Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'n

[Dejuificator II]

[---][center][large]Leo Frank and the Birth of the ADL Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith[/large][/center][---]

[right][small]See also :
Leo Frank Case
Leo Frank on Balder Ex-libris
ADL on Balder Ex-libris
The Murder of Mary Phagan - Miniseries
www.leofrank.org[/small][/right]

[center]Murder in Georgia[/center]

[center][/center]

[justify]Leo Frank (JEW) was a bisexual pedophile, president of B'nai B'rith Atlanta (think of the name ADL of B'nai B'rith when you think of Leo Frank) and a drug addict, who managed a pencil factory in Atlanta in 1913. One day he demanded sex from a 13-year-old employee named Mary Phagan, and then brutally raped and murdered her.

Frank, and an illiterate black handyman, dragged the body to the basement where they were going to burn it in the factory furnace the next day. That night a watchman finds the body ' calls the police ' Frank is arrested ' and found guilty and sentenced to hang. The governor commutes the sentence and Marietta's finest families broke into jail and lynched him.

Today the Jewish community hails Leo Frank as an innocent martyr, a victim of anti-Semitism.[/justify]


[center]The Victim[/center]

[center][/center]

Mary Phagan

A 13-year-old employee of the National Pencil Factory, in Atlanta, was murdered.

The Murderer

[center][/center]

[center]Leo Frank[/center]


[justify]Frank was a Cornell-educated Jew raised in New York City, living in Atlanta. President of his local B'nai B'rith, active in civic affairs, a local socialite, he was Phagan's supervisor at the National Pencil Factory.

Frank was a sexual pervert who was both homosexual and preyed on young girls. He forced employees to have sex with him.[/justify]




[center][/center]
[center][large]ADL: Behind the Mask of Respectability[/large][/center]

[justify]An eight-part video produced by the National Alliance detailing the less than savory facts and history surrounding the world's 'foremost civil rights group', including:
questionable ties to organized crime figures, criminal espionage operations, anti-patriotic brainwashing of law enforcement personnel, mass bribery of politicians, Soviet-style censorship initiatives, thought crime laws, and a host of other disreputable actions. The real truth about this group is enough to make your skin crawl.[/justify]


[---][center]The dark side of the anti-defamation league of B'nai B'rith[/center][---]
[---][center]The dark side of the anti-defamation league of B'nai B'rith - Bitchute - Mirror[/center][---]
[---][center]ADL Behind the Mask of Respectability - Archive.org[/center][---]


[center]Abe Foxman, Director of ADL[/center]

[center][/center]

[justify]After watching these eight videos, continue to read our ADL research section below, which has many articles about the ADL written by Jews and non-Jews.[/justify]

[center][/center]

[center]Abe Foxman, left, meets with mass-murderer Ariel Sharon, right.[/center]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]Abe Foxman: Disgrace to My Religion[/large]


By Monty Warner

Source: FrontPageMagazine.com | August 2001

AS AN EARLY TEEN, I was playing in a YMCA basketball league in Sumter, South Carolina, a leafy, sleepy southern town of about 35,000 where I was born and raised. Being of Jewish descent, I had to play for a Methodist team because the Jewish population in the county ? indeed, in the state, at that time ? was limited enough to preclude its own league. The YMCA was agreeable to this, and a few other Jewish kids from surrounding areas played as well.

After one of the games, I remember standing by the scoreboard. Ahead of me was one of the Jewish parents, shouting at one of the coaches. The woman wasn?t demanding more playing time for her son, nor was she a diehard seeking an explanation for why we were so bad that year. The woman, in full view of and to the distraction and discomfort of many, was demanding an apology from the coach for hurting her son?s feelings. The coach?s sin? Taking her boy out of the game for poor play and making him cry. I thought the whole episode somewhat amusing until two well-respected men in the community passed by, and I overheard one of them say to the other: ?That is exactly why our kind has trouble with their kind.? Upon hearing this, I didn?t find myself offended; at thirteen years old, I found myself agreeing with them.

Today we have our very own national Jewish basketball mom. Just as shrill, just as petulant, just as obnoxious, and useless to boot. Our advocate, armed with a $50 million annual budget to ensure the meanies never get us, is Abraham Foxman. Foxman heads the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a once proud, worthy and worthwhile protector of Jews and their faith. Under Foxman?s brand of leadership, the ADL has devolved into an opportunistic, intolerant, grief-grubbing stench ? a ?rights? group for any and all who wish to feel offended ? one which, in bottomless efforts to remain PC-safe, unconditionally aligns itself with groups like the Black Caucus and NAACP, both of which strongly support the pending anti-Semitic U.N. Conference on Racism. Think about that. You hate me, so by all means I support you. Why? Because I?m pathetic.

This past June, Carl Pearlston, a Board Member of the ADL and longtime loyalist to its early causes, resigned from the organization after 25 years of service. Pearlston began to receive increasingly hostile responses from other Board Members for his more conservative views, and was informed by Foxman that ?he would have to realize that over 95% of those involved in the ADL were liberal and would be unsympathetic to his views.? Notwithstanding the adage that for every five Jews in the room there are 10 opinions on everything, the notion that 95 percent (or even 55 percent) of all Jews support bilingual education, gun control, feminism, affirmative action, abortion and the homosexual agenda across the board is not only unfathomable, but further evidence that Foxman has absolutely no legitimate claim to representing the interests of the Jewish masses.

For years now, despite numerous unflattering (and under-the-radar) news stories about his complicity in various scandals too numerous and squalid to confine to this space, Abraham Foxman has held himself and been held forth by others as one of the chief national political voices of Jewish people. His misuse of and/or recklessness with ADL funds (see Henry Lyons), his whorish behavior in the Marc Rich pardon, and his general odor in defending such cosmopolitan thuggery; to say nothing of self-righteous condemnations of what he arbitrarily decides to be someone else?s ?intolerance,? is brought to the public?s attention almost weekly. Last year, during the presidential election, Foxman, using extreme examples, pulled incendiary comments off the Web to imply that anyone that didn?t want Joe Lieberman on the national ticket was probably anti-Semitic. Well, in some cases that?s entirely possible. It?s also possible that they simply thought Joe Lieberman was a putz. Or more significantly, they just might not have agreed with him on the issues. But the substance of disagreement is not important to Mr. Foxman. Regrettably, whatever legitimacy may have accompanied such charges has been diluted by the frequency with which Foxman lodges them, largely in an effort to secure more media attention to raise more money to continue the never-ending battle to tell everyone else how not to offend Abraham Foxman. To his credit, it?s a pretty good gig.

In April, Foxman was quoted in the New York Times assaulting David Horowitz?s campus ad campaign as ?just another means of fomenting racism and hate.? The quip was so lacking in resonance it was almost as if he was walking out to lunch and asked what to do about the Horowitz situation, and in reply he said ?put something together, use some of the old text, and throw in uh?.racism and hate.? Instead of joining Horowitz in showing the guts to condemn the racist, anti-American black Left, Foxman threw his own to the wolves for a short-term political pop. Foxman: the man, the myth ? the self-loathing maggot.

And so it is that, as an observer of all these ?anti-hate, don?t hurt my feelings? campaigns, a logical, rational Jew can?t help but logically ask himself: ?Exactly what is it that this man has ever actually accomplished?? Surely he can take credit for the fact that there might be one less KKK group in the world (which would bring the grand total to four), or the fact that more Jews are now allowed in certain country clubs (lawsuits have a way of greasing such processes)? but concretely, what is it that Abraham Foxman has done besides bend the ADL over for the Leftist agenda of the Democratic Party, and give much of America an image of most Jews as whiny, petulant, hate-thought shylocks? Sure, he sticks his nose in just about everything that gets him headlines (i.e. the future and futile U.N. Conference on Racism), but the real answer is pretty simple: not much.

To be sure, I am very proud of my heritage. I believe Jewish people are some of the most brilliant and determined people on the planet. From Walter Annenberg to Max Fisher to much of the work of Steven Spielberg, Jews have consistently risen from humble, even punishing beginnings to not only enjoy great power and success, but pave the way for others of all stripes to enjoy the same. And yet somewhere along the way ? in oft-embarrassing displays of uninformed hyperemotion a la Foxman ? many children and grandchildren of those who suffered so horribly in the Holocaust have awarded themselves the right to gripe about this country as if it were not the one that gave their ancestors their liberty. As if they themselves were in the Holocaust. As if we are all just one conservative Attorney General or High Court appointment away from being stripped of our ?rights,? which have basically expanded to include what any sniveling Manhattan/LA liberal feels like doing at any given moment. The ignorance of how embarrassing, foolish and distasteful this is to the rest of the country is glaringly front and center, and a textbook example of how some Jews contribute heartily to their own alienation. This in turn allows hucksters such as Abraham Foxman to emerge ? the kid nobody liked but who is determined to make others like you ? and raise millions to salve the wounds of the very people he helps afflict with a crippling sense of victimhood.

Self-aggrandizing hustles such as this have in recent years become an indisputable national pastime. Angst-ridden souls with massive inferiority complexes now frequently cloak themselves in the mantras of groups such as ?The National Organization for Women,? and then use the broad title to imply that they in fact represent everyone who might fall into such categories. This is a cynical, manipulative, outright lie, and in this regard there are few bigger demagogues than Abraham Foxman. Under his leadership, the mission statement of the ADL, the organization created solely to safeguard Jewish interests, now reads: ?dedicated to translating democratic ideals into a way of life for all Americans in our time.? One translation would be aligning itself with Americans like the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, which in its school workshops has taken the liberty of edifying our teens on the finer points of ?fisting.? Another translation is more simple: Whatever raises us money to continue projecting our misery onto you.

It is an old axiom in politics that the longer an assertion goes unchallenged, the quicker it becomes an article of faith. This axiom has lent significant legitimacy to people like Jesse Jackson and Abraham Foxman. No one questions them. No one looks at the sinister, highly unproductive leadership they have attempted to peddle to millions and stops for a moment to say: ?Who anointed this person?

What makes Abraham Foxman the ultimate arbiter of who is anti-Semitic and who isn?t? Is there a school for this? Why do I have to listen to him or Jesse Jackson as an authority on anything?? Of course, anyone who tenders such a challenge would immediately be branded a racist (or, in my case, a self-hating Jew) for not lining up to pull the collective pimp wagon, but at this point even that seems worthwhile. It is worthwhile because these men are not leaders. These men are liars ? the corrupt, failed and demagogic sort ? who have proven repeatedly that they will, to the clear detriment of their own people, pursue or create any cause that generates them media or money.

To wit, one of Abe Foxman?s recent public forays on behalf of Jews was to loudly condemn the naming of the Hurricane Israel as discriminatory against Jews. If this is what has the Jewish community atwitter, then surely a lot of people have missed something. Moreover, that Mr. Foxman could even consider this to be a matter worth ten seconds of his life indicates that perhaps it?s time for him to begin to come to terms with the fact that he hasn?t accomplished much in it. In a Washington Post op-ed recently, Mr. Foxman almost gleefully talked up the pending U.N. Conference on Racism (which President Bush has wisely pulled the U.S. out of) as an excellent antidote to combat racism around the world. What he failed to foresee (or acknowledge in his zeal to support the Mutual Admiration Society event) was the potential for the U.S. to withdraw from the event, a move largely predicated on the insistence of Palestinians that language condemning Jews in very harsh tones be adopted for the Conference. Again, this is the leader of my people? I don?t think so. This is a snot-nosed man-child who represents everything neither I nor many other Jews want anything to do with. Leaders provide leadership, not handkerchiefs and crutches.

Monty Warner is Senior Director for the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. Readers may e-mail him at montywarner@yahoo.com.[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]A Closer Look at the Enemy[/large]

by Dr. William Pierce

Source: Free Speech - October 1998 - Volume IV, Number 10

You know, this world we live in is a complicated place. Behind every phenomenon we observe there are many forces at work, some of them obvious and some not so obvious. Trying to separate what?s important from what?s not important can be a confusing task. Every week when we discuss on this program what?s happening in the world around us, and I try to explain events so that listeners can have a clear understanding of them, I must simplify the world. Clarity requires simplification. Understanding demands simplification. A useful explanation requires separating the important things from those which are less important and focusing first on the former. If I tried to explain every phenomenon in the world in complete detail, leaving out nothing, I would succeed only in confusing everyone, especially myself.

So if we want to understand the world we must simplify it. But we must be careful not to oversimplify, or our explanations lose their value. Occasionally my listeners accuse me of oversimplifying, or they are aware of some factor which I have not discussed in detail, and they suspect that I have left it out deliberately because it would contradict some theory of mine.

Here?s an old example of the way oversimplification can lead to confusion: After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia early in this century, many anti-communists in America spread the word that a majority of the Bolshevik leaders were not Russians but were Jews, and they warned Americans that there also were many Jewish communists in America who posed a danger of subversion. This was back in the days before the exposure of the Rosenbergs and other communist-Jewish spies and conspirators in America. The Jewish media countered this warning with a deliberate campaign of confusion. They said, ?Oh, you used to accuse of us being international bankers and capitalists and of subverting nations with our money. Now you accuse us of being international communists and of being a threat to capitalism. So which is it? Are we capitalists or are we communists? It can?t be both, so make up your mind.? This response was supposed to make their accusers look foolish, and with much of the public the trick worked.

Of course, the truth of the matter is that Jews are both capitalists and communists ? and neither. They are, first and last, Jews, and that really says it all, if one understands what a Jew is. The average Gentile thinks that a communist must be someone who is a believer in communist ideology, and a capitalist must be someone who is a believer in the ideology of free enterprise. It doesn?t occur to him that for many Jews ideology is not something that one actually believes; it is simply a tool which one uses for deceiving non-Jews. The aim always is to acquire wealth and power, and whether one uses capitalist methods and ideology or communist methods and ideology for this purpose depends upon the situation. Regardless of the methods one uses, one remains a Jew. That?s what is important.

And of course, most of the people who were trying to warn their fellow Americans about the dangers represented by the Jews in their midst didn?t try to explain that, because most Americans simply wouldn?t have understood; it would have been too complicated for them. So the anti-communists simply said: ?Watch out! The Jews are communists or are sympathetic to the communists.? And that was an oversimplification of the truth.

Here?s a more recent example: I have warned Americans that Bill Clinton is a puppet of the Jews, an obedient tool of the Jews, and I have pointed out the fact that most of the important appointments he has made as President have gone to Jews: two Supreme Court justices, his entire foreign policy and national security team, and so on. And I have stated that the Jewish media got him elected in 1992 and then reelected in 1996.

And so now some people have asked me, ?Well, if Clinton is an obedient tool of the Jews, why are they now trying to destroy him? Why are some of the people who are in the forefront of those now pulling Clinton down Jews? Why would a Jewess, Monica Lewinsky, turn on him? Don?t you know that some of Ken Starr?s associates are Jews? Didn?t you notice that one of Clinton?s most important attackers is Connecticut?s Jewish Senator Joseph Lieberman? It has been the Jewish media, like the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, which have exposed Clinton?s lies and other crimes. So how can you say that he is a puppet of the Jews? It doesn?t make sense.?

But of course, it does make sense ? if one doesn?t try to oversimplify. I don?t want to spend too much time on this because I?ve already covered much of the ground in earlier broadcasts, but I?ll try to add a few more details, so that the picture is still simple, still clear, but not overly simple. The basic facts are these: First, the Jews control the mass media ? or more accurately, they are the most powerful of the conscious elites in the media world; they wield more control over the media than any other coherent and self-conscious group. And because of this media control they are able to exercise a determining influence on the electoral process: in other words, through their media control they are able to control the politics of a mass democracy, where everyone, even the most easily manipulated elements of the population, has an equal vote.

Second, Bill Clinton is a talented but utterly corrupt man. He is a typical child of the 1960s. He grew up believing that the world owed him something. He grew up believing that he was entitled to whatever he could grab. And he grew up cynical. He grew up during a period when the Jews were turning American society on its head, when Jews were breaking all of the rules and getting away with it. Bill Clinton noticed this and learned from it. And Bill Clinton grew up with a talent for manipulating people, a talent for lying to people and getting them to believe him. This suited him perfectly for a career in politics.

And the Jews noticed Bill Clinton. They saw him as potentially very useful to them. He is exactly the sort of man they always are on the lookout for: corrupt but charming; someone who can attract votes but who understands which side his bread is buttered on. They supported him with their media and with their money. Without their support he wouldn?t have gotten into the White House. And Bill Clinton reciprocated. He gave them whatever they wanted. He appointed them to every high position in the government, and he pushed their policies and programs. On all of this the record is clear. So why are they abandoning, even attacking, their good friend Bill Clinton now?

Well of course, he never really was their friend: he was their useful tool. And he has become a badly damaged tool as a consequence of his own personal weaknesses. The Jews did not set out to destroy him. He did that himself. Remember, Ken Starr was ready to throw in the towel and give up on investigating Clinton three years ago. If anyone besides Clinton deserves credit for his downfall it is Paula Jones. When Paula Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment she opened the Pandora?s box from which the affair with Monica Lewinsky eventually came to light. Remember, the Jewish media tried hard not to notice Paula Jones. That Paula eventually was noticed by the public resulted from several factors beyond the control of the Jewish media bosses.

And that?s one of those little complications we must deal with in the real world. Despite all their media power and all their money, the Jews are not able to control everything all the time. Sometimes the Jews are compelled by circumstances just like the rest of us. They also have their vulnerabilities.

Paula Jones opened a Pandora?s box that the Jews would have preferred to keep closed. But once the box was open, they had to decide what to do about Clinton. On the one hand, they have Al Gore waiting in the wings, and Al Gore is just as corrupt as Bill Clinton, just as willing a tool. But on the other hand, Gore simply doesn?t have Clinton?s talents. He?ll do what the Jews tell him, but he won?t be able to charm the voters as effectively as Clinton could. They?d like to keep Clinton, but he?s become a bit of a tar baby. And so we have had an opportunity to see another of the world?s little complications, and that is that not even the Jews are always in complete agreement about the best way to proceed.

The Jews don?t want to become too closely identified with Clinton?s corrupt image. Looking a little further ahead than the mass of Gentile voters who still think Clinton should stay in the White House, the Jews understand that it will not be helpful for them to have a very close historical association with the Clinton administration. They don?t want Clinton to be thought of as their man, because they have a suspicion that despite his present popularity his historical image will be very bad indeed. For some of them that is the primary consideration, and they?d like to see Clinton go quickly and then muddle through with Al Gore as best they can. Other Jews are still fascinated by Clinton?s approval ratings and his ability to charm the lemmings. They don?t want to trade him in for Al Gore no matter how much tar rubs off on them. And of course, they also have the consideration that if they all abandon him simultaneously and all begin attacking him, he conceivably could turn on them and lash out at them. Better to keep him mindful that despite the fact that some of them are pulling him down, if he wants to stay out of prison he?d better keep obeying orders. So there are complications in life even for the Jews.

I?ll give you one more example of the subtleties that one must deal with in trying to understand the role of the Jews in our society. Last week one of the most powerful Jewish organizations, the Anti-Defamation League of B?nai B?rith ? the ADL ? held a huge press conference at the National Press Club in Washington and simultaneous press conferences in a number of cities around the country, and they announced that I am the most dangerous man in America. Really: I am the most dangerous man in America! And the organization I head, the National Alliance, is the most dangerous organization in America. Really: not the Mafia, not what?s left of the Communist Party, not some violent and well armed militia group, not Louis Farrakhan and the Black Muslims, but the National Alliance.

Well, I long ago decided that any insult from the Devil is a compliment, but still there are some troubling aspects to what the Anti-Defamation League has done, and I?ll share them with you, because they can help us understand better the way the Jews operate. When the ADL held its press conferences last week it handed out press releases to the reporters and politicians. The press release began with a statement by the top ADL commissar, Abraham Foxman, saying, ?The National Alliance is an alliance of bigots and bombers thriving on hate,? and then it listed a long series of violent crimes and terrorist acts the ADL claims are ?linked to the National Alliance and its propaganda.? The list begins:

1992-1995, Midwest: Authorities say the Aryan Republican Army, a white supremacist gang that required members to read The Turner Diaries, committed 22 bank robberies and bombings.
April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City: The bombing of the Murrah Federal Building is eerily reminiscent of a fictional bombing scene in The Turner Diaries, of which Timothy McVeigh was a devotee.
December 1995, Fayetteville, NC: Two soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg, who were avowed neo-Nazis and reportedly read National Alliance propaganda, murdered an African-American couple.

Et cetera. There?s a lot more to the ADL?s press release, but you get the idea: I and the other members of the National Alliance are bomb-throwers and bank robbers ?linked? to 22 bank robberies and bombings in the Midwest, to the Oklahoma City bombing, to the shooting of a Black drug dealer and his girlfriend in North Carolina, and to lots of other things. Now, as a matter of fact, neither I nor anyone else in the National Alliance had ever heard of the Aryan Republican Army and its 22 bank robberies and bombings, or of Timothy McVeigh, or of the soldiers at Fort Bragg who shot the Black drug dealer, until we saw these people on television news programs, like everyone else.

But we are ?linked? to them, says the ADL. How? Did some of these folks listen to one of my American Dissident Voices broadcasts? Probably. At least, I wouldn?t be surprised. Did some of them read my 1978 novel, The Turner Diaries? Probably. At least, I?ve seen evidence to indicate that Timothy McVeigh did, although I don?t know about any of the others. There are a quarter of a million copies of the book in circulation, and probably a half-million readers altogether ? including, no doubt, Abraham Foxman and a number of his associates in the ADL.

So that?s how I and the National Alliance are ?linked? to bombings, bank robberies, and murders. Very clever. So then, it?s fair to say that the Catholic Church is ?linked? to Mafia operations, and that the Automobile Association of America ? the AAA ? is ?linked? to drunk driving, and that the folks who publish various editions of the Bible are ?linked? to the crimes committed by people who quote the Bible as they take an ax to their wives or blow away a neighbor with a shotgun.

?The National Alliance is an alliance of bombers and bigots,? says Abraham Foxman. I am not aware of a single instance of a bombing committed by a National Alliance member ? although a couple of years ago a former member in Florida had a pipe bomb he was trying to build blow up in his face. He wasn?t a member of the National Alliance at the time, and he didn?t actually bomb anything except himself ? but that?s enough for Abraham Foxman and the ADL to describe the National Alliance as an organization of ?bombers and bigots.?

You know, every organization which recruits from the public will occasionally recruit a member who has had or will have a problem with the law, but here?s something to remember: the Democratic Party has a much higher percentage of lawbreakers among its members than does the National Alliance. We don?t tolerate criminal activity, but the head of the Democratic Party seems to thrive on it ? at least he did before Ken Starr got on his case.

Abe Foxman and the ADL seem to thrive on criminal activity too. Five years ago, in April 1993, search warrants were executed on the Los Angeles and San Francisco offices of the ADL, and police seized hundreds of confidential police files which had been stolen by the ADL. Some of these police files were from investigations of anti-apartheid groups in the United States, and the ADL had given copies to the South African government in return for access to confidential South African police files on anti-Israel groups in South Africa. A lot of the people whose names were in those confidential police files the ADL had stolen sued the ADL for invasion of privacy, and that?s still working its way through the courts.

But here?s the really interesting part of all this: newspapers and other media took the ADL?s press release last week as gospel, and they printed big excerpts from it. It?s been in newspapers all over the country. You?ve probably seen some of these stories yourself. With one exception none of these newspapers even bothered to check with me first; they didn?t call me up and ask me if the ADL?s allegations were true or if I had any comment on them; they just ran sensational stories with headlines like ?National Alliance linked to bombings and murders.? And of course, they said nothing about the ADL?s criminal activities or its links to the government of Israel. And many of these newspapers aren?t even owned or edited by Jews. But they all follow the party line. They know that the ADL is an official Jewish organization, and therefore it cannot be criticized, and nothing it says can be questioned. That would be like questioning the ?Holocaust,? heaven forbid!

That?s a little frightening, don?t you think? So here?s one of those complications about the way the Jews wield their power. They don?t have to own everything in order to have things go their way. A newspaper editor or a television station owner doesn?t have to be Jewish in order to slavishly follow the Jewish party line. The Jews own enough of the media ? they hold enough of the policy-making positions ? so that no one, or almost no one, wants to cross them. When an institution becomes corrupt ? and that, unfortunately, is the case with our mass media, just as with our political system ? the Jews can count on using their power to make things go their way. They thrive on corruption. The ADL thrives on corruption. The ADL could not exist in an uncorrupted society.

Finally, here?s one other little complication in understanding the role of the Jews. I know and you know individual Jews who are not involved in any political or media activity, individual Jews who simply earn a living and go about their business and don?t pay much attention to what the ADL is doing. And so I often have people write to me and ask me why I am so hard on the Jews. They remind me that there are lots of evil people in our society, even in the media, who are not Jews. They remind me that Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner aren?t Jews, that Stalin wasn?t a Jew, and that Lenin was only part Jewish. And that?s true enough. And that?s why we won?t be able to dispense with the gallows even when we have no more Jews.

But the people who are focusing on the complications that many of the world?s evildoers aren?t Jews and that many Jews are not involved in sinister activities ? these people are failing to see the forest because of the trees. When I speak about the role of the Jews in the world today or in the past I do simplify the world. I do simplify the facts, because my aim is for people to see the forest, to understand the forest, at least in rough outline, before they spend too much time studying the individual trees.

And the forest I want people to see, the big picture I want them to understand, even though it is a simplified picture, is this: Without Jews there would have been no Bolshevik Revolution and subsequent selective murder of two generations of the best and brightest of the Russians. Without Jews as an organized community pushing ?multiculturalism? and ?diversity? and open borders and racial mixing in the United States, White Americans would not now be facing the prospect of becoming a minority in their own country in the near future. It is the Jewish presence as a whole and its effect on our society that we must understand first, before we start trying to understand all of the complicating details.

© 1998 National Vanguard Books · Box 330 · Hillsboro ·WV 24946 · USA

A cassette recording of this broadcast is available for $12.95 including postage from:
National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify]February 17, 2009

[large]Abe Foxman?s ?Anti-Semitic Pandemic?[/large]
by Ran HaCohen

If there were a Nobel Prize for Hypocrisy, Abraham Foxman would have been a great candidate. The director of the Anti-Defamation League, who once interpreted even International Holocaust Remembrance Day as an expression of the Gentiles? latent desire to see Jews dead, has published a new survey on anti-Semitism in Europe [.pdf]. One of the assertions respondents were asked to agree or disagree with was ?Jews are more loyal to Israel than to this country?; an affirmative response was considered indicative of anti-Semitism.

Indeed, doubting the loyalty of a minority is not nice. And the fact that many Zionists would affirm that assertion, or at least expect a Jew to be more loyal to Israel than to his country of residence, is a weak excuse for agreeing with such a characterization of all Jews. But let?s put things in perspective: even if about half of Europeans say it?s ?probably true? that Jews are more loyal to Israel, not a single European party is pledging to revoke Jews? citizenship unless they prove their loyalty. I haven?t heard of such a demand toward any other native minority either, in Europe or elsewhere. Even the late Joerg Haider did not go that far.

There is one exception, of course. The foremost campaign slogan of Avigdor Lieberman?s Yisrael Beiteinu Party has been ?No Loyalty ? No Citizenship,? which is aimed at Israel?s Arab minority. Thirteen percent of Israelis gave Lieberman their vote. What does Abe Foxman have to say about that? Well, Foxman actually defends Lieberman, describing him as harmless: ?He?s not saying expel them. He?s not saying punish them.? Not at all: he?s just demonizing them and threatening to deprive them of their citizenship. No big deal.

So a private person who doubts the loyalty of Jews in a telephone interview is a dirty anti-Semite to Foxman. But a major political party that publicly defames Arab Israelis and pledges to revoke their citizenship gets a pass from the director of the Anti-Defamation(!) League, purportedly committed to ?Fighting Anti-Semitism, Bigotry, and Extremism?!

A Biased Survey

The ADL survey as a whole deserves some critical analysis. Conducted for the second time in seven European countries, the survey consisted of a short list of assertions respondents were supposed to take a stand on.

Note that respondents were given only two choices: they had to refer to each assertion as either ?probably true? or ?probably false.? All the assertions were phrased in a way that ?probably true? was the choice considered anti-Semitic. This suffers from the notorious ?confirmatory bias,? which ?inclines people toward accepting assertions, rather than thinking more extensively and seeing the flaws in those assertions? (see Jon Krosnick, ?Maximizing Questionnaire Quality? [.pdf]). A serious survey would have phrased some of the assertions in the negative to overcome this natural bias. But the ADL followed its own bias: anti-Semitism should always be found, and the more the better. In fact, if some of this bias, as research indicates, is due to the desire of individuals of lower social status to defer to individuals of higher social status, this could explain why the ADL?s survey consistently found that levels of anti-Semitism were higher among people who did not continue education beyond the age of 17.

One also wonders whether the assertion ?Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust? (note the suggestive adverb ?still?!) has much to do with anti-Semitism (cf. Yehuda Elkana?s [.pdf] classical ?The Need to Forget? [.pdf]). And what on earth made the ADL waste two of their six questions on almost identical assertions (?Jews have too much power in the business world? and ?Jews have too much power in international financial markets?), which almost always yielded the same result (correlation coefficient 0.922). Was there a shortage of anti-Semitic assertions?

Just a couple of weeks ago, Foxman ? not a man of understatement ? made it to the headlines by decrying ?a pandemic of anti-Semitism? as a consequence of Operation Cast Lead: the crisis was ?the worst, the most intense, the most global that it has been in most of our memories.?

Operation Cast Lead began on Dec. 27, 2008. Now the ADL survey was conducted Dec. 1, 2008-Jan. 13, 2009; that is, its last third was conducted during the devastation of Gaza. If there is an ?anti-Semitic pandemic? due to the Gaza events, as Foxman claims, a serious survey should have made a clear distinction between data collected before and after the outbreak of that ?pandemic.? Actually, the ADL should have simply read its own survey to see the necessity of making such a distinction: one of its findings is that ?23 percent of those surveyed say that their opinion of Jews is influenced by the actions taken by the state of Israel.?

At any rate ? careful scientific distinctions aside ? if all this were true, a survey conducted partly after the outbreak of the Gaza atrocities would be influenced by the alleged ?pandemic? and show a significant rise in anti-Semitism.

Was this the case? Not quite. Actually, as the ADL admits, ?A comparison with the 2007 survey indicates that over the past two years levels of anti-Semitism have remained steady in six of the seven countries tested.? Who was the party-pooper? Great Britain, of course, home of some of the most effective initiatives to boycott Israel: ?The United Kingdom was the only country in which there was a marked decline? in anti-Semitism. Steadiness in six continental countries, a marked decline in the UK ? and this in a survey conducted partly during an alleged ?pandemic? of anti-Semitism. Go figure.

Don?t Confuse Us With Facts

Obviously, the survey was reported widely in the Israeli media. In fact, much like anti-Communism in the U.S. during the 1980s, anti-anti-Semitism is (Jewish) Israel?s national religion. Every non-Jew is an anti-Semite, potentially if not actually ? be it a bad-tempered waiter in a French restaurant or even Turkey?s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Anti-Semitism is our best excuse: We do not believe in peace because all Arabs are anti-Semites. We must attack Iran because all Muslims are anti-Semites and want to annihilate us, and the rest of the world is anti-Semitic and doesn?t care if we are annihilated. And of course every criticism of Israel?s occupation is purely anti-Semitic.

Obviously, reports of steady or declining levels of anti-Semitism is not what Israelis want to hear: anti-Semitism should always be on the rise, to boost our national cohesion.

Therefore both Ha?aretz (Feb. 11, Hebrew) and YNet (Feb. 10, Hebrew) used the partial data of ?31% of Europeans Blame the Jews for the Economic Crisis? as an ominous headline. Both focused on the absolute figures of 2009 and kept the inconvenient trend to a marginal penultimate paragraph. Even then, Ha?aretz journalist Natasha Mozgovaya went out of her way to translate the ADL?s ?marked decline? in British anti-Semitism as ?a small decline? (not even bothering to mention what it was compared to), whereas YNet omitted the adjective and wrote just ?a decline.? And both followed the ADL summary and quickly ?balanced? the overall positive trend by emphasizing the negative fraction of the findings.

Make no mistake: some level of racism, including anti-Semitism, does exist in any society; racist Israel is the last place to deny that. But just like real anti-Semitism undermines the Palestinian cause, so do biased surveys and manipulative declarations about anti-Semitism undermine the struggle against racism. And Foxman criticizing one form of racism while supporting another is despicable.[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]ADL Accused of Mccarthyite Tactics[/large]


/* Written 8:03 AM Nov 17, 1998 by FBOYLE@law.uiuc.edu in
igc:misc.activism. */

Dear Colleagues:

I can assure you these these ADL "enemies lists" and "blacklists" do indeed exist. I have seen them myself and have some of them in my files. As I said before,when a Jewish Professor friend of mine was blacklisted and subjected to McCarthyite tactics by them and AIPAC, I filed a Complaint on behalf of my friend and all other American Professors who had been blacklisted by ADL/AIPAC as "enemies" and subjected to McCarthyite tactics with the AAUP. The cowards and hypocrites at the AAUP refused to help, whereupon I resigned my membership in the AAUP. For my efforts I was then blacklisted by ADL.

By the way, ADL was sharing this illegally gathered intelligence information with the Afrikaaner apartheid regime in South Africa. Many of us who worked for Palestinian human rights were also involved in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. See my Defending Civil Resistance under International Law (Transnational:1987). The Complaint that I filed with the AAUP is currently being used by former Congressman McCloskey in the prosecution of these lawsuits.

Francis A.Boyle

Francis A. Boyle Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, Ill. 61820
Phone: 217-333-7954
Fax: 217-244-1478
fboyle@law.uiuc.edu[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]ADL Adds Revisionist to Top Ten Extremists List

Smith is One of the Top Ten Extremists in
America: According to the ADL[/large]

by Bradley R. Smith


?Since 1983, Bradley R. Smith has effectively functioned as the Holocaust Denial movement?s chief propagandist and outreach director in the United States. Smith was the first director of the Media Project of the Institute for Historical Review, he took Holocaust denial to TV and radio stations across the Nation. He achieved his greatest notoriety, however, as the director of the Committee for Open Debate of [sic] the Holocaust, whose mission is to disseminate denial to students on college campuses.?Quoted from the most recent article published as a booklet and on its World Wide Website by the Anti-Defamation League.

A s noted here in SR82, The Anti-Defamation League of B?nai B?rith (ADL) has published a paper on the World Wide Web titled ?Extremism in America? (1) where it lists the ten most dangerous extremists in the country. I find that I?m on the list ? one of the most dangerous men in the land (there are no women on the list). I?m reminded of those serial murderers listed on the FBI?s Most Wanted list ? it may be nice to see your photo on the post office bulletin board, but is it what you really want?

What have I done to be taken so seriously? Placing advertisements in student newspapers? Asking for some back and forth on a historical issue? Encouraging intellectual freedom, even with regard to the Holocaust question? Always with the cooperation of student editors, their business managers and faculty advisors? That makes me one of the top ten extremists in the nation? Maybe it just doesn?t take that much anymore.

The ADL home page for Extremism in America shows a photograph of the Oklahoma City Federal Building after it was bombed by Timothy McVeigh, et al. Is that what intellectual freedom leads to? The mass murder of civilians and their children? I?ve never thought so. Intellectual freedom promises a non-violent exchange of ideas, encourages communication among disparate sections of the citizenry, creates confidence in an open society, and has the inherent characteristic of illuminating every public issue, as if in the light of day, so that secret societies and special interest groups are open to the same scrutiny as ordinary individuals.

The one common thread among those on the ADL?s Top Ten list of extremists in America is that they are all involved with the White racialist movement. I?m the one exception, but I made the list anyhow. How? In a free society racialist theory should be on the table for open debate, but I have never been a member of a racialist organization or promoted racialist ideology. It wasn?t a difficult decision for me to make. I didn?t have to wrestle with my soul. The first barrier for me was the last. I have always disliked how too many racialists use the language. There are many individual exceptions, but a rule of thumb appears to be to use the language in a way that is both vulgar and self-defeating.

W hy am I the only designated extremist in the ADL?s Top Ten who is not part of the racialist movement? I think we all know why. Because anyone who questions the orthodox version of the Holocaust story, particularly the homicidal gassing chambers, ?hates Jews.? While this is a childish, if not a stupid concept, it has worked in America for half a century so there is no reason for ADL Jews to let it get away from them. Jews are not much of a race, but when it comes to the science and rewards of victimlogy it is very good business for ADL Jews to consider Jews to be something ?like? a race, an ?ethnic? group, or, as the man most responsible for the founding of Israel used to say, a ?people.?

I think many individuals in the Industry sincerely believe that only someone who hates Jews could possibly question the gas chamber stories. These are not stupid people, but they have allowed themselves to be stupefied by their own rhetoric. For these people, hating Jews is just as bad, worse, than hating Blacks and the ?mud? people. Others in the Industry certainly feel that questioning the gas chamber stories is probably anti-Jewish, so while they are not certain they don?t want to take any chances and urge its suppression on principle. And then there?s the problem that those who work for the Industry either make their living suppressing revisionist theory, or would have their income affected negatively by speaking out in support of intellectual freedom on the question. For many of these fighters-against-hate then, it?s a bread and butter issue.

The author of ?Extremism in America? is not listed, but is most likely Jeffrey Ross. Jeffrey is the fellow in charge of the ?campus desk? at ADL headquarters in New York City. He?s been on my case for ten years now. Everywhere I run an ad it?s been Ross?s job to see to it that the staff of the student paper, its faculty advisor, and the president of the college is contacted and chastised, urged to publish a condemnation of the ad, and warned to not make the same mistake again.

In ?Extremism in America? Jeffrey has given me my own page, complete with photograph, background information, and then a history of my extremist actions and accomplishments. My page is titled ?Bradley Smith / The Committee For Open Debate of [sic] the Holocaust (CODOH).? The first line of my personal background is my date of birth, January 18, 1939. Jeffrey got the year wrong, and he got the month wrong, but one out of three isn?t that bad when I recall what the ADL has produced about me over the years. It?s not important, but I was born on 18 February 1930.

I always imagined Ross to be a nervous, thin little guy with a beard, about thirty years old maybe. No mature person would describe me to student editors as ?scum,? as Ross has. But the other day I saw a photograph of Jeffrey Ross. He?s twenty or thirty years older than I imagined him to be, has no beard, he?s not short, he?s putting on weight, and looks more or less like a small town college professor or businessman. He looks normal. These people can fool you.

I see too that ADL is still circulating the old story that Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH) was ?initially funded by William Curry,? a Nebraskan businessman. It?s not true. I?ve told them it?s not true, I?ve repeated on radio that it?s not true and reported in my newsletter (which Jeffery is very familiar with) that it?s not true, but they like the story so here it is again. William Curry had nothing to do with the initial funding of CODOH. In the first place, CODOH didn?t have any initial funding. CODOH was founded the day I typed up a letterhead that read Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH), and had some copies made at my Iranian-Jewish copy shop on Highland Boulevard in Hollywood. I think I had fifty copies printed and the bill was about two dollars and fifty cents. And that was it.

It?s not really very important one way or the other ? what difference would it make ? but I have always wondered, why do the ADL folk keep repeating the statement when they know I deny it and they have no proof that it is true? What?s in their heads? I needed funding. I certainly would have accepted funding from Mr. Curry if he had offered it, but he didn?t. I had never met the man when I founded CODOH, never talked to him, never to my recollection received a note from him. Nothing. Yet here it is again. Why? I think I have finally realized what this is all about. Jeffery (I will take it as a given until I learn differently that Jeffrey is responsible for Extremism in America) has put something together which must have been on his mind all this time, something that just never occurred to me.

In Extremism is America Jeffrey writes that in 1986 Curry attempted to place a full-page ad in the Daily Nebraskan, the student newspaper at University of Nebraska. It was refused. Curry then offered $5,000 to the university to pay for a speaker who would debate revisionist theory at an academic conference. The offer was refused. He wrote letters to the editor of various newspapers, and disseminated his ideas through mass mailings.

These four tools ? purchasing ad space in student newspapers, sponsoring debates, writing letters to the editor and sending direct mail ? were all adopted by CODOH?.

That?s it then! At last! It?s pure speculation, it?s all wrong, but there is in fact a clear logic of coincidence to it. I do remember talk about Curry?s full-page ad and how it was refused, though I don?t think I ever saw the text. I do remember talk about the $5,000 offer to debate revisionism being refused. I don?t know anything about Curry?s letter writing campaigns or the mass mailings. In 1986 I was doing radio. I had my hands full with it. But the story makes sense if you want it to. William Curry tried to publish a full-page ad in a campus newspaper so that?s what gave me the idea to do it. He offered money to get a debate going over revisionist theory, so I followed his lead. And why wouldn?t I? After all, William Curry ?initially funded? CODOH. It?s all nonsense. But at last I see the ?logic? in Jeffrey?s obsession with William Curry and CODOH.

As a matter of fact, in addition to William Curry not initially funding CODOH, I do not remember that he ever contributed any money whatever to CODOH or to me. Not a dime. Maybe he did. But I do remember one afternoon a few days before Christmas when we were still in Hollywood and I received a $400 check from a revisionist organization that Curry was affiliated with. It was about 1987. The check was a lifesaver. We didn?t have any money at all. I felt so grateful that I got Curry?s phone number from a mutual friend and rang him up. I had never spoken to him. I identified myself. It must have been about eight o?clock in the evening in Nebraska. I thanked him with some fervor for the check and started to go on about it when he interrupted me.

Curry said: ?I didn?t send you any money. I don?t want your thanks.?

I was stopped in my tracks. I mumbled some apology and hung up. It turned out that my friend Fritz Berg, who was also affiliated with the same organization (I don?t remember now what it was called) had sent me the money.

A couple years later I did meet William Curry. I was invited through a mutual friend to spend the weekend at his winter home in Borrego Springs in the desert south of Palm Springs. Curry was probably in his seventies then, white haired, rather an invalid, and needed an oxygen tank at his side during dinner. His manner was what we used to call ?crusty.? There were maybe eight of us at a lively supper table, including his charming wife. He asked me how I had gotten into revisionism and I told him the story about reading Faurisson?s paper on Auschwitz and the Rumor of the Gas Chambers, and how I had sensed immediately that something was wrong with the stories.

?That was short and clear,? Curry said. ? That?s what I like.?

I had the impression that he had asked that question of others and had gotten some long-winded answers. I asked him how he had gotten into revisionism and he related an anecdote about how after the war in Europe he had met a G.I. at a bar in England (maybe it was Germany) who told him that the stories about the Dachau gas chambers were not true. Curry said: ?I looked into it and found out that the Dachau gas chamber was crap. Afterwards I looked into the other gas chamber stories and found out they were crap too. Sometimes I think the whole goddamned war was crap.?

Sometimes I think the same thing. No ? that?s what I think about it every time I think about it. I would like to have gotten to know William Curry better, but I had to return to Hollywood that night, my mother was having a problem, and I never saw him again.

Meanwhile, I?m back in action with the dreaded Campus Project. Now that I have become aware (again) of how important my work is to the ADL, how closely its agents read everything I publish, I will report here only after the fact on the upcoming successes (and failures) of the new Campus Project for the 2001 ? 2002 academic year. I?m looking forward to it.[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify]Source: MSANEWS, msanews-ed@msanews.mynet.net

[large]ADL ? A History of Disinformation and Intimidation[/large]

AlAkhbar

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which describes itself as a civil rights organization, has been in the forefront of an ongoing attempt to label legitimate American-Arab and American-Muslim charitable, political, and informational organizations as fronts for terrorism. This attempt is part of a long-standing ADL policy of discrediting any individual or organization opposed to Israel or supportive of Palestinian rights. The ADL?s strong political loyalty to Israel as well as its acknowledged ties to Israel?s external intelligence agency in addition to its past practices of spreading disinformation and intimidating those who have spoken out against Israeli policies should however serve as a warning about the ADL and the nature of its claims.

When the ADL was founded in 1913 it defined its mission as opposing the defamation of the Jewish people. Over the years, the organization won respect for its active support of civil rights and its opposition to segregation and white supremacist groups. However after the founding of the State of Israel and the 1967 Middle East War, the ADL significantly altered the way it defined its mission. In a 1974 ADL publication entitled ?The New Anti-Semitism,? then-ADL National Director Benjamin Epstein argued that any ?criticism of Israel reflects insensitivity to American Jews and constitutes a form of anti-Semitism.? This change in the way it defined its mission meant that the ADL would no longer be engaged in merely civil rights work but would rather take on a very strong political stance in defense of Israel. The main goal of the ADL became to counteract any criticism of Israel and to promote Israel?s interests regardless of other considerations. Throughout the 1970?s and 1980?s, for example, the ADL was in the forefront of an effort to keep documents underscoring Israel?s sinking of an American naval ship confidential. Such efforts cannot be understood in the context of the ADL?s former civil rights agenda. Similarly, in November, 1994, ADL?s Executive Director Abraham Foxman personally appealed to President Bill Clinton to commute the prison sentence of Jonathan Pollard, an intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy who sold what the New York Times described as ?suitcases full of military intelligence? to Israel. Foxman?s appeal to President Clinton can only be understood in light of the ADL?s new mission of promoting Israeli interests.

The fact that the ADL has become a pro-Israel interest group is, of course, not in itself problematic. The entire United States political system is based on the freedom of interest groups to compete with others in promoting their often conflicting agendas. However the ADL has overstepped the bounds of legitimacy on a number of levels. The organization has engaged in illegal domestic spying activities, has worked with foreign intelligence agencies to undermine the rights and endanger the lives of American citizens, has undertaken disinformation campaigns slandering and intimidating numerous academicians, politicians, journalists, church officials, and Arab-Americans.

ADL?s transgressions were most notably exposed in January 1993 when San Francisco newspapers broke the story of ADL?s extensive domestic spying network. The San Francisco Police Department discovered that under the cover of fighting anti-Semitism, the ADL had gathered and sold to intelligence agents of the Israeli and South African governments information on thousands of American individuals and groups. In addition to nearly all Arab American organizations, those whom the ADL targeted included House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ron Dellums, former Congressman Pete McCloskey, Los Angeles Times correspondent Scott Kraft, the board of directors of public television station KQED, the Rainbow Coalition, a number of labor unions, Greenpeace, as well as numerous other journalists, professors, members of Congress, and activists who the ADL suspected had ?anti-Israel? leanings. The information which the San Francisco police department confiscated from the ADL offices included illegally obtained confidential police material. The manner by which the ADL obtained such information as well as the fact that they sold it to foreign governments are both felonies.

The ADL?s ties to the Mossad, Israel?s external intelligence agency, had been known even before the scandal broke out in 1993. During the court proceedings concerning a 1970 lawsuit against the ADL, an internal letter was disclosed in which ADL?s Epstein bragged about the close intelligence relations between the ADL and Israel. Furthermore, in his 1988 autobiography, ADL general counsel Arnold Forster described the close connections between the ADL and the Mossad. The Mossad connection is especially disturbing because of the Israeli intelligence agency?s long record of engaging in political assassinations of opponents of Israel throughout the world.

Like the Mossad, the ADL has not been content with just gathering information on those who have spoken out against Israel or in favor of Palestinian rights. The ADL has also actively engaged in discrediting them through disinformation campaigns which are aimed at both distorting the records and intimidating those opposed to Israel. While in the 1970?s and 1980?s, the ADL often falsely labeled such individuals as being connected to the PLO or in the pay of Arab Gulf states, since the 1990?s, the ADL has begun labeling them as being connected to Islamic terrorist organizations. The ADL?s allegations, while couched in a matter-of-fact style, nearly always falls far short of providing any real evidence. However such allegations have had far-reaching effects. After the ADL accused seven Palestinians and a Kenyan woman in California with ties to a PLO terrorist group, for example, the eight individuals were arrested and deportation proceedings were begun. When it was later discovered that no real evidence existed against the eight individuals except for the fact that they had distributed anti-Israeli magazines, the media sharply criticized the government.

One of its first salvos in the disinformation war was its 1975 report entitled ?Target U.S.A.: The Arab Propaganda Offensive,? in which the ADL distorted the images of nearly all mainstream Arab-American groups. The ADL followed up that report with its most controversial book of all: Pro-Arab Propaganda: Vehicles and Voices, an enemies list of 31 organizations and 34 individuals which was published in 1983 and was largely aimed at countering opposition to Israel from University professors and student organizations. The publication intentionally takes statements of those on the list out of context, accuses them of Anti-Semitism, and falsely accuses a number of academic scholars of being part of a PLO support network or of having been paid by Gulf Arab countries. The report calls upon Jewish leaders in Universities throughout the country to boycott and intimidate those appearing on the list. Those who appeared on the list later found themselves ostracized by the academic community with some losing their jobs or denied promotions. S.C. Whittaker, the former chairman of the Political Science Department at Rutgers University admitted, for example, that political reasons, rather than academic ones, prevented Dr. Eqbal Ahmad from obtaining a regular teaching appointment after his name appeared on the ADL list. Dr. Noam Chomsky, who also appeared on the list, says that since the book was published, protesters have appeared at every one of his speaking engagements and have distributed distorted ADL reports containing fabricated quotes that he was alleged to have made in an attempt to intimidate him and his listeners. On Nov. 30, 1984, the Middle East Studies Association passed a resolution protesting the ?creation, storage, or dissemination of blacklists, enemy lists? or surveys that call for boycotting individuals or intimidating scholars. Similar intimidation campaigns have been waged by the ADL against reporters and journalists who have criticized Israel.

Throughout the 1980?s, the ADL also accused liberal church officials, church groups, and religious organizations which called for peace and justice for all in the Middle East as being connected to the PLO. The Reverend Don Wagner and the Presbyterian Church had especially been accused by the ADL of having connections to the PLO, though no evidence was ever presented backing up such contentions. On the other hand, after a 1994 report on the religious right, the ADL was accused by religious conservatives of going after people for their political views and of taking numerous quotes of religious leaders out of context. Also on May 25, 1994, the ADL?s Jerusalem office released a sensationalist story which appeared the next day in the New York Times and other newspapers which alleged that the Vatican had admitted to being responsible for the Holocaust. The Vatican later totally denied the story. The ADL?s blatant misrepresentation of facts was sharply criticized.

The ADL?s credibility has been severely shaken by its long record of disinformation. While the ADL has every right to continue advocating pro-Israel policies, its real agenda should be exposed and it must be made to end the illegal spying, harassment, and intimidation of political opponents. More importantly, U.S. law enforcement agencies, the media, and political circles need to see the ADL for what it is: a pro-Israel group more than ready to distort the truth to further the Israeli agenda. While in retrospect, it now seems very clear that the ADL?s wild allegations against alleged PLO support networks in the 1980?s were baseless, it must be remembered that at the time they were seen as credible and led many people to lose their jobs and others to be imprisoned. The ADL?s current crusade against alleged Islamic terrorist networks is almost identical to its earlier one against so-called ties to the PLO. Both campaigns are based on general stereotypes and fears and are devoid of evidence and fact. To repeat such allegations without further investigating them, as some in the media have done, is unprofessional and unethical. To act upon them, as some law-makers and law-enforcement agencies have done, is dangerous and threatens the freedoms and civil liberties Americans have grown to expect.

Al-Akhbar is news focused on Palestine and Middle East. Many editions may include news from the Arab and Islamic world. To subscribe to Al-Akhbar, e-mail to listserv@yorku.ca with the body ?sub akhbar your name?, to cancel ?signoff akhbar?, or ?help? for others.[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]ADL and Mossad[/large]


Date: Fri Sep 18 00:30:24 1998

ADL-Mossad

CONSIDERABLE suspicion exists that the Anti-Defamation League not only serves as an "unofficial" propaganda arm of the Israeli government - a role its National Director Abe Foxman unabashedly claims - but that it also provides information on Palestinians and Arab-Americans to the Israeli government and its intelligence service, Mossad.

The suspicions increased when a Chicago resident, Mohammed Jarad, whose named appeared in Roy Bullock's files, was arrested and accused of being an agent for Hamas, upon his arrival in Israel to visit relatives in the occupied territories.

Also, as revealed in an interview with the FBI, former ADL Los Angeles operative, David Gurvitz, acknowledged that having "learned from a law enforcement contact that a known member of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine," was about to travel from San Francisco to Haifa, he "called the Los Angeles Israeli Consulate and advised the Deputy Consul General." Later, a Hebrew-speaking individual from the Consulate called back to confirm the information.

Both Bullock and Gurvitz, however, denied that there is any direct link between the ADL and Mossad. However, a letter written by then National Director of the ADL, Benjamin Epstein on July 7, 1961, would indicate otherwise. Epstein was writing to Saul Joftes who was, at the time, the Executive Secretary of the International Council of B'nai B'rith, the ADL's parent organization, requesting additional funds.

"Our information," wrote Epstein, "in addition to being essential for our own operations, has been of great value and service to both the United States State Department and the Israeli government. All data have been made available to both countries with full knowledge that we are the source."

Joftes, a 22-year veteran with B'nai B'rith did not believe that this was the proper business of the ADL and balked; at which point B'nai B'rith decided to fire him.
Joftes turned around and sued Rabbi Kaufman, the responsible B'nai B'rith executive, and entered Epstein's letter as an exhibit in his behalf.

In an affidavit filed in that action, Joftes stated: "B'nai B'rithI has become an international organization engaged, by Rabbi Kaufman's admission, in other things besides charitable religious and educational activities.
It is no longer non-profit. It engages in international politics and more often than not does the bidding of the Government of Israel. Its leaders make frequent trips to Israel for indoctrination and instructions. I had tried to prevent this change. That is why Rabbi Kaufman tried to fire me.

"He was making B'nai B'rith a servant of the Israeli Government."

That was 1961. On May 6, 1993, the ADL's representative in Jerusalem sent a memo to National Director Abe Foxman informing him that he had attended "a small, farewell luncheon that Shimon Peres gave for Bill Harrop (the outgoing U.S. ambassador). According to Wall, "There were no other American Jewish representatives invited."[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]ADL Applauds President Clinton[/large]

Source: The ADL

ADL Applauds President for ?All-out Assault on Hate
Crimes?

New York, NY, June 7..The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today welcomed President Clinton?s recognition that it is time for an ?all-out assault on hate crimes,? and his call for a special White House conference on this important subject this November.

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

We welcome President Clinton?s call for an ?all-out assault on hate crimes? and for his leadership in convening a special White House conference on the subject. As the organization which in 1981 pioneered and spearheaded the formulation, enactment and implementation of hate crimes laws across the country, ADL has long insisted crimes motivated by bigotry and prejudice warrant priority attention because they have an impact which extends beyond the individual victims. We as a nation have learned from experience the damage such crimes cause to entire communities, and the polarizing effect they can have on our broader society.

By mobilizing the vast resources of the Federal government to undertake a thorough review of existing laws and to develop a coordinated strategy to address the problem of hate crimes, President Clinton has demonstrated that he is prepared to go the extra mile to deter and counter such crimes, and we stand ready to contribute our resources and expertise to assist in this effort.

As the President has recognized, combating hate crimes requires more than a legal strategy. It requires effective law enforcement, education, and vigilance. In the long run, the best way to combat such crimes is to reach potential perpetrators early, before they are taught to hate and to act on their hate.

We urge President Clinton to continue using his bully pulpit to educate the American people about the evils of racism, anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry. While not all bigots become criminals, the more we can do to combat bigotry, the fewer resources our criminal justice system will eventually need to expend fighting hate crimes.

Editor?s Note: ADL experts and materials, including 1997 Hate Crime Statutory Update, 1996 ADL Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents and the Law Enforcement Bulletin are available through the ADL Media Relations Department.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world?s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]ADL Award Now Under Review Recipient Discovered to Be a Fraud[/large]

Source: Page A01 of the Boston Globe on 10/12/2000

[large]B?nai B?rith Award Now Under Review[/large]

A veteran?s story of WWII exploits raises questions

By Thomas Farragher and Walter V. Robinson, Globe Staff


B?nai B?rith International is questioning a prestigious award slated to be given to former Massachusetts education secretary Paul Parks for his role in liberating the Dachau concentration camp in 1945 after other veterans asserted that Parks was not there.
Moreover, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who has studied records of Parks?s military unit has said that Parks?s account of his harrowing experiences on a Normandy beach on D-Day is also false.

Parks, who at 77 has been a major civil rights figure in Massachusetts for four decades, insisted last night that he was indeed at Dachau, and said he intends to collect the Raoul Wallenberg award from the B?nai B?rith chapter in Berlin later this month.
But Eric Rozenman, a spokesman for B?nai B?rith International, said in the face of questions from veterans who contend that Parks was not at the Dachau concentration camp in the spring of 1945, Parks?s selection is under review.

?We?re trying to ascertain exactly what the facts are,? Rozenman said. ?We?re trying to find out how this particular person came to [the Berlin chapter's] attention and what criteria they use for this award.?

Since 1987, Parks?s public claims about his presence at Dachau have made him a sought-after speaker by Jewish groups, including Holocaust survivors. For the same reason, he was also co-chairman of the Cornerstone Project of the New England Holocaust Memorial, the six glass towers honoring Holocaust victims that are located in a small park behind Boston City Hall.

In a letter to B?nai B?rith, a copy of which was sent to the Globe, retired Army lieutenant colonel Hugh F. Foster III said that Parks?s longtime claim to have been a liberator of the Dachau death camp is contradicted by military records.

And in an interview yesterday, retired brigadier general Felix L. Sparks, who as a 27-year-old lieutenant colonel led the liberation of the main camp at Dachau, said flatly that Parks was not there when the camp fell to American forces in April 1945. To buttress his assertion, Sparks said there were no black soldiers at Dachau at all.

?He?s been claiming that for years,? Sparks said of Parks. ?It did not happen.?

Parks, a member of the 365th Engineer Regiment from 1943 to 1945, said his military records were lost in a 1973 fire. But he acknowledged that his regiment was not near Dachau for its liberation.

?My outfit was never at Dachau, but I was,? Parks said. ?I was there by sheer accident.? Parks said he was trained and ordered to activate and deactivate land mines throughout France, a special detail that led him to the concentration camp.

?I don?t have the slighest idea where I was. All I know is that we went to Dachau,? said Parks. ?? I was a foot soldier who did what I was told.?

Veterans, including Sparks, Foster, and Cranston Rogers, a 75-year-old veteran from Medway, who were among the liberators of Dachau, said they have followed for years newspaper stories about Parks?s military service.

?I don?t have a vendetta against him,? Rogers said. ?I just don?t like people claiming things that are not true.?

Parks said yesterday that he has never exaggerated his military record. When asked to review the discrepancies his fellow veterans cite in published accounts of his service in Normandy and, later, at Dachau, Parks declined.

?This is crazy,? he said. ?I?m not going to deal with it anymore.?

In the letter sent to B?nai B?rith, Foster calls Parks?s accounts of battlefield derring-do ?outrageously false.?

Critics like Foster and records obtained by the Globe raise questions about Parks? oft-told vivid accounts of his frightening experience as a black GI on Omaha Beach on D-Day, 1944.

Records at the National Personnel Records Center, which survived the 1973 fire, show that Parks?s engineering unit was still in England as the allies stormed the Normandy beaches on D-Day. Parks acknowledged that his unit was in England during the invasion ? although in one published interview he said his unit was part of the invasion force and suffered 60 percent casualties. Last night, Parks said he was at Normandy on D-Day after volunteering for mine detection duty.

But Parks?s critics say the detail he has provided over the years cannot survive close scrutiny.

For example, in June 1994, Parks told the Globe that when he ran ashore on June 6, 1944, he could feel the breeze as bullets zipped past his head. He said he and a buddy, Robert Orr, took cover behind a concrete barrier as a German machine gun peppered them with fire. Orr, Parks said, fell over dead, a bullet in his forehead. Another comrade also died in the gunfire.
?Like anybody else who made it off that beach that day, I ask why,? Parks said then. ?I mean, two guys, shoulder to shoulder with me. They die and I don?t. I don?t have an answer.?

But Foster, the retired lieutenant colonel, said the master list of World War II deaths contains the names of seven men named Robert Orr who were killed or died overseas during the war.

The only Robert Orr assigned to the 365th Engineer Regiment died in England three months before D-Day and is buried in a US military cemetery there, according to Foster?s letter to the B?nai B?rith.

Yesterday, Parks said the Globe?s 1994 account of Orr?s death was in error. ?I didn?t say he was killed on D-Day. Never did,? Parks said. ?I said he was killed in Normandy and he was killed in Normandy.?

The Globe has been aware of questions about Parks?s military record for some time. Foster wrote to the newspaper?s editorial page in September 1998 questioning an opinion piece by William H. Smith that criticized the film ?Saving Private Ryan? for ignoring the role that Smith said black veterans like Parks had played at Normandy. Foster said in the letter that according to military records, Parks?s regiment was not on the beaches at Normandy.

William Ketter, then interim editor of the opposite-editorial page and now chairman of the Boston University Journalism Department, said yesterday that he and H.D.S. Greenway, then editor of the editorial page, questioned Parks about the allegations. But they deemed the evidence insufficent to publish in the face of his claims that he was detached from his unit. Greenway, now retired, could not be reached for comment.

Parks?s military records show that he was on active service from April 2, 1943, until he was discharged on Jan. 5, 1946. He was assigned to Company E, 365th Engineer Regiment, from Sept. 30, 1943, until June 25, 1945.
His engineering unit arrived at Utah Beach, France, on June 30, 1944.

B?nai B?rith International said its inquiries into Parks?s service record had just begun. It is not clear how, or whether, that review would affect the Wallenberg award that Parks is scheduled to receive later this month in Berlin, along with two British soldiers, two Russians and another American. Wallenberg was the Swedish diplomat who saved some 100,000 Hungarian Jews from the Nazi gas chambers.

?It?s the B?nai B?rith Lodge in Berlin that?s giving the award,? said Rozenman, the B?nai B?rith International spokesman in Washington. ?I?m not sure what criteria they used to select the nominee. Those are things that have to be checked.?

Over the last four decades, Parks has been among the most prominent black leaders in Boston and Massachusetts. He was vice president of the Boston branch of the NAACP during the 1960s, Boston?s first Model Cities director under Mayor Kevin H. White, state education secretary under former Governor Michael S. Dukakis, and one of the founders of the METCO program, which for 34 years has bused black children from Boston to schools in predominantly white suburbs.

Under mayors Raymond L. Flynn and Thomas M. Menino in the early 1990s, Parks was also the chairman of the appointed Boston School Committee.

Over time, Parks has sometimes told conflicting tales to reporters about his wartime experiences in Europe. In 1984, for instance, he claimed in a Globe interview that he had been wounded on D-Day, an assertion that was not reported in subsequent accounts of his service there. His military records include no Purple Heart. Parks has variously described himself as a private when he arrived at Dachau, but as a platoon sergeant when he was in England two years earlier.

Despite his twin claims about his presence at two of the war?s most significant events ? the D-Day landing and the liberation of a major concentration camp ? a half dozen newspaper profiles of Parks during the 1960s and 1970s barely mentioned that he was a World War II veteran.

The first apparent public mention of his Dachau experience came when Parks, then state education secretary, spoke at a 1978 rally outside the German consulate demanding an extension on statutes of limitations for Nazi war criminals.
At that rally, Parks recalled helping to liberate Dachau, and said he remembered being shocked at the mountains of gold teeth piled up inside Dachau, and the stacks of bodies of victims of the death camp.

In a 1996 Globe interview, Parks said when he helped liberate the camp, and saw the survivors, ?It was unbelieveable. ? Understanding slavery in my country, I related to these people.?

© 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.[/justify]


[---]


[justify]Source: page A01 of the Boston Globe on 10/19/2000. © Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.

[large]Despite Questions, Parks to Get Award[/large]

By Thomas Farragher, Globe Staff, 10/19/2000

B?nai B?rith leaders in Europe said yesterday that Boston civil rights leader Paul Parks will receive a prestigious award for taking part in liberating the Dachau concentration camp despite evidence that Parks was not there when the death camp was taken from the Nazis.

?They?ve made their inquiries and they?re satisfied that there?s no reason not to give [Parks] the award,? said Seymour G. Saideman, president of B?nai B?rith Europe.

Parks, a former state education secretary and Boston School Committee chairman, has claimed that special volunteer mine-clearing duties put him on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day and at the concentration camp outside Munich in 1945.

But senior US military historians say no black soldiers were present when Dachau was liberated. And a Globe review of Parks?s military record shows that his unit was hundreds of miles from Dachau the day the camp was freed on April 29, 1945.

There is no evidence in the detailed daily reports from Parks?s Army company that he was detached for mine duty in the days before the camp?s liberation.

Saideman said B?nai B?rith conducted no independent review of Parks?s military record.

Andras Kain, president of the B?nai B?rith Raoul Wallenberg Lodge in Berlin, which is hosting Sunday?s awards ceremony, said his chapter relied in part on the 1998 Steven Spielberg Holocaust documentary, ?The Last Days,? and its companion book as evidence that Parks was a Dachau liberator.

In the book, Parks says he was at Dachau ?by sheer accident? and says he never considered himself a hero.

?Several people have called me already saying that Paul Parks was never in Dachau,? Kain said in a telephone interview from Berlin yesterday. ?So what can I do with these? He will get the prize because I don?t think we have time enough to prove, to check.?

Kain said if he receives conclusive proof that Parks was not a Dachau liberator, his chapter would consider revoking the award retroactively, drawing a parallel to a triumphant Olympian later disqualified for illegal drug use.

?That?s what we would do if we have positive things to show he was never in Dachau,? said Kain. ?But we don?t have anything.?

Kain said Parks left Boston last night and was to arrive in Berlin today for the Sunday night ceremony, where some of the 400 guests will be Dachau survivors.

The other American who will receive the award, William P. Donahue of Racine, Wis., disputes Parks?s claims to being at Dachau and said he is considering snubbing Parks at the ceremony.

?If this man wants to accept the award, it?s his problem,? said Donahue, who was a 19-year-old private when he was among the first US soldiers inside Dachau.

Indeed, yesterday?s B?nai B?rith announcement that Parks will receive the award named for Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who worked to save an estimated 100,000 lives during the Holocaust, enraged some of the soldiers who were there when Dachau was liberated.

?He claims to have just wandered into the liberation of Dachau,? said Russel R. Weiskircher, a retired brigadier general who was with the 157th Infantry when Dachau fell. ?Those assertions demean those who were there and those who died there.?

Weiskircher, a member of the Georgia Commission on the Holocaust, called Parks ?an enterprising opportunist.?

?I feel sorry for him,? Weiskircher said. ?Unfortunately, we have found a significant number of people like Paul Parks.?

Cranston Rogers, 75, of Medway, who was patrolling outside the camp?s east wall when it was liberated, called the B?nai B?rith decision ?preposterous.?

?It ignores the actual persons who were there and participated in the liberation,? said Rogers. ?He clearly was not even present, much less had anything to do with the liberation of the camp. It really is an insult to the veterans who where there.?

But Nancy K. Kaufman, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council, said she does not disagree with the B?nai B?rith decision.

?I think he deserves [the award],? Kaufman said. ?Paul Parks has been a friend of the Jewish community. He?s been an outspoken, passionate witness to the events of World War II. I really think he has been someone who has stood up and spoken to the horrors.?

Eric Rozenman, a spokesman for B?nai B?rith International in Washington, said yesterday?s decision is not the end of the organization?s review into how award nominees are selected.

?Serious issues were raised and they just can?t be put aside because the local unit [in Berlin] goes ahead and carries out a program that was already planned,? said Rozenman.

He said if Parks?s claim to be a Dachau liberator is proven false, ?we?ll have to make sure that the process by which local units make these selections is upgraded.?

Rabbi Lawrence Kushner, who presided for 25 years at Temple Beth El in Sudbury and is now rabbi-in-residence at Hebrew Union College in New York, said it is important to determine whether Parks has manufactured parts of his military record.

?If the allegations were to be proven true, it would be more than just a swindle,? Kushner said. ?It would be a defamation of the extraordinary and often life-risking courageous efforts of those who did put their lives on the line to save Jews during the war.

?That?s what makes it so potentially disturbing.?[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]ADL Backs Ashcroft Bush Surveillance[/large]


[small]http://www.jweekly.com/archives/week/2002-06-14[/small]

Jewish groups debate FBI surveillance guide

SHARON SAMBER
Jewish Telegraphic Agency

WASHINGTON -- NEW FBI guidelines that give the agency greater
leeway in monitoring Americans' everyday lives have Jewish groups
debating how far personal freedoms can be pushed in the war on
terrorism.

The FBI announced new surveillance guidelines last week that
the Bush administration says will help prevent terrorism. The
Jewish community generally supports the need to change law
enforcement and intelligence methods following the Sept. 11 terror
attacks, but is concerned over how civil liberties will be
protected.

The guidelines will allow the FBI greater flexibility to
monitor Internet sites, libraries, houses of worship and political
organizations and will lower the evidentiary threshold needed to
initiate investigations.

In recent years, the Anti-Defamation League has called for
giving law enforcement additional tools. The ADL and most other
Jewish groups gave strong support to anti-terrorism laws in 1996
and last year's USA Patriot Act, which gave new powers to domestic
law enforcement and intelligence agencies after Sept. 11.

"The movement from simply enforcing the law to preventing
terrorism is necessary," said Michael Lieberman, Washington counsel
for the ADL.

For some people, however, talk of increased domestic
surveillance conjures up disturbing memories of the McCarthy era
and the alleged abuses of power when J. Edgar Hoover led the FBI.

Law enforcement excesses in the 1950s and 1960s led to revised
guidelines in the 1970s. Jewish and civil liberties groups embraced
the reforms, as well as subsequent adaptations over the years.

Attorney General John Ashcroft said that new powers are needed
now to combat terrorism effectively, adding that these guidelines
would not allow for the kind of abuses seen in the past.

Many groups have faulted the FBI for taking an overly cautious
approach in recent years.

ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, wrote in 1999 that
the Justice Department and the FBI could not act aggressively
because they were "hamstrung" by the Hoover legacy, fears of
lawsuits and concerns from conservative lawmakers after the 1993
Waco debacle.
The current guidelines, however, are "way too broad," argues
Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of
Reform Judaism.

Saperstein recalled that the Reform movement was watched by
the FBI several decades ago and that his organization has worked to
stop such abuses against other civil liberties groups.

The Religious Action Center, which also argued that the USA
Patriot Act was rushed through Congress, is calling for public
hearings on Capitol Hill to ensure that the new FBI guidelines are
finely focused on preventing terrorism and are implemented in a way
that ensures the least amount of infringement on civil rights.

Some lawmakers are already sounding off about the new
guidelines.

"I believe that the Justice Department has gone too far," Rep.
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) said last week. There is no need "to
throw respect for civil liberties into the trash heap" in order to
improve the FBI's ability to fight terrorism.

Some civil rights groups are up in arms over the FBI's
expanded powers. Jewish rights groups, however, are often
especially sensitive to terrorism issues, and occasionally part
company with their regular allies on this issue.

The American Civil Liberties Union said that Ashcroft's
decision to rewrite longstanding restrictions on domestic spying
"threatens core civil liberties guaranteed under the Constitution
and Bill of Rights."

While the Religious Action Center raises some similar
concerns, it is reserving judgment on the guidelines. The ADL is
willing to take a firmer stance in favor of the new guidelines,
though Foxman notes that any new enforcement power has to be
subject to governmental accountability.

The guidelines themselves are not really the issue, according
to Steven Pomerantz, a former assistant director of the FBI who now
is a senior adviser on counterterrorism and security for the
American Jewish Committee.

The guidelines need to be tweaked, Pomerantz said, but the
political climate is also important in determining the FBI's
behavior. While certain investigations might have been allowed even
under the old guidelines, the threshold for proceeding with an
investigation depends on other factors.

"It's not black and white, it's subject to interpretation."[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]ADL Blocking Software[/large]

ADL/AOL Blocking Software

AOL has 10 million subscribers. What ADL wants is to have AOL include software set to block the ADL list, knowing that most neophytes will never know they are blocked or figure out how to unblock access. Thus the key issue is whether ADL can reach a deal with AOL blocking right wing sites as the default option. Note also the fact that Fletcher and his editors somehow instinctively and reflexively know to use a well worn propaganda technique to set the proper emotional tone at the beginning of their NEWS article. The crude image of Klan hangings is used to justify the private censorship effort of ADL. In fact, the ADL is interested in blocking access to the intellectual sites, not the crude ones! Many of the crude sites are run by liberals trying to discredit us. This is just one more example of how ADL gains control of the media.

Yggdrasil

________________________


Oct. 24, 1997

Web sees hate sites spread

· As alarm rises, however, free-speech activists worry about proposed cures

BY MICHAEL FLETCHER

The Washington Post

WASHINGTON ? If a contestant misses a word while playing the online version of the game hangman on a Ku Klux Klan Web site, he gets to hang ?Leroy,? an African American figure. After the lynching, the computer screams: ?You win!?

Another site on the World Wide Web promotes the fictional notion that the Holocaust never occurred. ?Did six million die?? it asks.

Still another Web site proclaims that Jews are ?the anti-Christ,? the result of a union between Eve and Satan. Another resurrects the ridiculous tale, popular in 19th century Europe, that Jews use the blood of Christian children as an ingredient in matzo.

Those are a small part a fast growing phenomenon cited in a new Anti-Defamation League report on the use of the Internet by racist and other hate groups to spread their messages and recruit supporters.

The ADL says there are 250 hate sites on the World Wide Web, a figure that has more than doubled in the past year.

While racist and separatist groups have long distributed their propaganda using everything from fliers and newspapers to radio shows and public access cable, the ADL says the Internet represents a more ominous threat because of its revolutionary low cost and global reach.

?Shrewd bigots of all kinds are rushing to use the enormous power of this new communications medium, and we must match and surpass them,? said Abraham Foxman, the ADL?s national director. ?We must continue to expose them, to hold them up to public scrutiny and to counter their messages of hate.?

The ADL says children are especially vulnerable to these materials because they are more likely to accept them as fact.

How to combat hate on the Internet is a problem the ADL is struggling to solve. Most speech on the Internet is protected by the First Amendment, putting it out of reach of lawmakers. Also, many Internet access providers are reluctant to censor materials voluntarily, for fear of the unending demands that would no doubt surface.

?We have people who say ?Tom Sawyer? and ?The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? ought not be in the library,? said Dennis Van Roekel, a National Education Association official who spoke at an ADL panel Tuesday on hate on the Internet.

ADL is working with America Online to develop software that would allow people to filter out hate sites.

?There is nothing wrong with brand-name filtering software,? said Christian Wolf, a lawyer working with ADL to monitor objectionable material on the Internet. ?If you don?t like ADL?s view of the world, you don?t have to use our software.?

The idea of software filters does not sit well with free-speech advocates. Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said any type of censorship is something the ACLU will watch closely.

?We of course have always believed that the best response to bad speech is more speech,? he said. ?We applaud the ADL for bringing to light what they view as hate speech and for responding to it?. (But) we are waiting to see precisely how the ADL software is to work and what their alliance with America Online will be.?[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]ADL Campaign Against Tolerance[/large]

Source: The New American

[large]ADL Campaign Against Tolerance[/large]

by William Norman Grigg

Since its release earlier this year, The Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance and Pluralism in America, the 193-page report produced by the Anti-Defamation League, has achieved nearly canonical status. Countless ?news? reports and op-ed articles have uncritically cited the report as the definitive critique of the ?Christian Right.? Conservative Christians have protested that the report was little more than an act of politically motivated defamation. The latter assessment has now been endorsed by a group of prominent American Jews.

On August 2nd, 75 notable Jewish Americans signed a full-page paid advertisement in the New York Times which condemned the ADL for ?engaging in defamation of its own? in its attack on the religious right. The advertisement, which bore the headline, ?Should Jews Fear the ?Christian Right??,? chastised the ADL for its disreputable tactics: ?We are a group of Jews who wish to make it known that we reject the implications of [the ADL] report and deplore its publication ?. [T]he so-called ?evidence? of a conservative Christian threat to Jewish security is derived from such discreditable techniques as insinuation and guilt by association.? Noting that too many Jews have personally experienced the results of religious bigotry, the signers stated that ?we have a special obligation to guard against it, and all the more so, when in the case of the ADL attack on our Christian fellow citizens, it emanates from our own community.?

The ad also rebuked the religious left for its proprietary claims upon Judaism: ?Judaism is not, as the ADL seems to suggest, coextensive with liberalism. Nor, we wish to emphasize, does the Jewish community speak with one voice on the religious and moral ? and political ? issues of our time.? Furthermore, ?Judaism teaches the principle of Hakarat Hatov, that we have the duty to acknowledge the good done to us. In issuing The Religious Right study, the ADL has among other things seriously violated that principle.?

On August 4th, the ADL reacted to the advertisement by distributing an internal memo written by ADL leaders David H. Strassler and Abraham H. Foxman which denounced the ad as ?scurrilous at best? and declared that ?nowhere [does] the report accuse the religious right of being anti-Semitic, either overtly or by implication.? The memo also reiterated the report?s contention that ?Nothing more aptly characterizes the religious right than its hostility to difference, both within its own faith and outside of it.? But even as the ink was drying on the ADL memo, the organization displayed a remarkable intolerance toward dissent within its own ranks.

Principled Dissent

Among those who signed the August 2nd New York Times ad were Gary Polland, Phillip Aronoff, and Fred Zeidman, who at the time were all members of the ADL; Polland, a Houston attorney and longtime Republican activist, was the southwest regional director for the ADL. On August 10th, under pressure from the ADL?s national office, Polland resigned his position with the group. The ADL insisted that Polland had violated organization policy by signing the Times ad rather than expressing his misgivings through private channels. However, as Polland explained in a letter to ADL members, his concerns were not confined to matters covered by the organization?s internal policies: ?After much agonizing I signed the ad because the message needed to be sent. The ad informs the Christian community that there are prominent Jewish Americans who reject the [ADL] report ? and regret the publication of such an inaccurate and poorly-researched report.?

On August 9th, Polland and Aronoff compiled an analysis of the ADL report and circulated it among the organization?s membership. Among other things, the critique demonstrates that Strassler and Foxman lied when they asserted that the report did not ?accuse the religious right of being anti-Semitic, either overtly or by implication.? Page two of the report accuses the Christian Coalition of ?anti-Jewish and extremist sentiments.? Page 23 of the report imputes ?anti-Jewish pronouncements? to Pat Robertson, without specifying a single offending statement. Furthermore, the report accuses the Christian Coalition of making ?a number of pronouncements antagonistic toward Jews,? displaying ?anti-Jewish and extremist sentiments,? spiking its literature with ?anti-Jewish nuggets,? peddling ?evangelical anti-Judaism,? and conspiring with ?the nation?s leading anti-semitic propaganda organization.?

Nor were the ADL?s misrepresentations limited to the question of anti-Semitism. The report charges that Steve Hotze, a Republican party official in Texas, ?favors the death penalty for homosexuals.? In making this accusation the report cited an article which had appeared in the New York Times Magazine. However, despite the fact that Hotze has never expressed the opinion attributed to him, the ADL?s accusation was repeated by New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis and in a New Yorker magazine article written by Sidney Blumenthal.

According to Polland and Aronoff, the matter of Steve Hotze is typical of numerous inaccuracies and misrepresentations contained in the report and an indictment of the ADL?s approach to documentation. David Cantor, the ADL researcher who wrote the report, admitted to the New York Times that he was ?guided by ADL policy to stick to the published record rather than conduct direct interviews ?. He did not contact any groups of the religious right for their reactions.? But as the case of Steve Hotze illustrates, the ?printed record? in the prestige press often consists of inbred falsehoods which circulate among antagonists of the religious right; they have no more factual standing than do long-standing anti-Semitic calumnies.

Private Admissions

In the August 4th internal memo, the ADL?s national leadership declared: ?? like other such critiques of the ADL?s report, the [August 2nd New York Times] ad fails to single out any instance of defamation, or even inaccuracy.? The unmistakable implication of this claim was that the report was innocent of any significant inaccuracies. However, in a personal letter sent to evangelical leader Pat Robertson on August 3rd, Foxman admitted that the report had inaccurately stated that Robertson ?never denounced [David] Duke? during Duke?s gubernatorial bid in 1991. Foxman?s letter also retracted the accusation that in a 1980 staff meeting Robertson had referred to Jews as ?spiritually deaf? and ?spiritually blind.?

The source of this accusation, according to Foxman, consisted of ?remarks that had been widely quoted? ? that is, undocumented rumors.

Exactly one week after the ADL privately admitted some of the flaws contained in its anti-religious right report, the organization expelled Polland for publicly criticizing the flawed monograph. The irony of this development was not lost on ex-Senator Rudy Boschwitz, a liberal Republican from Minnesota who is a Jewish immigrant and an honorary vice-chairman of the ADL. In a handwritten note to Polland, Boschwitz wryly remarked: ?I always believed that the ADL considered diverse opinions permissible ?. Indeed, they have just [produced] a scathing report about a group they maintain doesn?t allow such diversity. Could it be that our own ADL ? is assaulting pluralism and tolerance in America??

Another ironic aspect of the ADL?s assault upon conservative evangelical Christians is the fact that anti-Semitism is not a serious concern in contemporary America. Leonard Dinnerstein, author of the new book Anti-semitism in America, told the July 15th Jerusalem Post that ?anti-semitism in the US has clearly declined to an unimagined degree. It has not disappeared. But it?s become so minuscule as to be virtually irrelevant. And that?s the trend. Jews are incredibly secure in the United States, and I see no reason whatsoever why that should change.? Dinnerstein maintains: ?The fact is, a lot of American Jews just aren?t ready to accept just how well-accepted they are in America.? Citing the ADL?s own annual audits of anti-Semitic acts, Dinnerstein concludes that ?anti-semitism is just a tiny blip on the American consciousness.? For publicly expressing such heterodox notions, Dinnerstein has been condemned by Abraham Foxman for ?minimizing anti-Semitism.?

While Polland and his associates embrace what they describe as ?the Anti-Defamation League?s mandate ? to fight discrimination and anti-semitism,? they do not subscribe to the group?s implicit endorsement of ?the radical homosexual political agenda ? or the pro-choice agenda.? This position is broadly compatible with public sentiments: While anti-Semitism is rejected by the American populace, public opinion has not yet turned decisively against newly minted sins against political correctness, such as ?homophobia.? In order to poison the public mind against the religious right, the ADL sought to portray ?homophobia? and rejection of feminist demands as morally equivalent to anti-Semitism ? and to establish the supposed anti-Jewish sentiments of Evangelicals through insinuation and misrepresentation.

Spy Scandal

Just before the ADL launched its attack on the religious right, a San Francisco court quietly disposed of what should have been a major ADL scandal. On May 27th, Tom Gerard, a former inspector with the San Francisco police department, was sentenced to 45 days in jail and three years? probation for leaking confidential police files to the ADL. Gerard had pleaded no contest to charges that he had illegally abused his access to a police computer system in order to obtain information about the activities of pro-Palestinian and white supremacist organizations and various ?extremist? groups; that material was leaked to Roy Bullock, an investigator in the employ of the ADL.

Following the discovery of the ADL?s information pipeline, police raided the homes of Gerard and Bullock and seized files containing the names of thousands of individuals and organizations. Gerard fled to the Philippines one step ahead of prosecution; however, no charges were ever filed against Bullock. Last November, the San Francisco District Attorney?s office announced that it would not file criminal charges against the ADL in exchange for a $75,000 ?donation? from the ADL into a ?hate crimes reward and education fund.? Essentially, the ADL bribed the District Attorney?s office with money that will be used to advance the prosecution of the organization?s political enemies.

Significant charges against Gerard were dropped in April when the FBI ? which had entered the case in 1993 ? refused to release documents which Gerard?s attorney claimed would establish the ex-policeman?s innocence. At the time, Municipal Court Judge J. Dominique Olcomendy stated, ?We know the federal government is still investigating this case because they tell me that?s why they won?t release documents [acquired on behalf of the ADL].? However, ADL defense counsel Jerrold Ladar believes that Gerard?s sentencing brought an end to any criminal investigation of the scandal. ?It is nice to see the last remnant of the criminal case wrapped up and closed. It is time it was completely put to bed,? Ladar told the May 28th San Francisco Chronicle.

Although several civil suits are pending against the ADL, Janet Reno?s Justice Department has shown little inclination to pursue an investigation of the spy scandal. Given the Clinton Administration?s high-profile campaign against ?hate groups? and ?right-wing extremists,? it is possible that the materials acquired from the ADL?s spy network may be put to some use other than prosecuting those who illegally collected the information.[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]ADL Claims Court Ruling Victory in Spying Lawsuit[/large]

Northern California Jewish Bulletin November 27, 1998

ADL claims court ruling victory in `spying' lawsuit

LORI EPPSTEIN

Bulletin Staff

After five years of court appeals and motions on
secret files, Anti-Defamation League attorneys in San
Francisco say the end is in sight for a class-action
lawsuit filed against the agency by pro-Palestinian and
anti-apartheid activists.

Last week, a ruling by the California 1st District
Court of Appeals determined that the ADL could be defined
as a journalistic organization. As such, the agency can
keep confidential any information gathered in a
journalistic manner.

The ruling severely restricts the plaintiffs in
gathering evidence for the case and may thwart their
efforts to bring the case to trial, ADL attorneys said.

"Not only are we delighted with the ruling...but we
are also delighted in the context of this lawsuit which
means that [the plaintiffs] are not going to have
anything because there isn't anything for them to have,"
said Stephen Bomse, an ADL lawyer.

Former Congressman Pete McCloskey, attorney for the
activists, did not return phone calls. But in news
accounts from the San Francisco Examiner and the
Chronicle, the Woodside attorney called the ruling a
victory because it affirmed his right to future
discovery, albeit limited. The ruling, he said, would
enable him to take the case to trial.

The activists' lawsuit followed police raids on the
San Francisco and Los Angeles ADL offices in 1992, during
which confidential files were confiscated. The files
revealed the names of individuals in activist groups
that the ADL had been monitoring.

The ADL settled a civil suit brought by the city of
San Francisco over charges that the organization
illegally acquired confidential government information
found in the files. Two years ago, the ADL also settled
a related class-action suit brought by a dozen
human-rights groups.

The activists in the current case asserted in 1993
that the ADL illegally obtained and disseminated private
records of 17 individuals. Such information, the
activists claimed, was used to blacklist individuals.

The ADL, which publishes various reports, books and
special bulletins as part of its hate-monitoring
activities, argued that it was merely gathering
information about terrorists and other hate groups. It
denied having any blacklist.

ADL lead attorneys Bomse and David Goldstein said
that in light of last week's ruling, they will file a
motion for the judge to dismiss the case for lack of
evidence.

"I think now we are going to move very aggressively
to have this end in ADL's favor -- and short of trial,"
Bomse said. "We think we can get the claims thrown out in
short order."

Barbara Bergen, the ADL's regional director, said
her organization has no intention of settling with the
activists because its attorneys are confident they would
prevail in court.

Despite the ADL's newfound status as a media
organization, its attorneys said the case doesn't break
new legal ground. However, the agency is still vulnerable
to investigations into its practices by those who find
its surveillance of extremist groups equivalent to
spying.

Bergen said there's been no evidence in either the
San Francisco district attorney's investigation or the
current case to suggest that the ADL has gathered
information illegally.

"We are very cognizant of the limits of the law and
the methods of information gathering," she said. But she
conceded that "there may have been instances" in which
an investigator for the ADL unknowingly acted outside the
law.

After settling its civil suit with the city of San
Francisco, the ADL reviewed its fact-finding methods. The
organization has not significantly changed its
investigative practices, Bergen said.[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]ADL Controls American Library Association

An Act of Censorship:[/large]
American Library Association Becomes Another Israeli Occupied Territory

By Jeffrey Blankfort | Editor Middle East Labor Bulletin


Criticism of Israel Stopped Cold

NEW ORLEANS ? The embattled Anti-Defamation League?s National Director, Abraham Foxman (photo above), is ?going to war ? and he?s going to enlist American Jews as his foot soldiers,? wrote the No. California Jewish Bulletin?s Garth Wolkoff this past May, and he wasn?t joking. The first battle took place in this picturesque Gulf Coast port city at the end of June and the ADL and its allies emerged victorious.

The occasion was the annual membership meeting of the American Library Association and answering the call to the colors were hundreds of Jewish librarians who descended on New Orleans for a dual purpose: to overturn a resolution criticizing Israeli censorship that had been approved at last year?s convention and to demonstrate to their fellow librarians that judging Israel was not only not the business of the ALA, but also was not without career-threatening risks. And they succeeded, overwhelmingly. No, the colors they rallied to weren?t visible, but then they didn?t have to be.

For a little under a year, 363 days to be exact, the American Library Association had stood alone as the only major American institution that had publicly and unequivocally condemned Israeli human rights violations and specifically, acts of censorship directed against Palestinian journalists, universities, and libraries.

Headquartered in Chicago, the ALA, with 56,000 members is the oldest and largest library association in the world, and according to its outgoing president, Marilyn Miller, ?it has engaged in issues of human rights and intellectual freedom around the world since its establishment in 1876.? In past years it has criticized censorship in Chile, South Africa, the Soviet Union, and, according to Miller ?was one of the first and strongest voices to defend Salman Rushdie.? Taking on Israel, however, is another matter.

Largely as a culmination of a nine-year effort on the part of Chicago Public Library Research Librarian David Williams, (MELB 4/1 and 4/2) and the International Human Rights Task Force that he took over as chair in 1990, the ALA had passed two resolutions at its July 1, 1992 meeting in San Francisco. The first condemning Israeli censorship and human rights violations and the second, protested the threatened expulsion of Palestinian librarian Omar Al-Safi and may have been a factor in having the order withdrawn. (MELB 4/1).

The main resolution referred to the ?special relationship? enjoyed by Israel with the United States, ?as the recipient of the largest amounts of annual U.S. aid per capita, and declared ?the U.S. a party to these censorship practices and other violations of human rights.?

To bolster the impressive documentation he presented substantiating Israel?s censorship policies, Williams arranged for Israeli journalist, Michal Schwartz, an editor of Challenge magazine and herself a victim of her country?s censorship, to address the convention. An Israeli brought by the opposition was unable to offer credible rebuttal and both resolutions passed by large margins. Copies of the resolutions were sent to the U.S. government, to Israel and to the PLO.

Can?t Afford a Single Public Relations Defeat

Obviously the matter would not end there. The ADL believes, perhaps correctly, that neither it or Israel can afford a single defeat in its hasbara, the Israeli word for public relations. If the ALA was able to get away with criticizing Israel, who knows who might do it next? The counterattack against the resolution and the character assassination of Williams began virtually the next day and continued up to and after the vote in New Orleans.

In a statement following the rejection of the resolution, Williams pointed out the implications of the entire issue: ?The significance of ALA?s breaking with the public taboo on criticizing Israel was taken very seriously by the Anti-Defamation League and other Israel lobby groups whose role is to censor, intimidate, and otherwise stifle public criticism of Israel in the United States. It is precisely because of the importance of U.S. aid that they could not afford to let Israel be criticized in such fashion by a mainstream professional organization.?

ADL?s Foxman Takes Charge

It became clear to Williams that reversal of the censorship resolution had become an ALA priority, as it increasingly came under the influence of what he described as the ?highly-organized and well-financed [pro-Israel] political lobby.?Quickly taking charge was the ADL?s Foxman who, according to the Chicago Jewish Star (June 11-24), held several meetings with ALA leaders ?to clarify Israel?s position and to put the claims against Israel into context.?

?The longer these resolutions remain on the books as ALA policy, the more legitimacy they gain among librarians and educators,? wrote Foxman in a letter to Peggy Sullivan, ALA?s Executive Director.

This was not the first time the ADL had gone up against Williams. In 1989, it challenged a bibliography he had prepared on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that Chicago?s chief librarian and a number of Middle East scholars had considered balanced, and through a ?full court? mobilization of the area?s Jewish community, would have got away with censoring both the list and Williams, had not their plans been exposed in a local newspaper column. But as the Village Voice?s Robert Friedman points out (July 27) ?this is not just a cautionary tale about one librarian?s battle against book burning in the occupied territories. ?It is part of a larger story about the most powerful Jewish organization in America, and its attempt to determine what should be read in our nation?s schools, what should be read in our nation?s libraries, and what should publicly be discussed at public forums.

?Through its 31 offices across the country, the ADL monitors school curricula, library acquisition lists, and public conferences and symposiums, working behind the scenes to stifle intellectual freedom.?

Hadassah Plays Most Visible Role

The ADL, of course, would not have to go it alone, since its policy of defending ?Israel, right or wrong,? is the guiding principle of all the major Jewish organizations. So it was to be expected that the 1000-member Association of Jewish Libraries would weigh in with a letter protesting the resolutions. ?Members of AJL have been outraged by the actions taken by ALA, AJL President Ralph Simon told the Jewish Star (June 11-24). That was just once response. (By the time of the convention, the largest Jewish womens? organization, Hadassah, would play the most visible role, with the ADL content to stay in the shadows due, most likely, to the fear that publicity about its spy network would inhibit it effectiveness.)

Sometime after the San Francisco convention, an ALA attorney, commenting on the resolution, implied it was close to being ?seditious? and in American Libraries (March ?93), ALA Councilor Charles Bunge referred to the ?embarrassing situation? caused by the Council?s passage of the resolution. It was also apparent, from American Libraries? Midwinter report, that ?although the resolution could not be rescinded, the Council would have done so if it had not ?already been widely distributed.? As an alternative step, the Council referred the resolution to the ALA?s International Resolutions Committee for ?study and recommendations.?

Critics of Israel Called ?Facists? and ?Anti-Semites?

At its Midwinter meeting in Denver, the wheels that were to crush the resolution were picking up speed. With the cooperation of the ALA leadership, mass-produced letters and materials were distributed denouncing the anti-censorship efforts as a front for the ?terroristic? and ?fascist? PLO (as well as Hamas) and suggesting, as Williams pointed out in a task force ?Urgent Action Alert,? that ?anyone who challenged Israel?s repressive policies was an antisemite and part of a plot to destroy Jews.?

Williams reported that functionaries of the ADL and other pro-Israel lobby groups were very much in attendance at conference sessions, and that ?the ADL representatives arranged with the ALA Executive Office to have the customary guest registration fee waived, were outfitted with membership instead of guest convention badges,? and directed to the business meeting of the Social Responsibilities Round Table (SRRT) International Human Rights Task Force Meeting.

?There,? wrote Williams, ?they copied down the names and institutional affiliations of everyone present.? In one instance, an ADL operative grabbed a task force member who was engaged in conversation, and whirled him around, saying he wanted to see the name on his badge. The tangible intimidation, says Williams, was only beginning:

?With the active complicity of the ALA leadership, pressure was brought to bear on librarians at all levels of the Association to go along with revoking the resolution. Wilfully distorting the facts and context of Israel?s repressive practices, the organizers of this campaign also engaged in the most vicious personal vilification of me ? repeatedly equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism.?

Typical of this attack was a passage in a letter sent two weeks before the convention to ALA President-Elect Hardy Franklin by Ellen Zyroff Ph.D, the Principal Librarian of the San Diego County Library, and distributed to ALA members by the ALA Council.

?This man is wild-eyed and dangerous,? wrote Zyroff. ?I do not know where his hate comes from, but it is palpable. I do not know who paid the fare for the speaker who flew from Tel Aviv University, an institution known for activists against the state of Israel, or for that of the other out-of-town-speakers (referring to a 1991 forum in Atlanta)?. (emphasis added).

Jews Attempt to Sabotage Forum

Marty Goldberg, head librarian at Penn State and co-chair of the Jewish Librarians Committee (JLC), a subgroup of the ALA, told the Jewish Star, that Williams ?uses this as a platform for his political agenda. We should condemn the resolutions and get the ALA out of the business of singling out one people, one nation, one religion. This has no place in the ALA. There are issues of far more importance than censorship in Israel.? For Goldberg, the ADL and the Jewish librarians, a ?far more important issue? was protecting Israel.

At the convention, Goldberg sent out a letter to JLC members, suggesting they stay away from a Sunday night forum, sponsored by Williams? task force, preceding the vote on the resolution, because of ?the danger of physical violence.? (At the Midwinter conference, Williams relinquished his chair of the International Human Rights Task Force and was authorized by the SRRT to initiate a new Task Force on Israeli Censorship and Palestinian Libraries.)

Goldberg?s warning was ironic, since last year, a panel arranged by Williams featuring Michal Schwartz and Khader Hamide, one of the Palestinians fighting deportation in Los Angeles, was repeatedly disrupted, first by noisy pro-Israel activists and then by a false fire alarm.

This year?s forum, entitled ?Israeli Censorship: Here and There,? drew an audience of about 120, and proceeded without interruption with members from the audience who supported Israel receiving ample time to respond to the speakers: Williams, Jay Murphy, former editor of Red Bass magazine, and myself.

Williams informed the audience that the ADL?s Foxman had once again been invited, and for the third time had declined. In a letter to Williams he had written that ?We have consistently refused to participate in your events because of the blatant anti-Israel agenda? Moreover, he didn?t believe ?that the activities of the Anti-Defamation League are an appropriate subject for your roundtable discussion.?

In another clearly centralized attempt to sabotage the forum, a 450 word ?anonymous letter? was sent to and published in Jewish newspapers across the country signed alternately by ?Concerned Jewish Taxpayer,? ?Jewish Taxpayer,? ?Anonymous Librarian? and ?a librarian whose job would be jeopardized by identification,? (the latter being a classic example of the victimizer pretending to be the victim).

The thrust of the letter was to infer that ?since public libraries are funded chiefly by local tax dollars,? Jewish taxpayers ought to know about the forum and its title. In a thinly concealed threat in the next to last paragraph, the ?writer? warns that ?If public opinion causes enough institutions and individuals to stop sending in their hefty membership dues (often paid for with public funds) perhaps the ALA will reconsider its priorities.?

The Fix Is In

Foxman and the ADL didn?t need to debate, nor did Goldberg need to attend the forum to state their case. The ?fix? was already in. Goldberg, speaking at a meeting of the Jewish Librarians group the day before had all but admitted as much. Acknowledging that he was usually a pessimist, he told his listeners that they ?shouldn?t worry? about Monday night?s vote. ?The ALA Council,? he repeated several times, ?wants out of this situation.?

The meeting of the Jewish Librarians next morning was attended by the Village Voice?s Friedman, which caused Goldberg to declare the proceedings ?off the record,? a ludicrous request at what was advertised to be, and what has been ALA policy at all its events since 1971, a public meeting.

At the meeting, ALA trustee from New Orleans, Helen Kuhlman, who preceded her remarks with the same ?this is off the record,? caveat described how on the Thursday evening preceding the convention, she had hosted a reception for the ALA Council, the ADL and Hadassah, and that they had nothing to worry about. What exactly was going to happen she didn?t say, but it was clear that the long arm of Israeli censorship was about to be extended to embrace the New Orleans Convention Center.

Coverup and Spin

The Jewish Librarians later heard from a Young Republican stockbroker type named Aaron Albert, who said he had worked with CAMERA, a pro-Israel propaganda agency, as well as AIPAC, but evidently had been brought to the convention by Hadassah. Albert brought with him a flyer, published by the women?s group which was to be distributed to ALA members the night of the vote.

The flyer carried a bold 48-point headline, ?Let?s stop fighting yesterday?s wars.? It suggested that ?a new era has dawned? since the resolutions were drafted, and that the charges of censorship against Israel were ?outdated and nuanced.; [and] grossly incompatible with the scholarly pursuits of the ALA.? The failed ?peace? talks in Washington became the cover for the coverup: ?With the peace process between Israel and its Arab neighbors now well underway; this is not the time for divisive, counter-productive resolutions, etc.?

Whether the flyer was actually needed or provided just a convenient cover is debatable. Within an hour and a half of the Jewish Librarians meeting, the first bomb landed. The ALA Council, without any previous indication that the subject was to be on its agenda, revoked the 1992 resolution. Moreover, the Council approved guidelines for the future that will, in effect, allow them to overturn votes of the membership. At that meeting, according to the report published in American Libraries (July/Aug. ?93), Pres. Miller noted that ?The mail has been intense,? and that criticism has included the condemnation in the Jewish press of the annual conference program on Israeli censorship. She was referring to the ?anonymous? letter published in a number of Jewish papers mentioned earlier.

Nancy John, chair of the International Relations Committee informed the Council that the Israeli censorship was the only item on its agenda. At an earlier Executive Board meeting, citing the ?countless hours? the issue had consumed, suggested that in the future, ?refer these things to us; we know a little something about international relations? (Amer. Lib., ibid.). Now, ALA parliamentarian Edwin Bliss was asked to present the options available to the Council for dealing with a resolution it had passed, acted on, and now regretted.

?An organization has a right to change its mind,? he said, accord to the American Libraries report. Sticking by the opinion rendered at the Midwinter conference that it was impossible to ?rescind? something that had been distributed around the word, he suggested the term ?revoke.? And thus, Councilor Bernard Margolis so moved, the Council voted, and by a ?safe margin? the resolution was interred. ?By all accounts,? noted American Libraries, ?it is the first time in in its history that the ALA has taken such an action.?

Jews Target Williams

Prior to the vote, Pres. Miller announced that a special ?fact-finding? Task Force made up of three former ALA presidents had been appointed to ?review? charges that Williams engaged in ?censorship, personal harassment and suppression of freedom of expression.?

Moreover, Williams was requested to appear before the ALA Executive Board the following day, preceding the full membership meeting, to answer criticisms that had been made against him.

Also on the carpet was SRRT chair Stephen Stilwell who was questioned by the chair, Pres. Miller regarding the SRRT?s control over Williams? task force; the use of the ALA?s name by the task force; whether or not it received outside funding (clearly implying a PLO connection) and why Israel was being singled out all of which he calmly fielded in defending the work of the task force and the resolution.

Miller acknowledged to Stillwell that the Council had received ?a huge stack of letters,? and that ?we all have been receiving these letters and we?re all under pressure.?

Cesar Cabellero, head of Extension Services for El Paso Community College, was the only member of the largely silent 13-person board to speak up in the defense of the resolution. ?All our members have an inherent right to take stands on social issues. I don?t think he should be questioned. SRRT has the right to take positions. I think this organization has a right to single out countries for violations of international freedom. Some of our members are so sensitive they can?t separate principles from politics.? There would be few such voices heard for the rest of the convention.

Williams was up next and took his seat at the foot of the long table. After he asked for and received permission to make a statement Miller repeated her criticisms about using the ALA?s name and her ?concern that we continue to pound on one country.? ?If you go to such extraordinary lengths to prevent Israel from being singled out, ? Williams replied, ?you become an extension of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the U.S.?

When asked, ?How do you verify your facts??, Williams cited the Committee for Article 19 (the human rights convention against censorship), the Fund for Free Expression and the work of Israeli sociologist and demographer, Meron Benvenisti and noted that the ALA?s International Resolutions Committee ?did conclude, that the documentation was, in the main, very accurate.?

Having failed to refute Williams? arguments, the Council shifted to another tack ? how he conducted the work of his task force, and would not let go of it. It would be used on the floor of the convention, and afterward not only to undermine the resolution but to isolate Williams and effectively terminate his task force.

?We have no problems with what you do,? he was told, in seeming contradiction to everything that had just taken place. ?it?s just sometimes how you do it.?

It was clear, that night, as we were passing out flyers ?Williams? facts competing with Hadassah?s fiction? that something was afoot. Jewish librarians in extraordinary numbers began arriving for the meeting, most of whom, apparently, were not regular participants in ALA meetings. (Since ALA is not a union, its conventions are not delegated. Every member has a vote if she or he can get there).

When the issue of reaffirmation of the Israeli censorship resolution came to the floor ? it was now certainly necessary since the Council had revoked the previous one ? the atmosphere was so intimidating that a resolution condemning Egypt, which the SRRT was also going to present never got to the floor. SRRT Chair Stillwell arose to defend the resolution, citing its consistency with other actions by the Council such as its resolution opposing the Gulf War. He pointed out that no one had ?disputed the truth of the allegations? in the Israeli censorship resolution; rather the Council had succumbed to outside pressure in deciding to revoke it.

His fellow SRRT member Sanford Berman called on the membership to show its disapproval of the Council?s revocation action and reaffirm the resolution, but the votes just weren?t there. Speaker after speaker got up to defend Israel, to denounce the resolution, to question the ALA?s wisdom in taking positions on international issues ? something that never seems to be a problem until it comes to Israel ? and, in the atmosphere of triumphant intolerance that inundated every corner of the room ? to all but ask for Williams head on a platter, calling for a special investigation of his activities and the end of the Task Force on Israeli Censorship. He certainly had pushed their button.Under those conditions, other librarians, some of them Jewish, who had supported the resolutions were clearly afraid to speak.

This time there was no progressive Israeli voice to shame the flag-wavers with the truth.

It Is Done

Following an overwhelming vote to cut-off debate, the resolution came to the floor. The relative handful still having the courage to swim against the tide, and who rose when the ?aye? vote was called, was no match for the hundreds of Jewish librarians (and their intimidated colleagues) who loudly stood up to declare the ALA another occupied Israeli territory.

?The vote was so lopsided it was ridiculous,? said ALA trustee Kuhlman. ?What happened at ALA has been put to rest in a very definitive way? (No. Cal. Jewish Bulletin, July 16)The following day, the SRRT ?got the message.? By a 9-4-1 vote, it stripped David of his task force chair, with the stipulation that until a replacement was found, every piece of correspondence or literature he wished to circulate, had to be approved by the SRRT chair. Goliath had won this round.

The Jewish Librarian?s Goldberg told the Washington Jewish Week?s (July Sam Skolnik, that one of his committee?s goals was to take international political issues off the ALA?s front burner and put more apparent concerns up front. ?Libraries in this country have tremendous problems,? he said. [The ALA] shouldn?t be involved in these complicated issues. Let?s stay out of it.?

Williams has other ideas and the last word.

?Although we were overpowered in New Orleans, this may well turn out to be a Pyhrric victory for the Israel lobby. In the course of this long struggle, thousands of librarians were made aware of Israeli human rights abuses, and the ALA officially criticized them ? causing great embarrassment for defenders of Israel in the U.S.

?The subsequent spectacle of the ALA leadership going down on its knees before the Israel lobby to exempt Israel from criticism will not go unnoticed by all those who sincerely believe in the consistent application of human rights principles. This issue will continue to haunt the ALA and the Israel lobby, until the time comes when America is fed-up with supporting an apartheid state in the Middle East.?

In the weeks following the convention, the special task force appointed to investigate Williams was canceled after (one would like to think) the ALA comprehended the Kafkaesque nature of the project and the sad contribution the ALA had already made to the history of censorship.[/justify]