And I'm sure if I repeat it again, you'll opt to engage in yet another bout of telling me I'm doing something I'm not....
What You Are Doing, Is protesting my denouncing a writer capable of stating that Nazis viewed Zionists as fellow travelers in their quest for racial purity.Now if the writer had said that Zionists viewed the Nazis as fellow travellers, I'd be thinking that'd be something worth denoucing. But while yr so busy denouncing this writer, I'll be waiting for you to start denouncing those wretches at the Simon Wiesenthal Centre for daring to publish such swill on their site:
'The relationship between Nazi Germany and the Palestine Question of the 1930s is widely misunderstood. Except for a few scholars here and there, this subject lends itself to a pervasive kind of misconception: we tend to read the Nazi policies of World War II back into the 1930s. The Nazis' "Final Solution of the Jewish Question," their pro-Arab attitudes, and their battle against Great Britain makes it difficult for most of us to imagine that before the war the Nazis, even the SS, aided the illegal immigration of Jews into Palestine, and that Hitler so feared British displeasure that he absolutely prohibited German support for the Arabs of the Palestine mandate. Yet this is exactly what Francis R. Nicosia has described and proved in his excellent scholarly study.
Nicosia clearly shows in his impressive introductory chapter that Germany's policy on Palestine remained unchanged from the late Empire through the Weimar Republic. German policy makers supported Zionist efforts because they recognized that Zionism could be an effective instrument of German foreign policy. During the 1930s, the Nazis continued this traditional policy because they wanted to use Zionism and please the British.
Nicosia wants "to provide a comprehensive analysis of National Socialist attitudes towards Zionism from the early years of the movement to World War II (p. 17). To do so, Nicosia had to examine the formative years of the Nazi movement, where ideological hostility toward the creation of a Jewish state (derived from the conspiratorial vision of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) clashed with the ideological commitment to promote Jewish emigration for the creation of a judenreines Germany. This conflict between different aspects of the same Nazi ideology existed for about two decades, from the founding of the movement in the early 1920s until the beginning of World War II.
In the summer of 1933, soon after assuming power, Hitler's government signed the Haavara Transfer Agreement with Zionist representatives. It reflected Germany's battle against unemployment and depressed agricultural prices as well as the Nazi party's goal of forcing the Jews to leave the country. The agreement made possible the emigration of large numbers of Jews, and it also opened Palestine and the Middle East to German exports. Large-scale immigration of Jews to Palestine and the development of the country by the Zionists made this British mandate a likely candidate for German industrial goods; at the same time the agreement would undermine the worldwide boycott against German goods.'
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395105If that's not enough for you, when I was studying WWII, I read books from reputable Holocaust scholars (eg people like Hannah Arendt and Yehuda Bauer) which discussed Nazi attitudes towards Zionists. Their attitude towards Zionists was favourable, especially compared towards their attitude towards German Jews who weren't interested in Zionism, but in assimilating into German society...
My statement some months ago in another connection that you have quoted here is a defence of any person's right to disagree with the doctrines of a religion, or the cultural practices of a society, and to state those disagreements. An unfavoreable view of a thing is not evidence of prejudice against it or bigotry towards it; it may well be the result of examination of it and a reasonable conclusion drawn from same.That's bullshit. Yr own words were: ''People are entitled, it seems to me,
to hold an unfavorable view of any system of thought, and pattern of cultural practice, and to express it.'
As for bigotry, while you clearly don't find anything wrong with a comment stating that most diaspora Muslims refuse to share a common set of values with non-Muslims, most people would and for very understandable reasons. That go far beyond yr attempt to paint it as a mere discussion of religion, but is a negative generalisation of a group of people....