Just one example: Did the Nazis and the Zionists collaborate? Of course they did, but, aside from the much disputed actions of Rudolf Kastner, not in the effort Harris dishonestly claims to have been stated in the article. While the Zionists did not directly collaborate with the Nazis in the Holocaust (although they weren’t nearly as concerned with rescue then as they claim today) they did actively and shamelessly collaborate economically with the Third Reich from 1933-1939 as has been extensively documented in Edwin Black’s “The Transfer Agreement: The Untold Story of the Secret Pact Between the Third Reich & Jewish Palestine,” a work lauded by Yoav Gelber of Yad Vashem, among other Zionists. I would suggest finding the first edition for the striking conclusions of the Afterword, which was removed in later editions.

A few examples of collaboration: the clear rationale of the Transfer Agreement was to aid the Reich in undermining the 1933 Jewish-led boycott of Germany in exchange for German industrial goods to build Israel; the Jewish leaders of Palestine went to the extreme of even setting up a company whose sole purpose was to find customers for German goods in the Middle East; up until the outbreak of war in September 1939 the Palestinian Yishuv was using Nazi-flagged ships to transport their produce to Europe.

And, of course, as an aside, Yitzak Shamir’s attempt to form a second front in Palestine in an wartime alliance with Nazi Germany in exchange for recognition of Israel certainly falls within the realm of an unsuccessful attempt at collaboration, albeit one by the leader of a minority faction at the time (although, tellingly, it never stood in the way of him becoming PM). No doubt someone will claim this to be an anti-Semitic lie as well, but since Shamir himself openly admitted the act it is hard to deny.

Some more from the Harvard Crimson article:

“At last night’s discussion, which was attendedby about a dozen Dunster residents, Ignatievresponded to arguments that the University’sfunding of the oven is not an issue of sectariandiscrimination.

“It’s not discriminatory against individuals,”Ignatiev said. “But [the oven’s] use is defined onsectarian grounds. There is nothing in themanufacturer’s instructions accompanying thetoaster oven saying that the oven will bedestroyed if someone lays a pork chop in it.”

Ignatiev said that the toaster oven isdifferent in several important respects from otherexamples of University sponsorship ofreligion-linked facilities, such as MemorialChurch.

“Anyone can use Mem Church for religious ornon-religious purposes,” he said. “The issue ofthe appliance is the first and only example I knowof that fits into this category at all.”

And the tutor said that providing food-serviceequipment for Orthodox Jewish students atUniversity expense should not be viewed as a formof affirmative action, despite the fact thatHarvard may in the past have discriminated againstJews.

“Being Black or being female is not a matter ofchoice,” he said. “Being Jewish is not a matter ofchoice, perhaps, but keeping kosher is.”

One student pointed out that Orthodox Jews arecharged mandatory board rates although theirdietary restrictions bar them from eating threefull meals a day at the College, since kosher mealservice is limited. Ignatiev responded by sayinghe opposes mandatory board “in the same way thatI’m against all taxes.”"

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=223710

Thanks for that. I had actually come back to say something that I had neglected to say yesterday–that even if a lawsuit were successful, the reaction to such a lawsuit would probably mirror the reactions to the various lawsuits against game manufacturers and publishers.

And the reactions vary from wry laughter (as in I guess if we can sue for coffee being hot, I guess we can sue for this) to disgust (as when indies are forced to close or in a really stupid case where a woman sued–successfully–because she played a physical game of Wii while wearing heels and hurt herself).

Regards,

Inna