The Emperor's New Clothes (TENC) * www.tenc.net
Subscribe to the TENC Newsletter -
Receive TENC articles by email.
To subscribe, send an email with SUBSCRIBE in the subject line to:
firstname.lastname@example.org You will receive a confirmation
email within a day. (If you don’t, please check your email
screening filter.) Please reply to that email and add the
Newsletter address to your personal address book:
You may freely distribute this
text or the
on the internet, as long as you credit TENC and the author(s).
Donations make Emperor's Clothes possible.
Scientific Historian or Dangerous Fraud?
Editor, Emperor's Clothes
Over a two week period in mid-June
2006, Francisco Gil-White and I had a heated debate on an internet
forum. Since the charges I raised about Gil-White's work are most
serious, and since Gil-White is widely perceived as still associated
with Emperors Clothes (TENC), which I
edit, and since the thread on the Israpundit website is as long as a
book, and only a small part has to be read, I put together this page
including the main arguments, a
Table of Contents with hyperlinks and brief
descriptions, and some added comments of my own
-- Jared Israel
From 2002 to 2005,
Francisco Gil-White was deputy editor at Emperor's Clothes. In the summer of
2005, I removed his posting privileges.
I took this action because I had concluded that my hope, that
Gil-White would become a good political analyst/writer, had been mistaken,
and that, quite the contrary, I was fighting a losing battle just trying to
restrain his increasing tendency to misrepresent research and jump to
unsubstantiated, illogical and/or demagogically-argued conclusions,
sometimes with antisemitic implications, this despite his stance of being
more Jewish than the Jews.
set up his own website. When I saw that a) he made every effort to create
the impression that he was still linked to Emperor's Clothes - that we were,
so to speak, at least in the same camp, if not directly connected - and b)
he posted material that included much misleading argument, some plagiarism,
and a significant amount of falsification of his sources, I decided I needed
to publicly dissociate myself from him, which I did in a series of posts on
the Israpundit website, which, for reasons unknown, promotes his work.
There ensued a debate which is
sixty-three comments long. To make it manageable, I have pared it down
to 18 comments, including all of mine, all of Gil-White's and all those to
which either of us refer.
I have set up a
Table of Contents, in which I briefly describe each
comment and suggest which few are most
important to read if you are pressed for time.
-- Jared Israel
Editor, Emperor's Clothes
Gil-White: 'Great, Scientific Historian' or
Note: The Table of Contents below links to the most relevant
eighteen of the sixty- three comments from the debate on Francisco
If you have
limited time, I suggest you read these four:
Comment 16, where I
accuse Gil-White of falsifying data to slander Jewish leaders, and
writing in ignorance;
Comment 19, where
Gil-White answers my charges. I have highlighted his most revealing
comments in yellow.
Comment 31, where I track down original
source material proving that Gil-White falsified a quotation from
the main leader of American Jews in the first half of the 20th
century, Rabbi Stephen Wise, to support the slander that Rabbi Wise
wanted the holocaust;
Comment 55, where
Gil-White argues that he was perfectly justified in what he wrote
about Rabbi Wise.
I have used the
numbering from the full discussion thread, so that you can see which
of the original 63 posts I have included. Therefore some numbers
appear to be 'missing.' (For example, the first comment I have
posted is #4.) If you want to check out the full thread, all
it is posted here.
- Jared Israel
The most important comments, if you
are pressed for time, are indicated with yellow highlight
A - Intro-Belman - Ted Belman, who runs the Israpundit website,
introduces Gil-White's article with effusive praise.
Excerpt from Gil-White's article - Gil-White's piece is an attack on
Nathan Weinstock, using the vehicle of a critique of the Palestinian Arab
Comment 4 -
Someone with the user name "rvictor" praises Gil-White.
Comment 5 -
Someone with the user name "Nathan Pearlstein" praises
Gil-White effusively and toasts Israpundit editor Ted Belman for posting
Comment 6 -
Pearlstein adds that Jews and Serbs need fear nothing: Gil-White is here.
Comment 7 -
Someone with the user name "Peter Robert North" praises Gil-White and toasts
those who praise him.
- "Alex Eisenberg" states that the preceding praise is correct and
extols Gil-White as the greatest of historians, encompassing all of human
- Someone with the user name "Peretz Rickett" refers to Gil-White's
boosters as "Gil-White co-religionists" and dismisses the claim that
Gil-White is scientific.
Comment 15 -
Alex Eisenberg defends Gil-White's supporters against Peretz Rickett's
charge of religious-like adoration.
- Jared Israel charges
Francisco Gil-White with lying, writing in ignorance, and slandering Jewish
intellectuals and Zionist leaders.
- Gil-White answers the charges. This and Comment 31 are probably the
most important comments. I have highlighted in yellow Gil-White's remarkable
defense - that it was OK for him to publish a violent attack on World War
II-era Jewish leaders even though he was ignorant regarding key issues.
- Alex Eisenberg argues that Gil-White's failure to quote Weinstock's
rejection of his former views is OK because Weinstock didn't actually
change, and anyway Gil-White is really just like Jared Israel so Jared
Israel must only be upset because of personal reasons.
- Jared Israel argues that Eisenberg is trying to divert attention from
Gil-White's disastrous response - his admission that he writes in ignorance.
Jared Israel quotes two passages from Weinstock's Histoire des Chiens
in which Weinstock rejects his early writing.
- Someone with the user name "Bill Narvey" suggests that Jared Israel's
critique of Gil-White is overly harsh, perhaps personally motivated, and
states that he finds Gil-White extreme in his views but factually
- A poster calling himself "Witch-king
of Angmar" writes that he was surprised by Gil-White's condemnation of
Weinstock since Emperor's Clothes had published Weinstock's rejection of
Zionism: False Messiah, and
Gil-White was then associated with Emperor's Clothes; nevertheless he finds
Jared Israel's harshness counterproductive.
- Jared Israel replies, explaining why he compares those exalting
Gil-White to those exalting Kim Il Sung. Implies that Gil-White and his
followers are trying to create a sect around him.
- Jared Israel shows how Gil-White clipped nine words from a 1938
magazine article written by Rabbi Stephen Wise, which article passionately
exhorted Britain to rescue
the German Jews, falsely claiming that in these remarks, Rabbi Wise
called for slaughtering the Jews and that when the Holocaust took
place, "Rabbi Wise got his wish."
- Francisco Gil-White replies, but not about his slander of Rabbi Wise.
- Jared Israel claims that he has received a weirdly threatening email
from Francisco Gil-White. (In comment 55, Gil-White confirms that he did
indeed send the email.)
- Gil-White responds to Jared Israel's charge that he misrepresented a
1400 word article by Rabbi Stephen Wise passionately defending the European
Jews, as a nine word comment expressing a desire for a Holocaust. Gil-White
argues that the nine word extract "economically and dramatically
communicates the contempt that Stephen Wise felt for the Jewish people. What
I did was fine." Moreover, argues Gil-White,
even if he were wrong, which he was
not, it would not reflect badly on him; he would just print a correction, a
process he refers to as embodying science. In any case, he claims that the
rest of the article in question supports his charges against Rabbi Wise.
Understanding the Palestinian Movement
PART 4; How did the ‘Palestinian movement’ emerge. The British
sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.
By Francisco Gil-White.
- Ted Belman's Introduction starts here
He is a fierce defender of the Jewish people and has
made a study of their history. Visit
Historical Investigative Research
to see the extent of his revolutionary work. He has just completed the
Part 4 of his four part series on
“Understanding the Palestinian movement“. Take the time
to read all parts and for that matter also read his other artilces [sic]
Crux of WORLD HISTORY"
Excerpt from Gil-White's article, in which
he repeatedly presents Holocaust scholar Nathan Weinstock as currently
holding extreme anti-Israel views.
I have highlighted in yellow
the places where Gil-White creates the false impression that Nathan
Weinstock today holds the views he allegedly expressed in
1969. I write "allegedly expressed" because Gil-White
routinely distorts original sources and
therefore, short of checking every quote, one cannot tell how
accurately he presents what Weinstock wrote in 1969. Relying on
Gil-White's documentation is like playing roulette. In any case, the
impression he labors to convey - that Weinstock is saying today what
he said in 1`969 - is itself a lie. And a lie that manifestly aids
those who have used Weinstock's scholarly authority to justify a
-- Jared Israel]
As you may recall from Part 1,
even anti-Zionist historian
Nathan Weinstock recognizes that the ‘Palestinian movement’ in
British Mandate ‘Palestine’ was not exactly admirable. It was, he says,
“deformed by racism.” Racism against whom? The British? That should be
the first hypothesis for a movement that Weinstock calls “the
Palestinian anti-colonialist movement,” because the British were the
occupying imperialist/colonialist power in charge. But no, as
Weinstock himself concedes,
this movement was racist against the Jews (Zionist or not, mind you).
Weinstock’s admission that the ‘Palestinian’ movement’s flag was
anti-Jewish racism is important because it comes from someone who would
like to defend the justice of this movement.
Precisely in order to defend this movement,
Nathan Weinstock would like you
to think that the violent racism of so-called ‘Palestinian’ Arabs
was “understandable” because, he claims, the Zionist Jews and the
British were “clearly” allied with each other against the Arabs (see
Part 1). This representation is absurd.
1) the British imperialists were helping the Arabs
kill Jews (see Part 1); and as
Weinstock also admits,
2) the Arab feudal lords in ‘Palestine’ incited racist
violence against the Jews in order to create a climate to intimidate
fellow Arabs who might want to get along with the mostly socialist Jews,
the better to further exploit the downtrodden Arab commoners (see Part
is amazing that Weinstock, who says he is an anti-imperialist Marxist,
should not defend the interpretation that the British ruling
class and the Arab ruling class were allied against ordinary Arabs and
Jews. After all, as I also show in Part 3, the Zionist Jews had no role
in oppressing the Arabs; on the contrary, the Zionist Jews were
indirectly and directly helping to end the oppression which the Arab
(effendi) feudal lords made the ordinary (fellahin) peasant Arabs to
Weinstock would also like you to think that this allegedly
‘Palestinian’ movement was an _expression of a Palestinian Arab
“national consciousness.” But this is quite impossible. As I show in
Part 1, the ideology of this movement was just plain old anti-Jewish
racism, of the traditional sort in the Muslim world, and quite
comparable — notwithstanding
Weinstock’s loud protestations to the contrary — to the
traditional European anti-Jewish racism that produced the Shoah
(Holocaust). Moreover, as I show in Part 2, ‘Palestine’ as such never
existed, and neither was there ever any such thing as an ‘Arab
Palestinian’ population with a ‘Palestinian identity,’ much less
Weinstock’s alleged “national
consciousness.” Most of the so-called ‘Palestinian Arabs,’ as I
also show in Part 2, were immigrants from elsewhere attracted by the
economic boom that the Zionist Jews created when they transformed a
desolate land into an oasis.
Nathan Weinstock may refer to the racist movement that killed innocent
Jews in British Mandate ‘Palestine’ as the “Palestinian anti-colonialist
movement,” the well-documented facts suggest that this movement
had absolutely nothing to do with fighting colonialism. On the contrary,
the aristocratic Arab leaders of repeated terrorist violence against
ordinary Arabs and Jews were directly sponsored and assisted by the
colonialist British Mandate government and the colonialist British
military, as I will document below in some detail. It was this British
sponsorship and assistance that initially set in motion the so-called
‘Palestinian movement.’ Later, the Nazis would also sponsor it. And
after that, the United States.
Anybody who chooses to defend the ‘Palestinian
movement’ should do so in full awareness of the facts documented below.
[End of excerpt from Gil-White's article]
Comments begin here.
'Rvictor' praises Gil-White.
Gil-White’s work should be a wakeup call to all of us,
especially the Jewish people!
Comment by rvictor — June 14, 2006 @
5. Nathan Pearlstein praises Gil-White effusively
and toasts Israpundit editor Ted Belman for posting Gil-White's article.
this article by Dr. Gil-White that you have posted is suberb.
Every pro-Arab, pro-Islamist argument given by the Western media and many
Western intellectuals and political leaders is completely demolished.
What argument is this? The oft-repeated argument that claims
that the Palestinian Arabs are “an oppressed people” and that supposedly, “…the
Zionist Jews stole their land and have oppressed the Palestinians ever since”.
An honest Gentile scholar like Dr.Gil-White - an immensely
great friend of the Jewish people and Israel - who knows the truth and can
irrefutably prove it too with cold hard facts and rigorously documented,
impeccable research (and is not afraid to do so) is what the Jewish people and
Israel need so much right now.
The indisputable fact demonstrated by Dr. Gil-White, that the
Zionist Jews did NOT steal the Palestinian Arabs’ land and that Jews have NOT
been oppressing Palestinian Arabs ever since the creation of the state of Israel
(more like the other way around) is a timely reminder of how the Western media
repeats the same lies over and over thousands of times until these lies become
their version of “the truth”.
All of the anti-Israeli,anti-Jewish/anti-Semitic lies
propagated by the Western media, intellectuals and politicians: e.g., the
justifications/reasons given for the Arabs’/Islamists’ terrorism against Israel
and the West and the suicidal appeasement of the Arab-Islamists is thrown out
Ted Belman’s decision to have Dr. Gil White’s vastly important
work published on IsraPundit is to be deeply commended,being crucial at this
moment in Israel’s history and is an absolutely essential service for not only
all of our fellow Jews both living in and outside Israel, but also for the
Gentile Western public that has been so thoroughly duped and misled by their
media and political leaders.
WELL DONE, Ted, Dr. Gil-White and Israpundit!!
Comment by Nathan Pearlstein — June 14, 2006 @
6. Nathan Pearlstein says that Jews and Serbs need
fear nothing, for Gil-White is on the case.
I almost forgot. To our Serbian friends of Israel reading
Israpundit (I know there are quite a few of you out there!) PLEASE don’t get
discouraged,good Serbian people! Dr. Gil-White, being dedicated to the truth,
will also continue to defend your people from the easily disproven lies of the
Islamist terrorists, Western media, intellectuals and politicians!
The Jewish and Serbian people have the same enemies today as
they did sixty years ago: primarily Islamists and Nazis and their despicable
(albeit politically correct and fashionable) lies spread by the Western mass
Keep visiting and contributing financially to Dr.Gil-White’s
vastly important work at HIR in the defense of Israel and Jewry, everyone!!!
Comment by Nathan Pearlstein — June 14, 2006 @
7. 'Peter Robert North' praises Gil-White and
toasts those who praise him.
a great big DITTO from me on both
your comments!! I couldn’t have said it better myself!! Well done Ted,
IsraPundit and Francisco Gil-White.
Long live Israel and Jewry!!!
Peter Robert North.
9. Alex Eisenberg praises the preceding comments and goes further, extolling
Gil-White as the greatest of historians
All you say above is correct. But there is one thing, one
particular characteristic, which sets Gil-White’s work apart from other
pro-Jewish authors that I know of, and that characteristic, should be clearly
noted: Gil-White’s research on Israel has NEVER been consistently refuted by any
other scholar or specialist. And this is not new, because before I read his
extensive work on Israel and the relationship between Jewish and Western
civilizations I had already read his work on Yugoslavia and the 1990s war, which
struck me deeply, and has never been refuted.
In fact, his work is not “only” a defense of the Jewish people
as such. It is part of a broad research which encompasses the entire history of
the Western civilization based on the most recent advancements in the field of
evolutionary anthropology. Although thinking Jews may tend to view his work
emotionally, given our desperate need for a minimally fair approach to the
Arab-Israel conflict, the strength of his work, as opposed to those of Pipes or
Dershovitz, is precisely in its scientific approach. He is no political
activist. He is a scientist, which means he could only be possibly refuted by a
fellow scientist. In this regard I think it is much worth reading his debate
with some other specialists in Middle East history. As soon as I find the link,
I’ll post it here.
Comment by Alex [Alex Eisenberg] — June 15, 2006 @
10. Peretz Rickett refers to Gil-White's boosters
as "Gil-White co-religionists" and dismisses the claim that Gil-White is
Alex, is there a building that you meet in with your fellow
Gil-White co-religionists? Holy moly… There is nothing scientific about opinions
and interpretation. He does good research and brings many facts to the table and
I appreciate that in his writing. But I’m still capable of recognizing the he
weaves his research and presentation with his own opinions and interpretation -
which I agree with in many cases, but not all. You couch your praise of him as
“scientific” and therefore make him out to irrefutable, which would be a direct
contradiction of “scientific” to begin with. He presents his thesis and backs it
up with good data. But at the end of the day, it’s still only a thesis.
Comment by Peretz Rickett — June 15, 2006 @ 4:11 am
15. Alex Eisenberg defends Gil-White's supporters
from the charge of religious-like adoration, dancing Peretz Rickett's critique
of Gil-White into seeming endorsement
Alex, is there a building that you meet in with your
fellow Gil-White co-religionists? Holy moly… There is nothing scientific
about opinions and interpretation. He does good research and brings many
facts to the table and I appreciate that in his writing. But I’m still
capable of recognizing the he weaves his research and presentation with his
own opinions and interpretation - which I agree with in many cases, but not
all. You couch your praise of him as “scientific” and therefore make him out
to irrefutable, which would be a direct contradiction of “scientific” to
begin with. He presents his thesis and backs it up with good data. But at
the end of the day, it’s still only a thesis.
It is regrettable that you interpreted what I said negatively.
I never said that a ’scientific approach’ is perfect or needs no improvement.
What I said is that it takes a scientist - or, I should have added, any person
who studies the subject in question seriously - to refute him. To be honest, I
never met or had any significant exchange with Gil-White’s acquaintances. If you
view his work as arousing a ‘religion’ type of reaction, then YOU are probably
projecting your own impression on people who admire his work. In fact what you
say adds nothing to my position, for example, since I myself do not agree with
some of Gil-White’s interpretations. But here we are wasting time with
hairsplitting, since you appreciate his work and agree with a lot of his
conclusions, isn’t it? After all, if you don’t know, as you certainly don’t,
whether or not Gil-White’s admirers agree with all his interpretations, then
your position, judging from what you stated above, is just as much that of a
‘co-religionist’ (to use your pejorative term) as that of those you call
‘co-religionists,’ isn’t it? So your overreaction to my post would only make any
sense if you at least provided us with some refutation of Gil-White’s work, so
we could discuss it (although you could easily do that without overreacting just
As far as your reasoning above about opinions, interpretations
and science, I find a little flaw on it: you start off by stating that there is
nothing scientific about opinions and interpretation. Then, after explaining why
you appreciate Gil-White’s work, you conclude by saying that irrefutability is
unscientific. This makes your reader wonder what science means for you. You give
us a hint by saying that “…he does good research and brings many facts…but I’m
still capable of recognizing that he weaves his research…with his own opinions
and interpretations.” Your text suggests that ‘research and facts’ constitute
science, while opinions and interpretations don’t. But how is your reader to
reconcile this with your conclusion that irrefutability is unscientific? If
irrefutability is unscientific and refutability is a condition for
interpretation, it follows that science is [at least partly] based on
interpretation, isn’t it? Therefore, you contradict yourself by saying that
“there is nothing scientific about interpretation.”
Now to the point: since facts alone are not science (but
rather the way we analytically connect them, that is, interpretation); since
research is a means to achieve an end, namely a thesis; and since a thesis is in
principle refutable (as your expression “only a thesis” indicates), it follows
that science is necessarily ALSO interpretation. Now, having established this,
it is important to define what differentiates Gil-White’s work from those of
other social scientists (or journalists or political activists for that matter),
for THIS is the point of our discussion.
My view, as the result of having read a lot of his work as
well as works by authors who defend theses opposite to his: HE IS HONEST. What
does that mean in this case? It means that he doesn’t create proses [sic!] that
purposely contradict the logical connection between facts, as Nathan Weinstock -
an anti-Zionist author he has cited from a lot lately - did. For example, if a
collection of facts clearly allows us to establish that the British allied with
the Arabs, cooperating with them to destroy the Zionist project, it takes
dishonesty to distort it into concluding that the British colluded with the Jews
to strip the Arabs of their rights over ‘their’ land. Nevertheless, this is what
some increasingly popular scholars do, whom Gil-White exposes and refutes by
showing us that they contradict themselves.
Finally, I have taken the burden myself of checking
Gil-White’s sources and have been able to find about 95% of them to be authentic
(the remaining 5% were not available at the places I had access to). Then I
checked for coherence of his interpretations. Sometimes I wouldn’t like his
style, which is at times agressive and overemphatic, but no consistency problems
and no sophistry aimed at alleviating obvious contradictions. To me what that
means is that he is more of a real scientist than most other people dealing with
the problem in question. Therefore, his ‘interpretations’ are much more likely
closer to reality than his opponents’.
It also follows from the above that serious refutations or
critiques of Gil-White’s work are most welcome and needed, for they may
contribute to improve even more the accuracy of his work.
Comment by Alex — June 16, 2006 @ 2:32 am
16. Jared Israel
charges Francisco Gil-White with
lying, writing in ignorance and slandering Jewish intellectuals and Zionist
Contrary to the adoring comments about Francisco Gil-White,
some reminiscent of the North Korean media describing Kim Il Sung, Francisco
Gil-White is often remarkably ignorant about the Mid East, and all too often, he
is also an ugly liar.
Ignorance: A few months
ago Gil-White wrote a piece in which he said that by rejecting the British
government’s late 1930s offers to settle European Jews in Tanganyika and
elsewhere in Africa, Jewish leaders were welcoming the Holocaust. Only after I
attacked him on Arutz Sheva, did Gil-White make a slight addition to said
article, inserting a note stating that he had been unaware that, around the time
of the so-called settlement offers, the British had issued the (famous) White
paper banning Jewish settlement in Palestine! Gil-White supposedly did not know
that the government’s so-called offers were a PR trick, so that when British
Zionists said “No! Give us immigration to Palestine!” the government could
portray them as not caring how many Jews died. So the British government’s
attack on Jewish leaders in 1939 was very much the same as what Gil-White argues
(still!) in his article about the land settlement offers.
Ugly lies: An example
of what is unquestionably Gil-White’s intentional deception is his series on the
Palestinian Movement, of which Part 4 was posted on this page. This series
revolves around an endless attack on Nathan Weinstock, who more than 37 years
ago wrote “Le Sionisme contre Israël” [”Zionism against Israel”], half of which
was translated into English under the inaccurate title, “Zionism False Messiah.”
There are sufficient errors and distortions in Gil-White’s
treatment of Weinstock to fill a book. For example, he neglects to even mention
that “Le Sionisme contre Israël” had a second half, which dealt with post 1948
Israel. This second half was deliberately omitted by the English publishers,
because in it Weinstock wrote that any leftwing position on the Middle East had
to start with full support for Israel’s legitimacy and right to exist. Why does
Gil-White likewise omit mention of this text? Will he again plead ignorance, as
he did regarding the British White Paper? The omnipotent scholar, who fails to
know only the most basic facts about his subject matter.
But Gil-White is worse than ignorant; he unquestionably
deceives when he creates the impression that Weinstock today thinks the way he
thought in 1969, when “Le Sionisme contre Israël” appeared.
Writing about Weinstock, often in the present tense, Gil-White
never tells us that Weinstock has done a complete about face on the Middle East,
specifically rejecting the arguments he made in his late 20s.
This is most serous. A central rule of academic scholarship is
that in critiquing another scholar’s views, one must – of course! – acknowledge
an about-face. For a supposed scholar not to tell readers that an opponent has
reversed his opinions is the same as for a butcher to give false weight. The
intellectual equivalent of a crime; in both cases, the public is robbed.
In 1969 Weinstock thought the Palestinians had a national
movement. In 2003, he publicly stated that this was not a national movement at
all, but a “movement” motivated by hate, with the goal of slaughtering the Jews.
Gil-White cannot this time plead ignorance, because when the
website I edit,
Emperor’s Clothes, published the first news in English of Weinstock’s very
important about-face, Gil-White was my assistant editor. He proof read the text
of my introduction to Weinstock’s article,
“Stories of Dogs,” which TENC translated from the original French, and which
we put on the internet in English, German and Italian.
So Gil-White knows that, as an appendix to
“Stories of Dogs,” we published
a letter from
Weinstock where he wrote, addressing the editors of the Metula News Agency:
[Quote from Weinstock’s
letter starts here]
Since you quote me in passing, I feel I have to make it clear
that I formally and explicitly disassociate myself from all these
pseudo-analyses tending, directly or indirectly, to justify (to call things by
their real names), the liquidation of Israel, while implicitly accepting
“incidentally” that of the Israelis themselves.
This is why I have prohibited my publisher from reissuing
“Zionism - False Messiah.” Let me add that, while I naively believed - an error
of youth - that this book could fuel a constructive discussion leading to
Israeli-Palestinian coexistence, I came to realise that this had been
unforgivable naivety on my part: the book served only to salve the conscience of
avowed and unconscious anti-Semites.
Finally, time did not stop in 1969 and I have not remained
motionless like a pillar of salt. Since then I have in fact published a number
of things of a different kind of interest. I will take the liberty of mentioning
only one here: the translation of the Warsaw ghetto diaries of Hillel Seidman,
archivist of the kehilla (Du fond de l’abîme, published by Plon, “Terre
[Quote from Weinstock’s
letter ends here]
As if Francisco Gil-White’s suppression of this information
was not sufficiently mind boggling, Gil-White does more. He attacks Weinstock
for failing to discuss the very issues that are the focus of Weinstock’s
2003 article, which Gil-White proofread in 2003, and of Weinstock’s
subsequent book, which I mentioned in my introduction [to Weinstock's article]!
Case in point: Gil-White attacks Weinstock for failing to
discuss the horrible abuse of Jews in mid-19th century Palestine. Gil-White
quotes historian Arnold Blumberg, by way of illustrating what Weinstock has
supposedly not discussed, and then Gil-White writes:
“[…] I want you to stay with this image: the landless,
property-less Jewish worshippers climbing just the allowed few steps at the
Temple Mount, accosted with flying garbage by gleeful Arabs who taunt them as
the Turkish authorities smile with ‘amused contempt.’”
If, as I hope, you will read
Weinstock’s piece, you will see that it begins with Weinstock stating that,
despite Karl Marx’s hostility to Jews, even Marx told the truth about the
suffering of the Jews in mid- 19th century Palestine! Here is Weinstock’s quote
from Marx, who was writing in 1859:
“Nothing equals the misery and suffering of the Jews at
Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called
hareth-el-yahoud, this quarter of dirt between Mount Zion and Mount Moriah,
where their synagogues are situated - the constant objects of Mussulman
oppression and intolerance, insulted by the Greeks, persecuted by the Latins and
living only upon the scanty alms transmitted by their European brethren. […]
‘Attending their death,’ says a French author, ‘they suffer and pray. Their
regards turned to that mountain of Moriah, where once rose the temple of
Solomon, and which they dare not approach, they shed tears on the misfortunes of
Zion, and their dispersion over the world.’”
Similarly, Gil-White faults Weinstock for not presenting
defense of dhimmitude as a key basis of the Arab movement. But again, Weinstock
in fact makes this very argument – and indeed, makes it a good deal better than
Gil-White - in
“Stories of Dogs”.
Along with lying about Weinstock’s views, Gil-White slanders
him, suggesting that Weinstock relishes the deaths of Jews. (This is a charge
Gil-White often makes against Jews he attacks.) This charge is particularly
noxious in the case of Weinstock, who is perhaps the greatest Holocaust scholar
writing in French. This is documented by TENC editor Samantha Criscione in a
work she is now completing, and which I hope to post on Israpundit, thus undoing
some of the harm done by Israpundit’s publication and adoration of Gil-White’s
anti-scholarly attack on Weinstock.
In conclusion, we know why the antisemitic left denies
Weinstock’s current views. They do not want people to know that left wing
intellectuals, such as Weinstock (and, to offer another, of course more modest,
example, myself) can defend Israel against the fascism of the Arab movement.
Yes, we know full well why the pro-fascist left lies. What’s Gil-White’s motive?
Comment by Jared Israel — June 16, 2006 @
Francisco Gil-White admits his ferocious
attack on Jewish Zionist leaders, regarding Britain's proposals to supposedly
resettle European Jews, was written in ignorance, but that's OK because
that's what scientists do. Gil-White defends his accusation that the late US
Zionist leader, Rabbi Stephen Wise, wanted the Holocaust and states that he was
justified in not telling readers that Nathan Weinstock has changed his views
because in fact he has not.
REPLY TO JARED ISRAEL, by Francisco Gil-White
I don’t remember seeing ad hominem attacks on Jared Israel’s
website Emperor’s Clothes. What I have seen there is rather excellent
documentation and analysis. So I find what Jared Israel has written here
surprising. He compares me to Kim Il Sung in order apparently to suggest that my
readers cannot honestly like me, though he paradoxically describes their
behavior as “adoration.” It appears that Jared Israel is upset that anybody
should approve of me. But these are not scientific issues, so I will focus on
the substance of Jared Israel’s criticisms.
Jared Israel begins by attacking my “ignorance.” This one is a fair
criticism (notwithstanding the less-than-urbane manner in which he makes it). It
is true that when I wrote my piece on the failures of the mainstream Jewish
leadership in the United States and Britain during the Shoah, I missed one very
important fact: Malcolm MacDonald, the Colonial Secretary, was not trying to
help any Jews when he suggested a settlement scheme for Jewish refugees in
Northern Rhodesia (modern Zambia). He was, as Jared Israel correctly says here,
attacking the Jews, deflecting the fact that he was forbidding Jewish refugees
to settle in British Mandate ‘Palestine.’ It was, indeed, a trick. My mistake
was a consequence of the fact that I was relying on the work of historian Frank
Shapiro, who did not make a point of Malcolm MacDonald’s duplicity, and also a
consequence that, at the time, I had not studied British Mandate ‘Palestine,’
and hence was ill-informed about Malcolm Macdonald in general. Due to my
ignorance, at the time, I had represented Malcolm MacDonald as “well meaning.”
When Jared Israel pointed the error on Arutz Sheva (though he did not call it an
error, but imputed to me a desire to apologize for an antisemite), I corrected
This sort of thing
will happen again. And it has happened before. For example, I misidentified
Edgar Bronfman Sr. as Edgar Bronfman Jr., in another piece, and even used Edgar
Bronfman Jr.’s picture. A reader pointed out the error, and I corrected it. I
have never made a claim to infallibility, or to omniscience. No scientist can.
But I do my best to tell the truth. When I make a mistake, and somebody points
it out, I correct it. I make it very easy for readers to spot any mistakes in my
work, and my readers (including Jared Israel) point them out, so they are
corrected, and over time the website becomes more and more accurate, though I
try to be as accurate as I can in the first place. This is what scientists do.
There is no requirement that scientists be perfect. On the contrary: science
works because, as a community, we are looking for mistakes in our colleagues’
work, and then we point out the errors. One hopes this can be done politely.
Now it is my turn to point out an error, concerning
Jared Israel’s remarks about my piece on the Jewish leadership in the US
and Britain during the Holocaust. [The text to which Gil-White refers
was archived at the time of this debate. It can be read at
According to Jared Israel, I said that “Jewish leaders were welcoming the
Holocaust.” I did not. What I did was quote what Reform Rabbi Stephen
Wise replied to Neville Chamberlain when Chamberlain (who was certainly
an antisemite, there is no implied apology for Chamberlain here)
suggested to Wise that Jewish refugees from Hitler might settle in
Tanganyika. Stephen Wise’s reply was the following: “I would rather have
my fellow Jews die in Germany…” Notice that Stephen Wise did not say, “I
would rather have my fellow Jews settle in Palestine.” And I point out
also that the quote is documented in a book written by an admirer of
Stephen Wise: Urofsky, M. I. 1982. A voice that spoke for justice: The
life and times of Stephen S. Wise. Albany: State University of New York
In my piece, I commented that “Stephen Wise got his wish.” My
remark was therefore specific to Stephen Wise, not to Jewish leaders in general.
Jared Israel has taken offense at this comment, but I didn’t invent what Stephen
Wise said. If Jared Israel wants to give Stephen Wise’s words a different
interpretation, he is welcome to defend it. However, I think this will be
difficult, because Stephen Wise, after the Holocaust had begun and everybody
knew it (in fact, Stephen Wise was the first American Jew to know this was
happening), allied with the antisemites in the Roosevelt administration and
moved heaven and earth to sabotage Peter Bergson’s (alias Hillel Kook’s) effort
to rescue the desperate European Jews. The documentation on Stephen Wise’s
activities makes it easy to defend the view that he had zero concern for the
Jewish lives that were being lost to Hitler’s slaughter in Europe, and I have
presented this documentation in my piece. Jared Israel is welcome to defend a
different hypothesis, if he thinks this is possible.
One of the points I make in that piece is that in order to
defend the Jewish people, those Jewish leaders who attack the Jewish people must
be opposed. To defend treasonous Jewish leaders is to attack the Jewish people,
and this is a moment when the Jewish people needs to defend itself from its
current leaders, who are giving away the Jewish state to a movement spawned by
Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution, as I document in Part 4 of “Understanding the
Jared Israel also accuses me of “ugly lies.” This is
in reference to my repeated criticisms of historian Nathan Weinstock. As if he
had peered into my own mind, Jared Israel confidently asserts that my writings
on Weinstock are “an example of what is unquestionably Gil-White’s intentional
deception.” This is once again an ad hominem attack. It is also a remarkably
strong charge; Jared Israel’s defense of it is, by contrast, weak.
By way of defending Nathan Weinstock, Jared Israel begins by
objecting to the English translation of Weinstock’s book: “Zionism: False
Messiah.” I doubt that this translation did not have Weinstock’s approval, but
in any case the title certainly does agree with the content of the book, which
is an attack on Zionism. One only has to read Alan Adler’s 1978 interview of
Moshe Machover, which Weinstock places first by way of introduction to his book,
to get the feel. Adler begins by stating that “Israel has in the past played a
vital role in securing Western interests in the Arab world.” This is utterly
false, and it was as obvious in 1978 as it is now. The claim that Israel
advances imperialist US interests in the Middle East is part of the continuation
of the Czarist Russian and German Nazi (Protocols of Zion) propaganda that made
a lot of absurdly frightened gentiles think that the Jews were everywhere
secretly in power, and which produced the Shoah. I have refuted such views in my
book “Is the US an Ally of Israel.”
In that book, I show that the US was opposed to the creation
of Israel, and voted in favor only because the Soviet Union was going to vote in
favor. I also document that the US tried to destroy Israel in the war of 1948 by
placing an arms embargo on the Israelis (while stating in public that it no
longer recognized the Jewish state), a policy that was in tandem with the
British policy of using their yet-unevacuated troops to assist the Arab
offensive, and to send captured Nazi officers to lead and advise the genocidal
Arab armies of 1948 (the British policy was documented on the internet for the
first time by Jared Israel on Emperor’s Clothes). I also show in my book that US
foreign policy continued along the same lines, allied with the Arabs against
Israel, year after numbing year.
So Weinstock’s book opens with an outright lie that is the
most dangerous kind of antisemitic propaganda. Adler’s interview with Machover
continues by offering an interpretation of Israel as a colonialist state, and a
defense of so-called “Arab nationalism.” Enough said.
As I show in my series on the Palestinian movement, Nathan
Weinstock’s book is one attack after another against the Zionist movement, which
he claims was a colonialist movement in alliance with the British that was
oppressing the Arabs, and one defense after another of what he calls the
“Palestinian anti-colonialist movement” which, according to him, was an
expression of Arab “national consciousness.” Nathan Weinstock does this in utter
defiance of the facts that he himself presents, and despite Nathan Weinstock’s
own admission that the so-called “Palestinian anti-colonialist movement” flew
under the flag of anti-Jewish racism.
Jared Israel asserts that the second half of Weinstock’s book
(which he says the publishers omitted in the English translation) was not as bad
as the first half because Weinstock defended “Israel’s right to exist.” Jared
Israel asks whether I will again plead ignorance. I will. I didn’t know the
second half had been omitted from the English translation. When I take a book
out of the library the first thing that occurs to me is not that the book is
missing its second half. But it hardly matters, here. If in the omitted second
half of the book Weinstock defended Israel’s right to exist, Weinstock once
again attacked Israel. To defend Israel’s right to exist is to raise the
question in the reader’s mind of the legitimacy of Israel. If somebody were to
defend France’s right to exist people would begin wondering whether France has a
right to exist. The reason nobody wonders is that nobody defends France’s right
to exist. What Nathan Weinstock should have done is demonstrate the illegitimacy
of the so-called ‘Palestinian movement.’ It is the ‘Palestinian movement’ that
has no right to exist, for the following reasons:
1) The so-called ‘Palestinians’ do not exist.
‘Palestine’ does not exist.
3) The leaders of the ‘Palestinian’ movement
have themselves explained that ‘Palestine’ does not exist.
‘Palestinian’ movement was spawned by an architect of Adolf Hitler’s Final
Solution, and its only goal is the extermination of the Jewish people.
All four points above are demonstrated in my series
“Understanding the Palestinian Movement.”
Finally, Jared Israel says that
Nathan Weinstock has done an about face, and he characterizes it as a very
serious breach of scientific ethics that I don’t point this out. What I think is
a serious breach of scientific ethics is Nathan Weinstock’s book, and whether or
not he has made an about-face, his book (and many books like it), have done
serious damage to the Jewish people, so they need to be refuted, whether or not
the author has made an about face. Jared Israel is correct that I am aware of
Nathan Weinstock’s about face, but I have made no reference to it because I do
not have good reasons to think that it is sincere. In my view, anybody who takes
the trouble to read Nathan Weinstock’s book will likewise be skeptical of this
about face, because Nathan Weinstock’s own documentation in “Zionism: False
Messiah” already roundly refuted Nathan Weinstock’s own interpretations in
“Zionism: False Messiah.”
In his passionate defense of Nathan Weinstock, Jared Israel’s
urges us to read Weinstock’s recent letter, where Weinstock disavows his earlier
work. I think people indeed ought to read this letter. In it, Weinstock says:
“I naively believed — an error of youth — that this book
[“Zionism: False Messiah”] could fuel a constructive discussion leading to
Israeli-Palestinian coexistence, I came to realise that this had been
unforgivable naivety on my part: the book served only to salve the
conscience of avowed and unconscious anti-Semites.”
Those who read Weinstock’s book will be able to form their own
opinion concerning the plausibility that Weinstock’s absurd and antisemitic
interpretations could possibly be a consequence of his “naiveté.” An “error of
youth”? How can “youth” explain the fact that Weinstock’s interpretations
obviously contradicted his own data in such a way that he attacked the Jewish
state and people. For that, an ideology is needed; “youth” will not suffice.
Comment by gilwhite — June 16, 2006 @
20. Alex Eisenberg argues that Gil-White's failure
to quote Weinstock's rejection of his former views is OK because
Weinstock didn't really change, and Gil-White is really just like Jared Israel
so the latter must really be upset for personal reasons
It’s been a rather sad experience to see a great scholar like
Jared Israel violently attacking another great scholar, Francisco Gil-White,
whose work has so much in common, so many of the qualities of Jared Israel.
Since I’ve been following and trying to keep up with the hard work of these two
remarkable men for the last five years, I will address a couple of issues
arising from the dispute above.
The works of the two scholars above are so rare, so completely
independent from any of the current political trends, and they have been
revealing so many facts and realities unknown by the public (mostly due to
deceptive propaganda put together by the Western ruling elites and their
collaborators) that it makes no sense for one to speak of the other’s
‘ignorance.’ After all, if most Jews of today knew and understood only half of
Gil-White’s knowledge (and the same holds about Jared Israel), Jews in Israel
and the Diaspora would probably not be so appallingly unprepared to fight this
century’s increasingly fiery antisemitic tide.
It is true, as Jared Israel says, that Francisco Gil-White did
not mention Nathan Weinstock’s late work Histoire de Chiens, in which
Weinstock discusses the role played by ‘dhimmitude’ in the Arab total rejection
of the State of Israel. However, it is NOT true that Nathan Weinstock did a
complete about-face on the Middle East, as Jared Israel argues. Jared Israel
refers us to an article by Weinstock which was published in a French magazine,
carrying the same title as Weinstock’s book
Histoire de Chiens (‘Stories of Dogs’), then translated into
English and published by Emperor’s Clothes (link is provided by Jared Israel in
his post above). But that article is only an abstract of Weinstock’s book. And
those who read the entire book (as I did), only available in French, will
realize that, despite Weinstock’s correction of his own old errors, he repeats
in the new book some of the deceptive proceedings criticized by Francisco
Gil-White in the old one.
According to Gil-White it is remarkable that an author who
identifies the fact that the British colluded with the Arabs to destroy Zionism
and kill Palestinian Jews (as Weinstock does in his old book) would conclude, in
the same book, that Zionism was a colonial enterprise aiming at dispossessing
Well, in Histoire de Chiens Weinstock corrects that old
mistake and attributes it to his old blind Trotskyism (Weinstock, 2004, p. 189),
but in order for one to identify this as a “complete about-face” it is necessary
that one not accept as a fait accompli, much less a morally correct
condition, the establishment of an ‘Arab Palestinian state,’ the purpose of
which is the destruction of the Jewish state. Nevertheless, this is precisely
what Nathan Weinstock does in Histoire de Chiens, thus making the same kind of
mistake that Francisco Gil-White correctly identifies in the earlier
Zionism, False Messiah. If Weinstock describes dhimmitude, attributing the
Arab rejection of any Jewish rights over their old land to it, and identifies
Arafat – the PLO-Fatah leader of Palestinian Arabs – as an incurable terrorist
(Weinstock 2004,ps. 173-179), how can Weinstock then defend the idea of a
‘Palestinian state’ which he knows would at best be ruled by the PLO-Fatah?
Given that Weinstock is a highly regarded intellectual, how could he simply fail
to connect these most basic dots?
The answer is in Weinstock’s understanding of the 1948 war.
His main source for that crucial period in Israel’s history is Benny Morris’s
Righteous Victims – an extensive book dedicated to accusing Zionist Jews of
creating most of the problems that Palestinian Arabs have had ever since 1948.
Therefore, even if one concedes that Weinstock has done an about-face of some
sort (abandoning the cult of Trotskyism for example), the only consequence of
such about-face is to tell people that Israel has a right to exist and is not a
colonial power fully responsible for Palestinian Arab misfortune.
The fact that Jared Israel publicly abhors Morris’s work
reveals an apparently insoluble contradiction in his attack against Gil-White.
After all, how is it possible to defend that Weinstock really did “a complete
about-face” if Weinstock’s main source about the most crucial period in Israel’s
history is a historian that Jared Israel himself has proved to be dishonest?
Given the above, it seems to me that Jared Israel has not read
Weinstock’s Histoire de Chiens, having relied only on the abstract of the book
that Weinstock published in the French magazine that Jared Israel provides the
Despite all my huge respect for Jared Israel’s unique work,
the above shows that Gil-White is nothing like a liar or ignorant of his subject
matter. Since the works of both Jared Israel and Francisco Gil-White have much
more in common than they have differences, my conclusion is that Jared Israel’s
disproportionate attack against Gil-White is motivated by personal issues
unrelated to their (in fact our) subject matter.
Comment by Alex — June 17, 2006 @
Israel argues that Eisenberg is trying to divert attention from Gil-White's
disastrous response; Israel quotes two passages from Histoire des Chiens
in which Weinstock rejects his former ideology.
Note: In my response, below, I have posted lengthy quotations
from Nathan Weinstock’s book, “Histoire de chiens” (”History of Dogs”), which is
the subject of several of the comments, but which nobody has quoted.
In his apologia for Francisco Gil-White (comment
#20), Alex Eisenberg tries to do two things:
1) He tries to identify me with Gil-White. This is absurd. It
is true that for a couple of years I rewrote a large part of Gil-White’s work.
(E.g., I wrote some of the well-known piece on Israel, posted on
Arutz Sheva, e.g., the
section on dhimmitude, and exhaustively rewrote the rest.) But Gil-White and I
are now profoundly different. For example, I consider his claim, that the US is
trying to destroy Israel, to be ludicrous. Yes, the US has an
Islamism-encouraging policy which is quite dangerous to Israel. But this is a
far cry from Gil-White’s insupportable assertion, that the US has had, for many
years, the goal of destroying Israel. (If the US did, Israel
would very possibly have been destroyed long ago.)
2) Eisenberg’s second goal is, by making a big attack on
Nathan Weinstock’s book, “Histoire de chiens” (”Story of Dogs”) to divert
attention from Gil-White’s disastrous response to my charges (see Gil-White’s
comment #19). Gil-White openly confirms my accusation
that he often writes in ignorance and spreads ugly lies; moreover, he provides
evidence of worse.
I do not make these charges from personal pique, as Eisenberg
absurdly claims, but because Gil-White and his Moonie-like followers (see for
example Pearlstein, comment #5) are a danger to the
defense of Israel, a danger for whose existence I, alas, bear some
responsibility, since for some time I made the error of promoting Gil-White, who
was under attack at University of Pennsylvania.
Even if Alex Eisenberg were right about Weinstock’s current
book - I have translated some of the book, below, so you can see that Eisenberg
is not right - it would not, as Eisenberg claims, refute my charge that
Gil-White often writes from ignorance. Gil-White admits that until two months
ago: “I had not studied British Mandate ‘Palestine,’ and hence was ill-informed
about Malcolm Macdonald in general.” (Comment #19)
Let that sink in. Gil-White’s followers refer to him as one of
a select few “specialists in Middle East history,” who is better than “Pipes or
Dershovitz” (Alex, comment #9). And this great scholar
confesses to having written about all aspects of Middle East history when he
“had not studied British Mandate ‘Palestine,’” – meaning, he had not studied
Arab-Jewish relations from 1919 to 1948.
Gil-White confesses to being “ill-informed about Malcolm
Macdonald in general,” precisely when he wrote an article attacking Jewish
leaders (e.g., Baron Rothschild) for rejecting Secretary of State for the
Colonies MacDonald’s phony land offers!
This is not some “great scholar” (Alex Eisenberg,
comment #20). This is, in the most generous
interpretation, a dangerously loose cannon.
More: In comment #19, Gil-White
explicitly defends the practice of writing without knowledge, calling it
“science” and then, compounding the felony, he equates the errors that result
from his lack of knowledge to the corrective process involved in scientific
experiment. With that, Gil-White could be dismissed as another post-modern
fruitcake, except that unfortunately he is dangerous. A serious problem.
I have posted excerpts from his piece dealing with British
land resettlement offers at These excerpts are most revealing. As you read them,
mentally edit out the militantly pro-Jewish rhetorical flourishes, and what is
left? What is left is the charge, made in common by Gil-White, by fascist Arabs,
and by the antisemitic right and left, that Zionists rejected British offers to
resettle Jews even though this would have saved Jewish lives, and did so either
because they preferred to see the Jews dead (Gil-White makes this claim
regarding Rabbi Wise) or they didn’t care (that’s essentially Gil-White’s attack
on Baron Rothschild.) The only thing Gil-White doesn’t say is that the Zionists
supposedly wanted Jews to die in order to create sympathy for Israel. But that
anti-Israel accusation, which has been repeated so many times, would occur to
many Gentiles – especially since Gil-White implies that Rothschild had some
devious, hidden purpose. (Precisely the way in which antisemites always attack
When I attacked Gil-White on Arutz Sheva for repeating these
antisemitic slanders, he did not correct the error. He only inserted a little
box criticizing Malcolm MacDonald, and kept everything else the same. The
excerpts I have posted on TENC were copied minutes ago from his website.
So to give Gil-White’s writing the kindest spin, his is an
ignorance that sometimes spontaneously supports the most antisemitic arguments.
Alex Eisenberg writes (comment #20)
that in the book “Story of Dogs,” Weinstock supposedly calls for the creation of
a fascist Palestinian state – this is blatantly false – and that therefore
Gil-White cannot be called a liar.
But I didn’t say Gil-White lied about the book; I said he lied
by intentionally withholding the fact that Weinstock had reversed his views, a
fact known to Gil-White because he was helping with
Emperor’s Clothes in 2003
when we learned of the change. Gil-White openly admits that he decided not to
tell people about Weinstock’s about-face because, he claims, he knew Weinstock
could not be sincere, given what he wrote 37 years ago (See Gil-White’s
comment #19). So Gil-White rejected Weinstock’s new book a priori.
The imperative to acknowledge an opposing scholar’s current
views – especially if he says he has changed his mind – is not obviated by a
claim that said scholar is still wrong (Eisenberg’s claim) or that he is
insincere (Gil-White’s claim). One may make such accusations, of course, but
first one must quote the content of the opponent’s views, so that people know
what he is saying now.
This Gil-White did not do. He attacked Weinstock in the
present tense about what he wrote 37 years ago, without even mentioning that
Weinstock says he now rejects those views and has published a major book
renouncing his former views and prohibited the publication of “Zionism: False
Messiah.” (I have translated the section of Weinstock’s current book, where he
discusses “Zionism: False Messiah,” in Excerpt 2, below). By not telling people
about Weinstock’s avowed change, Gil-White was lying in a way that fundamentally
violates academic standards. An academic proven to have done such a thing could
be in the gravest trouble, for example, losing tenure. And correctly so.
As for Gil-White’s argument that because, 37 years ago,
Weinstock presented correct facts but wrong conclusions, and that therefore
Gil-White knows Weinstock cannot have sincerely changed his mind – this argument
is simply bizarre. The only way to KNOW what is in a book is to read it. Yet
Gil-White refused to do so, he says, because he knows, a priori, that Weinstock
Alex Eisenberg, who says he has read the book, claims
Weinstock supposedly does not make a complete about face because he still
supports a Palestinian fascist state. Here’s Eisenberg:
“[…]in order for one to identify this [i.e., Weinstock’s
stance in his current book - ji] as a “complete about-face” it is necessary that
one [he means Weinstock –ji] not accept as a fait accompli, much less a morally
correct condition, the establishment of an ‘Arab Palestinian state,’ the purpose
of which is the destruction of the Jewish state. Nevertheless, this is precisely
what Nathan Weinstock does in Histoire de Chiens, thus making the same kind of
mistake that Francisco Gil-White correctly identifies in the earlier Zionism,
False Messiah.” (Comment #20)
But now look – here is what Alex Eisenberg wrote me and
Gil-White on December 21, 2005:
“Dear Jared and Francisco,
“After our last exchange about Morris and Weinstock (back
in September), I didn’t have much time to work on the Weinstock until this
week, when I finally did it. I took my whole day to scan “History of Dogs”
from a copy borrowed from a friend. Jared, I apologize for taking so long to
provide the Weinstock text you were asking for.
Weinstock does NOT call for a PLO state. He just
implicitly speaks of a future “Palestinian state” when he wrote ‘it is
another challenge that they should work on now: the challenge of living for
their country.’ (my translation from the highlighted portion below) […] “
I have posted Alex Eisenberg’s email in full at
Here is the translation of the text from “Story of
Dogs,” which Eisenberg posts in French in his email:
Excerpt 1 from Nathan
Weinstock’s current book, “Story of Dogs”
“[…] Must the Palestinians really confirm one more time
the word of diplomat Abba Eban who regretted that they ‘have never missed
the opportunity to miss an opportunity’?
That necessitates an effort at rectification. It is time
for the Palestinians to tear themselves away from the morbid self indulgence
which they maintain with respect to their condition as victims. To break
with their erotically charged worship of death. To turn to the future. To
move away from policies which offer as their horizon only the prospect of
making new massacres. They have amply proved that they can die for their
cause. It is a different challenge which they are called upon to face up to
at present: that of living for their country. And that which says life, says
compromise, accommodations, concessions, realism. Because, just like policy,
life is the art of the possible.”
As you can see, Weinstock does not call for a PLO state. It’s
just not what he’s talking about. He does use the French word, “pays,” which may
be translated country, home, region, nation, or state. I translated it ‘country’
but it could arguably be translated ‘home area.’ In any case, he certainly does
not a call for a state run by the PLO, as Alex Eisenberg now claims (comment
Below is my translation of the concluding page of Weinstock’s
“Story of Dogs.” It is clear that Weinstock is addressing the extreme Left,
trying to undo the damage he has done. Here’s Weinstock:
Excerpt 2 from Nathan Weinstock’s
current book, “Story of Dogs”
[p. 189] Subhead: A Slow Process of Clarification
[literally ‘a slow decantation,’ as with the decantation of wine - ji]
This study will probably disconcert some people who will
remember that I have published thirty five years ago a hefty tome which has
been serving as a reserve of ammunition to the anti-Zionist Left1. [1. Le
Sionisme contre Israël , Paris, François Maspero, 1969] It was the day after
May 68 [i.e., the big French student rebellion -ji] At the time I was
subjugated by Trotskyism and applied myself consequently, as the perfect
dogmatist, not to analyze facts, but to mentally channel them according to
my preconceived and reductive schemas. Sectarianism which has driven me to
simplistic and abusive conclusions and [p.190] even to some propositions
which I cannot reread without shame. Worse than these genuflections before
Leftist schematism was my total unawareness of the misuse of this simplistic
work by the antisemitic upsurge that has arisen within the sphere of the
extreme Left . Artificially disguised behind the screen of anti-Zionism (and
similar in this to its [the Troskyist Left’s - ji] Stalinist opponents
during the time of the Prague trial and of the “conspiracy of the white
jackets” [Soviet trial of Jewish doctors in ’53 - ji), it [the extreme left]
used me as a “useful idiot” whose Judaism washed it in advance of every
My current vision is the result of a slow process of
clarification [decantation]. It owes a lot to dialogues and exchanges born
within the framework of my family; with my wife Micheline, who has helped me
understand the universe of the Sephardic Jews who have been subject to
dhimmitude in the flesh; with my daughter Tamara, who has transmitted to me
her experience as an Israeli; with my son Lev, who has communicated to me
his experience of life within the Muslim world and its Islamic sphere.
I dedicate this reflection to the memory of all victims –
Israelis and Palestinians – of the violence which tears to pieces the Holy
Land/Eretz Israël/Israel-Palestine, hoping that an era of peace and quiet
will come after the time of explosions. That peace and reconciliation reign
at last over this country, drowned in tears. And that these happen according
to the ancient formula of Jewish supplications, bimhérou beyaménou, promptly
and during our lifetime.
[End of book]
Weinstock addresses himself to the extreme Left because he
wants to make good a terrible mistake he made almost four decades ago. Thus his
book does not deal, one way or another, with the issue of a Palestinian state.
It addresses itself instead to the reality of life-on-the-ground, to the
horrible nature of the Palestinian movement, worshipping death, and to the
extreme Left’s stance, which neatly dispenses with Israel, justifying what is in
fact antisemitic murder, behind a screen of dogmatic political formulas,
babbling about Zionism – murder justified by ancient cant.
Without the support of the extreme Left, the Palestinian Arab
fascists would lose their phony ‘Marxist-Leninist’ cover. If Gil-White were
sincerely interested in helping Israel, why didn’t he embrace “Story of Dogs” -
written by the man best positioned of anyone in the world to reach extreme
Leftists - this text in which, without restraint, Weinstock renounces his past
positions and, by doing this with generosity and honesty of feeling, gives
Leftists an example of how to withdraw in dignity from their disastrous
endorsement of genocide?
Why did Gil-White, whom his groupies say is the greatest of
all possible friends of the Jews, hide from his readers what Weinstock has now
written? Why do he and his groupies fight to smear Weinstock’s new book, lying,
as Alex Eisenberg does, about the contents of “Story of Dogs”? Isn’t it
interesting that, claiming to write from ignorance, Gil-White just happens to
denounce Rothschild, favorite target of the Catholic Church and other
antisemites, while supporting Malcolm Macdonald, thus taking the central
antisemitic stance used to attack the creation of Israel? Isn’t it noteworthy
that he recently spent four articles attacking Weinstock – the most important
convert to the pro-Israel side from the extreme Left - without so much as
mentioning that Weinstock has given us a book that is, in itself, the best
argument against the stance of the extreme Left, coming, as it does, from the
man who was its leading scholarly source?
If our enemies did not have Gil-White, they would invent him..
Israel — June 17, 2006 @
with the user name Bill Narvey suggests that Jared Israel's critique of
Gil-White is overly harsh, perhaps personally motivated, and states that he
finds Gil-White extreme in his views but factually informative
I am not familiar with the writing of Jared Israel.
I have read some of Prof. Gil-White’s work. I have disagreed
with the conclusions Gil-White comes to when they are bound up in conspiracy
theories and that there has been an ongoing anti-Semitic cabal in successive
American Administrations with considerable influence in the Oval Offic which has
as its objective the destruction of Israel or that that objective has been the
goal of all Presidents.
In spite of not agreeing with how Prof. Gil-White intereprets
the facts he states, I am always nonetheless better informed for having read his
work than not.
Given that others have spoken well of Jared Israel’s academic
and scholarly qualifications, I will be making a point of reading his articles
as well. Whether I am in agreement with Jared Israel’s conclusions, I expect I
will have benefited from the read just as I have with reading Prof. Gil-White’s
Reading between the lines however of Jared Israel’s comments
regarding Prof. Gil-White, it is fairly clear they did not part company on good
Jared Israel might be right that Prof. Gil-White’s scholarship
abilities may be somewhat lacking or inferior to his. Even Prof. Gil-White
appears to acknolwedge Jared Israel’s great intellect, insight and abilities as
do many in this forum.
There is however much hostility and arrogance pouring forth
from Jared Israel against Prof. Gil-White.
Jared Israel seems to have lost some perspective and
proportionality for he puts his academic sniping against Prof. Gill-White ahead
of the fact that both he and Prof. Gill-White are pro-Israel advocates.
Regardless of his obvious great intellect and abilities Jared
Israel has convinced me by his diatribes against Prof. Gill-White that he is an
arrogant bully when it comes to attacking those he disagrees with and
furthermore he has demonstrated an abysmal lack of good manners.
Nonetheless, I intend to start reading what Jared Israel has
to say, because I can only become better informed in the process. I will just
have to be careful not to get on Jared Israel’s bad side.
Comment by Bill Narvey — June 18, 2006 @
29. A poster calling himself 'Witch-king
of Angmar ' writes that he was surprised by Gil-White's condemnation of
Weinstock since Emperor's Clothes had reported Weinstock's rejection of
Zionism: False Messiah, and
Gil-White was then associated with Emperor's Clothes; nevertheless Jared
Israel's harshness is counterproductive
When it comes to Nathan Weinstock issue I must say I agree
with Jared Israel. I have read Francisco Gil-White’s work and knowing from
Mr.Israel’s site that Mr.Weinstock has admitted he had done an about face since
the book “Zionism - the false messiah” was first published, I was surprised that
Mr.Gil-White was quoting from that book without mentioning the change of heart
from Weinstock’s side. In my humble opinion it was a dishonest thing to do. Mr.
Gil-White is perfectly free not to believe the sincerity of Mr.Weinstock’s about
face and there is absolutely nothing wrong in that, but he should let the
readers know that Nathan Weinstock has in fact changed his opinion on the Middle
East crisis and then give his reasons as to why he(Gil-White) is sceptical.
That said, I believe that some of the language Mr.Israel uses
in inappropriate and does him no favours at all. Mr.Israel, what is the point in
calling some of the readers who commented favourably Mr.Gil-White’s text
“moonie-like followers” and “groupies”? Has it not occured to you that their
favourable comment came precisely because they were not aware of the facts about
Nathan Weinstock you revealed?
Comment by Witch-king of Angmar — June 19, 2006 @
30. Jared Israel
replies, explaining why he compares those exalting Gil-White with those exalting
Kim Il Sung
From Jared Israel to Witch-king of Angmar:
You write that you agree with me that Francisco Gil-White was
dishonest in suppressing the news that Nathan Weinstock had completely changed
his views. On the other hand, you criticize me for calling some supporters of
“Has it not occured to you that their favourable comment
came precisely because they were not aware of the facts about Nathan
Weinstock you revealed?” (Comment 29)
It is probable that most of Gil-White’s
readers did not know the facts about Weinstock and therefore were taken in by
what you correctly describe as Gil-White’s dishonesty. But didn’t you notice
that not all who praised Gil-White were honest? For example, Alex (that’s Alex
My view, as the result of having read a lot of his [i.e.,
Gil-White’s] work as well as works by authors who defend theses opposite to
his: HE IS HONEST. What does that mean in this case? It means that he
doesn’t create proses [sic!] that purposely contradict the logical
connection between facts, as Nathan Weinstock - an anti-Zionist author he
has cited from a lot lately - did. (Alex, comment 15)
Alex Eisenberg, author of the above, translated a few articles
for Emperor’s Clothes and even corresponded with me and Gil-White about
Weinstock, so of course he knew that Nathan Weinstock had publicly about-faced
on the PLO as early as 2003. Alex Eisenberg’s
21 email to me and Gil-White included, as an attachment, his scan of the
last two chapters of Weinstock’s latest book, “Story of Dogs,” including
material from p.184 and pages 189-190. I have posted this material in
comment 22, in boxes labeled Excerpt 1 and Excerpt
2. This material shows that Weinstock explicitly rejected the politics of the
Palestinian Arab movement with its “erotically charged worship of death.” And
Alex knew, from this material, that Weinstock had repudiated his youthful book,
“Zionism False Messiah,” with its “propositions which I cannot reread without
shame,” saying that the neo-Left had used him as “a ‘useful idiot’ whose Judaism
washed it in advance of every suspicion [of antisemitism].”
Since Alex had
this research to Gil-White 7 months ago, Alex knew that
Gil-White had lied by writing four articles slandering Weinstock as currently
supporting the PLO. Fully aware that Gil-White slandered Weinstock, Alex praised
Gil-White, writing - and this is really something - that the big difference
between Gil-White and Weinstock is that “HE [GIL-WHITE] IS HONEST.” And then,
later, when I raised my criticism of Gil-White’s suppression of the truth about
Weinstock, Alex passively lied by failing to tell us that 7 months ago he
emailed Gil-White the scan of Weinstock’s last two chapters, meaning that
Gil-White knew what was in Weinstock’s book. And Alex actively
lied by claiming that Weinstock had called for a PLO state.
The behavior of Alex Eisenberg is not the behavior of someone
who was misled by Gil-White, but of someone who is working with Gil-White to
When I referred to some of Gil-White’s supporters as
“Moonie-like,” I had in mind comments 4,
6, 7, and 9.
Why did I use that term? For the same reason, I believe, that Peretz Rickett
“Alex, is there a building that you meet in with your
fellow Gil-White co-religionists?” (Comment 10)
I referred to them as “Moonie-like” first of all because the
language they used is the language of hyper-enthusiasm for The Leader, typical
of sects. Hence we are subjected to adjectival inflation, with “Dr. Gil-White -
an immensely great friend of the Jewish people” (comment 5)
and “Dr. Gil-White’s vastly important work” (comment 6);
with the chanting of slogans of praise, such as “WELL DONE, Ted, Dr.Gil-White
and Israpundit!! “ (Comment 5) and “Long live Israel and
Jewry!!! “ (comment 7); and with the statement – a
warning to potential dissenters – that the Leader is infallible, from Alex
Eisenberg, who, having approved comments 4,
5, 6 and 7
by stating that “All you say above is correct,“ writes, in
comment 9, that Gil-White is unique because his “research on Israel has
NEVER been consistently refuted by any other scholar or specialist“ and that “he
could only be possibly refuted by a fellow scientist.“ Why write this, if not to
warn us ordinary mortals not to dare to challenge Gil-White?
In all the discussion groups I read, and I read many, I never
see anyone anywhere make these kinds of sect-like comments about a pro-Israel
writer. Never. And these frankly chilling comments were made in regard to
Gil-White, who has admitted, on this very page, that as of 4 April 2006, when I
attacked him on Arutz Sheva:
“I had not studied British Mandate ‘Palestine,’ and hence
was ill-informed about Malcolm Macdonald in general. “ – Francisco Gil-White
referring, in comment 19, to the period before 4
I also compared comments 4,
5, 6, 7
9 to the North Korean media. Why? Because in both cases
the purpose is to create an atmosphere of intimidation in which people naturally
hesitate to entertain critical thoughts. Having observed the performance of
sect-like political groups for many years, it was my educated guess that
5, 6, 7
9 represented an organized effort to create a wave of
intimidation surrounding Gil-White. Having observed this, I therefore
Next I will post a response to Bill Narvey, in which I will
show how Francisco Gil-White falsified documentation in order to smear Rabbi
Stephen Wise, the leader of the Zionist movement in the US in the 1930s and
early-mid 1940s, accusing him of wanting the Holocaust, which
is exactly what is said by the worst antisemites about pre-World War II Zionist
And then, examining Gil-White’s patronizing and antisemitic
dismissal of Dr. Raphael Medoff, chairman of
The David S.
Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, I will offer my answer to the
question: ‘Why does Gil-White falsify data to smear well-known Jews?’
Israel — June 19, 2006 @
31. Jared Israel makes the case that Francisco
Gil-White fabricated a 'quote' from Rabbi Stephen Wise, so that he could make
the claim that when the Holocaust occurred, "Stephen Wise got his wish."
How Francisco Gil-White Falsified
Documentation to Slander Rabbi Stephen Wise as Wanting the Holocaust
To Bill Narvey,
Bill, responding to my accusations against Francisco
Gil-White, you wrote:
In spite of not agreeing with how Prof. Gil-White
interprets the facts he states, I am always nonetheless better informed for
having read his work than not. […]
Jared Israel seems to have lost some perspective and
proportionality for he puts his academic sniping against Prof. Gil-White
ahead of the fact that both he and Prof. Gil-White are pro-Israel advocates.
I understand that when bitter conflicts occur, it is natural
to suspect personal motives. However, I am not engaged in academic sniping, nor
is this a personal conflict. In your comment, you suggest that you a) trust
Gil-White’s facts and b) you consider him to be motivated by a desire to defend
Reading Gil-White’s recent work, I have found that a) he
deceives his readers, going so far as to falsify documentation in order b) to
slander prominent Jews. This is not something he has done just once, with Nathan
Weinstock. It is something he has done as a pattern.
I will for the moment reserve my opinion as to what is behind
Francisco Gil-White’s pattern of deception. For now, let me present more
evidence that he does do it. (I have already presented evidence
that he did this with Nathan Weinstock. See my comments #16,
#22 and #30.)
I will prove that Gil-White lied in at least three ways when
he attacked Rabbi Stephen Wise.
In the article in question, entitled “How the mainstream
Jewish leadership failed the Jewish people in World War II,” and
solely for educational purposes (i.e., so that you may study this text
exactly as it is now, whatever changes may be made on Gil-White’s website) – in
it, Gil-White argues that Rabbi Stephen Wise wanted the
Holocaust. This charge is important not only because it smears a deceased leader
of world Zionism, but because it thereby lends the support of a supposedly
pro-Israel writer (Gil-White) to the accusation, made by antisemites, e.g., PLO
leaders, that Zionists wanted the Holocaust. (The accusation, which we have all
heard, is that Zionists wanted a Holocaust so there would be world sympathy for
the creation of a Jewish State.)
Gil-White starts his article in the most sensational way, with
the following block of text, indented, in italics, right at the beginning:
“I would rather have my fellow Jews die in Germany…” 
Said on the eve of the Nazi genocide by “Reform Rabbi
Stephen Wise, the undisputed leader of organized American Jewry” , and
“probably the most influential and well-respected American Jew of his
generation” [24a], in reply to British prime minister Neville Chamberlain’s
suggestion that Jewish refugees from Hitler might settle in Tanganyika.
Stephen Wise got his wish.
Am I being fair? Did Gil-White really mean to say Wise
the Holocaust? On the Israpundit discussion Website, Gil-White
“According to Jared Israel, I said that ‘Jewish leaders
were welcoming the Holocaust.’ I did not. What I did was quote what Reform
Rabbi Stephen Wise replied to Neville Chamberlain when Chamberlain (who was
certainly an antisemite, there is no implied apology for Chamberlain here)
suggested to Wise that Jewish refugees from Hitler might settle in
Tanganyika. Stephen Wise’s reply was the following: ‘I would rather have my
fellow Jews die in Germany…’ Notice that Stephen Wise did not say, ‘I would
rather have my fellow Jews settle in Palestine.’ And I point out also that
the quote is documented in a book written by an admirer of Stephen Wise:
Urofsky, M. I. 1982. A voice that spoke for justice: The life and times of
Stephen S. Wise. Albany: State University of New York Press. (p.304).
In my piece, I commented that ‘Stephen Wise got his wish.’
My remark was therefore specific to Stephen Wise, not to Jewish leaders in
general. Jared Israel has taken offense at this comment, but I didn’t invent
what Stephen Wise said. If Jared Israel wants to give Stephen Wise’s words a
different interpretation, he is welcome to defend it.” (Comment
Three quick points. First, when Francisco Gil-White slanders
Rabbi Wise, head of the American Jewish Congress and the leading Zionist in the
USA for many years, he is not slandering only Rabbi Wise.
Indeed, Gil-White’s article is entitled “How the mainstream Jewish leadership
failed the Jewish people in World War II,” and by stating in his opening words
that when the Holocaust occurred, the leading American Zionist “got his wish,”
Gil-White is clearly suggesting that Wise was not alone.
Second, please note that in his statement, quoted above,
Francisco Gil-White refers to Rabbi Wise’s “remark.” Keep that term “remark” in
mind, because we shall refer back to it when we get to Lie #3.
And third, in his article, as it was originally posted, and as
it is still posted today (21 June), Francisco Gil-White said nothing about
Chamberlain being an antisemite. That description appears only in Gil-White’s
comment on Israpundit, as quoted above. And notice that, even in the Israpundit
comment, where Gil-White states that Chamberlain was an antisemite, Gil-White
still insists that Rabbi Wise wanted the Holocaust.
Francisco Gil-White’s slander of Rabbi Stephen Wise includes
at least three forms of deception:
1) A lie by false implication of expert knowledge;
2) A lie by diverting readers through sensationalism; and
3) Lies by falsification of documentation.
The lies in group #3 may be the most blatant, but these are
all lies, and their existence necessitates an answer to the question: why did
Gil-White lie with such energy in order to slander Rabbi Wise?
Lie #1: Lie by false
implication of expert knowledge, namely, that of course Gil-White wouldn’t make
such an accusation unless he knew what he was talking about.
To claim that Rabbi Wise, a world Zionist leader, wanted the
Holocaust is to make the most extreme accusation. Neo-Nazis and anti-Israel Arab
leaders accuse pre-war Zionist leaders of wanting the Holocaust in order to
justify the creation of Israel. These people are motivated not by knowledge but
by a desire to undermine support for Israel. But other than them, nobody I know
of except Gil-White has charged that a Zionist leader such as Rabbi Wise wanted
And unlike the Arab leaders, Francisco Gil-White presents
himself as a supporter of Israel and an historian. Indeed, on his website he
flaunts his supposed status, emphasizing how far removed he and his colleagues
are from ordinary people:
“Laypeople, it now dawns on me, find it quite difficult to
grasp what historians do, and have a quite mistaken picture of it. I will do
my best here briefly to explain how proper historiography — the very thing
this website aims to produce — ought to work.” (Source: Francisco Gil-White,
“About the HIR method,” 17 Dec 2005)
And Francisco Gil-White does not present himself as just any
historian. On his website he has posted a book, or the first chapters of a book,
which will, we are told, encompass several thousand years of history and span
the globe. It has the modest title, “The Crux of World history.”
Gil-White’s ultra-elevated status has been asserted on
Israpundit, for example by his close associate, Alex Eisenberg, and by others,
apparently swept up in Gil-White fever.
Alex Eisenberg writes:
“…the strength of his work, as opposed to those [sic] of
Pipes or Dershovitz, is precisely in its scientific approach.”
“In fact, his work is not ‘only’ a defense of the Jewish
people as such. It is part of a broad research which encompasses the
entire history of the [sic] Western civilization based on the most
recent advancements in the field of evolutionary anthropology.”
(Comment 9) [My emphasis – J.I.]
This hyperbole is apparently infectious. Texts are generally
presented in a matter-of-fact fashion on Israpundit. But in his introduction to
part 4 of Gil-White’s four-part series on the Palestinians, throughout which
series Gil-White misportrays Holocaust scholar Nathan Weinstock as
rejoicing in the deaths of Jews, Israpundit editor Ted Belman describes
Gil-White’s writing as “revolutionary,” calling him “a fierce defender of the
Jewish people” and telling readers, “Take the time to read all parts and for
that matter also read his other articles…”
With all this hype, one would naturally assume that
Gil-White’s comments about Rabbi Wise were based on considerable knowledge of
British policy, which of course is what Rabbi Wise was responding to.
One would be wrong.
On 16 June 2006, Gil-White stated that when he wrote this
article, in January 2006, and indeed, as late as April 2006, when I attacked him
on the Arutz Sheva website:
“…at the time, I had not studied British Mandate
‘Palestine,’ and hence was ill-informed about [British Colonial Secretary]
Malcolm Macdonald in general.” (Gil-White in comment 19)
He didn’t know about Palestine Mandate history and Malcolm
MacDonald when he wrote an article half of which was about British government
conflicts with Jewish leaders over offers to resettle Jews in Africa, conflicts
directly related to Palestine Mandate history and Malcolm MacDonald.
By failing to tell his readers that when he accused Rabbi Wise
of being an advocate of the Nazi’s Final Solution, he did not know about the
issues, Gil-White was of course deceiving his readers. This is worsened by the
fact that, at the same time, his website (i.e., he himself) and his followers
and others were praising him as the most knowledgeable, indeed, scientific and
revolutionary of historians, one who was writing a book called “The Crux of
Lie #2: Lie by using
sensationalism to divert from having presented zero evidence.
As noted, Gil-White presents his claim that Rabbi Wise wanted
the Holocaust in the most dramatic way: as a block of text, indented, in
italics, at the start of the article. He has a set-up, then some white space,
and then the portentous statement: “Rabbi Wise got his wish.” And on the side of
the page, there is a picture of a grim-faced man, identified as Rabbi Wise.
The effect of this presentation is so chilling that one may be
excused for not noticing the paucity of evidence. For example, nowhere in the
article does Gil-White tell us when Rabbi Wise allegedly made
this statement. Was it immediately after the Evian Conference? During that 1938
affair, convened to discuss the problem of where to send Jewish refugees from
Hitler, the British had made clear that they did not want any Jews sent to
Britain. If, after the British performance at Evian, British Prime Minister
Chamberlain, notorious as the appeaser of Hitler, had made some flippant and
perhaps, in context, insulting suggestion to Rabbi Wise about settling Jews in
Tanganyika, one might even forgive Rabbi Wise for punching Chamberlain in the
face, let alone giving him an “over-my-dead-body” response. Similarly, if the
alleged confrontation between the two men had occurred shortly after the
announcement of the White Paper, eliminating Palestine as an escape destination,
one could imagine a similar response to such a Chamberlain remark.
Moreover, there is something else Gil-White’s sensationalism
causes one not to notice: Gil-White never quotes Chamberlain. Exactly what did
Chamberlain allegedly say? What were his exact words? Does Gil-White know? If he
does, why doesn’t he quote him? And if he does not, how can he gauge Rabbi
Wise’s alleged response?
As demonstrated below by my detective hunt starting from
Gil-White’s cited source, apparently there was no direct
confrontation between Wise and Chamberlain about this issue. But I am getting
ahead of myself. The point here is that, by presenting the alleged
confrontation, and Rabbi Wise’s alleged statement, in such a sensationalist
manner, Gil-White diverts attention from the fact that he hasn’t fulfilled the
most minimal requirement of “proper historiography” - mentioning the
when something has allegedly occurred, and telling us what both sides
So here we have a second kind of lie – the disguising of a
lack of basic information, by means of sensationalism worthy of the lowest,
Lie #3: Lies by direct
falsification of documentation.
One is so conditioned to accept uncritically the printed word,
that it was only after looking at the alleged quote from Rabbi Wise a dozen
times that I noticed that it ends in three dots – an ellipse! Some of the text
has been removed.
Using a truncated quotation may be perfectly honorable, or it
may constitute the worst kind of deceit.
It constitutes falsification if, by quoting partially, one
any information that might to any extent
possibly be construed as contradicting anything
one is trying to prove. This is true in direct proportion to the extremity
of one’s argument. And in this case, of course, Francisco Gil-White’s argument
is of the most extreme.
In order to determine whether Gil-White has falsified by
deletion of text, we have to look at his source. I went to footnote  and
found that Gil-White does not simply list his source, he emphasizes its
This quote is reported, I should note, by an admirer of
Stephen Wise. It will be found here:
Urofsky, M. I. 1982. A voice that spoke for justice: The
life and times of Stephen S. Wise. Albany: State University of New York
I searched for the Urofsky book in the online library
database, the ‘Minuteman Catalogue,’ which covers most school and public
libraries in Eastern Massachusetts. It gave 20 listings for Urofsky, a
nonfiction writer specializing in Jewish and legal issues, but there was nothing
about Rabbi Wise. One fellow who works on Emperor’s Clothes suggested that from
what he’d observed about Francisco Gil-White, he had probably found the quote in
an online fishing expedition. I searched online but couldn’t find the Urofsky
book – and then I remembered. I had introduced Gil-White to Questia, an online
archive that allows one to search through hundreds of thousands of books and
documents looking for a phrase or phrases. For example, if one wanted to find
something that could be used to make Rabbi Wise appear to be calling for the
Holocaust, one could enter “Rabbi Wise” and “death” or “dead,” etc. You get the
I went to Questia and sure enough, they had the Urofsky book.
On p. 304, I found the quote, including the part that Gil-White had deleted.
Here it is with the deleted part in bold:
“When Chamberlain suggested that Jews go to the former
German colony of Tanganyika, Wise bitterly rejected the plan. ‘I would
rather have my fellow-Jews die in Germany than live in lands which
bear the imprint of yesterday’s occupation by Germany and which may tomorrow
be yielded back.’”
Restoring the part that Gil-White had deleted, the quote makes
sense. Wise was apparently outraged because Chamberlain was suggesting that Jews
should go to a colony that Chamberlain, the notorious appeaser, might very well
turn over to Germany as soon as the Jews arrived. In any case, Rabbi Wise
obviously was not calling for the deaths of Jews. Rather, he was making an
“over-my-dead-body” statement. If, as Gil-White suggested in his 16 June comment
(#19), Rabbi Wise had instead responded, “‘I would
rather have my fellow Jews settle in Palestine,’” even though Chamberlain’s
government had cut immigration to Palestine to a trickle and refused to let
refugee Jews into Britain, Wise would have been kissing Chamberlain’s fanny. You
know, being an Uncle Tom, a step-and-fetch-it kind of Jew.
Gil-White had indeed falsified the quotation, the better to
falsely portray Rabbi Wise’s tough defense of Jews as being a
violent attack on Jews. He had doctored the evidence in order
to slander a key Jewish leader.
But it gets worse.
In general, and especially when considering the validity of an
extreme accusation, the rule of thumb is to dig down as close to a primary
source as possible. In footnote 38, Urofsky, a popular biographer, gives
source for the Wise quotation, so of course, Gil-White had this
[Footnote] 38. Feingold, Politics of Rescue, pp. 124-25
I searched Questia for Feingold’s book, and in a short time
was looking at page 124.
Examining the Rabbi Wise quote in Feingold’s book, I found
that Urofsky had slightly miscopied Feingold’s text; a few words were different.
None of it altered the meaning, but one change did indeed matter. As is not
shown in Urofsky’s book, there is an ellipse. In other words, Feingold had
deleted something else when he copied the quotation from
Here is Feingold’s quote, with the second half, the part cut
by Gil-White, highlighted in bold:
“I would rather have my fellow Jews die in Germany
than live somehow, anyhow, in the lands which bear the imprint of
yesterday’s occupation by Germany, in lands which may tomorrow be yielded
back . . . to Germany.118″
So far Gil-White’s “proper historiography” has him making the
most extreme accusation even though, he now states, he knew nothing about the
subject matter; doctoring Rabbi Wise’s alleged statement to hide the reasons for
his anger; and using Urofsky when in fact Urofsky was just passing along a quote
miscopied from somebody else who, it turns out, had also deleted material from
And it gets worse.
Feingold’s source for the quotation is indicated in footnote
[Footnote] 118. Wise, Stephen S. As I See It. New York:
Jewish Opinion Publishing Corp., 1944.
So, without much trouble, we get to the original source -
This book is a 1944 compilation of over a decade of Rabbi
Wise’s articles from the Jewish magazine, Opinion. This indicates another
Gil-White falsehood: the Wise quote, thrice altered and thrice removed from the
original source, was not, as Gil-White wrote in his comment
#19, a “remark.” It was not, as he wrote in his article, something Rabbi
on the eve of the Nazi genocide.” (My emphasis) Based on a trail of evidence
easily followed from the Urofsky book, it was not said at all.
It was part of a magazine article, included in a book.
Stephen Wise’s 1938 article, entitled “America Has Spoken,” is
worth reading (though I do not claim it is the “Crux of History”), so I have
on Emperor’s Clothes. I hope that reading his words will wipe out the effect
on Jews of the hideous accusation, now circulating the Internet, that, according
to Gil-White, supposedly “a fierce defender of the Jewish people,” Zionist
leader Wise wanted the Holocaust. You can read
article in full on Emperor’s Clothes. Or you can go to
Questia and get a free
week’s subscription, and access the whole book.
Below I have posted two paragraph’s from Rabbi Wise’s article.
But first, let me once again post Gil-White’s doctored version of the Rabbi Wise
quotation, falsely presented as something he said and then give
you the real quotation.
First the doctored version, courtesy of Gil-White:
“I would rather have my fellow-Jews die in Germany…”
Now Rabbi Wise, undoctored:
“I would rather have my fellow-Jews die in Germany than
live somehow, anyhow, in lands which bear the imprint of yesterday’s
occupation by Germany, in lands which may tomorrow be yielded back by
England and France to Germany, as all other conceivable concessions are
being made to the Nazi Reich.” [50 words]
I think you will agree that these read like the words of a man
committed to the defense and dignity of his people, the modern equivalent of the
Jews who died rather than submit to Roman slavery at
this is especially true when you read the words in context. To provide that
context let us first look at another paragraph from the same article. This is
quoted from p. 109 of Rabbi Wise’s book:
“Not being a race of beggars, though we are wanderers, we
must make clear to the world that we are resolved that we are not to become,
nor to be dealt with as a refugee people, even though the
German-speaking peoples are forcing our brother-Jews into exile. The refuges
for Jews are the lands in which they have lived for centuries and millennia.
We raise our voice today against every proposal and program which deals with
Jewish migrants or exiles as if they were to be further penalized by being
settled in uninhabited lands, lands of doubtful title, lands of uncertain
capacity for colonization and resettlement.” [Emphasis as in original. –
And then this section, from page 110, including the text
Francisco Gil-White falsified in order to slander Rabbi Wise. I have indicated
the part omitted by Gil-White by putting it in bold:
“We lift up our voice in most solemn protest against any
and every thought of settling Jews in the German colonies of yesterday.
Having lived under the blight and burden of the Swastika, no Jew must ever
again be compelled to touch the soil over which the German flag has been
lifted up. Moreover, we Jews do not believe in reprisal or in
vindictiveness. We do not wish even the German people to believe that we
desire to possess ourselves of lands of which they have by war been
dispossessed. Moreover, the destruction of any Jewish-occupied, one-time
German colony would become the supreme objective of Germany. We would have
Jews live anywhere outside of the Nazi Reich, live under almost any
conditions, but we will never give approval or sanction to any plan which
dooms Jews to live again in a land defiled up to the days of peace by that
government which has sought to destroy them. I would rather have my
fellow-Jews die in Germany than live somehow, anyhow, in lands which
bear the imprint of yesterday’s occupation by Germany, in lands which may
tomorrow be yielded back by England and France to Germany, as all other
conceivable concessions are being made to the Nazi Reich.”
I will continue my discussion of Francisco Gil-White’s
falsifications, aimed at slandering prominent Jews, in my next comment. Yes,
there are more. As I said, it is a pattern.
Comment by Jared Israel — June 21, 2006 @
36.Francisco Gil-White replies, but does not
discuss the charge that he slandered Rabbi Wise
REPLY TO JARED ISRAEL (CONCERNING NATHAN WEINSTOCK), by
There are a number of things that Jared Israel writes above
that require a reply. Here, I will address Jared Israel’s defense of Nathan
Weinstock. I will stray from the personal issues and stick to questions of logic
According to Jared Israel, I am guilty of serious lapses in
scientific ethics because I attacked Nathan Weinstock’s 1979 book “Zionism:
False Messiah” and did not recognize that Nathan Weinstock has recently made
what Jared Israel calls an ‘about face’ in his 2004 book “Histoire de Chiens.” I
replied, above, that I did not have good reasons to think that Nathan
Weinstock’s ‘about face’ was genuine.
In the following piece, entitled “On the Supposed ‘About Face’
of Some anti-Israeli Historians,” I demonstrate that Jared Israel is wrong about
The demonstration is not difficult. What I show is that,
according to Jared Israel’s own published standards, Nathan Weinstock is “worse
Why do I say this? Because Jared Israel wrote a piece for
Israel National News (Arutz Sheva) in which he attacked Benny Morris’ fraudulent
representation of the War of 1948, where, with distortions, lies, and
fabrications, Morris accused the Israeli Jews of supposedly carrying out a
campaign of atrocities and ethnic cleansing. In Jared Israel’s view, this makes
Benny Morris “worse than Arafat,” he explains, because it is one thing for an
antisemitic terrorist gentile to attack the Jews, but Benny Morris is Jewish.
In “Histoire de Chiens,” Nathan Weinstock makes a passionate
defense of Benny Morris’s interpretation of the War of 1948. And he does this,
mind you, despite the fact that Efraim Karsh’s refutation of Morris’s lies,
which Jared Israel extolled in his Arutz Sheva piece, was published in 1999,
whereas Weinstock’s “Histoire de Chiens” was published in 2004, giving Weinstock
plenty of time to notice. This is not the only demonstration in my piece that
Nathan Weinstock’s supposed ‘about face’ is a phony.
As I pointed out above, scientists can commit errors. What is
unethical is when they make a defense of something that they know is not true.
If Jared Israel finds my demonstration that he has made an error satisfactory,
then I will expect him (at least) to remove his defense of Nathan Weinstock from
In other words, I will expect him to do what I did when Jared
Israel pointed out that my interpretation of Malcolm MacDonald’s offer to settle
refugees from Hitler in Northern Rhodesia as “well meaning” was in error: I
corrected this interpretation.
If Jared Israel finds my demonstration insufficient, then I
will expect him to explain why.
Francisco Gil-White, Historical and Investigative Research
Comment by gilwhite — June 22, 2006 @
Jared Israel - added 20 Feb. 2007: I didn't write a
rebuttal to the piece Gil-White refers to above, attacking Nathan
Weinstock. However, 6 points about it:
1) By focusing on Nathan Weinstock Gil-White was
trying to divert readers from my proof that he had falsified
documentation to slander Rabbi Stephen Wise; it was only because,
following this post, others returned to the question of Gil-White's
Rabbi Wise lies, and because I did not retreat, following a weirdly
threatening email I received from Gil-White (that email is posted
below) that Gil-White finally did answer, saying he had done the
right thing. (His answer is Comment #55
2) To divert the discussion, Gil-White produced an
article in which he defends his claim that Nathan Weinstock never
changed his views. In this article, Gil-White refers to Weinstock's
book, Histoire de Chiens (Story of Dogs), claiming to show
that, contrary to Weinstock's statements fiercely attacking his own
earlier work, he has not really changed his mind - that he still
supports the Palestinian Arab movement's attack on Israel. To
support his case, Gil-White posts a number of his own translations
of Weinstock's French text. I will not in this space make a
detailed refutation of Gil-White's arguments, which are, at best
sophistry, because his arguments rest on his translations, and since
we know that even where a text is published in English, he may
falsify it - witness what he did to Rabbi Stephen Wise's fierce
defense of the Jews, presenting it as a call for the
slaughter of the Jews - there is no reason to trust and
every reason not to trust his translations, where, of
course, falsification is so much easier. The point is:
Gil-White does not hesitate to publish the most outrageous slanders,
based on lies. Why then waste a lot of time checking his
3) In the article in question, Gil-White still
fails to quote Weinstock's remarks repudiating Zionism: False
Messiah, even though I had provided translations
of these remarks in this very thread, attacking Gil-White for
failing to cite them when discussing Weinstock! So he still does not
directly deal with Weinstock's firm assertion, that what he wrote in
the past is wrong, and his scathing critique of the death-loving
Palestinian Arab movement.
- End of inserted comment, 20 February 2007 -
42. Jared Israel claims that he has received a
threatening email from Francisco Gil-White. (In a later comment,
#55, Gil-White confirms that he sent the email.)
I have received a threat from Francisco Gil-White.
Bill, in your last comment, #41, you
wrote, regarding the points I raised in my
comment #31 and
comment #40, that:
In any event what you pointed out about Gil White’s edited
quote from Rabbi Wise, could only have been deliberate. As I said, I hope
Gil White does respond to that charge for that so far is the most serious
one. [Bill Narvey, Comment #41]
Well, checking my email box, I find that Gil-White has, in a
manner of speaking, ‘responded’ to my charges, although not out in the open, on
Below is the text of the unsolicited email I have received
from him, in full. I have put his text in bold to separate his words from the
header information. I have not replied privately to this email.
Received: from rly-xb02.mx.aol.com (rly-xb02.mail.aol.com [172.20.64.48]) by
air-xb03.mail.aol.com (v109.13) with ESMTP id MAILINXB33-94449b7e58252; Fri,
23 Jun 2006 01:38:35 -0400
Received: from orion.sas.upenn.edu (orion.sas.upenn.edu [220.127.116.11]) by
rly-xb02.mx.aol.com (v109.13) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXB28-94449b7e58252;
Fri, 23 Jun 2006 01:38:32 -0400
Received: from SCHMUCK.psych.upenn.edu
by orion.sas.upenn.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6/SAS.05) with ESMTP id k5N5cNFW024989
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT)
for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 01:38:28 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 18.104.22.168
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 01:38:15 -0400
From: Francisco Gil-White
Subject: an important observation
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”us-ascii”; format=flowed
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 22.214.171.124
At any moment of my choosing, I can insert a
certain piece of text at the
bottom of this piece:
That piece of text reads as follows:
“The proof that the Pied Piper of the ‘political
right’ is Benny Morris,
and that the Pied Piper of the political left is Nathan Weinstock, is that
Jared Israel, and arch-leftist who has been known to call himself a
Marxist, is not fooled by Benny Morris, but has been seduced by his fellow
Marxist Nathan Weinstock, whom he can be found defending, and with some
Ted Belman is so mad at you that it will stay
Think carefully about your next move.
Three points about this.
1) For purposes of authentication, if anyone wishes, they may
write to me at emperors-clothes.com and I will forward them Gil-White’s email.
2) Gil-White’s threat appears to be that he will circulate
online, including on Israpundit, a statement that I am an “arch-leftist who has
been known to call himself a Marxist.” Based on this threat he warns me to
“Think carefully about your next move.”
Regarding my “next move” I don’t make “moves.” I expose lies.
As for being ‘outed’ as a Leftist, let me say for the record
that I proudly consider myself part of the anti-Fascist Left, which hopefully
will some day replace the Fascist Left (e.g.,
or what Felix Quigley calls the neo-Left. The Anti-Fascist Left is IMHO best
reflected by the 1948 Nation magazine
Memorandum to the
UN, which I have posted online. My politics are no secret - I wrote a
two-part article on Arutz Sheva called
“Confessions of a Once-Hopeful Leftist.”
From my experience, two things reveal the most about public
people. One is what they lie about. This is because lies are dangerous to the
liar - there is always the possibility of exposure. And therefore, when public
people lie it is because the lie is important. So that tells me it was important
for Gil-White to get people to believe that when the Holocaust happened, in
Gil-White’s words, “Rabbi Wise got his wish.” The second thing that is most
revealing about public people is when they resort to threats, since this also
puts them at risk - i.e., a threat may backfire. That Francisco Gil-White would
take the considerable risk of threatening me now by email suggests that he is
afraid of what may yet be exposed.
— June 24, 2006 @
55. Gil-White responds to Jared Israel's
accusation that he slandered Rabbi Stephen Wise, arguing that there is nothing
wrong with the way he quoted Wise and that if there were, it would not
reflect badly on him: he would just correct the 'error.' In any case he claims
that the rest of his article supports his characterization of Wise.
REPLY TO JARED ISRAEL (CONCERNING STEPHEN WISE), by Francisco
I notice that Jared Israel has not replied to
my demonstration that
he is wrong about Nathan Weinstock.
I shall now reply to his comments regarding Stephen Wise. In
Comment #31, above, Jared Israel accuses me of having
presented “falsified documentation” in order “to slander Rabbi Stephen Wise as
wanting the Holocaust.”
What is the criticism, specifically? At the top of an article
that I wrote on Stephen Wise and other American and British Jewish leaders
during the Holocaust, entitled “How the Mainstream Jewish Leadership Failed the
Jewish People in WWII,” I quoted Rabbi Stephen Wise saying, “I would rather have
my fellow Jews die in Germany…” Jared Israel claims that I quoted Stephen Wise
out of context.
In other words, Jared Israel believes it is possible to
apologize for what Stephen Wise said.
I hold that the following statement is true by inspection
(that is, true without requiring an explanation):
OBVIOUSLY TRUE STATEMENT: On the eve of the German Nazi
extermination of the European Jewish population, which this was, it is
unacceptable for the foremost leader of the Jewish community in the United
States, which Stephen Wise was, to begin a sentence with, “I would rather have
my fellow Jews die in Germany…”
In other words, there simply is no context that one can
provide, before or after the sentence fragment that I quoted, that will render
Stephen Wise’s sentence acceptable to anybody who does not already feel contempt
for Jews. For demonstration, I submit Jared Israel’s heroic display of his
talents in the service of rendering what Stephen Wise said
acceptable, and which fails.
In conclusion, since no context can make what Stephen Wise
said acceptable, I quoted just the beginning of his sentence, which economically
and dramatically communicates the contempt that Stephen Wise felt for the Jewish
people. What I did was fine.
But what really matters, in the end, is not whether I misused
that particular quote. If had done so I would simply remove it and issue a
retraction. Nothing much hangs on it, and
my article would remain.
What does my article show? That Stephen Wise, this man whom
Jared Israel has attempted to defend, moved heaven and earth to sabotage the
effort to rescue the desperate European Jews, even as the ovens were burning.
This means that, according to Jared Israel’s own published standards, Stephen
Wise is worse than Adolf Hitler. I shall now demonstrate this.
(I emphasize, however, that I will demonstrate that Wise is
worse than Hitler according to Jared Israel’s published standards, not my
own; if I myself was forced at gunpoint to choose between Wise and Hitler to be
locked in a room with, I would choose Wise).
Jared Israel wrote an article for
Israel National News (Arutz Sheva) entitled; “Benny Morris: The Kiss
that Kills”; where he attacked Benny Morris.
This Jared Israel did with justice, because Benny Morris wrote
a fraudulent history of the War of 1948, where Morris literally made up stuff in
order to attack the Israeli Jews with the accusation that they had supposedly
had a policy of ethnic cleansing against the Arabs. In Jared Israel’s judgment,
this makes Benny Morris “worse than Arafat.” Here is his reasoning:
“It was [Benny Morris’s] lies, his manufactured
‘scholarship,’ which was picked up and spread worldwide by an eager media,
and which poisoned the thinking of millions of people against Israel. Here
was a Jewish scholar, supposedly driven by a passion for truth wherever it
might lead, who accused Israel of terrible crimes. I was one of the people
affected by Morris.
In large measure it was because of him that — and I am
ashamed to have to say this — I once supported the PLO.
When I read [historian Efraim] Karsh [who unmasked Benny
Morris] and realized Morris had lied — not made mistakes, but fabricated
evidence — I was sickened. Morris’ lies were criminal, just as much as if he
had attacked Israel with bombs. He helped undercut worldwide disgust for
Palestinian terror; he helped create the political basis for a Palestinian
terror state next door to Israel. Morris is responsible, like Yasser Arafat,
for the murder of thousands of Israelis. But Arafat is not an Israeli Jew.
Morally, Morris is worse than Arafat.”
In the middle of a terrorist war against the Israeli Jews,
Benny Morris wrote lies that help the terrorists who murder innocent Jews, and
which make the defense of Israel difficult. In Jared Israel’s opinion, this
makes him “worse than Arafat” because “Arafat is not an Israeli Jew.”
Well, as bad as Benny Morris is, what Stephen Wise did is
worse. Stephen Wise energetically sabotaged the defense of desperate European
Jews who were being slaughtered by Hitler during the Holocaust, even as they
were being slaughtered; in other words, Stephen Wise materially assisted one of
the greatest catastrophes ever to befall humankind. In Jared Israel’s view, the
fact that Stephen Wise was Jewish should increase, not decrease, his guilt. At
least this would be consistent with the way he has judged Benny Morris. This
would then make Stephen Wise, according to Jared Israel’s standards, worse than
So Jared Israel has attempted to defend a man who, according
to his own published standards, is worse than Adolf Hitler. Anybody who thinks
that I am exaggerating is invited to read
my article on Stephen Wise.
The reason that I wrote my piece on Stephen Wise is that there
is widespread ignorance about him among Jews, in part because the organizations
that he founded, such as the World Jewish Congress, are powerful in the world of
today’s Jews, and these organizations have therefore kept most Jews from
understanding what he did. Another reason is that current Jewish leaders, who
inherited Wise’s position of leadership and even his specific institutional
offices, are behaving much in the manner of Stephen Wise, as I have explained in
a companion piece: http://www.hirhome.com/israel/leaders2.htm
Unless the Jewish people wake up to this, such Jewish
‘leaders’ will once again succeed in sabotaging the defense of the Jewish
people, and we will once again face Catastrophe — all of us, not just the Jews,
because when antisemites acquire enough power to kill millions of Jews, as they
did in WWII, everybody else pays a cost, too.
Finally, concerning the email that Jared Israel has
characterized as a threat (see Comment #42), I
certainly did send it, but it is not a threat. I was within my rights to post
the paragraph in question at the bottom of my demonstration that he is wrong
about Nathan Weinstock. But I didn’t, not right away. Why? Because without that
final paragraph, my demonstration that Jared Israel is wrong about Nathan
Weinstock is a celebration of Jared Israel’s work, and not yet an open attack on
him. The reason I wrote my piece like that is that I wanted to give Jared Israel
an opportunity to make a public retraction. He has refused this opportunity, and
so I have now posted the paragraph.
Francisco Gil-White, Historical and Investigative
To receive Emperor's Clothes
articles by email, subscribe to the TENC Newsletter. Send an email with SUBSCRIBE in the subject line to: email@example.com You will receive a confirmation
email within a day. (If you don’t, please check your email
screening filter.) Please reply to that email and add the
Newsletter address to your personal address book:
You may freely distribute this
text or the
on the internet, as long as you credit TENC and the author(s).
Our readers are our only sponsors.
If you find Emperor's
Clothes useful, please donate.
The Emperor's New Clothes (TENC) * www.tenc.net