What I think is so sad, many people refuse others to speak their minds, but at the same token these same people want to force people to not forget the holocaust, any person can go to a website and read for themselves, we dont need overzealots of the jewish faith trying to keep telling people about what happened.

 I do think they are in denial themselves, since the holocaust was not just about Jewish people, it was also about the extermination of over 42 million innocent people all togather.

24.5 million Russians, 10 million Christians of all persuasions, 6 million Jews, 1 million Masons, 100,000 Gypsies, 20,000 Jehovan's Witnesses, 500,000 mentally and physically disabled,  250,000 homosexuals, 5,000 Seventh Day Adventists, 250.000 Protestant clergy and 1,900 Catholic  priests and nuns who were murdered, tortured, massacred, raped, burned, starved, suibjected to "medical experiments and humiliated.

Now I am wondering why is it that only 6 million Jewish people are remembered and everyone else is forgotten, can we also say the ones who profess about others being holocaust denial, when they themselves are also denialing the rememberance of the others who were killed as well.

 I remember the whole 42 million people who were killed, not  just one group of people, since we are suppose to have a caring heart, isnt it time that this holocaust needs to remember the whole 42 million too ?

if not, lets ask who is really the holocaust denials.

Not I

Peace

Facebook had no problem removing photos of women breastfeeding... now they claim free speech rights?

breastfeeding is not a free speech issue might be free look but not free speech

Breast feeding on Facebook would fall under Freedom of Speech and Expression.  Many works of art have been tested in courts...the one that most easily comes to mind is Robert Mapplethorpe and his photographs of naked children and of explicit acts of sex. 

Do you enjoy your free speech right to promote things some people find wrong or immoral? Abortion? Gay/Lesbian/Drag/Tans? Anti-prohibition?  Anti-tax? Peaceful dissent?

I know I do, so let's not promote an air of censorship, ok?

Facebook sucks, im sure the deleted my accaount for promoting atheist stuff

It's not our place to disregard the opinions of others.

I disagree with people who deny that the Holocaust happened but to be fair banning their group from Facebook is like not allowing an Athiest make a MySpace, or burning books for that matter.

This is actually quite rediculous, if you disagree with the content then don't read it.

In some countries denying the Holocast is punishiable by 3 years in jail. That does not sound like free speech to me.
But topics about groups are banned. in America Media.



Too often, even here in America those voices of poverty-no matter religions are silenced. Where is the outcry because people like myself cannot have an editorial dealing with Officials re-inventing law, for aid to those in need.  In 2009Certain Topic's are banned from editorials from the Washington Post, and our local media.

When is it time for "free speech" for the underpaid?  They cannot afford $1,000.00 an ad. Funders do not realize that informicals could debunk the myths on poverty. So do not fund such. 

What about the hidden discrimination being banned through policies?

If the anti-holocaust  are free to repectively speak, Fine! So often they are not respectful to any idea but there own.

Anyone out there to speak, against bans on the underpaid ?

 No one is denying the holocaust, its just those who profess  about the holocaust denies the same values and deaths of non Jews who were also killed and many of them were not part of the military. Face book has their own policy, if people wants to keep  other people from expessing their views, maybe they need to understand FREEDOM of Speech is part of our 1st Amendment. 

There are many hate speech about Muslims in many yahoo groups and such, many of fact in face book and myspace there is a group that advocates death to all Arabs, and this site is runned by overzealous Jewish people. Should their site also be banned?  Maybe, since it is hate speech is it not?

 Peace

 

Genocide begins and ends with words.  It begins with words that other, marginalize and dehumanize an entire group of people, as the Nazis did, as the Hutus did, as far-right anti-gay Christian groups do (and some not so far right one as well).  Genocide ends with words in the denial of a genocide. The Turks deny slaughtering Armenians, the Sudani president denies that a genocide is taking place now.  If we do not intervene at the level of "only words" when will we intervene?  How many times have we said "never again" only to see it happen again and again.  Facebook does not have to allow those who deny a historical fact a forum.  The irony for me is that most Holocaust deniers are believers in some form of religion that presupposes the existence of a man called Jesus who was born of a virgin and re-born on the third day after his death - this mythology is never questioned, and yet, real historical fact is denied.  There is something not right about this picture.

correction: genocide does not begin with words but with an attachment to a group/klan/tribe/family that sees itself as superior to all other groups. It starts with low self esteem and the need to belong to something bigger than yourself. Read up on team aggression and you'll better understand the reasons behind genocide. Writing / blogging about silencing the holocaust  non-believers will not impact world-wide genocide one bit. Examine the root causes; imperialism, poverty, rampant disease; overpopulation, hopelessness. Genocide starts with a damaged psyche trying to get it's fair share.      

Devil's Advocate:

This is just like when people were getting all worked up and pissed off about Muslim women having to hide their face.

That's how they live, that's what they know, you may think it's wrong but they think you're wrong too.

As the Nazi killing machine engulfted Europe with terror, thousands of Jehovah Witnesses suffered brutal persecution, b ecause they stuff up for their beliefs & boldy spoke out against the cruelty of Nazism, in fact they were the first to be thrown into Nazi concentration camps. The goal was to destroy the religous group.. There is a great video called Stand Firm Against the Nazi Assault.. Its about the history of the Jehovah Witnesses in the concentration camps.. It's like one of those History Channel specials... a good watch.

I support my right, everyones right, to freely express themselves. The right to free speech has, in my opinion, fostered the growth of many great, and hopefully enlightened civilizations.

That being said, I reject "freely accessible" messages of hate that promote genocide, ethnic bias, gender bias, religion, sexual preference. Any website that offers "free access" to this kind of information by minors (in particular) is in need of regulation. Telling a child that the "holocaust" didn't happen is a "hate crime" and deserves prosecution.

In Canada , anyone who promotes genocide, incites hatred of an identifiable group in a public place, or promotes hatred is guilty of a criminal offence and can be imprisoned for two to five years.“Identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” I beleive there are similar laws in the UK and Australia. Bravo to these countries!

Great post and great discussion, "free speech" at work.

Telling a child that the "holocaust" didn't happen is a "hate crime" and deserves prosecution.

But then the bible should be subject to Hate crimes as well, since it does promote genocide, ethnic bias, gender bias, religion, sexual preference. And how many Parents subject their children in that book called the bible...


Hate crime ? Really, so I guess all those  Jewish people who denies the holocaust of others are also subject to hate crimes as is promoting Death to all Gentiles and Arabs is also a hate crime. 

In USA  Hate Crime like the Matthew Shepard Law that was passed...  which is physically abused.. not Freedom of Speech.

"Free speech" is a relative term. If someone came into my business spewing anti-semitic or racial hatred, I have the right to ask them to leave. The proprietors of Facebook have the right to allow anyone to post their messages. If others disagree with this, then they should take their business elsewhere.

As I understand it, many historians, Jewish and non-Jewish, differentiate between the Nazis' mass murder campaign against the Jews and their mass murders of other groups.  Recently released German documents (there are several Web sites more substantial than Wikipedia) indicate that the total number of non-combatants they murdered was about 17 million, of whom about 6 million were Jews, 2-3 million were Soviet POWs, and Polish clergy and labor leaders, Romani ("Gypsies" and related ethnic groups) were also heavily targeted.  I haven't seen any claims about targeting Freemasons.  The difference is that they had a clearly stated goal, going all the way back to Mein Kampf, to wipe out every Jew they could get their hands on, while the other victims were not rounded up for murder in the same systematic way.  One of the reasons the number of Jews is known more precisely than the others is that the Germans placed a high priority on killing Jews and therefore kept meticulous records of how that was going.  Because of this difference, most civilized nations, going back to the UN Charter, have agreed to oppose, and in many cases to prosecute, people and organizations that deny it occurred.

I've seen a couple comments that agree with this post, but you keep bringing up that its hate-speech which is what caused the genocide in the first place. The fact is, people are going to speak illfully towards other people. It will always happen. But if all of Facebook's population came across a group that disagrees with the Holocaust, a vast majority of it would think it was extremely silly because almost everyone knows what happened and knows we should be respectful of the issue. So why do these few groups matter when some of the most popular groups on Facebook are spewing about how homosexuals are wrong? Or groups that hate black people, asians, latinos, etc. Free speech is allowing all of these people to come together and talk about why they hate another certain group. And its happening a lot more openly than a few anti-holocaust groups that I never knew existed until I read this post.

Are we going to give more flack because the "jewish-holocaust" already happened or are we going to prevent a homosexual- or mexican- or gap-toothed-holocaust from happening now?

Let's not trifle over whether we call it the "jewish holocaust" or "the holocaust" or whatever.  That is not the point.  What matters is that there are people out there using Facebook to spew hatred, and this promotes genocidal actions.

I believe in free speech, but there is a big difference between stating an opinion and inciting violence and oppression, and that difference is intent.  Hate groups are actively recruiting (see the May 5th Newsweek article), and are trying to go mainstream.  Their whole function is to oppress people they see as "different."  Facebook is a powerful tool for people to network and form powerful alliances, and it can be abused. 

Everyone has the right to be an ignorant racist jerk, that's not the point.  The point is that this rhetoric historically has led to millions of deaths of innocent men, women and children.  It doesn't matter if they were Jewish, Protestest, Russian, or whatever.  It matters that the INTENT of these groups is to promote violence and harm other people.  Furthermore, murder is against the law, and this promotes a lawless behavior.

I'm pretty sure Facebook doesn't allow NAMBLA on their site, because regardless of freedom of speech, there is no reason to incite or encourage lawless behavior. 

It's amazing what people can get away with under the blanket of free speech rights.  This guy at the end of my street puts these signs up and it's  not considered "hate speech."

Tricia
Weekly giveaways every Friday on Tricia's Dish. Never miss a giveaway: join the Weekly Giveaways group on Facebook or follow me on Twitter.

Oh believe me, facebook is not anti-semitic. There's been plenty of efforts to make Palestine listed as a country on Facebook, and they refused to even after multiple petitions, groups, causes, etc. I believe this is an unfairely freedom of speech act they're allowing.

Look deeper at the reason why (I'm assuming a big portion of the people that deny the Holocaust are Arabs) they deny the holocaust.
One of the reasons, and a huge reason I might add, not that I deny the Holocaust, is because of the overwhelmingly amount of Jews that do not recognize the Al Nakba.

You bring up the anti-Holocaust groups, well there are groups that are anti-Nakba.
"Nakba is a myth"
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?sid=b310f3882f7ac6669f91933a7e1a519e&gid=2249928780&ref=search

And also here look--"Armenian Genocide? Bullshit!!"
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?sid=6bc540f1bca12aeb7c48bf032c0eb3dd&gid=60178731610&ref=search

It could also be said that Facebook is anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic then. Or, the more logical route, that facebook does protect freedom of speech. The difference between anti LGBT groups and Genocide groups, are that Hate groups are spurring discrimination and promoting hate against specific religious, ethnic, or specific communities. Denying genocides doesn't necessarily (Not that I agree with this) hate against the people, but the idea that it happened.

Facebook did have an Muslim hate group, a pretty damn big one too. Not sure if it's still there, but the fact that it lasted so long infuriated us. And the reason facebook kept it up is because, No surprise, "Freedom of Speech."

Think you in free space of the atomospher which include the ether waves, though, we expect several interference waves shoul'd appear randomly.In contarary; it's enable to recieve the waves anywhere around the earth crust to used in telecommunication applications or others anytime; anywhere.And simply put; Imagine with me that (Free Speech) in facebook about the Holocaust genocide or any other international Issues of human beings, of course; is required free talk via massmedia facilities to show it to all Mankind's, follow up, assist the Mankind's to stop the Genocide for their kind in the present and future from anybody attempt to do it.

Most of us are certainly for freedom of speech. However, you probably won't be allowed to stand on your neighbor's porch, or in a Walmart parking lot, and hand out Nazi pamphlets, for example. Freedom of speech does not extend to someone else's private property. There, you can say only as much as the property owner will allow. Facebook may be a forum for the general public, but the site has owners. They are not trampling on anyone's freedom of speech by having rules (which they already do), which in my opinion, ought to provide for the exlusion of all hate groups. Those people are free to go start their own blog or site with a host willing to permit that subject matter.

Many types of people suffered and died during the holocaust, as others have already stated. This is sadly undermentioned in our history books. I think calling it a "Jewish Holocaust" is not an intentional exclusion, though. I think it's simply because their numbers were so much higher, that's who everyone thinks of first. It will take a conscious effort to make sure all the other groups are included in any reference to this tragic and horrific time.

Beth

 I do not support any kind of Hate groups of any religion groups or ideology... so to slander people by saying "you probably won't be allowed to  hand out Nazi pamphlets ".

 Is really sad, since some of the hate groups which does promote hate like the KKK,Nazis their holy book is  the christian bible. 

And to forget about the other people who died during the holocaust and only focus on one group, tells me how heartless  some people are for the human beings which many who lost their lives were killed because they were helping the Jewish people escape, but were caught and exterminated as well. What needs to be done, since in this day and age people needs to study and remember all people rather they be Jewish or non Jewish.. they should all be remembered as a whole.

 My own ancestors on my father( Jewish), were killed during the holocaust.But I still remember the Non Jewish people as well.


Good history section to read..
Schwartz,Terese Pencak (2008) Five Milion Forgotten
http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/

 

My Father lost the majority of his extended family during WWII; unfortunately, they were Jewish. That said from the time I was old enough to understand my parents made a point of making sure I understood Jewish people weren't the only victims of the Holocaust. Sadly all to often that is forgotten.
As far as the facebook groups I've thought too about the lessons my Father taught me when he was alive, and a particular conversation stands out. In the U.S.A we have a wonderful gift and right; we have freedom of speech. Now I realize facebook is world wide (?) but please hear me out. No matter how heinous, deplorable, and dispicable these groups they are composed of people entitled to their opinion. That is what my Father and Mother taught me; no matter how much you loathe someone's "view" in this country their right to express it must be supported. Instead of banning these groups why not launch a counter movement to get actual facts out there so more people aren't sucked into the hate?

Laurel  I totally agree with you....

 Thanks

Another day in paradise ??? yea right. freedom of speech, if you dont like it, dont go there. people who bring these topic to the table are crying out for love. maybe they are trying to point out that this could happen again. look at the world, look at your city, look in your nieghbor hood. do you say hello to your neighbors ? Just send love to the haters. it does not cost anything, smile and be grateful you have love in your heart, be an example, quit compalining and do something postive. Maybe if we just legalized everything, no one would have a reason to hurt, HATE. or kill.. you know that saying, " IF YOU TELL ME I CANT,,I WILL " have a blessed night,,,

You know, the more I think about this, the more I'm for it.  I'm sure we can all see the advantage of wiping certain undesirable elements from our public discourse:

Holocaust Deniers - What they say is untrue and hateful to those Jews whose grandparents died in the Holocaust.  And it undermines the racial apartheid that holds up that shining beacon of freedom, Israel.

Intelligent Designers - What they say is untrue and hateful to scientists and biologists everywhere.  Allowing them to run rampant is damaging to the diversity and freedoms which we all hold dear.

Mormons - A religion that claims that when you die you get your own planet to rule over?  Clearly a cult.  And a dangerous cult, considering their involvement in politics.

Anti-Censorship Groups - Anyone who claims that all people have the right to speak freely doesn't understand that silencing untrue, divisive, and unwholesome views is necessary for the smooth functioning of a productive, loving society.  We can't have that.

Hey, this is fun -- everyone join in!


Conrad.

Peace between people or nations requires understanding.

Understanding requires communication. 

Communication requires listening.

Listening requires openness.

Openness requires safety, not threat or danger.

Safety requires nonthreatening expression.

Peace between people or nations does not occur without all these ingredients.  Is there a place for military force or violence in this formula?  I don't believe there is.  As soon as force or violence is threatened or carried out, safety is lost, openness ends, listening and communication are gone. Without listening, understanding is gone, and peace is unattainable.

Peace between people or nations requires understanding.

Understanding requires communication. 

Communication requires listening.

Listening requires openness.

Openness requires safety, not threat or danger.

Safety requires nonthreatening expression.

Peace between people or nations does not occur without all these ingredients.  Is there a place for military force or violence in this formula?  I don't believe there is.  As soon as force or violence is threatened or carried out, safety is lost, openness ends, listening and communication are gone. Without listening, understanding is gone, and peace is unattainable.

Discussing the errors of the past will not change the past.  Denying the errors of the past will not change the past.  The only reason to discuss the past is to decide our choices for the future. Talking about the past should not be used to shame anybody in the present, nor to seek revenge.  Talking about the past should be used to invite understanding of the present reality and future, a present that has many perspectives. Just as the 6 blind men learn from each other about the different parts of the elephant, so does openness and communication teach us more about the big picture.

There is danger in trying to label certain expressions of opinion as "hate" and trying to have it punished as criminal.  And, frankly, even if a person says "I don't like (fill in the blank) people."  That is simply an opinion.  It does not mean that a person will do anything to harm another person.  Hate crime laws are unnecessary because ~a crime is a crime~!  If a person causes physical harm to anyone else (regardless of the reason or motivation), that crime should be punished - not the thought.

At some point, disagreeing with the actions of a particular politician or your government may be considered a "hate" crime.  We don't want to have government censor speech - even if it's speech we don't like.  But someone running a website like "Facebook" has the right to set the rules and determine what they consider to be acceptable.

It doesn't matter what group is targeted by government - whether it's religious, political, ethnic, or anything else.  Because government has so much power (which it tends to abuse) people suffer and sometimes die at the hands of their own government.

Whether or not people believe that a certain number of Jewish people were killed during the Holocaust doesn't actually matter.  The fact is that evil was done and people shouldn't be targeted based on their race, ethnicity, sex, or beliefs.  And the fact is that Stalin killed more people than Hitler.  But evil is evil.

 I totally Agree Janice...

The ones who wants to target people for their opinion are the same people who does express some form of Hate towards others, its just they are afraid to admit it..

That is what you call a Hypocritic.

 Peace Lara

Yes, denial groups are disgusting and I wish we could get rid of them, but Facebook is a private organization that people do not have to join.  If you don't like the groups they allow to exist, stop using Facebook.  I have not seen these denial group pages and I have no intention of looking at them, but the first amendment allows them to exist as long as they are not enticing anyone to commit a crime.  I would love for these groups to go away, but I wouldn't force Facebook to do it.

Facebook has been showing now for a pretty long time quite a disregard for a mere political correctness, in general. Whether it's racist, anti-semitic, homohateful and heterosexistic....groups (especially from eastern half of Europe), you can find them all in Facebook, unfortunately. Why is it that so much of hate speech is allowed on Facebook, I would really like to know. Doesn't Facebook have some Policy that would prevent this? One of the reasons I haven't been using Facebook is because of prevalence of hate speeches on Facebook. Sad.

 Why is there so much hate in wars... why are there so much hate in holy books, why are there so much hate in religions?

 why cause we have people in the world who are only focused on greed, lies and hate and Ignorance.. especially when some believes they are better then others.. that is why there is so much hate.

Simple. There will be wars for as long as there is money.

Lara, let me try to explain why your reasonable-sounding questions don't necessarily sound reasonable to others.  As most of us know, people carry emotional loads attached to words and phrases that relate to their past experience.  Sensitivity to other people requires that we know this and shape our language accordingly.  So, for example, dark-skinned Americans seem to prefer to be called "black" or "African-American" rather than "Negroes," "colored" or "darkies," even though those were the preferred terms at times in the past.  Moslems strongly object to being called "Mohammedans."  At public ceremonies, such as Presidential inaugurations, Christian pastors generally refrain, by mutual agreement from many years of interfaith dialogue, from concluding with "In Jesus' name we pray."  Knowingly breaking one of these social conventions can be seen as offensive.

What the Nazis did to the Jews was different in kind, not just quantity, from what they did to other groups.  The systematic effort to round up and murder EVERY JEW IN EUROPE was unique, with the possible exception of their similar efforts regarding the Romani (who, by the way, prefer not to be called "Gypsies," for reasons similar to those I mentioned earlier.)

The Nazis' efforts were helped to some degree by the refusal of people elsewhere to believe the stories about what was happening.  Nazi spokesmen actively contributed to the skepticism by claiming, "The Jews are always complaining about something, don't you know?  Don't listen to them."  This continued after the war, first by Nazis brought to trial, then by other Jew-haters elsewhere who saw a chance, if not to do additional harm to the surviving Jews, at least to rub it in.  This is why most civilized nations agree that Holocaust denial is a serious, and in most cases criminal, offense.

Israel's neighbors were actually late-comers to this game, and not all participated.  Many Jews and non-Jews continue to live more or less amiably with each other in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.  Arab countries formally hostile to Israel did many back-channel deals with Israel.  Still, when Gamal Abdel Nasser publicly proclaimed that Egypt would drive all the Jews in the "occupied territory" into the sea, given the recent experience in Europe, Jews were inclined to take the threat seriously. 

All the woes the non-Jews in and around Israel have suffered, from what were admittedly harsh policies and practices by Israel, from less formal hostile activity by Jews not associated with the Israeli Government, from other non-Jews in the region, from the British, from the U.S., from each other, whatever -- deplorable as they are, do not add up to anything like a systematic campaign of extermination.  Meir Kahane, the only Israeli politician, to my knowledge, who ever advocated driving the non-Jews out of Israel, was banned from the Knesset, and his party was later listed as a terrorist group by both Israel and the U.S. 

So, to summarize, for good reasons, most civilized countries have agreed that certain terms, such as Holocaust and Shoah, should be used only to refer to what the Nazis did to the Jews.  Other massive human rights violations are also deplorable, but we call them something different.  And the most important thing is not what we call them, but what we do to stop them!

Doug

Many of these people in this forum were not born at the time when the holocaust happened.  They might have had ancestors, who were killed, but I have also had family who were killed too, but I still don’t wear it on my sleeves or use it against others who weren’t part of it. Like some here who claims such a thing.

I know that, I have never called Africans (Negroes, colored or darkies) although in different country outside of USA they do. Like Brasil they are called Negro which means Black… SO therefore  don’t put words In my mouth, since my own aunt married a Brasilian Black person…

Did you know who were the first group of people who were killed by the Nazis? They were Jehovah Witness... who was next?

This is why most civilized nations agree that Holocaust denial is a serious, and in most cases criminal, offense.
What about the denial of all the other people who were killed as well ? What about the denial of all the people who are killed in today's world... Human life is suppose to be perious for everyone .... only a facists who think that one group is better then others.

Do you remember the news ( which I saw the Tshirts) which showed " Israeli soldiers wore T-shirts with a pregnant woman in cross-hairs and the slogan "1 Shot 2 Kills".

Or what about "Rabbi Brigadier General Avi Ronzki had distributed pamphlets to Israeli troops to 'show no mercy' in their attacks against Palestinians in Gaza.The pamphlet also quotes statements made by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, the extremist leader of the Jewish settlers in the West Bank - who opposes any compromise with Palestinians. And The Israeli Army also used banned weapons, including white phosphorous and depleted uranium, to attack targets inside the populated area.

So tell me,  shouldnt the Jewish people in Israel, stop this from happening? since it is a form of hate crime against innocent women, men and children...  I can not understand, how a group of people who wears the holocaust on their sleeves, could allow the killing of innocent people who was never part of the holocaust to begin with. In other words, The Palenstine people were not the ones who told Hitler to  start  the WW2 holocaust.

 Doug you say " So, to summarize, for good reasons, most civilized countries have agreed that certain terms, such as Holocaust and Shoah, should be used only to refer to what the Nazis did to the Jews."

 Do yo  know who those people in the world are? They are called Zionists... They are a polictical  group of people whose founder Theodore Hertzl who once written in his diaries ""The antisemites WILL BECOME our most loyal friends, the antisemites nations will become our allies."

Now tell me, why on earth would anyone want to be allies with Hitler?

The same organization who ancestors were part of the Khazar Kingdom, who has no legit bloodline to the Israelite or Hebrew of the ancients. but adopted Talmudic ( not the torah) to fullfill their agenda.

If  I am correct Israel has broken more International Laws then any other state or country since 1948.

  Like I said before, I support good Honest Jewish people. and I do not denied the holocaust... I just dont support people who thinks that killing innocent people is justified by some claim on a holy book. 

 one of the 10 commandants is " Thou shall not Kill".. why do people Kill ? cause they are cowards.

peace 
 

What are your sources for the claims about the Israeli actions in Gaza? 

As I understand it, Hertzl meant that anti-Semites in Europe would eagerly support the desire of European Jews to resettle in what had been Israel and Judea.  Some of them did, in fact, but then Hitler had other plans.  He apparently didn't consult Hertzl.

There is no basis for the claim that modern Jews are all descended from Khazars rather than from Israelites and Judeans of Scriptural times.  Jews got scattered all over the world.  Others married or converted into the faith.  Still others converted out but are still considered Jews by racial definitions. 

One thing for sure, though, you can't follow the Talmud without following the Torah.  Everything in Talmud is based on Torah, some parts much more clearly and directly than others. 

I seriously doubt that Israel has broken more international laws than any other state since 1948.  Again, is there a source for this?  I'm not even sure who would keep such statistics.  Also, which kinds of laws?  If you has asked the USSR back in the 1980s, they might well have named the US as one of the world's worst scofflaw nations, citing mostly economic and social covenants.  The US would probably have put the USSR high on the list, citing various violations of arms control and testing agreements as well as serious arrears in UN dues.  Cambodia under Pol Pot was a horrible offender, just not for long -- that's why almost nobody else objected when Vietnam invaded Cambodia and overthrew that government.  (The notable exception was the American left, some of whom lamented, "How can socialists behave so badly towards other socialists?"  The American hawks were in the equally ironic position of applauding the actions of the US' recent enemy in invading yet another neighbor, this time to stop the slaughter.)

Over the longer haul, they're not a country, but you could make a serious case against the Catholic Church.  Did you read about the Crusades, by any chance?  Still, they also deserve much of the credit for preserving the remnants of Roman civilization after the Empire collapsed -- in part due to Christian opposition to the Empire's brutality.  (Edward Gibbon described the decline and fall of the Roman Empire as "the twin triumph of barbarism and Christianity," thoroughly upsetting the previous historical consensus about the role of the latter.)

People kill for many reasons.  There are many bad things we could say about a suicide bomber, but "coward" isn't one of them.  Tragically, as we know, too many people kill in the name of religions that purportedly promote peace.  I don't think there are a lot of easy answers here.

By the way, in case you haven't had enough irony for one day yet, some of the most hard-line supporters of militant Israel are evangelical Christians who believe that Christ can't come back until the Jews are back in Israel.  Remember Pat Robertson preaching that Ariel Sharon had his career-ending stroke because offering to divide the land with the non-Jews went against a Divine commandment?  I just report the facts, I don't claim I can explain 'em....

NEWS BREAK : Jesus is not coming back... unless  someone can find his body and make a clone.. other then that.. its all superstition propaganda..and Real Jewish people  does not believe in Jesus... go do research on this ... Jesus wouldnt support what Isreal is doing to the Palenstine people or any of the inhuman things against innocent people..

Doug  are you one of those Pat Robertson followers..? if you are then I understand why you have blinders on.

What are your sources for the claims about the Israeli actions in Gaza? 

Its called Do research outside of the propaganda USA Media... 

As I understand it, Hertzl meant that anti-Semites in Europe would eagerly support the desire of European Jews to resettle in what had been Israel and Judea.  Some of them did, in fact, but then Hitler had other plans.  He apparently didn't consult Hertzl.


NOPE  Hertzl is a zionists founder and if you did research on this person and his ideology and how the 1940's zionists and Hitler worked togather  you would understand  the truth.



There is no basis for the claim that modern Jews are all descended from Khazars rather than from Israelites and Judeans of Scriptural times.  Jews got scattered all over the world.  Others married or converted into the faith.  Still others converted out but are still considered Jews by racial definitions. 



Yes there is alot of basic fact of this ..its just you rather believe in propaganda  instead of looking outside of the box and do research... Actual historical research.




One thing for sure, though, you can't follow the Talmud without following the Torah.  Everything in Talmud is based on Torah, some parts much more clearly and directly than others. 


 NOPE....  If you actual read the Torah and the Talmud you will understand  that REAL jewish people follow the TORAH.. which is the first holy book of the real jewish people. The Talmud is Demonology of the Pharisees.

My dad was Jewish when he died, my grandmother is jewish as is all my family  on my father side... I think  I know they followed the Torah not the Talmud.



I seriously doubt that Israel has broken more international laws than any other state since 1948.  Again, is there a source for this? 

Do resarch in international laws and Israel.


I'm not even sure who would keep such statistics.  Also, which kinds of laws? 

Do research


If you has asked the USSR back in the 1980s, they might well have named the US as one of the world's worst scofflaw nations, citing mostly economic and social covenants.  The US would probably have put the USSR high on the list, citing various violations of arms control and testing agreements as well as serious arrears in UN dues. 


Stop changing the subject on the one we are actually talking about.


Cambodia under Pol Pot was a horrible offender, just not for long -- that's why almost nobody else objected when Vietnam invaded Cambodia and overthrew that government.  (The notable exception was the American left, some of whom lamented, "How can socialists behave so badly towards other socialists?"  The American hawks were in the equally ironic position of applauding the actions of the US' recent enemy in invading yet another neighbor, this time to stop the slaughter.)


Stop changing the subject on the one we are actually talking about.


Over the longer haul, they're not a country, but you could make a serious case against the Catholic Church.  Did you read about the Crusades, by any chance?  Still, they also deserve much of the credit for preserving the remnants of Roman civilization after the Empire collapsed -- in part due to Christian opposition to the Empire's brutality.  (Edward Gibbon described the decline and fall of the Roman Empire as "the twin triumph of barbarism and Christianity," thoroughly upsetting the previous historical consensus about the role of the latter.)


Crusaders  and international laws ?  lol not of that time.. please stick with present time..



People kill for many reasons.  There are many bad things we could say about a suicide bomber, but "coward" isn't one of them.  Tragically, as we know, too many people kill in the name of religions that purportedly promote peace.  I don't think there are a lot of easy answers here.

Killing is not peace... and religion is not peace, since they are killing people and broken their laws of their holy books.

THOU SHALL NOT KILL

I am QUITE SURE that the Talmud is based on the Torah.  I don't even want to know where this "demonology of the Pharisees" thing came from.  Not a Jewish source, that's for sure.  Check any reference on the subject -- I'd probably even live with Wikipedia on this one.

My mentions of other violators of current international law, past and present, were meant to show how difficult it is to agree on a definition of who's in violation.  I don't think anyone keeps statistics on violations in general, and I think I do know the statistical sources in human rights pretty well.  It's hard enough to get good comparative statistics on compliance with one major UN human rights protocol, such as the genocide treaty.  The quarrels and quibbles over definitions are endless.

Good research includes citing sources.  This practice preserves the good name of the previous scholar you cited and leaves a record of what you did and did not consider, so that people looking at your work in the future won't have to guess at whether you knew of some fact that later seems important.  (Guess where this model of scholarship comes from, by the way, a major departure from prior practice.  The Talmud!)

Claiming to know a truth different from all readily available  sources casts grave doubt on the claim.  Insisting on such a truth, without citing any source, when asked about it confirms the doubts.

At least we do agree that murder is bad, especially in the name of religions that claim to be against it.  Right?

A good account of how the Zionists tried to work with the Nazis to promote Jewish emigration to Israel is _Operation Action_, by Willy Perl, who did some of the organizing and had the dubious privilege of meeting Adolf Eichmann face to face in the course of his work.  Suffice it to say that he found the Nazis interested but ultimately uncooperative, as I said. 

And I don't have to be a follower of Pat Robertson to know his views about Israel -- he's been proclaiming them for years to anyone who would listen, or even just couldn't get away fast enough.  Interestingly, though, and much less well known, the humanitarian relief component of his ministry was one of the most effective aid organizations in post-Katrina New Orleans.  This is from the Homeland Security Institute (privately operated, Federally funded think tank) study on the subject. 
Faith-based organizations often do a lot of good -- unfortunately, just not always.

Doug you believe what you want... as I will believe what I want.. I did alot of research on this political group. From good sources who are Real Jewish People...

Lot of my friends are Jewish and other religious groups and well they also have PHD and Master Degrees on History and other places.

So to think I will site with those who justified their reasons to hide the truth from people with blinders, doesnt mean it will work with me.

 Sorry I am not a Sheep....

 Peace Lara

I, too, am sorry you are not a sheep.  If you were, you would produce wool, which would be a lot more useful than some of your recent comments. 

I happen to know a few real Jewish people myself -- actually, quite a few.  I am also somewhat familiar, apparently more than you are, with the Torah and the Talmud, and with some of the scholarly literature on human rights.  (The Talmud, by the way, is the size of the Encyclopedia Brittanica and represents about a thousand years of work by a large number of people, not counting the huge effort in the last 50 years to translate it from mostly Aramaic into English.  Few people can claim to be expert on it, and I'm not one of them.  But I know enough to know that it's all about how to understand what's in the Torah.  Either look at some published Jewish descriptions of the subject or trust me on this one.) 

So this Zionist conspiracy must include the Catholic Church, right?  Have you read their statements on the Holocaust?  Like the prayer Pope John Paul II inserted in the Western Wall on his visit there in 2000?  The Church is probably going to canonize John Paul II, perhaps even in our lifetimes (which is unusually fast), in part for his work to help Jews during the war and make amends afterward for the Church's not having done more.  I don't think they'd agree that they're Zionist-controlled.

I also don't think anyone believes that Pat Robertson, who in fact is a Zionist in his interesting way, is generally under much Jewish influence.

As you say, we can both believe what we want -- but I can back up what I say with some credible sources.  If you have defined as not credible all sources that disagree with your set opinion, you will never learn anything, nor will you convince me -- nor will I back down in insisting that policy debates be anchored on verifiable facts and logic. 

You seem mostly harmless, but if the next person with an opinion and no sources of information happens to be a raving Nazi, is he or she entitled to harangue us with whatever he or she believes, too?  Even if it violates the laws against libel, slander, and defamation?

And this, folks, is EXACTLY why we do need to encourage Facebook to enforce some modest limits on what people can post! 

Doug 

And this, folks, is EXACTLY why we do need to encourage Facebook to enforce some modest limits on what people can post! 

 why is it because you are afraid people will open there eyes ?

Doug have I seen any facts you have posted ? NO

why cause you have none, your words are not facts.. so therefore  people open your eyes  do some research  and remember the holocaust of both Jewish people and non Jewish people who were killed. 
 
Remember everyone life is perious no one is superior over others.

 Doug  or is it Mickey ? since you did sign your name Mikey when you wrote me private email. lol

 I am not sheep, because I dont wear blinders as you do Doug aka Mikey.

Peace Lara

In case anyone is still hanging on here and cares, the Wikipedia entry on The Holocaust is pretty good, with numerous references.  They include sources on both sides of the debate about which victims the term should include.  Another aspect I'd forgotten: "holocaust" means literally "burnt entirely," and the Jews sent to the extermination camps were almost all cremated immediately, while other victims tended to be buried in mass graves.  That's another reason most scholars limit the use of the term to the Jews.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/talmud_&_mishna.html  is a good summary of the history and significance of the Talmud. 

There was a special issue of _Human Rights Quarterly_ in 1986 that laid out how difficult it is to do anything statistical with this subject.  The issue was later expanded into a book, Jabine and Claude, eds., "Human Rights and Statistics: Getting the Record Straight," University of Pennsylvania press, 1989.  Full disclosure: I was one of the guest associate editors of the journal issue and wound up co-authoring a chapter in the book.

As I said before, this is a subject area with few if any easy answers.  It is possible, however, to base the discussion at least to some degree on verifiable facts and identified sources.  And it is best to put no trust in people who know the answers before they've heard the questions.

Yes  nice source,, wiki is not a good source..

Jesus In TheTalmud
http://watch.pair.com/HRChrist.html

Dr. Israel Shahak of Hebrew University reports that the Israelis burned hundreds of New Testament Bibles in occupied Palestine on March 23, 1980 (cf. Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 21). 

Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg declared, "We have to recognize that Jewish blood and the blood of a goy are not the same thing." (NY Times, June 6, 1989, p.5).

 Israelis annually take part in a national pilgrimage to the grave of Simon ben Yohai, to honor this rabbi who advocated the extermination of non-Jews. (Jewish Press, June 9, 1989, p. 56B).

And these Rabbis above... I am sure read the Talmud...

 Have a great week Doug and remember the holocaust of all Jewish people and Non Jewish People . 

  peace

As I said before, I'm not an expert on the Talmud.  It's huge, and few people know the whole text.  I do know that the rabbis in the first Christian century had some nasty things to say about the emerging new religion.  As is usual in Talmudic tradition, all points of view are reported.  The last word, however, belongs to Rabbi Gamaliel: "We should do nothing.  If this new sect has Divine blessing, we can't stop it.  If not, it will fail on its own."

The site you listed is clearly an attack on the Talmud by some Christian commentators, based on selective excerpts.  They mention at some point that they relied on a Latin translation.  Somebody tells them not to do that, and they dismiss him.  News bulletin: the Talmud was written mostly in Aramaic, and translation into ANY other language is tricky.  The writers of the King James Version produced a number of well-known howlers translating the Torah from Hebrew, which is a much more precise language. 

And I'm sure some pretty shameful examples of Jews read the Talmud.  Meir Kahane, whom I mentioned earlier, was an ordained rabbi and almost certainly knew way more Talmud than I do.  If the Jewish Press you cited is the one I think it is, it's the Kahane newspaper from New York.  Kahane and his followers probably organized those pilgrimages.  His followers still adore him, and there are probably annual remembrances on the date of his death, too.  The fact remains that he was banned from the Knesset and his party classified as a terrorist group.  As in the Talmud, Jews talk a lot and all over the place, but eventually good judgment usually prevails.

There are reliable reports that US interrogators defaced Korans to taunt and provoke detainees during the current Iraq war.  Does that mean that the whole US is anti-Islam?  Since some people claim the US is a Christian nation, does that mean Christianity is anti-Islam?  See where this kind of reasoning leads?

Similarly, I'd guess the Grand Inquisitors and the Crusaders knew the New Testament pretty well.  They just didn't follow it very well.  The actions of evildoers don't necessarily reflect  what they read.

Sorry, I have to correct myself.  Shimon Bar Yohai (Aramaic, which is what's in the Talmud -- Hebrew would probably be Shimon Ben Yohai) was an eminent scholar, a disciple of Ravbbi Akiva.  He played a large role in writing the expansion of the Torah into the Talmudic law code.  There are celebrations of his life and work on the anniversary of his death.

There's another Shimon Bar Yohai who welcomed the Moslem invaders, in the seventh Christian century, as a Divine scourge sent to purge the heathens (Romans were idolators, remember?  At least until the Empire converted to Christianity under Constantine...) from the land.  Maybe he's the one your source was quoting.  The one whose legacy is celebrated was hiding in a cave to escape Roman persecution and would have had little occasion to advocate persecuting anyone else.

Reading all the comments on this post has been an interesting and informative experience.  This is such a complicated issue, and both sides have made valid points. 

My question is:  where is the line between censorship and providing a platform for hate groups?  I'm not questioning their right to exist, and their right to their opinions.  But does that mean that Facebook is obligated by that right to provide a platform to them?  If they refuse, is that censorship?  I don't personally believe that it is, because in my opinion, providing them with a platform is tacitly giving them credibility.

Being offensive and boorish is not a good reason to refuse a group a platform.  I think Andrew Dice Clay's humor is offensive and boorish; however, I'm sure he has fans on Facebook, and nobody is going to deny him that right.

What makes this a little different is the history of hate groups.  Their propaganda has a purpose, and its purpose is to harm, and sometimes eliminate other human beings.

That said, it would be interesting to start an anti-hate group on Facebook to counteract this ignorance.

Interesting idea, but I wonder how you'd define what and whom to counteract.

This thread is a good example.  Lara, who sounds like basically a good-hearted person, simply cannot comprehend how offensive it is to a Jew to hear the Talmud characterized as some sort of demonic document, or to refuse to distunguish what happened to Jews from what happened to other victims of the Nazis.  Like the proverbial Irish washerwomen leaning out of their windows to shout at each other across the street, we cannot agree, because we are arguing from different premises.  ;-)

And then there are some people who are not good-hearted.  As Woody Allen explained, "You don't respond to Nazis with truth squads.  You respond to Nazis with baseball bats." 

For my money, Winston Churchill's most moving speech -- not the most forceful or inspiring, perhaps, but even more remarkable in its own way -- is the eulogy for Chamberlain.  It is worth careful reading.  Without either abandoning his deep disagreements with Chamberlain's policies or raising quarrels inappropriate to the occasion, he sets forth beautifully how hard it is to know what to do, and how terrible the consequences can be when, as he put it, an honorable statesman is "deceived and cheated by a wicked man."  Churchill's separation of disagreement with Chamberlain's decisions from admiration for his character is an example to us all. 

But he never made any such statements about Hitler -- clearly a different case.  As Woody Allen said, sometimes you just have to stick to the baseball bats.

Doug

 once again, you have yet show any kind of site which a person can read for them self, so therefore  your opinions are not facts...

 show some proof of your assuming words and i will make my own judgments.

 I Will never support  Nazis and any kind of Hate groups, but there are Hate groups which believes only they should be allowed to speak of Hate towards Gentiles..

 The day those Hate groups are stopped that is the day , when its a first step towards peace on earth. 

Until then  Doug  show proof.... no proof your words are the same as a toliet paper being flushed down.

 peace

Dean Hicks

Its amazing how you assume  me and doug are argueing... ever heard the word communication ? or it that you rather people to only agree and be like robots ?

 Me and doug are two adults human beings who are dicussing.... sorry But I am not the type of women who OBEYS men...

 I think for myself and listen to  others, but to OBEY . LOL  try again.

 You have a great night Dean Hicks.

But remember opinions are like Assholes , everyone has them.
Peace Lara

Dean Hicks

 I am not an overzealous femine I am a freethinker, who follows the Consitutional  Laws and the Bill of Rights.... of the United States of America... 

I do use the spell checker each time  I post,but if I do make a mistake in my spelling.. I am not perfect I am human... 

 I took that oath to protect the rights of people of USA, not Israel...

have a blessed night lol

  I think  people needs to remember the old saying

" Stick and stones may break my bones, but words will not hurt me".

 Aren't people a little bit weak in the mind and think skinned in today's society ?

Plus I will protect many people, especially innocent children of all race, culture, religion and nationality... since children are our future and it is them who will form a better future. 

 peace

 

Dean,

 why are you calling me names.. Did I call you names? No

 
Yes I read it.... dah

So we have a most ingenious syllogism.

Major premise:  Only non-Zionist (which apparently means "whatever Lara finds believable" ) sources of information are credible.
Minor premise:  All Jewish, most Christian, and most secular scholarly and news media sources are Zionist-influenced.
Conclusion:  Only what Lara already believes is believable.

Anybody want to guess how much someone who starts from that logic is ever going to learn?

The clincher is the refusal to accept that Jewish scholarly sources are good evidence for what's in the Talmud.  As Dina said, if you want to know what the Tamils think, wouldn't you want to start by asking the Tamils?  Especially when the key document is written in a language most people, including you, don't know?

Now here's a comment even Lara might like:  "The First Temple was destroyed because of idolatry, sexual misconduct and bloodshed" [the worst possible sins.]  "Why, then, was the Second Temple destroyed, when none of these sins were being committed?  The sin that was being committed then was hatred without cause.  From this we learn that hatred without cause is as bad as the other three sins."

How about that?

"I am only as free, as I allow my enemies to enjoy there freedoms." If the next person with an opinion  happens to be a raving Nazi, she entitled to harangue me with whatever she believes, too.  Even if it violates the laws against libel, slander, and defamation.

Slander is stopped only after they happen though civil actions. There should not be a thought police. Purging those who abuse this freedom is better than not allowing thoughts.

Right now people in the USA who are underpaid cannot speak out, even in an editorial, Because exposing official Corruption is protected by the press.
 
Maine's State constitution provides, "each person is responsible for the words she speaks."   So the press has more protection against slander-but Maine media and newspapers like the Washington Post will not print words, exposing officials of bad implementation of laws.

I personal wrote to the so called "Liberal" Washington Post and was told what amounts to, editorials are topic censored. I kept their e-mail.

If the poor are not free to speak out-no person is. If there were an editorial  telling people that disabled people are illegally denied aid and 2/3 of those who appeal their first decisions are found eligible, most Americans would be OUTRAGED.

 



                                                                            

I feel compelled to make a point that many people fail to understand.  Whether we like it or not, private entities have the right to make their own rules and ~can~ put limits upon views expressed since membership in that organization is a choice, i.e., voluntary (e.g., "Facebook).  So, if "Facebook" doesn't like what you say, they have the right to take whatever action is in accordance with their rules.  (And you also have the right to leave Facebook if you don't like their actions, rules, etc.)  That being said, it is quite a different matter for a government to decide what you can say and what you cannot say.  This is because government has so much power and if views expressed are not popular with those in power, individuals can be singled out for punishment.

The debate of how many died in the Holocaust or how many died under Stalin's rule, or how many died in Cambodia or any other country is mostly irrelevant.  What is relevant is that millions of deaths have occurred at the hands of ~government~ oftentimes, one's own government. Government is more powerful than any individual, organization or corporation.  Government has the power to deny rights to certain groups of people, the power to squash political dissent, the power to use troops against their own people (which has happened in many countries).  This is why our government's power is supposed to be limited.

Freedom of speech is critical.  It is in our Bill of Rights because the main concern was that people could be punished for their political or religious views.  We need to remember this.  And we need to remember that our Declaration of Independence states that we all have the same rights.  Government should not violate these rights.

I think personal attacks on any individual here are unwarranted and do not reflect well on those who make them.

Why can't we agree that all people should have the same rights under the law regardless of their race, religion, sex, ethnicity, political views, etc.?  What someone else believes should be of little to concern to you unless they cause you harm.

So far, so good.  And equal protection under law is, in fact, a key provision of the US Constitution, especially the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.  But now we reach the question that started the thread: what speech or writing is so harmful that it should be prohibited?  As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote, in one of his most famous opinions, "The First Amendment does not protect the right to shout 'Fire' falsely in a crowded theater and cause a panic."  Note that he is often misquoted: if there really was a fire, the speech is protected, and if no harm resulted, it's no big deal even if it's false. 

Holocaust denial causes harm.  It is a common symptom of active anti-Semitism, which also causes harm.  Therefore, holocaust denial is excluded from free speech protection in the US and many other countries, by legislation and by legal precedent.  It is legally considered bad enough that a couple of years ago, in the UK, an author sued others for calling him a holocaust denier -- the accusation, he contended, harmed him!  The court decided he was one, however, so he lost.

Also, Facebook clearly has considerable discretion to make its own rules.  The question was whether we should push them on this one.  As I think I've made clear, I'm in favor of urging Facebook to ban holocaust denial, as Michelle's original post suggested.  For what it's worth, I'd be perfectly happy to encourage them to ban other forms of hateful and harmful expression, as well -- but only for good and clear cause.  I do not need to be reminded that every single suggested instance of this would provoke an argument.  That's why it should be proposed sparingly -- only when the harm prevented exceeds the harm from the argument. 

Being that I enjoy living in a free America, I will defend Facebook for not dismembering the groups. Afterall, I want to be able to argue my controversial issue of Marijuana where I please. We have free speech, so let us use it, whether it brings out the ignornace in others or not.

The rest of the story on Lara's viewpoint:  check out
www.hebrewisraelites.org/rev2939.htm

where you will learn that:
-- modern Jews are not the true descendants of the Biblical Israelites;
-- modern Jews are demonic, trying to usurp the blessing of the true Israelites;  (Revelations 2:9, which Lara quoted and urged us to search on, is the verse about "those who call themselves Jews, but are not, but which are the Temple of Satan."  Last time I checked, Christian theologians were still deeply divided about what this verse means -- most do _not_ take it to mean that no current Jews are included under the Covenant of Abraham);
-- the true descendants of the Biblical Israelites are this splinter black African group of "Hebrew Christians"; and
-- most Christians, by going along with the "lies" about who the current Jews are, are in on the deception and usurpation.

The picture is getting a bit clearer now: why she said the Talmud is demonic, why she won't accept any Jewish source about what the Talmud means, why she talks about 'real Jews" who seem to be different and separate from the Jewish mainstream, why she claims most mainstream Christian sources are unbelievable as well, why she opposes any special distinction of what happened to the Jews among the other victims of the Nazis' mass murders and persecutions.  And why I wouldn't take her word for the time of day!

News flash: there's also about 2500 years of secular history, by sources such as the Egyptians, the Romans, the Persians, the Greeks and the Arabs, supporting the story that Jews dispersed from Israel / Judea eventually spread all over the world, and at least part of the current population self-identifying as Jewish comes from this lineage.  Also, Judaism is a religion and a culture, not a racial group -- self-identification, especially by actions, is the key.  So whether or not the Jews in 20th-Century Europe were all descended from Biblical Israelites is irrelevant!  Modern Israel was created, by international treaties, as a homeland for modern Jews, with no requirements about ancestry or adherence to Biblical-era religious practices.  And sensitivity to the feelings of modern Jews about how the Holocaust is depicted does not and should not depend on what you believe about their lineage, either.

As others have pointed out, the first ammendment protects us from what the government cannot censor. If Facebook's policy is that these groups should not exist, they should either ban the groups or change their policy.
It's really that easy.

If these groups want to spread their misguided ideas, I say we should at least make them work for it.

I'm not interested in stopping anyone from spreading ideas that are merely misguided.  I think that both the government and private entities should stop people from spreading statements that are wrong and harmful, either knowing that the statements are false and harmful or with a reckless disregard for whether they are true or false and harmful or not.  (This is essentially the law of libel -- just extend it to ideological advocacy.)