And I am saying that the Malley article is fine but is
somewhat biased in that it omits failings on the PA
side as discussed in the rebuttal article above. It's
nuanced to the point of finessing serious errors on the
PA side of the table. Even so, when you read Malley's
views it is obvious as in my quote from the article that
Arafat did little to promote peace at Camp David in any
case even though we may never know exactly why.

I don't mind if you try to persuade me. I am actually a
very open-minded, free thinking, non-dogmatic kind of guy.

I just feel that the attacks coming particularly from
the violent extremist Palestinian groups, Al-Aqsa, Fatah,
Islamic Jihad and Hamas especially are fundamentally
wrong and are the principle obstacle to peace in the
Middle East. Not inconveniences such as checkpoints or
road closures. Not even land since the Israelis have already
given back 95% of it. It is the failure of the Palestinians
and the Arab world as a whole to recognize and accept Israel
at the root of the problem - and the reprehensible resorting
to terrorism to settle their political gripes.

No matter how you slice it, terrorism is repugnant, criminal and
indecent. The Israelis do not engage in it. But Fatah, Al-Aqsa,
Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran do. So, I point
that out.

I disagree strongly with those who tend to ignore the
long history Israel has of giving up land, making peace
treaties with neighbors (Egypt and Jordan), making
land concessions, large scale prisoner releases for the
sake of peace while the Palestinians have made very few
if any concessions or overtures.

It is also fun to be on the unfashionable side of the
argument. And the history is so well documented that making
effective arguments in favor of Israel is quite easy.

I sincerely hope that there will be peace in the region and a
peace that everyone there can live with. It will happen
as soon as the Palestinians and Arab states around Israel
lay down their arms and devote themselves to improving their
own standard of living rather than attacking Israel.

That is a complete reversal of what's on record. I can not conceive that you might be suggesting that 'Ross's' account would be unbiased, while Malley's would be biased.

Ross's unilaterally blasts and blames Arafat, while unilaterally glorifying Barak!!!

Obviously you haven't read the Malley/Agha article!!!
(http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380)

If you had read ALL of it, you would have found attribution of faults to the three main participants: US, Israel and Palestine (part 5).

Furthermore, you couldn't possibly be saying this if had read Malley/Agha's reply to 'Gidi Grinstein' account.

No mention of any fault committed by Barak in Ross's account, except for this totally juvenile spin doctor statement:

'... Did Prime Minister Barak make mistakes in his tactics, his negotiating priorities, and his treatment of Arafat? Absolutely. Did the American side make mistakes in its packaging and presentation of ideas? Absolutely. Are Prime Minister Barak and President Clinton responsible for the failure to conclude a deal? Absolutely not...'

Diplomacy 101: theRe is ABSOLUTELY no way in hell, you can make mistakes in tactics, negotiating priorities AND TREATMENT OF PRINCIPAL COUNTER PARTICIPANT,

... AND HAVE 'ABSOLUTELY' NO PART IN THE FAILING OF HIGHLY SENSITIVE PEACE TALKS!!!

In your attempt to reverse the bias on Malley/Agha, you are only intensifying the Ross's ridiculous public relation spinning at blaming Arafat for the failing of the WHOLE PEACE PROCESS!!!

Now, you would have been correct to mention that Malley doesn't lay BLAME on any party for the failing of the talks, contrary to Ross's insisting bias to do so.

If C.D. 2000 taught us anything valuable, it is precisely that we must all move beyond the 'blaming' game, if we are committed to achieving a just peace, perceived as such by both parties.



Well, I'll take at your word, and trust what you say.

In so doing, I invite you to consider the following:

1) read the Malley/Agha's premise and full article, with the open mind I trust you have:

'... In accounts of what happened at the July 2000 Camp David summit and the following months of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, we often hear about Ehud Barak's unprecedented offer and Yasser Arafat's uncompromising no. Israel is said to have made a historic, generous proposal, which the Palestinians, once again seizing the opportunity to miss an opportunity, turned down. In short, the failure to reach a final agreement is attributed, without notable dissent, to Yasser Arafat.

As orthodoxies go, this is a dangerous one. For it has larger ripple effects. Broader conclusions take hold. That there is no peace partner is one. That there is no possible end to the conflict with Arafat is another.

For a process of such complexity, the diagnosis is remarkably shallow. It ignores history, the dynamics of the negotiations, and the relationships among the three parties. In so doing, it fails to capture why what so many viewed as a generous Israeli offer, the Palestinians viewed as neither generous, nor Israeli, nor, indeed, as an offer. Worse, it acts as a harmful constraint on American policy by offering up a single, convenient culprit—Arafat—rather than a more nuanced and realistic analysis...'

(Introduction to their article: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380)

2) Familiarize yourself with the brilliant, rigorous and unbiased
works of B'Tselem: 'The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories (http://www.btselem.org/English/ )

It acts as a powerful observer and defender of democracy, human rights and International Law. It is documenting ALL violations against democracy, human rights and International Law, regardless of its originators. NO SPIN IN SITE!!!

3) Finally, I strongly recommend you read Norman G. Finkelstein's account of 'Ross's' spinning work of the C.D. 2000. And while you're there, take time to familiarize tourself with 'Finkelstein's' work. I trust you will be impressed by his intelligence and courage in truly defending the integrity and dignity of the Holocaust. He dedicated his whole life in denouncing the 'fraud, falsification, plagiarism, and nonsense' about the holocaust, done by people of his own camp strictly with the intent of exploiting and profiting from the sacred event.
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/finkelstein-on-dennis-rosss-the-missing-peace-the-inside-story-of-the-fight-for-middle-east-peace/
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/finkelstein-on-dennis-rosss-the-missing-peace-the-inside-story-of-the-fight-for-middle-east-peace/

IMHO, this string of neutral observers and objective critics: Malley, B'Tselem, and Finkelstein, serve an open minded process for a Universal solution, as opposed to a self-serving one, regardless of the one that it serves!


Respectfully.

meh, neither side is innocent and neither side is in the right and all I see is hyperbolic ideologues spouting half truths and propaganda for either side

if you take a side for either then you are supporting murder and persecution whether its Israel or Palestinian Hamas/Hezbollah

I say we stand back and let em fight it out amongst themselves and may the best man/jew/muslim win

NO FAVORED SIDES! That could sum up the objective view taken by Malley, B'Tselem, and Finkelstein.

As for the...

'... let 'em fight it out, and may the best man ... win...',

... I would suggest, in keeping with taking no sides, rewording the '..let 'em fight it out...' with the following variation :

'... let 'em TALK it THROUGH, ... AND MAY THEY BOTH (ALL) WIN!!!...'

I read the whole article by Malley but I find myself more
in agreement with the "rebuttal". Ross has his opinion but
focuses more on the things which can objectively be stated
such as what exactly was offered and what was the reaction.
Whereas Malley and Agha attempt to divine what was the
unknowable thought process of the participants.

In this sense, the Malley and Agha article is speculation
and in my opinion Malley and Agha do not adequately
describe the failings of the PA side and especially Arafat.

Not familiar with B'Tselem but Finkelstein is terrible. I
have read him and heard him speak and I agree with the ADL
assessment of Finkelstein.

http://www.adl.org/ADL_Opinions/Holocaust/20051031-JewishStandard.htm

"Norman Finkelstein: An Obsessive Anti-Zionist Shows his Stripes
By Abraham H. Foxman
National Director of the Anti-Defamation League


Posted: October 31, 2005

Like some of the more extreme Palestinian ideologues whose cause he has made his own, Norman Finkelstein has built his career on two things: an obsessive, vitriolic hatred of Zionism and Israel, and a penchant for distorting the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Unlike his compatriots in Ramallah and Jenin, however, Finkelstein uses his academic credentials and proficiency with scholarly forms to cast as "research findings" what would otherwise be recognized as propagandist bunk.

It is the sign of a true obsessive that he sees the subject of his obsession everywhere. For Finkelstein, everything he sees is filtered through the prism of his anti-Israel animus, with results that would be merely absurd were they not so often used to incite hatred against Israel and undermine efforts to diminish anti-Semitism in the world."

I also agree that neither side is innocent. But closing of border
crossings and checkpoints are not comparable to bus bombings and
rocket fire at civilians.

So it is not equivalent.

The ADL?!?!?! Abraham H. Foxman!!!

Are you sure you want to go there!?!?!

The very organization and its 'mainman', whom BILL O'Reilly referred to in the following manner:

'... the Anti-Defamation League an 'extremist group ' and its national director [Abraham "The Claw" Foxman,] a 'nut... '

Now I am not a fan of neither O'Reilly nor Fox, but I have to admit that is a comment with which I agree.

I'll make a deal with you 's1lowhand', regroup and READ enough on B'Tselem and Finkelstein FIRSTHAND, and with an open mind, and come back with your findings.

If you do that, I promise to 'hold fire' on the WELL KNOWN and most public destructive criticism on the 'defamation league' and Mr. Foxman (you read right, defamation league!!!).

Firsthand - open mind, FAIR!!!

The ADL carries a lot more credibility. I have read
Finkelstein firsthand and it is not worthy of discussion.
I don't mind going there at all. Anyone with an open mind
would see the value of the ADL efforts against discrimination
in general and antisemitism in particular. Their research is
impeccable and they are very careful in how they address
various controversial issues. Nothing but respect for the ADL.

Why don't you read some of the ADL work firsthand with a fair
and open mindset and you might find them to be actually very
reasonable.

http://www.adl.org/about.asp?s=topmenu

I don't pay much attention to Fox.

May 09, 2007

« It takes an enormous amount of courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there”—world-renowned holocaust, Israel scholars Raul Hilberg and Avi Shlaim defend DePaul Professor Norman Finkelstein as he fights for tenur! »

To claim 'Finfelstein' is 'NOT WORTHY OF DISCUSSION', while defending the 'credibility' of the McCarthy like fascist approach of Foxman through the ADL, leaves me perplexed with regards to your open mind claim.

The ADL, under Foxman, calling Finkelstein a 'Holocaust denier', anti-Israel, has absolutely no credibility. Demagoguery at best, sinister hidden agenda at worst.

'... The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) called Finkelstein a "Holocaust denier" and accused him of pursuing an anti-Semitic agenda. Although the ADL is known as a defender against anti-Semitism, it is also a frequent advocate for the government of Israel and opponent of Palestinian interests. Finkelstein has called the ADL's accusations against him empty and undeserved. "I am Jewish and my parents are Holocaust survivors. With others you could say, 'you're an anti-Semite' or 'you're a Holocaust denier,' [but] you can't do that with me," he once responded, "you have to argue the facts." Neither the ADL nor similar groups have quoted Finkelstein denying that the Holocaust actually occurred...'
(http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Norman_Finkelstein/)

The ADL under Foxman, has been repeatedly accused of having adopted a very counter productive 'McCarthy' like fascist doctrine in pursuing their goals.

Denouncing anti-semitism is laudible. Using anti-semitism as a weapon to silence critics, is just plain evil. And that is precisely what Foxman has done with Finkelstein.

To suggest Finkelstein is a Holocaust denier is so preposterous, you would have to accuse Hilberg, Shlaim, Chomsky, hell a list of 100's of Jews, whom simply treat Israel as a sovereign nation, not above criticism as any other sovereign nation.

Although this is a highly charged topic, it is disgusting to witness Jewish people whom seek to stand for traditional Judaism values and principles, without the propaganda and demagoguery, being 'McCarthyszed' on the public place.

The following excerpt from a 'Democracy Now!' article with Amy Goodman, helps put things this complex situation in perspective:

(http://www.democracynow.org/2007/5/9/it_takes_an_enormous_amount_of)

The excerpt:
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Shlaim, what about the whole issue of when you criticize the Israeli government, being charged with anti-Semitism? What is your response to this? You were born in Iraq. You’re also an Israeli citizen and then moved to Britain?

AVI SHLAIM: I am. I was born in Baghdad. I grew up in Israel. I served in IDF. And for the last forty years, I have lived in Britain, and I teach at Oxford. My academic discipline is international relations, and I am a specialist in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

And I think that there is no—that we must be very careful to separate questions of anti-Semitism from critique of Israel. I am critical of Israel as a scholar, and anti-Semitism just doesn’t come into it. My view is that the blind supporters of Israel—and there are many of them in America, in particular—use the charge of anti-Semitism to try and silence legitimate criticism of Israeli practices. I regard this as moral blackmail. Israel has no immunity to criticism, moral immunity to criticism, because of the Holocaust. Israel is a sovereign nation-state, and it should be judged by the same standards as any other state. And Norman Finkelstein is a very serious critic and a very well-informed critic and hard-hitting critic of Israeli practices in the occupation and dispossession of the Palestinians.

His last book, Beyond Chutzpah, is based on an amazing amount of research. He seems to have read everything. He has gone through the reports of Israeli groups, of human rights groups, Human Rights Watch and Peace Now and B’Tselem, all of the reports of Amnesty International. And he deploys all this evidence from Israeli and other sources in order to sustain his critique of Israeli practices, Israeli violations of human rights of the Palestinians, Israeli house demolitions, the targeted assassinations of Palestinian militants, the cutting down of trees, the building of the wall—the security barrier on the West Bank, which is illegal—the restrictions imposed on the Palestinians in the West Bank, and so on and so forth. I find his critique extremely detailed, well-documented and accurate.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Hilberg, like you, Norman Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust victims, his mother and his father both in concentration camps. Your final thoughts on this whole dispute and whether Norman Finkelstein should get tenure at DePaul University in Chicago?

RAUL HILBERG: Well, let me say at the outset, I would not, unasked, offer advice to the university in which he now serves. Having been in a university for thirty-five years myself and engaged in its politics, I know that outside interferences are most unwelcome. I will say, however, that I am impressed by the analytical abilities of Finkelstein. He is, when all is said and done, a highly trained political scientist who was given a PhD degree by a highly prestigious university. This should not be overlooked. Granted, this, by itself, may not establish him as a scholar.

However, leaving aside the question of style—and here, I agree that it’s not my style either—the substance of the matter is most important here, particularly because Finkelstein, when he published this book, was alone. It takes an enormous amount of academic courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there to support him. And so, I think that given this acuity of vision and analytical power, demonstrating that the Swiss banks did not owe the money, that even though survivors were beneficiaries of the funds that were distributed, they came, when all is said and done, from places that were not obligated to pay that money. That takes a great amount of courage in and of itself. So I would say that his place in the whole history of writing history is assured, and that those who in the end are proven right triumph, and he will be among those who will have triumphed, albeit, it so seems, at great cost.

Raul Hilberg , (Wikipedia: June 2, 1926, Vienna – August 4, 2007, Williston, Vermont) was an Austrian-born American political scientist and historian. He was widely considered to be the world's preeminent[1][2] [3] Holocaust scholar, and his three-volume, 1,273-page magnum opus, The Destruction of the European Jews, is regarded as a seminal study of the Nazi Final Solution.

Avi Shlaim , (Wikipedia: born October 31, 1945, is an Iraqi-born British historian. He is a professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford and a fellow of the British Academy.
Shlaim is especially well-known as a historian of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
He is considered one of the leading New Historians, a group of Israeli scholars who put forward critical interpretations of the history of Zionism and Israel.of St Antony's College, Oxford University).

I guess you don't pay much attention to the New York Times either, but here is what they have to say about the ADL and its current head.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/magazine/14foxman.t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1


And here is what some people have to say about Finkelstein's latest work:


Here is what Avi Shlaim has to say about Finkelstein:

"Norman Finkelstein is one of the most radical and hard-hitting critics of the official Zionist version of the Arab-Israeli conflict and of the historians who support this version. ... The book makes a major contribution to the study of the Arab-Israeli conflict and deserves to be widely read, especially in the United States."


Charles Glass : (Wikipedia: Charels Glass is an American author, journalist, and broadcaster specializing in the Middle East. He writes regularly for The Spectator, was ABC News chief Middle East correspondent from 1983-93, and has worked as a correspondent for Newsweek and The Observer. His work has appeared in newspapers and magazines, and on television networks, all over the world.

"Anyone interested in seeing justice brought to the Middle East must read 'Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict'."


William B. Quandt : (Wikipesdia: (born 1941) is an American scholar, author, professor and member of the Department of Politics at the University of Virginia. He previously served as senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution and as a member on the National Security Council in the Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter administrations. He was actively involved in the negotiations that led to the Camp David Accords and the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty. His areas of expertise include Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Palestine, the Peace Process, and U.S. Foreign Policy)

"...this thoroughly documented book is guaranteed to stimulate and provoke. It will be required reading in the continuing war of the historians."



"...the most revealing study of the historical background of the conflict and the current peace agreement."

Noam Chomsky,
The GUARDIAN


"... a thought-provoking work which calls into question many of the accepted 'truths' associated with the Israel-Palestine conflict."

THE MIDDLE EAST JOURNAL



"...both an impressive analysis of Zionist ideology and a searing but scholarly indictment of Israel's treatment of the Arabs since 1948."

THE LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS


A large number of authorities on the subject disagree with you 's1lowhand' and strongly recommend on the contrary,

... THAT FINKELSTEIN IS VERY MUCH WORTH DISCUSSING!!! ...

Finkelstein

Taking the Bait [on Norman Finkelstein]

by Alan Dershowitz
The New Republic
May 21, 2007

read the full article here:
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/3379

A few years ago, I barely knew the name Norman Finkelstein. I was vaguely aware of his screed, The Holocaust Industry, which argued that Jews "fabricated" their victimhood. I had heard of his comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany. (" can't imagine why Israel's apologists ... would be offended by a comparison with the Gestapo," he once wrote.) And I had caught wind that neo-Nazi Holocaust-deniers like Ernst Zundel, now in an Austrian prison, praised him for "making three-fourths of our argument--and making it effectively." But I certainly never imagined meeting such a person.

Like David Duke, who is now teaching in the Ukraine, Finkelstein is a failed academic. By his own account, he has been fired by "every school in New York," including Brooklyn College and NYU. One of his former department chairs attributed Finkelstein's firing to "incompetence," "mental instability," and "abuse" of students with different politics from his own. That may help explain why he accepted a job at DePaul, a school Finkelstein describes as "a third-rate Catholic University." With a political science department known as hard left, Finkelstein finally saw a path toward tenure--a sorry possibility now being debated, and one that I may have inadvertently helped along.

While I was touring in 2003 for my book The Case for Israel, I was invited by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now to debate Noam Chomsky. I agreed, but, when I showed up, it was Finkelstein in the studio. "Chomsky couldn't make it, so we have a substitute," Goodman said. Unbelievably, Finkelstein's performance sunk well below Chomskian standards of honesty. He accused me of not having written or "read" my own book, which he implied was written by Israeli agents. For good measure, he also accused me of plagiarizing it from a 1984 book written by Joan Peters. (His absurd accusation was that I found quotes from Mark Twain and others in Peters's book and attributed them to the original authors rather than to Peters.) Finkelstein knew that, as an academic, I would have to rebut these charges. I asked Harvard to investigate them, which it did and dismissed. Yet Finkelstein continued to repeat his lies--and I kept responding....

=-=-=-=

etc. etc. etc.

There is a good reason why Dershowitz is on the faculty at Harvard
and Finkelstein has "been fired by every school in New York".



Finkelstein has already been thoroughly debunked. I read him and
I agree with the debunkers.

Serioously? You realize that Israel is "Nuclear" right? That fact right there is what keep's countrys from actually going into Israel, not to mention that Israel is our closest allie in the Middle East and that there would be hell to pay if an allie is attacked.

1. It is their land.
2. They were attacked by a Terrorist Orginization who fired rockets at them first.
3. Muslims believe in a religion of hate, murder and disrespect towards women and the non believers.

As for your last part, it makes me laugh. I hope Iran attacks Israel, I really do. Israel would wipe Iran off the face of the planet with it's nuclear arsenol. One less problem to deal with.

That's it!!!

I work in good faith to try and establish an intelligent exchange on this worthy topic, I propose Malley/Agha on the one hand, and Finkelstein on the other, take the time to back it up an document it with reputed authorities on the subject :

- B'Tselem
- Raul Hilberg,
- Avi Shlaim
- Charles Glass
- William B. Quandt
- Noam Chomsky
- The Middle East Journal
- The London Review of Books
- The Quartet of Nations
- more than 60% of the Isareli population

And all you have to respond with are gratuitous and simple dismissive clichés and formulas, never addressing the question at the heart of this exchange, and providing a very weak line of defense indeed:

- Dennis Ross, clearly one sided.

- Abe Foxman, ADL, clearly one-sided.

and now,

- Alan Dershowitz, whom was publicly 'undressed' by Finkelstein, who alleged that 'The Case for Israel', by Alan Dershowitz, was "a collection of fraud, falsification, plagiarism and nonsense".
A.D. did everything in his power to block the publication of Finkelstein's own book, where he made an exhaustive and scientifically documented charge to support his allegations against A.D.
A.D. threatened to sue for libel. But disregarding the lame threats, Finkelstein's book was published, and ... A.D. never sued!!!
Many scholars and Israelo-Palestinian experts all threw their support on the Finkelstein's account.
Since the showdown, the humiliation seems to fuel A.D. to pursue Finkelstein with a vengence at every corner. He threw all the power and influence of the Israel Lobby to directly influence DePaul University to deny Finkelstein's tenur.

So... proposing Alan Dershowitz as a credible critic of Finkelstein, is hardly serious. Dershowitz is another clearly 'one-sided pony', with a serious lame.

If you are going to be equally one-sided 'Israel fundamentalist Lobby' as your friends, stop claiming you are open-minded, and stop faking any form of debating.

Extremist, one-sided, fundamentalist views such as the ones held by your 'friends' are now clearly part of the problem, and drowning any possible solution.

So think about it, and let me know if you are still interested in a real open minded exchange.

And by the way, I am not judging you for your positions. You have the right to cultivate whatever opinion you wish. But if you wish to debate, you'll have to consider that there might be an emerging school of thought out there worth 'exploring', and composing with.

That is where all positive change for humanity has come from.

Dershowitz has as much a right as anyone to produce a fair rebuttal of Finkelstein. It is not difficult.
Nothing wrong with Foxman and the ADL.
Nothing wrong with Dennis Ross or Clinton or any of the
others I have cited. All have valid and well articulated opinions,
well constructed arguments, excellent supporting documentation,
and fantastic reputations.

Why not fairly look at the opposing side of the argument as well
rather than taking the purely ideological viewpoint of the Palestinians for example?

All the sources cited can be examined for their own bias. I will
gladly skewer one-sided anti-Israeli propaganda with well
documented and fair criticism.

I'll also gladly consider any and all reputable arguments and
advise everyone else to keep an open mind and try to see the dispute
from all angles too. There is nothing to fear except ignorance.

Simply put, the Israelis have strong arguments that they are as
entitled to populate any of the lands of the former British Mandate
as anyone and that they have done nothing "illegal" in their policy.
They are also correct that they have the right to live in peace
without being subject to terrorist attacks. Moreover, they have
repeatedly remained peaceful and made treaties with anyone who
was willing to accept them and refrain from attacking them or
harboring terrorists who attack them.

It is not that I am unsympathetic to the Palestinians and the
plight of those who are peace loving non-terrorists. They are
hopelessly caught between lawless and criminal terrorist fundamentalists
who do not have their best interest at heart and
inept and/or corrupt politicians. The average Palestinians
have become pawns of the violent ideologues and are treated like
pariahs by Egypt and Jordan and with justifiable deep suspicion
by Israel and warring Palestinian factions alike.

If the Palestinians lay down their arms this evening, the war is
over and they have their state which they are already governing in
95% of the West Bank and Gaza. They should do this for their own
sake. It cannot be bad. Live and let live and bury the hatchet.
That they have not done this so far to date belies the true nature
of the conflict. Which is that it is not about Palestinian statehood
or even land but it is about the existence of Israel and the need
to continue to try to destroy Israel no matter how morally repugnant
the methods nor what torture it actually causes their own people.

It is a tragedy. Although the Israelis are not without their sins,
it is certainly not a tragedy solely of Israel's making.

OK! Let's take your unsupported points one your first point, let's take a look at Foxman.

You claim about Foxman:

'... Nothing wrong with Foxman and the ADL.
... valid and well articulated opinions, well constructed arguments, excellent supporting documentation, and fantastic reputations...'

Well, let me argue with you that the prestige and reputation of Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, has never been lower.

I submit a recent biting article by J. J. Goldberg, in the Jewish Forward, revealing that criticism of Foxman continues to expand, especially from leaders of the American Jewish community.

Increasingly, American Jewish intellectuals fear that Foxman, while decrying the anti-Obama “paranoia” of the religious right, may be a victim of his own paranoid obsession with anti-Semitism where it doesn’t exist. (See Goldberg article Foxman Fever Doesn’t Discriminate) http://www.forward.com/articles/125423/

Goldberg: “Foxman is the country’s most prolific anti-Semitism spotter, the gestalt guy who sees Jew-haters under every bed and invents them if he can’t find them.” He writes of respected journalist James Traub’s 2007 New York Times Magazine profile:

In his telling, Foxman is “the hanging-judge of anti-Semitism,” an “anachronism” who continues to “harp on Jewish insecurity” in a world where Jews have become “the most widely admired religious group in America, as well as the most successful.” Portraying him as a blustering alarmist, Traub seemed bemused by Foxman’s warnings about “jihadist” anti-Semitism as a serious threat in today’s world and troubled by Foxman’s focus on “good for the Jews, bad for the Jews” to the exclusion of broader goals of “promoting tolerance and diversity.”

One activist went so far as to demand “a class-action lawsuit by ADL donors to demand new leadership,” reports Goldberg.

Perhaps the hardest hit against Foxman came from FORMER ADL VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL SPRAYREGEN. Describing recent ADL history, Sprayregen says:

“ADL stumbled so egregiously. As observed by many, including myself, who have left the organization, the ADL has declined into an autocracy where no opinion counts other than that of its long-time national director Abraham Foxman, whom the New York Times described as “a one-man Sanhedrin for life.” When Foxman hatches a crackpot idea like the “Rage Report,” no one can restrain him…Foxman is driven to justify his half-million dollar-plus salary (matched in virtually no other Jewish organization)…To generate publicity for himself, he launches (and then summarily drops) foolish initiatives, such as his attack on Christian evangelicals, Israel’s most consistent supporters…”

Decline of ADL power, and such criticism of ADL among Jews is unheard of in ADL’s 97-year history.

And while I personally could never be associated with Evangelicals, it is important and insightful to notice how they are terrified of ADL!!!

More than any force except Jewish media, ADL is destroying the moral underpinnings of our nation and civilization. ADL now boasts that it is architect of 45 US state hate laws as well as the federal law. Are evangelicals seizing this moment to weaken ADL’s destructive influence? No.

In his article, Goldberg says “Republicans” are heaping criticism on Foxman for his “Rage Report.”

Actually, Republican leaders who did so, at least initially, were few. Jonathan Tobin blasted ADL in Commentary.

Joseph Farah wrote a piece for World Net Daily basically warning ADL, “Don’t call me anti-Semitic!” I wrote a salvo of articles alerting America to ADL’s attack which soared to reprints on over 100 blogs and websites. In contrast, a cowering religious right remains eerily silent about ADL’s characterization of millions of conservatives as “conspirators.” Evangelicals still remember ADL’s previously unrestrained powers of recrimination.

But such power is fading and could end if evangelicals emerge from hiding—and give chase!

It’s time to drive this bullying, corrupting, illegal agent of a foreign power from the only remaining country able to be a beacon of freedom and free speech to the world. At this auspicious moment, Christian conservatives can make no greater contribution to liberty than to speak out boldly in criticism of ADL, suggests J.J. Goldberg.

Here's more on J.J. Goldberg's character:
http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=26040&lan=en&sid=0&sp=0

So, you were saying about Foxman:
«...valid and well articulated opinions, well constructed arguments, excellent supporting documentation, and fantastic reputations...»

Other than bedfellows, there is no support for the claims you make
about 'Foxman', 's1lowhand'!!!

The ADL has been fighting discrimination of all sorts for nearly 100 years.

"The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens."

ADL Charter October 1913

They have fought discrimination of all sorts throughout their
history. You can look it up decade by decade for jews and non-jews
alike.

Read about it here: Foxman is only their latest director.

http://www.adl.org/ADLHistory/intro.asp

The Anti-Defamation League was launched in 1913 in response to rampant anti-Semitism and discrimination against Jews.

Unquestionably, many things have changed -- mainly for the better -- for Jews and other minorites in America since 1913. Discrimination in hiring, schooling, and housing, once so common, is now prohibited by law. Unlike in the past, few Americans feel compelled to conceal their origins. Offensive caricatures rarely appear in the mass media, and racial and religious stereotypes, on the whole, no longer dominate American popular culture. These changes are due, in large measure, to the efforts of the League and its allies.

What has "remained the same," unfortunately, is the persistence of anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry -- which in recent years have included attacks on immigrants, Blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, gay men and lesbians. And while the hatemongers of today may be lacking in numbers and in economic and political power, they still have the ability to cause emotional pain, physical injury, property destruction, even death -- not to mention the incalculable damage they do to the social fabric of America and to this country's cherished ideals of mutual respect and equal treatment for all.

The mission of ADL today is, as it has been in the past, to expose and combat the purveyors of hatred in our midst, responding to whatever new challenges may arise. Where once we protested admissions quotas at leading graduate schools, today we expose Internet sites devoted to Holocaust denial and white-supremacist propaganda. In the past, we challenged the anti-Semitic ranting of demagogues like Father Coughlin; in the present, we are no less vocal in opposition to Louis Farrakhan.

The particulars may change, but the goal remains the same: to stand up for the core values of America against those who seek to undermine them through word or deed. We can look to our past record to inspire us as we go forward into the new millennium and the second century of ADL....

S1owhand,

You seem to be having a conversation with yourself. You address none of the points I have been raising, just for the sake of EXCHANGING views.

On your last post, you miss the point completely!!!

Abe Foxman is severely criticized for burning all the goodwill that the ADL has built over the years. You answer back that the ADL has been doing great work over the years, and that it will continue to do so. What about Foxman?!?!? You just ignore the critics? You just wash off the bad press generated by Foxman's megalomaniac style and actions?!?!? anyone and everyone, Finkelstein and all the prominent authorities supporting him, whom criticizes your heroes, are all wrong!?!?!? Just like that!?!?!

We are well aware of your 'position'. Now can you address the questions at hand, or are you going to repeat the same single track position over and over again?!?!

It would appear that this is a sensitive topic with you, and you don't appear to have much leeway to discuss or explore outside of the received doctrine!!! If that is the case, let me know. I have no intention of converting you away from your dogma. Just looking for an open-minded exchange.

Not at all. A lot of people attack Foxman because they disagree
with his/ADL positions or how the organization is run. But he
is still well respected and continues the fine work of the ADL
regardless.

Finkelstein has no following outside a small group of anti-Israel
ideologues and his work is widely recognized as propaganda rather
than scholarship that is one reason why he has been denied tenure
everywhere and is criticized by Dershowitz among others.

s1lowhand,

You are conveniently re-arranging facts to suit your perception of things.

Foxman has little to no supporters left. And that comes from ADL people themselves. FOXMAN NO LONGER HAS TEH SUPPORT OF ADL PEOPLE THEMSELVES, save a few bedfellows!!!

« One activist went so far as to demand “a class-action lawsuit by ADL donors to demand new leadership,” reports Goldberg.»

« Perhaps the hardest hit against Foxman came from FORMER ADL VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL SPRAYREGEN. Describing recent ADL history, Sprayregen says:

“ADL stumbled so egregiously. As observed by many, including myself, who have left the organization, the ADL has declined into an autocracy where no opinion counts other than that of its long-time national director Abraham Foxman, whom the New York Times described as “a one-man Sanhedrin for life.” When Foxman hatches a crackpot idea like the “Rage Report,” no one can restrain him…Foxman is driven to justify his half-million dollar-plus salary (matched in virtually no other Jewish organization)…To generate publicity for himself, he launches (and then summarily drops) foolish initiatives, such as his attack on Christian evangelicals, Israel’s most consistent supporters…”

You can stick your head in the sand, and take leave of reality, but don't spread such delusions that Foxman is doing a great job for the ADL!!!

The ADL itself doesn't agree with you!!! Never the rest of the world!!!

Come on 's1lowhand', you have shown an ability to make sense on other topics in the past, what's so different with this one, that you've gone completely dogmatic!?!?!

Dershowitz is a serious attention deficit media hugger.

He's a criminal lawyer that can't seem to get enough attention from that first job, so he started a second job as a media commentator.

Finkelstein debunked his book 'The case for Israel', and egocentric punk never forgave him.

He used up all his media and Jewish lobby friends to prosecute and condemn Finkelstein in the public place, a child of holocaust survivors, as an anti-semite and jew hater, and pursued his crusade to the tenur revision committee of DePaul University, to deny Finkelstein of tenur. When a bunch of donors, Dershowitz Jewish friends in this case, threaten to cut off funding, even tenur committees of reputable universities listen.

Finkelstein is a scholar of impeccable repute, whom happens to reveal facts which upset the McCarhy like Jewish establishment.

So keep bringing up Dershowitz and Foxman and goons of the same family. You'll simply reinforce that there is a very obstinate and powerful lobby that dictates a single track doctrine, and comes down on all whom do not comply. Not edifying to say the least.

As I wrote,

... not edifying to say the least!!!