But I insist, hindsight 70 years later is easy. No one in 1933 could have imagined the importance of toppling Hitler’s regime. Please feel free to ignore this as you already have.

I have much more patience online, as I am sure my readers will see from our “conversation.”

YOU say that 50,000 people were saved but because of that 6 million were killed. Not that there’s any basis to that, but there’s not much basis to what I’m about to say either, other than common sense. If they hadn’t been saved, they would have been killed later with the other 6 million.

Sad that you don’t think that saving 50,000 people is commendable. As I said before with the Eichmann deal, will people remember what was gained, or just what was given up?

Please do not put words into my mouth. I have never said that everything you’ve said is 100% BS. Only some of it is. For example, when you started the jooglebomb, I publicly applauded the idea and supported it.

The point about the Hebrew article you provided is that you are using it as your source, and I know from your blog that you have trouble translating Hebrew. So I am curious as to whether you read the article in its entirety.

By the way, I do not subscribe to the view that everything the Israeli government has done, is doing, or even will do, is correct. It is ok to criticize them. I just think people like you go way overboard.

As for calling me a c*ck, I don’ see how it fits in with your final quote v’ahavta l’rekha kamokha beyotch (love your brother as you love yourself). But feel free to say it to my face at the blog meetup. Just don’t be surprised at my response. If, however, you decide to be a mensch at the meetup, I am sure we will be able to have a thoughtful discussion.

you know what’s really cute dave, that instead of actually dealing with the fact that you’re wrong in the case of the radiation experiments the israeli government conducted on mizrahi immigrants, you’re going to attack me again. this is why you’re a cock.

see dave, you said everything i’ve said is 100% bullshit, but i’ve shown clearly that it’s not. so when you reduce me to a shrill, incoherent, vitriolic lunatic, you’re doing so out of your own ignorance and have no grounds to actually defend your position, whereas i have what to defend mine.

if you don’t want me calling you a cock, don’t be one.

anyway, harry and i are organizing a blog meetup for next month. maybe you’ll finally have a chance to meet me and the false impression you have of me in your head will finally be eradicated.

v’ahavta l’rekha kamokha beyotch!

A very controversial deal, which was to save thousands of Jews by bringing them to Palestine instead of on the trains to Auschwitz-Birkenau, in exchange for the promise of not pursuing Eichmann after the war was over. He knew the end was nearing and that one day the situation would turn over and was trying to save his ass.

It was incredibly controversial at the time, how could anyone even think of “collaborating” with a Nazi, promising him freedom without prosecution after the war? But it was for saving Jews, for saving lives. It even says it in Auschwitz now, he who saves the life of one, it is like he saved the world entire, so how could this mishlahat not jump on the oppotunity to save those thousands of Jews?

The deal didn’t come through (His grandfather wrote a book about it actually, I can’t remember the name of it, should be findable with the author’s name, Dov Tsachor, though I didn’t find it on ibooks.co.il) and the Jews concerned were sent to their horrible fates.

Had the deal worked, I don’t know what people would have thought of afterwards. Would they have cared that peoples’ lives were saved? Or would they have been bitter than they cannot prosecute Eichmann, as was finally done? There would have never been the Eichmann trial if this deal had gone through. As it was, this mishlahat’s testimony in the trial was of incredible importance, since it showed his level of involvement, and that he knew the consequences of sending the Jews to their final destination, rather than, as he continually said, “just following orders, didn’t know what would happen to Jews after they got off the trains”.

That’s not Jews allying with Nazis. That’s Jews trying to make the best out of a horrible situation and being blackmailed into having two choose the lesser of two evils.

i never mentioned nazis

No, you just said “mengelesque human experiments”. Please, don’t insult our intelligence.

but while we’re on the subject, the zionists did ally with the nazis when it was convenient to their purposes: http://www.transferagreement.com/

In other words, you are responding by saying “I never mentioned nazis but speaking of which, now I will..” Not the best comeback I have ever seen.

By the way, the Transfer Agreement link you provided shows that the Zionists made a pact with the Nazis..in order to save lives. Maybe not everyone would agree it was the “right” choice (G-d forbid that any of us would be faced with such a dilemna), but it only goes to show that the Zionists wanted to save lives. As I see on the site:

On August 7, 1933, leaders of the Zionist movement concluded a controversial pact with the Third Reich which transferred some 60,000 Jews and some $200 million to Jewish Palestine. In return, Zionists agreed to halt the worldwide Jewish-led anti-Nazi boycott that threatened to topple the Hitler regime at its most vulnerable point. The debate tore the pre-War Jewish world apart. Ultimately, The Transfer Agreement saved lives, rescued assets, and seeded the infrastructure of the Jewish State.

Regarding the Hebrew link, why don’t you enlighten everyone as to what the article says in English? I know from your blog that your Hebrew skills are not fantastic. I would hate to think you are posting something you can’t even translate.

former head of the american jewish congress henry siegman, a senior fellow at the council on foreign relations, can say it, but i can’t? http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7265

And if I saw his article, I may have rebuttd it as well. But I read your post. And it is perfectly fine that you express your view. Just like it is perfectly fine that I respond to it.

finally — as per the “incoherent rant” you cited above… entirely out of context and without a frame of reference. eat me

You kiss your mama with that mouth?