As I mentioned below, Pete McCloskey (according to the L.A. Times, "the best thing that could happen for the district, the state, the nation and possibly the Republican Party") had spoken to a Holocaust revisionist group, and had called the Holocaust "the so-called Holocaust." That struck me as troubling, and it seemed to me that the papers should have acknowledged this and tried to explain it.
But a commenter points to yet another item, which strikes me as even more troubling. This is from McCloskey's speech at the Institute for Historical Review conference (emphasis added):
From an Israeli television studio I was interviewed by Tom Brokaw in New York for NBC national television. I'll never forget what happened. He asked what we had found, and about our talks with Assad, Hussein and Arafat. You know, you just get five-minute sound bites. I was asked what I thought of Begin. And I said that he's the same guy who, back in 1947, had hanged British soldiers. He was terrorist. Even most Jews thought of him as a terrorist. Some called him a Jewish Hitler, I believe. And I was asked what I thought of Ariel Sharon [who was then Israel's defense minister]. "Well, he's a butcher," I said. "He's a mean guy." I was asked about Yitzhak Shamir. I said something similar about him. And then Brokaw asked me what I thought about Yasser Arafat. "Well," I said, "I think he's a man of peace." At that point, the Israeli military censor cut off the interview and the link to NBC in the United States....
Now if the Israelis did cut off the interview, they could quite properly be faulted for it. And it's certainly quite legitimate to fault Israeli leaders for their past actions. (I can't speak to the details of Begin's, Sharon's, and Shamir's past conduct, but I do know that reasonable people have made such criticisms of Begin and Sharon; for purposes of this post, I'm happy to assume the truth of those criticisms, and to include Shamir in the group.)
But can someone who harshly condemns Begin, Sharon, and Shamir for their past violent acts yet calls Yasser Arafat "a man of peace" really be "the best thing that could happen for the district, the state, the nation and possibly the Republican Party"?
(For those who want to justify McCloskey's statements on the theory that he would have said more to qualify his position about Arafat had the censors not cut him off, please note that he related this story in his own speech, with no qualification and no explanation. When someone gives a speech to a Holocaust revisionist group and favorably recalls an incident in which he harshly criticized Israeli leaders but called Arafat "a man of peace," that seems to me a good window on the man's mindset.)
Related Posts (on one page):
- S.F. Chronicle on the Allegations About Congressional Candidate Pete McCloskey:
- One Advantage of the Republican Party, 1982:
- More on the Congressional Candidate Endorsed by the L.A. Times and the S.F. Chronicle:
- L.A. Times & S.F. Chronicle Endorse Congressman Who Spoke of "So-Called Holocaust":
Your criticism seems almost like disqualifying an otherwise qualified candidate for being an atheist; you disagree with him (extremely strongly in this case) on a specific issue which probably won't play much role in how he votes if elected.
Why don't you ask him?
His address is at the bottom of the page. He might even reply.
Someone who doesn't believe the Holocaust happened is almost certainly either an anti-semite or delusional. (Or both, of course.) Why would someone want either type of person in Congress? The fact that he thinks Arafat is (was) a man of peace is further evidence -- well, I guess it doesn't help narrow down the two possibilities I mentioned above. But it strengthens the argument that he's one of these.
And. . . the Democratic Party does not deny supporting him, implying they support the assertion previously made the Holocaust did not happen.
An understanding for me, then, why such publications and why the Democratic Party are trapped in a cycle of diminishing returns.
Thank you for your time.
An understanding for me, then, why such publications and why the Democratic Party are trapped in a cycle of diminishing returns.
To clarify - McCloskey is a Republican....He faces a primary fight against incumbent Rep. Pombo.
My two cents is that both publications likely aren't aware of such statements and the LA Times quote likely referred to Pombo's documented ties to industry. The environment looks to be a huge issue in the primary, as McCloskey was the author of the Endangered Species Act and Pombo has sought to gut environmental protection standards as House Resources Cmte. Chairman.
Back in 1980, as a Congressman, McCloskey offered an amendment to a foreign aid bill that would cut funding to Israel by $150 million if it continued to build settlements. He soon lost his next election.
Yes, that's why the "Democratic" endorsement means what it does: his candidacy would be a good thing for the "Demokratik" Partei.
His opinions do sound more like those of the "Democratic" party though, are you sure he's no sleeper agent?
The relevance, jvarisco, of this item is that opining that Arafat was 'a man of peace,' means McCloskey makes decisions without the neccesary evidence to decide.
The point I was trying to make is that McCloskey is holding Begin, et. al, and Arafat to different standards, the decision being apparently based on his partisan feelings against the Israelis.
Both Arafat and Begin were terrorists as most people understand the word. Both subsequently became respectable leaders (for arguments sake let's suppose that). To McCloskey, one remains a terrorist and one is man of peace.
[And all of this is ignoring the fact that Arafat never gave up terrorism, which is another strike against McCloskey. One may argue that we didn't know how involved Arafat was at the time since we didn't find out about it until Intifada II was well underway. But it was known at the time that the Palestinian schoolchildren were being taught Jew-hatred and irredentism in the schools all through the Oslo period under Arafat's watch, certainly with his nod if not his explicit direction. Hardly actions one would expect a "man of peace" to be associated with.]
The Chron's endorsement leads with the paper singing praises about how McCloskey is a "straight shooter" and not partisan. This is simply false based on the evidence, and that was my point.
I agree that calling Arafat a man of peace in and of itself shows a certain lack of judgement. But in fairness, I was prepared to give him a chance to make the transition to respectable statesman. If he made this transition I think the lives of countless Israelis and Palestinians would be radically different for the better today.
It's also worth noting that Arafat has been implicated as being directly involved in the murder of one of our diplomats (Cleo Noel, if anyone wants to Google it). I think this demonstrates more of McCloskey's hypocrisy, as he was blathering on about the friendly fire incident involving the USS Liberty but doesn't seem bothered by the cold blooded murder of American diplomats.
"Back in 1980, as a Congressman, McCloskey offered an amendment to a foreign aid bill that would cut funding to Israel by $150 million if it continued to build settlements. He soon lost his next election."
Sounds like our current (though unenforced) policy. Settlements are not only a bad idea, but entirely illegal. Where's the problem here? This guy sounds more mainstream than most of the commentators so far.
2) Context is everything. Calling Arafat a "man of peace" is one thing; doing so while denouncing Begin, Sharon, Shamir as terrorists is another. No rational person could make that distinction.
3) Context is everything. In isolation, calling Arafat a "man of peace" might not be sufficient to indict McCloskey. But when he denies the Holocaust and calls Arafat a man of peace, you've got conclusive evidence.
But am I the only reader who finds this statement a little odd - "I can't speak to the details of Begin's, Sharon's, and Shamir's past conduct"? How can anyone have a strong view on the rights and wrongs of Israel vs Palestine without knowing at least something about what some Israelis saw as appropriate tactics to use against the British and Arabs? Given Professor Volokh's encyleopdic knowledge of virtually everything, I have to wonder about this.
One reason for this is that I know that to know even a little about this subject, you have to know a lot. For instance, to pass judgment on Begin one needs to know more than the generally known fact that he attacked the British, and also know the nature of the attacks: Were they limited to military targets, or did they also include civilians? How were they conducted, and exactly against whom and under what conditions? As to Sharon, I've certainly heard the allegations that he was complicit in the Sabra and Chatila (sp?) be massacres by Lebanese Christian militias, but I know little beyond that. I'd never heard any specific charges about Shamir.
I feel comfortable opining about whether Arafat was a "man of peace" only because his involvement in terrorist attacks against civilians is so recent, so overt, and so heavily publicized. On this issue, even someone who is as lightly informed about the broad subject can have, I think, a sensible opinion. But when the matters become less well-known and more controversial, and my knowledge of the matter becomes nearly nil, I'm happy to confess to this lack of knowledge and to expressly refrain from giving an opinion.
My knowledge is far less than yours, but I will reluctantly state the obvious.
Some of those questions may be answered by reviewing the history and membership of Lehi (aka by British as the Avraham Stern Gang) in the 1940s.
Certainly one must be careful of secondary sources, since undoubtedly some authors would exaggerate or otherwise lie about events for nationalistic or even antisemitic reasons. But likely there are some sufficiently unbiased sources, primary or secondary, which record something approximating truth.
I'll not suggest particular sources, so not to flaunt my ignorance, as well as not to suggest specific conclusions.
Furthermore, if you read the update to the earlier post, he did not question the holocaust, just the specific numbers. What's the problem there?
Sharon was Minister of Defense at the time of the Sabra and Shatilla massacres. The Kahan Commission in 1983 found him indirectly responsible by virtue of his position. The Commission did not find any direct participation or culpability by any Israeli persons in these massacres. We know exactly who did it- the Falangist Militia, in direct contravention of orders given to them by Israeli military commanders. Since staff of the "Gaza" hospital (run by Palestinian Red Crescent) immediately adjacent to the camps knew nothing of the slaughter until the day after it was over, it is very hard to pin Mr. Sharon or anyone in his chain of command with even the knowledge of the atrocity while it was happening.
BTW, the [Israeli] Kahan Commision, which was quite harsh on Mr. Sharon and certain elements of the command structure in Lebanon, was the *only* investigation ever made of this massacre. As for the Arab side, that is, both the victims and the perpetrators, they preferred to rely on rumor, innuendo and false accusation.
In the jarring but sadly true words of Menachem Begin, "Goyim kill goyim and Jews get blamed."
No, there is no way that anyone who knows anything about this conflict can legitimately compare Begin or Sharon with Arafat.
As for Shamir, he was a leader of the "Stern Gang", which engaged in what reasonable people would today recognize as terrorism (similar to the IRA.) The Stern Gang (or "Lehi", Hebrew acronymn for the group's name, Lohamei Herut Israel) was the smallest of the Jewish armed groups during the Mandatory period, and its actions alienated most of the other groups, such as Haganah and Irgun.
Cut off legitimate opposition?
Imagine that...
April 20, 1936 - 2 Arab workers in a banana plantation killed
March, 1937 - 2 Arabs killed on Bat-Yam beach
November 14, 1937 - 6 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks in Jerusalem.
April 12, 1938 - 2 Arabs and 2 British policemen were killed by a bomb in a train in Haifa.
April 17, 1938 - An Arab was killed by a bomb detonated in a cafe in Haifa
May 17, 1938 - An Arab policeman was killed in an attack on a bus in the Jerusalem-Hebron road.
May 24, 1938 - 3 Arabs were shot and killed in Haifa.
June 23, 1938 - 2 Arabs were killed near Tel-Aviv.
June 26, 1938 - 7 Arabs were killed by a bomb in Jaffa.
June 27, 1938 - An Arab was killed in the yard of a hospital in Haifa.
July 5, 1938 - 7 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks in Tel-Aviv.
On the same day, 3 Arabs were killed by a bomb detonated in a bus in Jerusalem.
On the same day, an Arab was killed in another attack in Jerusalem.
July 6 1938 - 18 Arabs and 5 Jews were killed by two simultaneous bombs in the Arab Melon market in Haifa.
July 8, 1938 - 4 Arabs were killed by a bomb in Jerusalem.
July 16, 1938 - 10 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jerusalem.
July 25, 1938 - 39 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa.
August 26, 1938 - 24 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jaffa.
February 27, 1939 - 33 Arabs were killed in multiple attacks, incl. 24 by bomb in Arab market in Suk Quarter of Haifa and 4 by bomb in Arab vegetable market in Jerusalem.
May 29, 1939 - 5 Arabs were killed by a mine detonated at the Rex cinema in Jerusalem.
On the same day, 5 Arabs were shot and killed during a raid on the village of Biyar 'Adas.
June 2, 1939 - 5 Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem.
June 12, 1939 - A post office in Jerusalem was bombed, killing a British bomb expert trying to defuse the bombs.
June 16, 1939 - 6 Arabs were killed in several attacks in Jerusalem.
June 19, 1939 - 20 Arabs were killed by explosives mounted on a donkey at a marketplace in Haifa.
June 29, 1939 - 13 Arabs were killed in multiple shootings during one-hour period.
June 30, 1939 - An Arab was killed at a marketplace in Jerusalem.
On the same day, 2 Arabs were shot and killed in Lifta.
July 3, 1939 - An Arab was killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa.
July 4, 1939 - 2 Arabs were killed in two attacks in Jerusalem.
July 20, 1939 - An Arab was killed at a train station in Jaffa.
On the same day, 6 Arabs were killed in several attacks in Tel-Aviv.
On the same day, 3 Arabs were killed in Rehovot.
August 27, 1939 - 2 British officers were killed by a mine in Jerusalem.
I'll concede Mr Rosenbach's point that the attacks against the British (and Arab military/police targets) were not terrorist. I wonder though whether he draws any distinction between Palestinian attacks against soldiers/police versus civilians. My understanding is that current Israeli discourse sees no distinction.
The list you provided were incidents from 1936 to 1939. There seems to be a lot of dispute about them, but it is hard to imagine that such acts against civilian Arabs were not carried out by Jewish terrorists. Which acts actually involved Irgun may be hard to say. But this was all several years before Begin took over leadership of Irgun.
that they have not been reasoned into.”
<<< Jonathan Swift
I have known Pete McCloskey since the early 1970s, when i followed him around for a couple of weeks, as a photographer, while he was running for congress in my district. Pete is a prototypical jarhead, a hot-head who can be an opinionated jackass. But to claim he is an antisemite, because he got pissed off at the ADL for spying on him and sued them, is a stretch of the imagination. To claim he is a Holocaust denier with an arsenal of innuendo and misquotations debases the tenor of this dialogue.
Pete McCloskey is not my buddy; he's not my friend; I wouldn't invite him to my son's Bar Mitzva, but to so accuse a man --- especially one who has publicly demonstrated decades of integrity and outspoken courage of a sort that is remarkably absent in our pathetic generation of milk-toast politicians --- is a public disservice and a private outrage.
As someone who has spent a good deal of his life living, as a Jew, in Russia, in Poland and in France... (as well as in Hip, Liberal &Tolerant America), I know what antisemitism is... firsthand. Pete McCloskey is an opinionated, hard-headed jerk. That does not make him a bigot. That is the opinion I formed over three decades of interaction with a man and nothing that has been documented in this string of bank-shots and whispers enlightens me to think otherwise.
Shalom, Joey Tranchina