David Irving: does not need sympathy. (even if one supports no restrictions on freedom of speech). I had made a statement about Nazi "historian" David Irving a while back. A reader (sympathetic to Irving?) wrote that I am following the conventional wisdom about Irving. I never follow conventional wisdom or crowds on any matter, especially the evaluation of books. I in fact read most (if not all) of David Irving's books (from Hitler's War to the Destruction of Dresden to his biographies of Goring and of Goebbels) and reached a firm conclusion that he is a Nazi anti-Semite. You can clearly see that in his biography of Geobbels. And Irving is dangerous: because his books are full of documentation and primary sources and you have to dig deeper to realize that he clearly selects those facts that are in favor of his thesis and ignores those facts that are contrary to his Nazi agenda, especially his claim of Hitler's "innocence" as far as the Holocaust is concerned. (Read here the book Denying the Holocaust by D. Lipstadt). And his speeches and interviews outside of his books only implicates him further. Why am I writing this? Because looking at Arabic newspapers and watching Arab news, I am rather disturbed by the coverage of the verdict on Irving. It is not blatantly sympathetic to Irving, but he is portrayed as a victim of some pro-Israeli forces. I am also disturbed to read this: "An Observer investigation in 2002 found that Irving was backed by an international network of supporters, including a Saudi prince and a former Nazi U-boat commander." The Palestinian cause is too precious to allow Nazi anti-Semites to infiltrate our ranks. They should be rejected from the pro-Palestinian movement. And not every target of ADL should be seen as a friend of the Palestinian cause. Good night.