Thursday, February 12, 2009

European Antisemitism: Ominous Signs and Silence from the Left

In my attention to the Bishop Williamson matter I have really been negligent about addressing another more important topic: the rise of antisemitism in Europe.

There has been a survey by ADL which finds that a significant portion of Europeans blame the financial mess on Jews. I have no idea who conducted the survey and how the questions were structured [this would impact the outcome] or if one can draw a conclusion about an entire Continent from surveying 3,500 people.

But it is still disturbing. I hope others use this finding to do more research.

On this issue, I strongly recommend Jonathan Freedland's article in the Guardian.

In it Freedland notes that after 9/11 and 7/7 [the date of the London bombings] the British liberal left massed and strongly protested any hostility to Muslims. They were saying to European Muslims and particularly those in the UK: you do not stand alone. They called upon their fellow Britons to be "careful in their language, not to generalise from a few individuals to an entire community, to make clear to Britain's Muslims that they were a welcome part of the national life."

Freedland believes this was the right reaction. Yet he notes that, in the wake of the Gaza operation [which he opposed from the outset], liberals have remained eerily silent even as "British Jews have indeed come under attack."

In the four weeks after the Gaza operation began there was an eightfold increase in antisemitic incidents in Britain compared with the same period a year earlier."

There were "attacks on synagogues, including arson, and physical assaults on Jews. One man was set upon in Golders Green, north London, by two men who shouted, 'This is for Gaza', as they punched and kicked him to the ground."

There has been "Blood-curding graffiti" including slogans such as "Slay the Jewish pigs", and "Kill the Jews", to "Jewish bastardz."

Jewish schools are on high alert.

In the face of this real threat the British left has been virtual silent.

But, Freedland goes on, this is more than a sin of omission.

Take last month's demonstrations against Israel. Riazat Butt, the Guardian's religious affairs correspondent, describes in a joint edition of the Guardian's Islamophonic and Sounds Jewish podcasts how at one demo she heard the cry not only of "Down with Israel" but "Kill Jews". An anti-war protest in Amsterdam witnessed chants of: "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas."

At the London events, there were multiple placards deploying what has now become a commonplace image: the Jewish Star of David equated with the swastika. From the podium George Galloway declared: "Today, the Palestinian people in Gaza are the new Warsaw ghetto, and those who are murdering them are the equivalent of those who murdered the Jews in Warsaw in 1943."

Now what, do you imagine, is the effect of repeating, again and again, that Israel is a Nazi state? Even those with the scantest historical knowledge know that the Nazis are the embodiment of evil to which the only appropriate response is hate. How surprising is it if a young man, already appalled by events in Gaza, walks home from a demo and glimpses the Star of David - which he now sees as a latter-day swastika - outside a synagogue and decides to torch the building, or at least desecrate it? Yet Galloway, along with Livingstone, who was so careful in July 2005, did not hesitate to make the comparison (joined by a clutch of Jewish anti-Israel activists who should know better).

For liberals those Jews who dissociate themselves from Israel are acceptable. Those who don't are "fair game for abuse and attack until they publicly recant."

But they don't ask Muslims to explain jihadism or renounce Islamic extremism. Asking them to do so is seen as unenlightened.

Bishop Williamson is a gnat -- if not lower than that -- compared to this.

15 comments:

Dan said...

Reading the more than 800 comments that follow Freeland's article has left me almost more shocked than the anti-Semitism he describes within it. It seems that this has always been a concern of yours in your fight with Holocaust denial: that clearly articulated hate speech is much less dangerous than tangled, malformed and every-day speech uttered by potentially well meaning but completely uninformed masses that is punctuated by the very arguments of the deniers.

Certainly, Freedland's commentators mostly begin their posts with a variation of "I abhor anti-Semitism," but almost as often they end them with "but Jews, through their evil-doing force me to hold my views on them."

Given the tenor of these posts one wonders what the comments said that were "removed by the moderator."

Epaminondas said...

It's just SSDD.
I'm sorry to so say that since Haman, it simply does not matter whether it's Asia, Africa, Europe and now even Hugo's South America .. or Argentina.

Yesterday THIS was published.

Please consider this...
___________
Since 135 AD (in 'modern' history) the Romans made the jews a tiny permanent stateless minority everywhere, and that was after the Assyrians were nearly as successful in the 6th century BC.

Nowhere were the jews numerous enough, or influential enough to overcome that for more than a few years.

After the Council of Nicaea the church was officially anti semitic, and 300 years later Mohammad made the word of god into an immutable racist spew as part of what must be fully accepted. (See Bostom)

Does anyone think for an instant that if there were an IDF as powerful as is it today that ANY of this could have happened?

Perhaps if the Romans had made the Carthaginians stateless instead of wiping them out, and had they a religion which unified them over the world, it would be them and not the jews blamed by a third of europeans for this worldwide mess.

We are caterwauling about the nature of humans.

Those in power have always been smart enough to know the blood libels, control of the banks, poisoning the wells yadda blah blah are bull.

When it served the powerful they used this with the mob (name your religion, or nation) to repress, expel or murder this defenseless particular ultra tiny minority for their own purposes. What was the risk? Get rid of a few, maybe not pay off some loans, get some jewels or whatever from those who had to be able to carry their wealth with them because of earlier expulsion, pogroms and murders, ready to leave in a moment.

That the jews are at this moment in focus because of the history of mankind's bigotry and cynicism is almost irrelevant. It could have been any tiny group with profoundly cohesive beliefs.

What is important is to recognize how the weakness of men is used by others.

These stories: Gaza, schools, Jenin, stealing organs, manipulating banks, news, govts, the Quranic racisms, the Church reinstatements, claims of the 'amen corner', men here like Buchanan, Moran, Paul, the Arab and muslims govts, all represent the greatest force on the planet - the weakness of men... (which is why our constitution has worked until now...IT DEPENDS ON SUCH WEAKNESS)

It is also why men like Ronald Reagan and FDR are so admired .. they appeal to what we aspire to IN SPITE OF RECOGNIZING those weaknesses.

So when we see these stories, '31%', let's not forget what it's really about...

Not really the jews ..
MANKIND

So when you see it, just look for who is using the jews ... and why. What's important about the jews is who is trying to kill them.

Whoever it is, you can bet they are evil, for they ALWAYS represent the ignorance of man, in the mob, to use the mob for their own purposes.

Maybe it's the triumph of their own civilization, or religion, or greater riches, but you can bet the force they depend on for that triumph is the weakness of mankind.

THAT MAKES THEM EVIL.

Diogo said...

1300 Palestinians were killed!

Deborah Lipstadt said...

"1300 Palestinians died" [so it is said]

And this justifies antisemitism?

Epaminondas said...

Diogo, you need to bone up on, unfortunately, the world leading foreign relations expert, WT Sherman.

"This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war. "

"But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter. "

The Gazans FREELY chose what they well knew in an open election would result in precisely what occurred SOONER OR LATER. HAMAS is an openly racist organization, dedicated to the expulsion and death of the jews. Just as if the USA had elected the KKK by a majority about the size of Obama's which called for the expulsion and death because of racial inferiority of all Mexicans, followed by bombardment of Mexico.

This war is in the hearts of the Palestinians. It continues until they accept that Israel lives and will continue to, in part, as a sanctuary made compulsory by the behavior of this world INCLUDING THE MUSLIMS towards the jews across 2500 years.

Look there for peace. In the hearts of those who knowingly vote for Israel's extinction even if it means they and their children must suffer endless war

FAIIRPLAY said...

In 1961-62, British Synagogues were often attacked, this meant that Jewish youth's had to stand vigil outside synagogues to deter damage by vandalism and the possibilty of torching. The trigger for this was the capture of Eichman, his trial and execution. What's interesting is that the 'hotheads involved in such criminal behaviour must have read the trial reports and chose to ignore them. It appears that they had no concept of what 'crimes against humanity meant'. Year after year, these people go with the tide, meaning they attack Jews and Jewish property no matter what. This year Gaza is an opportune excuse to commit violence, to pose as patriots and to get together for the Arab version of a booze up. Next year another good excuse to 'screw the Jews' will be popular and Gaza will be forgotten. May I add that about 30 years ago I wrote to our local Jewish newspaper saying that if you wanted to wear a tallis or yarmulke in non-Jewish areas then it was the same as wrapping yourself in an Israeli flag and could be dangerous. Everyone of the replies sent to the Editor criticised my observation, needless to say the attacks on Jews continued and an young Yeshiva student got stabbed to death, his killers who were not caught were thought to be Arabs living in the UK. In short nothing changes.

StGuyFawkes said...

Sartre called anti-Semitism a from of Manicheeism, that is a form of that Zorastrian doctrine of radical dualism whereby the children of light fight the children of darkness.

He pointed to the anti-Semite as the embodiment of a kind of "bad faith" whereby the true believer in the anti-Semitic faith thinks the entire world will be magically redeemed if only the Jew vanishes.

So also, Dr. Friedlander's thesis is that Hitler offered a kind of mystical, irrational, "salvational", anti-Semitism whereby the nation would be redeemed if only there were no Jews.

If the beliefs of Hamas don't fit this "salvational" model of anti-Semitism I don't know what does.

What else explains the Moslem militant's irrational belief that thousands of his countrymen may die fighting the Israeli Defense force, but if he has killed one Jewish child he has somehow advanced the Palestinian cause.

This is purely magical, symbolic thinking.

Looking at Dr. Lipstadts last several post we can see a theme.

Hitler or Hamas it is as one contributor said, SSDD.

Both offer a mystical, pagan or hysterically dualistic vision of an apocalyptic clearing of all the worries and wounds of the world if only there were not Jews.

I think they call this Scapegoating. SSDD.

StGuyFawkes said...

Sartre called anti-Semitism a from of Manicheeism, that is a form of that Zorastrian doctrine of radical dualism whereby the children of light fight the children of darkness.

He pointed to the anti-Semite as the embodiment of a kind of "bad faith" whereby the true believer in the anti-Semitic faith thinks the entire world will be magically redeemed if only the Jew vanishes.

So also, Dr. Friedlander's thesis is that Hitler offered a kind of mystical, irrational, "salvational", anti-Semitism whereby the nation would be redeemed if only there were no Jews.

If the beliefs of Hamas don't fit this "salvational" model of anti-Semitism I don't know what does.

What else explains the Moslem militant's irrational belief that thousands of his countrymen may die fighting the Israeli Defense force, but if he has killed one Jewish child he has somehow advanced the Palestinian cause.

This is purely magical, symbolic thinking.

Looking at Dr. Lipstadts last several post we can see a theme.

Hitler or Hamas it is as one contributor said, SSDD.

Both offer a mystical, pagan or hysterically dualistic vision of an apocalyptic clearing of all the worries and wounds of the world if only there were not Jews.

I think they call this Scapegoating. SSDD.

hockey hound said...

'For liberals those Jews who dissociate themselves from Israel are acceptable. Those who don't are "fair game for abuse and attack until they publicly recant."'

History repeats itself, as you well know, Prof. Lipstadt:

"the insistence of German Jewry on retaining its identity was contrary to the liberal view of material progress, spiritual enlightenment, and the goals of the national destiny; the liberals therefore began to regard the Jews, the prototype of particularism, as the chief impediment to national and spiritual unity." -Uriel Tal, from 'Christians and Jews in Germany'

"Underlying the discussions of emancipation was an image of a corrupt and debased Jewish people. Because of this image, emancipation was to become linked to the notion of the Jews' moral regeneration. The emancipation debate essentially turned on whether this regeneration was possbible, who was responsible for it, and when and under what conditions it was to take place."-David Sorkin, from 'The Transformation of German Jewry, 1780-1840'

hockey hound said...

"In the hearts of those who knowingly vote for Israel's extinction even if it means they and their children must suffer endless war."

Well said, Epaminondas. This "extinction" you speak of is the Arab Muslim world's acquiesced to immolation of an entire people, namely the so-called Palestinians (whose legend was impostured for this very purpose). The Muslim world (and especially the Arab Muslim world) propagates its support of this same immolation as religiously altruistic. However, this support, advocated by innumerable Islamic clergy the world over and translated into an horrible reality by the terrorists of Hamas, is tantamount to directing a self-inflicted genocide upon the very Gazan electorate who voted Hamas into power.

These Muslim clergy deem the suffering and immolation of the Palestinian people a worthy sacrifice if that sacrifice includes the extermination also of the Jews of Israel and, consequently, the removal of their hated Jewish sovereignty from the Muslim Middle East.

My question has always been in regards to the "Palestinian" existence, Do the "Palestinians" honestly believe that any measure of peace (or a state of their own) can be achieved through such malefic and insalubrious agency?

"If the majority of the people of another culture passionately hate us enough to celebrate 9/11 as if it were an American Fourth of July, what do we gain by handling them the reins of government?
"As the Palestinian elections in 2006 amply proved, not much. In this case, free and fair elections in Gaza produced a landslide victory for Hamas, regarded by the United States and European nations as a terrorist organization. Many commentators in the West attempted to explain the victory of Hamas as a rejection of the rank corruption of its competitor, Fatah; few were willing to contemplate that Hamas might have won simply because it was the party with the most fanatically instransigent attitude toward Israel. The position of Hamas was that it would never accept the state of Israel--not now, nor in the future." -Lee Harris, from 'The Suicide of Reason'

hockey hound said...

Sartre wrote that "if the Jew did not exist, the anti-Semite would invent him." This statement is ludicrous and a denial of the fact that anti-Semites hate Jews precisely because of their Jewishness and their Judaism. If one is to accept Sartre's theory, one has actually to believe that if the Torah of the Jews did not exist, the anti-Semite would invent one. BORING!

Like so many European philosophers and Christian (Catholic and Protestant) theologians, Sartre became lost in a labyrinth of compounded thought, and irresolute thought at that.

After all, how would anyone concerned about anti-Jewish hatred glean any insight from Sartre, a mere bookworm who happily co-existed with the Nazis while under his very nose approximately 76,000 Jews were handed over to the Nazis? I don't even waste my time any more reading such tedious dissonance.

Like the Vatican and Roman Catholic apologists such as yourself, Guy Fawkes, Sartre had so much time on his hands (to dream up such stupidity) during the Vichy Government's collaborative existence only because he did absolutely nothing--no word of protest, no sacrifice of any kind, whether intellectual or social--to mitigate the suffering and halt the deportation of French Jews during Nazi occupation of France. The simple Italian soldier did more to prevent the deportation of Jews from France than did Sartre's pompous and gutless intellectual clique.

Much of Sartre's behaviour during occupation and after is precisely similar to the Vatican's operatives, only difference being that I can't remember reading anywhere that Sartre assisted Nazi war criminals in escaping justice as did so many Roman Catholic clergy.

RichardHutton said...

Hi Deborah.

There was a post under Freedland’s article by Ally Fogg (a contributing writer for the Guardian) which makes a valid point re. distinctions:

“AllyF
04 Feb 09, 9:54am

I deplore any instances of anti-Semitic abuse, violence or intimidation, wherever they come from and for whatever reason.
But I don't think the comparison to Muslims post 9/11 or 7/7 really holds.
Jack Straw...was Home Secretary. One of the most powerful and influential people in the land. When he makes a controversial statement, it is rather different to some fascist sleazeball in a park making a Nazi salute (however vile that might be.) If the Home Secretary today were to discuss asking Jews to remove their Kippah or implying that the Star of David shouldn't be worn in her presence, then you'd have a comparison.
While I don't doubt the prevalence of individual anti-Semitic incidents, unless I've missed it nobody in the media is calling for all Jews to be interned, or for a ban on Jewish immigration. No high profile media commentators are calling for us to invade the Jews' land, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
There is no excuse for racism of any kind, but it is not necessarily helpful to paint everything as a nice neat parallel”.

Reading the comments as a whole reveals a fairly broad range of views however, some of whom were definitely not writing from a position critical of Israel:

“I will say it now and clearly, if you consider yourself a socialist, a progressive, a person who hopes for peace then you must stand behind Israel in its struggle against the reactionary forces of Hamas and Hezbollah and their patrons” (‘RedScot’ 04 Feb 09, 9:55am)

“Many of the above reactions to this article (written by an author who's pro-peace stance is beyond doubt) prove once again that any Jew who does not stand for the destruction of Israel can have their human rights flushed down the sewer as far as many on the supposed left are concerned” (‘Lipschitz’ 04 Feb 09, 9:55am).

Whereas some were offering very much a counterpoint:

“In quite rightly seeking to protect Jews from disgusting and appalling reactions of anti semitism, which we must all condemn, and loudly condemn, we should not be seeking to protect supporters of Israel from a justified perception of its policies” (‘Forthestate’ 04 Feb 09, 10:09am)

I think it’s fair to say that ‘silence’ is not at large (there were 894 comments stretching over five pages).

Personally, I agree most with a comment by ‘TomWolfe’ (04 Feb 09, 10:01am) written in response to one put forward by ‘Heresiarch’:

“Heresiarch

‘If antisemites or Islamophobes feel emboldened by it, that's their problem - and the police's’.

No it’s our problem unfortunately. The joys of multi-culturalism. One group of Britons attacking another”.

p.s. re. ‘explaining jihadism’: Jihad means struggle, not holy war as seems to be misunderstood frequently by the west. For example, one might engage in a Jihad for more local post offices. And, as it happens, Muslims tend not to be asked to renounce extremism because they’re not by and large asked for their opinions.

p.p.s. Bishop Williamson is a gnat in his own right.

hockey hound said...

"Jihad means struggle, not holy war as seems to be misunderstood frequently by the west"

Dream on. You are wilfully (it is obvious) neglecting to put the Islamic concept of 'jihad' in its historical context. You are misrepresenting real Islam.

In Andrew Bostom's 'The Legacy of Jihad', he intimates that he wants his children to live "in a world where the devastating institution of jihad has been acknowledged, renounced, dismantled, and relegated forever to the dustbin of history by Muslims themselves."

"Violent jihad has always been a constant of Islam." -Ayaan Hirsi Ali

"Yet for those who are seeking to understand the nature of historical Islam, it is imperative to come to grips with what jihad has actually meant to Muslims throughout their history, and especially during those periods in which Islam expanded itself, not only by conquering new territory, but by transforming utterly the cultures of those who fell under its sway." -Lee Harris

hockey hound said...

"For example, one might engage in a Jihad for more local post offices"

That's hilarious! Would this jihad you speak of be similar to that jihad coordinated by "moderate" Muslims around the world for the purpose of eliminating Danish embassies? My sides are hurting from laughing so uncontrollably.

"And, as it happens, Muslims tend not to be asked to renounce extremism because they’re not by and large asked for their opinions."

Again, hilarious! How prescient! All we've ever needed to stop Islamic terrorism is to simply ask bin Laden and his merry band of wing-nuts to stop murdering people! Now I get it! Yeah, let's get a group of Orthodox Jews, kippas and all, travel to Pakistan and ask the people of say Lahore what they think of the Jews. Do they really hate Jews. Do they feel any remorse or shame about Daniel Pearl's murder.

From Lahore we will travel to the Pashtun tribal areas and, kippas visible throughout the journey, ask these Muslims (not the terrorists, mind you, just the "moderates") if they will ever renounce their violent grudges against the Jewish people. Maybe even pass hugs around while we're there. We'll ask them to publicly repudiate al Qaeda (say on al-Jazeer tv) and their malefic opinions of Americans, and of Westerners in general. Islam is a "religion of peace" after all.

RichardHutton said...

Hi HockeyHound.

There seem to be several issues and questions raised by your replies to the postscript in my own post which I'm grateful for the opportunity to help clarify. I apologise for the length of time since you posted them, but these things take time.

In regard to Jihad’s meaning, please feel free to consider the following:

“The Koran…insisted that a Muslim’s first duty was to create a just, egalitarian society, where poor and vulnerable people were treated with respect. This demanded a jihad (a word that should be translated as “struggle” or “effort” rather than as “holy war”, as Westerners often assume) on all fronts: spiritual, political, social, personal, military and economic” (see Karen Armstrong, The Battle For God; (paperback edition) p. 37).

I think you’ll agree that this is the essential tenet of Judaism and Christianity as far as their relation to society goes. It’s also true of most secular reforming and progressive movements. (Incidentally, Armstrong teaches at the Leo Baeck institute in London; and I think it’s fair to say she’s not trying to bring it down from within).

“…their malefic opinions of Americans, and of Westerners in general”

I’m not sure who precisely you’re referring to here, but given that Islam is as riven with sectarian fractiousness as Christianity (see the Iran/Iraq war of 1978-9), and that it would be inaccurate to view Muslims as a homogeneous group, and crass, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re talking about Al Qaeda and the Shi’i clerics of Iran. The root of Al Qaeda’s hatred of the West, specifically America, has its origin in the first Iraq war, when Bin Ladin’s offer to send an army of Holy Warriors to protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein’s invading forces was spurned in favour of U.S. and U.K. military assistance. This was discussed on an American series called ‘Inside 9/11’. (I’ll come to the issue of fundamentalism in a moment).
The Iranian Shi’i disdain of ‘the west’ is the result of British and American colonialism. Shi’i theology posits that society should be fair, equitable and just – as do all religions one way or another. (Even Scientology advocates this – and there’s something about spaceships which is less impressive). Both Britain and America were exploiting Iran’s oil reserves with the collusion of an oligarchic clique of Iranians. The resentment of America and Britain in this particular matter is fair enough – were it diverges from reasonability is when it’s tied to fundamentalism. As with Jewish, Protestant, Catholic and even Darwinian fundamentalism (viz Eugenics), its adherents take ideals and twist them into a philosophy of hatred and rage, in some cases to the point of nihilism.

“if they will ever renounce their violent grudges against the Jewish people”

I’m glad you mentioned this facet of Islam. It is without doubt one of the tragedies of the present age that the conflict surrounding Israel has come to be seen as one between Judaism and Islam (and in some particularly obnoxious cases all across the ideological spectrum, this has been systematically advanced). Islam is a philo-Semitic religion (in the true sense of the word Semitic, as well); it is Arab nationalism which exploits anti-Semitism in order to attack Israel (it makes an uncanny counterpart to the views of David Duke et al, who exploit ‘Anti-Zionism’ to attack Jews). The Koran, like all religious texts, includes a mixture of the tedious, the benign, the obnoxious and the wonderful. (I’m sure you’re familiar with what Leviticus has to say about homosexuals, for instance; and what the Koran has to say about beating women, though you may like to contrast this with its explicit notions elsewhere of male and female equality, and the book ‘Ornaments of gold’ implying that the ideal for a Muslim woman should be to be articulate, intelligent, learned and independently minded).

Obviously, what follows is no substitute for actually reading the Koran, but there isn’t space to put a whole lot more up, unfortunately. In regard to Jews:

“Be courteous when you argue with the People of the Book, except with those among them who do evil. Say: ‘We believe in that which has been revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one. To him we submit”
(From ‘The Spider’; Surah 29: 46 – p. 282 in Dawood’s Penguin paperback edition of The Koran).

‘People of the Book’ of course refers to the Jewish people. Armstrong suggests that it is more accurately translated as ‘People of an earlier revelation’ (see Karen Armstrong ‘Islam: a Short History’ – p. 9). I don’t speak Arabic, but I’m prepared to trust her judgement.
(You may like to compare this with Robert Spencer’s treatment of the book ‘the Spider’ on his charming website ‘JihadWatch’ and notice what he fails quite singularly to mention).

"Islam is a "religion of peace" after all". Quite correct, H.Hound. Consider the following:

“If two parties of believers take up arms the one against the other, make peace between them. If either of them unjustly attacks the other, fight against the aggressors ‘till they submit to God’s judgement. When they submit, make peace between them in equity and justice; God loves those who exercise justice” (from ‘The Chambers’; 49:9 – pp. 363-4 in Dawood’s trans. Op. cit.)

This can of course be contrasted with admonitions to commit violence; but this in turn can easily be put alongside the warfare and bloodshed documented in Deuteronomy and in various books of the Kings; which can be contrasted with the Bible's various admonitions of peace.

The history of Islam, and the Koran’s various scriptures, are needless to say rich and complex. For anybody interested in the relation of Islam and Judaism, you may like to look up the history of the Sephardic Jews, who found refuge in the Ottoman Empire when the Catholic Monarchy of Columbas’s era expelled Jews from Spain (they were granted the status of Dhimmitude, which translates as ‘Protected minority’: it meant second-class citizenship, as it did for Christians therein, but they were none the less free to practice their own religions as they wished). Joseph Schact’s ‘The Legacy of Islam’ is difficult to come by, but worth looking up.

All of this is beside the point of Lipstadt's original posting, but
I hope you find the above helpful nonetheless.