Ever since Hunting Evil was published in the UK last June, I’ve been waiting for a backlash from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, but so far, nothing has come. Perhaps it will issue a statement when the book is published in the US in May, but I suspect it will maintain its current position of dignified silence – the last thing the Center wants is a large and revelatory debate about the career of the man after which it is named.

Some inkling of what the Center’s response would be is contained in a recent interview given by Dr Efraim Zuroff to Simon Round of the Jewish Chronicle. “There may have been some inconsistencies in what Wiesenthal said,” says Dr Zuroff, “but much of what Walters wrote was ridiculous. Certainly what he wrote about me was ridiculous. On top of that it’s a boring book.”

As readers will know, I’ve long been critical of the publicity-seeking methods adopted by Dr Zuroff as he noisily pursues Nazis around the globe, and it therefore comes as no surprise that he may not be my biggest fan. I am however flattered that Dr Zuroff sees fit to spend his time lecturing about me, but sadly I’ve yet to learn the substance of what he says.

Nevertheless, I am heartened to see that he acknowledges that some of what I write about Wiesenthal may well be true, which is encouraging. I am though intrigued as to what he finds ‘ridiculous’. Could it be the fact that I expose Wiesenthal’s false academic qualifications? Or his near non-involvement in the hunt for Eichmann? Or perhaps his three wildly differing accounts about his supposed time in the partisans? Or maybe it’s my exposé of Wiesenthal’s plagiarism? Perhaps it’s my assertion that Wiesenthal only discovered about 1% of the number of Nazi criminals that he claimed? Or his belief in the Odessa organisation? Or his ludicrous claims about his ‘hunts’ for Josef Mengele and Martin Bormann? Maybe it’s Wiesenthal’s disgraceful treatment of poor Frank Walus that Dr Zuroff finds ‘ridiculous’?

I could go on...but I would hate to be boring.