Number 6: sure, I know you don't surf white supremacist websites, I was being ironic. But then neither do I. I came across Finklestein's book quite by chance in a general bookstore and as I am interested in all matters geopolitical, thought I'd buy it to read on the commute to work. You say that white surpemacists take an interest in his work, you are worried. I am worried by white supremacists too, or any group claiming some kind of superiority (all shades of Social Darwinism).

But let's be honest: by mentioning Finklestein's work in that context, what you are trying to suggest is that those who take an interest in his writings, or believe he may have a valid point, are equally as suspect as those white supremacists. This is a completely unfair and unwarranted suggestion. Obviously you can't accuse Finklestein himself of being a white supremacist (though he is white) given that he's Jewish, it would sound just too absurd. If he wasn't Jewish, he would probably be labeled as such by those who'd prefer to shoot the messenger. Another post here has noted how Raul Hillberg (another noted holocaust scholar, and a Jew) backs Finkelstein's work. Hillberg is no white supremacist to the best of my knowledge.

I would also like to once again draw your attention to the fact that Finklestein does not deny the holocaust happened, but he claims the historic event has been appropriated (maybe hijacked is too strong, but the sense is similar - a kind of aggressive takeover of a vehicle / situation to redirect it in a way that benefits only the hijackers, but for heaven's sake, why is it necessary to have to define words you can easily look up in the dictionary if you want) by a segment of Jews, principally an American Jewish elite (who represent only a fraction of the worldwide Jewish population) for their own ends. Maybe it'd be easier if you just read his book and judge for yourself. He does make a compelling argument and anyone with an open mind can see traces of what he talks about in public discourse. Consider for example the very fact that Finklestein and Hillberg probably only narrowly avoid being labeled anti-semitic by virture of being Jews themselves. Why should this be the case? It's as absurd as suggesting only white people can be racist or conversely that black people cannot be racist!

re.Hamas - yes, I am aware of Hamas' declaration re state of Israel. I don't like it very much myself, I think Israel is a fact, and an ancestral / emotional homeland for many Jews so some kind of accomodation is necessary between both. But you have missed MY point. Hamas, being democratically elected, IS now the voice of the Palestinians - apparently this is how many of them feel on the topic. Though they had supported more moderate leaders, this support has dried up in the face of one failed initiative after another. Whether or not you like their policies, you must respect the decision of the voters or your championing of democracy rings hollow. Likewise, Israeli cabinets have been hostile to Palestinians over many years, have grabbed Palestinian lands, driven the people out, bulldozed the houses and orchards, destroyed livelihoods etc etc., If I were a Palestinian living under these conditions I might support Hamas too. Easy to condemn them from the comfort of our armchairs. I haven't yet heard the White House suggesting a freeze on aid to Israel (quite the contrary) due to policies on Palestine, so there's a big measure of hypocrisy here.

I would like to see all the bad guys locked up, but to be fair, that would include a large chunk of Knesset and the IDF as well as chunks of Hamas.

Peace: you didn't bring up the term 'hijack', but I am not sure why you are telling me this. What you did say was "People who feel that Jews 'hijacked' history have very little knowledge of history" I don't remember anyone actually saying the Jews (as an entire people) hijacked anything, but that a section of them have used the memory of the holocaust for their own ends. This is altogether a different thing. I understand this is quite an emotive issue for some so I'll try and clarify by way of analogy:

in the 70s and 80s the IRA put a number of bombs around Britian. Whenever this happened, the tabloids showed their racism by presenting this as the work of the Irish - as if the whole race of Irish were involved, or thought with one monolitihic mind. Anyone with a more open mind and a discerning eye, would realise that not all Irish were involved or supported such acts. So they narrowed their definition to 'republicans' But this is still too broad a term so another possibility was to say the IRA planted it, as close as possible to an accurate picture.

So it should be understood that while they may share a religion or ethnicity, Jews, no more than the Irish, are not one monolithic hegemonic-minded block. Even within Israel, there is much dissent about the form that society should take (note this week's protests over the gay pride march in Jerusalem, for example). Eastern European and American Jews also do not always share the same world view (though of course this is something of a generalisation too, I say it to show the diversity and variety of the Jewish world)

Right, I'd better sign off here and give someone else a chance to talk!!