Dear CALC,

    I see in the July 26 issue of “Pursue the Education,” that CALC is planning to protest the presentation by David Irving at the University of Oregon.

    While I have no opinion on “Holocaust Denial,” I am aware of some puzzling facts pertaining to the accounts and particularly the conflicting numbers that constitute the accepted Holocaust history.  There certainly are some unanswered questions.
    On principle, it is essential that these points, and all other history, be kept open to continued study – as science thrives on replication, and simply believing a permanently closed account is an impossibly far cry from real knowledge or independent pursuit of data.  These points are so obvious, I find it odd to have to re-assert them; and I fear that a sarcastic tone might be wrongly inferred, when something so obvious must be said, in opposition to a perplexingly mistaken position.

    I don’t know anything about David Irving.  I would only point out that the article in “Pursue the Education” and the quote attributed to Michael Williams provide no actual reason to doubt the authenticity of Irving’s views.  In an article of that length, with so clear a negative spin, the absence of substantive information seems an embarrassing oversight.  Mr. Williams’s statement in particular – simply invoking the horribly overused “anti-Semitic” slur and objecting to the way Irving’s material could be misused by bigots – is the most frighteningly familiar rhetoric of bigots, against the most valid, albeit “controversial” speech.

    In fact precisely such slurs have been commonly used by Zionists against those who object to financing the ethnic-cleansing of Palestine.  We too have been denied our right to free speech, when we have been so slandered and frequently assaulted for nothing more than questioning the commonly-accepted Zionist narrative on Palestine.  As the truth about Palestine becomes increasingly difficult to deny – that is, as the numbers of people discovering the truth keep increasing, despite the threats, violence, and slander used against us – the Zionist leadership is reversing its previous statements, including those which, previously, one could not question without being accused of exactly the same things Irving is accused of by Mr. Williams.  This is all perfectly ordinary, recent history.

    I also note with dismay that Mr. Williams is openly presented as a member of the TIKKUN Community.  Is it possible that Mr. Williams doesn’t know that TIKKUN openly works toward the “two-state solution” – which demands a perpetuation of official “Jewish” supremacy in most of Palestine, including perpetuation of the racist violence of ethnic-cleansing, which created the “Jewish” majority required for the intended “Jewish” supremacy in an officially “Jewish” state – forced into a multi-ethnic region.  The need for countless official policies of ethnic and religious prejudice – violently enforced – inherent in the “two-state solution” is perfectly obvious.
    The arguments that have remained unchallenged – in those forums where all views are welcomed and subjected to careful and courteous reason – is that the “two-state solution,” while openly enshrining official prejudice, stands as an intentional obstacle to real peace-talks, which would, of course, have to put and END to official prejudice.  The notion of finding peace in an officially racist format is most unrealistic; so, the claims that “two-state” is good because it’s “realistic” can only mean that “realism” is defined as surrender to intransigent racism.
    The obvious path to peace is to simply fulfill our moral obligation to stop financing any and all policies of an end of ethnic or religious prejudice by anyone in the Israel-Palestine conflict – so justice and peace can be built on a step-by-step basis, leading to the inevitable justice of a state based on no official prejudice at all.  This is simply the most time-honored and fundamental equal-rights activism, yet we who have suggested it have often been told that our position is “anti-Semitic,” that it would “annihilate” the Jewish State, and that it enables bigotry against Jews.

    By the plainest logic and the same ordinary standards that apply in all cases of ethnic or religious prejudice, Mr. Williams’s membership in TIKKUN marks him as an openly-declared racist and supporter of violent racist policies.  Though this is not commonly acknowledged, it is simply and absolutely true, right on the surface, not any sort of overstatement or hyperbole.
    The worst sort of violent racism is precisely the kind Mr. Williams participates in – the kind that seems so ordinary and conformist as to not even be recognized.  That is the kind of racism we are supposed to learn to recognize by studying history: it’s the most enormous mistake to suppose that racism is identified only as its primary historic forms.
   It’s particularly ironic and suspect, when an announced devotee of modern racism denies our right to free speech on historic racism.

    I note that these are not particularly my views; as a pure philosopher I merely present the plainest logic – free from modern trends, spin, and conformist connotation.

    As long as CALC is associated with TIKKUN, or any organization that espouses policies of ethnic and religious prejudice, forcibly (violently) enforced, it can have absolutely no credibility as a mobilizer of peace, human dignity and/or social or racial justice.

    By the way, what is CALC’s position regarding Palestine?  Does CALC have a history of audible opposition to any and all policies of religious or ethnic prejudice, by anyone, in the Israel-Palestine conflict?  If not, how can you explain that dire oversight?  What plans are being considered for announcing this overdue egalitarian position?  And – since TIKKUN’s official position is to enforce and expand its support for ethnic and religious prejudice – will its board members announce an end of their association with such undisguised racist violence?

    Thanks,

    Dave Kersting