[Subj:] As for the "other trash"Does Horowitz simply fail to "get it", or does he deliberately obfuscate the issue?
You are conflating two different incidents from two different episodes.
The first incident occurred when the Soros family was still living openly, above-ground.
At that time, young Soros was assigned to deliver deportation notices by the collaborationist Jewish Council or Judenrat -- and was told by his father to warn the recipients of these notices not to report. This is the incident you highlight.
Soros' more controversial interactions with the Nazi regime occurred months later. At that point, the Soros family had split up and gone into hiding under false identities. This was the period when Soros posed as the adopted godson of a Hungarian government official who was assigned to confiscate Jewish property and deliver deportation notices to Jews. Soros told THE NEW YORKER that he accompanied this Hungarian official on his rounds, and helped him perform these duties. THE NEW YORKER specifically mentioned confiscating Jewish property and delivering deportation notices to Jews as activities in which Soros personally took part, while posing as the godson of said Hungarian official.
Both episodes were described in THE SHADOW PARTY. We made it clear that they were separate episodes from two different periods of Soros' young life. The moral conditions underlying both incidents are obviously different. Moreover the fact that we described both of them should give you pause before relying an unscrupulous and unreliable website like Media Matters.
We know from Soros Sr. that George was confronted with a moral dilemma, and asked for an advice. We know that he had been following this advice at least before splitting up of the family. But are we to believe that Soros Jr. suddenly forgot about his moral dilemma after he started to live with a Hungarian official and stopped warning the Jews to whom he delivered deportation notices? Just the opposite - we should assume that he continued to warn them - until proven otherwise. Or, at the very least, even without assuming this, one can't blame him until it is proven that he did stop warning them.
Horowitz's reply does nothing to answer the question I posed earlier:
So merely accompanying this person made a Nazi collaborator out of a 14-years old Jewish boy? (It's not as if he could have "helped" to take over the estates in any meaningful way.)If Horowitz cannot point out the exact actions which 14 y.o. Soros could take in principle to confiscate Jewish property, besides merely being present, what case against Soros does he have?
Finally, Horowitz's point about two accounts in his and Poe's book is disingenuous. I bet Robertson's interview with Horowitz was watched by many more people than will ever read his and Poe's book. In this interview Horowitz said:
And when he was a young man in fascist Hungary, he came under the protection of one of the fascist leaders of Hungary, and they went around -- he was a young man, to be said in his defense, there -- but he went around confiscating Jewish property prior to sending the Jews who owned it to the gas chambers.Omission of crucial details - like the advice given by Soros Sr., the exact age of Soros (making it clear that he couldn't have been "confiscating" the Jewish property in any meaningful way), or the fact that young Soros wouldn't have known that many of the deported Jews would end up in the gas chambers (in this respect cf. Braham in Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, pp. 461, 462 about the lack of knowledge among Hungarian Jews; or, in more detail, Braham, The Politics of Genocide (cond. edn.), pp. 199ff.) - will make an average person think that murderous thief Soros was knowingly sending Jews to their deaths. IMHO, further comments are superfluous.