Deborah Lipstadt’s Blog

Controversy at Harvard: Muslim Chaplain Suggests Death of Muslim Apostates?

2009-05-02T04:04:00.003-04:00

For the past two weeks a controversy has been brewing at Harvard as reported by the Harvard Crimson. Recently it has also been covered in the Forward.

In short, the Muslim chaplain, Abdul-Basser wrote the following to a Muslim student:

great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment [for apostates]) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand.”

In the Crimson article a number of Muslim students were quoted as being quite critical of his stand. He claims that he has been misinterpreted and was not saying that he supports death for converts from Islam. It's hard how to see otherwise, particular in light of his comment about "hegemonic modern human rights discourse."

He, of course, is free to have any religious view he wishes. It is just disturbing to think that this is the point of view being imparted to students.

Durban II: Professor Dershowitz Explains What He Did at Durban II

2009-05-02T03:53:00.002-04:00

Take a look at Professor Dershowitz's explanation of his encounter with Durban II. It's quite revealing. http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/confronting_evil_at_durban_ii

Jane Fonda and Anne Frank: Banned in Beirut

2009-05-01T11:50:00.002-04:00

There is an interesting oped in today's Wall St. Journal on censorship in Beirut by William Marling:

A professor at the American University here recently ordered copies of "The Diary of Anne Frank" for his classes, only to learn that the book is banned. Inquiring further, he discovered a long list of prohibited books, films and music.

This is perplexing -- and deeply ironic -- because Beirut has been named UNESCO's 2009 "World Book Capital City." Just last week "World Book and Copyright Day" was kicked off with a variety of readings and exhibits that honor "conformity to the principles of freedom of expression [and] freedom to publish," as stated by the UNESCO Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.\
[....]

Even a partial list of books banned in Lebanon gives pause: William Styron's "Sophie's Choice"; Thomas Keneally's "Schindler's List"; Thomas Friedman's "From Beirut to Jerusalem"; books by Philip Roth, Saul Bellow and Isaac Bashevis Singer. In fact, all books that portray Jews, Israel or Zionism favorably are banned.

Writers in Arabic are not exempt....
[....]
All of Jane Fonda's films are banned, since she visited Israel in 1982 to court votes for Tom Hayden's Senate run. "Torn Curtain" is banned: Paul Newman starred in "Exodus." And the television series "The Nanny" is banned because of Fran Drescher.

[....]
Even works by self-proclaimed Islamists such as Assadeq al-Nayhoum's "Islam Held Hostage," have been banned, and issued only when re-edited in sympathetic editions (in Syria).

Censorship is a problem throughout the Arabic-speaking world. Though a signatory of the Florence Agreement, the Academy of Islamic Research in Egypt, through its censorship board al-Azhar, decides what may not be printed: Nobel Prize winner Naghib Mahfouz's "Awlad Haratina" (The Sons of the Medina) was found sacrilegious and only printed in bowdlerized form in Egypt in 2006. Saudi Arabia sponsors international book fairs in Riyadh, but Katia Ghosn reported in L'Orient that it sends undercover agents into book stores regularly.

Works that could stimulate dialogue in Lebanon are perfunctorily banned. "Waltz with Bashir," an Israeli film of 2008, is banned -- even though it alleges that Ariel Sharon was complicit in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres. According to the Web site Monstersandcritics, however, "Waltz with Bashir" became an instant classic in the very Palestinian camps it depicts, because it is the only history the younger generation has. But how did those copies get there?

The answer is also embarrassing. Just as it ignores freedom of circulation, Lebanon also ignores international copyright laws. Books of all types are routinely photocopied for use in high schools and universities.
[....]

Mr. Marling is a visiting professor of American Studies at the American University of Beirut and professor of English at Case Western Reserve University.

New Book will Ignite a Debate About Roosevelt

2009-05-01T11:43:00.001-04:00

See today's article in the New York Times for some recent research which is likely to ignite a debate about FDR's response in the 1930s to the persecution of the Jews. I believe it could be "consensus changing" about his response to the persection.

Interview in JTA

2009-04-26T13:43:00.004-04:00

There is an interview with me in the JTA

"History on Trial" Optioned for a Movie

2009-04-24T17:18:00.003-04:00

Check out this article in today's Variety and the blog, Cinematical.

As the Variety article notes, the producers of the Soloist have teamed up with Participation Media to make the film. Participation, established by Jeff Skoll, one of the founders of eBay, has made An Inconvenient Truth, The Kite Runner, Charlie Wilson's War, and the Sesame Street Story.

A caveat: Optioned is a long way from buying your popcorn for the movie.

So sit tight.

HDOT Launches Arabic, Farsi, Turkish, Russian Translations

2009-04-12T06:31:00.004-04:00

Emory University announces the launch of Arabic, Farsi, Turkish, and Russian translations of material which exposes the charges made by deniers:

Elaine Justice: 404.727.0643 office, 404.276.8263 cell

Holocaust Denial on Trial (HDOT.org), a Web site founded by Emory University professor Deborah Lipstadt to teach about the dangers of Holocaust denial and demonstrate how deniers distort historical evidence of the Holocaust, is re-launching in four new languages: Arabic, Farsi, Russian and Turkish. These translations are designed to spread the original site's messages to areas where Holocaust denial goes the most unchallenged.

HDOT.org was founded following the well-known David Irving v. Penguin UK and Deborah Lipstadt libel trial. Holocaust denier Irving sued Lipstadt and her publisher for calling him a denier who knowingly twists and distorts the truth of the Holocaust. A British judge found Irving to be an active Holocaust denier whose writings on the topic included both anti-Semitic and racist elements.

Despite the success of the Irving trial, online Holocaust denial has increased significantly in the past few years, says Lipstadt. "Deniers are attacking the entire history of the Holocaust piece by piece," she says. "Our site puts basic, easily accessible information into the hands of people encountering sophisticated content designed to confuse them."

At each of the new sites, visitors will be greeted by a complete parallel home page, site navigation and content in their language of choice. They will be able to search the site's database in the new languages as well.

The new sites are available at: arabic.hdot.org, farsi.hdot.org, russian.hdot.org and turkish.hdot.org or via www.hdot.org.

"This project significantly expands the reach of HDOT.org in regions of the world where a significant amount of Holocaust denial is happening," says Lipstadt.

In addition, HDOT.org has added significantly to its offering of more than 30 Myth/Fact sheets, available in all five languages. These Myth/Fact sheets address Holocaust denial head-on by listing various claims made about the Holocaust by deniers and providing the historical evidence that shows them to be false. Over the past two years, the Myth/Fact sheets have been HDOT.org's most popular destination.

HDOT creates new podcast series

In conjunction with this launch, HDOT also announces the creation of a new podcast series, available through Emory's iTunes University.

The series includes podcasts featuring such figures as Lipstadt, renowned Holocaust historian Saul Friedlander and professor Ken Waltzer, who uncovered fraud in a recent and highly publicized Holocaust memoir. The series also includes interviews with Michael Shermer, a professional skeptic and author of "Denying History," and Father John Pawlikowski, a veteran of Catholic-Jewish interfaith dialogue, speaking about recent events.

"As so much of the strategy that deniers employ involves spreading their falsehoods on the Internet, we worked with Professor Lipstadt to have scholarly, authoritative resources available in podcasts. Some of the most respected experts on denial on the Internet are interviewed," says Alan Cattier, Emory's director of Academic Technology Services.

The podcasts will form the core of several new lesson plans being produced for advanced high school and college courses that will help educators and the public approach the complex of social, historical, political and ideological issues that emerge in the study of Holocaust denial.

The launch was made possible by grants from the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany and the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties and other funders. The Taube Foundation for Jewish Life & Culture helped fund the podcast series. HDOT.org is made possible by significant grants from Angelica Berrie and the Russell Berrie Foundation, Gralla Family Philanthropic Fund, Yvette and Larry Gralla, Fern E. and William J. Lowenberg Fund, Leo Melamed Foundation, Mozel Charitable Trust, Joshua & Nirit Resnick Foundation, Sandler Family Philanthropic Fund and The Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation.

Ward Churchill and David Irving: Full of Hubris and Hoisted on their own Petard

2009-03-31T04:33:00.002-04:00

There is an interesting article by Walter Plywaski in The Daily Camera comparing the modus operandi of David Irving and Ward Churchill,

Churchill was fired from the University of Colorado for fabricating and plagiarizing in his published writings, sued the university, claiming he was "unfairly targeted for controversial remarks he made post-9/11. CU found him to be a plagiarist with poor academic integrity." (Daily Camera, March 3).

The author argues that

both Churchill and Irving exhibit the same kind of hubris: both felt, and feel, that nothing they could state, no matter how outrageous, could hurt them. Both of these two self-defined geniuses forgot the basic principle of being a successful prevaricator and that is: do not bring attention to yourself when you know perfectly well you have things that you wish to hide or at least not have generally discussed. Both of these two men used either bogus "historical research" works or, when unable to find data for their ideology, created the data out of whole cloth.

Regarding Churchill's court case, the author observes that

Churchill and his attorneys don't even bother to defend their case by solid evidence against the accusations of plagiarism, subterfuge and scholastic inappropriateness made by CU. Instead, their thrust seems to be to try to disregard such charges and claim that Churchill is being persecuted because of his merely unpopular (but very shrill!) article in which he claimed that the victims of the Twin Tower attack of 9/11 were nothing other but "little Eichmanns."

Both Irving and Churchill could have gone along spreading their nefarious lies and fabrications and, in Churchill's case, plagiarism [not one of Irving's "sins" as far as I know] had they not both been blinded by their hubris,

Had Irving not sued me, we would never have exposed the extent of his lies and distortions. Had Churchill not reveled in saying the outrageous there would not have been the in depth investigation of his plagiarism and his lies about his academic record.

[once again thanks to Sara Salzman for bringing this to my attention]

More Soft Core Denial

2009-03-29T05:13:00.005-04:00

In another indication that "soft-core" Holocaust denial is on the rise there is a story coming out of Brazil in which an Archbishop Dadeus Grings, from Porto Alegre in southern Brazil, told advertising magazine "Press & Advertising" on Friday:

"The Jews talk about six million people killed. But how many Catholics were victims of the Holocaust? They were 22 million in all."

According to the news reports the archbishop also said that while "Jews say they were the main victims of the Holocaust, the biggest victims were the gypsies, because they were exterminated."

This is pure historical gobbledygook. It is simply wrong. Many Christians were murdered but there was no plan to wipe out all Christians, particularly since it was Christians who were running the operation.

And gypsies were murdered. That is correct. But there was not a universal decision on the part of the German Third Reich to kill all gypsies [had the German won the war gypsies might well have been killed in their entirety and/or sterilized].

The difference between gypsies and Jews was that antisemitism -- hatred of Jews -- was the driving force of Nazi ideology.

In any case this Archbishop is one step away from Williamson, except that he is part of the mainstream Church. It will be interesting and telling to watch how the Vatican handles this.

Interestingly the Archbishop is from a German emigre family and is 72 years old.

Fanny Winkler z"l, Cremated in Terezin March 17 1944 [22 Adar]

2009-03-18T10:14:00.007-04:00

22 Adar 5769

I am currently in residence at the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. A friend of mine, Monica Katz, gave me the names of her grandparents and great grandparents to see if there were any records on them. Since they were from Austria the documentation is pretty complete. [It's much harder -- though not impossible -- to find information on family members from Poland or Russia.]

Yesterday I went into the Survivors Registry division of the Museum to find out if they had found anything. Megan, the researcher working on this project, showed me what she had, which includes deportation lists, emigration files, and a cremation card from Terezin for Monica's great grandmother, Fanny Winkler.

She printed out a copy of the card for me and, as I was walking back to my office, I noticed that the cremation date was March 17, 1944. Yesterday.

I looked up the equivalent date on the Hebrew calendar and it was the 22 of Adar, which began last night and continues through today until night. And, it turns out, her great great granddaughter Caroline's birthday is Adar 22.

So last night and today Fanny Winkler's great grandchildren in Atlanta and Montreal and great great grandchildren in New York, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Montreal and many other places were able to mark her death. This morning her great great granddaughter, Meira, was in synagogue saying kaddish for her.

All for the first time in 65 years.

May her memory be for a blessing.

Pope Benidict Aplogizes for Bishop Williamson Matter

2009-03-11T21:51:00.003-04:00

In what has been described as an unusally personal statement, the Pope has apologized for the Vatican's handling of the Williamson matter.

And for those who need a reminder of both the lies Williamson has spread and of the fact of just how much information about him was available, see all these collections of videos.

Holocaust Equivalency [Israel = Nazis] as a Form of Holocaust Denial

2009-03-07T11:19:00.006-05:00

I shall have much more to say about this in the near future but for the moment let me note that I am increasingly concerned about the soft-core forms of Holocaust denial one sees particularly in Europe.

Calling Israelis Nazis, comparing Israel's actions to genocide, and other such comments, show an ignorance of both contemporary and WWII history.

Whatever you may think about Israel's policies vis a vis the Palestinians, to compare it to the Holocaust is to distort what is going on today as well as what went on during WWII.

This picture, taken in Malmoe, the third largest city in Sweden, says it all. It reads
1941 Zyklon B 1945 Nuclear bomb
1965 Naplam 1983 Mustard gas [Iran/Iraq war?]
2009 White Phosphorous
[Thanks to Stéphane Bruchfeld for bringing this to my attention. He adds that the demonstration was by youth who clearly did not make the banner. Adults did.]

For Sale Hitler's Hair and Bones: No Comment Necessary

2009-03-07T04:48:00.005-05:00

This article from yesterday's Daily Telegraph speaks for itself:

Holocaust Denier David Irving Sets Up Nazi Memorabilia Website
The right-wing author, who was jailed in Austria for denying the Holocaust, says that the online store is the only way he can make money after being declared bankrupt in 2002.

Items up for sale on the site include Hitler's walking stick, available for £7,000, and a goblet and spoon given as a christening present by Heinrich Himmler to Hermann Goering's daughter, which can be bought for £4,000.

Irving authenticates the goods, which are offered by other sellers, and takes a 15 per cent cut commission.

The 70-year-old says he is currently trying to confirm the authenticity of bones said to be from Hitler and his girlfriend Eva Braun. Strands of the Fuhrer's hair are also expected to go on sale for £130,000.

[....]
Irving was unapologetic about his activities and said there was demand for "authenticated" Nazi memorabilia.

"I have a living to make and this is how I make my money...."

Letter in NY Times on Irving "the historian"

2009-03-05T05:01:00.004-05:00

I have a letter in today's New York Times. I was not surprised when I learned that so-called Bishop Williamson's first stop in the UK was to consult with David Irving. Birds of a feather flock together...

I was surprised that the Times chose to describe Irving as an historian.

To the Editor:
“Vatican Calls the Apology of a Bishop Insufficient” (news article, Feb. 28) reports that the Holocaust-denying Bishop Richard Williamson has consulted with David Irving. Mr. Irving is a fitting partner for him.
Strangely, Mr. Irving is described in the article as a “historian.” When he sued me for libel for calling him a Holocaust denier, the court ruled that his “falsification of the historical record was deliberate” and motivated by “ideological beliefs,” including anti-Semitism and racism.
The judge called Mr. Irving’s writings on the Holocaust “misleading,” “unjustified,” a “travesty” and “unreal.” He “perverts” and “distorts.” This is not the description of a historian. It is the description of a denier.
Deborah E. Lipstadt
Washington, Feb. 28, 2009
The writer is a professor of modern Jewish and Holocaust studies at Emory University.

LA Cardinal Mahoney Bars Williamson... for the Wrong Reasons

2009-03-05T04:42:00.003-05:00

Bishop Mahoney of the LA archdiocese has barred Williamson from from any Roman Catholic church, school or other facility in LA. Apparently this was Cardinal Mahoney's idea.

It is, of course, largely symbolic in that Williamson has not given any sign that LA was on his travel itinerary.

What I found jarring was the statement by the spokesman for the archdiocese. "The cardinal wishes to send a clear signal to the Jewish community that Williamson is not a member or even welcome in the Catholic Church until he renounces his views"

This should not be a message to the Jewish community but to all people who think truth is important -- irrespective of their faith,

It should be a message that people who lie about history, distort the truth, express antisemitic and racist views, and pervert facts in order to defend one of the most diabolical regimes in history are not welcome in the LA archdiocese.

Racists, for example, should be shunned not to send a message to minority communities but because racists spread hatred, instill contempt, and work against communal tranquility.

I don't mean to quibble over this strong statement on Cardinal Mahoney's part. But to do this and define it as a message to the "victims" is to miss the point.

Herman Rosenblat has Company in the World of Baseball: Another Fraudster

2009-03-03T15:40:00.004-05:00

Seems that a memoir by a former minor league baseball recruit -- who is now a doctor -- is quite fabricated. Attempts to fact check the stories have come up with all sorts of contradictions and falsifications.

The New York Times notes that the author is a graduate of Yale and of Harvard Medical School now working as an intern in the residency program at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia hospital in New York. This is a pretty serious pedigree.

Nonetheless

statistics from that season, transaction listings and interviews with his former teammates indicate that many portions of the book are incorrect, embellished or impossible.

Matt McCarthy, the author -- how would you like to have this guy for your doctor -- insists that the book, Odd Man Out, which is full of salacious stories about various baseball players, is true because it is how he remembers it and it is his reality....

Sound familiar? He could be reading from the Rosenblat/Salomon playbook.

Moreover, the paper notes

this scandal comes during a difficult period for the publishing industry, which has recently had three major memoirs — James Frey’s infamous “A Million Little Pieces” and the recollections of a Holocaust survivor and of an inner-city foster child — exposed as mostly fabricated. The authors of those books have acknowledged their fraud.

Please note the use of the words "fabricated" and the authors have "acknowledged their fraud."

I wonder if Harris Salomon is going to go after the Times and threaten a libel suit unless they print a retraction.

LOL

Delegation from Hollywood Goes to Iran: Did They Ask the Crucial Question?

2009-03-02T16:16:00.007-05:00

Seems that a group of Hollywood folks have gone off to Iran to make nice with fellow filmmakers. Iranian filmmakers are hoping to use this opportunity to expose them to Iranian films.

The Hollywood folks probably expected to sit and sing a round of Kumbaya. Instead they Iranian government demanded an apology for films that insulted Iran. Among those films was one about an American woman married to an Iranian man. The mother had to smuggle her daughter out of Iran when the Iranians would not let her leave with her. It's a true story... but I won't be surprised if the Hollywood delegation apologizes for it.

The attack on American films did not seem to phase some of the filmmakers. Phil Alden Robinson, director and writer of Field of Dreams, who rather dreamily declared that "today is my birthday and I cannot think of any other place I wanted to be other than here."

The NYTimes placed the story of the Hollywood folks' visit next to an article about an NPR reporter who has been arrested and detained by the Iranians. As of this morning nothing has been heard from her.

Did/ will the filmmakers ask about her?

Did/ will they make it clear that everything about their profession calls for freedom of creativity and freedom of the press?

Did/ will they even mention her?

Did/ will they say that nothing will change as long as Iran is one of the most dangerous places in the world for journalists?

I predict that they will return full of rapture for Iran and the wonderful country that it is. They will probably suggest we should ignore the Holocaust denial and threats against Israel and antisemitism that spews forth from that country. [And the open attacks on homosexuals.]

Ken Waltzer's Essay is Back on HNN Despite Harris Salomon's Best Efforts

2009-03-02T00:43:00.002-05:00

History News Network has posted Ken Waltzer's essay on Herman Rosenblat despite Harris Salomon's efforts to keep it off HNN. HNN's editors have also posted a response to Harris Salomon's complaints.

Revelations About the Toll Raoul Wallenberg's Disappearance Took on His Family and Sweden's Failure to Pursue It's Most Honored Citizen

2009-03-01T17:34:00.003-05:00

The Wall Street Journal has a lengthy article exposing the terrible toll the attempt to find out what happened to Raoul Wallenberg took on his family. It is a horrifying tale and reminiscent of the brutality of the Soviet regime [and post-Soviet as well... after all Putin could clear up the mystery in a nano-second].

In addition to the Soviets, who were the main culprits, Sweden failed to do much to pursue Wallenberg's fate. This constitutes an enduring blot on Sweden's reputation.

Wallenberg demonstrated how different the story of the Holocaust would have been had there been more people such as him.

Stern Magazine: "Bischof Williamson ist ein Idiot"

2009-02-28T18:49:00.003-05:00

Even for non-German speakers the headline "Bischof Williamson ist ein Idiot" in Stern magazine should be self explanatory. I must admit that, using -- as the magazine puts it -- American "directness," I provided the magazine with the headline.

It may have been a bit blunt.... but certainly seems accurate to me.

By the way, idiots can be dangerous too.

Lady Renouf Profiled in Times [London]: Williamson is Her Prize

2009-02-28T16:43:00.003-05:00

A profile of a woman who found her niche as a friend of members of the rogues gallery of Holocaust deniers and antisemites.

The United States Will NOT Participate in Durban II

2009-02-27T13:59:00.003-05:00

According to the JTA, the United States will not be participating in the Durban II conference. This is the right move. Durban I was an festival of antisemitism and hatred of Israel. Durban II promised to be more of the same.

When I was in London last week at an International Conference of Parliamentarians on Antisemitism, the Italian Foreign Minister said that if Durban II promises to be like Durban I, Italy would probably pull out.

This move by the United States probably means that Italy and other European nations will follow suit.

Canada long ago announced it was not going.

Here's Another Example of Racism

2009-02-27T12:21:00.003-05:00

Edited 3:58 p.m.
So some commenters have been asking "What's racism?" Here's another example provided in an email sent out by the Mayor of a Orange Country, California town.

The title of the email was "No Easter egg hunt this year."

The mayor claimed he did not know of the stereotype of Blacks and watermelons. That's reason enough for him not to be mayor. And he was dense enough to send it to a Black woman.

[Added: so if he did not know of the stereotype why did he put watermelons on the lawn of the White House. This guy is so dumb that his lies only dig his hole deeper.]

He apologized and resigned [more than we can say for so-called Bishop Williamson].

Vatican Not Satisfied With [Fooled by] Williamson's Pseudo- Apology

2009-02-27T10:58:00.004-05:00

Apparently even the Vatican was not satisfied with Williamson's "if I hurt you by saying what the evidence showed, I am sorry" apology.

The question is: Did Williamson think we were all stupid and would be hoodwinked by his so-called apology?

And who drafted it for him David Irving? Lady Renouf?

This guy is the gift that keeps on giving.... Though, truth be told, I would be happy to never hear of him again.

And -- to those who have asked -- he has never answered my email....

Bishop Williamson Sees the Light [Or So He Says... And I Have a Bridge in Brooklyn that's for Sale]

2009-02-26T13:50:00.004-05:00

Edited 3:09 p.m.

A few days ago in an interview with NPR, I said that I was sure Williamson would soon announce that he had "seen the light" and turned away from his Holocaust denial. And, as predicted, it has come to pass.

I am not sure if his SSPX colleagues had read him the riot act or threatened to throw him in the nearest river but it seems that that is precisely what has happened.

I give it as much gravitas as I do his claim the Holocaust is a myth.

[Added: In other words, lest there be any doubt: I do not take anything he says seriously. Were he do wish me a good morning, I would look out the window first to see if the sun were indeed up.]

Remember that one of the first people he contacted upon his return from Argentina was David Irving and his sidekick so-called Lady Renouf.

Here is the full text of his statement.

The Holy Father and my Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, have requested that I reconsider the remarks I made on Swedish television four months ago, because their consequences have been so heavy.

Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them.

On Swedish television I gave only the opinion (..."I believe"..."I believe"...) of a non-historian, an opinion formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available and rarely expressed in public since. However, the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St. Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused. To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said before God I apologise.

As the Holy Father has said, every act of injust violence against one man hurts all mankind.

+Richard Williamson
London, 26 February 2009.

History News Network Mystery Solved: Harris Salomon Strikes Again

2009-02-26T13:31:00.004-05:00

Seems that the reason Ken Waltzer's piece disappeared from the HNN is because Harris Salomon threatened a lawsuit. HNN simply crumbled. [See this post]

When I inquired the editor even said he was not sure Rosenblat falls under the public figure category [public figures cannot sue for libel in the US when the libel action relates to their public activities. That is why Irving waited to sue in the UK.]

I told him that anyone who goes on Oprah twice, gives speeches all over about his experience, pens a memoir, participates in a movie, appears on Good Morning America would have a very hard time claiming not to be a public figure.

Pretty distressing that the HNN folks backed down just like that.

A Survivor Excoriates Herman Rosenblat's Sidekick/ Handler, Harris Salomon

2009-02-25T12:57:00.007-05:00

[edited 2:41 p.m.]

Peter Kubicek, one of the survivors who had been calling Herman Rosenblat's bluff for a long time and could get no one to listen, has blogged about this travesty. He describes Rosenblat as a "pathological liar" but thinks he has become increasingly deluded.

Kubicek focuses his attention and his venom on Harris Salomon, the person many people believe is orchestrating this latest endeavor:

[...]
His interview [On Good Morning America] was boorishly interrupted by his handler, Mr. Harris Salomon, who simply imposed himself into the camera's view and started answering some of the question himself.

While many people view this entire fiasco as grist for the mills of Holocaust deniers, Salomon blithely asserted that without Rosenblat "the deniers would perpetuate some other stories." The sad fact is that deniers have already been treating this story as a gift that keeps on giving. They already use Rosenblat's own words as proof that Jews lie, all Jews lie, and that the Holocaust itself "was nothing but a pile of Zionist B.S.," as one site triumphantly crows.

[...]
Salomon is now the grand puppeteer pulling Rosenblat's strings and the deus ex machina of the current situation. If Salomon really had Rosenblat's interest at heart, he would see to it that this poor, deluded old man gets proper psychiatric care instead of exposing him to further public ridicule.

News Flash: France Accepts Responsibility for Its Participation in Holocaust Deportations

2009-02-25T05:57:00.007-05:00

I should have posted this earlier. However, since it took France's highest court 67 years to come to the conclusion that it bears responsibility for having organized and carried out the deportations during the war, I guess a few days delay is not a horrendous thing.

If you look at pictures of the famous Paris round up in 1942 you will search in vain for German soldiers or SS men. You will see only French police. [At the trains where Jews are being loaded in the cattle cars you do see Germans but the round ups were conducted by French.]

At the same as acknowledging that the deportations were in French hands the court also ruled that the deportations had been "compensated for" since 1945, apparently ruling out reparations for deportees or their families.

Bishop Williamson on the Way to the UK to Meet So-Called Lady Renouf and David Irving

2009-02-24T18:42:00.004-05:00

According to the London Times, Bishop Williamson is on his way to the UK where he will meet up with David Irving's buddy Lady Renouf, who simultaneously denied she is an antisemite and yet describes Judaism as a "pugnant and hate-filled religion”

He has turned to Irving for advice on how to understand the history of the Holocaust. According to the Times Irving and Williamson have been in e-mail contact.

“About a week ago I sent him a lengthy e-mail telling him what he could safely say. He should not be quoted as saying things which are not tenable. I sent two pages telling him what is incontrovertible fact. I got a message back thanking me.”

I predicted that he would "see the light" in order to help smooth SSSX's way into the Vatican's good graces. I was, it appears, very very wrong.

This guy may emerge as Irving's successor.

Professor Ken Waltzer's Essay Disappears from History News Network

2009-02-24T18:03:00.008-05:00

I have removed Ken Waltzer's essay because a revised version is now back up on the History News Network.

The Reader: A Pernicious Book and Movie

2009-02-22T05:47:00.004-05:00

Let's get this out of the way at the outset: Kate Winslet gives a great performance in The Reader and the book is a decent but airy read [if you ignore the premise].

Now let's get on to substance. The basic premise of the book and the movie are deeply troubling. Note that the Nazi camp guard is portrayed as the poor, simple, caring woman.

Are we supposed to feel sorry for her because she could not read and had "no choice" but to be a guard? She could have been a street sweeper. She did not have "no choice."

Furthermore, the book and movie suggests that the perpetrators were poor ignorant people. This is such a misstatement of fact and the author, Bernard Schlink, as a German knows better.

Many of the leading perpetrators had Ph.D.s or were clergy and lawyers. They were well educated and quite literate. [In fact, certain section of the party specifically sought out well educated people.]

Finally, note the sharp contrast drawn by the survivor -- very rich [note the maid, the stretch limo, and the art work] and adament in her refusal to offer forgiveness or absolution -- and the poor guard who has nothing. Who is the victim, according to Schlink, here???*

This is a rewriting of history. It is, simply put, soft core denial. It does not deny the reality or the horror of the Holocaust. Not at all. But it does deny who was responsible.

Because it is so slippery I consider it a pernicious book and movie.

[Thanks to Dr. Leah Wolfson, my -- I am proud to say -- former student and now at the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies for thinking this through with me. She pointed out that the book/movie seem to want to suggest that literature is redemptive which we know is not necessarily the case.]

* Case in point: a friend who saw the movie said he did felt really sorry Hannah and was sort of rooting for her.... [granted that this friend is at all well versed in the history of the Holocaust].

The Voice of America Speaks to Three Jews and Declares a Trend

2009-02-22T05:13:00.003-05:00

The Voice of America has a strange article on its website. Entitled "World Jewish Leaders Praise Argentina's Decision to Expel Holocaust-Denying Bishop," it quotes precisely 3 leaders of Jewish organizations and declares a vast trend.

Is this the result of lazy reporting or an assumption that if 3 leaders of Jewish organizations think this is a good thing then all Jews agree? Case in point: I don't necessarily agree

Has the reporter never heard: "3 Jews,6 opinions"?

It should be noted that Argentina's government says that he was expelled because he did not inform the government of the true reason for his presence in the country and not because of his denial.

It should be noted that he is a visitor in the country so the country has the right to expel him.

Whether it is something Jews -- leaders or otherwise -- should be celebrating is another question.

Bishop Williamson's Long Track Record of Offensive Statements

2009-02-21T03:36:00.003-05:00

According to Michael Paulson writing in the Boston Globe Williamson has been teaching antisemtism and misogyny since the 1980s. Two young seminarians encountered him when they enrolled in a small schismatic seminary in Connecticut. It was the kind of place where Mass was in Latin and modernity the enemy.

One of their teachers was Williamson who they found to be "an unabashed anti-Semite who was dismissive of the Holocaust and hostile to women."

[...]
"I have a sizable nose, and he would say to me, 'Rizzo, are you baptized, or are you a Jew?' " John Rizzo, who is now based in New Zealand, said in a phone interview from Australia. "There was another seminarian named Oppenheimer, and he would say: 'Oppenheimer, I don't like your name. If you keep it up, there's a gas chamber waiting for you at the boathouse.' "
[...]
"He called the Holocaust the biggest theatrics known to mankind - I remember sitting in a conference one time when he said those words, ...said Joseph Rizzo.
"I walked around the lake with him, and I said, 'Why would you say that?' and he said, 'There's no documentation.' He said it was all staged, and when I asked why, he said because the Jews own the country, they own the banks, and he felt it was some kind of effort to generate some sympathy toward them."
[...]
In 1989, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigated the bishop, but did not press charges, after he told an audience in Quebec: "There was not one Jew killed in the gas chamber. It was all lies, lies, lies." He has also questioned whether terrorists were behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and has suggested that women should not wear pants.

"How a British jihadi saw the light"

2009-02-20T06:25:00.002-05:00

Ed Hussain has written a powerful account of his stay in Saudi Arabia. Once a prominent proponent of radical Islam in London was changed by his time teaching in Saudi Arabia.

Bishop Williamson Ejected from Argentina

2009-02-20T03:16:00.002-05:00

The government of Argentina has ejected Bishop Williamson from the country. The officials gave two reason: his denial and his having lied as to why he came to the country.

I think Williamson is a low life. That should be clear to any, even casual, reader of this blog.

However, I am not so sure he should be ejected for his denial.

My prediction: Williamson will be depicted as a victim and a martyr for free speech.

I don't think he is either but this actions gives him the cover to do so.

NYPost Apologizes... Sort of

2009-02-20T02:51:00.002-05:00

The New York Post has apologized for the cartoon... sort of. Here is what the paper had to say:

Wednesday's Page Six cartoon - caricaturing Monday's police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut - has created considerable controversy.
It shows two police officers standing over the chimp's body: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," one officer says.

It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill.

Period.

But it has been taken as something else - as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism.

This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize.

However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past - and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.

To them, no apology is due.

Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon - even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.

New York Post Prints Blatantly Racist Cartoon

2009-02-19T08:27:00.003-05:00

The New York Post has published a blatantly racist cartoon showing two policemen shooting a monkey and then saying, "They will have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

Whether the NYPost meant it to be racist or not is almost irrelevant. The fact that Blacks have been regularly stereotyped with images of apes and monkeys is undeniable. It is as fundamental part of that stereotype as large noses and money bags are of the Jewish stereotype.

The fact that it was juxtaposed with a picture of President Obama signing the bill did not help the NYPost's claims that the monkey did not mean Obama. [There was a pet monkey shot in NY a few days ago but that does not explain away or excuse the racist elements of the cartoon.]

This is what the editor of the paper said in trying to justify the cartoon:

"The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy."

The explanation does not fly and NYPost, which even if it did not mean it to be racist [I know it is a long shot but just maybe], rather than try to justify itself, should apologize.

And those folks who are rightfully sensitive to use of antisemitic stereotypes should make their voice heard.

Bishop Williamson's Society for St. Pius X: A Pernicious Group

2009-02-19T05:38:00.002-05:00

The Guardian [London] has an excellent background piece -- actually long letter -- by Andrew Horn of Harvard about the SSSX, the group with which Williamson is associated. It lays out the really pernicious quality of this group.

As I have repeatedly said on this blog, Williamson's denial is almost minor [and for me to say that is quite something] when placed within the larger context of all else they believe and do.

Has "Good Morning America" Lost its Mind and Its Integrity

2009-02-17T13:52:00.004-05:00

London
I write this from London so I don't know if this segment has aired already but I am just flabbergasted.

I understand that GMA is going to run a segment featuring Herman Rosenblat, who lied repeatedly about his Holocaust experience, and his film producer, Harris Salomon, who told me he knows more about the Holocaust than I do [could be... but I somehow doubt it since he was peddling this as a true story for a long time]

Even more egregiously, Salomon tried to silence Professor Ken Waltzer from publishing his own research on this matter. Salomon, wrote to the president and deans of Michigan State trying to intimidate them into silencing Waltzer.

Now he is trying, once again, to make a buck off of Rosenblat's lies and falsehoods.

Over the past year friends of the Rosenblats have written to me in concern about what this has done to them. I expressed some sympathy. I thought they were pretty off balance folks but so be it....

Now they go on with their story but have issued no apologies to the myriad of people -- including their own family -- to whom they have caused great pain.

And Good Morning America becomes a tool by giving their sleazy producer publicity.

Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops: Unequivocal Condemnation of Williamson

2009-02-17T01:20:00.002-05:00

For the strong statement by the Canadian Bishops on Williamson's Holocaust denial see here.

Thanks to my friend and wonderful sleuth Harry Mazal for alerting me to this.

Spike in Antisemitism in the UK in January

2009-02-17T01:14:00.004-05:00

I am currently in London at a international Parliamentary conference on antisemitism. More on that later.

But this BBC report on what is happening here in the UK is relevant.

Holocaust Denier Lady Renof Exposed as a Liar, Falsifier of Her Own History, Denier, and [no surprise] Hater of Jews

2009-02-15T07:53:00.005-05:00

There is great example of in depth journalism by Andrew Landeryou exposing, yet again, Lady Renouf, who during my trial we dubbed Brunhilda and who spent her time fawning over Irving.

The first photo is her swooning over Ahmadinejad at the Tehran conference and the second is her doing the same with Robert Faurisson.

The So-Called "New" Antisemitism: How New? What's New?

2009-02-13T06:28:00.002-05:00

See Patterns of Prejudice for an interesting analysis of the topic by Jonathan Judaken.

The Rise of Antisemitism: The Collusion of the Left

2009-02-13T06:05:00.003-05:00

One of the comments I received on the post about Jonathan Freedland's article was "1300 Palestinians were killed."

[Has anyone verified these numbers? Remember the initial reports of a massacre in Jenin? The results of a check was that approximately 50 Palestinians and 26 Israeli soldiers were killed. The out of proportion was on the Israeli side.]

My response was to ask if this justified antisemitism.

Now from Michael Trapido in South Africa comes a similar critique.

Rise of Antisemitic Incidents in the UK: The Facts are Stark

2009-02-13T04:46:00.003-05:00

The Community Security Trust, a group which monitors security for the UK Jewish Community, reports a steep rise of antisemitic incidents in the past month in the UK.

CNN: Reflections on the Impact of Williamson on Catholic Jewish Relations

2009-02-12T11:01:00.001-05:00

Check out article on CNN website.

European Antisemitism: Ominous Signs and Silence from the Left

2009-02-12T05:48:00.004-05:00

In my attention to the Bishop Williamson matter I have really been negligent about addressing another more important topic: the rise of antisemitism in Europe.

There has been a survey by ADL which finds that a significant portion of Europeans blame the financial mess on Jews. I have no idea who conducted the survey and how the questions were structured [this would impact the outcome] or if one can draw a conclusion about an entire Continent from surveying 3,500 people.

But it is still disturbing. I hope others use this finding to do more research.

On this issue, I strongly recommend Jonathan Freedland's article in the Guardian.

In it Freedland notes that after 9/11 and 7/7 [the date of the London bombings] the British liberal left massed and strongly protested any hostility to Muslims. They were saying to European Muslims and particularly those in the UK: you do not stand alone. They called upon their fellow Britons to be "careful in their language, not to generalise from a few individuals to an entire community, to make clear to Britain's Muslims that they were a welcome part of the national life."

Freedland believes this was the right reaction. Yet he notes that, in the wake of the Gaza operation [which he opposed from the outset], liberals have remained eerily silent even as "British Jews have indeed come under attack."

In the four weeks after the Gaza operation began there was an eightfold increase in antisemitic incidents in Britain compared with the same period a year earlier."

There were "attacks on synagogues, including arson, and physical assaults on Jews. One man was set upon in Golders Green, north London, by two men who shouted, 'This is for Gaza', as they punched and kicked him to the ground."

There has been "Blood-curding graffiti" including slogans such as "Slay the Jewish pigs", and "Kill the Jews", to "Jewish bastardz."

Jewish schools are on high alert.

In the face of this real threat the British left has been virtual silent.

But, Freedland goes on, this is more than a sin of omission.

Take last month's demonstrations against Israel. Riazat Butt, the Guardian's religious affairs correspondent, describes in a joint edition of the Guardian's Islamophonic and Sounds Jewish podcasts how at one demo she heard the cry not only of "Down with Israel" but "Kill Jews". An anti-war protest in Amsterdam witnessed chants of: "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas."
At the London events, there were multiple placards deploying what has now become a commonplace image: the Jewish Star of David equated with the swastika. From the podium George Galloway declared: "Today, the Palestinian people in Gaza are the new Warsaw ghetto, and those who are murdering them are the equivalent of those who murdered the Jews in Warsaw in 1943."
Now what, do you imagine, is the effect of repeating, again and again, that Israel is a Nazi state? Even those with the scantest historical knowledge know that the Nazis are the embodiment of evil to which the only appropriate response is hate. How surprising is it if a young man, already appalled by events in Gaza, walks home from a demo and glimpses the Star of David - which he now sees as a latter-day swastika - outside a synagogue and decides to torch the building, or at least desecrate it? Yet Galloway, along with Livingstone, who was so careful in July 2005, did not hesitate to make the comparison (joined by a clutch of Jewish anti-Israel activists who should know better).

For liberals those Jews who dissociate themselves from Israel are acceptable. Those who don't are "fair game for abuse and attack until they publicly recant."

But they don't ask Muslims to explain jihadism or renounce Islamic extremism. Asking them to do so is seen as unenlightened.

Bishop Williamson is a gnat -- if not lower than that -- compared to this.

Saul Friedlander: A Weaver of History and Memory

2009-02-10T05:19:00.003-05:00

Last night Professor Saul Friedlander spoke at Emory. I had the privilege of introducing him. Some of the people present asked me to post my remarks. Here they are:

When I first encountered Saul Friedlander in 1978 he broke my heart. Over the course of the next many years, as I came to know him as a colleague and a friend, I quickly recognized that there was so much he had to teach us about the history and historiography of the Holocaust. Then in 2007, he did it again. He broke my heart.

In 1978 it was my reading of his small, but critically acclaimed When Memory Comes, which left me so shattered. In the still small voice of a young boy, Friedlander tells his own story. This simple-yet- complex, mature-yet-childlike story is rightfully considered one of the great memoirs of the period.

In addition he has added to our storehouse of knowledge with, among others, Probing the Limits of Representation, Reflections of Nazism, History and Psychoanalysis, Kurt Gerstein, and Pius XII and the Third Reich. He spent 16 years writing his most recent two volumes, Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1933-1941 and The Years of Extermination, 1941-1944. They provide a sweeping – yet in-depth – analysis of the entire period. The latter won the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction. As someone who teaches courses on the history of the Holocaust, I was delighted to learn that Orna Kenan has just completed an abridged version – 450 pages – of these two books.

Born in Prague, Friedlander and his family came to France in 1940. When the Nazi vise grew tighter, his parents placed him a Catholic boarding school and attempted to escape to Switzerland. They were turned back, arrested, and ultimately murdered at Auschwitz. Friedlander, not fully aware of his own identity, seriously considered converting to Catholicism. When he discovered his own past, he became a Zionist and eventually immigrated to Israel on the Irgun ship "Altalena".

His contribution to our field is so vast and multi-faceted that it is hard to summarize it. Yet in the interests of brevity, because you have come to hear from Saul Friedlander and not about Saul Friedlander, let me focus on two aspects of his work.

In The Years of Extermination, -- with its all-encompassing analysis of the broad swatch of events that comprised the Shoah, he synthesizes the research of a myriad of scholars. In so doing, Professor Friedlander demonstrates that synthesis in the hands of a master historian is an art. After weaving together their research, he then, in his own voice, not only adds to it, but enhances and deepens what they have taught us. It is this book which so devastated me.

He can do in a single paragraph or even a sentence, what others cannot do in entire books. Let me illustrate with one selection from the book:

Not one social group, not one religious community; not one scholarly institution or professional association in Germany and throughout Europe declared its solidarity with the Jews (some of the Christian churches declared that converted Jews were part of the flock up to a point), to the contrary many social constituencies, many power groups were directly involved in the expropriation of Jews and anxious, be it out of greed, for their wholesale disappearance. Thus Nazi and anti-Jewish policies could unfold to their most extreme levels without the interference of any major countervailing influences..

The other aspect of his work and the topic upon which he will focus tonight is his insistence that to tell the history of the Holocaust one must include the voice of the victim. There are historians who have, not only ignored that voice, but argued that it is unreliable and must, therefore, be eschewed. Saul Friedlander says, au contraire: the documents and printed record may be crucial, but without the personal perspective the story is incomplete.

We are exceptionally grateful that with all the demands on his time he has agreed to include us on his schedule. We are grateful for that but we – both those of us in this field and all of us who treasure great scholarship – are even more grateful that when memory came, it came to a man who tells the story of this event with the rigor and unparalleled excellence of a master historian and the sensitivity of a person whose life has been marked by it.

Many historians have grappled with telling this story but about Saul Friedlander we can say, paraphrasing the Book of Proverbs, ata alita al kulam, you have surpassed them all.

Williamson Begins to Look for a Graceful Exit

2009-02-09T13:46:00.003-05:00

In an interview with Der Spiegel, Williamson is beginning to try to find a graceful exit.

The problem is that he presents himself as having been "convinced" by the documentation he read in the 1990s. Anyone who would have encountered such stuff and was not anxious to climb aboard the denial bandwagon who have said: "Whoa, I better check these guys out" rather than jumping on their bandwagon whole hog.

Actually, if the SSPX did not have Williamson they would have to invent him. He has taken the spotlight off of their very particularistic views.

Williamson Dismissed as Head of SSPX Seminary in Argentina

2009-02-09T10:32:00.002-05:00

According to Fox News the SSPX has dismissed Williamson as head of its seminary in Argentina. [I hope they will still deliver his mail. See previous post.]

The more this thing is drawn out, the more it seems that this is actually a bonus for the SSPX. it draws attention to one man and away from their more noxious views on Jews and conspiracies and the like.

My Letter [Email] to Bishop Williamson: You Asked for Proof?

2009-02-08T07:20:00.009-05:00

[Edited 8:7 a.m. See note at end]

In the face of demands by Pope Benedict that he recant his denial, Bishop Williamson says he is going to wait until he finds "proof" of the Holocaust.

In that spirit I have sent the following letter [email] to the Bishop. I promise to let you know if I get an answer.

YourExcellency@dinoscopus.com

It has come to my attention that you are looking for "proof" of the Holocaust. Let me assure you that such proof exists in reams.

The most expeditious means for you to determine that all the "claims" you have made both on your webpage and in interviews are completely bogus would be to read, in its entirety, the verdict of Judge Charles Gray who presided in David Irving v. Penguin UK and Deborah Lipstadt. The judgment can be found at http://www.hdot.org/trial/judgement

You will see there that each of your arguments is shown to be based on bogus documents, fabrications of evidence, or misinformation. This is what we call in common parlance: lies.

Other links can be found on my blog where we have prepared an extensive, point by point, refutation of your claims. This will also take you the Myths and Facts section of www.hdot.org, where you will find even more refutations of your various claims about the gassing process.

You may also want to visit to the Holocaust History Project, where you will find yet additional refutations.

Finally, I also suggest you read the expert report of Robert Jan van Pelt who carefully demolishes the various claims you and other deniers make about the gassing process.

You will see that your arguments are based on false and mistaken suppositions. In short, sir, there is no dearth of evidence. There is only a dearth of willingness to remove the blinders from one's eyes.

Professor Deborah E. Lipstadt, Ph.D.
Emory University
Atlanta, Ga.

* Since first posting this my email has bounced back. I have sent a copy of the letter to the Argentinian headquarters of the SSPX, where Williamson is apparently currently based. I will also send one to the headquarters.

Internal Vatican Politics: Who Has the Upper Hand?

2009-02-08T07:11:00.004-05:00

Der Spiegel has an interestng analysis of how this whole SSPX matter has brought aspects of internal Catholic "politics" to a head. [Before some readers jump on me for using the word politics please note: I put it in quotation marks. Also every entity -- family, commercial, social, religious -- runs on politics]

Double Disaster at the Vatican: Indepth Analysis

2009-02-05T05:28:00.004-05:00

There are two in depth analyses of the Vatican situation, one in the New York Times, which discusses how the reinstatement of the SSPX by the Vatican exposes deep divisions within the Vatican.

In addition Sandro Magister, a correspondent for the weekly magazine L’Espresso and one of Italy’s most highly respected Vatican experts, offered extensive background on this "tempest" which he describes a double disaster of “governance and communication” within the church.

I follow with excerpts from both articles.

The New York Times observed that while Pope Benedict has faced challenges before

the internal controversy created by Bishop Williamson’s rehabilitation is unlike anything the Vatican has faced in recent decades.

It also observed that Wednesday’s unsigned statement calling on Williamson to reject his Holocaust denial

publicly seemed to be a clear indication that the Vatican was facing nothing less than an internal and external political crisis.

The Wednesday statement also clearly addressed questions about what conditions the society would have to meet before being allowed back into the fold.

Most importantly it would have to offer its “full recognition of the Second Vatican Council” to receive “recognition” by the church.

The most interesting part of the article comes at the end where it attempts to explain how this maelstrom came to be.

Conversations with a variety of people inside and outside the Vatican portray an intellectual pope increasingly isolated from the Vatican administration. Many point to a lack of communication between the handful of cardinals responsible for revoking the excommunications and other members of the curia who might have opposed the move.

It is also quite striking that there was no consultation with Cardinal Walter Kasper, a German who directs the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and who is the liaison for Vatican-Jewish relations. Kasper has publicly said:

There were certainly management errors on the part of the curia.

* * * *

Sandro Magister writing on his blog described this as a "disaster" and said that in this situation

Pope Benedict XVI found himself to be the one most exposed, and practically alone

Magister explains at great length how, for the Pope, this is all about healing of schisms.

However, because of Vatican ineptitude that issue was lost in headlines world over that said: the pope clears a Holocaust denier bishop from excommunication, and welcomes him into the Church.

In response the Vatican went "scrambling for cover," with media statements.

Magister goes on to ask was this tempest "inevitable," or was it the result of "errors and omissions of the men who are supposed to implement the pope's decisions."

Magister comes down on the side of the second hypothesis.

Those Cardinals who were responsible said they did not know about Williamson's denial. Magister points out that a click on Google would have shown them that in 1989, in Canada, he openly praised Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel and that he was a 9/11 denier.

There were other failures in the Vatican as well. The press office did not handle matters well.
He delineates many other serious lapses.

Magister traces this back to the offices of the curia which "converge in the secretariat of state." He goes into a fascinating analysis of the Secretary of State.

There's a great mystery novel embedded in all this...

And a terrible leadership disaster for the Vatican.

My guess -- and that is all it is -- is that Pope Benedict will emerge from this weakened and unable to regroup.

Williamson was Denying in 1989

2009-02-04T19:51:00.005-05:00

Edited on Thursday, 2/5 8:15 a.m.

According to the Forward, in 1989 Williamson said the following when hegave a speech at Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes church in Sherbrooke, Canada,

There was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies. The Jews created the Holocaust so we would prostrate ourselves on our knees before them and approve of their new State of Israel.

And no one in the Vatican knew????

[After reading the two in depth comments about the way in which the Vatican functions, about which I blogged earlier today, I have come to believe that they indeed might not have known.
Some may think this "exonerates" the Vatican. In some way it does. On the other hand it demonstrates how out of touch the institution is...]

The Vatican Gets the Message and Tells Williamson to Recant

2009-02-04T13:18:00.004-05:00

Apparently the Vatican has come to recognize what a terrible mess it has gotten itself into. Chancellor Merkel's unequivocal condemnation may have helped them see the light. Merkel dismissed the Pope's previous comments as not "sufficient."

For her there were no ifs or buts. There was just make it clear you think he is a liar.

Well now the Vatican has called on him -- in unequivocal terms -- to recant. The statement, issued today by the Vatican Secretariat of State, said that Williamson “must absolutely, unequivocally and publicly distance himself from his positions on the Shoah,” which it said were “unknown to the Holy Father at the time he revoked the excommunication.”

The more I learn about the SSPX, the less worried I am about Williamson's denial and the more worried I become about their blatant antisemitism.

[I do not think the Pope is the least bit antisemitic. I do think he was willing to tolerate these views in the name of Church unity.]

For the BBC coverage see here.

Father of Slain Wall Stree Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl on Contemporary Terorism

2009-02-04T05:31:00.004-05:00

Stop Making Excuses for Terror

By JUDEA PEARL

Wall Street Journal 2/3/09

This week marks the seventh anniversary of the murder of our son, former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. My wife Ruth and I wonder: Would Danny have believed that today's world emerged after his tragedy?

Reuters/Corbis

Jimmy Carter.

The answer does not come easily. Danny was an optimist, a true believer in the goodness of mankind. Yet he was also a realist, and would not let idealism bend the harshness of facts.

Neither he, nor the millions who were shocked by his murder, could have possibly predicted that seven years later his abductor, Omar Saeed Sheikh, according to several South Asian reports, would be planning terror acts from the safety of a Pakistani jail. Or that his murderer, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now in Guantanamo, would proudly boast of his murder in a military tribunal in March 2007 to the cheers of sympathetic jihadi supporters. Or that this ideology of barbarism would be celebrated in European and American universities, fueling rally after rally for Hamas, Hezbollah and other heroes of "the resistance." Or that another kidnapped young man, Israeli Gilad Shalit, would spend his 950th day of captivity with no Red Cross visitation while world leaders seriously debate whether his kidnappers deserve international recognition.

No. Those around the world who mourned for Danny in 2002 genuinely hoped that Danny's murder would be a turning point in the history of man's inhumanity to man, and that the targeting of innocents to transmit political messages would quickly become, like slavery and human sacrifice, an embarrassing relic of a bygone era.

But somehow, barbarism, often cloaked in the language of "resistance," has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society. The words "war on terror" cannot be uttered today without fear of offense. Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil.

I believe it all started with well-meaning analysts, who in their zeal to find creative solutions to terror decided that terror is not a real enemy, but a tactic. Thus the basic engine that propels acts of terrorism -- the ideological license to elevate one's grievances above the norms of civilized society -- was wished away in favor of seemingly more manageable "tactical" considerations.

This mentality of surrender then worked its way through politicians like the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. In July 2005 he told Sky News that suicide bombing is almost man's second nature. "In an unfair balance, that's what people use," explained Mr. Livingstone.

But the clearest endorsement of terror as a legitimate instrument of political bargaining came from former President Jimmy Carter. In his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," Mr. Carter appeals to the sponsors of suicide bombing. "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Road-map for Peace are accepted by Israel." Acts of terror, according to Mr. Carter, are no longer taboo, but effective tools for terrorists to address perceived injustices.

Mr. Carter's logic has become the dominant paradigm in rationalizing terror. When asked what Israel should do to stop Hamas's rockets aimed at innocent civilians, the Syrian first lady, Asma Al-Assad, did not hesitate for a moment in her response: "They should end the occupation." In other words, terror must earn a dividend before it is stopped.

The media have played a major role in handing terrorism this victory of acceptability. Qatari-based Al Jazeera television, for example, is still providing Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi hours of free air time each week to spew his hateful interpretation of the Koran, authorize suicide bombing, and call for jihad against Jews and Americans.

Then came the August 2008 birthday of Samir Kuntar, the unrepentant killer who, in 1979, smashed the head of a four-year-old Israeli girl with his rifle after killing her father before her eyes. Al Jazeera elevated Kuntar to heroic heights with orchestras, fireworks and sword dances, presenting him to 50 million viewers as Arab society's role model. No mainstream Western media outlet dared to expose Al Jazeera efforts to warp its young viewers into the likes of Kuntar. Al Jazeera's management continues to receive royal treatment in all major press clubs.

Some American pundits and TV anchors didn't seem much different from Al Jazeera in their analysis of the recent war in Gaza. Bill Moyers was quick to lend Hamas legitimacy as a "resistance" movement, together with honorary membership in PBS's imaginary "cycle of violence." In his Jan. 9 TV show, Mr. Moyers explained to his viewers that "each [side] greases the cycle of violence, as one man's terrorism becomes another's resistance to oppression." He then stated -- without blushing -- that for readers of the Hebrew Bible "God-soaked violence became genetically coded." The "cycle of violence" platitude allows analysts to empower terror with the guise of reciprocity, and, amazingly, indict terror's victims for violence as immutable as DNA.

When we ask ourselves what it is about the American psyche that enables genocidal organizations like Hamas -- the charter of which would offend every neuron in our brains -- to become tolerated in public discourse, we should take a hard look at our universities and the way they are currently being manipulated by terrorist sympathizers.

At my own university, UCLA, a symposium last week on human rights turned into a Hamas recruitment rally by a clever academic gimmick. The director of the Center for Near East Studies carefully selected only Israel bashers for the panel, each of whom concluded that the Jewish state is the greatest criminal in human history.

The primary purpose of the event was evident the morning after, when unsuspecting, uninvolved students read an article in the campus newspaper titled, "Scholars say: Israel is in violation of human rights in Gaza," to which the good name of the University of California was attached. This is where Hamas scored its main triumph -- another inch of academic respectability, another inroad into Western minds.

Danny's picture is hanging just in front of me, his warm smile as reassuring as ever. But I find it hard to look him straight in the eyes and say: You did not die in vain.

Mr. Pearl, a professor of computer science at UCLA, is president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, founded in memory of his son to promote cross-cultural understanding.

Samuel Kassow's Who Will Write Our History

2009-02-04T04:57:00.004-05:00

I have blogged about Samuel Kassow's Who Will Write Our History?, his book on Emanuel Ringelblum's work to preserve the history of the Warsaw Ghetto. It is a powerful book.

Kassow was on the Leonard Lopate show yesterday. The interview can be heard here.

There was also a laudatory review of the book in the New Republic.

Professor Martin Marty on Pope Benedict's Actions

2009-02-03T04:45:00.004-05:00

Professor Martin Marty of University of Chicago has written an interesting essay [Sightings] on the Papal decision to reinstate the Society of Pope Pius X.

It includes much information already post on this site, but concludes with the following musing:

How and why did he get into this situation?

Theories abound, as they did when the Vatican-Muslim flap occurred. This time is different, says Father Oakes, since the offenders are not medieval Byzantine rulers (as in the Muslim case) but living, breathing excommunicated schismatics for whom the pope will do anything, including offend the whole Jewish world and millions of bystanders, among them those who do remember the Holocaust, in order to reincorporate Bishop Williamson and his three Episcopal leaders in the Pius X society.

Put simply, as Father Oakes and numerous Catholic commentators have thus put it: Benedict XVI has such a horror of schism that he and his team can let almost anything else go-including Pius X Society's insults to the Vatican II bishops and their successors, and interpretations of Catholicism which the previous pope and team adjudged to be heretical-in order to stall or demolish schismatic movements. Is Benedict XVI, such a learned and informed and open-intentioned scholar, too much the German with his historian-fed memories of Martin Luther and other 16th century "schismatics" and an inordinate fear of repetition?

We'll wait and see.

Professor Marty's conjecture reaffirms my view, i.e. that the Pope did not not care [that's not a typo] about the fact that the Society has some weird views. He may have specifically known about Williamson's denial [probably did]. But all this paled in importance next to the issue of schismatic movements.

Bring them in at all costs, he may well have thought, and everything else will sort itself out.

Vatican Reinstatement: Op-Ed

2009-02-01T07:12:00.002-05:00

Back to the Dark Ages
by Professor Deborah Lipstadt

www.aish.com/societyWork/society/Back_to_the_Dark_Ages.asp

The Vatican has done far more than set back Vatican/Jewish relations. It has made itself look like it is living in the darkest of ages.

Pope Benedict XVI has reinstated as a bishop a man who both denies the Holocaust and suggests that 9/11 was an American plot. He has done so, it is reported, in order to strengthen relations with a renegade segment of the Catholic Church. This is one of those inexplicable moves that has left many people asking "Have they no decency?" A more basic and, possibly even more appropriate question would be. "Have they no common sense?"

A number of commentators have observed that this will "complicate" Vatican-Jewish relations and will make it more difficult for Israel and the Vatican to come to an agreement about a papal visit in the near future. All this may be true, but that is an exceptionally narrow way of looking at the implications of this move. Simply put, it makes the Vatican look as if it is once again living in the most unenlightened of ages.

Holocaust denial is an explicit form of antisemitism. It has no purpose but to inculcate contempt for Jews. According to deniers Jews use the Holocaust to win the world's sympathy and, in the course of so doing, win reparations from Germany and political support for Israel. Such a charge, based as it is the imagery of money and political manipulation, hearkens back to traditional antisemitic stereotypes. Why a pope would want to give support to such a movement is baffling. More baffling, however, is why a pope would want to associate the Vatican with someone who preaches lies and manipulations of history.

In 2000 I spent ten weeks in a British court because Holocaust denier David Irving charged that I had libeled him by calling him a denier and an antisemite. My legal team traced Irving's comments and claims about the Holocaust backed to their sources. We followed the footnotes. In every case we found some form of invention, manipulation, distortion, and deletion. The documents that he claimed "proved" that the Holocaust did not happen did no such thing. His wrongs were so egregious that the judge, in a sweeping condemnation of Irving, used language not often heard in a British legal decision. Irving, the judge wrote, "perverts," and "distorts." His statements about the Holocaust were "misleading," "unjustified," "a travesty," and "unreal."

But there was more to it than just that. This was not happenstance or a series of improbable mistakes. Irving's "falsification of the historical record was deliberate and ... motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence."

Holocaust deniers rely on a merry-go-round of "I will cite you and you will cite me." Irving's claims about the Holocaust are either drawn whole cloth from other denier or parroted by other deniers, such as Bishop Williamson. Deniers have no independent proof on which to rely because there is none. The Vatican has associated itself with a body of lies.

But the reinstated bishop does not just deny the Holocaust. He also claims 9/11 was staged by America as a pretext to invade Afghanistan. The linkage between the two sets of denial is, of course, not happenstance. Basic to 9/11 denial is the charge that four thousand Jewish workers in the World Trade Center were warned to stay home that day. In fact, about 500 Jews were among the victims. That is over 15% of the total, a number consistent with the Jewish population of the New York metropolitan area. Moreover, how could so many people be told anything and thousands more not hear about it?

In short, both these claims are not just malicious forms of antisemitism but they are completely illogical. They would be laughable were it not for the tragedies they address.

In embracing Bishop Williamson the Vatican has done far more than set back Vatican/Jewish relations. It has made itself look like it is living in the darkest of ages. One awaits a pronouncement that it is heresy to believe that the earth revolves around the sun or didn't the Vatican already once do that?

Peter Steinfels in NY Times: Why Aren't Bishops Speaking Out on Reinstatement of Pius X?

2009-02-01T01:22:00.003-05:00

The Holocaust Furor and the U.S. Bishops

By PETER STEINFELS
jANUARY 31, 2009

[....]

one would expect that at least one of 433 active or retired Catholic bishops in the United States might have voiced some misgivings or raised some questions about Pope Benedict XVI’s recent action in revoking the excommunication of four bishops — including one who has denied the Holocaust — of an ultratraditionalist schismatic group, the Society of St. Pius X.

As of Friday afternoon, Catholic News Service knew of not one who had done so.

[....]

On Friday, Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory of Atlanta, the current chairman of the United States bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, said Catholics were “embarrassed” by this episode and needed to reaffirm their bonds with Jews.

But no bishop, it appears, has added a public word of doubt about the wisdom of Pope Benedict’s action, or wondered out loud how it came about.

The pope’s action has provoked a crisis in Catholic-Jewish relations. But you don’t have to be Jewish to be outraged by Holocaust denial. Many Catholics are upset, and they are upset not only because Jews are upset.

The problem is more than Bishop Richard Williamson ....

No, the further problem, for Catholics no less than for Jews, is puzzlement about the pope and his leadership. No one believes that he shares Bishop Williamson’s grotesque views about the Holocaust. But was he somehow uninformed about them? Or was he aware of them but inclined to minimize their significance? Or did he disregard how they might poison what he was trying to accomplish? None of the alternatives seem comforting.

Even Catholics who understand the priority that church leaders always give to healing any formal schism that can perpetuate itself are puzzling over the Vatican’s extraordinary solicitude for this relatively small ultratraditionalist sect.

[....]

And of course there are Catholics who dread — and some who hope — that the accommodations made to the Society of St. Pius X augur a larger reversal of the work of Vatican II.

[....]

This silence would be understandable if the bishops’ only option were to engage in harsh criticism. But they have plenty of respectful, charitable alternatives, from merely acknowledging that the papal action was troubling or perplexing to indicating that they are requesting clarification of Rome’s procedures and the pope’s intentions.

[....]

It’s a safe bet that during the last week, private expressions of dismay or bewilderment have been flying from bishop to bishop and from bishops to Rome.

Still, that does not satisfy Jews. Nor does it assure millions of concerned Catholics that their questions and anxieties are shared by leaders determined to discuss them charitably, candidly, maturely, in a way suited to what the bishops themselves teach about the church and the papacy.

Who will speak up first?

Bishop Williamson Apologizes to Pope for Furor [no pun intended] But Not for Holocaust Comments

2009-01-31T07:38:00.005-05:00

Richard Williamson, who by Vatican standards, is not really a bishop, has sent a letter posted on his blog to the Cardinal [a real one] who serves as the mediator between the Vatican and Society of Pius X, the faction which rejects Vatican II.

He apologizes for the furor but not for his views.

Here is the full text of the letter:

To His Eminence Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos

Your Eminence

Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems.

For me, all that matters is the Truth Incarnate, and the interests of His one true Church, through which alone we can save our souls and give eternal glory, in our little way, to Almighty God. So I have only one comment, from the prophet Jonas, I, 12:

"Take me up and throw me into the sea; then the sea will quiet down for you; for I know it is because of me that this great tempest has come upon you."

Please also accept, and convey to the Holy Father, my sincere personal thanks for the document signed last Wednesday and made public on Saturday. Most humbly I will offer a Mass for both of you.

Sincerely yours in Christ

+Richard Williamson

Note no retraction. No acknowledgment that he got the history wrong. No apology for his overt antisemitism.

The Vatican response was the following: "The Vatican has asked nothing of Monsignor Williamson, who is not an 'ordinary bishop' of the Catholic Church."

WILLIAMSON REBUTTAL AND RESOURCE SHEET

2009-01-29T15:00:00.006-05:00

[The following provides links to various articles and sources which explicitly expose the lies and obfuscations of Holocaust denier Bishop Williamson. We hope they are helpful to you. My profound thanks to Dan Leshem and Maureen McLaughlin for helping prepare this material.]

1. Williamson says: “I believe there were no gas chambers."

This claim is one of several pillars of Holocaust denial. For an overview on the design, number, and operation of the gas chambers and some pictures. Click here or here.
In addition you can go to the following sites on www.hdot.org which address some of the common claims made by deniers about the gas chambers:

2. Williamson says: “. . . between two and three hundred thousand Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but not one of them by gassing in a gas chamber.”

For charts breaking down the numbers of Jews killed by country and location see the Holocaust Chronicle and the Jewish Virtual Library sites. There are other sources but they are generally quite complex.

3. Williamson says: “You may have heard of the Leuchter Report? Well, Fred Leuchter was an expert in gas chambers. He designed three gas chambers for three states, three of the fifty United States, for the execution of criminals. So he knew what’s involved. And he studied what the supposed gas chambers in Germany at some point in the 1980’s, what remains of the supposed gas chambers. The crematoria at Birkenau-Auschwitz, for instance. And his expert conclusion as that it’s impossible for these ever to have served for the gassing of large numbers of people.”

An extensive rebuttal of Leuchter’s “qualifications” can be found here.

4. Williamson says: “. . . it’s very dangerous to go in to pull out the corpses. Because of whiff of gas that’s trapped in the clothing escapes from the clothing will kill the person. . .

When the Sonderkommandos had to unload the cottage gas chambers they did use gas masks since there was no ventilation system. This discussion can be found in the RJvP Report, Chapter VI; Attestations here. Note that the Sonderkommandos talk about using gas masks.

There is extensive literature on how the victims had to undress BEFORE they went into the gas chambers. During the trial Irving v. Lipstadt, expert witness Robert Jan van Pelt gave the court multiple descriptions of the undressing process. [If you click on this link it will take you to the entire chapter. Scroll down and you will find the descriptions.]
Here is one observation from Hoss, the commandant at Auschwitz, on the arrival, selection and killing of the deportees.
. . . All the luggage remained on the ramp and, after those unfit for work had also been sent off, it was brought to the store of personal effects, to be sorted out. Those unfit for work were classified according to sex--men, women, and children--and marched off to the nearest available extermination installation. Those unable to walk and women with small children were transported there on trucks. When they arrived, all of them had to strip naked in rooms which gave the impression of being delousing installations. The permanent labour unit of prisoners who worked in these installations--and who were also housed there and did not come into contact with other inmates of the camp--helped with the undressing and coaxed the hesitant to hurry up, ss that the others would not have to wait so long.
They were also told to take note where they put away their clothes, so that they would be able to find them again immediately after taking their bath. All this was done on purpose, in order to dispel any fears which might arise. After they had taken off their clothes, they were taken into a nearby room--the gas chamber itself. It had been prepared to look like a washroom--that is to say, showers and pipes were installed throughout, water drainage channels, etc. The moment the entire transport had entered the chamber, the door was closed, and simultaneously the gas was forced in from above through a special aperture. . . .

5. Williamson says: “Once you’ve gassed people, you’ve got to evacuate the gas to be able to get into the chamber to us it. To evacuate the gas, you need a high chimney. If it’s a low chimney, the gas goes onto the pavement and kills anybody walking by.”

The gas chambers did not have chimneys of the smokestack-type to vent the Zyklon-B.

They had ventilation systems.

The only “chimneys” in the gas chambers were the small ones of the roof to pour in the Zyklon-B. They may qualify technically as “chimneys” but they are, or course, not “high.” You may see their design here. This short article reconstructs the introduction columns from testimony and even shows a design. Visual and short.
There is a discussion of the ventilation system in the trial's Van Pelt Report. See especially the section found at here.
Furthermore, as chemist Harry W. Mazal of the Holocaust History Project reports, Williamson's claims that a tall chimney is required else the gas from the gas chambers would fall to the pavement and kill various and sundry reveals "a remarkable ignorance of basic chemistry." Since Hydrogen Cyanide (Zyklon B) is a GAS, its vapor pressure tells us that once released into the atmosphere it would dissipate instantly. This same happens with the majority of all gases!
True there are war "gases" that are heavier than air and will tend to float down to earth (fog is one example where water vapor descends to earth under certain conditions), but these are not typical, standard gases (as is hydrogen cyanide, oxygen and carbon dioxide) but rather more like suspensions. However, Hydrogen Cyanide is an extremely volatile gas, more so than oxygen or nitrogen or carbon dioxide, none of which "drift town to earth."

6. Williamson says: “You need a high chimney, right? . . . If there was a high chimney, then the shadow at most times of the day, the shadow would have fallen on the ground. And the Allied aerial photographers that flew over the camps would have picked up the shadow of this chimney. There were never such shadows. There was no such chimney.”

The“tall” chimneys for the crematoria and the “low” chimneys for Zyklon-B introduction both show shadows on aerial photographs (photo #4).

This article is the classic one on the aerial photography. It is presented in full with photographs including close-ups of the crematoria, showing shadows. This is the definitive answer to this assertion.

7. Williamson says: “Which, according to Fred Leuchter’s testimony, they can’t have been chambers.”

See our article on Leuchter: “Scientific Tests Prove the Gas Chambers Never Existed”

8. Williamson says:“He looks at the doors, and he says that the door has to be absolutely airtight because again, the gas escapes and kills the people outside. The doors of the gas chambers that are shown to tourists at Auschwitz are not airtight, absolutely not.”

See our Myth/Fact sheet discussing the evidence for air-tight doors: “Auschwitz Gas Chambers were really air raid shelters .”

Pertinent part of our FAQ:

On January 1, 1943, three gas-tight doors were ordered for Crema 2.
On February 13, 1943 an order was issued for twelve "gas-tight doors of 30/40 cm." These "doors" are more like shutters in size (about 12 x 16 inches). These shutters can be seen at Auschwitz today. They are 30 x 40 centimeters in size and equipped with a butterfly nut that can be screwed tight from the outside. The plan for Crema/Gas Chamber 4 specifies shutters 30 by 40 centimeters in size. Crema 4 was a brick building builtentirely above ground. Of what use would it be as an air-raid shelter?
On February 26, 1943, ten gas detectors were ordered by telegram from Topf & Sons. (Gas detectors would be needed to determine when it was safe to enter the gas chamber rooms and remove the bodies.)
On March 31, 1943, one gas-tight door was ordered for Crema 3 was ordered.

Williamson’s statement about the gas chambers that are shown to “tourists” is answered in our Myth/Fact Sheet: “Gas Chambers in Auschwitz I is a fake for tourists.”

Bishop Williamson has Company: Another "Traditionalist" Priest Denies the Holocaust

2009-01-29T13:04:00.004-05:00

In an interview in the Italian newspaper, La Tribuna di Treviso, another traditionalist priest, i.e. one who rejects the decisions of Vatican II, has come out as a Holocaust denier...sort of.

[For a translated transcript of the priest's interview click here and scroll down.]

Repeating standard denial fare, Rev. Floriano Abrahamowicz said that there were gas chambers but they were only used to disinfect inmates.

Then taking a slightly different tack he acknowledged that six million Jews were killed during WWII. Why did he do that? So that he could then compare the Holocaust to "other genocides" which do not receive the same amount of public recognition.

He included in these other genocides, the Allied bombing of German cities.

This, by the way, is also a standard ploy by deniers. They rely on "immoral equivalencies" and argue that, while the Germans may have done wrong, the Allies, who bombed German cities, committed equal wrongs.

And, not surprisingly, he included Israel's actions in Gaza in these genocides.

"And the Israelis can't tell me that the genocide that they suffered from the Nazis is less serious than that of Gaza because they have killed several thousand people while the Nazis killed 6 million," he said.

Finally -- and also not surprisingly -- he denied that he or Lefebvre were antisemitic, and pointed out that his father's family was Jewish.

Then, unable to contain himself, he described the Jewish people as "God killers" and called on them to "embrace our Lord Jesus Christ."

[This, of course, runs counter to Vatican II, which rejected the notion that all Jews then or now were responsible for the death of Jesus.]

This not Abrahamowicz first brush with controversy. In 2006 he said on television that that a a German SS officer who, in 1944, killed 335 Italian civilians in retaliation for the death of 33 German soldiers should not have been convicted of war crimes or considered an “executioner” but rather a soldier who acted “with regret and a heavy heart.”

In 2008, after Cardinal from Milan supported the opening of new mosques in Italy, Abrahamowicz, speaking on Italian radio, described Tettamanzi was an example of “infiltrators” attempting to “subvert the church from within.”

It cannot be making the Vatican happy that Abrahamowicz made these statements the day after the Pope's statements at his Wednesday audience.

As with Williamson, he is a follower of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre.

He may equivocate about his Holocaust denial but about his antisemitism there is no doubt.

Williamson and this guy deserve each other.

Pope Benidict Reacts to Uproar about Williamson's Reinstatement [de-excommuncation]

2009-01-29T11:07:00.002-05:00

In his weekly audience Pope Benedict mentioned the uproar about Holocaust denying Bishop Williamson. This came a day after the Society of Pius X apologized for the embarrassment it had caused the Pope.

The NY Times reports that in 1989 a Vichy war criminal, Paul Touvier, was found hiding in a monastery run by the founder of the group, Archbishop Lefebvre, and arrested. He was subsequently sentenced to life in prison for crimes against humanity.

Two things bother me about the Papal reaction. One, it is, not surprisingly, couched in an outreach to Jews. While this is understandable and makes perfect sense, it obfuscates the heart of the issue which is that Williamson is speaking complete lies and nonsense and is making claims that are totally anti-historical.

Simply put, this is not just an insult to Jews. It is an insult to truth and memory. It is an insult to intellect [something Pope Benedict values greatly]. It is an insult to rational thought.

The second thing -- and this is something which certain Catholic clerics with whom I am friendly have pointed out to me -- in his frequent condemnations of antisemitism, Pope Benedict always speaks of it as growing out of a pagan force. He completely fails to link it to Christian theology and history.

For example, at World Youth Day when he spoke at a synagogue in Cologne. He said the following [I have highlighted the seminal phrase]:

And in the 20th century, in the darkest period of German and European history, an insane racist ideology, born of neo-paganism, gave rise to the attempt, planned and systematically carried out by the regime, to exterminate European Jewry. The result has passed into history as the Shoah.

At best it is a form of historical obfuscation. At its worst it too is a form of denial.

National Public Radio: Bishop Williamson's Reinstatement Causes Rift Among Catholics

2009-01-28T05:47:00.003-05:00

[9:07 a.m. audio link added]

NPR's Morning Edition, one of the most broadly listened to US news shows, ran a story by Sylvia Poggioli on how the reinstatement is causing a rift among Catholics.

Many are disturbed, not just by Williamson's Holocaust denial, but by the fact that the Society of Pius X, the group that has been reinstated, also rejects Vatican II, which, among other things, rejected the notion that Jews -- including those alive today -- were responsible for killing Jesus.

In Nostra Aetate, the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, then Pope Paul VI, declared:

"What happened in His [Jesus'] passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today."

This is an idea which the Society of Pius X rejects.

[The audio of Poggioli's story will be available on line after 9 a.m. EST.]

Bishop Williamson has been Muzzled

2009-01-27T15:50:00.003-05:00

The Society of St. Pius X has forbidden Bishop Williamson from speaking on any historical and political matters.

They must have been read the riot act by the Vatican.

Now how long is it going to be before all his postings disappear from the web?

Holocaust Denier Bishop Williamson in his own Words: He Not JUST a Denier

2009-01-27T09:20:00.007-05:00

Edited 2:11 EST

Take a look at Bishop Williamson's website which, if I were a betting person, will soon disappear. [Cyber mavens might want to take a "picture" of it while it is still up.]

If you go to it to this particular link you will learn that this venerable prince of the church also :

1. Well over a century ago Judeo-Masonry is known to have been envisaging three World Wars to achieve its unified global domination.
2. By lies, Judeo-Masonry brought about the first two World Wars.
3. By lies, Judeo-Masonry is preparing for the Third World War.
4. The supposed treachery of Arabs last year against the Twin Towers in New York already igniting American public opinion to go to war against Afghanistan and now Iraq.
5. We now in 2002 know with certainty that our governments and media told us far from the complete truth in 1941 as to who was truly responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor, so we will eventually know that those truly responsible for the attack on the Twin Towers were certainly not those primarily held up as being responsible by our governments and media.

In short Jews together with Freemasons planned WWI and WWII. They are planning for WWIII. And 9/11 was not committed by Arab terrorists [or are we supposed to call them militants?].

But that's not all he has to say.

1. Women should not wear trousers: ever.

2. Women should not go to university: ever.

3. Modernism caused the Rwanda genocide.

4. Sound of Music is an evil film because it celebrates true love and depicts Nazis as villains.

And this is the man the Vatican has said can now offer mass and give communition. Something is very wrong here.

[NOTE: a number of comments on this post point out that I might not have it right here. I apologize for that and acknowledge that maybe he can't offer mass or give communion. But that does not lessen the fact that a man -- and for that matter the group he is part of -- with some very weird ideas and hateful attitudes has been welcomed back into the church... unexcommunicated shall we say.... That is bad enough]

Kudos to Jim Burroway for scoping out these gems. [There are more if you have the time and energy to slog through Williamson's missives. But do it quickly. Someone at the Vatican will tell him to pull them down ASAP]. And thanks to my cyber-fiend friend Sara for pointing me in this direction.

Iranians Criticize West's Persecution of Holocaust Deniers

2009-01-27T05:20:00.002-05:00

MEMRI reports that Iran's official news agency has criticized the west for persecuting Holocaust deniers.

And this from a country that hanged 22 people in one week!

Holocaust Denier Bishop Williamson in his own Worlds

2009-01-26T18:10:00.003-05:00

If you want to see the recently reinstated Holocaust denier Bishop Williamson in his own words, click here.

He repeats lies, distortions, and information that is complete bunk.

He sounds smooth but he speaks complete bunk.

I challenge the Vatican to watch this and say that this is a private matter.

Disgusting.

Pope Benidict Reinstates Holocaust Denier: Not Just a Jewish Thing

2009-01-26T03:37:00.002-05:00

Pope Benedict has reinstated as a Bishop a Holocaust and 9/11 denier. To put it succintly: this is far more than tacit support for an antisemite. It makes the Vatican look utterly stupid.

Up until now Benedict, as a German who served in the German forces during the war, has been exceptionally senstitive about all things related to antisemitism. He certainly was not here.

David Irving boasts on his website that Williamson attended his last garden party. They deserve each other. Imagine their chit chat.

"History on Trial" Named One of Five Best Books on Legal Trials by Alan Dershowitz in Wall Street Journal

2009-01-26T03:00:00.006-05:00

Alan Dershowitz, asked by the Wall Street Journal [January 17th], to list his pick of of five best books on momentous legal cases has included History on Trial, in his pick .

This is what he had to say about History on Trial.

History on Trial
By Deborah E. Lipstadt
Ecco, 2005
"History on Trial" is Deborah E. Lipstadt's compelling first-person account of her experience as the defendant in a libel suit brought in 1996 by British author David Irving, who was unhappy that she had described him in print as a Holocaust denier. As I wrote in an afterword for the book, the trial was a rare instance in which "truth, justice and freedom of speech [were] all simultaneously served." What was at stake in the case transcended Lipstadt's reputation and fortune. Her antagonist sought to put the Holocaust itself on trial. This worried survivors, concerned that their history was being subjected to a judicial test, with standards of evidence and proof that did not always produce truth. Moreover, under British law, truth was not necessarily a defense to defamation. Through the determination of Lipstadt and the brilliant legal work of her lawyer, Anthony Julius, especially his devastating cross-examination of Irving, the court ruled that she had written the truth -- Irving is indeed a Holocaust denier -- and that he had not been defamed. The verdict also helped to expand the right of truthful free speech in Britain.

The other four are The Leo Frank Case by Leonard Dinnerstein [Columbia University, 1968], Summer for the Gods by Edward J. Larson [Basic Books, 1997] on the Scopes trial, The Rosenberg File by Ronald Radosh and Joyce Milton [Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1983], and Until Proven Innocent by Stuart Taylor Jr. and KC Johnson [Thomas Dunne, 2007] on the Duke Lacrosse team.

Leading Holocaust Denier Gives Up: We Won... Well Not Exactly

2009-01-16T16:57:00.004-05:00

One of the leading Holocaust deniers claims he has given up the fight to persuade people there was no Holocaust.

Nobody would bite.

So this is good news, right?

Well not exactly. He is now going to focus his energies on fighting Jewish-Zionist power.

This, of course, proves what I and others have been saying for years. Holocaust denial is naught but a form of antisemitism. Weber could not spread antisemitism with Holocaust denial so he is going to try other methods.

Methinks he will have more success with his new track. Sadly so.

Gaza and the Proportionality Cunundrum: Reflections by Andre Glucksman

2009-01-11T14:53:00.002-05:00

The French philosopher, Andre Glucksmann, has penned some thoughts about the issue of proportionality in relation to Gaza.

Many people will certainly disagree with it. I don't.

André Glucksmann
On “Disproportion”
In Gaza, as everywhere, the word is irrelevant.
9 January 2009

When conflicts erupt, public opinion tends to divide between absolutists who have decided once and for all who is right and who is wrong, and more cautious people who judge a particular act as appropriate or not according to circumstances, prepared, if necessary, to withhold judgment pending further information. The confrontation in Gaza, as bloody and awful as it is, nevertheless contains a gleam of hope. For the first time in the conflict in the Middle East, the fanatical absolutists seem to be in the minority. The discussion among Israelis (Is this the right time for war? How far should we go? How long?) proceeds as expected in a democracy. What is surprising is that the Palestinians and their supporters are taking part in a similar public debate, to the point that, even after Israel’s launching of punitive operations, Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, found the courage to attribute initial responsibility for the suffering of Gaza’s civilians to Hamas, which had broken its truce with Israel.

Unfortunately, the reaction of global public opinion—the media, diplomats, and moral and political authorities—seems to lag behind the thinking of those who are directly concerned. We cannot avoid the word that is on everyone’s lips and bolsters another kind of absolutism—the word that magisterially condemns Israeli acts as “disproportionate.” Captions on pictures of Gaza under attack express a universal and immediate consensus: Israel acts disproportionately. News reports and commentaries add other terms as opportunities present themselves: “massacre,” “total war.” At least the word “genocide” has been avoided so far. Will the memory of the so-called “Jenin genocide,” so often evoked before being discredited as a fiction, continue to restrain the worst of these verbal excesses? In any case, the absolute and a priori condemnation of the Jewish outrage defines the dominant line of thought in most parts of the world.

“Disproportionate,” of course, refers to what is out of proportion—either because no proportion has ever existed, or because an existing proportion has been broken or violated. It is the second meaning that is intended by those who castigate the Israelis for their reprisals, which are judged to be excessive, incongruous, and inappropriate, a violation of limits and norms. The implication is that there is a normal state of the Israel-Hamas conflict, some equilibrium that the Israeli military’s aggressiveness has disturbed—as if the conflict were not, like every serious conflict, disproportionate from the outset.

What is this correct proportion that Israel is supposed to respect in order to deserve the favor of world opinion? Should the Israeli army refrain from employing its technical supremacy and limit itself to the weapons that Hamas uses—that is to say, crude rockets and stones? Should it feel free to adopt the strategy of suicide bombers and the deliberate targeting of civilians? Or, better still, would it be appropriate for Israel to wait patiently until Hamas, with the help of Iran and Syria, is able to “balance” Israel’s firepower? Or might it be necessary to level the playing field regarding not only means but also aims? Hamas, unlike the Palestinian Authority, refuses to recognize the Jewish state’s right to exist and dreams of the annihilation of its citizens; should Israel match this radicalism?

Every conflict, whether dormant or boiling, is by its nature “disproportionate.” If the adversaries agreed on the use of means and on each other’s claims, they would not be adversaries. Conflict necessarily implies disagreement, and thus the effort of each camp to exploit its advantages as well as the other’s weaknesses. The Israeli army is doing just that when it “profits” from its technical superiority. And Hamas does no differently when it uses Gaza’s population as a human shield, unhindered by the moral scruples or diplomatic imperatives that constrain its adversary.

To work for peace in the Middle East, we must escape the temptations of absolutism, which entice not only fanatical hard-liners but also angelic souls who imagine that some sacred “proportion” would bring a providential balance to murderous conflicts. In the Middle East, the conflict concerns not only the enforcement of rules of the game, but their establishment. One has every right to discuss freely the appropriateness of a given military or diplomatic initiative, but not to imagine that the problem is soluble in advance by the ostensible right-thinking of world opinion. To wish to survive is not disproportionate.

André Glucksmann is a French philosopher. Translated from the French by Alexis Cornel.

President Chavez's Abuse of the Holocaust

2009-01-08T04:58:00.004-05:00

edited 9:20 a.m.

Please note: this list is still in formation. If you would like to add your signature to those of the other Holocaust scholars and academics listed below, please contact rafaelmedoff@aol.com

The David S. Wyman Institute is preparing the following letter.

Hon. Hugo Chavez
c/o Embassy of The Republic of Venezuela
1099 30th Street NW
Washington DC 20007
via email: prensa@embavenez-us.org

To His Excellency, President Hugo Chavez:

As Holocaust and genocide scholars, we are deeply troubled by your statement that Israel is carrying out “a Holocaust” in Gaza, and that Israeli President Shimon Peres should be prosecuted for genocide. (Reuters, Jan. 7, 2009)

The Holocaust was the deliberate, systematic mass murder of six million innocent Jews by Germany and its collaborators. By contrast, Israel is acting in legitimate self-defense against Hamas terrorism; has no interest in harming innocent residents of Gaza; and indeed has done its utmost to avoid civilian casualties, whereas Hamas deliberately targets Israeli civilians. Any comparison between Israel and the Nazis outrageously distorts Israel's actions and trivializes the enormity and nature of the Holocaust.

We note that the U.S. State Department, in its report last year on global antisemitism, included “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” as an example of antisemitism. (Sec. 1:7)

We therefore urge you to retract your comparisons of Israel to the Nazis and refrain from making any such comparisons in the future.

Sincerely,

Prof. David S. Wyman
University of Massachusetts-Amherst (emer.)
Author, The Abandonment of the Jews

Prof. Shlomo Aronson
Hebrew University (emer.) / University of Arizona
Author of Hitler, the Allies, and the Jews

Prof. Michael Berenbaum
Director, Ziering Institute on the Holocaust, American Jewish University
Research Director (emer.), United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
President (emer.), Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation

Dr. Paul R. Bartrop
Head, Department of History. Bialik College (Australia)
Author, False Havens: The British Empire and the Holocaust

Prof. Zev Garber
Los Angeles Valley College
Editor, Studies in the Shoah

Dr. Myrna Goldenberg
Ida E. King Distinguished Visiting Scholar of Holocaust Studies, The Richard Stockton State College, NJ
Coauthor, Experience and Expression: Women, the Nazis, and the Holocaust

Dr. Irving Greenberg
Past President, Jewish Life Network
Past Chairman, United States Holocaust Memorial Council

Dr. Alex Grobman
Institute for Contemporary Jewish Life
Author, Genocide: Critical Issues of the Holocaust

Dr. Elvira Groezinger
Institut fuer Jdaistik
Freie Universitaet Berlin, Germany
Author, Die jiddische Kultur im Schatten der Diktaturen

Prof. Susannah Heschel
Eli Black Professor of Jewish Studies, Dartmouth College
Author, Betrayal: German Churches and the Holocaust

Dr. Steven Leonard Jacobs
The University of Alabama
Author, Christian Religious Responsed to the Shoah

Prof. Kevin Lewis
Dept. of Religious Studies
University of South Carolina
Fulbright Senior Lecturer, Islamic Univ. of Gaza, Fall 1998

Mitchell Lieber
Director and Editor, www.Rumbula.org Educational Web Site
(the Holocaust in Latvia) - Chicago, IL

Prof. Deborah E. Lipstadt
Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies
Emory University
Author, History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving

Rev. Dr. Franklin H. Littell
Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Religion, Temple University
Founder, Annual Scholars’ Conference on the Holocaust

Dr. Marcia Sachs Littell
Professor Holocaust & Genocide Studies - Richard Stockton College of NJ
Executive DIrector, Annual Scholars’ Conference on the Holocaust

Dr. Erich H. Loewy
Professor of Medicine and Founding Chair of Bioethics (emer.)
University of California, Davis
Author, Freedom and Community

Dr. Sharon. R. Lowenstein
Author, Token Refuge

Prof. Andrei S. Markovits
Deutsch Collegiate Professor of Comparative Politics and German Studies
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Author, The German Predicament

Dr. Rafael Medoff
The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies
Author, Blowing the Whistle on Genocide

Prof. Stephen H. Norwood
University of Oklahoma
Coeditor, Encyclopedia of American Jewish History

Prof. David Novak
J. Richard and Dorothy Shiff Professor of Jewish Studies
University of Toronto

Prof. Paul Oppenheimer
City College and Graduate Center, the City University of New York
Author of Evil and the Demonic

Prof. Zsuzanna Ozsvath
University of Texas at Dallas
Author, In the Footsteps of Orpheus

Prof. David Patterson
Bornblum Chair in Judaic Studies, The University of Memphis
Author, Encyclopedia of Holocaust Literature

Prof. Robert Jan van Pelt
University Professor, University of Waterloo
Author, The Case for Auschwitz

Dr. Susan L. Pentlin
Professor Emeritus University of Missouri
New Editor, Mary Berg's Diary: Growing up in the Warsaw Ghetto

Prof. Allen Podet
State University of New York College at Buffalo
Author, The Anglo-American Committee on Palestine

Prof. Eunice G. Pollack
University of North Texas
Coeditor, Encyclopedia of American Jewish History

Prof. Harry Reicher
University of Pennsylvania Law School;
Scholar-in-Residence, Touro Law Center
Author, Holocaust Law: Materials and Commentary

Prof. Paul L. Rose
Pennsylvania State University
Editor, Archives of the Holocaust (Vol. XIV)

Prof. Thane Rosenbaum
Director of the Forum on Law, Culture & Society
Fordham University School of Law
Author, The Myth of Moral Justice

Prof. Richard L. Rubenstein
President Emeritus, University of Bridgeport
Author, After Auschwitz

Dr. Mary Todd
Professor of History
Ohio Dominican University

Prof. Kenneth Waltzer
Professor and Director, Jewish Studies
Michigan State University

Prof. James E. Young
Chair, Department of Judaic & Near Eastern Studies, U. of Mass. Amherst
Author, Writing and Rewriting the Holocaust
Member, Academic Council, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum

Prof. John C. Zimmerman
University of Nevada Las Vegas
Author, Holocaust Denial

(Institutions listed for identification purposes only.)

Armenian Genocide: Statement by Scholars

2009-01-07T05:23:00.009-05:00

The French intellectual, Bernard-Henri Levi, has a intriguing piece in The New Republic calling for institutions of laws against genocide denial. He refers in the main to Holocaust and the Armenian genocide.

His article is prompted, in part, by the recent online petition of 200 Turkish writers, academics, and intellectuals apologizing for the massacre. According to Internet sources over 800 Turks have since added their name to the petition.

I do not agree with Levi's stance as I have frequently stated. However, his article raises some interesting issues.

At one point he makes reference to Irving v. Penguin UK and Lipstadt.

Take France's Gayssot law, which criminalized the denial of crimes against humanity, and which as yet has been applied only to denial of the Jewish Holocaust. This is a law that reins in the fringe and extremist politicians who engage in lightly cloaked anti-Semitism and who may be tempted to advocate Holocaust denial. This is a law that prevents masquerades like that of historian David Irving's trial in London in 2000.
Irving brought a libel case against Deborah Lipstadt, author of "Denying the Holocaust," who had labeled him a spokesman for Holocaust deniers. Though the judge ruled in notably strong language that Irving was indeed a Holocaust denier, in the absence of laws penalizing this offense, Irving walked free.

In fact, had there been a UK law against Holocaust denial Irving could never have brought his case. Before the trial I might have thought this was a good thing.

But as a result of the case, not only was Irving declared by the court to be a denier, racist, and antisemite but as a result of excellent research by our historical team we exposed the lies, distortions, falsifications, and inventions upon which Irving relied in each and every one of his comments about the Holocaust.

It was costly, time consuming, and, at times, overwhelming. But there is now a official court record attesting to the fact that denial is naught but a pack of lies. But more important that the court record is the work down by the historians. But for the trial it is highly doubtful that anyone would have devoted their time to showing how he lied and invented regarding the Holocaust.

Apples Over the Fence: I've Had My Say and I am Done

2009-01-03T06:19:00.018-05:00

I have decided that, barring any new major developments , I will not adding any additional posts about this saga. My previous posts and my opeds [here and here] express all I have to say.

York Publishers sounds like a vanity press. It's possible publication of a book based on a fictionalized movie -- that may itself not be made -- will probably gain no traction.

The lesson of this saga comes to us in the words of John Adams and Emmanuel Ringelblum, both of whom I have quoted previously.

These two men, though separated by continents and centuries, cautioned against the need to embellish the truth in any way. Both were referring to seminal events in history, one glorious and one horrible.

Regarding the depiction of America's moment of creation, Adams wrote:

Truth, nature, fact should be your sole guide. Let not our posterity be deluded by fictions under the pretence of poetical or graphical license.”

Regarding the horrible destruction being faced by Jews during the Holocaust, Ringelblum wrote:

We wanted the simplest most unadorned account possible of what happened in each shtetl and what happened to each Jew [and in this war each Jew is like a world in itself. Any superfluous word, any literary exaggeration grated and repelled.... It is unnecessary to add an extra sentence.

Or, as one anonymous Jew wrote in the margin of a questionnaire Ringelblum's group distributed in the Warsaw ghetto in order to document conditions:

FACTS!**

That's the takeaway from this whole matter.

And now.... Enough.

* I am not, of course, referring to the serious historical work on Buchenwald and its sub-camps being conducted by various historians.

** Kassow, Sam, Who Will Write Our History?

Apples Over the Fence: A New Publisher for the Book

2009-01-02T18:17:00.003-05:00

It's hard to believe but another publisher has stepped forward to publish Herman Rosenblat's book. I guess they will cut out the story of the "apples."

The publisher praises Rosenblat’s motivations, which they say "were very human."

I just saw a statement in which Harris Salomon, who is going ahead with the movie, saying the debate was all about "an apple." I guess Salomon has not read the manuscript. In it -- or at least in the version I read -- Rosenblat says she tossed apples and other food over for a length of seven months.

An apple?

Apples Over the Fence: Words from John Adams

2009-01-02T05:38:00.015-05:00

John Trumbell was commissioned by Congress in 1817 to paint a portrait of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It was hung in the Rotunda approximately a decade later.

When Trumbell was preparing to paint the picture the former president, John Adams, offered him some advice:

“Truth, nature, fact should be your sole guide. Let not our posterity be deluded by fictions under the pretence of poetical or graphical license.”

One assumes, given that Trumbell painted a scene that never happened – there was not a single session in which all the signers gathered to affix their signatures to the document – that Adams did not like the painting.

I watched HBO’s John Adams, which is based on David McCullough’s award winning book, on the plane flying home. The movie takes some liberties with the incident, showing Adams railing against Trumbell for painting a scene that never happened.

In fact, according to McCullough, we do not know precisely what Adams thought, but given his admonition to Trumbell one can imagine. Upon my return home I checked McCullough’s book and found Adams’ warning to Trumbell.

Too bad Adam’s eloquence was not recalled by all the people associated with the recent Holocaust memoir, particularly movie producer, Harris Salomon.

Salomon, who contacted Prof. Ken Waltzer’s deans to complain about the fact that he was talking to The New Republic and who attacked me, is attributing the cancellation of Rosenblat’s book to “the worst kind of censorship.” On his Atlantic Overseas Pictures website he writes:

[W]hat I have learned from my long involvement with Mr. Rosenblat and this project which I have come to love, is that American publishing still suffers from the worst kind of censorship.

Censorship? This was an example of the publishing industry correcting one of its failures and acknowledging a mistake.

To make matters even worse, he goes on to link those who criticized the story with Holocaust deniers and to criticize them for "judg[ing]" actions of survivors.

The documented fact, acknowledged by his critics, is that Herman is a survivor of concentration camps… It is indeed unfortunate that so many remain poised to jump on any opportunity to question the occurrence of the Holocaust, and to judge the actions of survivors of that horrific time in history."

With apologies to Joseph Welch, I wonder has this man no sense of decency?

Apples Over the Fence [13]: Emanuel Ringelblum, the Warsaw Ghetto Historian, Said it Best

2009-01-01T06:07:00.009-05:00

During this less than pleasant Apples Over the Fence/ Angel at the Fence controversy, I have often said that there is no reason to aggrandize or exaggerate anything about the Holocaust.

Last night I happened to come across a quote which I have cited a number of times on this blog. It comes from Emanuel Ringelblum, the great Warsaw ghetto historian who created the Oyneg Shabbes archives. [You can read about it and about Sam Kassow's wonderful book on the topic here.]

During the war he wrote regarding the material to be collected in the archive:

We wanted the simplest most unadorned account possible of what happened in each shtetl and what happened to each Jew [and in this war each Jew is like a world in itself.] Any superfluous work any literary exaggeration grated and repelled....It is unnecessary to add an extra sentence.

That is what all those involved in this escapade should have remembered.

Limmud '08: I Never Fail to be Amazed

2009-01-01T06:03:00.002-05:00

Heathrow:

I am sitting here about to board a plane for home and must reflect for just a moment on Limmud Conference '08. It was, once again, an amazing endeavor. There are too many reasons to repeat here especially as the boarding call for my plane was just made.

Let me say this: As someone who spends a great deal of her creative energies studying, teaching, writing, and blogging about Jews as object, i.e. what has been done and is done to Jews, it is a pleasure and a relief to participate in something which is all about Jew as subject, i.e. what Jews do.

Bravo to all those who made it possible. Words of praise do not suffice.

Apples Over the Fence [12]: Lipstadt Commentary in the Forward

2008-12-31T20:37:00.002-05:00

For additional commentary by me in the Forward on this issue see here

A Danger Greater Than Denial
Opinion

By Deborah E. Lipstadt
Wed. Dec 31, 2008

The news that Herman Rosenblat’s Holocaust memoir “Angel at the Fence” is a fraud has the press buzzing and the publishing world reeling. The book, which the publisher apparently anticipated would be a best-seller, was pulled right before it was to be shipped to bookstores. No one who has paid close attention to the story, however, has a right to be surprised.

I first heard Rosenblat’s story in June of 2007. I was on a bus headed to Birkenau together with other scholars who study genocide. None of them were Holocaust specialists. One passenger began to read aloud from an e-mail he had received about a boy in Buchenwald who was saved because a young girl threw him an apple over the camp fence every day for seven months. Years later, the two met as adults. He learned that her family had been slave laborers in the nearby town. They were posing as non-Jews. They fell in love, married and recently celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary.

Long before my fellow passenger got to the fairy tale ending, I was skeptical. How could a young girl stand at a concentration camp fence without guards noticing? Would a Jewish family passing as Polish non-Jews permit their daughter to wander around near the camp? Could a prisoner go near the fence without being shot? Was the fence low enough for a small girl to throw an apple over?

When the professor finished, I declared, “Fiction. Bad fiction.” Some of the scholars suspected that years of skirmishes with Holocaust deniers had made me a hardened skeptic. After later coming across numerous renditions of the story — which, it turned out, was all over the Internet — and learning that the Rosenblats had appeared on “Oprah,” that a children’s book on the story was already published and that a memoir and film were forthcoming, I felt I could no longer remain silent. On my blog I stated that this story could not be true. The attacks came in quick succession: How could I question Holocaust survivors? Who was I to defame them?

The most vituperative attack came from Harris Salomon, who was making a film based on Rosenblat’s story. In an e-mail to me, he pronounced my opinion “worthless.” He declared that, since he had traveled throughout Eastern Europe doing research, “i may be more of a more of a [sic] holocaust expert then you.” He closed by accusing me of having committed “the greatest sin to the memory of all those perished so long ago.”

In the interim, Michigan State University historian Ken Waltzer, an expert on Buchenwald, had done the research that reporters, publishers and producers did not do. He spoke with historians who knew the layout of this sub-camp and with people who were interned there with Rosenblat. The story was clearly a lie.

The New Republic’s Gabriel Sherman spoke with additional survivors who further confirmed that this was a hoax. Even Rosenblat’s sister-in-law admitted never having heard the story of the girl with the apples, either at the Rosenblats’ wedding or in the 40 years that followed.

In response to the growing scrutiny, Salomon went ballistic. He complained to one of Waltzer’s deans and intimated that he would hold Waltzer “responsible” if Rosenblat’s health suffered because of the questions being raised about his memoir. The publisher, Penguin’s Berkley Books, stonewalled anyone who contacted them.

When Sherman found yet more survivors who contradicted Rosenblat’s story, the whole thing fell apart. The publisher pulled the book. Rosenblat admitted making up the story. Suddenly, Salomon, the great historian, told the press that he was “extremely angry” about being the victim of a scam (although he has said he still plans to make his film, albeit now as an acknowledged work of fiction).

Sadly, Herman Rosenblat overshadowed his genuine Holocaust story with a completely fabricated one. What really happened to him and his family has been lost in his lies.

There are various lessons to be learned from this: Facts about the Holocaust must be checked. Historians should never build their understanding of events based on one story from one person. But Rosenblat had enablers. His publisher, agent and movie producer pounced on his story. Reporters never bothered to check it out. They all seemingly wanted a story that made the Holocaust heartwarming, even though, as Waltzer aptly put it, the “Holocaust experience is not heartwarming, it is heart rending.”

Salomon believed that this kind of “candy-coated message” would reach “Middle America” and “do more to teach people about the Jewish experience during the Holocaust in a way nothing before has done.” Jewish sources also allowed themselves to be co-opted. Aish HaTorah featured the story on its Web site. A Chabad rabbi, whose relatives died in the Holocaust, was swept off his feet by this phony tale and arranged a belated bar mitzvah for Herman, garnering even more publicity for the Rosenblats and himself.

I have spent much of my academic career studying Holocaust denial. But the much greater danger to our collective memory of the event is posed by Holocaust trivialization and romanticization. What the Rosenblats and their enablers did was create yet another obstacle for the remaining survivors to convince others that their stories are true.

Rosenblat claims that all he wanted to do was make people love each other more. The Chabad rabbi probably thought the story would inspire faith. Salomon wanted to teach Middle America about the Holocaust.

These may be worthy goals. But the Holocaust should not be reduced to a means for trying to fulfill these or any other ends. The instrumentalization of the Holocaust, the use of it to fulfill something else, is the ultimate degradation of the event. If Holocaust deniers were smart, they would sit back and let the Rosenblats, Salomons, Berkley Books and the like peddle their wares. Within a short time, no one would know what was truth and what was fiction.

Apples Over the Fence [11]: Lipstadt Commentary on CNN.com

2008-12-31T12:28:00.002-05:00

For some comments by me on this story see CNN.com's webpage

December 31, 2008

(CNN) -- I don't know whether to be sad or angry -- or both. The recent exposé of the fact that Herman Rosenblat's Holocaust memoir is a hoax was no surprise to me. From the first time I heard the story of his "miraculous" survival during the Nazi era, I doubted that it could be true.

Rosenblat's claim that, as an inmate in a Buchenwald sub-camp, he had survived because a young girl had tossed an apple over the fence each day for seven months just did not seem credible to me.

The notion that a concentration camp inmate could approach the fence without the SS shooting him beggared the imagination. I could not believe that a little girl whose family was supposedly passing as non-Jews would allow their daughter to engage in such an act.

The fairy tale nature of the incident was enhanced by the supposed reunion of the couple on a blind date years later when both had moved to America. The story was that they discovered each other's true identity and, after a whirlwind romance, decided to marry.

Survivors who had been in the camp with Rosenblat and had kept in touch with him since the end of the war protested that the story could not be true. They wondered why Rosenblat had never mentioned the incident until the late 1990s.

A number of other historians shared my doubts, which I posted on my blog. As one of the first to express skepticism about this, I became the target of attacks from those who thought I was demeaning the Rosenblats.

We doubters could not, however, initially overcome the power of Oprah, on whose show Rosenblat and his wife appeared twice. Credulous reporters, who should have sought some form of verification, kept writing about this "miraculous" event.

The producer who acquired movie rights tried to intimidate those of us who raised questions. He wrote to me saying, "I have traveled all over Eastern Europe for several years in preparation for what will be a major feature film. I may be more of a Holocaust expert than you, even though, I have no title nor university affiliation. What I do know for sure is before I make any statements I know the facts. You simply do not know those facts, and that Deborah, is the greatest sin to the memory of all those perished so long ago."

The publisher refused to let anyone see the book. Public relations people circulated versions of the story urging recipients to send it on so eventually it would reach millions of people.

Slowly, thanks to the power of the Internet and the work of some intrepid historians, the hoax was exposed. The publisher pulled the book. The movie producer cried foul, presenting himself as a victim who had been duped.

This is not the first time such a hoax has been perpetrated. Most of the previous stories have been spread by people who were passing as survivors. In contrast, the Rosenblats were both survivors of the Holocaust. But that fact has now been lost in the shuffle.

What, then, is the danger of these sorts of hoaxes? First of all, they give ammunition to Holocaust deniers. This is a bonanza for them.

Deniers expend great efforts in trying to implant doubts in young people about the veracity of the Holocaust. They spend so much energy attacking Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl" because it is a book that is widely read by young people.

The fact that this "apples over the fence" story has already been published as a widely successful children's story provides the deniers with a great opportunity to peddle their wares.

However, the danger posed by deniers is not the primary reason why such fabricated stories should be exposed. The events of the Holocaust are horrible in and of themselves. They do not need to be aggrandized or exaggerated to be made to sound any worse than they were. They also do not need to be rendered as joyful love stories that make us feel good about what happened.

Both are insults to the survivors and inimical to the pursuit of historical truth. The optimum way of teaching about the Holocaust and presenting its history is, to quote Detective Joe Friday from the old TV show, "Dragnet," "just the facts, just the facts."

What we need, particularly in relation to something as mind-boggling as the Holocaust, are "just the facts.

Apples Over the Fence [10]: Meet the Sleuths Who Helped Expose the Fraud

2008-12-31T12:08:00.003-05:00

Misha Defonseca was not saved by wolves, nor was Herman Rosenblat saved by love apples.

Their successes at defrauding the public with their stories of Holocaust survival have been derailed by Identifinders forensic genealogists Sharon Sergeant and Colleen Fitzpatrick. They worked with distinguished members of the Jewish community to expose Herman Rosenblat's fraudulent Holocaust memoire. The result was a careful reconstruction of the true story.

In a world built on information technology, the key to Identifinders'
success was using team building and technology to derive meaningful information from those facts.

Even though there had been an outcry from Holocaust survivors that Herman's story was historically inaccurate and defied their own experiences in the camps, the publisher Berkley Penguin Press initially defended the work based on the idea that no one can argue with someone else's memory. In spite of its subjective nature, however, memory can be tested to see if it is anchored in reality.
Herman's experiences during his life in the camps did not occur in a vacuum. By the time that Herman Rosenblat publicly admitted that his love story Angel at the Fence was a fabrication, he was doing damage control.

By building the context based on what could be documented, we separated fact from fiction. We created a timeline for both Herman's family the Rosenblats and Roma's paternal and maternal families the Radzickis (changed to Rogers) and the Zalctregers.

Aside from his historical inaccuracies, Identifinders found for example that Herman's chronology was not as he stated. Clues from people who had been in the camps with Herman led us to Dr. Ken Waltzer, Professor of Jewish Studies at Michigan State University. Dr.
Waltzer is an expert on the youth who survived Buchenwald and provided Herman's actual history in that camp as opposed to what Herman represented. Waltzer also expanded the team to assemble objective proof that the circumstances at Schlieben did not support Herman's story.

Identifinders meanwhile focused on obtaining evidence on the location of Roma Radzicki Rosenblat's extended family during the Holocaust. The inconsistencies of Roma's part of the story were just as significant but not as prominent.

Most of the Radzickis and the Zalctregers perished in the Holocaust.
But a few of Roma's immediate family survived and emigrated first to Israel, then to the United States. Identifinders traced her remaining extended family to the present day. The clues from the surviving relatives converged on the fact that Roma was nowhere near Schlieben.

None of this would have been possible had Dr. Deborah Lipstadt, Professor at Emory University, not raised a red flag last year on her blog about the truth of Herman's story. Danny Bloom, an author of children's books in Taiwan, read Dr. Lipstadt's comments and took up the challenge after Angel Girl, the children's version, came out in September. He was instrumental in convincing the media that the story needed attention. He also contacted Identifinders knowing we had exposed Misha Defonseca. Peter Kubichek, a concentration camp survivor and author, provided coherent background information that was valuable in understanding how concentration camp survivors viewed Herman's story.

This is just one example of how Forensic Genealogy has become an interdisciplinary approach for discovering the truth behind frauds, as well as for locating DNA references, finding missing persons, determining identity, and provenance.

— Colleen Fitzpatrick

Appples Over the Fence [9]: A Survivor Speaks Out

2008-12-31T02:45:00.003-05:00

One of the first people to contact me about the Rosenblat memoir and to emphatically state that this story was false was Sidney Finkel of Tuscon. An interview with him in the local paper can be found here.

Limmud UK 2008: Reflecting on "Truth" and the Holocaust

2008-12-28T14:57:00.005-05:00

I am sitting here in the cafe after a busy day of teaching and attending sessions at Limmud 08. It is once again an effort that never fails to impress.

But rather than sing the general praises of the event, I want to reflect on a film, Stealing Klimt I saw today about the Klimt paintings that were confiscated by the Nazis, then -- after the war -- "stolen" by the Austrian government, and finally, due to the assiduous work of the owner's niece recovered by the family.

I must admit when people first began to try to recover their property, bank accounts, and artwork I was a bit discomforted. It was wrong of me to feel that way but I admit to it. As all the attention was focused on material goods it seemed that the tragic loss of life was being overshadowed by the loss of property.

[On some level I had internalized antisemitic charges and was responding to that. But more of that on another occasion.]

One day -- I don't remember what brought about the change -- I recognized I was dead wrong.

Heck, this belonged to those families, why shouldn't they get it back? There's nothing wrong and everything right with their saying: this is mine. It was stolen from me and I want it.

This film relates the unbelievable story of how one woman together with a dedicated lawyer pursued these unbelievable paintings.

More importantly it tells the story of the lowly Austrians who, after decades of successfully claiming that they were Hitler's first victims [and I have a bridge to sell you], were exposed for the culprits that they were.

Not only did they welcome the Nazis with outraised arms, join the SS in droves, and plunder Jews in their midst, but afterwards they claimed Jewish property as their own. If you wanted to get a portion of your property back you had to sign over the rest of it over to the Austrians.

Then they spent decades fighting people trying to get their property back. They lied. They were lowlifes. And they continued to behave that way in relation to this family.

The story is unbelievable and it is factual. It is also well told. The writer is Martin Smith who was responsible for much of the design of the exhibition of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

After a couple of days of being caught up in the morass of Holocaust liars [see under Rosenblatt and Salomon], it's nice to see the truth portrayed so well.

And it's wonderful to be here at Limmud.

Apples Over the Fence [8]: Finding the Real Culprit

2008-12-28T03:33:00.008-05:00

Professor Ken Waltzer, in his incredibly insightful statement [see previous post], focused on the role of the purveyors of culture who have tried to turn the Holocaust into a heart warming story.

Among those he cited was Harris Salomon the producer of the film on the Rosenblatts. Salomon, as i noted, in now crying about how he was lied to by Rosenblatt. Essentially he is portraying himself as a victim.

This is what he is now saying to the press:

"It’s unfortunate he told a lie.... The man is tragically flawed, but his story had value.... Obviously, this is a surprise to me. Obviously, I am extremely angry. He let me down professionally and personally. We get used to dealing with people of all stripes in this business. This is the business and the society we live in today, that allows people to lie, but also feeds off people lying and asking for forgiveness."

Those who read Gabe Sherman's excellent pieces in The New Republic [see here and here], know that Solomon contacted the deans at Michigan State University to rail about Waltzer's work on this topic. He managed, it seemed to me, to rattle Waltzer, a fine historian, a bit. After all, not all universities, especially state institutions which are facing hard economic times, will strongly support their faculty in situations such as these. [That's why Emory's support of me, as I recount in History on Trial, is so remarkable.]

Since Salomon is now bemoaning his fate, I thought readers should see how he sang a very different tune about six months ago after I told him that i had serious doubts about the Rosenblatt story.

Compare what he had to say now [I have been lied to] with what he had to say then.

His email to me is cc'ed to Rosenblatt and, I assume, to his agent.

To: Lipstadt, Deborah
Cc: [Email addresses eliminated ]
Subject: Re: deborah

dear deborah,
there is no point in me having an argument with you. i know little about you other then what has been written. i have to admit i have heard some harsh things about you since we started exchanging emails. hothead is a word used by at least two of your peers in the holocaust community.

i am telling you, and i am sure you know, that much of what is written on the net is not true. what is on the oprah site, what is on the aish site, and what is on your blog, are not the words of herman rosenblat and not what is in his book. if you took the time to read the book before ripping something apart perhaps your reputation might be different? in my business deborah that is called slander. i know you have heard that word before.

you are entitled to an opinion. you are entitled to judge the facts. but your opinion deborah at the moment is worthless as you are making statements based on third party web sites that do not contain the words of mr. rosenblat or what is in his book.

is this what you would advise your students at emory?

i have traveled all over eastern europe for several years in preparation for what will be a major feature film. i may be more of a more of a holocaust expert then you, even though, i have no title nor university affiliation. what i do know for sure is before i make any statements i know the facts.

you simply do not know those facts, and that debroah, is the greatest sin to the memory of all those perished so long ago.

with regards,

harris salomon
president

atlantic overseas pictures

I plead guilty to sometimes being a "hothead" especially when something about which I care deeply is at stake, e.g. truth and lies about the Holocaust.

But I did think that Salomon's intimation, as I understood, that it was because of my passion that I was sued by David Irving was a bit over the top.

Anyway, this one-time "expert" on historical truth who tried to silence Ken Waltzer and me -- he did not seem to realize that I have faced far more nettlesome opponents than him -- is now crying about being a victim.

If there is a scoundrel in this story my impression is that we have found him.

Apples Over the Fence [7]: Statement by Professor Ken Waltzer

2008-12-28T02:36:00.004-05:00

Professor Ken Waltzer, who did the research that essentially confirmed that Herman Rosenblatt's memoir was fabricated, has issued the following statement. It is exceptional in its sensitivity and its focus on the real culprits in this entire messy saga.

I have learned tonight that Penguin Berkley Press has pulled the memoir, Angel at the Fence, which I and others have been investigating, from publication. Herman Rosenblat has shared the news that he invented the false story with Harris Salomon, president of Atlantic Overseas Pictures, and Harris Salomon has told the publisher. Penguin Berkley Press will seek restitution.

I am saddened by the whole thing. First, Herman and Roma Rosenblat are of course to be faulted for making up a Holocaust love story and seeking fame and public attention, but their lying and dissimulating are actually understandable. Less understandable is the widespread belief in their story – by the culture makers, including the publisher and movie maker and many thousands of others who have encountered it over a decade.

Second, such belief suggests a broad illiteracy about the Holocaust and about experience in the camps -- despite decades of books, serious memoirs, museums, and movies. This shakes this historian up.

This memoir was at the far end of implausibility, yet until yesterday, no one connected with packaging, promoting, and disseminating it asked question about or investigated it. Some actively resisted such investigation and tried to shut mine down.

The idea of a prisoner autonomously going to the fence daily, every day, in a Nazi concentration camp and meeting a young girl at the guarded, electrified fence who was allegedly hiding under false identity with her family in the nearby village and who threw him food beggars the imagination. Prisoners in konzentrationslager could not approach guarded fences; persons in hiding with a primary family group would not risk detection by going daily to a camp where SS guards were concentrated. The actual fence in Schlieben was right next to the SS barracks.

So Herman and Roma overreached and actually demeaned their own Holocaust stories -- Herman forgot his brothers who kept him alive in the camps, Roma forgot her own remarkable and sad family story hiding not in Schlieben but elsewhere more than 200 miles away.

But where were the culture makers on this one? What kind of questions did Penguin Berkley Press bring to bear regarding a memoir about a love story set in a concentration camp? What kind of strategy did Harris Salomon embrace to elevate a candy coated Holocaust love story to bring Holocaust education to Middle America? This was not Holocaust education but miseducation. Holocaust experience is not heartwarming, it is heart rending. All this shows something about the broad unwillingness in our culture to confront the difficult knowledge of the Holocaust. All the more important then to have real memoirs that tell of real experience in the camps.

I want to thank those who have worked with me – particularly forensic genealogists Sharon Sergeant and Colleen Fitzpatrick, and amateur Schlieben historian Uwe Schwarz and his associate Jean-Luis Rey. I also want to thank the many survivors, including Ben Helfgott and Sid Finkel, who put their trust in me and shared their knowledge. Gabe Sherman’s reportage at the New Republic has been remarkable, and there will be more to say in the coming days.

Ken Waltzer

Director, Jewish Studies
Michigan State University

Apples Over the Fence [6]: A New Republic Editor Comments

2008-12-27T19:46:00.002-05:00

There is an interesting comment on the TNR website and reaction on the TNR website.

Apples Over the Fence [5]: Publisher Cancels Book

2008-12-27T19:29:00.003-05:00

The publisher of Herman Rosenblatt's memoir has just cancelled publication. The book was scheduled to appear on February 3rd. Yesterday the publisher was defending the book. Today it cancelled it and issued this statement:

"Berkley Books is cancelling publication of Angel at the Fence after receiving new information from Herman Rosenblatt's agent, Andrea Hurst. Berkley will demand that the author and the agent return all money that they have received for this work."

According to the story, Harris Salomon, the producer of the film that was to accompany the book, said: "It’s unfortunate he told a lie... The man is tragically flawed, but his story had value."

Salomon now acknowledges that they story is false and is angry about being lied to. Just last week he was calling Professor Ken Waltzer's dean at Michigan State University to complain about Waltzer's talking to the New Republic to express his doubts.

Limmud UK

2008-12-27T18:46:00.001-05:00

Once again attending this stellar educational program. Among the great teachers who will be here are Menachem Ben-Sasson, Sarah Benor, Jim Kugel, Mel Konner, and many many others.

Apples over the Fence [4]: The New Republic Interviews Survivors: Story is Fabricated

2008-12-27T10:26:00.009-05:00

Gabe Sherman has followed up on his initial story in the New Republic on Herman Rosenblatt's supposed memoir, Angel at the Fence, with another one detailing extensive interviews with survivors, some of whom were with him in the camp. He has also interviews Rosenblatt's sister-in-law whose late husband, Herman's brother, was with him in the camp.

To a person they all say the story is false. A number of them tried to stop Rosenblatt from telling this story. They could not.

Up until now I have written with great sadness about this whole mess. I still am sad. Sad that other survivors will feel on the defensive about having to "prove" their memories are indeed true. Sad that some people will feel more inclined to wonder if a survivor is telling the truth. Sad that the deniers will use this story as fodder for their argument that you cannot believe survivors' stories.

But, after reading Sherman's latest my sadness is mixed with anger. People tried to stop Rosenblatt. They told it was wrong to fabricate a story. They warned him against it. All to no avail. He apparently loved the publicity.

Some people have written to me asking why they should even care about deniers. "They lie anyway. Why do you care if this gives them ammunition?" I don't care about deniers. They have made their minds up based on lies and inventions. I just don't want to give them any ammunition to convince other people, people not inclined towards denial. Rosenblatt played right into their hands.

This scandal was unnecessary.

Herman Rosenblatt survived the camps as a young boy despite the inhumane efforts of the Germans to work him and other prisoners to death. That's enough of a miracle in my book.

The apples and all the other embellishments should have stayed in the larder.

Off Topic: Bush Pardons [then retracts it] a Real Estate Crook

2008-12-25T16:28:00.002-05:00

Sorry for this off topic post but this has been making me nuts since I first heard about it this a.m.

President Bush pardoned a real estate crook who scammed lots of people. The guy's name is Roubert Toussie.

Here's my question: WHY WAS HE PARDONED IN THE FIRST PLACE?

He committed a crime that is emblematic of the housing crisis plaguing so many Americans.

Of all crimes to pardon. THIS WAS NOT THE ONE.

OK, got that off my chest.

The AZM [American Zionist Movement] Gets the Message

2008-12-25T13:03:00.003-05:00

I just learned that the AZM is revising its 8 heroes of Hanukkah web page. They screwed up -- as I noted in the previous post -- and they moved quickly to rectify their mistake. Good for them.

The AZM [American Zionist Movement]: Absurd and Out of Touch

2008-12-24T05:55:00.009-05:00

Are the folks at AZM [the American Zionist Movement] living under a rock? Are they completely out of touch?

My friend Rela Geffen, Past President of Baltimore Hebrew University, has alerted me to the fact that someone at the organization decided to put together a Hanukkah game on their web site. They singled out 8 Hanukkah heroes.

All men. Yup, all men.

They are men of accomplishment without doubt.

But couldn't these folks have found one woman to celebrate?

Golda Meir?

Henrietta Szold? [She created the MOST successful Jewish organization in the world and one that has had a tremendous impact in Israel...]

Nehama Leibovitz? [One of the great Torah teachers of all time.]

Hannah Senesh? [She showed more bravery than some of the leaders who sat in Tel Aviv. She died to save her people.]

Rachel? [one of Israel's great poets]

Alice Shalvi? [considered the "mother" of Israeli feminism and a winner of the Israel Prize. The prize committee described her as having been "revolutionary and courageously trailblazing, with intellectual integrity and long-term vision."]

Rabbi Naamah Kelman [the first Israeli woman to be ordained]

Didn't it seem strange to the AZM folks to look at 8 photos of Jewish heroes and not see one woman? Did they notice and not care or -- and this is even more frightening -- did they not even notice?

And sometimes organizations wonder why they become irrelevant.

I am not asking for 4, i.e. parity. Just one or, maybe to be a bit greedy, two.

If you want to see how it could be done check out the website of the Jewish Women's Archive, a great organization that I have always thought was highly relevant but, after my encounter with the AZM, am even more convinced of the fact.

Or maybe we should get the AZM folks a subscription to Lilith

NPR: Using Yiddish to Define an English Word

2008-12-23T13:40:00.002-05:00

This morning on NPR's Morning Edition a story was introduced by the host as follows: "We've been throwing the word moxie around lately. It means courage, nerve, sort of like the Yiddish word, hutzpah."

It's quite something when NPR uses Yiddish to define English!!

Apples over the Fence [3]: The New Republic Covers the Story

2008-12-23T11:06:00.006-05:00

[Link fixed 3:38 p.m.]

Gabriel Sherman's article on the Apples Over the Fence story is now up on the New Republic website.

Since I am quoted in the article, I want to reiterate two points:

1) I am upset by this incident because it gives fodder to the deniers. It helps cast unreasonable doubt on other trustworthy memoirs and recollections.

2) More importantly, even if we had never heard of deniers and they did not exist, it would be wrong. The Holocaust beggars the imagination. It is beyond belief in many respects. The facts -- as Joe Friday would say "just the facts, just the facts" -- are bad enough. One need not embellish them in any way.

Finally, as I said to Sherman, I find this all very sad. A Holocaust survivor who went through terrible experiences and lost many members of his family has overshadowed the truth of what happened with a questionable tale.

Blatant Discrimination Against a Moslem Woman

2008-12-17T16:25:00.003-05:00

According to the AP a Muslim woman was arrested for refusing to take off her head scarf at a courthouse security checkpoint. She was ordered to serve 10 days in jail for contempt of court, said police in Douglasville, a city of about 20,000 people on Atlanta's west suburban outskirts.

The police said she violated a court policy that prohibits people from wearing any headgear in court. However a spokeswoman for Georgia Attorney General said that there is no state law on the matter and that it is up to the judge and the sheriff.

I guess the good ole boys who run the court did not like it. If this happened to someone wearing a kipah Jews would be up in arms and rightfully so. There is no difference here.

And it happened right here in my neighborhood....

A Gift for the Antisemite: Bernard Madoff

2008-12-16T19:18:00.002-05:00

Ever since I heard about this scandal and the degree to which it impacted philanthropies, particularly but not only Jewish philanthropies, I have been shaking my head in wonder.

How could this man do this to so many institutions which do good things? In addition he hit lots of people, some of them quite rich and some of them in far more modest circumstances. Many are left with nothing.

Madoff is a sociopath. That seems pretty certain.

He is an antisemite's dream. The worst of them could not have dreamt up such a story.

There seems to be no punishment strong enough for this guy.

Ha'aretz's Bradley Burston says exactly what I have been thinking: Christmas came early for the worst of the antisemites this year.

Limmud

2008-12-16T06:25:00.002-05:00

As some readers of this blog know, I am a great fan of Limmud, a wonderful educational enterprise. The "mothership" of Limmud is held in the UK every year between Christmas and New Year's.

The Guardian has an interesting article on the event.

British Boycott of Israeli Universities: The End of this Antisemitic Action?

2008-12-15T17:56:00.003-05:00

According to the JTA a threat of legal action by Anthony Julius, who was my lawyer in Irving v. Penguin/Lipstadt, has brought an end to the attempt by a small group of university academics to boycott Israeli universities.

Anthony promised free legal assistance to any academic affected by the threatened boycott, and wrote the union’s general secretary that he considered the union’s motion -- to “consider the moral and political implications of educational links with Israeli institutions, and to discuss the occupation with individuals and institutions concerned, including Israeli colleagues” -- to be both a boycott motion and anti-Semitic.

Last week the union, known by as the UCU, dropped its latest boycott call.

Anthony took this action despite the fact that many people -- including some within the UK Jewish community -- opposed it. He knew it was the right thing to do.

I am not the least bit surprised. He took the same stance in my case.

The rest, as is said, is history.

Bravo Anthony [and also to his cohort James Libson who played an equally important role here, as he did in my case].