as well as IDF casualties).

=======

it appears you're either incapable or unwilling to distinguish between anti-Jew propaganda and fact.....sorta like the "credibility" you assign to HRW despite their denial of Hamas/Hezbollah exploiting fellow Arabs as human shields.

I think you're capable of distinguishing between fact and fiction - especially when you're given enough reason to suspect such reports are false and misleading. I'll give you that. In fact, I try to give anyone the benefit of the doubt until I feel they're adequately informed - and if they persist with their attitudes despite the new knowledge they gain, I then suspect the worst of them. But that's just me.

I'd say you lack credibility.

---------

you're also hypocritical regarding my alleged over-usage of the label anti-semitism.....b/c the fact of the matter is it is you who labels almost any legitimate criticism of PA, Hamas, Syrian, Jordanian, etc... leadership, gangs as anti-Arab/Muslim racist hate of the rightwing variety.

so you'll have to pardon me for having a good chuckle at you making your accusations regarding the usage of the term anti-semitism.....you have an EXTREMELY narrow view of what antisemitism is and a very BROAD view of what constitutes anti-Arab/Muslim bigotry and racism.

so it's really hard to take you seriously when you have such different standards for what constitutes hate and bigotry. Almost nothing is antisemitic when it comes to criticism of Israel while almost everything is bigoted hate when it comes to criticizing Arab/Muslim leadership.

:eyes:

you see - i have no problem with legitimate criticism against Israel AND their regional Arab leadership......I have big problems with that 'criticism' going overboard into hyperbole and exaggerations. I've noticed that almost anytime I'm legitimately critical of Israel's enemies, I'm labeled a hater. You accuse Veggie of this too.

---------

back to Holocaust denial - it appears you're NOT as open minded to hate speech and insensitivity when it's criticism of Arabs or Muslims - IOW, you do not so quickly chalk up anti-Arab/Muslim sentiment to ignorance as you do something like Holocaust denial or advocacy of a one-state solution, etc.

you're inconsistent in your standards.

just thought I'd point that out to you.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Yr inability to read what I say is showing up again. Also yr heavy on the juvenile ad-homs...

I said those things weren't hoaxes. I also made it very clear I wanted to discuss the OP, which is clearly something yr not willing to do.

Is there actually any purpose to you sitting there and throwing insults at me? It's not as though I give a flying fuck what you think when it comes to passing judgement on other DUers. Maybe I haven't been clear enough yet?

[shira]

20. point made - just so we're clear - NT

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Glad you finally got the point I was making...

When you feel capable of having any form of rational discussion that doesn't involve flinging nasty accusations about me at me, feel free to give it a try...

On edit; I just spotted this bullshit in yr post: 'b/c the fact of the matter is it is you who labels almost any legitimate criticism of PA, Hamas, Syrian, Jordanian, etc... leadership, gangs as anti-Arab/Muslim racist hate of the rightwing variety.'

No, I don't. I wish you'd stop posting outright dishonest bullshit like that.

[shira]

22. i'd love to have a rational discussion without any accusations at all - lemme know when you're ready

whatever the topic is.....minus personal insults and interrogations.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to spot when yr willing to post without insults and accusations...

Makes sense that you'd say so when you feel yr capable. You were the one who started insulting me and accusing me of things in this thread, and I haven't retaliated, though it's starting to get tempting...

If you were actually interested in civil and rational discussion, you'd apologise for the false accusation you made about me calling legitimate criticism of Hamas etc as 'anti-Arab'. That's clearly not true at all, and seeing as how I'm critical of Palestinians as well as being critical of Israel, I really am suspicious as to what you think 'legitimate criticism' entails, especially since you appear to believe that Veggie has never made any comments that are of a bigoted nature against Muslims or Arabs...

[shira]

24. again - anytime you want a rational and respectful debate, I'm all for it - but in post #10, it was

...you starting the insults. In post #17, it got worse.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. I'm sorry, but there's nothing insulting in post 10....

What's insulting in that post?

Also, you appear to have missed my edit in my previous post so I'll repost it:

If you were actually interested in civil and rational discussion, you'd apologise for the false accusation you made about me calling legitimate criticism of Hamas etc as 'anti-Arab'. That's clearly not true at all, and seeing as how I'm critical of Palestinians as well as being critical of Israel, I really am suspicious as to what you think 'legitimate criticism' entails, especially since you appear to believe that Veggie has never made any comments that are of a bigoted nature against Muslims or Arabs...


Going back to post 17, how come it's okay for you to accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing, yet according to you accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing is antisemitic?

[shira]

26. let's just say that if a civil debate includes the tone and hostility from your posts #10 and #17,

...then I'm not interested, but to answer you....

I think Hamas is a blatantly anti-semitic organization. Do you agree or is this just a hateful accusation and not legitimate criticism?

Only accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing - and let's say it's someone like Carlo Strenger - is not antisemitic in and of itself b/c if one looks at all of Carlo Strenger's criticism of Israel (and there's a lot there) he doesn't go overboard, but if it's someone with a record of being over the top regarding Israel, then there's a good chance it is.

As far as Israel ethnically cleansing Gaza, that was Israel's decision and the right thing to do - but like any other situation similar to it, when initiated by one group against another or a one group volunteering to do it to themselves, that's ethnic cleansing.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. There was nothing insulting in post 10....

Can you point me to the bit that contained an insult?

I've said more than a few times here that I detest Hamas and that they're antisemitic. Will you be apologising for what you said a few posts ago or is it pointless to expect you to admit you were wrong?

Using the term ethnic cleansing isn't anti-semitic at all. I think yr idea of who can and can't use it is rather arbitrary as why should everyone agree with you on what's overboard and what's not. What happens when someone else comes along who has a different idea of what's overboard?

If yr talking about the removal of Israeli settlers from Gaza being ethnic cleansing, that shows a bit of ignorance on what ethnic cleansing actually is. That was no more ethnic cleansing than the removal of Indonesians from East Timor was....

[oberliner]

28. There was ethnic cleansing of the Jews in Gaza

Granted this took place before there were any settlements, but all of the Jews of Gaza were forced out (or killed) in 1929 and the British would not allow any to return. Some of those Jewish families could trace their roots in that area back over many generations.

[shira]

30. and the end result of 1929 and 2005 was the same - no Jews in Gaza, ergo "ethnic cleansing"

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Shira is claiming there was ethnic cleansing by Israel during the disengagement...

Yr talking about something else....

[shira]

29. i thought the tone was hostile in post #10 and #17 was worse

and sure, I apologize - do you apologize for claiming I started the rude, juvenile comments in this thread?

It's not the term ethnic-cleansing that I believe is anti-semitic....as I've repeated, it's a combination of factors that leads me to believe certain people use this term due to some irrational hatred or bigotry that they have. And by overboard, that simply means such a person constantly makes bogus accusations against Israel (refusing to be corrected and never apologizing/retracting), uses double-standards, never has anything good to say about Israel, minimizes or ignores actions by Israel's enemies that prompt Israel's responses, etc. If that person claims Israel is in the process of, or is planning on ethnically cleansing Israel of Arabs, I know that's antisemitic.

Of course, there's a very slight chance such a person might just be an idiot who parrots anything he/she reads somewhere and is therefore incapable of rational thought.....but I believe the chances are high such a person is a hateful and antisemitic bigot, just as I believe that if the same person had the same attitude toward any other ethnic group, that person would be a hateful POS. Same single standard.

All Jews were removed from Gaza - that's ethnic cleansing, the same as if in some future agreement, all Palestinians are removed from East Jerusalem.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. So it's all about *tone* now, not what I actually said?

Okay. So why do you want me to apologise for what you say are 'rude, juvenile comments' when you can't even point out any in the post you said they were in?

btw, thanks for the apology about accusing me of seeing any criticism of the likes of Hamas as being bigoted against Arabs or Muslims....

I think we finally have reached some agreement. The term 'ethnic cleansing' isn't antisemitic. And believe it or not I've encountered some real antisemites on the internet masking themselves with the cloak of fake concern for the Palestinian people. There are terms or I think what people refer to as *code words* that some of them used that make me wonder about their motives, and to be honest 'ethnic cleansing' isn't one of those words. Maybe I've been encountering boring antisemites, but the ones I've seen love to use words like 'Zionist entity', 'Zionazis' and things like that. I want to go through the following sentence from yr post:

'And by overboard, that simply means such a person constantly makes bogus accusations against Israel (refusing to be corrected and never apologizing/retracting), uses double-standards, never has anything good to say about Israel, minimizes or ignores actions by Israel's enemies that prompt Israel's responses, etc.'

But none of those things are antisemitic. The last one sounds very much like people who don't agree that Israel has the right to do whatever it wants and label it 'self-defense' are being lumped into the antisemite group. And it's still very subjective. Things that you think are 'bogus' or double-standards isn't in the eyes of other people, so who makes the decision?

No, the removal of settlers isn't ethnic cleansing. The settlers were removed because they were Israeli and they were in settlements that were illegal and were being dismantled by the Israeli govt, not because they were Jewish. I doubt very much anyone would have been allowed to stay at one of those settlements if they hadn't been Jewish, and I'd be happy to see any information to the contrary.

[shira]

33. yes, and it wasn't just #10 but also #17 - so when will you at least apologize for #17

We disagree on 'ethnic cleansing' - no biggie - I fail to see the difference between 1929 and 2005 as the end result is identical.

I happen to believe that someone who constantly gets the facts wrong - ALWAYS in favor of Israel's enemies or against Israel - who cannot be corrected, fails to apologize/retract AND uses double-standards for Israel that are not used for any other country, rarely/never has anything good to say about Israel, minimizes/ignores the actions of Israel's enemies in order to place total blame on Israel, advocates for one state, is obsessively focused with one eye on Israel while ignoring all else, speaks of Jewish lobbies and conspiracies, etc....is clearly a hateful bigot. Facts are facts, double-standards are what they are and I don't see any other alternative for such a person.

If such a person were like this towards any other ethnic entity, the same conclusion could easily be drawn, right?

Why would a person/group keep doing the above things if he/they were not hateful?

Better - how do we properly label such a person - what is his/their problem? I should give such a person or group the benefit of the doubt because ________?

=======

ETA:
I have no problem with the tone of your most recent posts to me and appreciate that.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. I'm sorry I sounded terse in post 17

Now onto ethnic cleansing - I'm not sure why you disagree. The Israeli government removed Israeli settlers from land Israel was occupying. The removal of settlers wasn't based on ethnicity, and definately wasn't something where people were removed because they were Jewish. For you to disagree you'd have to think that people were targetted because they were Jewish, not because they were Israelis or settlers....

One persons facts is another persons load of bullshit when it comes to the I/P conflict. I've seen people use selective facts to support whatever their position is, while they ignore other facts that put things into more context. When it comes to this using double-standards that aren't used for any other country, I see that particular accusation round here a fair bit, and it's been aimed at me, and it doesn't work. I mean, I'm very critical of my own country for its treatment of Aboriginals, so it's not like I give anyone a pass when it comes to treating others shabbily....

The problem is that while what you described in yr second paragraph would describe someone who'd irritate the hell out of me, it doesn't make them a bigot regardless of what group they're talking about. It makes them pretty stupid, obsessive, and a waste of time to talk to. But for them to be bigoted, they'd be saying stinky stuff about Jews or Arabs, or even Israelis or Palestinians (broadbrushing entire nationalities in a negative way is something I've seen happen in this forum). And once they've said the stinky stuff, everything after that is really suspect because even if what they say isn't bigoted, the stinky stuff they've said earlier colours what they say. Most people at DU aren't antisemitic or Islamophobic, though there's always a small number of both creatures slithering round DU. When it comes to this forum, while people have strong opinions about the conflict, that doesn't make them bigoted. There's people who post here on and off that while I don't agree with much at all of what they say here, I don't think they're bigots. I think you may be mistaking the line drawn in the sand and showing sympathy to the 'other' is a sign of weakness atmosphere of much debate in this forum for that being people's total sum of their thoughts on the conflict. I made the mistake a few years ago of judging someone who posted here far too quickly and harshly based solely on what she was saying here in anger in a really volatile atmosphere and only later realised she was someone who was opposed to bigotry against both Jews and Arabs, and I think what I did with the quick judgment is something that goes on a fair bit in this forum from quite a few DUers...

[shira]

35. thanks - now as to ethnic cleansing....

....if the same people taken out of Gaza 2005 were there legally and forced out by Hamas, I doubt anyone credible would say that wasn't an example of ethnic cleansing. Whether they're there legally or not and either forced out by Hamas or Israel makes no difference.

As to facts and double-standards, let's see what comes up in future discussions here.....to be continued.

[LeftishBrit]

12. You are grouping a whole lot of things together that I don't think go together

Thinking that Israel is colonialist, for example, is hardly the same thing as thinking that Israel kills Arabs for their organs or was responsible for 9-11, let alone the same thing as denying or justifying the Holocaust.

I don't think that even intemperate criticisms of a government's policies are the same thing as attacks on the ethnicity of the people, or that people should be required to refrain from criticisms, whether you think they are justified or unjustified, on the grounds that antisemites or other racists MIGHT take them up. Just as in another thread I argued that one should not have to refrain from such comments as 'Saudi Arabia practices apartheid against women' because RW Islamophobes might take them up for their own purposes.

[shira]

14. all the denial, false rumors, and propaganda is dangerous and should be taken seriously

I don't have a problem with honest and accurate reporting - whether against Jews or Saudis.

The stakes are high, however, when the reports against Jews are dishonest, inaccurate, misleading, etc....and it's troubling that the sources for these false reports are in no way motivated to be more careful.

====

In addition, most people are simply incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction when it comes to Jews and Israel - and that makes such irresponsible journalism and reporting very dangerous.

[LeftishBrit]

13. It's always been a big problem IMO.

I think it's becoming more *noticeable* rather than more acceptable. The Internet makes us more aware of what's happening in the media all over the world. This has its good side (possible to point out and combat the nastier remarks) and its bad side (easier for racist and other pernicious comments to spread).

[shira]

15. good point - it is more noticeable

it seems things started escalating almost a decade ago at the time of the 2nd Intifada (al-Dura)....and things have only gotten worse since then.

[LeftishBrit]

16. Not sure about that...

I remember some pretty nasty anti-Jewish articles by Richard Ingrams in the early 1980s for example.

In the 80s, we would not even have known what Aftenbladet and El Mundo were saying. This awareness of world media is much more recent, and is a good thing in many ways, but can allow nasty material to spread.

I think we have to look at this in terms not just of antisemitism and extreme anti-Zionism in particular, but racism and xenophobia in general. There has been a LOT of this in many newspapers (also anti-woman prejudice and homophobia) for many years. And it sometimes includes anti-Semitism; also Islamophobia, racism, anti-Polish prejudice (a recent staple of the Daily Mail) - you name it. And if anyone challenges them on any of it, they are accused of 'censorship' and 'political correctness'. I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe in reporting obvious lies to the Press Standards commission, or equivalent.

[LeftishBrit]

5. Centre-right, not extreme-right

At least as I understand; I can read little Spanish.

Popular British newspapers such as the Daily Mail and the Sun are also 'mainstream', however, and they constantly spread bigotry and often lies. Mostly not antisemitism, though the Hate-Mail did a lot of that in the past; but plenty of anti-immigrant bigotry, Islamophobia (mostly IMO secondary to the hatred of immigrants), and bigotry against Gypsies and Travellers.