[justify]Source: The David Duke Report Online, http://www.davidduke.com
[large]Behind the Mask of Respectability : The truth about the Anti-Defamation League of B?nai B?rith[/large]
Research Staff
Introduction
The Anti-Defamation League of B?nai B?rith, or ADL for short, presents itself as an organization against ethnic, racial or religious intolerance. It?s very name suggests that it opposes ?defamation.?
In reality, the Anti-Defamation League is an organization that supports Jewish ethnic and religious supremacy, and relentlessly ?defames? anyone who dares to point out its own hypocrisy. While supposedly opposing ethnic segregation and ethnic superiority, the ADL supports Israel and international Zionism which promotes not a vision of a ?multi-cultural,? ?multi-ethnic? Israel, but of a ?Jewish state.? That state is openly dedicated to the advancement of the Jewish religion, culture, and even the genetic preservation of the Jewish people. This is, of course, the very opposite of the policies it proposes for our American nation.
Consider the following:
The ADL supports forced integration of schools, neighborhoods, apartment complexes, clubs, churches and communities in America.
Yet, it supports Israel which has a policy of segregated schools, neighborhoods, apartment complexes and even whole towns for Jews and Gentiles.
The ADL has been instrumental in changing America?s immigration policies that will result in European Americans becoming a minority in America by the middle of this century.
Yet, the ADL supports Israel, which has a ?Jews only? immigration policy. In fact, it even keeps out Palestinians who were born there and then forced out during the Zionist takeover in 1948.
The ADL has condemned European Americans, such as the administrators of Bob Jones University, who oppose racial intermarriage, Yet, the ADL supports Israel, a nation that does not even recognize as a legal union, marriage between a Jew and Gentile, The ADL has also never condemned the extensive Jewish opposition to intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews (every major Jewish organization around the world has openly stated policies opposing intermarriage).
The ADL has condemned Sadaam Hussein and any of his supporters around the world for his invasion of Kuwait, production of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and for violating United Nations resolutions.
Yet, the ADL did not condemn Israel for the brutal invasion of neighboring Lebanon, resulting in at least 30,000 civilians dead, and lasting almost twenty years in violation of U.N. resolutions. Nor has the ADL condemned Israel for its extensive development of biological and chemical weapons.
The ADL has repeatedly condemned scientists who show that there are significant genetic differences in intelligence between Whites and Blacks, and they have condemned me for simply pointing out that scientific truth.
Yet, the ADL has not condemned the founder of Israel, David Ben Gurion, for his statement that he believed in the ?intellectual and moral superiority? of the Jewish people.
The ADL is by its own definition a racist, supremacist organization, and recognizing that fact should not make someone deserve the label of ?anti-Semite.? The truth is that the ADL is anti-Gentile! They are not about anti-defamation, but their whole modus operandi is concerned with defaming anyone of any nationality who wants for their own people what the Jewish ADL leaders what for theirs. In other words, they are opposed to every other ethnic nationalism but their own! The whole organization is based on on attacking, intimidating and defaming anyone who opposes their Jewish supremacism.
In fact, anyone who criticizes their hypocrisy and that of Israel, whether or not the critics are ?racially aware? or ?anti-racist,? will be condemned by the ADL. For their real mission is simply to advance the Jewish Supremacist agenda in America and around the world.
The following article on the ADL by our research staff should be enlightening to all readers of the David Duke Report Online.
ADL of B?nai B?rith
The ADL was founded in 1913 as an adjunct to the international Jewish fraternal order and secret society, the ?B?nai B?rith,? whose name, translated literally from Hebrew means ?sons of the cut? ? referring to circumcision.
The ADL operates 28 offices domestically and 3 offices abroad. They bring in nearly $60 million a year.
Current ADL National Director is Abraham Foxman.
Links to Organized Crime
For years, the ADL has been linked to Jewish organized crime.
The ADL gave Las Vegas Jewish gangster, Moe Dalitz, their ?Torch of Freedom? award in 1985 for his donating millions of dollars to the state of Israel. Donations from Dalitz, who headed the Cleveland mob known as the Mayfield Road Gang, allegedly came from his ownership of Las Vegas casinos such as the Desert Inn.
Las Vegas Review-Journal article ?The Double Life of Moe Dalitz? by John L. Smith, explains Dalitz? background in their series ?The First 100 Persons Who Shaped Southern Nevada? (at [small]http://www.1st100.com/part2/dalitz.html[/small]).
?Early in his life, Dalitz was a bootlegger and racketeer mentioned in the same breath as (Jewish) Meyer Lansky and (Jewish) Benjamin ?Bugsy? Siegel. In Cleveland, one longtime member of law enforcement would tell the Kefauver Commission, ?Ruthless beatings, unsolved murders and shakedowns, threats and bribery came to this community as a result of gangsters? rise to power.? Dalitz was considered part of that rise.?
Theodore Silbert worked simultaneously for the ADL and the Sterling National Bank (a mafia operation controlled by the Lansky syndicate).
Mira Lansky Boland, the granddaughter of notorious Jewish mafia boss, Meyer Lansky, was described in a Village Voice article by Robert Friedman of May 11th, 1993, as the ADL?s top ?fact-finder? in Washington.
Spy Ring and Murder Squads?
An Article in the Los Angeles Times of 9th April, 1993, by Richard C. Paddock, detailed a police raid on ADL offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles where the police seizing evidence of a nationwide intelligence network accused of keeping files on more than 950 political groups, newspapers, and labor unions and as many as 12,000 people.
Describing the spy ring in detail, San Francisco authorities simultaneously released voluminous documents telling how operatives of the Anti-Defamation League searched through trash and infiltrated organizations to gather intelligence on Arab-American, right-wing, and what they called ?pinko? organizations?
Police alleged that the organization maintains undercover operatives to gather political intelligence in at least seven cities, including Los Angeles and San Francisco.
According to police officials, groups that were the focus of the spy operation span the political spectrum, including such groups as the Ku Klux Klan, the National Alliance, Greenpeace, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the United Farm Workers, and the Jewish Defense League. Also on the list were Mills College, the board of directors of San Francisco public television station KQED, and the San Francisco Bay Guardian newspaper.
In addition to allegations of obtaining confidential information from police, the Anti-Defamation League could face a total of 48 felony counts for not properly reporting the employment of its chief West Coast spy, Roy Bullock, according to the affidavit filed to justify the search warrant.
The Anti-Defamation League disguised payments to Bullock for more than 25 years by funneling $550 a week to Beverly Hills attorney Bruce I. Hochman, who then paid Bullock, according to the documents released in San Francisco. Hochman, a former president of the Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles is one of the state?s leading tax attorneys.
?Until 1990, Hochman, a former U.S. prosecutor, also was a member of a panel appointed by then-Senator Pete Wilson to secretly make initial recommendations on new federal judges in California.?
Hochman is a former regional president of the Anti-Defamation League.
A second article from the Los Angeles Times, 13th April, 1993, also by Richard C. Paddock, details ADL spy Roy Bullock?s possible role in death squads, torture and kidnapping.
The article introduces another ADL spy, Tom Gerard, a former CIA agent and San Francisco police officer was accused of providing confidential material from police files to the Anti-Defamation League.
Gerard fled to the Philippines after the FBI interviewed him, but left behind a briefcase in his police locker. Its contents, according to the Los Angeles Times, included passports, driver?s licenses, and identification cards in 10 different names; identification cards in his own name for four different embassies in Central America; and a collection of blank birth certificates, Army discharge papers, and official stationery from various agencies.
Also in Tom Gerard?s briefcase were extensive information on death squads, a black hood, apparently for use in interrogations, and photos of blindfolded and chained men.
Investigators suspect that Gerard and other police sources gave the ADL confidential driver?s license or vehicle registration information on a vast number of people, including as many as 4,500 members of [just] one target group [of interest to the ADL], the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee.
Service of a Foreign Government?
While posing as a community oriented group of American Jews working to combat bigotry, the ADL has been alleged to used its spy network to illegally provide the government of Israel with information.
In an article entitled ?Spies for Zion,? in the San Francisco Weekly for 28th April, 1993, police officials expose an illegal spy ring working for Israel. ?For decades the Anti-Defamation League of B?nai B?rith has gathered secret files on critics of Israel. As the San Francisco District Attorney prepares criminal charges against the group, will pressure from prominent Jewish leaders derail the prosecution??
The San Francisco Weekly described how the ADL spy network passed information to the Israeli government about a professor who made a negative remark about Israel in his class:
?Professor Dwight Simpson and the consul general of Israel stood in a corner at the Fairmont Hotel discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict amid a bright tinkling of glasses and soft murmuring of voices. Halfway through the conversation at the cocktail party, the Israeli diplomat, Harry Kney-Tal, said: ?By the way, that was a very funny joke you told your class the other day.?
?The San Francisco State University international relations professor didn?t think much of the comment at first. But later that night, he asked himself: ?How in the hell does the Israeli consul general know the jokes I tell in my class??
?As a critic of Israel?s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Simpson had been targeted by Jewish students in the past. They picketed his class on several occasions, handing out leaflets charging that he?s anti-Semitic and opposes a Jewish homeland.
?So the professor didn?t have to wrestle with the consul general?s statement for long. He quickly surmised that Kney-Tal got his information from the Anti-Defamation League of B?nai B?rith [or ADL for short] by way of Jewish students who do political surveillance work on campus for them. ?It?s always confused me why they have to spy on me,? Simpson said, ?My work isn?t secret. My whole life is an open book.?
?After a heated demonstration in 1989 that disrupted Simpson?s class, the Jewish Student Action committee was expelled from campus for violating academic freedom. ?This is a serious problem in academia,? Simpson added. ?Whenever you have monitoring and surveillance, it stifles the free discussion of ideas??
?Simpson is just one of thousands of people whose lives have been affected by the far-ranging spy activities of the ADL. An 80-year-old nonprofit, whose professed mission is to fight anti-Semitism, the ADL uses a less controversial term ? ?fact-finding? ? for its spying?
The article expressed concern that the ADL was above the law:
?Mark my words, this is going to be obfuscated, obliterated, and desecrated,? said one veteran police inspector. ?It?s going to a classic study in how things get covered up. You don?t do Jewish people in San Francisco. It?s not PC. Especially when you have two U.S. Senators who are Jewish (Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein) and the city?s chief of protocol is Dick Goldman (a prominent fundraiser in the Jewish community).?
Did Jewish interest work to protect the ADL? The San Francisco Weekly explains how:
?Last week, Goldman called Police Chief Tony Ribera about the police department?s own internal investigation. After the call, the police decided to exclude the ADL and Bullock from the probe?
In a Village Voice article by Robert Friedman of 11th May, 1993, the ADL?s top ?fact-finder? in Washington and granddaughter of notorious Jewish mafia boss, Meyer Lansky, Mira Lansky Boland, arranged a trip to Israel for Mr. Tom Gerard, the same man in who?s briefcase was found information on death squads, a black hood, used in interrogations, and photos of blindfolded and chained men.
According to this same article, Boland admitted at a 1990 criminal trial that she had, in typical ADL Newspeak, ?shared information? with members of the CIA at an invitation-only ADL conference.
The same article pointed to an ADL connection to the Jonathan Pollard spy affair:
?In 1987, the ADL came under FBI scrutiny in the wake of the Pollard spy scandal. While assigned to the Navy?s Anti-Terrorist Alert Center, where he had access to the most closely-guarded U.S. secrets, Jonathan Pollard stole thousands of pages of classified documents for Israel, which, according to Federal prosecutors, ?could fill a room the size of a large closet ? ten feet by six feet by six feet.? Pollard?s handler was Avi Sella, an Israeli air force colonel whose wife worked for the New York ADL as a lawyer. Pollard later wrote to friends that a prominent ADL leader was deeply involved in the Israeli spy operation.?
Additional evidence of ADL cooperation with Israeli
Intelligence comes from 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.?
Promotion of Thought Crime
?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.?
- Bill of Rights, Amendment I
The Anti-Defamation League has been leading the fight for thought crime legislation. It was through their efforts that the FBI began tracking ?Hate Crimes? and it was the ADL who has lobbied hardest for state and federal hate crime laws. Under the Orwellian-sounding ?hate crimes? laws, American citizens would receive different sentences for the same crime, depending on whether or not their thoughts are ?Politically Correct? on issues relating to homosexuality, race, nationality, and politics. Ultimately, having certain ?politically incorrect? opinions would become a crime in itself. These new laws would make it a crime to say or publish any fact or opinion that could ?incite racial hatred and bigotry?.
The promotion of Hate Crime legislation, which would designate Jews and other minorities as special classes of citizens, is a primary concern to the ADL. Top on the list in 1999 was the ?Hate Crimes Prevention Act? that would have given federal prosecutors new authority to prosecute crimes against minorities and circumvent the Constitution?s protection against Double Jeopardy. Though the measure failed because of Republican opposition, the ADL vowed to fight on. A Jewish Telegraphic Agency story titled ?Jewish groups did not get all they wanted in Congress? dated November 20, 1999 explains:
?But on their other top priorities, Jewish groups were not as successful.?
?Tougher hate crimes legislation was dropped during the final days of negotiations over the budget bill.?
?Michael Lieberman, the Anti-Defamation League?s Washington counsel, said his group will push for the measure again when Congress comes back in January.?
The ADL has pioneered Thought Crime and what they call ?Hate Crime? legislation. The ADL web site proudly admits to the ADL?s leading role in the introduction to their 1999 Hate Crime Laws article:
?ADL has long been in the forefront of national and state efforts to deter and counteract hate-motivated criminal activity.?
?In June 1993, the United States Supreme Court upheld a Wisconsin hate crime statute that was based on model legislation originally drafted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in 1981.?
Role in Internet Censorship
In an attempt to limit access to unapproved web sites on the world wide web, the ADL pioneered what they call their ?Hate Filter?. The ADL has promoted their Hate Filter to parents who want to limit what the ADL considers objectionable content. More insidious are efforts by the ADL to provide their Hate Filter to public institutions such as public libraries, schools and colleges. The ADL has also worked with major Internet carries like America Online (AOL) to create ?Terms of Service? which would prohibit any speech the ADL finds offensive.
The ADL web site proudly claims that their Hate Filter:
?.protects children by blocking access to World Wide Web sites of individuals or groups that, in the judgment of the Anti-Defamation League, advocate hatred, bigotry or even violence towards Jews or other groups on the basis of their religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or other immutable characteristics.?
Limiting facts or opinions the ADL find objectionable is not limited to their Hate Filter. ADL operatives now work with major Internet providers such as AOL to limit access to objectionable web site. Subscribers to these services that post opinions that the ADL doesn?t like on their web pages or on Usenet are notified that their accounts are cancelled.
The ADL works to ensure that commercial ISPs create terms of service that limit what their users can read or say. By lobbying commercial carriers to censor their users, the ADL acheives their aim of outlawing free speech and expression without the contraints of the First Amendment?s protections.
An ADL press release from October 21, 1996 titled ?New ADL Report Documents Increased Use of Internet By Haters; ADL and AOL Explore Ways To Set Standards Against Hate Online,? ADL National Director, Abe Foxman, explains typical ADL double-talk how they are working with AOL to set policies against politically incorrect speech. These policies, known as ?Terms of Service? can then be used by commercial carriers to enforce speech regulations without concern for Constitutional Rights.
?We are working with America Online to create an atmosphere of responsibility on-line, to set standards within the framework of the First Amendment that will give assurances to parents, educators and communities that there is no tolerance for hate on-line.?
In a follow-up press release from April 7, 1997 titled ?ADL Calls On America Online To Adhere To Own Guidelines Regarding Hate Material? the ADL explains their relationship with AOL and what ?standards within the framework of the First Amendment? means.
?In the past, the League has been gratified by the responsiveness of AOL to complaints about racism and bigotry but now calls on AOL to adhere to their terms of service regarding hate material with equal vigilance as those regarding pornography.?
?While we strongly believe in freedom of speech and do not advocate censorship on the Internet,? said Mr. Foxman, ? we expect those companies which have created guidelines to adhere to them.?
?AOL?s terms of service state that AOL, Inc., its affiliates and ICPs have the right to remove content they deem, in their discretion, ?harmful? or ?offensive.? The League calls on AOL to live up to its own commitments.?
In the ADL article ?Responding to Extemist Speech Online: 10 Frequently Asked Questions?, the ADL explains how they work around the Constitution to stifle free speech. In this article, the ADL suggests the following:
?Commercial ISPs, such as America Online (AOL), may voluntarily agree to prohibit users from sending racist or bigoted messages over their services. Such prohibitions do not implicate First Amendment rights because they are entered into through private contracts and do not involve government action in any way.
?Once an ISP promulgates such regulations, it must monitor the use of its service to ensure that the regulations are followed. If a violation does occur, the ISP should, as a contractual matter, take action to prevent it from happening again. For example, if a participant in a chat room engages in racist speech in violation of the ?terms of service? of the ISP, his account could be cancelled, or he could be forbidden from using the chat room in the future. ISPs should encourage users to report suspected violations to company representatives.?
The ADL suggests in the same article that Universities limit the use of their computer systems to prevent students from promoting or reading objectionable material.
?Because private universities are not agents of the government, they may forbid users from engaging in offensive speech using university equipment or university services.?
?Nonetheless, public universities may promulgate content-neutral regulations that effectively prevent the use of school facilities or services by extremists. For example, a university may limit use of its computers and server to academic activities only. This would likely prevent a student from creating a racist Web site for propaganda purposes or from sending racist E-mail from his student E-mail account. One such policy ? at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana ? stipulates that its computer services are ?provided in support of the educational, research and public service missions of the University and its use must be limited to those purposes.?
Conclusions
Behind this mask of humanitarian public service hides an organization with links to organized crime, murder squads, a domestic spying ring used to ?monitor? tens of thousands of Americans, and the Mossad, the secret police and assassination service of the Israeli government. With the help of a friendly media, the ADL has become the premier lobby for Jewish interests in America, and the source of hate crime legislation and curtailment of First Amendment freedom of speech through their attempted censorship of the Internet.[/justify]
Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'n
Moderator: Le Tocard
-
Dejuificator II
- Erudit
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:47 pm
Last edited by Dejuificator II on Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nous serons toujours là.
-
Dejuificator II
- Erudit
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:47 pm
[justify][large]Bnai Brith ADL on the German-Jewish Tragedy[/large]
ADL is under B?Nai B?rith
B'nai B'rith Magazine, May 1933.
CRITICISM is heard: B¹nai B¹rith did not join the public protests against the German-Jewish tragedy! The power of B¹nai B¹rith was not exploited sufficiently in the public press! What an opportunity B¹nai B¹rith had to keep its fame on the front pages in this crisis!
Such things have been said.
The members of this organization have cause to be proud of their affiliation with a Jewish body that obscured its own prestige in order to serve its German brethren the better. Not the glory of B¹nai B¹rith but the safety of German Jews was paramount at the moment and quietly B¹nai B¹rith moved to the defense of these brethren through the strong hand of the State Department.
What was the position of American Jewry in the tragic hour? It was as if a robber had entered one¹s house and seized one¹s child and held it for a shield? ³You shoot at me and you kill your child!²
What does a man do in such a pass? Shoot? He puts aside his pistol. He considers other means of meeting the crisis.
With the Hitler government threatening reprisals against Jews, should B¹nai B¹rith have rushed forward with loud protests? In the eyes of the unthinking this might have enhanced the prestige of B¹nai B¹rith? ³How courageous is B¹nai B¹rith!² they might have said.
B¹nai B¹rith puts aside the opportunity for valor (5,000 miles from the scene of danger!) and with what power is in its hand and in co-operation with other Jewish agencies, set in motion the diplomatic efforts that are already historic. Aye, B¹nai B¹rith might have thrown itself alone into the breach so that it could be said of it, ³Single-handed this organization battles for the rights of Jewry.² But B¹nai B¹rith greatly desires unity in Israel and it marched with other organizations and still so marches.
If there has not been complete unity in Israel in this crisis, it is no fault of B¹nai Brith.
Weeks before the German-Jewish tragedy became the pain of all Jewry, B¹nai B¹rith, conscious of forebodings, took steps, met with the leaders of other organizations, considered what was best to do, having always in mind that nothing ought to be done that would endanger rather than mitigate the unhappy situation of the German Jews.
This policy directs and will continue to direct every move of B¹nai B¹rith acting in co-operation with the American Jewish Committee. We have no quarrel with other organizations that went their own way to make public protest. We believe, however, that time will show that the policy of B¹nai B¹rith is founded on better wisdom. We regret that in the momentous hour American Jewry is not united.
Even those who were at first hot for public protest have come to see that discretion is the better part of valor in an hour when lives are in the balance. They have announced that ³In deference to the wishes of the State Department² they ³refrain from making (further) comment on the tragic situation of the Jews in Germany.²
For B¹nai B¹rith there was, besides, a poignant special cause to restrain it from action that might seem rash in the moment. It has fraternal ties with many Jews in Germany where the finest of Jewry is included in the membership of B¹nai B¹rith. Hostile public words or actions by B¹nai B¹rith in America might have reflected dangerously on the B¹nai B¹rith of Germany of whom it mi ght have been said by their enemies, ³They have instigated their fellow members in America against us.
The conscience of B¹nai B¹rith could never have acquitted itself had any ill-considered action by the Order in America caused injury to our brethren in Germany.
And what of the future? It may be answered that B¹nai B¹rith in co-operation with the American Jewish Committee is alert; that things are being carefully done; that perfect unity of speech and action exists between the B¹nai B¹rith and the American Jewish Committee.
If the Jews desire the unity of all Israel in America in the presence of this tragedy they can have it by demanding it of the organizations that represent them. As for B¹nai B¹rith, it feels that its action in this crisis will make a worthy chapter of its history.[/justify]
ADL is under B?Nai B?rith
B'nai B'rith Magazine, May 1933.
CRITICISM is heard: B¹nai B¹rith did not join the public protests against the German-Jewish tragedy! The power of B¹nai B¹rith was not exploited sufficiently in the public press! What an opportunity B¹nai B¹rith had to keep its fame on the front pages in this crisis!
Such things have been said.
The members of this organization have cause to be proud of their affiliation with a Jewish body that obscured its own prestige in order to serve its German brethren the better. Not the glory of B¹nai B¹rith but the safety of German Jews was paramount at the moment and quietly B¹nai B¹rith moved to the defense of these brethren through the strong hand of the State Department.
What was the position of American Jewry in the tragic hour? It was as if a robber had entered one¹s house and seized one¹s child and held it for a shield? ³You shoot at me and you kill your child!²
What does a man do in such a pass? Shoot? He puts aside his pistol. He considers other means of meeting the crisis.
With the Hitler government threatening reprisals against Jews, should B¹nai B¹rith have rushed forward with loud protests? In the eyes of the unthinking this might have enhanced the prestige of B¹nai B¹rith? ³How courageous is B¹nai B¹rith!² they might have said.
B¹nai B¹rith puts aside the opportunity for valor (5,000 miles from the scene of danger!) and with what power is in its hand and in co-operation with other Jewish agencies, set in motion the diplomatic efforts that are already historic. Aye, B¹nai B¹rith might have thrown itself alone into the breach so that it could be said of it, ³Single-handed this organization battles for the rights of Jewry.² But B¹nai B¹rith greatly desires unity in Israel and it marched with other organizations and still so marches.
If there has not been complete unity in Israel in this crisis, it is no fault of B¹nai Brith.
Weeks before the German-Jewish tragedy became the pain of all Jewry, B¹nai B¹rith, conscious of forebodings, took steps, met with the leaders of other organizations, considered what was best to do, having always in mind that nothing ought to be done that would endanger rather than mitigate the unhappy situation of the German Jews.
This policy directs and will continue to direct every move of B¹nai B¹rith acting in co-operation with the American Jewish Committee. We have no quarrel with other organizations that went their own way to make public protest. We believe, however, that time will show that the policy of B¹nai B¹rith is founded on better wisdom. We regret that in the momentous hour American Jewry is not united.
Even those who were at first hot for public protest have come to see that discretion is the better part of valor in an hour when lives are in the balance. They have announced that ³In deference to the wishes of the State Department² they ³refrain from making (further) comment on the tragic situation of the Jews in Germany.²
For B¹nai B¹rith there was, besides, a poignant special cause to restrain it from action that might seem rash in the moment. It has fraternal ties with many Jews in Germany where the finest of Jewry is included in the membership of B¹nai B¹rith. Hostile public words or actions by B¹nai B¹rith in America might have reflected dangerously on the B¹nai B¹rith of Germany of whom it mi ght have been said by their enemies, ³They have instigated their fellow members in America against us.
The conscience of B¹nai B¹rith could never have acquitted itself had any ill-considered action by the Order in America caused injury to our brethren in Germany.
And what of the future? It may be answered that B¹nai B¹rith in co-operation with the American Jewish Committee is alert; that things are being carefully done; that perfect unity of speech and action exists between the B¹nai B¹rith and the American Jewish Committee.
If the Jews desire the unity of all Israel in America in the presence of this tragedy they can have it by demanding it of the organizations that represent them. As for B¹nai B¹rith, it feels that its action in this crisis will make a worthy chapter of its history.[/justify]
Nous serons toujours là.
-
Dejuificator II
- Erudit
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:47 pm
[justify][large]B?nai B?rith and ADL Hypocritical, Say Critics[/large]
?They say, but they do not do what they say? - Jesus Christ
On June 18th the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a powerful political advocacy wing of B?nai B?rith that focuses largely on suppression of anti-Semitic ?hate-groups?, flexed its considerable political muscle against an organization whose only crime they claim is ?refuting the Holocaust.?
B?nai B?rith?s ADL, ignoring that glowingly obsolete and irrelevant document called the First Article of Amendment to the Constitution, has issued a press release stating that they have ?urged the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the non-profit status granted to a Holocaust-denying organization. The California-based Institute for Historical Review (IHR) and its parent organization, Legion for the Survival of Freedom, Inc., have recently been granted 501(c)(3) status.?[1]
IHR claims that there are two lies in that statement alone. The first being that the Institute, according to its director Mark Weber, does not deny the Holocaust, only some of the numbers and many of the traditional historically accepted incidents surrounding it. Secondly, again according to IHR, they were not ?recently? granted tax-exempt status but IHR and its parent organization have held that not-for-profit standing for over forty years.
Weber, director of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), took his master?s degree in European History from Indiana University, has been certified by Canadian courts as an expert on the Holocaust, the ?Final Solution? and modern Jewish history, and has taught English, history and geography to African children in Ghana.
?I grew up very pro-Israeli,? Weber told The WINDS, then he encountered the culture shock of truth ?that anyone who spends any time overseas understands very quickly that the way we look at the whole Middle East is very different in our media, compared even to, say, the British media or any other country. When talking with others it took no great amount of time for me?or anyone for that matter,?to disabuse me of my really sterling views I had on such matters.?
Mr. Weber?s observations about the American media were strongly reminiscent of the interview this reporter had with the British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard who told The WINDS that even compared to England, let alone the rest of the world, the American press is very highly controlled.
?Concerning B?nai B?rith, the ADL and others, I?m just struck over and over again how these Jewish organizations condemn and denounce practices done in this country that they passionately defend when they?re done in Israel. It?s a tremendous double standard.
?I?m not at all against the Jews having a state of their own. What I am against is that the U.S. supports policies in Israel that we wouldn?t support in any other country.
?Just the other week there was a vote in the United Nations on upgrading the observer status of the Palestinian Delegation. The vote was 124 to 4 in favor of the Palestinians. The only country voting against was the United States, Israel, Micronesia and the Federated Pacific States?two dependencies of the the United States. Essentially, the whole rest of the world took a different view than the United States.?
Those of the Jewish community who see the truth of this, Weber says, and speak out against it?and there are many?are called ?self-hating Jews? by such organizations as ADL.
?I?m especially appalled at what I regard as the prostitution of our political leadership to these interests. They just fall over each other. Gingrich, Gore, Clinton?they just prostrate themselves in a shameless bid for Jewish money and support.
?The proof of the power of the Jewish lobby in Washington is that unlike other lobbies that might arguably be very powerful?like the tobacco lobby and the gun-control lobby?the Jewish lobby has no effective opposition. The NRA may be a powerful lobby but there are plenty of voices that oppose the NRA. There is nothing comparable to that in opposition to the Jewish lobby.
B?nai B?rith and the ADL have labeled the Institute for Historical Review as anti-Semitic because it expresses apparently documented disagreement with ADL?s position on the Holocaust. Whether or not that documentation is genuine, or even if IHR?s motives are anti-Semitic, is not at issue. What is at issue is whether they have the right to express them.
B?nai B?rith claims it ?is the only Jewish organization to maintain a full-time presence in the United Nations?? seemingly to imply that they are the only legitimate voice of the Jewish people in the UN, yet its practices seem to defy the very tenets they have helped establish in that international body.
Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.? [2]
??It is very troubling to us,? ADL?s complaint to the IRS continues, ?that a group whose identity centers on refuting the Holocaust should be granted tax-exempt status,? wrote Elizabeth Coleman, ADL Director, Civil Rights Division, in a letter to Charles O. Rossotti, Commissioner, IRS.?
It might logically be asked what legal difference the IRS could possibly see between two groups claiming tax-exempt status, one promoting the conventional view of the Holocaust and the other refuting that view.
??Far from being an educational or public-service organization committed to exploring historical events, IHR is the major center for Holocaust-denial propaganda and anti-Semitic vitriol,? continued Ms. Coleman. ?We question the decision granting this group the benefits afforded to legitimate non-profit educational institutions and urge you to reconsider.??
Additionally, B?nai B?rith?s ADL accuses the Institute of distributing ?a number of books and propaganda materials saturated with anti-Semitic innuendo.?
Is it not interesting how one?s own position consists of solid data and information while the opposing faction?s material is just ?propaganda?? Perusing IHR?s materials and website, this agency was unable to uncover any expressions of ?anti-Semitic vitriol? or even ?Holocaust-denial propaganda.?
Unparalleled Ability to Monitor and Shape Events
B?nai B?rith, whose name in Hebrew means ?Brotherhood of the Covenant,? was founded over 150 years ago and is primarily a political and social advocacy organization for Jewish people and causes around the world.
?B?nai B?rith is a network of members in 55 nations around the world,? the organization claims, ?providing us with an unparalleled ability to monitor and shape events.? [3] Those last two words, ?shape events,? are indeed, as shall be seen, an apt description of the consummate abilities of B?nai B?rith and the Anti-Defamation League.
There are apparently a growing number of prominent Jews, many of respected academic achievement, who are strongly opposed to much of what is being practiced publicly in the name of Judaism. Among those, according to Ha?aretz, a Jewish daily newspaper published in Israel, are Ruth Bettina Birn of Canada, ?a German living in Toronto?recognized as an international expert on Nazi war crimes,?[4] and Norman J. Finkelstein of Hunter College, University of New York.
In a feature article published by Ha?aretz, the author, Tom Segev, quotes Birn and Finkelstein in their scathing critique of a best-selling book on the Holocaust by Daniel Goldhagen entitled Hitler?s Willing Executioners. So popular has Goldhagen?s book become in Judaism that in many circles he is referred to as ?Mr. Holocaust.?[ibid]
Accosted as a supremely unacademic piece of work, the newspaper claims, ?Many scholars have attacked [Goldhagen's] thesis, which boils down to this: all the Germans took part in the murder of the Jews because all of them are anti-Semitic.? That ?thesis? by Goldhagen seems to be the embodiment, in a few words, of the prevailing technique used to slur and discredit anyone who lays a finger on the sacred cow of the Holocaust.
The Ha?aretz columnist says that, in reviewing Goldhagen?s book, Birn and Finkelstein ?have done the unthinkable: they have checked his references, one by one, and reached the conclusion that Hitler?s Willing Executioners is not worthy of being called an academic text. It is a tiresome task,? the author continues, ?requiring a comparison of texts and a careful examination of sources?.? [ibid.]
It should be noted that Ha?aretz is a major Jewish newspaper published in Israel even though it seems to have little tolerance for any academic and intellectual dishonesty on the part of its fellow countrymen. The Ha?aretz writer goes on to make the claim that is most certainly at the heart of nearly every controversy and dispute surrounding Jewish/Holocaust issues. ?As things stand now,? Segev says, ?anyone who criticizes Goldhagen is an anti-Semite, possibly a Holocaust-denier, and certainly an opponent of the State of Israel.?
That term ?Holocaust-denier? is one with which the Institute for Historical Review is most painfully aware. As pointed out earlier, even though they do not in any way deny the existence of the Holocaust, they do challenge many of the claims of its appalling intensity asserting that the numbers and incidents were greatly exaggerated. And that has been the source of their troubles with the Jewish community. It must again be noted that what is truly at contest is not whether the IHR?s claims about the Holocaust are true or false, but whether they, or anyone else, have the right to even express ideas dissonant to the conventional mindset of that terrible period of history.
So riddled, it seems, with academic dishonesty and error is Goldhagen?s book that Metropolitan Books in New York published a small volume entitled A Nation on Trial in which it includes ?Birn?s and Finkelstein?s critiques of Goldhagen?s book. All the claims are backed up.? However, according to Ha?aretz, there has been ?tremendous pressure exerted on the publishing company to keep it from coming out.? [ibid.]
?At a certain point,? the Ha?aretz columnist continues, the assault on Metropolitan Books ?bordered on cultural terrorism.? The apparent source of that ?cultural terrorism?, Abraham H. Foxman, National Director for the Anti-Defamation League, drafted a letter to the the publisher supporting Goldhagen?s book. Foxman stated that ?the issue is not whether Goldhagen?s thesis is right or wrong, but what is legitimate criticism?. Please excuse the impertinence, but when is ANY ?legitimate criticism? not based on what is right or wrong?[4]
?Historians all over the world, including Israel, agree that [Goldhagen] has written a bad book? but, apparently, facts do not sway those who would seek to eliminate any opinion but their own.[ibid.]
Ha?aretz?s Segev concludes that ?the formula goes like this: not only the Germans, but all the gentiles hate the Jews. Hence the need for Jewish unity and solidarity. Hence the need for more and more books about Jewish hatred, and the simpler and shallower they are, the better.?
Marco Polo Takes a Poison Pill
In the firestorm of these Jewish organ Color izations? exceedingly effective programs of censorship, few compare with the resulting destruction of the highly respected world magazine Marco Polo. In the February 1995 issue of the 250,000-circulation monthly was published a ten-page article by Japanese neurologist Dr. Masanori Nishioka entitled, ?The Greatest Taboo of Postwar World History: There were no Nazi ?Gas Chambers.??
Publisher Bungei Shunju, who also issues the Japanese language version of The Diary of Anne Frank, allowed Nishioka?s article into print ?only after Marco Polo staff members spent five months checking the author?s sources, conducting additional research, and carefully editing the text.? [5]
While Dr. Nishioka does not deny the Holocaust, he strenuously refutes its degree and intensity. ?Comparing the wartime fate of Europe?s Jews with that of Chinese killed by Japanese troops and the victims of American atomic bombings of Japanese cities, Nishioka concludes his article with an expression of sympathy for the ?tragic deaths? of many European Jews.? [ibid.] The result of this apparently meticulous piece of research was seppuku or, as the Japanese ritual of suicide is better known in the West, hara-kiri. It proved the death of the publication.
Through its embassy in Tokyo, the Israeli government formally protested to the Japanese government, while the Simon Wiesenthal Center of Los Angeles mounted a boycott campaign against the Bungei Shunju company.
The magazine?s initial response was a statement defending the provocative article. In explaining his decision to publish it, Marco Polo editor Kazuyoshi Hanada ? one of Japan?s most prominent journalists ? said that Dr. Nishioka had found evidence to show that standard views about gassings of Jews are not accurate. ?We would not run an article we thought was wrong,? Hanada said?.?
Marco Polo also generously announced that it would welcome a rebuttal of Nishioka?s article, offering both the Wiesenthal Center and the Israeli embassy an opportunity to respond with a ten-page article of its own.? That is a total of twenty pages of rebuttal to a ten-page article. ?The offer was promptly and predictably rejected.
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, deputy chief of the Wiesenthal Center, said: ?Their [the revisionist's] goal is to get debate going. They?re seeking to give legitimacy to their view.? In a Jan. 25 letter, the Israeli embassy wrote to the publisher: ?If your magazine is going to take a neutral observer position, that of a courtroom trial, in which both sides? arguments and claims are to be introduced, we must decline.?
The Wiesenthal Center mounted an international boycott campaign against Marco Polo advertisers, and quickly succeeded in persuading major firms ? including Volkswagen, Cartier, Philip Morris, Mitsubishi Motors and Mitsubishi Electric ? to cancel their advertising.? [With that kind of heavy-hitting advertising money you don't mess around].
As a result of the campaign, the Japanese government on January 30 issued a statement calling the Marco Polo article ?extremely improper.? A Foreign Ministry official added that Japanese embassies and consulates around the world would be instructed about the government?s ?position on the Holocaust.?
At a packed news conference?with Wiesenthal Center deputy director Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Bungei company president Kengo Tanaka formally apologized for causing Jews ?immeasurable pain? by publishing Nishioka?s article. To atone for its grievous sin, Tanaka said he had closed down the offending magazine for good, and had relieved the responsible staff members of their duties. All remaining copies of the February issue were being recalled and destroyed. Tanaka resigned a few days after the news conference.
A dissenting voice broke the tranquility of the canned news conference. Journalist, author and revisionist researcher Aiji Kimura loudly harangued Cooper and demanded that the company president explain specifically what was inaccurate about Nishioka?s article. Kimura also defended historical revisionism, speaking of its peaceful, truth-seeking motivation. Hundreds of fellow journalists responded to his remarks with spontaneous applause and expressions of agreement.
?Marco Polo was crushed,? Dr. Nishioka responded, ?by Jewish organizations using advertising [pressure]?.?[5]
It should be noted at this juncture that The WINDS takes no position either refuting or accepting ?Holocaust revision? nor is this said out of fear of reprisal by any of the political organizations mentioned that are the focus of this article?but, rather, because The WINDS has not researched the available material sufficiently to take a position on the issue. The focus of this news agency, rather, is the unfair and hypocritical posture taken by those Jewish organizations against those who do take the unpopular position of revisionism or even denial. That, while claiming reverence for freedom of speech and the press, they apparently leave no means unexploited to deny that freedom to those who disagree with them on the ?sacred? matter of their Holocaust.
The opinion has been expressed that the First Amendment was placed in the number one position because of its relative importance to the rest of the Bill of Rights. It now seems that it is there as the number one target for extinction. The extinction of the document, however, is not being accomplished by open assault but, rather, by groups and powerful individuals who masquerade as those venerating the Bill of Rights while simultaneously, under cover of hypocritical pretensions, are shredding it by their actions. Groups with these well-disguised motives appear to be such as B?nai B?rith, its Anti-Defamation League and its foreign affiliates, along with the Jewish Defense League and others.
A Jewish Activist Takes on Jewish Activist Organizations
?The ADL did a lot of good in this country up until they took a sharp turn to the left,? says Aaron Zelman, a soft-spoken, articulate Jewish activist for Second Amendment rights. ?They became a tool of left-wing politics. Once they did that they quit being objective.?
Mr. Zelman, himself a conservative Jew, the son of orthodox parents, sends his two children to orthodox schools, he says, in hopes of their learning about and keeping in touch with their Jewish heritage. At the same time, he heads an organization called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JFPO) and is quite outspoken about what he perceives as the extreme damage groups like B?nai B?rith and the Anti-Defamation League do?and have done?to Judaism?especially in the approach they take against those who oppose their views on the Holocaust.
?The Holocaust in Germany,? Mr. Zelman says, ?was just one of several holocausts?against humanity in general.?
While he does not dispute the popular Jewish/world doctrine on the event, Zelman?s position about the ?Jewish? Holocaust is that, in the overall picture, it is not nearly as significant as the vast majority of his fellow Jews make it out to be.
?Holocaust, slash, genocides have happened to lots of people?not just Jews?.In fact if you look at the Nazi genocide, the records indicate they murdered more non-Jews than Jews.?
?Some of the methods the ADL uses are despicable,? Zelman claims. ?We?ve locked horns with them in the past and confronted them suggesting that they shouldn?t consider themselves a Jewish organization.?
Those at Marco Polo are not the only ones with which ADL has refused to enter into meaningful dialogue. ?We?ve claimed that they lie about the militia movement in America. We challenged them to a public debate and they wouldn?t do it? ? perhaps, somewhat in the manner in which they will not engage in public debate about Holocaust history and figures, according to the Institute for Historical Review. They are unwilling to debate the issues but prefer, rather, to attack the people presenting them?a somewhat modified take on killing the messenger because of the contents of the message.
?I think people need to start challenging them to public debates,? Zelman says. ?If they?re not going to do it then they must not have much to stand on.?
Mr. Zelman Speaks His Mind
?The ADL is essentially a misguided organization and dangerously stupid. One of the problems with a lot of the Jewish leaders (and I use the word ?leaders? in double quotes) is that they don?t understand or appreciate the Bill of Rights.
?On Jewish-American History:
?The majority of Jews have come to America over the last 150 years or so and they come from socialist societies and they believe in big government?they are comfortable with big government. They came to America primarily for two reasons,??the same two reasons, it seems, which originally drew our first European settlers. ?One?to be able to practice Judaism [freedom of religion?]; two?to be able to earn a living.
?But what they don?t do,? Zelman observes, ?is they don?t embrace American ideals that are embodied in the Bill of Rights. They don?t understand the Bill of Rights. Abe Foxman [head of the Anti-Defamation League] does not understand the Bill of Rights?he fundamentally does not grasp the Bill of Rights. He does not have the intellectual capability to appreciate the Bill of Rights.
?He?s not alone,? Zelman adds. ?This is typical of the majority of Jewish leaders in this country even if they were born here. They do not appreciate, they do not grasp, they do not comprehend all of the Bill of Rights for all citizens. They don?t understand the document. We say around here it?s sort of a defect in the gene-pool. In other words, they brought this lack of understanding and appreciation for liberty with them?and then passed it on to their children, their grandkids, great-grandkids and so on. This is one of the problems that Americans have in trying to figure out ?What?s with these Jews? Don?t they like America? Don?t they like the freedom that America offers people??
?Most of these Jewish leaders don?t understand that it was a Jew by the name of Hiem Solomon, a personal friend of George Washington, who helped raise money to back the American Revolution. He was a Jew who believed so much in freedom and liberty that he personally gave $640,000 over 200 years ago for the American Revolution.
?The point I?m making is that if you talk about Hiem Solomon to the American Jewish community today, they don?t care. They don?t appreciate the sacrifice?they really don?t.
?To quote Michael Medved, an orthodox Jewish talk-show host, he says reformed Judaism is essentially the Democratic Party with holidays. There are Jews who appreciate the Bill of Rights, and then there are Jews like Abe Foxman, and the leaders of the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, who don?t have a clue about what the Bill of Rights means. Not a clue! And that?s why they?re more concerned with ingratiating themselves with whomever?s in power ? even if the people in power are evil. They will do this rather than to take a position that is in the best interest of all Americans.
?If you study the history of the Jewish leadership in Nazi Germany, the leaders of the Udronaut, the Jewish council, they collaborated with the Nazis. These are the people who made lists of Jews to put on the cattle cars to go to their deaths. They did this because the Jews have always mistakenly felt that if you collaborate with evil?whoever is running the government?things will be better for you.
?On Modern Judaism:
?The leadership of the Jewish community today is so far removed from basic Jewish concepts that for them to call themselves Jews is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler calling himself a Jew. These people haven?t got a clue about real Judaism?not a clue. They know more about peanut butter and jelly sandwiches than they do about Judaism.?
?On the UN:
?The world needs the United Nations like it needs a syphilis epidemic.?
When asked what he thought of the conspiracy theories that point to Jewish Zionists as the driving force behind the New World Order and a world government, Mr. Zelman responded that he did not believe in such a movement. ?How can a people that comprise less than two percent of the population,? he questioned, ?wield such power??
B?nai B?rith?s own figures, in answer to Mr. Zelman?s rhetorical question, list the current number of senators and congressmen they claim are Jewish. The names on that list (ten senators and twenty-four representatives) comprise fully ten percent of the Senate and nearly six percent in the House, which gives them three to five times that of their percentage in the general population.
IHR?s Mark Weber concurs with B?nai B?rith in this matter. ?Jews make up about two percent of the population,? he said, ?but have something like six times that representation in places like the Presidential Cabinet, the Executive Branch overall?and of course in media its just unbelievable.?
?Spinning? The Middle East Issues
B?nai B?rith seemingly attempts to engender a form of political tunnel vision among not only the Jewish people, but the world at large as to who really counts in the Middle East. A typical example of this is illustrated in the first press release listed on their web site under the heading ?B?nai B?rith Speaks Out? entitled ?B?nai B?rith Calls On Arafat To Eliminate Anti-Israel, Antisemitic [sic] References From Palestinian Broadcasts?.
It cannot be imagined that B?nai B?rith has forgotten that Yasser Arafat is the acknowledged spokesman for a people as fully Semitic as the Jews, therefore, in this instance, not only rendering the epithet of ?antisemitic? meaningless, but ridiculous as well. This appears to be part of an ongoing effort to define Semites as Jews only and a standard approach Israel has always taken with Palestinians?to deny by inference and direct attack that they are somehow of lesser humanity than themselves.
B?nai B?rith also projects the image that they, and they alone, are the definitive source of information on how history should be viewed?especially when any aspect of the Holocaust is involved. An example of this can be found in a B?nai B?rith press release in which the organization?s president, Tommy Baer took extreme exception to a statement made by Nagasaki Mayor Hitoshi Motoshima in which the mayor stated that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was ?one of the two greatest crimes against humanity in the 20th century, along with the Holocaust.?
In Baer?s response he stated that ?the bombings and the Holocaust cannot be compared and should not be linked.?
Why? ?The U.S. bombing was undertaken,? Baer remonstrated, ?after the sovereign government of the Japanese people?refused repeated U.S. offers of peace?.The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a last-ditch act of war.?
Translation: ?They? deserved to have their innocent men, women and children incinerated. ?We? did not.
That the statements by B?nai B?rith are historically untrue is no hidden fact to anyone willing to do some reading. Documents all along the historic time line from August of 1945 to the present clearly show that Japan began as early as August of 1944 to make peace overtures toward the United States. This historical ?revision? is clearly set forth, among others, by a Jewish historian Gar Alperovitz in his meticulously documented 850-page tome, ?The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.?[6]
In documented opposition to B?nai B?rith?s claim, Alperovitz?s and other?s research show clearly that President Truman, urged on by Secretary of State James Byrnes, fully intended that the atomic bomb should be used as both a live field-test on a virgin target to determine its results on human subjects and, also, to intimidate the Soviets into greater submission in postwar negotiations. Those documents also show that, with the exception of Byrnes, none of Truman?s advisors, even in the military, had any objection to acceding to Japan?s only provision to ?unconditional surrender??that the Emperor would not be punished or removed.
Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II, Fleet Admiral William Leahy, said the use of the atomic bomb on Japan was barbarous because ?the Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender?.in being the first to use [the atomic bomb] we?adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.? [emphasis supplied]. This makes B?nai B?rith?s rebuke of the Japanese mayor nonsense and blatant historical re-revisionism.
Apparently, no one has the privilege of invoking the Holocaust as a genuine tragedy except B?nai B?rith, or at least in a context approved by them and compatible with their ?dictionary?.
The Anti-Defamation League, B?nai B?rith and their political arms do not target only the non-Jewish population with their opinion-shaping efforts. They have been quite successful in manipulating the outlook of their Jewish brethren also. So effective has the campaign been to label Jews as the constant target of discrimination and bigotry, that most of them actually believe it themselves. According to IHR?s Weber, ?A poll taken in the San Francisco area indicated that fully one-third of Jews surveyed thought that anti-Semitism was so strong that a Jew could not be elected to the U.S. Congress. The survey was taken at the very time when three of the four congressional representatives were Jewish and the mayor of San Francisco was Jewish?and well identified as Jewish.?
Censorship by Filter
There are organizations who attempt to dictate exactly to what information the poor, terminally ignorant Gentile and Jewish public should have access. They do this by, among other means, pressuring Internet servers into refusing to continue hosting ?hateful Web sites?. MSNBC columnist Brock Meeks says, ?This is a tactic the Simon Wiesenthal Center has chosen to use and for which it has been soundly, and rightly, thrashed.?
Meeks, however, goes on to laud the ADL for their ?even-handed approach? toward ?High Tech Hate? on the Internet. He quotes them as saying, ??Hate must be countered with information that promotes understanding, tolerance and truth.? In other words,? Meeks translates, ?the best way to fight hate speech is with more speech.?
The ADL themselves make the statement that they are ?a staunch advocate of the First Amendment, [and] the League has never advocated the censorship of controversial literature, no matter how offensive.? [7]
Will someone please ?splain how the foregoing harmonizes with ADL?s attempt at getting the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Institute for Historical Review? Is this countering hate ?with information that promotes understanding, tolerance and truth?? Or is it a very real attempt at practical censorship? Would Mr. Rogers respond with, ?Can you spell hypocrisy??
A recent alliance between the ADL and software maker Cyber Patrol resulted in an announcement of ?a new filter that will bar access to anti-Semitic, racist, and other forms of hate speech online.?[8] On last check, the First Amendment makes no differentiation in its ?freedom of speech? clause between ?anti-Semitic, racist, and other forms? of speech and what ADL would call legitimate freedom of expression?which seems more and more to be that which is defined only by them. They are, however, quite willing to share their dictionary with the rest of the world?whether or not the world wants it.
Typical of the standards of Internet filter software manufacturers is the censorship criteria published by SurfWatch. Their blocking criteria is broken down into four major categories:
Sexually Explicit
Violence/Hate Speech
Drugs/Alcohol
Gambling
Under the ?Violence/Hate Speech? category are listed ten subheadings, the last of which is ?Holocaust revision/denial sites.? It must be asked why and how they arrived at the conclusion that the entire category of the Holocaust not included within traditional historical thinking is a taboo subject? Did those writing the software, or those publishing or commissioning it, check out the growing mountain of evidence against the currently accepted view of that event, and did they find it to be specious and wanting in credibility?
How does ?Holocaust revision/denial sites? harmonize with the intensity and moral turpitude inherent in SurfWatch?s other listings in the same subheading?
wanton and gratuitous violence
torture, mutilation and gore
bomb making instructions or encouragement of destructive acts
inciting violence
[Oops! Someone apparently forgot about Saturday morning children's cartoons].
the portrayal or encouragement of extreme cruelty, or of physically or emotionally abusive acts to any animal or person including injury or death
depiction of humans or animals injured or killed
militant organizations that encourage violence to or extermination of a specified population or government
satanic cults and rituals
hate speech toward humans or specified populations
In the seemingly endless attempts by these organizations to engage in functional censorship, a large and reputable publisher, St. Martin?s Press, has come under considerable fire for its decision to publish Goebbels a David Irving book about Hitler?s propaganda minister.
In the book Irving makes several controversial statements strenuously objected to by the ADL and other Jewish organizations. Consistently enough, the debate over the book does not center around the factualness of its content, but the author himself.
The Washington Post quotes St. Martin?s publisher Thomas Dunne as saying, ?Joseph Goebbels is doubtless laughing in Hell. He, after all, was the man who loved nothing better than burning books, threatening publishers, suppressing ideas, and judging the merits of ideas based not on their content but by their author?s racial, ethnic or political purity. That is indeed a sad irony.?
How did this publisher fare in standing up against their opposition? Strangely, the very next day after The Washington Post published Dunne?s statement, St. Martin?s cancelled the publication of Irving?s book. ?A humiliated St. Martin?s Press yesterday cancelled publication of its new book by historian David Irving, admitting that the work it had so righteously defended is in fact ?an insidious? piece of anti-Semitic propaganda.? [The Washington Post, April 3, 1996].
??It?s not a question of book burning or censorship,? said ADL Director Abraham Foxman. ?That?s just poppycock. It?s a question of responsibility. I think they finally made the right decision.?? [ibid.]
Jewish Terrorism! Isn?t that Stretching Things a Bit?
Another organization of apparently the same stripe as ADL is the Jewish Defense League (JDL). Although ADL claims that JDL?s philosophy of terrorism is at odds with ADL?s non-violent approach, some have likened the difference as to that between Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Army.
The Institute for Historical Review has been accused repeatedly of being an anti-Semitic hate group. In fact, historical revision of the Holocaust is only a part of their agenda?but it is the part that constantly gets them in trouble with Jewish watchdog groups like B?nai B?rith, ADL?and?the Jewish Defense League.
The IHR claims that, ?Far from being a fomenter of hate, the Institute has been a target of hate groups. During the 1980s, the Jewish Defense League [JDL]?repeatedly assaulted Institute offices and staff members. Following numerous death threats by telephone and mail, extensive property damage, five relatively minor fire bombings, one drive-by shooting and two physical assaults, the Institute?s office-warehouse was destroyed in an arson attack on July 4, 1984. Estimated property loss was more than $400,000, including tens of thousands of books, rare documents, irreplaceable files and expensive office equipment.?[9]
The Los Angeles Times reports that ?the Jewish Defense League?is the second most active terrorist group in the United States, according to FBI reports.?[10]
The Simon Wiesenthal Center
The Simon Wiesenthal Center was established in 1977 by Rabbi Marvin Hier under a grant from Jewish businessman Samuel Belzberg. Naming the Center after the famous ?Nazi Hunter? Hier parlayed Belzberg?s grant into one of the most powerful of Jewish organizations. The Los Angeles Times in a 1990 story claimed at that time that ??second in membership only to B?nai B?rith International with 380,000 members, the Simon Wiesenthal Center at times rivals the venerable American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and the World Jewish Congress for its impact and access to world leaders.? [11]
Alfred Lilienthal, a well known Jewish/American historian once said that this country is absorbed in what he calls ?Holocaustomania.? The Wiesenthal Center is apparently foremost among peers in promoting this form of backdoor racism and in marginalizing the need for any debate of historical issues with which it disagrees. The director of Israel?s Yad Vashem Holocaust Center was quoted in the Jewish Press and Ha?aretz Daily newspaper as saying that ?Rabbi Hier and the Wiesenthal Center are, in my opinion, the most extreme of those who utilize the Holocaust?.The Jewish people do many vulgar things,? he continued, ?but the Wiesenthal Center raised it to a complete level: The optimum use of sensitive issues in order to raise money?.? [12]
?The enormous success of the Simon Wiesenthal Center,? says New York Times Deputy Media Editor Judith Miller in her book One by One by One: Facing the Holocaust, [13]?has given new meaning to what was once a macabre in-house joke??There?s no business like shoah business?? shoah, of course, is the Hebrew word for Holocaust.
So influential have these Zionist organizations been in establishing their singular agenda for Holocaust definition that, ?to dispute Holocaust claims,? according to Mark Weber, ?is a crime in, among others, France, Germany, Austria and Spain.?
In France, for instance, the Fabius-Gayssot Law (13 July 1990), makes a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for up to a year and a fine up to 300,000 Franks ($50,000) to openly deny or dispute the Holocaust as defined in ?crimes against humanity? by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg following World War II.
Voltaire, arguably the most famous of French philosophers, once said, ?I do not agree with a thing you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.? Now, in Voltaire?s homeland, that philosophical right to freedom of speech has indeed been relegated to just that?philosophy.
If the Holocaust and its purported six million Jewish victims is provable fact, as the vast majority believe it to be, then it will stand against all who oppose it, and will do so by merely presentation and debate of the evidence. But when an individual or group seeks to close off debate and examination of evidence, they give another kind of evidence?that they, themselves, do not fully believe their claims.
Some will read the foregoing and conclude that the author is anti-Semitic. Some will know better. What is, in reality, presented here is nothing more or less than humanity. It is the nature of man to control all he can and to destroy all he cannot. This nature is based on fear. One does not need to be Nazi, Communist, Zionist, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or anything else in order to express this degeneracy. All one needs for the fruition of that nature is to be born on this planet. This is where lies the true defect in the gene pool. The sum of all disputes among men amounts to no more than two children holding the opposite ends of the same rope arguing who has the longest piece.[/justify]
?They say, but they do not do what they say? - Jesus Christ
On June 18th the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a powerful political advocacy wing of B?nai B?rith that focuses largely on suppression of anti-Semitic ?hate-groups?, flexed its considerable political muscle against an organization whose only crime they claim is ?refuting the Holocaust.?
B?nai B?rith?s ADL, ignoring that glowingly obsolete and irrelevant document called the First Article of Amendment to the Constitution, has issued a press release stating that they have ?urged the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the non-profit status granted to a Holocaust-denying organization. The California-based Institute for Historical Review (IHR) and its parent organization, Legion for the Survival of Freedom, Inc., have recently been granted 501(c)(3) status.?[1]
IHR claims that there are two lies in that statement alone. The first being that the Institute, according to its director Mark Weber, does not deny the Holocaust, only some of the numbers and many of the traditional historically accepted incidents surrounding it. Secondly, again according to IHR, they were not ?recently? granted tax-exempt status but IHR and its parent organization have held that not-for-profit standing for over forty years.
Weber, director of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), took his master?s degree in European History from Indiana University, has been certified by Canadian courts as an expert on the Holocaust, the ?Final Solution? and modern Jewish history, and has taught English, history and geography to African children in Ghana.
?I grew up very pro-Israeli,? Weber told The WINDS, then he encountered the culture shock of truth ?that anyone who spends any time overseas understands very quickly that the way we look at the whole Middle East is very different in our media, compared even to, say, the British media or any other country. When talking with others it took no great amount of time for me?or anyone for that matter,?to disabuse me of my really sterling views I had on such matters.?
Mr. Weber?s observations about the American media were strongly reminiscent of the interview this reporter had with the British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard who told The WINDS that even compared to England, let alone the rest of the world, the American press is very highly controlled.
?Concerning B?nai B?rith, the ADL and others, I?m just struck over and over again how these Jewish organizations condemn and denounce practices done in this country that they passionately defend when they?re done in Israel. It?s a tremendous double standard.
?I?m not at all against the Jews having a state of their own. What I am against is that the U.S. supports policies in Israel that we wouldn?t support in any other country.
?Just the other week there was a vote in the United Nations on upgrading the observer status of the Palestinian Delegation. The vote was 124 to 4 in favor of the Palestinians. The only country voting against was the United States, Israel, Micronesia and the Federated Pacific States?two dependencies of the the United States. Essentially, the whole rest of the world took a different view than the United States.?
Those of the Jewish community who see the truth of this, Weber says, and speak out against it?and there are many?are called ?self-hating Jews? by such organizations as ADL.
?I?m especially appalled at what I regard as the prostitution of our political leadership to these interests. They just fall over each other. Gingrich, Gore, Clinton?they just prostrate themselves in a shameless bid for Jewish money and support.
?The proof of the power of the Jewish lobby in Washington is that unlike other lobbies that might arguably be very powerful?like the tobacco lobby and the gun-control lobby?the Jewish lobby has no effective opposition. The NRA may be a powerful lobby but there are plenty of voices that oppose the NRA. There is nothing comparable to that in opposition to the Jewish lobby.
B?nai B?rith and the ADL have labeled the Institute for Historical Review as anti-Semitic because it expresses apparently documented disagreement with ADL?s position on the Holocaust. Whether or not that documentation is genuine, or even if IHR?s motives are anti-Semitic, is not at issue. What is at issue is whether they have the right to express them.
B?nai B?rith claims it ?is the only Jewish organization to maintain a full-time presence in the United Nations?? seemingly to imply that they are the only legitimate voice of the Jewish people in the UN, yet its practices seem to defy the very tenets they have helped establish in that international body.
Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.? [2]
??It is very troubling to us,? ADL?s complaint to the IRS continues, ?that a group whose identity centers on refuting the Holocaust should be granted tax-exempt status,? wrote Elizabeth Coleman, ADL Director, Civil Rights Division, in a letter to Charles O. Rossotti, Commissioner, IRS.?
It might logically be asked what legal difference the IRS could possibly see between two groups claiming tax-exempt status, one promoting the conventional view of the Holocaust and the other refuting that view.
??Far from being an educational or public-service organization committed to exploring historical events, IHR is the major center for Holocaust-denial propaganda and anti-Semitic vitriol,? continued Ms. Coleman. ?We question the decision granting this group the benefits afforded to legitimate non-profit educational institutions and urge you to reconsider.??
Additionally, B?nai B?rith?s ADL accuses the Institute of distributing ?a number of books and propaganda materials saturated with anti-Semitic innuendo.?
Is it not interesting how one?s own position consists of solid data and information while the opposing faction?s material is just ?propaganda?? Perusing IHR?s materials and website, this agency was unable to uncover any expressions of ?anti-Semitic vitriol? or even ?Holocaust-denial propaganda.?
Unparalleled Ability to Monitor and Shape Events
B?nai B?rith, whose name in Hebrew means ?Brotherhood of the Covenant,? was founded over 150 years ago and is primarily a political and social advocacy organization for Jewish people and causes around the world.
?B?nai B?rith is a network of members in 55 nations around the world,? the organization claims, ?providing us with an unparalleled ability to monitor and shape events.? [3] Those last two words, ?shape events,? are indeed, as shall be seen, an apt description of the consummate abilities of B?nai B?rith and the Anti-Defamation League.
There are apparently a growing number of prominent Jews, many of respected academic achievement, who are strongly opposed to much of what is being practiced publicly in the name of Judaism. Among those, according to Ha?aretz, a Jewish daily newspaper published in Israel, are Ruth Bettina Birn of Canada, ?a German living in Toronto?recognized as an international expert on Nazi war crimes,?[4] and Norman J. Finkelstein of Hunter College, University of New York.
In a feature article published by Ha?aretz, the author, Tom Segev, quotes Birn and Finkelstein in their scathing critique of a best-selling book on the Holocaust by Daniel Goldhagen entitled Hitler?s Willing Executioners. So popular has Goldhagen?s book become in Judaism that in many circles he is referred to as ?Mr. Holocaust.?[ibid]
Accosted as a supremely unacademic piece of work, the newspaper claims, ?Many scholars have attacked [Goldhagen's] thesis, which boils down to this: all the Germans took part in the murder of the Jews because all of them are anti-Semitic.? That ?thesis? by Goldhagen seems to be the embodiment, in a few words, of the prevailing technique used to slur and discredit anyone who lays a finger on the sacred cow of the Holocaust.
The Ha?aretz columnist says that, in reviewing Goldhagen?s book, Birn and Finkelstein ?have done the unthinkable: they have checked his references, one by one, and reached the conclusion that Hitler?s Willing Executioners is not worthy of being called an academic text. It is a tiresome task,? the author continues, ?requiring a comparison of texts and a careful examination of sources?.? [ibid.]
It should be noted that Ha?aretz is a major Jewish newspaper published in Israel even though it seems to have little tolerance for any academic and intellectual dishonesty on the part of its fellow countrymen. The Ha?aretz writer goes on to make the claim that is most certainly at the heart of nearly every controversy and dispute surrounding Jewish/Holocaust issues. ?As things stand now,? Segev says, ?anyone who criticizes Goldhagen is an anti-Semite, possibly a Holocaust-denier, and certainly an opponent of the State of Israel.?
That term ?Holocaust-denier? is one with which the Institute for Historical Review is most painfully aware. As pointed out earlier, even though they do not in any way deny the existence of the Holocaust, they do challenge many of the claims of its appalling intensity asserting that the numbers and incidents were greatly exaggerated. And that has been the source of their troubles with the Jewish community. It must again be noted that what is truly at contest is not whether the IHR?s claims about the Holocaust are true or false, but whether they, or anyone else, have the right to even express ideas dissonant to the conventional mindset of that terrible period of history.
So riddled, it seems, with academic dishonesty and error is Goldhagen?s book that Metropolitan Books in New York published a small volume entitled A Nation on Trial in which it includes ?Birn?s and Finkelstein?s critiques of Goldhagen?s book. All the claims are backed up.? However, according to Ha?aretz, there has been ?tremendous pressure exerted on the publishing company to keep it from coming out.? [ibid.]
?At a certain point,? the Ha?aretz columnist continues, the assault on Metropolitan Books ?bordered on cultural terrorism.? The apparent source of that ?cultural terrorism?, Abraham H. Foxman, National Director for the Anti-Defamation League, drafted a letter to the the publisher supporting Goldhagen?s book. Foxman stated that ?the issue is not whether Goldhagen?s thesis is right or wrong, but what is legitimate criticism?. Please excuse the impertinence, but when is ANY ?legitimate criticism? not based on what is right or wrong?[4]
?Historians all over the world, including Israel, agree that [Goldhagen] has written a bad book? but, apparently, facts do not sway those who would seek to eliminate any opinion but their own.[ibid.]
Ha?aretz?s Segev concludes that ?the formula goes like this: not only the Germans, but all the gentiles hate the Jews. Hence the need for Jewish unity and solidarity. Hence the need for more and more books about Jewish hatred, and the simpler and shallower they are, the better.?
Marco Polo Takes a Poison Pill
In the firestorm of these Jewish organ Color izations? exceedingly effective programs of censorship, few compare with the resulting destruction of the highly respected world magazine Marco Polo. In the February 1995 issue of the 250,000-circulation monthly was published a ten-page article by Japanese neurologist Dr. Masanori Nishioka entitled, ?The Greatest Taboo of Postwar World History: There were no Nazi ?Gas Chambers.??
Publisher Bungei Shunju, who also issues the Japanese language version of The Diary of Anne Frank, allowed Nishioka?s article into print ?only after Marco Polo staff members spent five months checking the author?s sources, conducting additional research, and carefully editing the text.? [5]
While Dr. Nishioka does not deny the Holocaust, he strenuously refutes its degree and intensity. ?Comparing the wartime fate of Europe?s Jews with that of Chinese killed by Japanese troops and the victims of American atomic bombings of Japanese cities, Nishioka concludes his article with an expression of sympathy for the ?tragic deaths? of many European Jews.? [ibid.] The result of this apparently meticulous piece of research was seppuku or, as the Japanese ritual of suicide is better known in the West, hara-kiri. It proved the death of the publication.
Through its embassy in Tokyo, the Israeli government formally protested to the Japanese government, while the Simon Wiesenthal Center of Los Angeles mounted a boycott campaign against the Bungei Shunju company.
The magazine?s initial response was a statement defending the provocative article. In explaining his decision to publish it, Marco Polo editor Kazuyoshi Hanada ? one of Japan?s most prominent journalists ? said that Dr. Nishioka had found evidence to show that standard views about gassings of Jews are not accurate. ?We would not run an article we thought was wrong,? Hanada said?.?
Marco Polo also generously announced that it would welcome a rebuttal of Nishioka?s article, offering both the Wiesenthal Center and the Israeli embassy an opportunity to respond with a ten-page article of its own.? That is a total of twenty pages of rebuttal to a ten-page article. ?The offer was promptly and predictably rejected.
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, deputy chief of the Wiesenthal Center, said: ?Their [the revisionist's] goal is to get debate going. They?re seeking to give legitimacy to their view.? In a Jan. 25 letter, the Israeli embassy wrote to the publisher: ?If your magazine is going to take a neutral observer position, that of a courtroom trial, in which both sides? arguments and claims are to be introduced, we must decline.?
The Wiesenthal Center mounted an international boycott campaign against Marco Polo advertisers, and quickly succeeded in persuading major firms ? including Volkswagen, Cartier, Philip Morris, Mitsubishi Motors and Mitsubishi Electric ? to cancel their advertising.? [With that kind of heavy-hitting advertising money you don't mess around].
As a result of the campaign, the Japanese government on January 30 issued a statement calling the Marco Polo article ?extremely improper.? A Foreign Ministry official added that Japanese embassies and consulates around the world would be instructed about the government?s ?position on the Holocaust.?
At a packed news conference?with Wiesenthal Center deputy director Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Bungei company president Kengo Tanaka formally apologized for causing Jews ?immeasurable pain? by publishing Nishioka?s article. To atone for its grievous sin, Tanaka said he had closed down the offending magazine for good, and had relieved the responsible staff members of their duties. All remaining copies of the February issue were being recalled and destroyed. Tanaka resigned a few days after the news conference.
A dissenting voice broke the tranquility of the canned news conference. Journalist, author and revisionist researcher Aiji Kimura loudly harangued Cooper and demanded that the company president explain specifically what was inaccurate about Nishioka?s article. Kimura also defended historical revisionism, speaking of its peaceful, truth-seeking motivation. Hundreds of fellow journalists responded to his remarks with spontaneous applause and expressions of agreement.
?Marco Polo was crushed,? Dr. Nishioka responded, ?by Jewish organizations using advertising [pressure]?.?[5]
It should be noted at this juncture that The WINDS takes no position either refuting or accepting ?Holocaust revision? nor is this said out of fear of reprisal by any of the political organizations mentioned that are the focus of this article?but, rather, because The WINDS has not researched the available material sufficiently to take a position on the issue. The focus of this news agency, rather, is the unfair and hypocritical posture taken by those Jewish organizations against those who do take the unpopular position of revisionism or even denial. That, while claiming reverence for freedom of speech and the press, they apparently leave no means unexploited to deny that freedom to those who disagree with them on the ?sacred? matter of their Holocaust.
The opinion has been expressed that the First Amendment was placed in the number one position because of its relative importance to the rest of the Bill of Rights. It now seems that it is there as the number one target for extinction. The extinction of the document, however, is not being accomplished by open assault but, rather, by groups and powerful individuals who masquerade as those venerating the Bill of Rights while simultaneously, under cover of hypocritical pretensions, are shredding it by their actions. Groups with these well-disguised motives appear to be such as B?nai B?rith, its Anti-Defamation League and its foreign affiliates, along with the Jewish Defense League and others.
A Jewish Activist Takes on Jewish Activist Organizations
?The ADL did a lot of good in this country up until they took a sharp turn to the left,? says Aaron Zelman, a soft-spoken, articulate Jewish activist for Second Amendment rights. ?They became a tool of left-wing politics. Once they did that they quit being objective.?
Mr. Zelman, himself a conservative Jew, the son of orthodox parents, sends his two children to orthodox schools, he says, in hopes of their learning about and keeping in touch with their Jewish heritage. At the same time, he heads an organization called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JFPO) and is quite outspoken about what he perceives as the extreme damage groups like B?nai B?rith and the Anti-Defamation League do?and have done?to Judaism?especially in the approach they take against those who oppose their views on the Holocaust.
?The Holocaust in Germany,? Mr. Zelman says, ?was just one of several holocausts?against humanity in general.?
While he does not dispute the popular Jewish/world doctrine on the event, Zelman?s position about the ?Jewish? Holocaust is that, in the overall picture, it is not nearly as significant as the vast majority of his fellow Jews make it out to be.
?Holocaust, slash, genocides have happened to lots of people?not just Jews?.In fact if you look at the Nazi genocide, the records indicate they murdered more non-Jews than Jews.?
?Some of the methods the ADL uses are despicable,? Zelman claims. ?We?ve locked horns with them in the past and confronted them suggesting that they shouldn?t consider themselves a Jewish organization.?
Those at Marco Polo are not the only ones with which ADL has refused to enter into meaningful dialogue. ?We?ve claimed that they lie about the militia movement in America. We challenged them to a public debate and they wouldn?t do it? ? perhaps, somewhat in the manner in which they will not engage in public debate about Holocaust history and figures, according to the Institute for Historical Review. They are unwilling to debate the issues but prefer, rather, to attack the people presenting them?a somewhat modified take on killing the messenger because of the contents of the message.
?I think people need to start challenging them to public debates,? Zelman says. ?If they?re not going to do it then they must not have much to stand on.?
Mr. Zelman Speaks His Mind
?The ADL is essentially a misguided organization and dangerously stupid. One of the problems with a lot of the Jewish leaders (and I use the word ?leaders? in double quotes) is that they don?t understand or appreciate the Bill of Rights.
?On Jewish-American History:
?The majority of Jews have come to America over the last 150 years or so and they come from socialist societies and they believe in big government?they are comfortable with big government. They came to America primarily for two reasons,??the same two reasons, it seems, which originally drew our first European settlers. ?One?to be able to practice Judaism [freedom of religion?]; two?to be able to earn a living.
?But what they don?t do,? Zelman observes, ?is they don?t embrace American ideals that are embodied in the Bill of Rights. They don?t understand the Bill of Rights. Abe Foxman [head of the Anti-Defamation League] does not understand the Bill of Rights?he fundamentally does not grasp the Bill of Rights. He does not have the intellectual capability to appreciate the Bill of Rights.
?He?s not alone,? Zelman adds. ?This is typical of the majority of Jewish leaders in this country even if they were born here. They do not appreciate, they do not grasp, they do not comprehend all of the Bill of Rights for all citizens. They don?t understand the document. We say around here it?s sort of a defect in the gene-pool. In other words, they brought this lack of understanding and appreciation for liberty with them?and then passed it on to their children, their grandkids, great-grandkids and so on. This is one of the problems that Americans have in trying to figure out ?What?s with these Jews? Don?t they like America? Don?t they like the freedom that America offers people??
?Most of these Jewish leaders don?t understand that it was a Jew by the name of Hiem Solomon, a personal friend of George Washington, who helped raise money to back the American Revolution. He was a Jew who believed so much in freedom and liberty that he personally gave $640,000 over 200 years ago for the American Revolution.
?The point I?m making is that if you talk about Hiem Solomon to the American Jewish community today, they don?t care. They don?t appreciate the sacrifice?they really don?t.
?To quote Michael Medved, an orthodox Jewish talk-show host, he says reformed Judaism is essentially the Democratic Party with holidays. There are Jews who appreciate the Bill of Rights, and then there are Jews like Abe Foxman, and the leaders of the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, who don?t have a clue about what the Bill of Rights means. Not a clue! And that?s why they?re more concerned with ingratiating themselves with whomever?s in power ? even if the people in power are evil. They will do this rather than to take a position that is in the best interest of all Americans.
?If you study the history of the Jewish leadership in Nazi Germany, the leaders of the Udronaut, the Jewish council, they collaborated with the Nazis. These are the people who made lists of Jews to put on the cattle cars to go to their deaths. They did this because the Jews have always mistakenly felt that if you collaborate with evil?whoever is running the government?things will be better for you.
?On Modern Judaism:
?The leadership of the Jewish community today is so far removed from basic Jewish concepts that for them to call themselves Jews is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler calling himself a Jew. These people haven?t got a clue about real Judaism?not a clue. They know more about peanut butter and jelly sandwiches than they do about Judaism.?
?On the UN:
?The world needs the United Nations like it needs a syphilis epidemic.?
When asked what he thought of the conspiracy theories that point to Jewish Zionists as the driving force behind the New World Order and a world government, Mr. Zelman responded that he did not believe in such a movement. ?How can a people that comprise less than two percent of the population,? he questioned, ?wield such power??
B?nai B?rith?s own figures, in answer to Mr. Zelman?s rhetorical question, list the current number of senators and congressmen they claim are Jewish. The names on that list (ten senators and twenty-four representatives) comprise fully ten percent of the Senate and nearly six percent in the House, which gives them three to five times that of their percentage in the general population.
IHR?s Mark Weber concurs with B?nai B?rith in this matter. ?Jews make up about two percent of the population,? he said, ?but have something like six times that representation in places like the Presidential Cabinet, the Executive Branch overall?and of course in media its just unbelievable.?
?Spinning? The Middle East Issues
B?nai B?rith seemingly attempts to engender a form of political tunnel vision among not only the Jewish people, but the world at large as to who really counts in the Middle East. A typical example of this is illustrated in the first press release listed on their web site under the heading ?B?nai B?rith Speaks Out? entitled ?B?nai B?rith Calls On Arafat To Eliminate Anti-Israel, Antisemitic [sic] References From Palestinian Broadcasts?.
It cannot be imagined that B?nai B?rith has forgotten that Yasser Arafat is the acknowledged spokesman for a people as fully Semitic as the Jews, therefore, in this instance, not only rendering the epithet of ?antisemitic? meaningless, but ridiculous as well. This appears to be part of an ongoing effort to define Semites as Jews only and a standard approach Israel has always taken with Palestinians?to deny by inference and direct attack that they are somehow of lesser humanity than themselves.
B?nai B?rith also projects the image that they, and they alone, are the definitive source of information on how history should be viewed?especially when any aspect of the Holocaust is involved. An example of this can be found in a B?nai B?rith press release in which the organization?s president, Tommy Baer took extreme exception to a statement made by Nagasaki Mayor Hitoshi Motoshima in which the mayor stated that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was ?one of the two greatest crimes against humanity in the 20th century, along with the Holocaust.?
In Baer?s response he stated that ?the bombings and the Holocaust cannot be compared and should not be linked.?
Why? ?The U.S. bombing was undertaken,? Baer remonstrated, ?after the sovereign government of the Japanese people?refused repeated U.S. offers of peace?.The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a last-ditch act of war.?
Translation: ?They? deserved to have their innocent men, women and children incinerated. ?We? did not.
That the statements by B?nai B?rith are historically untrue is no hidden fact to anyone willing to do some reading. Documents all along the historic time line from August of 1945 to the present clearly show that Japan began as early as August of 1944 to make peace overtures toward the United States. This historical ?revision? is clearly set forth, among others, by a Jewish historian Gar Alperovitz in his meticulously documented 850-page tome, ?The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.?[6]
In documented opposition to B?nai B?rith?s claim, Alperovitz?s and other?s research show clearly that President Truman, urged on by Secretary of State James Byrnes, fully intended that the atomic bomb should be used as both a live field-test on a virgin target to determine its results on human subjects and, also, to intimidate the Soviets into greater submission in postwar negotiations. Those documents also show that, with the exception of Byrnes, none of Truman?s advisors, even in the military, had any objection to acceding to Japan?s only provision to ?unconditional surrender??that the Emperor would not be punished or removed.
Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II, Fleet Admiral William Leahy, said the use of the atomic bomb on Japan was barbarous because ?the Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender?.in being the first to use [the atomic bomb] we?adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.? [emphasis supplied]. This makes B?nai B?rith?s rebuke of the Japanese mayor nonsense and blatant historical re-revisionism.
Apparently, no one has the privilege of invoking the Holocaust as a genuine tragedy except B?nai B?rith, or at least in a context approved by them and compatible with their ?dictionary?.
The Anti-Defamation League, B?nai B?rith and their political arms do not target only the non-Jewish population with their opinion-shaping efforts. They have been quite successful in manipulating the outlook of their Jewish brethren also. So effective has the campaign been to label Jews as the constant target of discrimination and bigotry, that most of them actually believe it themselves. According to IHR?s Weber, ?A poll taken in the San Francisco area indicated that fully one-third of Jews surveyed thought that anti-Semitism was so strong that a Jew could not be elected to the U.S. Congress. The survey was taken at the very time when three of the four congressional representatives were Jewish and the mayor of San Francisco was Jewish?and well identified as Jewish.?
Censorship by Filter
There are organizations who attempt to dictate exactly to what information the poor, terminally ignorant Gentile and Jewish public should have access. They do this by, among other means, pressuring Internet servers into refusing to continue hosting ?hateful Web sites?. MSNBC columnist Brock Meeks says, ?This is a tactic the Simon Wiesenthal Center has chosen to use and for which it has been soundly, and rightly, thrashed.?
Meeks, however, goes on to laud the ADL for their ?even-handed approach? toward ?High Tech Hate? on the Internet. He quotes them as saying, ??Hate must be countered with information that promotes understanding, tolerance and truth.? In other words,? Meeks translates, ?the best way to fight hate speech is with more speech.?
The ADL themselves make the statement that they are ?a staunch advocate of the First Amendment, [and] the League has never advocated the censorship of controversial literature, no matter how offensive.? [7]
Will someone please ?splain how the foregoing harmonizes with ADL?s attempt at getting the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Institute for Historical Review? Is this countering hate ?with information that promotes understanding, tolerance and truth?? Or is it a very real attempt at practical censorship? Would Mr. Rogers respond with, ?Can you spell hypocrisy??
A recent alliance between the ADL and software maker Cyber Patrol resulted in an announcement of ?a new filter that will bar access to anti-Semitic, racist, and other forms of hate speech online.?[8] On last check, the First Amendment makes no differentiation in its ?freedom of speech? clause between ?anti-Semitic, racist, and other forms? of speech and what ADL would call legitimate freedom of expression?which seems more and more to be that which is defined only by them. They are, however, quite willing to share their dictionary with the rest of the world?whether or not the world wants it.
Typical of the standards of Internet filter software manufacturers is the censorship criteria published by SurfWatch. Their blocking criteria is broken down into four major categories:
Sexually Explicit
Violence/Hate Speech
Drugs/Alcohol
Gambling
Under the ?Violence/Hate Speech? category are listed ten subheadings, the last of which is ?Holocaust revision/denial sites.? It must be asked why and how they arrived at the conclusion that the entire category of the Holocaust not included within traditional historical thinking is a taboo subject? Did those writing the software, or those publishing or commissioning it, check out the growing mountain of evidence against the currently accepted view of that event, and did they find it to be specious and wanting in credibility?
How does ?Holocaust revision/denial sites? harmonize with the intensity and moral turpitude inherent in SurfWatch?s other listings in the same subheading?
wanton and gratuitous violence
torture, mutilation and gore
bomb making instructions or encouragement of destructive acts
inciting violence
[Oops! Someone apparently forgot about Saturday morning children's cartoons].
the portrayal or encouragement of extreme cruelty, or of physically or emotionally abusive acts to any animal or person including injury or death
depiction of humans or animals injured or killed
militant organizations that encourage violence to or extermination of a specified population or government
satanic cults and rituals
hate speech toward humans or specified populations
In the seemingly endless attempts by these organizations to engage in functional censorship, a large and reputable publisher, St. Martin?s Press, has come under considerable fire for its decision to publish Goebbels a David Irving book about Hitler?s propaganda minister.
In the book Irving makes several controversial statements strenuously objected to by the ADL and other Jewish organizations. Consistently enough, the debate over the book does not center around the factualness of its content, but the author himself.
The Washington Post quotes St. Martin?s publisher Thomas Dunne as saying, ?Joseph Goebbels is doubtless laughing in Hell. He, after all, was the man who loved nothing better than burning books, threatening publishers, suppressing ideas, and judging the merits of ideas based not on their content but by their author?s racial, ethnic or political purity. That is indeed a sad irony.?
How did this publisher fare in standing up against their opposition? Strangely, the very next day after The Washington Post published Dunne?s statement, St. Martin?s cancelled the publication of Irving?s book. ?A humiliated St. Martin?s Press yesterday cancelled publication of its new book by historian David Irving, admitting that the work it had so righteously defended is in fact ?an insidious? piece of anti-Semitic propaganda.? [The Washington Post, April 3, 1996].
??It?s not a question of book burning or censorship,? said ADL Director Abraham Foxman. ?That?s just poppycock. It?s a question of responsibility. I think they finally made the right decision.?? [ibid.]
Jewish Terrorism! Isn?t that Stretching Things a Bit?
Another organization of apparently the same stripe as ADL is the Jewish Defense League (JDL). Although ADL claims that JDL?s philosophy of terrorism is at odds with ADL?s non-violent approach, some have likened the difference as to that between Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Army.
The Institute for Historical Review has been accused repeatedly of being an anti-Semitic hate group. In fact, historical revision of the Holocaust is only a part of their agenda?but it is the part that constantly gets them in trouble with Jewish watchdog groups like B?nai B?rith, ADL?and?the Jewish Defense League.
The IHR claims that, ?Far from being a fomenter of hate, the Institute has been a target of hate groups. During the 1980s, the Jewish Defense League [JDL]?repeatedly assaulted Institute offices and staff members. Following numerous death threats by telephone and mail, extensive property damage, five relatively minor fire bombings, one drive-by shooting and two physical assaults, the Institute?s office-warehouse was destroyed in an arson attack on July 4, 1984. Estimated property loss was more than $400,000, including tens of thousands of books, rare documents, irreplaceable files and expensive office equipment.?[9]
The Los Angeles Times reports that ?the Jewish Defense League?is the second most active terrorist group in the United States, according to FBI reports.?[10]
The Simon Wiesenthal Center
The Simon Wiesenthal Center was established in 1977 by Rabbi Marvin Hier under a grant from Jewish businessman Samuel Belzberg. Naming the Center after the famous ?Nazi Hunter? Hier parlayed Belzberg?s grant into one of the most powerful of Jewish organizations. The Los Angeles Times in a 1990 story claimed at that time that ??second in membership only to B?nai B?rith International with 380,000 members, the Simon Wiesenthal Center at times rivals the venerable American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and the World Jewish Congress for its impact and access to world leaders.? [11]
Alfred Lilienthal, a well known Jewish/American historian once said that this country is absorbed in what he calls ?Holocaustomania.? The Wiesenthal Center is apparently foremost among peers in promoting this form of backdoor racism and in marginalizing the need for any debate of historical issues with which it disagrees. The director of Israel?s Yad Vashem Holocaust Center was quoted in the Jewish Press and Ha?aretz Daily newspaper as saying that ?Rabbi Hier and the Wiesenthal Center are, in my opinion, the most extreme of those who utilize the Holocaust?.The Jewish people do many vulgar things,? he continued, ?but the Wiesenthal Center raised it to a complete level: The optimum use of sensitive issues in order to raise money?.? [12]
?The enormous success of the Simon Wiesenthal Center,? says New York Times Deputy Media Editor Judith Miller in her book One by One by One: Facing the Holocaust, [13]?has given new meaning to what was once a macabre in-house joke??There?s no business like shoah business?? shoah, of course, is the Hebrew word for Holocaust.
So influential have these Zionist organizations been in establishing their singular agenda for Holocaust definition that, ?to dispute Holocaust claims,? according to Mark Weber, ?is a crime in, among others, France, Germany, Austria and Spain.?
In France, for instance, the Fabius-Gayssot Law (13 July 1990), makes a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for up to a year and a fine up to 300,000 Franks ($50,000) to openly deny or dispute the Holocaust as defined in ?crimes against humanity? by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg following World War II.
Voltaire, arguably the most famous of French philosophers, once said, ?I do not agree with a thing you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.? Now, in Voltaire?s homeland, that philosophical right to freedom of speech has indeed been relegated to just that?philosophy.
If the Holocaust and its purported six million Jewish victims is provable fact, as the vast majority believe it to be, then it will stand against all who oppose it, and will do so by merely presentation and debate of the evidence. But when an individual or group seeks to close off debate and examination of evidence, they give another kind of evidence?that they, themselves, do not fully believe their claims.
Some will read the foregoing and conclude that the author is anti-Semitic. Some will know better. What is, in reality, presented here is nothing more or less than humanity. It is the nature of man to control all he can and to destroy all he cannot. This nature is based on fear. One does not need to be Nazi, Communist, Zionist, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or anything else in order to express this degeneracy. All one needs for the fruition of that nature is to be born on this planet. This is where lies the true defect in the gene pool. The sum of all disputes among men amounts to no more than two children holding the opposite ends of the same rope arguing who has the longest piece.[/justify]
Nous serons toujours là.
-
Dejuificator II
- Erudit
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:47 pm
[justify][large]Bnai Brith Moves to Suppress Jewish Communist Atrocities[/large]
Source: Canadian Jewish News | July 19, 2001
Polish Magazine Under Fire for Wartime Memoir
By Paul Lungen
TORONTO - The editor of a Polish magazine will meet this month with representatives of Canadian Jewish Congress to discuss an article that Congress believes repeats anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews.
The article, which appeared in the February edition of Miedzy Nami magazine, is presented as part of the memoirs of author Chris Gladun?s late mother, Janina Sulkowska-Gladun.
The memoir repeatedly refers to Jews in a way that ?tars the entire Jewish community,? said Len Rudner, Congress? director of community relations.
In a letter to Jolanta Bugajski, editor and publisher of Miedzy Nami, Rudner points out the article, which reflects Sulkowska-Gladun?s memories of the Soviet occupation of Poland from 1939-41, describes members of the local Communist party as almost exclusively Jewish.
The memoir repeatedly refers to Jews as supporters of the Communist regime and it alleges the NKVD (the Soviet secret police), aided by Jews, decided the fate of its victims. It also states innocent people were in fear of arrest because of a Jewish militia.
?Your readers are presented with a litany of horrors either perpetrated by Jews, ?a young Jew,? ?two local Jews?, ?a young Jewish female doctor,? ?Jewish assistants,? ?armed and bullying Jews,? ?teenaged Jewish thugs,? ?a local Jewish militiaman? and ?a rather dim-witted Jewish girl.??On only two occasions does Mr. Gladun provide us with the actual names of these supposed Jewish perpetrators. For the rest, he is content to let the words ?the Jews?, without proof, stand as condemnation of an entire community,? Rudner?s letter states. Bugajski said she was not troubled by the references to Jews in the memoir, although she said ?it?s not my point of view or that of anybody else working for us.
?You have to show readers what other people think. It doesn?t matter if you agree with it or not. You have to let her (the author) express views the way she sees things. It?s her memoir. It?s her words, not my words,? Bugajski said.
?I certainly stand by what my mother wrote and her experiences,? Gladun said. ?I take umbrage at any accusations [the article] is anti-Semitic.?
Gladun, a writer, researcher and poet, said the memoir is ?just a representation of what was happening in Eastern Poland. It?s not a reflection on all Jews?Certainly a sizable minority of Jews did collaborate with Soviets in imposing Soviet power in Eastern Poland.?
Gladun, a past member of the Polish-Jewish Heritage Foundation, said a community can?t be judged by the actions of a few individuals. Referring to the current controversy over the Polish village of Jedwabne, in which a recent book revealed that Jews were massacred by Polish villagers early in the Holocaust, he said that just as all Poles were not responsible for the murder of Jews, not all Jews were like those who collaborated with the Communists.
Rudner said the cumulative effect of the repeated references to Jews ?is to present Jews in a highly unflattering and extremely negative way, It would be difficult for a reader to go through this portion of the memoirs and not conclude all Jews are like this.?
Rudner said Congress will ask Bugajski to run a letter in the magazine expressing the concerns of the Jewish community.
?If [Bugajski] fails to understand the damage this kind of unsubstantiated claims make to the Jewish community, we will have to see what legal remedies are available to us,? he added.
Miedzy Nami is a mostly Polish-language publication with 10,000 copies printed monthly.[/justify]
Source: Canadian Jewish News | July 19, 2001
Polish Magazine Under Fire for Wartime Memoir
By Paul Lungen
TORONTO - The editor of a Polish magazine will meet this month with representatives of Canadian Jewish Congress to discuss an article that Congress believes repeats anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews.
The article, which appeared in the February edition of Miedzy Nami magazine, is presented as part of the memoirs of author Chris Gladun?s late mother, Janina Sulkowska-Gladun.
The memoir repeatedly refers to Jews in a way that ?tars the entire Jewish community,? said Len Rudner, Congress? director of community relations.
In a letter to Jolanta Bugajski, editor and publisher of Miedzy Nami, Rudner points out the article, which reflects Sulkowska-Gladun?s memories of the Soviet occupation of Poland from 1939-41, describes members of the local Communist party as almost exclusively Jewish.
The memoir repeatedly refers to Jews as supporters of the Communist regime and it alleges the NKVD (the Soviet secret police), aided by Jews, decided the fate of its victims. It also states innocent people were in fear of arrest because of a Jewish militia.
?Your readers are presented with a litany of horrors either perpetrated by Jews, ?a young Jew,? ?two local Jews?, ?a young Jewish female doctor,? ?Jewish assistants,? ?armed and bullying Jews,? ?teenaged Jewish thugs,? ?a local Jewish militiaman? and ?a rather dim-witted Jewish girl.??On only two occasions does Mr. Gladun provide us with the actual names of these supposed Jewish perpetrators. For the rest, he is content to let the words ?the Jews?, without proof, stand as condemnation of an entire community,? Rudner?s letter states. Bugajski said she was not troubled by the references to Jews in the memoir, although she said ?it?s not my point of view or that of anybody else working for us.
?You have to show readers what other people think. It doesn?t matter if you agree with it or not. You have to let her (the author) express views the way she sees things. It?s her memoir. It?s her words, not my words,? Bugajski said.
?I certainly stand by what my mother wrote and her experiences,? Gladun said. ?I take umbrage at any accusations [the article] is anti-Semitic.?
Gladun, a writer, researcher and poet, said the memoir is ?just a representation of what was happening in Eastern Poland. It?s not a reflection on all Jews?Certainly a sizable minority of Jews did collaborate with Soviets in imposing Soviet power in Eastern Poland.?
Gladun, a past member of the Polish-Jewish Heritage Foundation, said a community can?t be judged by the actions of a few individuals. Referring to the current controversy over the Polish village of Jedwabne, in which a recent book revealed that Jews were massacred by Polish villagers early in the Holocaust, he said that just as all Poles were not responsible for the murder of Jews, not all Jews were like those who collaborated with the Communists.
Rudner said the cumulative effect of the repeated references to Jews ?is to present Jews in a highly unflattering and extremely negative way, It would be difficult for a reader to go through this portion of the memoirs and not conclude all Jews are like this.?
Rudner said Congress will ask Bugajski to run a letter in the magazine expressing the concerns of the Jewish community.
?If [Bugajski] fails to understand the damage this kind of unsubstantiated claims make to the Jewish community, we will have to see what legal remedies are available to us,? he added.
Miedzy Nami is a mostly Polish-language publication with 10,000 copies printed monthly.[/justify]
Nous serons toujours là.
-
Dejuificator II
- Erudit
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:47 pm
[justify][large]Bnai Brith Offers Brainwashing Program to Counter Flyer[/large]
Source: Press Release | B?nai Brith Canada | December 27, 2001
[small]http://www.bnaibrith.ca/press4/pr-011227-82.htm[/small]
B?nai Brith Canada Offers Consultation, Training,
in Wake of Hate Incident
Guelph Residents Incensed as Antisemitic Flyer from Realtor Blankets Area
December 27, 2001
For Immediate Release
December 27, 2001 ? B?nai Brith Canada has communicated with the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) and the Ontario-Atlantic Head office of Re/Max in the aftermath of what has been called by one Real Estate specialist ?The first incident of its kind in Canada.? Mr. Peter Ysselstein, a Re/Max agent in Guelph, distributed a flyer containing a blatant antisemitic comment to numerous homes in a Guelph neighborhood.
Intended to garner more business, the flyer instead shocked many residents. After receiving complaints, B?nai Brith has requested an immediate and full investigation of the incident, followed by disciplinary proceedings if RECO and Re/Max deem the incident to be actionable.
Toni Silberman, Senior Vice President of B?nai Brith Canada, and Ontario Chair of its League for Human Rights, commented, ?Our action is a clear indication that it is not enough to complain about prejudice, but rather that it is incumbent upon us all to combat it. B?nai Brith Canada has offered the services of its League for Human Rights to both RECO and Re/Max in the hope that its recognized expertise in anti-racism, combating antisemitism, and promoting tolerance will be used by these organizations.?
Frank Dimant, Executive Vice President of B?nai Brith Canada, wrote to the management of RECO ?In these trying times, it is more important than ever that we promote tolerance and eliminate prejudice in our homes, our institutions, and our workplaces.?
For further information, please contact Arieh Rosenblum, Ontario Regional Director, at 416-529-4699
B?nai Brith has been active in Canada since 1875 as the community?s senior human rights organization.[/justify]
Source: Press Release | B?nai Brith Canada | December 27, 2001
[small]http://www.bnaibrith.ca/press4/pr-011227-82.htm[/small]
B?nai Brith Canada Offers Consultation, Training,
in Wake of Hate Incident
Guelph Residents Incensed as Antisemitic Flyer from Realtor Blankets Area
December 27, 2001
For Immediate Release
December 27, 2001 ? B?nai Brith Canada has communicated with the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) and the Ontario-Atlantic Head office of Re/Max in the aftermath of what has been called by one Real Estate specialist ?The first incident of its kind in Canada.? Mr. Peter Ysselstein, a Re/Max agent in Guelph, distributed a flyer containing a blatant antisemitic comment to numerous homes in a Guelph neighborhood.
Intended to garner more business, the flyer instead shocked many residents. After receiving complaints, B?nai Brith has requested an immediate and full investigation of the incident, followed by disciplinary proceedings if RECO and Re/Max deem the incident to be actionable.
Toni Silberman, Senior Vice President of B?nai Brith Canada, and Ontario Chair of its League for Human Rights, commented, ?Our action is a clear indication that it is not enough to complain about prejudice, but rather that it is incumbent upon us all to combat it. B?nai Brith Canada has offered the services of its League for Human Rights to both RECO and Re/Max in the hope that its recognized expertise in anti-racism, combating antisemitism, and promoting tolerance will be used by these organizations.?
Frank Dimant, Executive Vice President of B?nai Brith Canada, wrote to the management of RECO ?In these trying times, it is more important than ever that we promote tolerance and eliminate prejudice in our homes, our institutions, and our workplaces.?
For further information, please contact Arieh Rosenblum, Ontario Regional Director, at 416-529-4699
B?nai Brith has been active in Canada since 1875 as the community?s senior human rights organization.[/justify]
Nous serons toujours là.
-
Dejuificator II
- Erudit
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:47 pm
[justify][large]Bookburners and Their Victims First Hand Accounts of Pro Israel Mccarthyism[/large]
Bookburners and Their Victims: First-Hand Accounts
of Pro-Israel McCarthyism
In California Court Case, ADL Still Delaying Disclosure
of Where It Got and What It Did With Personal Data
on Anti-Apartheid and Pro-Palestinian Activists
By Kurt Holden
WASHINGTON REPORT on Middle East Affairs
DECEMBER 1997, Page 57
In late 1992, the FBI informed the San Francisco police
that one of its officers, Tom Gerard, had been secretly
cooperating with a "spy," Roy Bullock, who had been
secretly paid by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of
B'nai B'rith for over 30 years to infiltrate
organizations which the ADL deemed hostile to Israel.
Gerard was believed to have illegally turned over to
Bullock material gathered from police files. Worse, the
police previously had been ordered to destroy those
files, which a court had ruled violated the civil rights
of the people upon whom files had been opened.
Bullock's job was to collect facts about "enemies of
Israel" which were then organized in central ADL files in
Los Angeles and New York, and used for confidential
dissemination to the "active" Jewish community, which
could be counted on to take "counter-action" to
neutralize or discredit these "enemies."
In the 1980s, Bullock's assignments had been expanded to
include surveillance of individuals and organizations
opposed to apartheid in South Africa, presumably because
Israel and South Africa were allies, drawn to each other
because both were resisting United Nations human rights
resolutions regarding the Palestinians and indigenous
South Africans.
Bullock would ingratiate himself into Arab-American and
anti-apartheid groups by indicating he was in sympathy
with their goals. Attending their meetings and going into
their homes, he would note their car license plates and,
through "official friends" who were police officers or
who had access to government records, try to get drivers'
license numbers, P. O. boxes and criminal investigative
reports, if such existed.
FBI officials had become interested in 1992 when they
discovered that in addition to collecting information for
the ADL, Bullock and Gerard wereselling information to
South African intelligence agents.
The San Francisco police, made up of officers largely of
Irish and Italian ethnic backgrounds (and certainly not
aware of the enormous political clout of the Jewish
community), obtained search warrants and seized some 12
boxes of records at the ADL headquarters in Los Angeles
and San Francisco in early 1993.
Subsequently they sent notices to some 12,000 people and
organizations whose names were found in ADL's files. In
at least two cases, they also provided such individuals
with excerpts from ADL's files on them which obviously
had come from confidential government records.
Both individuals, Jeffrey Blankfort and Steve Zeltzer,
were prominent Jewish advocates of fairness to
Palestinians and for ending apartheid in South Africa.
From those activities they already were aware that the
ADL worked in cooperation with Israel's Mossad.
The ADL worked in cooperation with Israel's Mossad.
In 1993 they and 17 other plaintiffs filed a class-action
lawsuit in the San Francisco Superior Court. The suit has
become known as Audrey Parks Shabbas, et al., plaintiffs,
vs. Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, et al.,
defendants. In addition to the three above-named
plaintiffs, others are Victor Ajlouny, Yigal Arens (son
of former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens), Amal
Barkouky-Winter, Manuel Dudum, Colin Edwards, Carol
El-Shaib, George Green, Paula Kotakis, Stephen Mashney,
Helen Hooper McCloskey, Margaret Ann McCormack, Donald
McGaffin, Anne Poirier, Agha Saeed, Jock Taft and
Marianne Torres. Attorney for the plaintiffs is former
Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey, who practices law
in Woodside, California.
In fact, the suit was filed on behalf of two classes of
individuals--those who opposed Israeli policies toward
the Palestinians and those who opposed apartheid in South
Africa. The lawsuit alleged an invasion of their privacy,
citing a California law which imposes a minimum of $2,500
in punitive damages for each act of publication of
confidential information obtained from governmental
files.
The ADL responded by arguing that it is a newsgathering
organization and thus entitled to the reporter's
privilege of keeping sources of information secret.
Under California law and a famous Supreme Court ruling
known as the Mitchell decision, a plaintiff is barred
from obtaining what a reporter claims is "privileged"
information until the plaintiff can show that he has
exhausted all other reasonable means of obtaining the
facts necessary to prove his case, and has met four other
requirements. For four and a half years, ADL refused to
produce the information.
An Order to Disclose
Depositions were taken of ADL employees and law
enforcement personnel, but ADL was able to withhold the
information until Aug. 19, 1997, when Judge Alexander
Saldamando of San Francisco ruled that ADL and the San
Francisco police would have to disclose to the plaintiffs
the illegally obtained information, from whom it had been
obtained, and to whom it was sent.
ADL has announced it will seek a writ from the Court of
Appeals to block enforcement of Judge Saldamando's order.
The result should be known by Oct. 30, which is the date
ADL is required to produce the information.
The stubborn refusal of ADL to reveal where it received
its information, and to whom and for what purposes it was
disclosed, promises many more revealing insights on the
methods and motivations of this American-incorporated
organization which has been working diligently on behalf
of the governments of Israel and apartheid South Africa.
Kurt Holden is a free-lance writer who divides his time
between the U.S. and the Middle East.[/justify]
Bookburners and Their Victims: First-Hand Accounts
of Pro-Israel McCarthyism
In California Court Case, ADL Still Delaying Disclosure
of Where It Got and What It Did With Personal Data
on Anti-Apartheid and Pro-Palestinian Activists
By Kurt Holden
WASHINGTON REPORT on Middle East Affairs
DECEMBER 1997, Page 57
In late 1992, the FBI informed the San Francisco police
that one of its officers, Tom Gerard, had been secretly
cooperating with a "spy," Roy Bullock, who had been
secretly paid by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of
B'nai B'rith for over 30 years to infiltrate
organizations which the ADL deemed hostile to Israel.
Gerard was believed to have illegally turned over to
Bullock material gathered from police files. Worse, the
police previously had been ordered to destroy those
files, which a court had ruled violated the civil rights
of the people upon whom files had been opened.
Bullock's job was to collect facts about "enemies of
Israel" which were then organized in central ADL files in
Los Angeles and New York, and used for confidential
dissemination to the "active" Jewish community, which
could be counted on to take "counter-action" to
neutralize or discredit these "enemies."
In the 1980s, Bullock's assignments had been expanded to
include surveillance of individuals and organizations
opposed to apartheid in South Africa, presumably because
Israel and South Africa were allies, drawn to each other
because both were resisting United Nations human rights
resolutions regarding the Palestinians and indigenous
South Africans.
Bullock would ingratiate himself into Arab-American and
anti-apartheid groups by indicating he was in sympathy
with their goals. Attending their meetings and going into
their homes, he would note their car license plates and,
through "official friends" who were police officers or
who had access to government records, try to get drivers'
license numbers, P. O. boxes and criminal investigative
reports, if such existed.
FBI officials had become interested in 1992 when they
discovered that in addition to collecting information for
the ADL, Bullock and Gerard wereselling information to
South African intelligence agents.
The San Francisco police, made up of officers largely of
Irish and Italian ethnic backgrounds (and certainly not
aware of the enormous political clout of the Jewish
community), obtained search warrants and seized some 12
boxes of records at the ADL headquarters in Los Angeles
and San Francisco in early 1993.
Subsequently they sent notices to some 12,000 people and
organizations whose names were found in ADL's files. In
at least two cases, they also provided such individuals
with excerpts from ADL's files on them which obviously
had come from confidential government records.
Both individuals, Jeffrey Blankfort and Steve Zeltzer,
were prominent Jewish advocates of fairness to
Palestinians and for ending apartheid in South Africa.
From those activities they already were aware that the
ADL worked in cooperation with Israel's Mossad.
The ADL worked in cooperation with Israel's Mossad.
In 1993 they and 17 other plaintiffs filed a class-action
lawsuit in the San Francisco Superior Court. The suit has
become known as Audrey Parks Shabbas, et al., plaintiffs,
vs. Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, et al.,
defendants. In addition to the three above-named
plaintiffs, others are Victor Ajlouny, Yigal Arens (son
of former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens), Amal
Barkouky-Winter, Manuel Dudum, Colin Edwards, Carol
El-Shaib, George Green, Paula Kotakis, Stephen Mashney,
Helen Hooper McCloskey, Margaret Ann McCormack, Donald
McGaffin, Anne Poirier, Agha Saeed, Jock Taft and
Marianne Torres. Attorney for the plaintiffs is former
Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey, who practices law
in Woodside, California.
In fact, the suit was filed on behalf of two classes of
individuals--those who opposed Israeli policies toward
the Palestinians and those who opposed apartheid in South
Africa. The lawsuit alleged an invasion of their privacy,
citing a California law which imposes a minimum of $2,500
in punitive damages for each act of publication of
confidential information obtained from governmental
files.
The ADL responded by arguing that it is a newsgathering
organization and thus entitled to the reporter's
privilege of keeping sources of information secret.
Under California law and a famous Supreme Court ruling
known as the Mitchell decision, a plaintiff is barred
from obtaining what a reporter claims is "privileged"
information until the plaintiff can show that he has
exhausted all other reasonable means of obtaining the
facts necessary to prove his case, and has met four other
requirements. For four and a half years, ADL refused to
produce the information.
An Order to Disclose
Depositions were taken of ADL employees and law
enforcement personnel, but ADL was able to withhold the
information until Aug. 19, 1997, when Judge Alexander
Saldamando of San Francisco ruled that ADL and the San
Francisco police would have to disclose to the plaintiffs
the illegally obtained information, from whom it had been
obtained, and to whom it was sent.
ADL has announced it will seek a writ from the Court of
Appeals to block enforcement of Judge Saldamando's order.
The result should be known by Oct. 30, which is the date
ADL is required to produce the information.
The stubborn refusal of ADL to reveal where it received
its information, and to whom and for what purposes it was
disclosed, promises many more revealing insights on the
methods and motivations of this American-incorporated
organization which has been working diligently on behalf
of the governments of Israel and apartheid South Africa.
Kurt Holden is a free-lance writer who divides his time
between the U.S. and the Middle East.[/justify]
Nous serons toujours là.
-
Dejuificator II
- Erudit
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:47 pm
[justify][large]CA Appeals Court Decision on ADL[/large]
Filed 11/16/98
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE
OF B'NAI B'RITH et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
Respondent;
AUDREY SHABBAS et al.,
Real Parties in Interest. ______________________________/
A080694
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
(San Francisco County
Superior Court No.951031)
The underlying issue in this case relates to the
right to privacy. Whether that right was violated cannot
be determined, however, without the disclosure of
relevant evidence. The question before us now is whether
such disclosure can be compelled without violence to the
First Amendment values requiring protection of a
journalist's confidential sources and information.
Petitioners Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith
(ADL) and Roy Bullock seek to set aside a discovery order
issued by respondent superior court (Judge Alex
Saldamando) on September 19, 1997, granting
reconsideration and ordering compliance with certain
discovery requests by real parties in interest after
finding that they have now met the criteria set forth in
Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 268, to
overcome the journalist's qualified privilege.
Respondent court stayed the effect of its order pending
final determination of this writ petition. Initially,
this court denied the petition without opinion.
Thereafter, the Supreme Court directed us to issue an
order to show cause and to place the matter on calendar.
As explained hereafter, we hold that petitioners, as
journalists, are immune from liability for violating
Civil Code section 1798.53 under the First Amendment as
to all but one and possibly two other real parties in
interest by virtue of their status as limited purpose
public figures. As to the remaining non-public figure or
figures, petitioners are not protected by the First
Amendment from liability and a discovery order.
Petitioners are entitled to the protection of the
First Amendment, however, only insofar as the information
sought to be discovered was obtained and used by them for
legitimate journalistic purposes. The journalist's
privilege would not protect against discovery directed to
whether any non-public information gathered about real
parties in interest was privately disclosed to a foreign
government or others in violation of Civil Code section
1798.53, as claimed, because such usage does not
constitute journalism. The discovery order issued by the
trial court was not so limited. The order must therefore
be vacated and the matter remanded for reconsideration in
light of our opinion. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND
Petitioners ADL and Roy Bullock, along with Richard
Hirschhaut and Thomas Gerard, are defendants in an action
brought by real parties in interest for invasion of
privacy in violation of Civil Code section 1798.53.
Defendant Hirschhaut was the director o f ADL's office in
San Francisco; defendant Bullock has been a paid
"fact-finder" for ADL for the past 32 years; and
defendant Gerard was employed by the San Francisco Police
Department. The complaint alleges that defendants
secretly gathered and disclose d personal information
about real parties in interest, 17 individuals, in
violation of Civil Code section 1798.53 because of their
expressed views in opposition to the apartheid policy of
the then-government of South Africa and/or Israeli
policies vis--vi s the Palestinians.
Real parties learned of defendants' activities as a
result of an investigation conducted by the San Francisco
District Attorney and the Police Department. The
District Attorney commenced the investigation in 1993
after the Police Department learned that one or more of
its officers might have been improperly providing
confidential government information to Bullock, who was
employed by ADL to investigate organizations opposing the
aforesaid policies of the governments of Israel and South
Africa.
At the conclusion of his investigation, the District
Attorney determined that Bullock and/or ADL had solicited
and received government information not made public from
San Francisco police officers and others. In November
1993, the District Attorney commenced a civil action
against ADL and Bullock alleging violation of Business
and Professions Code section 17200.1 That action was
settled after ADL agreed to a permanent injunction
prohibiting ADL and Bullock from obtaining documents or
other information they know could not legally be
disclosed to them. Real parties in interest, who
commenced this action in April 1993, claim that
non-public information contained in government records
relating to each of them was improperly obtained and
disclosed to others by ADL.
Civil Code section 1798.53 is part of the
Information Practices Act of 1977, which generally
imposes limitations on the right of governmental entities
to disclose personal information about an individual.
(Nicholson v. McClatchy Newspapers (1986) 177 Ca l.App.3d
509, 514, fn. 2.) The statute was designed by the
Legislature to prevent misuse of the increasing amount of
information about citizens which government agencies
amass in the course of their multifarious activities, the
disclosure of which could be embarrassing or otherwise
prejudicial to individuals or organizations.2 Indeed, the
Legislature made express findings to that effect: "(a)
The right to privacy is being threatened by the
indiscriminate collection, maintenance, and dissemination
of personal information and the lack of effective laws
and legal remedies. (b) The increasing use of computers
and other sophisticated information technology has
greatly magnified the potential risk to individual
privacy that can occur from the maintenance of personal
information. (c) In order to protect the privacy of
individuals, it is necessary that the maintenance and
dissemination of personal information be subject to
strict limits." (Civ. Code, $ 1798.1.)
Civil Code section 1798.53 is a key remedial
provision of the Information Practices Act. It provides
a civil cause of action for damages against any "person,
other than an employee of the state or of a local
government agency acting solely in his or her official
capacity, who intentionally discloses information, not
otherwise public, which they know or should reasonably
know was obtained from personal information maintained by
a state agency or from 'records' within a 'system of
records' (as these terms are defined in the Federal
Privacy Act of 1974) . . . maintained by a federal
government agency. . . ." Civil Code section 1798.53
additionally authorizes an award of exemplary damages of
at least $2,500 and attorney's fees and costs to a
successful plaintiff.
On June 10, 1993, real parties served their first
demand for production and inspection of documents. ADL
moved for a protective order on the ground that ADL is a
journalist protected by the qualified journalist's
privilege set forth in Mitchell v. Superior Court, supra,
37 Cal.3d 268. After a lengthy hearing on the motion,
the court (Judge Barbara Jones) ruled on November 17,
1993, that ADL, which publishes magazines and
newsletters, qualified as a journalist, and that ruling
is not now disputed. The court granted ADL's motion for
a protective order and denied real parties' document
request as then phrased on the ground that the latter had
failed to satisfy the criteria set forth in Mitchell v.
Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d 268. The order stated
t he court would reconsider the matter if real parties
reformulated the document requests and were unsuccessful
in obtaining the information from alternative sources.
Real parties continued their discovery attempts. On
November 19, 1993, they served a second document request
on ADL. On November 24, 1993, real parties served the
San Francisco District Attorney with a subpoena for
documents referring to specified persons and
organizations that had been seized by the police
department during its investigation of ADL. On April 6,
1994, the court granted ADL's motion to quash the
subpoena "with respect to any documents that originated
with ADL or Bullock, or that were obtained, procured or
developed by ADL or Bullock." In September 1994, the
court ordered Bullock to appear for deposition to explore
only information not within the ambit of the journalist's
privilege set forth in Mitchell and to produce certain
documents . Discovery of other categories of documents
was stayed "without prejudice unless and until plaintiffs
have established, pursuant to Mitchell, their entitlement
to proceed with discovery of matters protected by the
journalist's privilege."
Mitchell v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d 268,
holds that there is a qualified journalist's privilege in
a civil action to refuse to reveal confidential sources
or information obtained from those sources and that the
scope of the privilege depends up on a weighing of five
factors.
The first is the nature of the litigation and
whether the reporter is a party. "In general, disclosure
is appropriate in civil cases, especially when the
reporter is a party to the litigation." (Id. at p. 279.)
"A second consideration is the relevance of the
information sought to plaintiff's cause of action. . . .
[M]ere relevance is insufficient to compel discovery;
disclosure should be denied unless the information goes
'to the heart of the plaintiff's claim.'" (Id. at p.
280.) Third, discovery should be denied unless the
plaintiff has exhausted all alternative sources of
obtaining the needed information. Fourth, the court
should consider the importance of protecting
confidentiality in the case at hand. (Id. at p. 282.)
"Finally, the court may require the plaintiff to make a
prima facie showing that the alleged defamatory
statements are false before requiring disclosure." (Id.
at p. 283.)
In June 1996, real parties sought reconsideration of
the earlier limitations on discovery, arguing that they
had now satisfied the Mitchell criteria.3 Specifically,
they asked the court to order (1) ADL to produce
documents in response to their third document request,
(2) reissuance of the subpoena duces tecum to the police
department, and (3) Irwin Suall to answer certain
questions and to produce documents listed in his notice
of deposition. Real parties memorandum of points and
authorities recited the efforts undertaken since the
earlier ruling: They took the depositions of defendants
Gerard, Bullock and Hirschhaut, San Diego Sheriff's
Deputy Tim Carroll, San Francisco Police Lieutenant Ron
Roth, former Israeli Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky and
ADL' s fact-finding director, Irwin Suall. Real parties
had reframed their document requests to seek information
solely about plaintiffs and members of the putative
class.4 Despite an order allowing real parties to
ascertain the job assignments of Roy Bullock, ADL refused
to produce documents or allow Irwin Suall, who made 95
percent of those job assignments, to identify them.
In their memorandum of points and authorities in
support of the request for reconsideration, respondents
characterized the facts that had emerged from their
discovery as follows: (1) Bullock, with Hirschhaut's
knowledge and under Suall's direction, soli cited and
received confidential information including driver's
license numbers and post office box numbers from law
enforcement officers; (2) up to half of ADL's efforts
during 1986 to 1993 were directed to obtaining
information about individuals such as real parties in
interest and organizations holding views opposing
Israel's policies or apartheid in South Africa; (3) of
the ADL files in police possession, some seven and
one-half boxes contain illegally-obtained confidential
information about individual s and organizations; (4)
Bullock and/or Hirschhaut admitted that ADL or its agents
gave information to the Government of Israel and sold
information to the Government of South Africa; (5) from
1986-1993, Bullock and Hirschhaut transmitted hundreds of
reports to Suall and other ADL offices that included
information from confidential sources or "official
friends" (law enforcement officers); (6) ADL routinely
provided information on individuals, including real party
in interest Yigal Arens, to the greater community of
12,000 ADL supporters in the Bay Area, characterizing
those opposed to Israel as propagandists using their
anti-Zionism as a guise for deeply-felt anti-Semitism;
(7) ADL's files seized by the police contained
information from confidential government files on real
parties in interest Steven Zeltzer and Jeffrey Blankfort;
(8) information on real party in interest Helen McCloskey
in ADL's files contained information that appeared to
have come from the Government of Israel; and (9) ADL's
head "fact -finder," Irwin Suall, had met with the
Israeli intelligence officials in Israel.
Respondent court heard argument on the motion to
reconsider on June 27, 1997, and filed its written order
on September 19, 1997. The court found that real parties
had met the criteria of Mitchell: (1) The news gatherers
are parties to the action; (2) the information goes to
the heart of real parties' case in that it will identify
the source of illegally-obtained information admittedly
obtained by ADL and the dissemination, if any, of such
information in violation of Civil Code section 1798.53
and article I, section 1, of the California Constitution:
(3) real parties have exhausted all reasonable
alternative sources of information and do not have any
practical way of obtaining such information from sources
other than defendants and the San Francisco Police
Department; (4) the non-public information to be
disclosed does not relate to public figures or refer to
matters of great public importance that would justify
nondisclosure under Nicholson v. McClatchy Newspaper Co.,
supra, 177 Cal.App.3d 509; (5) plaintiffs have presented
a prima facie case that defendants Bullock, Hirschhaut
and ADL have illegally solicited, obtained and
transmitted Civil Code section 1798.53 information in the
cases of plaintiffs Blankfort and Zeltzer, and there is
a reasonable probability that they have done so in the
case of the other named plaintiffs.
The court ordered the following discovery: (A)
Reissuance of the subpoena duces tecum to the San
Francisco Police Department and "in response to such
subpoena the San Francisco Police Department shall
produce for Plaintiffs' inspection and copying subject to
the Protective Order herein all non-public information
obtained by ADL from public agents which is contained in
the ADL records seized by the Police Department in 1992
and 1993." The parties are authorized to select a
discovery referee or master to be compensated by the
parties to supervise and monitor the production of the
seized records. (B) ADL is to fully respond to
Plaintiffs' third document request within 20 days by
producing the following documents: "(1) all memoranda or
documents describing or relating to the work assignments
of Roy Bullock from Irwin Suall which involve police or
other public agents; (2) each document containing
illegally-obtained non-public information relating to
Plaintiffs and individuals or organizations in their
putative class as described by Lt. Roth; (3) each item of
non-public information gathered or acquired by ADL and/or
Bullock which refer or relate to any of the named
Plaintiffs; (4) each ADL publication distributed outside
the ADL which includes the name of a Plaintiff or spouse;
(5) all 'pink' reports [indicating information had come
from confidential informant] dating from 1988 to 1993
transmitted from San Francisco as described by Bullock
which contain or refer to non-public information about
Plaintiffs' or members of organization in their putative
class; (6) any ADL communications to the ADL, 'Jewish or
larger community' identified by Mr. Hirschhaut in his
deposition which referred to Plaintiffs or their class;
and (7) a roster of the ADL 'community' as identified by
Mr. Hirschhaut." (C) Irwin Suall was to answer in
writing within 20 days specified questions that had been
propounded to him at his deposition in April 1996, and he
was to produce any documents demanded of him in his
notice of deposition that are in his possession and have
not been previously produced. (D) The time for Victor
Ostrosky to comply with the request to produce documents
not within the journalist's privilege was extended to 60
days following completion of the deposition of Irwin
Suall. II. DISCUSSION
Petitioners mount two challenges to the superior
court's ruling. First they argue that discovery from ADL
may not be compelled because ADL cannot, consistent with
free press guarantees, be liable under Civil Code section
1798.53. Petitioners' second argument is that respondent
court erred in finding that real parties in interest had
now met the Mitchell criteria to overcome the qualified
privilege.5 A.
Turning first to the question of immunity,
petitioners maintain that Civil Code section 1798.53 must
give way to a journalists free press rights, including
the right to ask for, receive and publish confidential
information from government sources.
Mitchell clearly does not provide journalists an
absolute immunity. "When called upon to weigh the
fundamental values arguing both for and against compelled
disclosure, the overwhelming majority of courts have
concluded that the question of a reporter's privilege in
civil cases must be decided on a case-by-case basis, with
the trial court examining and balancing the asserted
interests in light of the facts of the case before it.
Thus, the courts conclude, there is neither an absolute
duty to disclose n or an absolute privilege to withhold,
but instead a qualified privilege against compelled
disclosure which depends on the facts of each particular
case. [Citations.]" (Mitchell v. Superior Court, supra,
37 Cal.3d at p. 276.)
Petitioners maintain that the weighing undertaken by
the trial court in this case cannot be squared with a
series of assertedly similar cases in which it was found
that disclosure could not be punished. They rely on
Nicholson v. McClatchy Newspapers, supra, 177 Cal.App.3d
509; Alim v. Superior Court (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 144;
Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia (1978) 435 U.S.
829; and The Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989) 491 U.S. 524.
Petitioners also find support in the California Supreme
Court's recent opinion in Shulman v. Group W Productions,
Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 200. Real parties in interest
respond that the cited cases are all manifestly
distinguishable on their facts; and, indeed, that the
cases petitioners rely upon actually support disclosure
in the different circumstances presented in this case.
In Nicholson, an unsuccessful candidate for Attorney
General sued the State Bar, two newspapers, and their
reporters for damages arising from the publication of the
unauthorized disclosure of the confidential fact that the
Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation had found him
not qualified for judicial appointment. The causes of
action asserted against the media defendants included one
for breach of Civil Code section 1798.53 and one for
breach of the common law right of privacy by intrusion.
The trial court found that the publication was
constitutionally privileged and sustained the media
defendants' demurrers without leave to amend. The Court
of Appeal affirmed, noting that the allegations as to the
media defendants were only that they had sought out
newsworthy information which they subsequently published.
Such allegations were insufficient to avoid the effect of
the constitutional privilege. (Id. at p. 520.) There was
no allegation of impermissible reporting techniques.6 The
plaintiff was a public figure since he had recently run
for statewide office, and the evaluation of the judicial
qualifications was a newsworthy subject. (Id. at p.
515.) While the government may desire to keep some
proceedings confidential and may impose the duty upon
participants to maintain confidentiality, it may not
impose criminal or civil liability upon the press for
obtaining and publishing newsworthy information through
routine reporting techniques." (Id. at pp. 519-520.) The
court observed that although reporters are not privileged
to commit crimes and independent torts in gathering the
news, there was no allegation that any such impermissible
techniques had been employed. (Id. at pp. 519-520.)
In Alim v. Superior Court, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d
144, Walter Atlee, former Chief Deputy Director of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, sued a newspaper
reporter, editor and publisher for invasion of privacy
under Civil Code section 1798.53 and libel based on an
article containing allegedly false and confidential
information from federal Veterans Administration records
indicating that he had wrongfully received overpayments
of a veteran's disability stipend while employed. The
trial court granted the newspaper defendants' motion for
summary judgment on all causes of action but that under
Civil Code section 1798.53 on the ground that Atlee, who
was a public figure, could not prove malice under the New
York Times doctrine. (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
(1964) 376 U.S. 254.) The trial court denied summary
judgment on the Civil Code section 1798.53 claim on the
ground that the constitutional doctrine did not apply to
it. The Court of Appeal disagreed, rejecting the claim
that an action under Civil Code section 1798.53 is not
subject to free press defenses analogous to those
available in common law actions for invasion of privacy.
The court held that a cause of action under Civil Code
section 1798.53 is subject to the New York Times actual
malice standard and that there is a privilege for
truthful publication of information bearing on the
fitness for office of a public official. (Id. at pp.
152-153.)
In Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, supra,
435 U.S. 829, the Supreme Court held that the First
Amendment did not permit the criminal punishment of a
newspaper for publishing truthful information regarding
confidential proceedings of the Virginia Judicial Inquiry
and Review Commission. "The operation of the Virginia
Commission, no less than the operation of the judicial
system itself, is a matter of public interest,
necessarily engaging the attention of the news media.
The article published by Landmark provided accurate
factual information about a legislatively authorized
inquiry pending before the Judicial Inquiry and Review
Commission and in so doing clearly served those interests
in public scrutiny and discussion of governmental affairs
which the First Amendment was adopted to protect." (Id.
at p. 839.) The court specifically noted, however, that
the case did not involve "the possible applicability of
the statute to one who secures the information by illegal
means and thereafter divulges it. We do not have before
us any constitutional challenge to a State's power to
keep the Commission's proceedings confidential or to
punish participants for breach of this mandate." (Id. at
p. 837.) The only issue before the court was whether a
newspaper could be punished for publishing truthful
information about confidential proceedings. (Ibid.)
The Florida Star v. B.J.F., supra, 491 U.S. 524,
held that a newspaper could not be held liable for
violating a state statute prohibiting the publishing of
a rape victim's name which it had obtained from a
publicly released police report. The court emphasized
that its holding was limited to the situation in which
the newspaper published truthful information that had
been lawfully obtained. (Id. at p. 541.) The court
expressly noted it was not addressing the question of
whether a newspaper may ever be punished for publishing
information that had been unlawfully acquired. (Id. at
p. 535, fn. 8.)
Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc., supra, 18
Cal.4th 200, addressed the common law invasion of privacy
torts of public disclosure of private facts and intrusion
in an action brought by two automobile accident victims
against a television producer that videotaped and
broadcast a documentary rescue program showing the
plaintiffs' rescue and transportation to the hospital in
a medical helicopter. The court held that summary
judgment was proper as to the cause of action for
publication of private facts b ut not as to the cause of
action for intrusion. Lack of newsworthiness was held to
be an essential element of a cause of action based on a
claim that publication has given unwanted publicity to
allegedly private aspects of a person's life. The
subject matter of the broadcast as a whole was of
legitimate public concern. "Automobile accidents are by
their nature of interest to that great portion of the
public that travels frequently by automobile. The rescue
and medical treatment of accident victims is also of
legitimate concern to much of the public, involving as it
does a critical service that any member of the public may
someday need." (Id. at p. 228.) Likewise, the victim's
appearance and words as she was extricated from the
overturned car, placed in the helicopter, and transported
to the hospital were of legitimate public concern. The
intrusion cause of action, by contrast, was held not to
carry any special immunity or privilege for the press.
"In contrast to the broad privilege the press enjoy s for
publishing truthful, newsworthy information in its
possession, the press has no recognized constitutional
privilege to violate generally applicable laws in pursuit
of material. Nor, even absent an independent crime or
tort, can a highly offensive intrusion into a private
place, conversation, or source of information generally
be justified by the plea that the intruder hoped thereby
to get good material for a news story." (Id. at p. 242,
italics in original.) Thus, summary judgment was improper
as to the cause of action for intrusion based on the
cameraman's presence in the medical helicopter and the
recording and amplifying of the victim's conversations
with medical personnel. (Id. at pp. 237-238.)
The trial court found that the cases just discussed
were inapplicable because they involved newsworthy
information, plaintiffs who were public figures, or both.
According to the trial court, the non-public information
gathered about real parties was not newsworthy, and real
parties were not public figures. Petitioners challenge
these determinations, arguing that real parties are
political activists visibly engaged in public opposition
to policies of the Israeli government and have therefore
made themselves limited purpose public figures.
Petitioners rely primarily on Reader's Digest Assn.
v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244; Copp v. Paxton
(1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 829; and Lind v. Grimmer (9th Cir.
1994) 30 F.3d 1115. After reviewing these authorities
and the information provided in the exhibits relating to
the political activities that real parties in interest
have undertaken, we agree that at least 14 and possibly
16 of the 17 real parties in interest must be considered
limited purpose public figures in relation to this
litigation.
The leading California case on public figures is
Reader's Digest Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d
at pages 254-255, where Synanon, a rehabilitation program
for drug addicts, and Charles Dederich, its founder, were
held to be public figures by virtue of their myriad
attempts to thrust their case and Synanon in general into
the public eye. In reaching that conclusion, the court
traced the evolution of the public figure doctrine,
noting that it was first recognized in Curtis Publishing
Co. v. Butt s (1967) 388 U.S. 130, and subsequently
refined in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S.
323, where "the court provided a twofold rationale for
extending the New York Times rule to 'public figures.'
First, it recognized that public figures are gene rally
less vulnerable to injury from defamation because of
their ability to resort to effective 'self help.' Such
persons ordinarily enjoy considerably greater access than
private individuals to the media and other channels of
communication. This access in turn enables them to
counter criticism and to expose the fallacies of
defamatory statements. (418 U.S. at p. 344.) Second, and
more significantly, the court cited a normative
consideration that public figures are less deserving of
protection than private persons because public figures,
like public officials, have 'voluntarily exposed
themselves to increased risk of injury from defamatory
falsehood concerning them.' (418 U.S. at p. 345; see also
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, supra, 388 U.S. at p.
164 (Warren, C.J., conc. in result).)" (Reader's Digest
Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 253.)
"Having thus explained the rationale for the public
figure classification, the Gertz decision defined two
classes of public figures. The first is the 'all
purpose' public figure who has 'achiev[ed] such pervasive
fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all
purposes and in all contexts.' The second category is
that of the 'limited purpose' or 'vortex' public figure,
an individual who 'voluntarily injects himself or is
drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby
becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues.'
(418 U.S. at p. 351.) Unlike the 'all purpose' public
figure, the 'limited purpose' public figure loses certain
protection for his reputation only to the extent that the
allegedly defamatory communication relates t o his role
in a public controversy." (Reader's Digest Assn. v.
Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d at pp. 253-254.)
In determining that Synanon and Dederich must be
accorded public figure status for purposes of their
defamation action, the court based its conclusion on
their efforts to thrust themselves into the public eye.
Synanon and Dederich had been the subject o f a
full-length commercial movie, four books, favorable
magazine articles in Life, Time and even Reader's Digest,
and numerous newspaper articles. "For many years Synanon
engaged in extensive publicity campaigns in which it
sought and achieved a favorable reputation as an
organization for the rehabilitation of drug addicts."
(Reader's Digest Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.
3d at p. 255.) The court concluded: "While any person or
organization has the right to engage in publicity efforts
and to attempt to influence public and media opinion
regarding their cause, such significant, voluntary
efforts to inject oneself into the public arena require
that such a person or organization be classified as a
public figure in any related defamation actions. " (Id.
at p. 256.)7
In Copp v. Paxton, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th 829, a
self-proclaimed earthquake expert undertook efforts to
organize a worldwide conference on disaster mitigation.
In connection with his efforts he took issue with the
conventional duck-and-cover advice given to
schoolchildren and distributed a flyer describing his
views. After being subjected to public criticism and
attacks on his credentials, Copp brought an action for
defamation against a county emergency services officer
and others. Our colleagues in Division One of this court
concluded that Copp was a limited purpose public figure
because he had attempted to thrust himself into the
forefront of debate on emergency preparedness by
organizing a worldwide conference, passing out flyers and
speaking at public meetings. (Id. at p. 846.) In
reaching this conclusion, the court observed: "It is not
necessary to show that a plaintiff actually achieves
prominence in the public debate; it is sufficient that
'[a plaintiff] attempts to thrust himself into the public
eye' (Rudnick v. McMillan (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1183,
1190) or to influence a public decision." (Id. at pp.
845-846.)
In Lind v. Grimmer, supra, 30 F.3d 1115, a
newsletter publisher brought an action challenging the
constitutionality of a Hawaii statute prohibiting
disclosure of information concerning investigations
undertaken by Hawaii's campaign spending commission. The
Ninth Circuit held the statute unconstitutional as
applied to Lind who revealed in a newsletter that he had
filed a complaint against the University of Hawaii
professional assembly alleging it had failed to disclose
certain campaign contributions. The court rejected
Hawaii's claim that it was justified in restricting
political speech about complaints before the Campaign
Spending Commission in order to promote other political
speech by candidates and their supporters. The court
observed that candidates "surely are public figures, and
therefore must be prepared to endure a heightened level
of criticism -- including charges of campaign spending
improprieties -- precisely in order to promote First
Amendment values. . . . Candidates' supporters, by
injecting themselves into public debate and attempting
financially to influence its outcome, also must be
prepared to suffer what to them may be unpleasant
discussion of their contribution practices." (Lind v.
Grimmer, supra, 30 F.3d at p. 1120.)
Petitioners contend that real parties have
sufficiently injected themselves into the maelstrom of
public debate over Israeli-Palestinian relations and
other topical issues to qualify as limited purpose public
figures. As examples, they cite declaration s and
interrogatory responses submitted by real parties Jeffrey
Blankfort and Steven Zeltzer (who the trial court found
to have made out prima facie cases of violation of their
rights under the privacy statute) describing their
interest and activities in support of Palestine and in
speaking out against Israeli policies and against
apartheid in South Africa. Blankfort stated: In 1981 he
was a charter member of the November 29th Coalition for
Palestine; in June 1982 he solicited names and funds for
an ad in the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner
protesting the Israeli invasion of Lebanon; in 1983, he
spent four months in Israel, Lebanon, Jordan and the West
Bank as a free-lance photojournalist; in January 1987, he
organized an anti-apartheid demonstration in San
Francisco; in May 1987, he and Steve Zeltzer organized a
forum on the Middle East at a church; in November 1989,
he spoke at a conference in Boston on the connection
between Israel and South Africa; he spoke on Israeli
censorship in June 1993 at a meeting of the American
Library Association; he is the editor of the Middle East
Labor Bulletin. Zeltzer recited similar activities: He
helped Blankfort form the Labor Committee on the Middle
East in 1987 whose purpose was to provide information to
t he U.S. workers about the conditions of working people
of the Middle East and to counter anti-Arab racism in the
United States; in the early 1980s he helped form the
Committee to Free Moses Mayekiso, a South African who had
been jailed because of his union activities in defense of
Black South African workers.
We agree that the activities undertaken by Blankfort
and Zeltzer are sufficient to make them limited purpose
public figures under the authorities previously
discussed. (Accord Nadel v. Regents of University of
California (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1269 -1270 [public
figure status where plaintiffs played leadership role in
protesting university's plan to build volleyball courts
in People's Park by speaking at city council meetings and
demonstrations, communicating with news media, and
staffing information table at park]; Lewis v. Ueberroth
(1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 442 [public figure status where
plaintiffs were officers in organization opposing
construction of Olympics sports facilities in Sepulveda
Basin]; see also Annot., Who is "Public Figure" for
Purposes of Defamation Action (1994) 19 A.L.R.5th 1.)
We have reviewed the declarations and interrogatory
responses prepared by the fifteen other real parties in
interest and submitted as part of the exhibits to
determine whether the level of their activities was such
that they may also be found to be limit ed purpose public
figures. We conclude that all but three of the fifteen
have described sufficient involvement in Middle East
and/or South African causes to be considered public
figures for purposes of this litigation. These twelve
individuals are each energetic members of numerous
organizations dedicated to advancing human rights in the
Middle East or South Africa or have otherwise been
actively involved in such political efforts.
Jock Taft, however, does not appear to qualify as a
limited purpose public figure. So far as the record
reveals, the only pertinent activity in which he is
engaged is teaching a class on the Palestinians at U.C.
Berkeley between 1984 and 1990. Taft states that his
classes were disrupted by students allegedly connected
with ADL and may have been monitored by Bullock. Merely
teaching a university class does not, in our view,
constitute the purposeful political activity that
warrants classification as a limited purpose public
figure. Taft cannot be said to have voluntarily injected
himself into the public arena merely because he teaches
at a university.
The present record does not satisfactorily show
whether the remaining two real parties in interest --
Paula Kotakis and Margaret McCormack -- are limited
purpose public figures. The declaration of Paula Kotakis
indicates that for an unspecified period o f time she has
been active in several unidentified organizations
allegedly listed as targets of Roy Bullock's efforts to
collect information. The information about McCormack's
activities is even more sketchy. In response to an
interrogatory inquiring whether protected information
about her was disclosed, she responded: "The Palestine
Human Rights Campaign is no longer active and its office
in Washington, D.C. was burned." The record contains no
other information regarding any relevant political
activities in which Ms. McCormack may have been engaged.
As we shall remand the case, the parties will have an
opportunity to augment the record and obtain a ruling
from the trial court as to whether Paula Kotakis and
Margaret McCormack are limited purpose pub lic figures
for purposes of this litigation.
Aside from the question of public figure status,
real parties in interest still dispute petitioners' claim
of First Amendment immunity under Civil Code 1798.53 by
arguing that because their news gathering techniques were
unlawful these activities fell outside the scope of First
Amendment protection. We do not believe the alleged
unlawfulness of petitioners' information-gathering
activities is dispositive of their right to the
protection of the First Amendment. Petitioners would be
entitled to that protection even if they did violate the
statute, but only if they obtained, used and disseminated
the information at issue as journalists.
One of the unusual aspects of this case is that,
unlike most newsgathering organizations, petitioners'
activities are not limited to journalism. ADL is a tax
exempt non-profit membership organization which describes
itself in its pleadings as "a civil rights and human
relations organization [which] engages in a broad range
of activities designed to combat anti-Semitism, prejudice
and bigotry of all kinds. Through its Intergroup
Relations Division, ADL works to promote greater
understanding of Jews, Judaism and Jewish concerns, as
well as intergroup and interreligious understanding.
Through its International Affairs Division, ADL seeks to
focus attention on the security of Jews around the world
and the strategic importance of the State of Israel."
Many of the activities through which ADL seeks to
achieve the foregoing purposes are unrelated to
conventional journalism, which we conceive to be the
gathering and editing of material of current interest for
presentation through print or broadcast media , or on the
internet, and available to interested members of the
public. For example, ADL privately circulates
information, some of it "confidential," only to certain
members and persons affiliated with other groups that
share its goals.
Unfortunately, the cases arising under Civil Code
section 1798.53 do not shed a great deal of light on the
breadth of constitutionally protected journalistic
activities. Nicholson provides some guidance, at least
with respect to the gathering (as oppose d to the
dissemination) of information. That case involved a
cause of action for breach of privacy by intrusion based
upon news gathering activities similar to that at issue
here, namely, "requesting and persuading" employees of
the State Bar to engage i n the "unauthorized and
unlawful disclosure" of confidential information. (See
fn. 6, ante.) The court characterized the allegation as
simply stating that the media defendants sought out the
newsworthy information which they subsequently published
in a newspaper of general circulation. The court held
that this type of activity was within the news gathering
activities protected by the First Amendment. (Nicholson
v. McClatchy Newspapers, supra, 177 Cal.App.3d at p.
520.) In reaching this conclusion the court relied upon
Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (1979) 443 U.S. 97,
which held that the state could not punish the
publication of information obtained through routine
newspaper reporting techniques (i.e., asking witnesses,
police, and an assistant prosecutor for the youthful
offender's name).
The Nicholson court distinguished routine news
gathering techniques from those employed in Dietemann v.
Time, Inc. (9th Cir. 1971) 449 F.2d 245, where newsmen
gained entrance to the plaintiff's home by subterfuge and
surreptitiously photographed him and recorded his
conversations by means of a hidden camera and electronic
devices. Such activities were not protected by the First
Amendment, according to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Likewise, a photographer's constant
surveillance, obtrusive and intruding presence in
photographing Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis was held to be
outside the news gathering privilege of the First
Amendment. (Galella v. Onassis (2d Cir. 1973) 487 F.2d
986.) Such conduct was contrasted with the routine news
gathering techniques which include "asking persons
questions, including those with confidential or
restricted information. While the government may desire
to keep some proceedings confidential and may impose the
duty upon participants to maintain confidentiality, it
may not impose criminal or civil liability upon the press
for obtaining and publishing newsworthy information
through routine reporting techniques." (Nicholson v.
McClatchy Newspapers, supra, 177 Cal.App.3d at pp.
519-520.)
In light of the foregoing, it is apparent that,
except with respect to Jock Taft and possibly also Paula
Kotakis and Margaret McCormack, the manner in which
petitioners allegedly obtained information about real
parties constitutes legitimate newsgathering. At least
fourteen real parties are limited purpose public figures
engaged in a newsworthy activity. The fact that ADL
apparently never published information about these
fourteen individuals in the magazines and newspapers they
publish and make available to the public is of no great
moment, as such information may well have been sought in
connection with stories that never materialized.
The problem in this case, however, relates not so
much to the manner in which petitioners may have obtained
the information in question, but the manner in which they
may have used and disseminated that information. The
case law does not address this aspect of the journalistic
enterprise since the situations it deals with are
invariably those in which the defendant published the
information in question in a newspaper or magazine
available to the public. Here, the complaint alleges
that petitioners disclosed protected non-public
information to foreign governments and other persons and
organizations with no compelling need to know such
information, in some cases for a fee. As indicated,
petitioner Bullock testified at his deposition testimony
that he ha d sold or given undisclosed information to
representatives of the government of South Africa.
Suall, ADL's chief "fact-finder," stated at his
deposition that he had met in Israel with agents of the
Mossad, the Israeli security agency, presumably for the
purpose of sharing information. If Bullock's disclosures
to South African officials involved non-public
information about real parties, or if Suall's meetings
with Israeli officials also involved disclosures of such
information, the protections of the First Amendment would
not be available, because private disclosures of such
information to foreign governments could not conceivably
constitute a legitimate and constitutionally protected
journalistic activity. Nor would the private or
"confidential" disclosure of such information to a
network consisting of members of ADL and/or affiliated
organizations not involved in journalism constitute a
protected activity.
To be sure, it has not been shown that any
information that may have been gathered by petitioners
about real parties in interest was in fact privately
disclosed to the governments of Israel or South Africa,
or to any other entities or individuals. Nonetheless,
real parties have made a showing that ADL was found by
the San Francisco Police Department to be in possession
of non-public information pertaining to certain real
parties in interest. The deposition testimony of Bullock
and Suall creates a possibility this information was
privately disclosed sufficient to justify discovery
calculated to lay the matter to rest. Accordingly, we
conclude real parties are entitled to discovery
specifically tailored to learn whether any information
gathered about them by ADL and its agents in violation of
Civil Code section 1798.53 was privately disclosed to the
government of Israel or South Africa, or to any other
agency or individual not a member of or employed by ADL,
or to any individual who was then a member or employee of
ADL for a non-journalistic purpose. B.
Our conclusion that Jock Taft is not a limited
purpose public figure (and that Paula Kotakis and
Margaret McCormack also may not be such public figures)
requires us to address petitioners' challenge to the
trial court's finding that the Mitchell criteria had been
satisfied. Petitioners assert that only one of the five
factors set forth in Mitchell has been met -- namely,
that they are parties to the litigation. According to
petitioners, the remaining four factors do not justify
disclosure in this case: (1) the importance of the
information sought to plaintiffs' case; (2) exhaustion of
all alternative sources of obtaining the needed
information; (3) the importance of protecting
confidentiality in the case at hand; and (4) making a
prima facie showing. (37 Cal.3d at pp. 279-282.)
Petitioners dispute that the information sought goes
to the heart of real parties' case. Real parties, on the
other hand, claim the information at issue is vital to
their case. They emphasize that they cannot prevail
without identifying exactly what Bullock illegally
learned about them from confidential government sources,
from whom he illegally obtained the information, and to
whom he and ADL illegally transmitted it. The complaint
alleges violation of privacy under article I, section 1,
of the California Constitution and under Civil Code
sections 1798.53 and 1798.569 as a result of a spying
operation conducted by defendants who secretly gathered
personal information about real parties in interest from
state and federal agencies and disclosed it to
individuals and entities with no compelling need to know
such information. Petitioners contend that the discovery
order goes well beyond the narrow confines of a Civil
Code section 1798.53 claim in that it is not narrowly
limited to tracking the language o f the statute.
Discovery, however, is not confined to the actual issues
framed by the pleadings. The information sought need not
be in a form that would be admissible at trial. There
need only be a reasonable prospect that it might lead to
admissible evidence. (See Hogan and Weber, 1 Cal. Civil
Discovery (1997) $ 1.5, p. 9.) In any event, petitioners
have acknowledged that their complaints about possible
overbreadth of certain requests may still be litigated
below. (See fn. 5, supra.)
Petitioners vigorously dispute the trial court's
finding that real parties have exhausted all reasonable
alternative sources of information and do not have any
practical way of obtaining such information from sources
other than defendants and the San Francisco Police
Department. According to petitioners, real parties never
made any genuine effort to find alternative sources of
the evidence they need. Petitioners argue, for example,
that real parties could establish who transmitted the
information by se eking discovery from certain
governmental agencies.
The sufficiency of real parties' discovery efforts
was argued below. Real parties deposed defendants
Bullock, Hirschhaut, and Suall, and each refused to
identify any information obtained about real parties.
They deposed Gerard and Carroll, the only po lice
officers Bullock named as sources, who denied
transmitting any of the illegally-obtained confidential
information regarding real parties Zeltzer and Blankfort
found in the possession of ADL. Real parties also
deposed Lieutenant Roth, who could not provide any useful
information due to a protective order earlier entered by
Judge Jones. The court agreed with real parties that
they had exhausted alternative sources. The finding that
real parties here, unlike those in Mitchell, had deposed
all known potential alternative sources was justified.
(See Mitchell v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p.
282.)
Petitioners contend the court ignored the factor of
the importance of protecting confidentiality in the case
at hand. Mitchell directs that "when the information
relates to matters of great public importance, and when
the risk of harm to the source is a substantial one, the
court may refuse disclosure even though the plaintiff has
no other way of obtaining essential information." (37
Cal.3d at p. 283.) The information sought as to Jock Taft
does not relate to a public figure or refer to matters of
great public importance that would justify nondisclosure
under Nicholson v. Superior Court, supra, 177 Cal. 509.
This case is unlike Mitchell where the information at
issue related to criminal or unethical conduct on the
part of a powerful private organization. (Mitchell,
supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 283.) Petitioners do not suggest
that the information sought in this case reveals improper
conduct on the part of powerful interests, but relates
only to political activity on the part of private
individuals which, so far as appears, is constitutionally
protected. Moreover, petitioners have not persuasively
shown that revelation of the information at issue would
expose them or their sources to harmful retaliation.
Finally, petitioners object to the court's finding
that real parties had satisfied the Mitchell requirement
that a prima facie showing be made. The showing that
needed to be made in Mitchell related to the falsity of
the allegedly defamatory information . The Mitchell
court explained that the routine granting of motions
seeking compulsory disclosure would emasculate the
important principle established in New York Times Co. v.
Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. 254, and other cases, unless
the substance of the libel charge was first established.
A showing that the alleged defamatory statements are
false would tend to tip the balance in favor of discovery
since there is very little public interest in protecting
the source of false accusations of wrongdoing. (37
Cal.3d at p. 283.) Accordingly, Mitchell states that "the
court may require the plaintiff to make a prima facie
showing that the alleged defamatory statements are false
before requiring disclosure." (Ibid; italics added, fn.
omitted.)
The Mitchell court's use of the word "may" indicates
it viewed the prima facie showing as a discretionary
requirement. Requiring a prima facie showing that the
alleged defamatory statements are false before ordering
disclosure of journalists' sources makes sense in the
context of a defamation action. The information needed
to show falsity would ordinarily be readily available to
the plaintiffs. Thus, requiring such a showing before
ordering discovery would not be an onerous burden on such
parties.
As, unlike Mitchell, this is not a defamation case,
the prima facie showing that would be made here relates
not to the falsity of petitioners' statements but the
likelihood that, in violation of Civil Code section
1798.53, they intentionally disclosed in formation, not
otherwise public, which they knew or should reasonably
have known was obtained from personal information
maintained in the records of one or more government
agencies. Such a showing is harder for a plaintiff to
make in a suit under Civil C ode section 1798.53 than the
showing of falsity that may be required in a defamation
action. The defendant in a defamation action ordinarily
cannot prevent the plaintiff from independently
establishing the falsity of charges, whereas a defendant
in an action under Civil Code section 1798.53 often can
prevent the necessary showing from being made simply by
resisting disclosure. In the latter situation it may be
unfair to permit the defendant to resist discovery if,
having exhausted other possible source s of the necessary
evidence, that is the only way the plaintiff can make the
requisite showing. This possible unfairness was one of
the reasons the Mitchell court was careful not to say
that a trial court must always require the party seeking
discovery t o make a prima facie showing, stating instead
that the trial court "may" require such a showing.
(Mitchell, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 283.)10
Ignoring the discretionary nature of the prima facie
showing requirement, petitioners claim the court imposed
such a requirement and found that it had been met only as
to 2 of the 17 plaintiffs. According to petitioners, the
trial court ruled that 15 of the 17 plaintiffs had not
made out a prima facie case of any potential Section
1798.53 violation by ADL. This is not an accurate
characterization of the ruling.
In pertinent part, the trial court stated as
follows: "Plaintiffs have presented a prima facie case
that Defendants Bullock, Hirschhaut and ADL have
illegally solicited, obtained and transmitted Civil Code
Sec 1798.53 information in the cases of Plaintiffs
BLANKFORT and ZELTZER, and there is a reasonable
probability that they have done so in the case of the
other named Plaintiffs and members of their class." The
italicized language, which petitioners simply ignore,
amounts to a statement that the remaining fifteen
plaintiffs had either also made a prima facie showing,11
or had at least made a showing that was sufficient under
the circumstances. Since it allowed discovery to proceed
on behalf of all seventeen plaintiffs, the trial court
must have concluded that all had made the necessary
showing that petitioners violated Civil Code section
1798.53. Since imposition of the prima facie showing
requirement is not mandatory, the imposition of a
somewhat lesser standard -- if indeed that is what the
trial court had in mind -- is certainly permissible.
We agree with the finding of the trial court that
real parties in interest have met the criteria set forth
in Mitchell v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d 268, as
to Jock Taft. It is evident, however, that the discovery
order itself is too broad and must be tailored to the
disclosure of non-public information about Jock Taft
contained in ADL files and to whom, if anyone, such
information was disclosed. C.
The discovery order must be vacated. To the extent
that the information sought was within the scope of ADL's
function as a journalist, ADL has a First Amendment
privilege as to claims by all but one, and possible two
others, of the 17 real parties in interest. As to the
real parties who do not have "public figure" status,
discovery may be ordered, but it must be tailored to
obtaining non-public information about them in ADL's
files and discovering to whom, if anyone, such
information was disclosed.
We have also concluded that, with respect to all
real parties, ADL is protected under the First Amendment
only to the extent its activities or those of its agents
constitute journalism. Thus, allegations that ADL and
its agents privately disclosed non -public information
about real parties in interest to foreign governments or
others not acting as ADL journalists are outside the
scope of the journalist's privilege. Accordingly,
discovery tailored to reveal whether such private
disclosures were made should be permitted.12 III.
DISPOSITION
The order to show cause is discharged. The petition
for writ of prohibition and/or mandate is granted, and
respondent court is directed to set aside and vacate its
September 19, 1997, order (as amended at the November 6,
1997 status conference). The parties shall bear their
own costs on appeal. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
_________________________
Kline, P. J.
We concur: _________________________
Haerle, J. ______________________
Lambden, J.
Trial Court: San Francisco Superior Court Trial Judge:
Honorable Alex Saldamando Attorneys for Petitioner:
David Goldstein Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe
Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest: Audrey Shabbas
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith v.
Superior Court- A080694
1 Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code
defines unfair competition as including any act
prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with section 17500)
of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions
Code.
Section 17500 makes it unlawful for any person, firm,
corporation or association . . . to make or disseminate
or cause to be made or disseminated . . . any statement,
concerning . . . real or personal property or services,
professional or otherwise, or concerning any
circumstance or matter of fact connected with the
proposed performance or disposition thereof, which is
untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the
exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue
or misleading . . . ."
2 Authorities trace the crisis of informational
privacy in government records to a number of factors:
(1) government's increased role in the lives of
individuals through its provision of benefits and
services and its regulation of the activities of private
and public organizations;
(2) an increasingly complex government bureaucracy's
reliance on written records, rather than face-to-face
contact or direct evaluation, for decision-making;
(3) the vogue of behavior-predictive theories of
decisionmaking, which presume that a maximum amount of
information will allow fine-grained distinctions on
decisions and predictions as to future behavior; and
(4) the unprecedented technological revolution in
information handling, storage, transfer, and
manipulation." (Note, California's Privacy Act:
Controlling Government's Use of Information? (1980) 32
Stan. L. Rev. 1001, fn. 2, citing, inter alia, Statewide
Information Policy Comm., California State Assembly,
Final Report, reprinted in 1 Cal. State Legislature,
1970 Reg. Sess., Appendix to the Journal of the
Assembly.)
3 The motion, memorandum of points and authorities,
and declarations in opposition to the motion are
included in the documents that we had ordered sealed
pursuant to ADL's request. It would be nearly
impossible, however, to write a meaningful opinion re
viewing the court's discovery order without referring to
the documents supporting and opposing the ruling. In
response to our inquiry at oral argument, ADL consented
to unsealing all exhibits we had previously ordered
sealed. Accordingly, we hereby order Exhibits 36-38, 43,
44, 45, 46, and 49 unsealed.
4 On March 3, 1997, respondent court entered a
stipulated order stating, inter alia, that the pending
discovery motions shall pertain only to the 17
individual plaintiffs, and not to the putative class they
purport to represent.
5 Petitioners acknowledge in their petition (pp.
14-15) that the only matter before the trial court on
the motion for reconsideration was ADLs objection based
on the journalists privilege and that their other
objections to discovery are still outstanding and may be
addressed after resolution of this petition. Thus,
petitioners' objection to the order to produce "a roster
of the ADL 'community' as identified by Mr. Hirschhaut"
on First Amendment freedom of association grounds (NAACP
v. State of Alabama (1 958) 357 U.S. 449; Britt v.
Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844) may be addressed,
if necessary, and resolved upon termination of these
proceedings.
6 The cause of action for breach of privacy by
intrusion alleged that the defendants pursued and
conducted an unreasonably intrusive investigation into
Plaintiff's confidential and private affairs by means of
soliciting, inquiring, requesting and persuading agents,
employees and members of the State Bar to engage in the
unauthorized and unlawful disclosure of information
[knowing such information to be confidential].'"
(Nicholson v. McClatchy Newspapers, supra, 177
Cal.App.3d at p. 520.)
7 The California Supreme Court recently addressed the
definition of a public figure for purposes of tort and
First Amendment law in Khawar v. Globe International,
Inc. (1998) ___ Cal.4th ___ (98 Daily Journal D.A.R.
11307) where it held that plaintiff Khawar, who was
photographed near Senator Robert Kennedy shortly before
the Senator's assassination, was not a public figure.
Khawar's appearance near Kennedy was not conduct by
which he thrust himself into the limelight in an attempt
to influence the resolution of issues. Mere association
with a matter that attracts public attention, such as
Senator Kennedy's candidacy, does not transform one into
a public figure in the absence of some purposeful
activity to invite public comment or to influence the
public with relation to some issue. (Id. at p. 11310.)
8 Victor A. Ajlouny, Yigal Arens, Amal
Barkouki-Winter, Manuel Dudum, Carol El-Shaieb, Stephen
B. Mashney, Helen Hooper McCloskey, Donald E. McGaffin,
Anne Poirer, Agha Saeed, Audrey Park Shabbas and Marianne
Torres.
9 Civil Code section 1798.56 provides: Any person who
willfully requests or obtains any record containing
personal information from an agency under false
pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not
more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), o r imprisoned
not more than one year, or both."
10 The other reasons suggested in Mitchell for not
imposing the prima facie showing requirement is that it
is closely related to another requirement, that there be
no or little public interest in protecting
confidentiality. (Ibid.)
11 Prima facie evidence is simply that evidence which
will support a ruling in favor of its proponent if no
controverting evidence is presented. (People v. Bell
(1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 554 . . . (conc. opn. of Kaufman,
J.); 9 Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn rev. 1981)
Sufficiency of Evidence, $ 2494, pp. 379, 381, 387;
Black's Law Dict. (5th ed. 1979) p. 1071.) It may be
slight evidence which creates a reasonable inference of
fact sought to be established but need not eliminate all
contrary inferences. ( People v. Towler (1982) 31 Cal.3d
105, 115 . . .)" (Evans v. Paye (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th
265, 280, fn. 13.)
12 Petitioners raised some procedural objections in
their reply memorandum that merit mention. They claim
that real parties failed to file a verified answer or
demurrer as required by rule 56(e), California Rules of
Court. Real parties, however, did file a verified answer
and return to the order to show cause. Petitioners also
object to the exhibits filed by real parties with their
verified answer and return on the ground that many of
the documents contained therein were not before the
trial court at the time of its ruling. Since we are
reviewing the trial court's ruling, it is improper to
consider documents that were not before the trial court.
Accordingly, we have not considered matters not presented
below.[/justify]
Filed 11/16/98
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE
OF B'NAI B'RITH et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
Respondent;
AUDREY SHABBAS et al.,
Real Parties in Interest. ______________________________/
A080694
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
(San Francisco County
Superior Court No.951031)
The underlying issue in this case relates to the
right to privacy. Whether that right was violated cannot
be determined, however, without the disclosure of
relevant evidence. The question before us now is whether
such disclosure can be compelled without violence to the
First Amendment values requiring protection of a
journalist's confidential sources and information.
Petitioners Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith
(ADL) and Roy Bullock seek to set aside a discovery order
issued by respondent superior court (Judge Alex
Saldamando) on September 19, 1997, granting
reconsideration and ordering compliance with certain
discovery requests by real parties in interest after
finding that they have now met the criteria set forth in
Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 268, to
overcome the journalist's qualified privilege.
Respondent court stayed the effect of its order pending
final determination of this writ petition. Initially,
this court denied the petition without opinion.
Thereafter, the Supreme Court directed us to issue an
order to show cause and to place the matter on calendar.
As explained hereafter, we hold that petitioners, as
journalists, are immune from liability for violating
Civil Code section 1798.53 under the First Amendment as
to all but one and possibly two other real parties in
interest by virtue of their status as limited purpose
public figures. As to the remaining non-public figure or
figures, petitioners are not protected by the First
Amendment from liability and a discovery order.
Petitioners are entitled to the protection of the
First Amendment, however, only insofar as the information
sought to be discovered was obtained and used by them for
legitimate journalistic purposes. The journalist's
privilege would not protect against discovery directed to
whether any non-public information gathered about real
parties in interest was privately disclosed to a foreign
government or others in violation of Civil Code section
1798.53, as claimed, because such usage does not
constitute journalism. The discovery order issued by the
trial court was not so limited. The order must therefore
be vacated and the matter remanded for reconsideration in
light of our opinion. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND
Petitioners ADL and Roy Bullock, along with Richard
Hirschhaut and Thomas Gerard, are defendants in an action
brought by real parties in interest for invasion of
privacy in violation of Civil Code section 1798.53.
Defendant Hirschhaut was the director o f ADL's office in
San Francisco; defendant Bullock has been a paid
"fact-finder" for ADL for the past 32 years; and
defendant Gerard was employed by the San Francisco Police
Department. The complaint alleges that defendants
secretly gathered and disclose d personal information
about real parties in interest, 17 individuals, in
violation of Civil Code section 1798.53 because of their
expressed views in opposition to the apartheid policy of
the then-government of South Africa and/or Israeli
policies vis--vi s the Palestinians.
Real parties learned of defendants' activities as a
result of an investigation conducted by the San Francisco
District Attorney and the Police Department. The
District Attorney commenced the investigation in 1993
after the Police Department learned that one or more of
its officers might have been improperly providing
confidential government information to Bullock, who was
employed by ADL to investigate organizations opposing the
aforesaid policies of the governments of Israel and South
Africa.
At the conclusion of his investigation, the District
Attorney determined that Bullock and/or ADL had solicited
and received government information not made public from
San Francisco police officers and others. In November
1993, the District Attorney commenced a civil action
against ADL and Bullock alleging violation of Business
and Professions Code section 17200.1 That action was
settled after ADL agreed to a permanent injunction
prohibiting ADL and Bullock from obtaining documents or
other information they know could not legally be
disclosed to them. Real parties in interest, who
commenced this action in April 1993, claim that
non-public information contained in government records
relating to each of them was improperly obtained and
disclosed to others by ADL.
Civil Code section 1798.53 is part of the
Information Practices Act of 1977, which generally
imposes limitations on the right of governmental entities
to disclose personal information about an individual.
(Nicholson v. McClatchy Newspapers (1986) 177 Ca l.App.3d
509, 514, fn. 2.) The statute was designed by the
Legislature to prevent misuse of the increasing amount of
information about citizens which government agencies
amass in the course of their multifarious activities, the
disclosure of which could be embarrassing or otherwise
prejudicial to individuals or organizations.2 Indeed, the
Legislature made express findings to that effect: "(a)
The right to privacy is being threatened by the
indiscriminate collection, maintenance, and dissemination
of personal information and the lack of effective laws
and legal remedies. (b) The increasing use of computers
and other sophisticated information technology has
greatly magnified the potential risk to individual
privacy that can occur from the maintenance of personal
information. (c) In order to protect the privacy of
individuals, it is necessary that the maintenance and
dissemination of personal information be subject to
strict limits." (Civ. Code, $ 1798.1.)
Civil Code section 1798.53 is a key remedial
provision of the Information Practices Act. It provides
a civil cause of action for damages against any "person,
other than an employee of the state or of a local
government agency acting solely in his or her official
capacity, who intentionally discloses information, not
otherwise public, which they know or should reasonably
know was obtained from personal information maintained by
a state agency or from 'records' within a 'system of
records' (as these terms are defined in the Federal
Privacy Act of 1974) . . . maintained by a federal
government agency. . . ." Civil Code section 1798.53
additionally authorizes an award of exemplary damages of
at least $2,500 and attorney's fees and costs to a
successful plaintiff.
On June 10, 1993, real parties served their first
demand for production and inspection of documents. ADL
moved for a protective order on the ground that ADL is a
journalist protected by the qualified journalist's
privilege set forth in Mitchell v. Superior Court, supra,
37 Cal.3d 268. After a lengthy hearing on the motion,
the court (Judge Barbara Jones) ruled on November 17,
1993, that ADL, which publishes magazines and
newsletters, qualified as a journalist, and that ruling
is not now disputed. The court granted ADL's motion for
a protective order and denied real parties' document
request as then phrased on the ground that the latter had
failed to satisfy the criteria set forth in Mitchell v.
Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d 268. The order stated
t he court would reconsider the matter if real parties
reformulated the document requests and were unsuccessful
in obtaining the information from alternative sources.
Real parties continued their discovery attempts. On
November 19, 1993, they served a second document request
on ADL. On November 24, 1993, real parties served the
San Francisco District Attorney with a subpoena for
documents referring to specified persons and
organizations that had been seized by the police
department during its investigation of ADL. On April 6,
1994, the court granted ADL's motion to quash the
subpoena "with respect to any documents that originated
with ADL or Bullock, or that were obtained, procured or
developed by ADL or Bullock." In September 1994, the
court ordered Bullock to appear for deposition to explore
only information not within the ambit of the journalist's
privilege set forth in Mitchell and to produce certain
documents . Discovery of other categories of documents
was stayed "without prejudice unless and until plaintiffs
have established, pursuant to Mitchell, their entitlement
to proceed with discovery of matters protected by the
journalist's privilege."
Mitchell v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d 268,
holds that there is a qualified journalist's privilege in
a civil action to refuse to reveal confidential sources
or information obtained from those sources and that the
scope of the privilege depends up on a weighing of five
factors.
The first is the nature of the litigation and
whether the reporter is a party. "In general, disclosure
is appropriate in civil cases, especially when the
reporter is a party to the litigation." (Id. at p. 279.)
"A second consideration is the relevance of the
information sought to plaintiff's cause of action. . . .
[M]ere relevance is insufficient to compel discovery;
disclosure should be denied unless the information goes
'to the heart of the plaintiff's claim.'" (Id. at p.
280.) Third, discovery should be denied unless the
plaintiff has exhausted all alternative sources of
obtaining the needed information. Fourth, the court
should consider the importance of protecting
confidentiality in the case at hand. (Id. at p. 282.)
"Finally, the court may require the plaintiff to make a
prima facie showing that the alleged defamatory
statements are false before requiring disclosure." (Id.
at p. 283.)
In June 1996, real parties sought reconsideration of
the earlier limitations on discovery, arguing that they
had now satisfied the Mitchell criteria.3 Specifically,
they asked the court to order (1) ADL to produce
documents in response to their third document request,
(2) reissuance of the subpoena duces tecum to the police
department, and (3) Irwin Suall to answer certain
questions and to produce documents listed in his notice
of deposition. Real parties memorandum of points and
authorities recited the efforts undertaken since the
earlier ruling: They took the depositions of defendants
Gerard, Bullock and Hirschhaut, San Diego Sheriff's
Deputy Tim Carroll, San Francisco Police Lieutenant Ron
Roth, former Israeli Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky and
ADL' s fact-finding director, Irwin Suall. Real parties
had reframed their document requests to seek information
solely about plaintiffs and members of the putative
class.4 Despite an order allowing real parties to
ascertain the job assignments of Roy Bullock, ADL refused
to produce documents or allow Irwin Suall, who made 95
percent of those job assignments, to identify them.
In their memorandum of points and authorities in
support of the request for reconsideration, respondents
characterized the facts that had emerged from their
discovery as follows: (1) Bullock, with Hirschhaut's
knowledge and under Suall's direction, soli cited and
received confidential information including driver's
license numbers and post office box numbers from law
enforcement officers; (2) up to half of ADL's efforts
during 1986 to 1993 were directed to obtaining
information about individuals such as real parties in
interest and organizations holding views opposing
Israel's policies or apartheid in South Africa; (3) of
the ADL files in police possession, some seven and
one-half boxes contain illegally-obtained confidential
information about individual s and organizations; (4)
Bullock and/or Hirschhaut admitted that ADL or its agents
gave information to the Government of Israel and sold
information to the Government of South Africa; (5) from
1986-1993, Bullock and Hirschhaut transmitted hundreds of
reports to Suall and other ADL offices that included
information from confidential sources or "official
friends" (law enforcement officers); (6) ADL routinely
provided information on individuals, including real party
in interest Yigal Arens, to the greater community of
12,000 ADL supporters in the Bay Area, characterizing
those opposed to Israel as propagandists using their
anti-Zionism as a guise for deeply-felt anti-Semitism;
(7) ADL's files seized by the police contained
information from confidential government files on real
parties in interest Steven Zeltzer and Jeffrey Blankfort;
(8) information on real party in interest Helen McCloskey
in ADL's files contained information that appeared to
have come from the Government of Israel; and (9) ADL's
head "fact -finder," Irwin Suall, had met with the
Israeli intelligence officials in Israel.
Respondent court heard argument on the motion to
reconsider on June 27, 1997, and filed its written order
on September 19, 1997. The court found that real parties
had met the criteria of Mitchell: (1) The news gatherers
are parties to the action; (2) the information goes to
the heart of real parties' case in that it will identify
the source of illegally-obtained information admittedly
obtained by ADL and the dissemination, if any, of such
information in violation of Civil Code section 1798.53
and article I, section 1, of the California Constitution:
(3) real parties have exhausted all reasonable
alternative sources of information and do not have any
practical way of obtaining such information from sources
other than defendants and the San Francisco Police
Department; (4) the non-public information to be
disclosed does not relate to public figures or refer to
matters of great public importance that would justify
nondisclosure under Nicholson v. McClatchy Newspaper Co.,
supra, 177 Cal.App.3d 509; (5) plaintiffs have presented
a prima facie case that defendants Bullock, Hirschhaut
and ADL have illegally solicited, obtained and
transmitted Civil Code section 1798.53 information in the
cases of plaintiffs Blankfort and Zeltzer, and there is
a reasonable probability that they have done so in the
case of the other named plaintiffs.
The court ordered the following discovery: (A)
Reissuance of the subpoena duces tecum to the San
Francisco Police Department and "in response to such
subpoena the San Francisco Police Department shall
produce for Plaintiffs' inspection and copying subject to
the Protective Order herein all non-public information
obtained by ADL from public agents which is contained in
the ADL records seized by the Police Department in 1992
and 1993." The parties are authorized to select a
discovery referee or master to be compensated by the
parties to supervise and monitor the production of the
seized records. (B) ADL is to fully respond to
Plaintiffs' third document request within 20 days by
producing the following documents: "(1) all memoranda or
documents describing or relating to the work assignments
of Roy Bullock from Irwin Suall which involve police or
other public agents; (2) each document containing
illegally-obtained non-public information relating to
Plaintiffs and individuals or organizations in their
putative class as described by Lt. Roth; (3) each item of
non-public information gathered or acquired by ADL and/or
Bullock which refer or relate to any of the named
Plaintiffs; (4) each ADL publication distributed outside
the ADL which includes the name of a Plaintiff or spouse;
(5) all 'pink' reports [indicating information had come
from confidential informant] dating from 1988 to 1993
transmitted from San Francisco as described by Bullock
which contain or refer to non-public information about
Plaintiffs' or members of organization in their putative
class; (6) any ADL communications to the ADL, 'Jewish or
larger community' identified by Mr. Hirschhaut in his
deposition which referred to Plaintiffs or their class;
and (7) a roster of the ADL 'community' as identified by
Mr. Hirschhaut." (C) Irwin Suall was to answer in
writing within 20 days specified questions that had been
propounded to him at his deposition in April 1996, and he
was to produce any documents demanded of him in his
notice of deposition that are in his possession and have
not been previously produced. (D) The time for Victor
Ostrosky to comply with the request to produce documents
not within the journalist's privilege was extended to 60
days following completion of the deposition of Irwin
Suall. II. DISCUSSION
Petitioners mount two challenges to the superior
court's ruling. First they argue that discovery from ADL
may not be compelled because ADL cannot, consistent with
free press guarantees, be liable under Civil Code section
1798.53. Petitioners' second argument is that respondent
court erred in finding that real parties in interest had
now met the Mitchell criteria to overcome the qualified
privilege.5 A.
Turning first to the question of immunity,
petitioners maintain that Civil Code section 1798.53 must
give way to a journalists free press rights, including
the right to ask for, receive and publish confidential
information from government sources.
Mitchell clearly does not provide journalists an
absolute immunity. "When called upon to weigh the
fundamental values arguing both for and against compelled
disclosure, the overwhelming majority of courts have
concluded that the question of a reporter's privilege in
civil cases must be decided on a case-by-case basis, with
the trial court examining and balancing the asserted
interests in light of the facts of the case before it.
Thus, the courts conclude, there is neither an absolute
duty to disclose n or an absolute privilege to withhold,
but instead a qualified privilege against compelled
disclosure which depends on the facts of each particular
case. [Citations.]" (Mitchell v. Superior Court, supra,
37 Cal.3d at p. 276.)
Petitioners maintain that the weighing undertaken by
the trial court in this case cannot be squared with a
series of assertedly similar cases in which it was found
that disclosure could not be punished. They rely on
Nicholson v. McClatchy Newspapers, supra, 177 Cal.App.3d
509; Alim v. Superior Court (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 144;
Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia (1978) 435 U.S.
829; and The Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989) 491 U.S. 524.
Petitioners also find support in the California Supreme
Court's recent opinion in Shulman v. Group W Productions,
Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 200. Real parties in interest
respond that the cited cases are all manifestly
distinguishable on their facts; and, indeed, that the
cases petitioners rely upon actually support disclosure
in the different circumstances presented in this case.
In Nicholson, an unsuccessful candidate for Attorney
General sued the State Bar, two newspapers, and their
reporters for damages arising from the publication of the
unauthorized disclosure of the confidential fact that the
Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation had found him
not qualified for judicial appointment. The causes of
action asserted against the media defendants included one
for breach of Civil Code section 1798.53 and one for
breach of the common law right of privacy by intrusion.
The trial court found that the publication was
constitutionally privileged and sustained the media
defendants' demurrers without leave to amend. The Court
of Appeal affirmed, noting that the allegations as to the
media defendants were only that they had sought out
newsworthy information which they subsequently published.
Such allegations were insufficient to avoid the effect of
the constitutional privilege. (Id. at p. 520.) There was
no allegation of impermissible reporting techniques.6 The
plaintiff was a public figure since he had recently run
for statewide office, and the evaluation of the judicial
qualifications was a newsworthy subject. (Id. at p.
515.) While the government may desire to keep some
proceedings confidential and may impose the duty upon
participants to maintain confidentiality, it may not
impose criminal or civil liability upon the press for
obtaining and publishing newsworthy information through
routine reporting techniques." (Id. at pp. 519-520.) The
court observed that although reporters are not privileged
to commit crimes and independent torts in gathering the
news, there was no allegation that any such impermissible
techniques had been employed. (Id. at pp. 519-520.)
In Alim v. Superior Court, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d
144, Walter Atlee, former Chief Deputy Director of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, sued a newspaper
reporter, editor and publisher for invasion of privacy
under Civil Code section 1798.53 and libel based on an
article containing allegedly false and confidential
information from federal Veterans Administration records
indicating that he had wrongfully received overpayments
of a veteran's disability stipend while employed. The
trial court granted the newspaper defendants' motion for
summary judgment on all causes of action but that under
Civil Code section 1798.53 on the ground that Atlee, who
was a public figure, could not prove malice under the New
York Times doctrine. (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
(1964) 376 U.S. 254.) The trial court denied summary
judgment on the Civil Code section 1798.53 claim on the
ground that the constitutional doctrine did not apply to
it. The Court of Appeal disagreed, rejecting the claim
that an action under Civil Code section 1798.53 is not
subject to free press defenses analogous to those
available in common law actions for invasion of privacy.
The court held that a cause of action under Civil Code
section 1798.53 is subject to the New York Times actual
malice standard and that there is a privilege for
truthful publication of information bearing on the
fitness for office of a public official. (Id. at pp.
152-153.)
In Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, supra,
435 U.S. 829, the Supreme Court held that the First
Amendment did not permit the criminal punishment of a
newspaper for publishing truthful information regarding
confidential proceedings of the Virginia Judicial Inquiry
and Review Commission. "The operation of the Virginia
Commission, no less than the operation of the judicial
system itself, is a matter of public interest,
necessarily engaging the attention of the news media.
The article published by Landmark provided accurate
factual information about a legislatively authorized
inquiry pending before the Judicial Inquiry and Review
Commission and in so doing clearly served those interests
in public scrutiny and discussion of governmental affairs
which the First Amendment was adopted to protect." (Id.
at p. 839.) The court specifically noted, however, that
the case did not involve "the possible applicability of
the statute to one who secures the information by illegal
means and thereafter divulges it. We do not have before
us any constitutional challenge to a State's power to
keep the Commission's proceedings confidential or to
punish participants for breach of this mandate." (Id. at
p. 837.) The only issue before the court was whether a
newspaper could be punished for publishing truthful
information about confidential proceedings. (Ibid.)
The Florida Star v. B.J.F., supra, 491 U.S. 524,
held that a newspaper could not be held liable for
violating a state statute prohibiting the publishing of
a rape victim's name which it had obtained from a
publicly released police report. The court emphasized
that its holding was limited to the situation in which
the newspaper published truthful information that had
been lawfully obtained. (Id. at p. 541.) The court
expressly noted it was not addressing the question of
whether a newspaper may ever be punished for publishing
information that had been unlawfully acquired. (Id. at
p. 535, fn. 8.)
Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc., supra, 18
Cal.4th 200, addressed the common law invasion of privacy
torts of public disclosure of private facts and intrusion
in an action brought by two automobile accident victims
against a television producer that videotaped and
broadcast a documentary rescue program showing the
plaintiffs' rescue and transportation to the hospital in
a medical helicopter. The court held that summary
judgment was proper as to the cause of action for
publication of private facts b ut not as to the cause of
action for intrusion. Lack of newsworthiness was held to
be an essential element of a cause of action based on a
claim that publication has given unwanted publicity to
allegedly private aspects of a person's life. The
subject matter of the broadcast as a whole was of
legitimate public concern. "Automobile accidents are by
their nature of interest to that great portion of the
public that travels frequently by automobile. The rescue
and medical treatment of accident victims is also of
legitimate concern to much of the public, involving as it
does a critical service that any member of the public may
someday need." (Id. at p. 228.) Likewise, the victim's
appearance and words as she was extricated from the
overturned car, placed in the helicopter, and transported
to the hospital were of legitimate public concern. The
intrusion cause of action, by contrast, was held not to
carry any special immunity or privilege for the press.
"In contrast to the broad privilege the press enjoy s for
publishing truthful, newsworthy information in its
possession, the press has no recognized constitutional
privilege to violate generally applicable laws in pursuit
of material. Nor, even absent an independent crime or
tort, can a highly offensive intrusion into a private
place, conversation, or source of information generally
be justified by the plea that the intruder hoped thereby
to get good material for a news story." (Id. at p. 242,
italics in original.) Thus, summary judgment was improper
as to the cause of action for intrusion based on the
cameraman's presence in the medical helicopter and the
recording and amplifying of the victim's conversations
with medical personnel. (Id. at pp. 237-238.)
The trial court found that the cases just discussed
were inapplicable because they involved newsworthy
information, plaintiffs who were public figures, or both.
According to the trial court, the non-public information
gathered about real parties was not newsworthy, and real
parties were not public figures. Petitioners challenge
these determinations, arguing that real parties are
political activists visibly engaged in public opposition
to policies of the Israeli government and have therefore
made themselves limited purpose public figures.
Petitioners rely primarily on Reader's Digest Assn.
v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244; Copp v. Paxton
(1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 829; and Lind v. Grimmer (9th Cir.
1994) 30 F.3d 1115. After reviewing these authorities
and the information provided in the exhibits relating to
the political activities that real parties in interest
have undertaken, we agree that at least 14 and possibly
16 of the 17 real parties in interest must be considered
limited purpose public figures in relation to this
litigation.
The leading California case on public figures is
Reader's Digest Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d
at pages 254-255, where Synanon, a rehabilitation program
for drug addicts, and Charles Dederich, its founder, were
held to be public figures by virtue of their myriad
attempts to thrust their case and Synanon in general into
the public eye. In reaching that conclusion, the court
traced the evolution of the public figure doctrine,
noting that it was first recognized in Curtis Publishing
Co. v. Butt s (1967) 388 U.S. 130, and subsequently
refined in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S.
323, where "the court provided a twofold rationale for
extending the New York Times rule to 'public figures.'
First, it recognized that public figures are gene rally
less vulnerable to injury from defamation because of
their ability to resort to effective 'self help.' Such
persons ordinarily enjoy considerably greater access than
private individuals to the media and other channels of
communication. This access in turn enables them to
counter criticism and to expose the fallacies of
defamatory statements. (418 U.S. at p. 344.) Second, and
more significantly, the court cited a normative
consideration that public figures are less deserving of
protection than private persons because public figures,
like public officials, have 'voluntarily exposed
themselves to increased risk of injury from defamatory
falsehood concerning them.' (418 U.S. at p. 345; see also
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, supra, 388 U.S. at p.
164 (Warren, C.J., conc. in result).)" (Reader's Digest
Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 253.)
"Having thus explained the rationale for the public
figure classification, the Gertz decision defined two
classes of public figures. The first is the 'all
purpose' public figure who has 'achiev[ed] such pervasive
fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all
purposes and in all contexts.' The second category is
that of the 'limited purpose' or 'vortex' public figure,
an individual who 'voluntarily injects himself or is
drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby
becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues.'
(418 U.S. at p. 351.) Unlike the 'all purpose' public
figure, the 'limited purpose' public figure loses certain
protection for his reputation only to the extent that the
allegedly defamatory communication relates t o his role
in a public controversy." (Reader's Digest Assn. v.
Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d at pp. 253-254.)
In determining that Synanon and Dederich must be
accorded public figure status for purposes of their
defamation action, the court based its conclusion on
their efforts to thrust themselves into the public eye.
Synanon and Dederich had been the subject o f a
full-length commercial movie, four books, favorable
magazine articles in Life, Time and even Reader's Digest,
and numerous newspaper articles. "For many years Synanon
engaged in extensive publicity campaigns in which it
sought and achieved a favorable reputation as an
organization for the rehabilitation of drug addicts."
(Reader's Digest Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.
3d at p. 255.) The court concluded: "While any person or
organization has the right to engage in publicity efforts
and to attempt to influence public and media opinion
regarding their cause, such significant, voluntary
efforts to inject oneself into the public arena require
that such a person or organization be classified as a
public figure in any related defamation actions. " (Id.
at p. 256.)7
In Copp v. Paxton, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th 829, a
self-proclaimed earthquake expert undertook efforts to
organize a worldwide conference on disaster mitigation.
In connection with his efforts he took issue with the
conventional duck-and-cover advice given to
schoolchildren and distributed a flyer describing his
views. After being subjected to public criticism and
attacks on his credentials, Copp brought an action for
defamation against a county emergency services officer
and others. Our colleagues in Division One of this court
concluded that Copp was a limited purpose public figure
because he had attempted to thrust himself into the
forefront of debate on emergency preparedness by
organizing a worldwide conference, passing out flyers and
speaking at public meetings. (Id. at p. 846.) In
reaching this conclusion, the court observed: "It is not
necessary to show that a plaintiff actually achieves
prominence in the public debate; it is sufficient that
'[a plaintiff] attempts to thrust himself into the public
eye' (Rudnick v. McMillan (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1183,
1190) or to influence a public decision." (Id. at pp.
845-846.)
In Lind v. Grimmer, supra, 30 F.3d 1115, a
newsletter publisher brought an action challenging the
constitutionality of a Hawaii statute prohibiting
disclosure of information concerning investigations
undertaken by Hawaii's campaign spending commission. The
Ninth Circuit held the statute unconstitutional as
applied to Lind who revealed in a newsletter that he had
filed a complaint against the University of Hawaii
professional assembly alleging it had failed to disclose
certain campaign contributions. The court rejected
Hawaii's claim that it was justified in restricting
political speech about complaints before the Campaign
Spending Commission in order to promote other political
speech by candidates and their supporters. The court
observed that candidates "surely are public figures, and
therefore must be prepared to endure a heightened level
of criticism -- including charges of campaign spending
improprieties -- precisely in order to promote First
Amendment values. . . . Candidates' supporters, by
injecting themselves into public debate and attempting
financially to influence its outcome, also must be
prepared to suffer what to them may be unpleasant
discussion of their contribution practices." (Lind v.
Grimmer, supra, 30 F.3d at p. 1120.)
Petitioners contend that real parties have
sufficiently injected themselves into the maelstrom of
public debate over Israeli-Palestinian relations and
other topical issues to qualify as limited purpose public
figures. As examples, they cite declaration s and
interrogatory responses submitted by real parties Jeffrey
Blankfort and Steven Zeltzer (who the trial court found
to have made out prima facie cases of violation of their
rights under the privacy statute) describing their
interest and activities in support of Palestine and in
speaking out against Israeli policies and against
apartheid in South Africa. Blankfort stated: In 1981 he
was a charter member of the November 29th Coalition for
Palestine; in June 1982 he solicited names and funds for
an ad in the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner
protesting the Israeli invasion of Lebanon; in 1983, he
spent four months in Israel, Lebanon, Jordan and the West
Bank as a free-lance photojournalist; in January 1987, he
organized an anti-apartheid demonstration in San
Francisco; in May 1987, he and Steve Zeltzer organized a
forum on the Middle East at a church; in November 1989,
he spoke at a conference in Boston on the connection
between Israel and South Africa; he spoke on Israeli
censorship in June 1993 at a meeting of the American
Library Association; he is the editor of the Middle East
Labor Bulletin. Zeltzer recited similar activities: He
helped Blankfort form the Labor Committee on the Middle
East in 1987 whose purpose was to provide information to
t he U.S. workers about the conditions of working people
of the Middle East and to counter anti-Arab racism in the
United States; in the early 1980s he helped form the
Committee to Free Moses Mayekiso, a South African who had
been jailed because of his union activities in defense of
Black South African workers.
We agree that the activities undertaken by Blankfort
and Zeltzer are sufficient to make them limited purpose
public figures under the authorities previously
discussed. (Accord Nadel v. Regents of University of
California (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1269 -1270 [public
figure status where plaintiffs played leadership role in
protesting university's plan to build volleyball courts
in People's Park by speaking at city council meetings and
demonstrations, communicating with news media, and
staffing information table at park]; Lewis v. Ueberroth
(1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 442 [public figure status where
plaintiffs were officers in organization opposing
construction of Olympics sports facilities in Sepulveda
Basin]; see also Annot., Who is "Public Figure" for
Purposes of Defamation Action (1994) 19 A.L.R.5th 1.)
We have reviewed the declarations and interrogatory
responses prepared by the fifteen other real parties in
interest and submitted as part of the exhibits to
determine whether the level of their activities was such
that they may also be found to be limit ed purpose public
figures. We conclude that all but three of the fifteen
have described sufficient involvement in Middle East
and/or South African causes to be considered public
figures for purposes of this litigation. These twelve
individuals are each energetic members of numerous
organizations dedicated to advancing human rights in the
Middle East or South Africa or have otherwise been
actively involved in such political efforts.
Jock Taft, however, does not appear to qualify as a
limited purpose public figure. So far as the record
reveals, the only pertinent activity in which he is
engaged is teaching a class on the Palestinians at U.C.
Berkeley between 1984 and 1990. Taft states that his
classes were disrupted by students allegedly connected
with ADL and may have been monitored by Bullock. Merely
teaching a university class does not, in our view,
constitute the purposeful political activity that
warrants classification as a limited purpose public
figure. Taft cannot be said to have voluntarily injected
himself into the public arena merely because he teaches
at a university.
The present record does not satisfactorily show
whether the remaining two real parties in interest --
Paula Kotakis and Margaret McCormack -- are limited
purpose public figures. The declaration of Paula Kotakis
indicates that for an unspecified period o f time she has
been active in several unidentified organizations
allegedly listed as targets of Roy Bullock's efforts to
collect information. The information about McCormack's
activities is even more sketchy. In response to an
interrogatory inquiring whether protected information
about her was disclosed, she responded: "The Palestine
Human Rights Campaign is no longer active and its office
in Washington, D.C. was burned." The record contains no
other information regarding any relevant political
activities in which Ms. McCormack may have been engaged.
As we shall remand the case, the parties will have an
opportunity to augment the record and obtain a ruling
from the trial court as to whether Paula Kotakis and
Margaret McCormack are limited purpose pub lic figures
for purposes of this litigation.
Aside from the question of public figure status,
real parties in interest still dispute petitioners' claim
of First Amendment immunity under Civil Code 1798.53 by
arguing that because their news gathering techniques were
unlawful these activities fell outside the scope of First
Amendment protection. We do not believe the alleged
unlawfulness of petitioners' information-gathering
activities is dispositive of their right to the
protection of the First Amendment. Petitioners would be
entitled to that protection even if they did violate the
statute, but only if they obtained, used and disseminated
the information at issue as journalists.
One of the unusual aspects of this case is that,
unlike most newsgathering organizations, petitioners'
activities are not limited to journalism. ADL is a tax
exempt non-profit membership organization which describes
itself in its pleadings as "a civil rights and human
relations organization [which] engages in a broad range
of activities designed to combat anti-Semitism, prejudice
and bigotry of all kinds. Through its Intergroup
Relations Division, ADL works to promote greater
understanding of Jews, Judaism and Jewish concerns, as
well as intergroup and interreligious understanding.
Through its International Affairs Division, ADL seeks to
focus attention on the security of Jews around the world
and the strategic importance of the State of Israel."
Many of the activities through which ADL seeks to
achieve the foregoing purposes are unrelated to
conventional journalism, which we conceive to be the
gathering and editing of material of current interest for
presentation through print or broadcast media , or on the
internet, and available to interested members of the
public. For example, ADL privately circulates
information, some of it "confidential," only to certain
members and persons affiliated with other groups that
share its goals.
Unfortunately, the cases arising under Civil Code
section 1798.53 do not shed a great deal of light on the
breadth of constitutionally protected journalistic
activities. Nicholson provides some guidance, at least
with respect to the gathering (as oppose d to the
dissemination) of information. That case involved a
cause of action for breach of privacy by intrusion based
upon news gathering activities similar to that at issue
here, namely, "requesting and persuading" employees of
the State Bar to engage i n the "unauthorized and
unlawful disclosure" of confidential information. (See
fn. 6, ante.) The court characterized the allegation as
simply stating that the media defendants sought out the
newsworthy information which they subsequently published
in a newspaper of general circulation. The court held
that this type of activity was within the news gathering
activities protected by the First Amendment. (Nicholson
v. McClatchy Newspapers, supra, 177 Cal.App.3d at p.
520.) In reaching this conclusion the court relied upon
Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (1979) 443 U.S. 97,
which held that the state could not punish the
publication of information obtained through routine
newspaper reporting techniques (i.e., asking witnesses,
police, and an assistant prosecutor for the youthful
offender's name).
The Nicholson court distinguished routine news
gathering techniques from those employed in Dietemann v.
Time, Inc. (9th Cir. 1971) 449 F.2d 245, where newsmen
gained entrance to the plaintiff's home by subterfuge and
surreptitiously photographed him and recorded his
conversations by means of a hidden camera and electronic
devices. Such activities were not protected by the First
Amendment, according to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Likewise, a photographer's constant
surveillance, obtrusive and intruding presence in
photographing Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis was held to be
outside the news gathering privilege of the First
Amendment. (Galella v. Onassis (2d Cir. 1973) 487 F.2d
986.) Such conduct was contrasted with the routine news
gathering techniques which include "asking persons
questions, including those with confidential or
restricted information. While the government may desire
to keep some proceedings confidential and may impose the
duty upon participants to maintain confidentiality, it
may not impose criminal or civil liability upon the press
for obtaining and publishing newsworthy information
through routine reporting techniques." (Nicholson v.
McClatchy Newspapers, supra, 177 Cal.App.3d at pp.
519-520.)
In light of the foregoing, it is apparent that,
except with respect to Jock Taft and possibly also Paula
Kotakis and Margaret McCormack, the manner in which
petitioners allegedly obtained information about real
parties constitutes legitimate newsgathering. At least
fourteen real parties are limited purpose public figures
engaged in a newsworthy activity. The fact that ADL
apparently never published information about these
fourteen individuals in the magazines and newspapers they
publish and make available to the public is of no great
moment, as such information may well have been sought in
connection with stories that never materialized.
The problem in this case, however, relates not so
much to the manner in which petitioners may have obtained
the information in question, but the manner in which they
may have used and disseminated that information. The
case law does not address this aspect of the journalistic
enterprise since the situations it deals with are
invariably those in which the defendant published the
information in question in a newspaper or magazine
available to the public. Here, the complaint alleges
that petitioners disclosed protected non-public
information to foreign governments and other persons and
organizations with no compelling need to know such
information, in some cases for a fee. As indicated,
petitioner Bullock testified at his deposition testimony
that he ha d sold or given undisclosed information to
representatives of the government of South Africa.
Suall, ADL's chief "fact-finder," stated at his
deposition that he had met in Israel with agents of the
Mossad, the Israeli security agency, presumably for the
purpose of sharing information. If Bullock's disclosures
to South African officials involved non-public
information about real parties, or if Suall's meetings
with Israeli officials also involved disclosures of such
information, the protections of the First Amendment would
not be available, because private disclosures of such
information to foreign governments could not conceivably
constitute a legitimate and constitutionally protected
journalistic activity. Nor would the private or
"confidential" disclosure of such information to a
network consisting of members of ADL and/or affiliated
organizations not involved in journalism constitute a
protected activity.
To be sure, it has not been shown that any
information that may have been gathered by petitioners
about real parties in interest was in fact privately
disclosed to the governments of Israel or South Africa,
or to any other entities or individuals. Nonetheless,
real parties have made a showing that ADL was found by
the San Francisco Police Department to be in possession
of non-public information pertaining to certain real
parties in interest. The deposition testimony of Bullock
and Suall creates a possibility this information was
privately disclosed sufficient to justify discovery
calculated to lay the matter to rest. Accordingly, we
conclude real parties are entitled to discovery
specifically tailored to learn whether any information
gathered about them by ADL and its agents in violation of
Civil Code section 1798.53 was privately disclosed to the
government of Israel or South Africa, or to any other
agency or individual not a member of or employed by ADL,
or to any individual who was then a member or employee of
ADL for a non-journalistic purpose. B.
Our conclusion that Jock Taft is not a limited
purpose public figure (and that Paula Kotakis and
Margaret McCormack also may not be such public figures)
requires us to address petitioners' challenge to the
trial court's finding that the Mitchell criteria had been
satisfied. Petitioners assert that only one of the five
factors set forth in Mitchell has been met -- namely,
that they are parties to the litigation. According to
petitioners, the remaining four factors do not justify
disclosure in this case: (1) the importance of the
information sought to plaintiffs' case; (2) exhaustion of
all alternative sources of obtaining the needed
information; (3) the importance of protecting
confidentiality in the case at hand; and (4) making a
prima facie showing. (37 Cal.3d at pp. 279-282.)
Petitioners dispute that the information sought goes
to the heart of real parties' case. Real parties, on the
other hand, claim the information at issue is vital to
their case. They emphasize that they cannot prevail
without identifying exactly what Bullock illegally
learned about them from confidential government sources,
from whom he illegally obtained the information, and to
whom he and ADL illegally transmitted it. The complaint
alleges violation of privacy under article I, section 1,
of the California Constitution and under Civil Code
sections 1798.53 and 1798.569 as a result of a spying
operation conducted by defendants who secretly gathered
personal information about real parties in interest from
state and federal agencies and disclosed it to
individuals and entities with no compelling need to know
such information. Petitioners contend that the discovery
order goes well beyond the narrow confines of a Civil
Code section 1798.53 claim in that it is not narrowly
limited to tracking the language o f the statute.
Discovery, however, is not confined to the actual issues
framed by the pleadings. The information sought need not
be in a form that would be admissible at trial. There
need only be a reasonable prospect that it might lead to
admissible evidence. (See Hogan and Weber, 1 Cal. Civil
Discovery (1997) $ 1.5, p. 9.) In any event, petitioners
have acknowledged that their complaints about possible
overbreadth of certain requests may still be litigated
below. (See fn. 5, supra.)
Petitioners vigorously dispute the trial court's
finding that real parties have exhausted all reasonable
alternative sources of information and do not have any
practical way of obtaining such information from sources
other than defendants and the San Francisco Police
Department. According to petitioners, real parties never
made any genuine effort to find alternative sources of
the evidence they need. Petitioners argue, for example,
that real parties could establish who transmitted the
information by se eking discovery from certain
governmental agencies.
The sufficiency of real parties' discovery efforts
was argued below. Real parties deposed defendants
Bullock, Hirschhaut, and Suall, and each refused to
identify any information obtained about real parties.
They deposed Gerard and Carroll, the only po lice
officers Bullock named as sources, who denied
transmitting any of the illegally-obtained confidential
information regarding real parties Zeltzer and Blankfort
found in the possession of ADL. Real parties also
deposed Lieutenant Roth, who could not provide any useful
information due to a protective order earlier entered by
Judge Jones. The court agreed with real parties that
they had exhausted alternative sources. The finding that
real parties here, unlike those in Mitchell, had deposed
all known potential alternative sources was justified.
(See Mitchell v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p.
282.)
Petitioners contend the court ignored the factor of
the importance of protecting confidentiality in the case
at hand. Mitchell directs that "when the information
relates to matters of great public importance, and when
the risk of harm to the source is a substantial one, the
court may refuse disclosure even though the plaintiff has
no other way of obtaining essential information." (37
Cal.3d at p. 283.) The information sought as to Jock Taft
does not relate to a public figure or refer to matters of
great public importance that would justify nondisclosure
under Nicholson v. Superior Court, supra, 177 Cal. 509.
This case is unlike Mitchell where the information at
issue related to criminal or unethical conduct on the
part of a powerful private organization. (Mitchell,
supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 283.) Petitioners do not suggest
that the information sought in this case reveals improper
conduct on the part of powerful interests, but relates
only to political activity on the part of private
individuals which, so far as appears, is constitutionally
protected. Moreover, petitioners have not persuasively
shown that revelation of the information at issue would
expose them or their sources to harmful retaliation.
Finally, petitioners object to the court's finding
that real parties had satisfied the Mitchell requirement
that a prima facie showing be made. The showing that
needed to be made in Mitchell related to the falsity of
the allegedly defamatory information . The Mitchell
court explained that the routine granting of motions
seeking compulsory disclosure would emasculate the
important principle established in New York Times Co. v.
Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. 254, and other cases, unless
the substance of the libel charge was first established.
A showing that the alleged defamatory statements are
false would tend to tip the balance in favor of discovery
since there is very little public interest in protecting
the source of false accusations of wrongdoing. (37
Cal.3d at p. 283.) Accordingly, Mitchell states that "the
court may require the plaintiff to make a prima facie
showing that the alleged defamatory statements are false
before requiring disclosure." (Ibid; italics added, fn.
omitted.)
The Mitchell court's use of the word "may" indicates
it viewed the prima facie showing as a discretionary
requirement. Requiring a prima facie showing that the
alleged defamatory statements are false before ordering
disclosure of journalists' sources makes sense in the
context of a defamation action. The information needed
to show falsity would ordinarily be readily available to
the plaintiffs. Thus, requiring such a showing before
ordering discovery would not be an onerous burden on such
parties.
As, unlike Mitchell, this is not a defamation case,
the prima facie showing that would be made here relates
not to the falsity of petitioners' statements but the
likelihood that, in violation of Civil Code section
1798.53, they intentionally disclosed in formation, not
otherwise public, which they knew or should reasonably
have known was obtained from personal information
maintained in the records of one or more government
agencies. Such a showing is harder for a plaintiff to
make in a suit under Civil C ode section 1798.53 than the
showing of falsity that may be required in a defamation
action. The defendant in a defamation action ordinarily
cannot prevent the plaintiff from independently
establishing the falsity of charges, whereas a defendant
in an action under Civil Code section 1798.53 often can
prevent the necessary showing from being made simply by
resisting disclosure. In the latter situation it may be
unfair to permit the defendant to resist discovery if,
having exhausted other possible source s of the necessary
evidence, that is the only way the plaintiff can make the
requisite showing. This possible unfairness was one of
the reasons the Mitchell court was careful not to say
that a trial court must always require the party seeking
discovery t o make a prima facie showing, stating instead
that the trial court "may" require such a showing.
(Mitchell, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 283.)10
Ignoring the discretionary nature of the prima facie
showing requirement, petitioners claim the court imposed
such a requirement and found that it had been met only as
to 2 of the 17 plaintiffs. According to petitioners, the
trial court ruled that 15 of the 17 plaintiffs had not
made out a prima facie case of any potential Section
1798.53 violation by ADL. This is not an accurate
characterization of the ruling.
In pertinent part, the trial court stated as
follows: "Plaintiffs have presented a prima facie case
that Defendants Bullock, Hirschhaut and ADL have
illegally solicited, obtained and transmitted Civil Code
Sec 1798.53 information in the cases of Plaintiffs
BLANKFORT and ZELTZER, and there is a reasonable
probability that they have done so in the case of the
other named Plaintiffs and members of their class." The
italicized language, which petitioners simply ignore,
amounts to a statement that the remaining fifteen
plaintiffs had either also made a prima facie showing,11
or had at least made a showing that was sufficient under
the circumstances. Since it allowed discovery to proceed
on behalf of all seventeen plaintiffs, the trial court
must have concluded that all had made the necessary
showing that petitioners violated Civil Code section
1798.53. Since imposition of the prima facie showing
requirement is not mandatory, the imposition of a
somewhat lesser standard -- if indeed that is what the
trial court had in mind -- is certainly permissible.
We agree with the finding of the trial court that
real parties in interest have met the criteria set forth
in Mitchell v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d 268, as
to Jock Taft. It is evident, however, that the discovery
order itself is too broad and must be tailored to the
disclosure of non-public information about Jock Taft
contained in ADL files and to whom, if anyone, such
information was disclosed. C.
The discovery order must be vacated. To the extent
that the information sought was within the scope of ADL's
function as a journalist, ADL has a First Amendment
privilege as to claims by all but one, and possible two
others, of the 17 real parties in interest. As to the
real parties who do not have "public figure" status,
discovery may be ordered, but it must be tailored to
obtaining non-public information about them in ADL's
files and discovering to whom, if anyone, such
information was disclosed.
We have also concluded that, with respect to all
real parties, ADL is protected under the First Amendment
only to the extent its activities or those of its agents
constitute journalism. Thus, allegations that ADL and
its agents privately disclosed non -public information
about real parties in interest to foreign governments or
others not acting as ADL journalists are outside the
scope of the journalist's privilege. Accordingly,
discovery tailored to reveal whether such private
disclosures were made should be permitted.12 III.
DISPOSITION
The order to show cause is discharged. The petition
for writ of prohibition and/or mandate is granted, and
respondent court is directed to set aside and vacate its
September 19, 1997, order (as amended at the November 6,
1997 status conference). The parties shall bear their
own costs on appeal. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
_________________________
Kline, P. J.
We concur: _________________________
Haerle, J. ______________________
Lambden, J.
Trial Court: San Francisco Superior Court Trial Judge:
Honorable Alex Saldamando Attorneys for Petitioner:
David Goldstein Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe
Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest: Audrey Shabbas
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith v.
Superior Court- A080694
1 Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code
defines unfair competition as including any act
prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with section 17500)
of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions
Code.
Section 17500 makes it unlawful for any person, firm,
corporation or association . . . to make or disseminate
or cause to be made or disseminated . . . any statement,
concerning . . . real or personal property or services,
professional or otherwise, or concerning any
circumstance or matter of fact connected with the
proposed performance or disposition thereof, which is
untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the
exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue
or misleading . . . ."
2 Authorities trace the crisis of informational
privacy in government records to a number of factors:
(1) government's increased role in the lives of
individuals through its provision of benefits and
services and its regulation of the activities of private
and public organizations;
(2) an increasingly complex government bureaucracy's
reliance on written records, rather than face-to-face
contact or direct evaluation, for decision-making;
(3) the vogue of behavior-predictive theories of
decisionmaking, which presume that a maximum amount of
information will allow fine-grained distinctions on
decisions and predictions as to future behavior; and
(4) the unprecedented technological revolution in
information handling, storage, transfer, and
manipulation." (Note, California's Privacy Act:
Controlling Government's Use of Information? (1980) 32
Stan. L. Rev. 1001, fn. 2, citing, inter alia, Statewide
Information Policy Comm., California State Assembly,
Final Report, reprinted in 1 Cal. State Legislature,
1970 Reg. Sess., Appendix to the Journal of the
Assembly.)
3 The motion, memorandum of points and authorities,
and declarations in opposition to the motion are
included in the documents that we had ordered sealed
pursuant to ADL's request. It would be nearly
impossible, however, to write a meaningful opinion re
viewing the court's discovery order without referring to
the documents supporting and opposing the ruling. In
response to our inquiry at oral argument, ADL consented
to unsealing all exhibits we had previously ordered
sealed. Accordingly, we hereby order Exhibits 36-38, 43,
44, 45, 46, and 49 unsealed.
4 On March 3, 1997, respondent court entered a
stipulated order stating, inter alia, that the pending
discovery motions shall pertain only to the 17
individual plaintiffs, and not to the putative class they
purport to represent.
5 Petitioners acknowledge in their petition (pp.
14-15) that the only matter before the trial court on
the motion for reconsideration was ADLs objection based
on the journalists privilege and that their other
objections to discovery are still outstanding and may be
addressed after resolution of this petition. Thus,
petitioners' objection to the order to produce "a roster
of the ADL 'community' as identified by Mr. Hirschhaut"
on First Amendment freedom of association grounds (NAACP
v. State of Alabama (1 958) 357 U.S. 449; Britt v.
Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844) may be addressed,
if necessary, and resolved upon termination of these
proceedings.
6 The cause of action for breach of privacy by
intrusion alleged that the defendants pursued and
conducted an unreasonably intrusive investigation into
Plaintiff's confidential and private affairs by means of
soliciting, inquiring, requesting and persuading agents,
employees and members of the State Bar to engage in the
unauthorized and unlawful disclosure of information
[knowing such information to be confidential].'"
(Nicholson v. McClatchy Newspapers, supra, 177
Cal.App.3d at p. 520.)
7 The California Supreme Court recently addressed the
definition of a public figure for purposes of tort and
First Amendment law in Khawar v. Globe International,
Inc. (1998) ___ Cal.4th ___ (98 Daily Journal D.A.R.
11307) where it held that plaintiff Khawar, who was
photographed near Senator Robert Kennedy shortly before
the Senator's assassination, was not a public figure.
Khawar's appearance near Kennedy was not conduct by
which he thrust himself into the limelight in an attempt
to influence the resolution of issues. Mere association
with a matter that attracts public attention, such as
Senator Kennedy's candidacy, does not transform one into
a public figure in the absence of some purposeful
activity to invite public comment or to influence the
public with relation to some issue. (Id. at p. 11310.)
8 Victor A. Ajlouny, Yigal Arens, Amal
Barkouki-Winter, Manuel Dudum, Carol El-Shaieb, Stephen
B. Mashney, Helen Hooper McCloskey, Donald E. McGaffin,
Anne Poirer, Agha Saeed, Audrey Park Shabbas and Marianne
Torres.
9 Civil Code section 1798.56 provides: Any person who
willfully requests or obtains any record containing
personal information from an agency under false
pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not
more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), o r imprisoned
not more than one year, or both."
10 The other reasons suggested in Mitchell for not
imposing the prima facie showing requirement is that it
is closely related to another requirement, that there be
no or little public interest in protecting
confidentiality. (Ibid.)
11 Prima facie evidence is simply that evidence which
will support a ruling in favor of its proponent if no
controverting evidence is presented. (People v. Bell
(1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 554 . . . (conc. opn. of Kaufman,
J.); 9 Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn rev. 1981)
Sufficiency of Evidence, $ 2494, pp. 379, 381, 387;
Black's Law Dict. (5th ed. 1979) p. 1071.) It may be
slight evidence which creates a reasonable inference of
fact sought to be established but need not eliminate all
contrary inferences. ( People v. Towler (1982) 31 Cal.3d
105, 115 . . .)" (Evans v. Paye (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th
265, 280, fn. 13.)
12 Petitioners raised some procedural objections in
their reply memorandum that merit mention. They claim
that real parties failed to file a verified answer or
demurrer as required by rule 56(e), California Rules of
Court. Real parties, however, did file a verified answer
and return to the order to show cause. Petitioners also
object to the exhibits filed by real parties with their
verified answer and return on the ground that many of
the documents contained therein were not before the
trial court at the time of its ruling. Since we are
reviewing the trial court's ruling, it is improper to
consider documents that were not before the trial court.
Accordingly, we have not considered matters not presented
below.[/justify]
Nous serons toujours là.
-
Dejuificator II
- Erudit
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:47 pm
[justify][large]Cal on Spying and Names[/large]
Date: Fri Sep 18 00:23:41 1998
ADL Spy Network 2nd Part
Question: "What was the purpose of keeping all those
names, Cal?
Answer: "What was the purpose? I was an investigator for
the ADL. I investigated any and all anti-democratic
movements.
Question: "And these investigations that you were doing,
were they all in behalf of the ADL?
Answer: "They were all in behalf of the ADL."
(From deposition of Roy "Cal" Bullock, interviewed by San
Francisco Police inspector Ron Roth, January 25. (Pp. 138
and 139)
ROY "CAL" BULLOCK has been on the "unofficial"
payroll of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith for
nearly 40 years and as recently as July 19, 1992*, was
described by its New York-based chief spymaster, Irwin
Suall, as "our Number One investigator." Bullock, as of
1992, was receiving close to $25,000 annually for
monitoring what Bullock and the ADL apparently considered
to be "anti-democratic" organizations and individuals.
The numbers of the former stretched into the hundreds and
the names of individuals he had in his computer went well
beyond 10,000, according to 700 pages of documents
released in April by San Francisco District Attorney Arlo
Smith.
While Bullock monitored and at times infiltrated
neo-Nazi and skinhead groups, his and the ADL's main
concerns were organizations and individuals considered
threats or potential threats to Israel. These seemed to
include not only the more obvious targets, Palestinians
and Arab- Americans and their support groups, but
organizations representing virtually every segment of the
progressive social, legal and political spectrum, with a
special emphasis on those opposing apartheid.
Under a separate "Arab" category he kept 77 files on
58 Arab-American organizations; among 647 groups
described as "pinko," multiple files were maintained on
the African National Congress and 47 other anti-apartheid
organizations, both here and South Africa-based. His
surveillance of the latter reflected the ADL's desire, as
part of Israel's "unofficial" U.S. propaganda arm, to
neutralize critics of Israel's military and economic ties
to the apartheid state, an effort, which, the records
show, was largely successful.
This eventually led him to do similar spying for the
South African intelligence service together with his
buddy, now retired San Francisco police inspector Tom
Gerard who kept his own set of files (which is more than
just a departmental no-no and has him already indicted
and facing a possible conviction).
Among the hundreds of others groups spied upon were
such diverse organizations as the NAACP, the National
Indian Treaty Council, Greenpeace, the Japanese-Americans
Citizens League, the Centro Legal de La Raza, the
American Civil Liberties Union, the Earth Island
Institute and the Harvey Milk Gay and Lesbian Democratic
Club. A half dozen American Jewish and Israeli groups
also received his attention including the Jerusalem-based
Alternative Information Center, Americans for Peace Now,
Friends of Yesh G'vul, the International Jewish Peace
Union and Israelis Against Occupation.
There were also files on 20 Bay Area labor unions,
plus the San Francisco Central Labor Council, the
Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, the Boycott Shell
Committee, the Green Giant Frozen Food Workers Committee
and the San Francisco Chapter of the Committee for Labor
Union Women. In alphabetical order, files were maintained
on: AFSCME Local 3218, AFT 151, AFSCME Local 3506,
Carpenters Local 22, NABET Local 51, HERE Local 2, IAM
Local 565, ILWU, ILWU Local 6, NALC Local 214, OCAW, OCAW
8149, Plumbers & Fitters Local 93; SEIU Local 535, SEIU
Local 616; Teamster Local 921 (S.F. TDU), United Farm
Workers and UTU Local 1730.
In addition, records were kept on the Bay Area
Network on Central America, the Portland Labor Committee
on Central America, the Free South Africa Labor Committee
and the Labor Committee on the Middle East.
In Bullock's computer, all were labeled "pinko,"
(which in his interview with SFPD inspector Roth, he
equated with "left wing.")
Robert Carl Miller, writing in The Voice, (July/Aug.
'93) the publication of the spied-upon Letter Carriers
Local 214, asked:
"Why would the ADL, dedicated to 'translating the
country's democratic ideals into a way of life for all
Americans'," be wasting their time and resources (an
estimated 34 million dollars a year) investigating all of
the above-named groups?
Why was this spy network interested in rooting out
possible anti-Semitism in the Boycott Shell Committee but
had no interest in any anti-Semitism in the boardroom of
Standard Oil? Are the wealthy purer of heart than the
working class?
The history of oil companies is littered with
anti-Semitism. Henry Ford, not the UAW, was supporter of
Hitler. There were no files listed for corporations with
this spy network."
What information Bullock entered into in his files
will be secret, at least until September 10th, thanks to
an accommodating San Francisco judge, Henry Louie, who
accepted the ADL's version of reality Q that their files
and those of Bullock, who remains on the ADL payroll, are
their private property, as well as protected by the First
Amendment.
On a more ominous note, an announcement by Smith in
April that indictments would be filed against Bullock
and/or the ADL by the middle of June, appears, at best,
to have been premature, and at worst, projects the
possibility that the massive pressure being applied to
stop the investigation by the city's Jewish establishment
Q not only on the D.A.'s office, but on the mayor and the
chief of police Q may result in a compromise that would
leave the ADL free of criminal charges (see accompanying
story on Page x).
A private class action suit has already been filed
by Attorney and former Congressman Paul "Pete" McCloskey,
himself a long-time victim of ADL surveillance and
disinformation, representing, initially, 19 individuals
who believe they were victimized by the ADL either for
their public opposition to Israeli policies and/or their
opposition to South African apartheid. The suit contends
that the ADL violated certain right to privacy laws that
are protected by the California civil code which are
designed to prevent private institutions, such as the
ADL, from receiving and disseminating personal
information that is not publicly available.
To refresh those who have not kept up with a
fast-breaking story that has now slowed down to a crawl:
in early December, a recently retired San Francisco
policeman and former CIA operative in El Salvador,
Afghanistan, Algeria and Honduras, the aforementioned
Gerard, was accused by the FBI (for whom he had also
previously worked) of being in possession of files on
anti-apartheid activists which he had illegally obtained
and was passing on to South Africa.
It was apparent, from an investigation of Gerard's
computer files,that he was also, illegally, providing
personal information on individuals to the ADL. He also
had turned over to Bullock, hundreds of San Francisco
Police Department files that the SFPD had been ordered to
be destroy following a previous investigation of local
police spying.
They also found in a search of Gerard's gym locker
in February, a black executioner's hood, photos of
blindfolded men, presumably El Salvadorans, 10 passports
in different names, a CIA cable marked "Secret," what
were apparently CIA interrogation manuals and over a 100
names and phone numbers under the title, "International
Activities Division-Special Activities Group," a who's
who of the CIA," Gerard told an L.A. Times reporter who
sought him out in the Philippines where he had initially
headed, one step ahead of the authorities, and from where
has since returned and been indicted.
All this was proof, Gerard told the Times, (April
27) that the CIA was directly involved in the training
and support of torturers and death squads operating in El
Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala in the mid-80s.
It turned out that Gerard had a partner, a beefy,
pathologically anti-communist (of the Joe McCarthy
stripe) dealer in Asian art named Roy Bullock, who had
been a paid agent of the ADL since 1954, and who, like
Gerard, had also been working for the South African
government as well as moonlighting for the FBI.( In
August, 1987, Bullock was revealed to be an ADL agent
after joining LCOME; see MELB 4/2.)
The ADL predictably pleaded innocent and attempted
to distance itself from both Gerard and Bullock,
referring to the latter as a "independent contractor." To
keep Bullock's undercover identity intact, the ADL paid
him through a "cut- out," Bruce Hochman, a Beverly Hills
attorney who serves on the organization's Southern
California Board.
The ADL's alleged lack of knowledge of Bullock's
activities failed to convince Yehuda Lev, associate
editor of Los Angeles's Jewish Journal (April 30). Lev
wrote:
"I also have enough common sense to know that a
40-year relationship with a client and agent should
result in some knowledge , each about the other. The
official explanation that Bullock was an "independent
contractor," holds no water. That may affect his Social
Security payments and tax deductibilty, but an employee
of a firm for more than four decades is more than a free
lance researcher."
Between 1985 and 1982, Hochman's checks to Bullock
totaled $169,375. His salary for 1992 was $24,400. The
ADL's failure to his pay social security taxes and
withhold income tax are among the possible felonies with
which ADL may be charged.
As late as February 25, the ADL was not even willing
to admit to many of its own senior employees that Bullock
was working for "the firm." In a memorandum sent to ADL
Regional Directors on that date, Jeffrey Sinensky, ADL's
Director of its Division on Civil Rights, and Ann Tourk,
its Director of Community Service refer to "information
[that] was found in the possession of an individual who
is alleged to have a relationship with ADL." The memo
also attacked reports "falsely implying that ADL worked
covertly with Tom Gerard to monitor Arab Americans."
Similar statements were included in a five-page booklet,
"Talking Points," which the directors were advised to use
in defusing criticism from ADL's "allies" in the civil
rights field.
In the memo and in statements to the press, ADL
officials denied any wrong doing and kept repeating that
they were "cooperating" with law enforcement agencies, It
was soon clear, at least to the San Francisco Police
Department, that they weren't.
What the San Francisco investigators found
remarkable was the refusal of the Los Angeles Police
Department, which evidently had been heavily infiltrated
by the ADL, to assist the SFPD in the investigation, a
decision that was shamelessly hailed by the B'nai B'rith
Messenger, the ADL mother organization's weekly paper in
Los Angeles. (The Messenger also applauded the New York
Times for not reporting the story.)
The story took a major leap when the SFPD and FBI
staged multiple raids on ADL offices in San Francisco and
Los Angeles, and found thousands of files on individuals
and organizations, some of which the ADL had apparently
"doctored" in the meantime.
Subsequently, some 718 pages of documents and police
and FBI interviews with Bullock, David Gurvitz, a former
ADL operative in Los Angeles, a and San Diego Police
Officer, who had collaborated with Bullock, were released
to the public by District Attorney Smith along with the
list of organizations spied upon. They appeared to
contain enough information to file multiple charges
against the ADL and, at the very least, seriously,
threaten its tax-exempt status.
"We are talking about the use of information from
DMV files, criminal files, and other confidential files,"
Smith told ABC News, "files from state and local agencies
that were being illegally furnished and illegally
received."
His opinion was corroborated by SFPD police
inspector Ron Roth. "Based on the evidence," Roth wrote
in summarizing his findings, "exhibits and facts in this
affidavit, I believe that Roy Bullock and the ADL had
numerous peace officers supplying them with confidential
criminal and DMV information." He was not just referring
to San Francisco.
Citing his interview with former ADL employee
Gurvitz, he learned of the existence of "other [ADL] code
named fact finders and field investigators. In Chicago
there is an ex- police officer named CHI-3 (there are
also references to CHI-1 and CHI-2 who apparently are not
policemen.QED.). In St. Louis there is IRONSIDES. In
Atlanta there is an Arab speaking man named FLIPPER."
Roth was unable to locate any files on the
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) in
ADL's San Francisco office. Gurvitz explained that there
were many files on the ADC in the ADL's Los Angeles
office, along with the names of "any Arab American with
anti-Israel leanings or any Arab Americans that wrote
letters to the newspaper editors." He also volunteered
the information that Bullock's home computer was "the
repository of the fact finding information for the San
Francisco ADL office."
Roth estimated "after numerous interview and
analysis of the documents seized in eight searches," that
"inquiries were made to DMV vehicle registration and
driver's license numbers of members listed at a ration of
approximately 10- 15% of the total [ADC] membership." One
of Gerard's assignments with the police was to act as
liaison to the
Arab community, which "required" that he attend
community events, giving him the necessary cover to join
Bullock in recording the vehicle licenses of those
attending.
Some of Bullock's responses to inquiries by Roth and
the FBI were truly extraordinary. One of the individuals
he was keeping tabs on was Alex Odeh, the head of the ADC
office in Orange County, who was murdered in 1987 by a
bomb in his office, believed to have been planted by the
Jewish Defense League.
"I happened to know Alex Odeh, a very nice, decent,
humane guy," Bullock told Roth. "In fact, I missed going
to the office by one day: I might have been there to open
the door instead of him because he allowed me to go into
the office if I was down there; just by sheer coincidence
it wasn't me."
Bullock's expressed reason for spying on the
anti-apartheid movement appeared even more disingenuous:
"Because," read the FBI report of its interview with him,
"he wanted to help South Africa make a better assessment
of the anti-apartheid situation in the United States.
Bullock said he hoped that by doing this he would
encourage the Government of South Africa to bring it to
an end." It should be noted that Bullock made this
statement after learning that a document was found in his
computer, addressed to his South African contact, warning
him that he (Bullock) had been questioned by the FBI
concerning S.A. agents in the area.
A more honest reason for the ADL's snooping on the
movement was forthcoming from ADL's national director,
Abe Foxman, on a sweep through the Bay Area in May.
"People are very upset about the [files on the]
ANC," he agrees. "At the time we exposed the ANC, they
were communist. They were violent, they were antisemitic,
they were pro-PLO and they were anti-Israel. You're going
to tell me I don't have the legitimacy to find out who
they were consorting with, who their buddies are, who
supports them." (No. Ca. Jewish Bulletin, May 7).
In May, 1986, the ADL Bulletin featured a cover
story bashing the ANC. The article, co-authored by its
then national director, Nathan Perlmutter, suggested that
the organization "so frequently discussed as an
alternative to the Botha government, merits a close,
unsentimental look. The question can be fairly asked,
what has all this to do with Jews?"
After favorably quoting an author who reported that
"P.W. Botha has been dismantling apartheid by stealth,"
the article let loose with a litany of charges that
focused mainly on the ANC's siding with the Palestinians,
beginning with its support of "Soviet attempts to
undermine the legitimacy of Israel," its "strident"
support of the PLO; its denunciation of "Israel's
aggressive expansionism" supported by the U.S. and its
allies and its linkage of zionism with racism.
Since Bullock was already spying on the domestic
anti- apartheid movement for the ADL, taking on the task
for the South Africans meant little extra work, since, as
he acknowledged to Roth, much of the information they
wanted he and the ADL already possessed. One of the items
found in his computer files was a report on a meeting in
Los Angeles in 1991 that anti-apartheid activists staged
for ANC leader Chris Hani. (Hani was assassinated in S.A.
this Spring by a gunman who allegedly was hired by J.
Darby Grace, the new president of the World
Anti-Communist League, an organization formerly headed by
Gen. John Singlaub, which curiously enough, was not on
Bullock's or the ADL's list of right-wing organizations.)
Bullock acknowledged receiving $16,000 from the
South Africans, some of which he shared with Gerard, who
supposedly had help set up the connection.
The reaction of the Jewish establishment to ADL's
predicament has been supportive, accepting, with but a
handful of exceptions, the ADL denials of wrongdoing as
statements of fact. On a national level this has come
from the Conference of Presidents of the Major American
Jewish Organizations, the National Jewish Community
Relations Advisory Council, the World Jewish Congress ,
AIPAC and the American Zionist Movement. Locally, the
city's leading Jewish political players whose wealth and
influence is considerable Q as is their philanthropy Q
are apparently doing what they can to get the ADL off the
hook, although few have been as public as the mayor's
chief of protocol, Robert Goldman.
Goldman, who owns one of the city's largest
insurance brokerages and who is extremely active in
Jewish community circles, contacted police chief Tony
Ribera to let him know that the investigation of the ADL
had caused the Jewish community a great deal of
"anxiety." He claimed his call was a personal call, and
"I wasn't trying to influence anybody or anything of the
kind" (SF Examiner, April 25).
An apparent lone voice within the organized Jewish
community who has the courage to criticize and ask hard
questions of the ADL is Leonard Fein, former editor of
Moment magazine, and now a columnist for the New
York-based Jewish weekly, Forward.
Fein has devoted two columns to the ADL case. the
first, "Circling the Wagons," (June 25) suggested that
the organization has a responsibility to the Jewish
community to do more than issue a blanket denial of
wrongdoing and "accuse the accusers of the 'big lie.'"
Wrote Fein: "One wants to believe that the 'sinister'
files others have accused it of maintaining Q files not
only on extremist organizations but on utterly
respectable organizations (e.g., NAACP) Q "are, as the
ADL claims they are, merely benign background files,
newspaper clippings and such, and whatever crimes the
ADL's principal mole [Bullock] may have been guilty of
were not in the course of his duties or at the behest of
the ADL.
"Given the source of the accusations and their
apparent gravity, wanting to believe doesn't quite make
it. Nor, for that matter, do the enthusiastic
endorsements of the ADL's probity by a variety of Jewish
organizations and leaders who know only the details that
the ADL has shared with them. The ADL has sought to quiet
our legitimate concerns by claiming that behind all the
smoke, there's no fire, just a smoke- machine."
Declaring that "no organization can be taken
seriously as it own judge and jury," Fein suggested that
an independent investigation of the ADL's activities take
place within the organized Jewish community. "One might
have hoped that the ADL board would itself have invited
such an examination.
Apparently, it has not." Fein concluded his column
with the question, asking "why, in any case, should an
organization that has done no wrong not welcome such a
proposal?" As would be expected, the ADL's Foxman, fired
off a letter in rebuttal,(July 16) attacking Fein for not
"seeing this episode for what it is Q not only an attack
on ADL, but an attack on the whole community and its
efforts to protect Jewish security and rights."
Fein's response on July 30, is worth quoting: "Over
and over again, all we have heard from ADL is an
ever-more strident denial of any and all wrongdoing, In
its earliest response to the matter, ADL asserted that if
its procedures had in any respect been faulty, it would
correct them.
"Yet if there has since been information offered to
either the public or even the ADL board regarding the
faulty procedures, I am not aware of it. Evidently,
somewhere along the line there was a policy decision that
the best defense would be simply to stonewall.
"That style of haughty dismissal ill-becomes an
organization opposed to defamation. there is distress and
even anger among ADL's undoubted friends that they have
given no thorough or even adequate explanation of the
alleged felonies. I believe the community is entitled to
more than verbal reassurance.
"ADL linen, which he [Foxman] and I both agree is
Jewish communal linen, is hanging out there in public for
all to see, and the question of whether that linen is
clean or dirty is a real question that deserves a real
answer, both for the ADL's sake and those who depend on
ADL for their own protection."[/justify]
Date: Fri Sep 18 00:23:41 1998
ADL Spy Network 2nd Part
Question: "What was the purpose of keeping all those
names, Cal?
Answer: "What was the purpose? I was an investigator for
the ADL. I investigated any and all anti-democratic
movements.
Question: "And these investigations that you were doing,
were they all in behalf of the ADL?
Answer: "They were all in behalf of the ADL."
(From deposition of Roy "Cal" Bullock, interviewed by San
Francisco Police inspector Ron Roth, January 25. (Pp. 138
and 139)
ROY "CAL" BULLOCK has been on the "unofficial"
payroll of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith for
nearly 40 years and as recently as July 19, 1992*, was
described by its New York-based chief spymaster, Irwin
Suall, as "our Number One investigator." Bullock, as of
1992, was receiving close to $25,000 annually for
monitoring what Bullock and the ADL apparently considered
to be "anti-democratic" organizations and individuals.
The numbers of the former stretched into the hundreds and
the names of individuals he had in his computer went well
beyond 10,000, according to 700 pages of documents
released in April by San Francisco District Attorney Arlo
Smith.
While Bullock monitored and at times infiltrated
neo-Nazi and skinhead groups, his and the ADL's main
concerns were organizations and individuals considered
threats or potential threats to Israel. These seemed to
include not only the more obvious targets, Palestinians
and Arab- Americans and their support groups, but
organizations representing virtually every segment of the
progressive social, legal and political spectrum, with a
special emphasis on those opposing apartheid.
Under a separate "Arab" category he kept 77 files on
58 Arab-American organizations; among 647 groups
described as "pinko," multiple files were maintained on
the African National Congress and 47 other anti-apartheid
organizations, both here and South Africa-based. His
surveillance of the latter reflected the ADL's desire, as
part of Israel's "unofficial" U.S. propaganda arm, to
neutralize critics of Israel's military and economic ties
to the apartheid state, an effort, which, the records
show, was largely successful.
This eventually led him to do similar spying for the
South African intelligence service together with his
buddy, now retired San Francisco police inspector Tom
Gerard who kept his own set of files (which is more than
just a departmental no-no and has him already indicted
and facing a possible conviction).
Among the hundreds of others groups spied upon were
such diverse organizations as the NAACP, the National
Indian Treaty Council, Greenpeace, the Japanese-Americans
Citizens League, the Centro Legal de La Raza, the
American Civil Liberties Union, the Earth Island
Institute and the Harvey Milk Gay and Lesbian Democratic
Club. A half dozen American Jewish and Israeli groups
also received his attention including the Jerusalem-based
Alternative Information Center, Americans for Peace Now,
Friends of Yesh G'vul, the International Jewish Peace
Union and Israelis Against Occupation.
There were also files on 20 Bay Area labor unions,
plus the San Francisco Central Labor Council, the
Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, the Boycott Shell
Committee, the Green Giant Frozen Food Workers Committee
and the San Francisco Chapter of the Committee for Labor
Union Women. In alphabetical order, files were maintained
on: AFSCME Local 3218, AFT 151, AFSCME Local 3506,
Carpenters Local 22, NABET Local 51, HERE Local 2, IAM
Local 565, ILWU, ILWU Local 6, NALC Local 214, OCAW, OCAW
8149, Plumbers & Fitters Local 93; SEIU Local 535, SEIU
Local 616; Teamster Local 921 (S.F. TDU), United Farm
Workers and UTU Local 1730.
In addition, records were kept on the Bay Area
Network on Central America, the Portland Labor Committee
on Central America, the Free South Africa Labor Committee
and the Labor Committee on the Middle East.
In Bullock's computer, all were labeled "pinko,"
(which in his interview with SFPD inspector Roth, he
equated with "left wing.")
Robert Carl Miller, writing in The Voice, (July/Aug.
'93) the publication of the spied-upon Letter Carriers
Local 214, asked:
"Why would the ADL, dedicated to 'translating the
country's democratic ideals into a way of life for all
Americans'," be wasting their time and resources (an
estimated 34 million dollars a year) investigating all of
the above-named groups?
Why was this spy network interested in rooting out
possible anti-Semitism in the Boycott Shell Committee but
had no interest in any anti-Semitism in the boardroom of
Standard Oil? Are the wealthy purer of heart than the
working class?
The history of oil companies is littered with
anti-Semitism. Henry Ford, not the UAW, was supporter of
Hitler. There were no files listed for corporations with
this spy network."
What information Bullock entered into in his files
will be secret, at least until September 10th, thanks to
an accommodating San Francisco judge, Henry Louie, who
accepted the ADL's version of reality Q that their files
and those of Bullock, who remains on the ADL payroll, are
their private property, as well as protected by the First
Amendment.
On a more ominous note, an announcement by Smith in
April that indictments would be filed against Bullock
and/or the ADL by the middle of June, appears, at best,
to have been premature, and at worst, projects the
possibility that the massive pressure being applied to
stop the investigation by the city's Jewish establishment
Q not only on the D.A.'s office, but on the mayor and the
chief of police Q may result in a compromise that would
leave the ADL free of criminal charges (see accompanying
story on Page x).
A private class action suit has already been filed
by Attorney and former Congressman Paul "Pete" McCloskey,
himself a long-time victim of ADL surveillance and
disinformation, representing, initially, 19 individuals
who believe they were victimized by the ADL either for
their public opposition to Israeli policies and/or their
opposition to South African apartheid. The suit contends
that the ADL violated certain right to privacy laws that
are protected by the California civil code which are
designed to prevent private institutions, such as the
ADL, from receiving and disseminating personal
information that is not publicly available.
To refresh those who have not kept up with a
fast-breaking story that has now slowed down to a crawl:
in early December, a recently retired San Francisco
policeman and former CIA operative in El Salvador,
Afghanistan, Algeria and Honduras, the aforementioned
Gerard, was accused by the FBI (for whom he had also
previously worked) of being in possession of files on
anti-apartheid activists which he had illegally obtained
and was passing on to South Africa.
It was apparent, from an investigation of Gerard's
computer files,that he was also, illegally, providing
personal information on individuals to the ADL. He also
had turned over to Bullock, hundreds of San Francisco
Police Department files that the SFPD had been ordered to
be destroy following a previous investigation of local
police spying.
They also found in a search of Gerard's gym locker
in February, a black executioner's hood, photos of
blindfolded men, presumably El Salvadorans, 10 passports
in different names, a CIA cable marked "Secret," what
were apparently CIA interrogation manuals and over a 100
names and phone numbers under the title, "International
Activities Division-Special Activities Group," a who's
who of the CIA," Gerard told an L.A. Times reporter who
sought him out in the Philippines where he had initially
headed, one step ahead of the authorities, and from where
has since returned and been indicted.
All this was proof, Gerard told the Times, (April
27) that the CIA was directly involved in the training
and support of torturers and death squads operating in El
Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala in the mid-80s.
It turned out that Gerard had a partner, a beefy,
pathologically anti-communist (of the Joe McCarthy
stripe) dealer in Asian art named Roy Bullock, who had
been a paid agent of the ADL since 1954, and who, like
Gerard, had also been working for the South African
government as well as moonlighting for the FBI.( In
August, 1987, Bullock was revealed to be an ADL agent
after joining LCOME; see MELB 4/2.)
The ADL predictably pleaded innocent and attempted
to distance itself from both Gerard and Bullock,
referring to the latter as a "independent contractor." To
keep Bullock's undercover identity intact, the ADL paid
him through a "cut- out," Bruce Hochman, a Beverly Hills
attorney who serves on the organization's Southern
California Board.
The ADL's alleged lack of knowledge of Bullock's
activities failed to convince Yehuda Lev, associate
editor of Los Angeles's Jewish Journal (April 30). Lev
wrote:
"I also have enough common sense to know that a
40-year relationship with a client and agent should
result in some knowledge , each about the other. The
official explanation that Bullock was an "independent
contractor," holds no water. That may affect his Social
Security payments and tax deductibilty, but an employee
of a firm for more than four decades is more than a free
lance researcher."
Between 1985 and 1982, Hochman's checks to Bullock
totaled $169,375. His salary for 1992 was $24,400. The
ADL's failure to his pay social security taxes and
withhold income tax are among the possible felonies with
which ADL may be charged.
As late as February 25, the ADL was not even willing
to admit to many of its own senior employees that Bullock
was working for "the firm." In a memorandum sent to ADL
Regional Directors on that date, Jeffrey Sinensky, ADL's
Director of its Division on Civil Rights, and Ann Tourk,
its Director of Community Service refer to "information
[that] was found in the possession of an individual who
is alleged to have a relationship with ADL." The memo
also attacked reports "falsely implying that ADL worked
covertly with Tom Gerard to monitor Arab Americans."
Similar statements were included in a five-page booklet,
"Talking Points," which the directors were advised to use
in defusing criticism from ADL's "allies" in the civil
rights field.
In the memo and in statements to the press, ADL
officials denied any wrong doing and kept repeating that
they were "cooperating" with law enforcement agencies, It
was soon clear, at least to the San Francisco Police
Department, that they weren't.
What the San Francisco investigators found
remarkable was the refusal of the Los Angeles Police
Department, which evidently had been heavily infiltrated
by the ADL, to assist the SFPD in the investigation, a
decision that was shamelessly hailed by the B'nai B'rith
Messenger, the ADL mother organization's weekly paper in
Los Angeles. (The Messenger also applauded the New York
Times for not reporting the story.)
The story took a major leap when the SFPD and FBI
staged multiple raids on ADL offices in San Francisco and
Los Angeles, and found thousands of files on individuals
and organizations, some of which the ADL had apparently
"doctored" in the meantime.
Subsequently, some 718 pages of documents and police
and FBI interviews with Bullock, David Gurvitz, a former
ADL operative in Los Angeles, a and San Diego Police
Officer, who had collaborated with Bullock, were released
to the public by District Attorney Smith along with the
list of organizations spied upon. They appeared to
contain enough information to file multiple charges
against the ADL and, at the very least, seriously,
threaten its tax-exempt status.
"We are talking about the use of information from
DMV files, criminal files, and other confidential files,"
Smith told ABC News, "files from state and local agencies
that were being illegally furnished and illegally
received."
His opinion was corroborated by SFPD police
inspector Ron Roth. "Based on the evidence," Roth wrote
in summarizing his findings, "exhibits and facts in this
affidavit, I believe that Roy Bullock and the ADL had
numerous peace officers supplying them with confidential
criminal and DMV information." He was not just referring
to San Francisco.
Citing his interview with former ADL employee
Gurvitz, he learned of the existence of "other [ADL] code
named fact finders and field investigators. In Chicago
there is an ex- police officer named CHI-3 (there are
also references to CHI-1 and CHI-2 who apparently are not
policemen.QED.). In St. Louis there is IRONSIDES. In
Atlanta there is an Arab speaking man named FLIPPER."
Roth was unable to locate any files on the
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) in
ADL's San Francisco office. Gurvitz explained that there
were many files on the ADC in the ADL's Los Angeles
office, along with the names of "any Arab American with
anti-Israel leanings or any Arab Americans that wrote
letters to the newspaper editors." He also volunteered
the information that Bullock's home computer was "the
repository of the fact finding information for the San
Francisco ADL office."
Roth estimated "after numerous interview and
analysis of the documents seized in eight searches," that
"inquiries were made to DMV vehicle registration and
driver's license numbers of members listed at a ration of
approximately 10- 15% of the total [ADC] membership." One
of Gerard's assignments with the police was to act as
liaison to the
Arab community, which "required" that he attend
community events, giving him the necessary cover to join
Bullock in recording the vehicle licenses of those
attending.
Some of Bullock's responses to inquiries by Roth and
the FBI were truly extraordinary. One of the individuals
he was keeping tabs on was Alex Odeh, the head of the ADC
office in Orange County, who was murdered in 1987 by a
bomb in his office, believed to have been planted by the
Jewish Defense League.
"I happened to know Alex Odeh, a very nice, decent,
humane guy," Bullock told Roth. "In fact, I missed going
to the office by one day: I might have been there to open
the door instead of him because he allowed me to go into
the office if I was down there; just by sheer coincidence
it wasn't me."
Bullock's expressed reason for spying on the
anti-apartheid movement appeared even more disingenuous:
"Because," read the FBI report of its interview with him,
"he wanted to help South Africa make a better assessment
of the anti-apartheid situation in the United States.
Bullock said he hoped that by doing this he would
encourage the Government of South Africa to bring it to
an end." It should be noted that Bullock made this
statement after learning that a document was found in his
computer, addressed to his South African contact, warning
him that he (Bullock) had been questioned by the FBI
concerning S.A. agents in the area.
A more honest reason for the ADL's snooping on the
movement was forthcoming from ADL's national director,
Abe Foxman, on a sweep through the Bay Area in May.
"People are very upset about the [files on the]
ANC," he agrees. "At the time we exposed the ANC, they
were communist. They were violent, they were antisemitic,
they were pro-PLO and they were anti-Israel. You're going
to tell me I don't have the legitimacy to find out who
they were consorting with, who their buddies are, who
supports them." (No. Ca. Jewish Bulletin, May 7).
In May, 1986, the ADL Bulletin featured a cover
story bashing the ANC. The article, co-authored by its
then national director, Nathan Perlmutter, suggested that
the organization "so frequently discussed as an
alternative to the Botha government, merits a close,
unsentimental look. The question can be fairly asked,
what has all this to do with Jews?"
After favorably quoting an author who reported that
"P.W. Botha has been dismantling apartheid by stealth,"
the article let loose with a litany of charges that
focused mainly on the ANC's siding with the Palestinians,
beginning with its support of "Soviet attempts to
undermine the legitimacy of Israel," its "strident"
support of the PLO; its denunciation of "Israel's
aggressive expansionism" supported by the U.S. and its
allies and its linkage of zionism with racism.
Since Bullock was already spying on the domestic
anti- apartheid movement for the ADL, taking on the task
for the South Africans meant little extra work, since, as
he acknowledged to Roth, much of the information they
wanted he and the ADL already possessed. One of the items
found in his computer files was a report on a meeting in
Los Angeles in 1991 that anti-apartheid activists staged
for ANC leader Chris Hani. (Hani was assassinated in S.A.
this Spring by a gunman who allegedly was hired by J.
Darby Grace, the new president of the World
Anti-Communist League, an organization formerly headed by
Gen. John Singlaub, which curiously enough, was not on
Bullock's or the ADL's list of right-wing organizations.)
Bullock acknowledged receiving $16,000 from the
South Africans, some of which he shared with Gerard, who
supposedly had help set up the connection.
The reaction of the Jewish establishment to ADL's
predicament has been supportive, accepting, with but a
handful of exceptions, the ADL denials of wrongdoing as
statements of fact. On a national level this has come
from the Conference of Presidents of the Major American
Jewish Organizations, the National Jewish Community
Relations Advisory Council, the World Jewish Congress ,
AIPAC and the American Zionist Movement. Locally, the
city's leading Jewish political players whose wealth and
influence is considerable Q as is their philanthropy Q
are apparently doing what they can to get the ADL off the
hook, although few have been as public as the mayor's
chief of protocol, Robert Goldman.
Goldman, who owns one of the city's largest
insurance brokerages and who is extremely active in
Jewish community circles, contacted police chief Tony
Ribera to let him know that the investigation of the ADL
had caused the Jewish community a great deal of
"anxiety." He claimed his call was a personal call, and
"I wasn't trying to influence anybody or anything of the
kind" (SF Examiner, April 25).
An apparent lone voice within the organized Jewish
community who has the courage to criticize and ask hard
questions of the ADL is Leonard Fein, former editor of
Moment magazine, and now a columnist for the New
York-based Jewish weekly, Forward.
Fein has devoted two columns to the ADL case. the
first, "Circling the Wagons," (June 25) suggested that
the organization has a responsibility to the Jewish
community to do more than issue a blanket denial of
wrongdoing and "accuse the accusers of the 'big lie.'"
Wrote Fein: "One wants to believe that the 'sinister'
files others have accused it of maintaining Q files not
only on extremist organizations but on utterly
respectable organizations (e.g., NAACP) Q "are, as the
ADL claims they are, merely benign background files,
newspaper clippings and such, and whatever crimes the
ADL's principal mole [Bullock] may have been guilty of
were not in the course of his duties or at the behest of
the ADL.
"Given the source of the accusations and their
apparent gravity, wanting to believe doesn't quite make
it. Nor, for that matter, do the enthusiastic
endorsements of the ADL's probity by a variety of Jewish
organizations and leaders who know only the details that
the ADL has shared with them. The ADL has sought to quiet
our legitimate concerns by claiming that behind all the
smoke, there's no fire, just a smoke- machine."
Declaring that "no organization can be taken
seriously as it own judge and jury," Fein suggested that
an independent investigation of the ADL's activities take
place within the organized Jewish community. "One might
have hoped that the ADL board would itself have invited
such an examination.
Apparently, it has not." Fein concluded his column
with the question, asking "why, in any case, should an
organization that has done no wrong not welcome such a
proposal?" As would be expected, the ADL's Foxman, fired
off a letter in rebuttal,(July 16) attacking Fein for not
"seeing this episode for what it is Q not only an attack
on ADL, but an attack on the whole community and its
efforts to protect Jewish security and rights."
Fein's response on July 30, is worth quoting: "Over
and over again, all we have heard from ADL is an
ever-more strident denial of any and all wrongdoing, In
its earliest response to the matter, ADL asserted that if
its procedures had in any respect been faulty, it would
correct them.
"Yet if there has since been information offered to
either the public or even the ADL board regarding the
faulty procedures, I am not aware of it. Evidently,
somewhere along the line there was a policy decision that
the best defense would be simply to stonewall.
"That style of haughty dismissal ill-becomes an
organization opposed to defamation. there is distress and
even anger among ADL's undoubted friends that they have
given no thorough or even adequate explanation of the
alleged felonies. I believe the community is entitled to
more than verbal reassurance.
"ADL linen, which he [Foxman] and I both agree is
Jewish communal linen, is hanging out there in public for
all to see, and the question of whether that linen is
clean or dirty is a real question that deserves a real
answer, both for the ADL's sake and those who depend on
ADL for their own protection."[/justify]
Nous serons toujours là.
-
Dejuificator II
- Erudit
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:47 pm
[justify][large]American Jews Support Direct Negotiations[/large]
Press Release
Israel / Middle-East
New ADL Poll: American Jews Support Direct Negotiations Between the Parties as Path to Two-State SolutionStrong Support for Israel and the U.S. to Act Against Iran If NeededWashington, DC, April 20, 2009 ? The steadfast support of American Jews for Israel, for Israel?s action in Gaza and for Israel?s right, if all else fails, to use military force to destroy Iran?s nuclear facilities, was reaffirmed by a survey commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The findings show that, overwhelmingly, American Jews believe that Israel is committed to peace with the Palestinians and reject the notion that America should pressure Israel to make peace.
The national telephone survey of 1,200 American Jews was conducted by Marttila Communications between March 31 and April 8 and has a margin of error of +/-2.8% for questions answered by the 1,200. The survey also used the technique of ?split sampling? a process in which questions were asked of two demographically representative national samples of 600 each, with a margin of error of +/-4%.
Survey Highlights
? By a margin of 73%-2%, American Jews believe that Israel is doing more to bring peace to the region than the Palestinians (view graph).
? 74% believe that Hamas is not interested in peace, while 52% believe Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is (view graph).
? 61% of American Jews support the future creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza (view graph).
? Asked about the US role in the peace process, a small plurality (47%) believe the parties need to solve their own problems with the US playing the role of facilitator; versus 44% who believe peace depends on continuing US leadership and involvement (view graph).
? There is eroding support for Israel?s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza; as late as January 2009, 63% of American Jews still supported it. Now, it?s down to 54% (view graph).
? Sympathy with Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians is overwhelming ? 80% for Israel, versus 6% for the Palestinians (view graph).
? 74% approve of Israel?s military action in Gaza, and by a margin of 66%-28%, American Jews supported the notion that Israel?s military response in Gaza was appropriate and not excessive (view graph).
? 73% support Israel?s right to close the borders to Gaza to prevent resupply of arms even if it slows down humanitarian relief (view graph).
? Regarding Iran, a significant majority (58%-27%) believe that if diplomatic and economic steps fail to get Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program, they would support Israel?s right to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities. And, under similar circumstances, American Jews would similarly support US military action by 55%-27% (view graph).
? 50% of American Jews support US direct negotiations with Iran without preconditions, while 45% believe the US should not enter into negotiations until Iran agrees to suspend its uranium enrichment (view graph).
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, said the survey demonstrates that, ?contrary to certain reports that American Jewish support for Israel is waning and that American Jews would welcome pressure by the U.S. on Israel, American Jews continue to support Israel overwhelmingly and advocate direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians as the best path for peace.?
Mr. Foxman said the findings show that, ?American Jews continue to believe that Israel wants peace with its neighbors, and continue to understand the threats to Israel and its legitimate right to defend itself, whether against Hamas rockets or Iran nuclear capabilities. That support for Israel will be very significant as the Jewish state faces immense challenges in the months and years ahead.?
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]
Press Release
Israel / Middle-East
New ADL Poll: American Jews Support Direct Negotiations Between the Parties as Path to Two-State SolutionStrong Support for Israel and the U.S. to Act Against Iran If NeededWashington, DC, April 20, 2009 ? The steadfast support of American Jews for Israel, for Israel?s action in Gaza and for Israel?s right, if all else fails, to use military force to destroy Iran?s nuclear facilities, was reaffirmed by a survey commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The findings show that, overwhelmingly, American Jews believe that Israel is committed to peace with the Palestinians and reject the notion that America should pressure Israel to make peace.
The national telephone survey of 1,200 American Jews was conducted by Marttila Communications between March 31 and April 8 and has a margin of error of +/-2.8% for questions answered by the 1,200. The survey also used the technique of ?split sampling? a process in which questions were asked of two demographically representative national samples of 600 each, with a margin of error of +/-4%.
Survey Highlights
? By a margin of 73%-2%, American Jews believe that Israel is doing more to bring peace to the region than the Palestinians (view graph).
? 74% believe that Hamas is not interested in peace, while 52% believe Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is (view graph).
? 61% of American Jews support the future creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza (view graph).
? Asked about the US role in the peace process, a small plurality (47%) believe the parties need to solve their own problems with the US playing the role of facilitator; versus 44% who believe peace depends on continuing US leadership and involvement (view graph).
? There is eroding support for Israel?s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza; as late as January 2009, 63% of American Jews still supported it. Now, it?s down to 54% (view graph).
? Sympathy with Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians is overwhelming ? 80% for Israel, versus 6% for the Palestinians (view graph).
? 74% approve of Israel?s military action in Gaza, and by a margin of 66%-28%, American Jews supported the notion that Israel?s military response in Gaza was appropriate and not excessive (view graph).
? 73% support Israel?s right to close the borders to Gaza to prevent resupply of arms even if it slows down humanitarian relief (view graph).
? Regarding Iran, a significant majority (58%-27%) believe that if diplomatic and economic steps fail to get Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program, they would support Israel?s right to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities. And, under similar circumstances, American Jews would similarly support US military action by 55%-27% (view graph).
? 50% of American Jews support US direct negotiations with Iran without preconditions, while 45% believe the US should not enter into negotiations until Iran agrees to suspend its uranium enrichment (view graph).
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, said the survey demonstrates that, ?contrary to certain reports that American Jewish support for Israel is waning and that American Jews would welcome pressure by the U.S. on Israel, American Jews continue to support Israel overwhelmingly and advocate direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians as the best path for peace.?
Mr. Foxman said the findings show that, ?American Jews continue to believe that Israel wants peace with its neighbors, and continue to understand the threats to Israel and its legitimate right to defend itself, whether against Hamas rockets or Iran nuclear capabilities. That support for Israel will be very significant as the Jewish state faces immense challenges in the months and years ahead.?
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]
Nous serons toujours là.
-
Dejuificator II
- Erudit
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:47 pm
[justify]Source: Arabia Online Ltd. | January 2001
[large]ADL: Censoring the Internet on Behalf of Israel[/large]
The Internet showed that the pro-Israel Anti Defamation League, despite
its resources and influence, is still vulnerable.
By Ramzy Baroud
SEATTLE ? In a mid December conference in Jerusalem, computer experts, governmental officials, and academics gathered under the banner of , ?Confronting On-Line Terrorism and Anti-Semitism.? Amongst the names of sponsors and co-sponsors, one organization stands as the most active by far in the field of censorship, mainly in the United States; the Anti Defamation League (ADL).
What compels dozens of professionals and activists to fly long distances from all corners of the globe to meet in a ?disputed city? only miles away from a war zone? It?s the fear of losing a greater war, a war that has cost Israel an abundance, the Internet media war that is.
Perhaps since the establishment of the ADL in 1913 to ?fight anti-Semitism and bigotry in the world?, the gigantic organization with hundreds of offices in the US, Europe and Israel has never felt as outnumbered as it feels today. The Internet revolution, among its many positive aspects has given a voice to those, who unlike the ADL, are unable to rely on a $46 million budget to spread their message.
The ADL, has a powerful lobby which deeply impacts US domestic as well as foreign policy, and has come under repeated attacks over the years, and was heavily cited for failing to champion what its preaches. In fact, it is accused of being a promoter of hatred and bigotry itself.
In the 1970?s, the group was caught distributing lists of persons deemed as enemies, according to SF Weekly in its February issue. Among those who were defamed for being ?pro-Arab propagandists? was the highly renowned professor Noam Chomsky. In 1993, according to the same source, the ADL was caught illegally spying on nearly 10,000 people ?including members of socialist, labor and anti-apartheid groups.?
But why would an organization whose ?ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike, and to put an end forever to injustice and unfair discrimination against, and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens? carry out such suspicious tasks?
?The number one goal of the ADL is the protection of Israel,? a former Republican congressman from San Mateo Pete McCloskey told SF Weekly in a recent interview.
The organization however, who claims to fight for other issues beside its vibrant defense of Israel, has done very little in recent months to demonstrate those claims. The outbreak of the Palestinian uprising against the Israeli occupation had caused the ADL to gear up for one fight, and one fight only, supporting Israel and censoring those who criticize the Jewish state for using excessive violence, for violating international law and for committing genocide in areas which are supposed to be protected under human rights laws.
The organization which often legitimizes its missions by fighting minor and highly despised groups in the US like white supremacists, has unmasked its real identify and has joined Israel?s propaganda war, employing all of its resources to justify the Israeli army?s ongoing genocide of unarmed civilians.
ADL?s Abraham Foxman
The ADL?s website is a perfect example of the organization?s full-fledged support of Israel. While the overwhelming majority of deaths, many of whom were children, were Palestinians, the ADL seemed only concerned with the Israeli army and settlers? losses. ?Anti-Israel violence? is a section that is updated daily. Nothing was said regarding the loss of life among Palestinians, nothing about the murder of children like Muhammad Al Durra, nothing to explain the illegal status of the Israeli settlers, and of course, nothing to site the international laws concerning the Arab Israeli conflict.
In fact, the United Nations was itself under attack. ?The ADL says UN Human Rights Chief has accepted ?hook, line and sinker? Palestinian strategy, calls her report distorted and detrimental,? charged one of the site?s top reports. The US government was itself under attack. ?The ADL says US criticism of Israel?s retaliatory action for an attack on school bus is counterproductive.? And of course, Arabs and Muslims were left with the largest share of attacks and threats; ?the ADL says if Egypt doesn?t return its ambassador to Israel in a timely manner, America should reassess US aid to Egypt.?
But the Internet showed that the ADL, despite its resources and influence no matter how large and long armed, is still vulnerable. The rapidly growing Arab and Muslim presence on the Internet alarmed the ADL that its endless propaganda campaign may be doomed, if the Internet is not censored, so that the ADLís voice is the only one heard. Hence, the introduction of the Hate Filter.
The ADL describes its Hate Filter as ?a software product designed to act as a gatekeeper.? Once more to legitimize its censorship efforts, the ADL succeeded in introducing its product as part of Mattel?s Cyber Patrol, a software package set to block a large range of offensive web sites, including pornographic ones. Moreover, the organization is ceaselessly working to enforce its product on private and public libraries and educational institutions. President Clinton endorsed the software. In a statement made October of last year [2000] following a meeting with the ADL?s national director, Abraham Foxman, Clinton said, ?thank you for your pioneering work to filter out hate on the internet.? The ADL?s director of civil rights Elizabeth Coleman said in a seminar earlier this year that former Vice President Al Gore has also seen and has endorsed the product and in fact ?loved it.?
McCloskey on the other hand, protested the ADL?s seemingly successful censorship attempts saying, ?Any group whose sole purpose is to protect a foreign nation should not have anything to say about what?s said or written here in America.?
The Intifada, and the cyber war which was provoked by Israeli hacker attacks on pro-Palestinian web sites, was another reminder of the vulnerability of the ADL and other Israeli and pro-Israeli groups, when it comes to the World Wide Web. As a result, the recent Jerusalem conference was a badly needed chance for the re-making of a new media strategy that would withstand the upsurge of Arab and Muslim presence on the Internet.
The mounting worries of pro-Israeli groups were stressed in the speech delivered by the director of the ADL?s Israel office, David Rosen. Rosen warned of what he called Islamic propaganda, which he described as one upholding Christian Anti-Semitic themes. ?The lone wolf of the past is no longer such and can link up to become a pack,? he said.
© January 2001 Arabia Online Ltd. All rights reserved[/justify]
[large]ADL: Censoring the Internet on Behalf of Israel[/large]
The Internet showed that the pro-Israel Anti Defamation League, despite
its resources and influence, is still vulnerable.
By Ramzy Baroud
SEATTLE ? In a mid December conference in Jerusalem, computer experts, governmental officials, and academics gathered under the banner of , ?Confronting On-Line Terrorism and Anti-Semitism.? Amongst the names of sponsors and co-sponsors, one organization stands as the most active by far in the field of censorship, mainly in the United States; the Anti Defamation League (ADL).
What compels dozens of professionals and activists to fly long distances from all corners of the globe to meet in a ?disputed city? only miles away from a war zone? It?s the fear of losing a greater war, a war that has cost Israel an abundance, the Internet media war that is.
Perhaps since the establishment of the ADL in 1913 to ?fight anti-Semitism and bigotry in the world?, the gigantic organization with hundreds of offices in the US, Europe and Israel has never felt as outnumbered as it feels today. The Internet revolution, among its many positive aspects has given a voice to those, who unlike the ADL, are unable to rely on a $46 million budget to spread their message.
The ADL, has a powerful lobby which deeply impacts US domestic as well as foreign policy, and has come under repeated attacks over the years, and was heavily cited for failing to champion what its preaches. In fact, it is accused of being a promoter of hatred and bigotry itself.
In the 1970?s, the group was caught distributing lists of persons deemed as enemies, according to SF Weekly in its February issue. Among those who were defamed for being ?pro-Arab propagandists? was the highly renowned professor Noam Chomsky. In 1993, according to the same source, the ADL was caught illegally spying on nearly 10,000 people ?including members of socialist, labor and anti-apartheid groups.?
But why would an organization whose ?ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike, and to put an end forever to injustice and unfair discrimination against, and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens? carry out such suspicious tasks?
?The number one goal of the ADL is the protection of Israel,? a former Republican congressman from San Mateo Pete McCloskey told SF Weekly in a recent interview.
The organization however, who claims to fight for other issues beside its vibrant defense of Israel, has done very little in recent months to demonstrate those claims. The outbreak of the Palestinian uprising against the Israeli occupation had caused the ADL to gear up for one fight, and one fight only, supporting Israel and censoring those who criticize the Jewish state for using excessive violence, for violating international law and for committing genocide in areas which are supposed to be protected under human rights laws.
The organization which often legitimizes its missions by fighting minor and highly despised groups in the US like white supremacists, has unmasked its real identify and has joined Israel?s propaganda war, employing all of its resources to justify the Israeli army?s ongoing genocide of unarmed civilians.
ADL?s Abraham Foxman
The ADL?s website is a perfect example of the organization?s full-fledged support of Israel. While the overwhelming majority of deaths, many of whom were children, were Palestinians, the ADL seemed only concerned with the Israeli army and settlers? losses. ?Anti-Israel violence? is a section that is updated daily. Nothing was said regarding the loss of life among Palestinians, nothing about the murder of children like Muhammad Al Durra, nothing to explain the illegal status of the Israeli settlers, and of course, nothing to site the international laws concerning the Arab Israeli conflict.
In fact, the United Nations was itself under attack. ?The ADL says UN Human Rights Chief has accepted ?hook, line and sinker? Palestinian strategy, calls her report distorted and detrimental,? charged one of the site?s top reports. The US government was itself under attack. ?The ADL says US criticism of Israel?s retaliatory action for an attack on school bus is counterproductive.? And of course, Arabs and Muslims were left with the largest share of attacks and threats; ?the ADL says if Egypt doesn?t return its ambassador to Israel in a timely manner, America should reassess US aid to Egypt.?
But the Internet showed that the ADL, despite its resources and influence no matter how large and long armed, is still vulnerable. The rapidly growing Arab and Muslim presence on the Internet alarmed the ADL that its endless propaganda campaign may be doomed, if the Internet is not censored, so that the ADLís voice is the only one heard. Hence, the introduction of the Hate Filter.
The ADL describes its Hate Filter as ?a software product designed to act as a gatekeeper.? Once more to legitimize its censorship efforts, the ADL succeeded in introducing its product as part of Mattel?s Cyber Patrol, a software package set to block a large range of offensive web sites, including pornographic ones. Moreover, the organization is ceaselessly working to enforce its product on private and public libraries and educational institutions. President Clinton endorsed the software. In a statement made October of last year [2000] following a meeting with the ADL?s national director, Abraham Foxman, Clinton said, ?thank you for your pioneering work to filter out hate on the internet.? The ADL?s director of civil rights Elizabeth Coleman said in a seminar earlier this year that former Vice President Al Gore has also seen and has endorsed the product and in fact ?loved it.?
McCloskey on the other hand, protested the ADL?s seemingly successful censorship attempts saying, ?Any group whose sole purpose is to protect a foreign nation should not have anything to say about what?s said or written here in America.?
The Intifada, and the cyber war which was provoked by Israeli hacker attacks on pro-Palestinian web sites, was another reminder of the vulnerability of the ADL and other Israeli and pro-Israeli groups, when it comes to the World Wide Web. As a result, the recent Jerusalem conference was a badly needed chance for the re-making of a new media strategy that would withstand the upsurge of Arab and Muslim presence on the Internet.
The mounting worries of pro-Israeli groups were stressed in the speech delivered by the director of the ADL?s Israel office, David Rosen. Rosen warned of what he called Islamic propaganda, which he described as one upholding Christian Anti-Semitic themes. ?The lone wolf of the past is no longer such and can link up to become a pack,? he said.
© January 2001 Arabia Online Ltd. All rights reserved[/justify]
Nous serons toujours là.
-
Dejuificator II
- Erudit
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:47 pm
[justify][large]Censoring Thought and the ADL Effort to Deny Tenure to Joseph Massad[/large]
Statement to the Ad Hoc Committee1
March 14, 2005
Joseph Massad
I have prepared a statement to read to you. I would be happy to
answer your questions afterwards. Before I begin, however, I want to
ascertain that as professor Katzneslson has informed me, the only
complaints that your committee has heard about me are the two
complaints that the press reported from my students, namely the
complaint by Noah Liben and the complaint by Deena Shanker. As for
the complaint by Tomy Schoenfeld, who was not my student, I presume,
his case is irrelevant to this body, as your mandate states that ?as a
result of the expression of concern by a number of students that they
were being intimidated by faculty members and being excluded from
participating fully in classroom discussions because of their views,? you
are expected ?to identify cases where there appear to be violations of
the obligation to create a civil and tolerant teaching environment.?2 If
there are any other complaints against me, unless I am told what they
are and who made them, and the date and place where they allegedly
took place, I shall not respond to them.
I appear before you today because of a campaign of intimidation to
which I have been subjected for over three years. While this campaign
was started by certain members of the Columbia faculty, and by outside
forces using some of my students as conduits, it soon expanded to
include members of the Columbia administration, the rightwing tabloid
press, the Israeli press, and more locally the Columbia Spectator. Much
of this preceded the David Project film ?Columbia Unbecoming,? and the
ensuing controversy. In the following statement, I will provide you with
the history of this coordinated campaign, including the facts pertaining
to the intimidation to which I am being subjected by the Columbia
University administration, most manifestly through the convening of your
own committee before which I appear today out of a combined sense of
intimidation and obligation and not because I recognize its legitimacy.
You need to bear with the details of the following narrative, as the
campaign of intimidation against me is most insidious in its details.
I started teaching at Columbia in the Fall of 1999. At the conclusion of
my first academic year, during which I taught my class on Palestinian
and Israeli Politics and Societies, I received a Certificate of Appreciation
for teaching presented by ?The Students of Columbia College, Class of
2000,? and was nominated and was one of the two finalists for the Van
Doren teaching award which went that year to Professor Michael
Stanislawski. In my second year, I began to be told of whispers about
my class on Palestinian and Israeli politics and Societies. Jewish
Students in my class in the Spring 2001 would tell me that I was the main
topic of discussion at the Jewish Theological Seminary and at Hillel and
that my class is making the Zionists on campus angry. I took such
reports lightly, as the class had doubled in size from the first year. I did
notice however that the class included some cantankerous students who
insisted on scoring political points during the lectures. I would always
defuse the situation by allowing all questions to be asked and by
attempting to answer them informatively. I would do so in class and
during office hours. I had strong positive evaluations from most of my
students with some complaining that the class was biased. Although my
course description explained that ?The purpose of the course is to
provide a thorough yet critical historical overview of the Zionist-
Palestinian conflict to familiarize undergraduates with the background to
the current situation,?3 I decided in the following year (Spring 2002) to
emphasize that point more clearly. The course description read as
follows:
The course examines critically the impact of Zionism on European Jews
and on Asian and African Jews on the one hand, and on Palestinian
Arabs on the other ?in Israel, in the Occupied Territories, and in the
Diaspora. The course also examines critically the internal dynamics in
Palestinian and Israeli societies, looking at the roles class, gender, and
religion play in the politics of Israel and the Palestinian national
movement. The purpose of the course is not to provide a ?balanced?
coverage of the views of both sides, but rather to provide a thorough yet
critical historical overview of the Zionist-Palestinian conflict to familiarize
undergraduates with the background to the current situation from a
critical perspective.4
The point of the class description is to make sure the students
understood that no side was being presented, neither the Palestinian
nor the Zionist side, but rather that this was a course that was critical of
both Zionism and Palestinian nationalism. When I taught the class in
2004, after returning from my sabbatical, I decided to remove the
sentence on ?balance,? especially after CampusWatch began to attack
me for including it, to which I will return below. I removed it.5
It was with this as background that I started my Spring 2002 semester.
My Palestinian and Israeli course seemed to have a more cantankerous
crowd that year than before. Even though this year, the class had two
discussion sections to accommodate the number of students, a number
of students insisted on having discussions during the lecture. Some
would bring with them a pro-Israel lobby propaganda book from which
they would insist on reading in class. I would let them.
One student in particular stood out. A smart older student in General
Studies, who identified herself as having a South African Jewish
background, would insist on asking many questions every lecture, most
of which were about scoring political points. The class had over 80
students and therefore it was difficult to accommodate such a large
number of questions from students. No matter, I decided to let her ask
all her questions in every lecture in order to make her feel comfortable
and that she feel that the class is a space where she could express
herself freely. She would E-mail me asking for exact sources for
information that I would give in class. I would E-mail her back what she
needed. For a while, it seemed that I was her research assistant, which I
was happy to do, in order to teach her that there are indeed scholarly
sources and scholarly answers to her political queries. I later found out
from other students that she was circulating a petition in the class to
have me fired from Columbia. I asked her after class one day if that was
the case, and told her that if it were so, that she would be free to
circulate it outside of class, not inside. She smiled back without comment.
I saw her on college walk one day after Spring break. She came up to
me and told me that she had just been to Israel and the Occupied
Territories and expressed how bad she felt about the situation there.
She apologized about the petition and told me that she had been
approached ?from the outside? to do it but she had dropped the matter.
She spoke of people at the medical school and others from outside the
university who were behind the idea, but did not provide details. I did not
inquire.
Another student of mine (now at the School of International and Public
Affairs), who self-identified as a ?Likudnik,? also approached me on
campus one day during the Spring 2002 semester, telling me that he
and a few other students had been invited to see a female professor at
the medical school. He described that the meeting was so
?surreptitious? and ?conspiratorial,? that it felt that they were planning on
having me ?murdered.? In fact, the plan was to strategize how to get me
fired. The student told me that they discussed the option of meeting with
a female administraror who worked at the time at the Middle East
Institute, to coordinate the plan with her. He told me that he had
informed the students and the medical school professor that even
though he disagreed with me, that he thought I had the right to express
my views.
The female student who initiated the petition against me was not alone
in class who consistently posed hostile questions. Three or four other
students would do so intermittently. One of them insisted on reading out
loud in class paragraphs from a propaganda book issued by a pro-Israel
lobbying organization. The book is ?Myths and Facts: A Guide to the
Arab-Israeli Conflict? written by one Mitchell Bard and published by the
American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, which states on its website that
?We are committed to arming students with the information they need to
respond to the very difficult issues raised on the campus? through the
publication of Bard?s book.6 Many students complained that these few
students were disruptive of class, especially as there are discussion
sections for them to raise their concerns. I allayed their anxiety by
explaining that there is something to learn from some of the students?
politically-motivated questions, namely that all students would learn the
political arguments of proponents and opponents of certain scholarly
analyses of the conflict, and that students who had political queries
would also learn that there are indeed persuasive answers to the
queries they raise from a critical and scholarly angle. For me, allowing
these students to disrupt my lecture was of pedagogical benefit to them
and to the rest of the class.
During the same semester, in April 2002, I was attacked and misquoted
by the Spectator after attending an on-campus rally in support of
Palestinians under Israeli military attack in the West Bank and Gaza, and
an op-ed piece and letters were published in the Spectator accusing me
of ?anti-Semitism? for a lecture I had given at the Middle East Institute in
February 2002.7 The op-ed piece by a junior at Barnard named
Daphna Berman, who was not my student, drew parallels between a
swastika found in a law school bathroom and my lecture and rebuked
the university for allowing me to speak out:
?I was struck by the University?s willingness to publicly condemn blatant
expressions of anti-Semitism [such as the swastika incident] while
simultaneously condoning, and even sponsoring, more tacit and subtle
forms of that same evil. Massad?s talk is lent a certain legitimacy by mere
virtue of the fact that his views exist within an academic framework. The
rhetoric is polished, the multisyllabic words characteristic of academia
are pleasing to the ear, and so Massad?s message somehow becomes
more acceptable, more palatable. Yet fundamentally, the difference
between Massad?s message and its more blatant and visually tangible
manifestation are only subtle.?8
As for the political rally, which took place on Wednesday April 17, 2002, I
was one of countless speakers. I spoke out and asserted the following:
??Like white South Africans who felt threatened under apartheid and who
only felt safe when they gave up their commitment to white supremacy,
Israeli Jews will continue to feel threatened if they persist in supporting
Jewish supremacy. Israeli Jews will only feel safe in a democratic Israeli
state where all Jews and Arabs are treated equally. No state has the
right to be a racist state.? The Spectator misquoted me as saying that
Israel is ?a Jewish supremacist and racist state,? and that ?every racist
state should be threatened.?9 When I protested the misquotation, the
Spectator journalist who wrote the story, Xan Nowakowski, apologized
and informed me via E-mail that she did not even attend the rally and
got the quotes from another reporter. She assured me that the
newspaper would run a correction. After a back and forth for almost a
week on E-mail, the Spectator ran the correction on April 24, 2002.
However, two major pro-Israeli propagandists, namely Martin Kramer
and Daniel Pipes, would insist on reproducing the misquote in articles
that they wrote to newspapers and that they posted on their websites.
On June 20, 2002, Martin Kramer, an Israeli academic who teaches at
Tel Aviv university, posted an article on the Middle East Forum website
titled ?Arab Panic,? in which he attacked a number of Columbia
professors, myself included. He argued that ?Massad?s views are not all
that unusual in Middle Eastern studies, and he has every right to
express them on Columbia?s Low Plaza, in public lectures, and in print.
But should someone who is busy propagandizing against the existence
of Israel be employed by Columbia to teach the introductory course on
the Arab-Israeli conflict?? Suffice it to say that this column has received
a surfeit of student complaints about the course, suggesting that there is
no difference between what Massad teaches and what he preaches.? In
his article, Kramer reproduced the misquote from the Spectator. Prior to
Kramer?s column, a website for an organization called ?The Columbia
Conservative Alumni Association? listed me among the six ?worst faculty?
at Columbia, a list that also included Edward Said who was identified as
a ?homosexual? who supports Hamas. Martin Kramer was only too
happy to quote from that website in his article, as would other columnists
writing for the New York Sun.
On June 25 2002, Daniel Pipes and one Jonathan Schanzer published
an article in the New York Post titled ?Extremists on Campus,? in which
they listed me as one such extremist and complained that I use my class
as a ?soapbox for anti-Israeli polemics.? The Wall Street Journal
published on September 18, 2002 an article about a pro-Israel website
calling itself CampusWatch being launched by Daniel Pipes, stating that
the website listed 8 professors (including me) with our own public
dossiers as enemies of America and Israel and called on our students to
monitor us in class. Following the launch of CampusWatch, my E-mail
was spammed for months with over 4000 E-mails daily, which I had to sift
through until finally Columbia was able to install an anti-spamming
program. Moreover, I was subjected to identity theft when thousands of
racist E-mails would be sent in my name to individuals and listservs,
including a few to the White House and Congressmen threatening them
with terrorist action. Moreover, thousands of other E-mails would be sent
to people with requests of notes of receipt being sent back to my E-mail
account which clogged it further with thousands of such E-mail receipts.
I also received tens of racist E-mails and phone messages including
death threats directed at me. In the meantime, Pipes?s website called on
our own students to spy on us in the classroom and report to him, and
Kramer called for my dismissal from Columbia University.10 In interviews
that I gave to the press, I spoke about the misquotation which Pipes and
Kramer continued to propagate, and about my experience in my Spring
2002 class, with regards to the petition to get me fired and the secret
meeting at the Medical school which my student had told me about.11
As I was on sabbatical in London that year, I was relatively shielded
from the campaign, even though my E-mail account continued to be
disrupted. I did come to Columbia to deliver a lecture on Palestinian
cinema in January 2003. My lecture, titled ?The Weapon of Culture,?
discussed how Palestinian cinema was a weapon of resistance and an
act of culture in reference to Amilcar Cabral?s famous essay ?the
Weapon of Theory.? Kramer immediately attacked my paper based on
reports in the press.12
In late January 2003, I began to write a column to the Egyptian Weekly
Al-Ahram which deals mostly with Palestinian-Israeli affairs and with the
Arab World more generally. Every time I published an article, Kramer
and Pipes would write about it, as would new student recruits that they
had on campuses. One such ideological recruit was a first year student
in General Studies whom I had never met called Ariel Beery. Beery
would become one of the main people defending the claims of the David
Project in whose film he appeared and called me ?one of the most
dangerous intellectuals? on campus.? Beery has never taken a class
with me and never met me. Beery, who claims to have served in the
Israeli army in Lebanon, had his own Spectator column and a personal
blog. Beery arrived on the Columbia campus when I was on sabbatical,
yet, surprisingly, he chose to write about me in his column. After
criticizing my Palestinian and Israeli Politics and Societies course, which
he never took, Beery asserted:
One would think that we need a teacher in the classroom, not a
critic?The problem lies not in what Massad believes, but in his openly
biased presentation in the classroom. The statements he issues are
anywhere from questionable to fundamentally wrong.
Basing his arguments on of one my newspaper columns, Beery added
the following:
?If anything, Massad?s claim [in his column] that there is no anti-Semitism
in the Arab world should disqualify him from setting foot in a Columbia
University classroom as a professor of Modern Arab Politics. Just as you
would not trust a surgeon with shaky knowledge of the human anatomy,
Columbia should not trust the minds of its charges to a professor with a
limited knowledge of the body politic of the region he supposedly is an
expert in. [Massad also] says that the claim that Israel is democratic is
no more than a ?propagandistic image.?? th[is]?charge on Israel should
again disqualify Massad from teaching at Columbia.?13
In a second column, Beery again railed against me and lamented that
?Our educations are bound in intellectual Egypt, enslaved by the post-
colonialist slant that has permeated our social sciences, while our
institution is trapped by its old-fashioned bylaws into protecting the
employment of those who espouse hateful and violent rhetoric? Will
President Bollinger and future Provost Alan Brinkley be our gate and our
key to a new and better University? Only time will tell. Let?s just hope that
our time in the wilderness will be short and that next year we will enjoy a
rebuilt Columbia.?14
This is in addition to myriad log entries on me on his website.
In April 2003, I decided to respond to Kramer and Pipes in an article
titled ?Policing the Academy,? in which I fleshed out their agenda and
their plans. I concluded by stating that
?Kramer, Pipes, and co. are angry that the academy still allows
democratic procedure in the expression of political views and has an
institutionalised meritocratic system of judgment?to evaluate its
members. Their goal is to destroy any semblance of either in favour of
subjecting democracy and academic life to an incendiary jingoism and to
the exigencies of the national security state with the express aim of
imploding freedom. Their larger success, however, has been in
discrediting themselves and in reminding all of us that we should never
take the freedoms that we have for granted, as the likes of Kramer and
Pipes are working to take them away.?15
I attach the text of my article at the end of this statement.
Upon returning to Columbia in the Fall of 2003, I was scheduled to
give a lecture on the 2nd of October at the Society of Fellows at the
Heyman Center. The lecture was attended by a large number of people
including many faculty members, Professor Nicholas Dirks, who had not
yet become vice-president, was among them. After the lecture I was
asked a number of hostile questions from young students and from one
Rabbi Charles Sheer, about whom I had heard the previous year when
he railed against MEALAC professors in the context of the pro-
Palestinian rally that took place on campus in April 2002. I had never
met him before. I answered all the questions put before me. Several
professors came to me afterwards, including Brinkley Messick of the
Department of Anthropology and my departmental colleague Janaki
Bakhle, among others, wondering how I managed to remain calm in the
face of rude and hostile questions of the caliber I had been asked.
Rabbi Sheer?s secretary called me and left a message asking for the text
of the lecture. I never responded. The lecture has been published in the
scholarly journal Cultural Critique and has recently been the topic of a
newspaper article in the New York Sun, and I believe also in the Daily
News.16 On 6 January 2004, Rabbi Sheer posted a letter on the Hillel
website addressed to Columbia and Barnard students, in which he
discussed my lecture and made a startling announcement. In his letter,
Sheer shared an article he had written called ?The Treatment of the
Middle East Studies at Columbia University.?17 Sheer declared that ?the
principal anti-Israel voices [on Columbia?s campus] are not pro-
Palestinian student leaders and groups, but Columbia faculty and
academic departments.? He added that ?On the one hand, there are
many fine courses taught by CU faculty on Hebrew language and
literature, the history of Israel and Zionism, Arab culture, languages and
nationalism, etc. These courses, offered in various departments, are
taught with the usual CU standard of careful scholarship and
balance?On the other hand, some faculty members whose teaching
style is called ?advocacy education? espouse a consistent anti-Israel and
pro-Palestinian bias. Their personal politics pervade the classroom and
academic forums. The record is public: search under ?Columbia
University? at websites such as www.campus-watch.org and www.
martinkramer.org. Be prepared; it is not a pleasant read.?18
Sheer proceeded to mention that he had attended my lecture at the
Heyman Center and then summarized it by making outrageous claims
that were never made in the lecture:
?Professor Massad has reversed the roles of all the players and
redefined many of the historic events: the Zionists are the new Nazis; the
Palestinians are oppressed victims and therefore the new Jews? From a
distance, this diatribe may sound ludicrous. However, its impact on
campus is serious. MEALAC should enable our students to explore
issues vital to their understanding of the modern Middle East in a
balanced way??
We will see how the false claim attributed to me by Rabbi Sheer that I
said that ?the Zionists are the new Nazis,? a claim I never made, would
find its way to Ariel Beery who would make the same claim in the video
?Columbia Unbecoming,?19 as would Noah Liben in his description of my
course ?a false claim that would be repeated ad absurdum in the media.
Sheer concluded with two interesting claims, one which effectively called
on students not to take my class, and another announcing the filming of
Columbia Unbecoming:
?Of course, academic freedom is a cornerstone of our University.
However, students are understandably reluctant to take courses from
faculty who impose their biases in their teaching. A student group is
currently working on a video that records how intimidated students feel
by advocacy teaching, and how some are discouraged from taking
MEALAC courses or majoring in Middle East studies.?
Sheer further called on Columbia University to ?share my passion for
unbiased scholarship and the establishment of a proper learning
environment so our students ? Jews and non-Jews ? can learn about
complex issues with honesty and integrity.? 20
Suffice it to say that my class had over fifty students for the Spring
2004 and students did not heed the call made by Sheer. The class did
however include a number of auditors (I found out they were
unregistered during the last week of class) who would consistently
harass me with hostile ideological questions that ignored all the
readings. Students complained about the disruption this caused the
class. I tried to emphasize to the auditors that their questions must be
relevant to the subject at hand and that they must do the readings. They
never did and I continued to answer their questions until the end of the
semester to avoid creating a tense atmosphere in the classroom.
During this period, the New York Sun and Kramer and Pipes continued
to attack me in their columns and on their websites. In an article on
December 30, 2003, the Sun had again attacked one of my newspaper
columns misquoting me. In my column, I stated that ?While Israel has no
legitimacy and is not recognized by any international body as a
?representative? of the Jewish people worldwide but rather as the state of
the Israeli people who are citizens of it?,? the Sun quoted me as saying
that ?Israel has no legitimacy.? I asked for a correction from the reporter
Jacob Gershman. He agreed and the newspaper ran it the next day.21
This however was just a brief lull. On May 4, 2004, the Sun ran another
article about me by one Jonathan Calt Harris, identified as an associate
of Daniel Pipes at Campus Watch, titled ?Tenured Extremism.? After a
litany of misquotes, half quotes, and outright fabrications, Calt Harris,
who referred to my views as akin to those of ?Nazis,? concluded by
stating: ?Mr. Massad is soon up for tenure review. Should this once
distinguished university stoop to provide a permanent forum for his
views, it would signify a truly stunning oversight?He knows no
distinction between a classroom lecture and advocacy at a public
demonstration.?22
Based on this repeated call to deny me tenure at Columbia, which had
already been expressed by Martin Kramer, I set up an appointment with
Provost Brinkley and met with him. I sought his help and the help of the
university?s legal services to fight this defamation of character. The
latest article in the New York Sun included such blatant and insidious
misrepresentations that I seriously considered suing them for
defamation. I provided copies of my written work for the Provost and told
him of the campaigns to which I had been subjected in the previous
years. While the provost seemed mildly supportive, he did not think that
suing would be practical. I asked him if he could arrange for me to meet
with legal services to which he reluctantly agreed. I had to remind him by
E-mail to set up a meeting for me. After he put me in touch with legal
services, my E-mails to them went unanswered. I asked the provost to
intervene which he did. His intervention produced a response from their
office asking me about my available times to set up an appointment. I
sent it to them and never heard back. I dropped the matter after I left in
mid summer for vacation abroad.
In the meantime however, I received a letter from Joel J. Levy, director
of the
New York chapter of the Anti-Defamation League, copies of which had
been sent to President Bollinger and Provost Brinkley. The letter was
significantly dated on May 6, 2004, two days after Calt Harris published
his article in the Sun. The letter complained to me that, according to one
report it received from one student who attended a lecture that I had
given at the University of Pennsylvania on March 24, 2004 (which
incidentally was the same lecture I gave at Columbia?s Society of Fellows
the previous October), ideas expressed in my lecture are ?anti-Semitic.?
The letter made false claims about what my lecture said and asked that I
retract them and issue an apology for my allegedly anti-Semitic remarks.
I wrote Mr. Levy back and copied President Bollinger and Provost
Brinkley. I stated in my letter that:
?My principled stance against anti-Semitism and all kinds of racism is a
matter of public record and cannot be assailed by defamatory ?reports?
or by letters from the ADL that consider them credible sources. Indeed I
have condemned anti-Semitism in my Arabic and English writings,
regardless of whether the person expressing it was pro-Israel or anti-
Israel, an Arab, an American Christian, or an Israeli Jew? I therefore
expect a prompt correction of the errors contained in your letter and
demand an immediate apology, a copy of which should be sent to
President Bollinger.?23
I never heard back from the ADL, or from the provost.
It was with this as background that news about the David Project film
?Columbia Unbecoming,? surfaced on October 20, 2004 in a New York
Sun article.24
The Aftermath of Columbia Unbecoming
I was horrified by the media campaign against me and the calls for my
dismissal from Columbia that were issued by Congressman Weiner and
by the editors of the Daily News and the New York Sun, as well as calls
by Jewish members of the New York City Council to investigate the
matter. These calls were issued as declarations about the controversy
by the national head of the ADL and Mayor Bloomberg were also made
to the press and the film was suddenly being shown in Israel before a
government minister at an anti-Semitism conference. I had requested a
meeting with Provost Brinkley who did not contact me once during the
early days of the controversy during which President Bollinger was
making all kinds of statements to the press. My request to meet with the
Provost was made through the chair of my department, Marc van de
Mieroop, who attended our meeting in the Provost?s office on the 27th of
October. I inquired of the provost as to why he would sit down secretly to
watch a propaganda film produced by a lobbying group and why he
would remain silent about it after he had seen it. The provost apologized
and admitted that these were mistakes but that now we needed to
contain the problem. He assured me that he had received countless
letters in my support and few against me. When I spoke with Vice-
President Dirks later, he also informed me that he had received
?hundreds? of letters in my support and ?three or four? against me. I trust
that the President, the Provost, and the Vice-President, have shared
with you these letters. While the provost and I corresponded briefly on E-
mail, mainly about my concerns regarding statements made by
President Bollinger, which the Provost would challenge and represent as
the media?s inaccurate rendering, soon there would be no further
communication with him. President Bollinger to this day has not
contacted me.
The Columbia Spectator ran an editorial asking me to respond to the
allegations. They wrote me and called me asking that I issue a
statement. I agreed with their editorial page editor, Rachael
Scarborough King, on the number of words and sent it to them. They
refused to publish it unless I cut it to 1600 words, 400 words below what
they had agreed to. I cut down my statement and resent it. They still
refused to publish it. The editorial page editor, Ms. King sent me an
apology about her sense of shame that the editor in chief ?overruled?
her and refused to run it. I have kept our E-mail correspondence. I opted
to post my response to the allegations on my Columbia Webpage on
November 3, 2005, against the advice of the Provost, who counseled
that my silence was of more benefit to me. The Spectator would later
publish Charles Jacobs, the director of the David Project?s response to
my statement.25
Let me begin by responding to the claims put forward in ?Columbia
Unbecoming,? both based on press reports and on the recent transcript
of the film made available on the web. I still have not seen the film. Let
me reiterate what I said in my statement regarding the claims put by the
students in the film:
I am now being targeted because of my public writings and statements
through the charge that I am allegedly intolerant in the classroom, a
charge based on statements made by people who were never my
students, except in one case, which I will address momentarily. Let me
first state that I have intimidated no one. In fact, Tomy Schoenfeld, the
Israeli soldier who appears in the film and is cited by the New York Sun,
has never been my student and has never taken a class with me, as he
himself informed The Jewish Week. I have never met him. As for Noah
Liben, who appears in the film according to newspaper accounts (I have
not seen the film), he was indeed a student in my Palestinian and Israeli
Politics and Societies course in the spring of 2001. Noah seems to have
forgotten the incident he cites. During a lecture about Israeli state
racism against Asian and African Jews, Noah defended these practices
on the basis that Asian and African Jews were underdeveloped and
lacked Jewish culture, which the Ashkenazi State operatives were
teaching them. When I explained to him that, as the assigned readings
clarified, these were racist policies, he insisted that these Jews needed
to be modernized and the Ashkenazim were helping them by civilizing
them. Many students gasped. He asked me if I understood his point. I
informed him that I did not. Noah seems not to have done his reading
during the week on gender and Zionism. One of the assigned readings
by Israeli scholar and feminist Simona Sharoni spoke of how in Hebrew
the word ?zayin? means both penis and weapon in a discussion of Israeli
militarized masculinity. Noah, seemingly not having read the assigned
material, mistook the pronunciation of ?zayin? as ?Zion,? pronounced in
Hebrew ?tziyon.? As for his spurious claim that I said that ?Jews in Nazi
Germany were not physically abused or harassed until Kristallnacht in
November 1938,? Noah must not have been listening carefully. During
the discussion of Nazi Germany, we addressed the racist ideology of
Nazism, the Nuremberg Laws enacted in 1934, and the institutionalized
racism and violence against all facets of Jewish life, all of which
preceded the extermination of European Jews. This information was also
available to Noah in his readings, had he chosen to consult them.
Moreover, the lie that the film propagates claiming that I would equate
Israel with Nazi Germany is abhorrent. I have never made such a
reprehensible equation.
I remember having a friendly rapport with Noah (as I do with all my
students). He would drop off newspaper articles in my mailbox, come to
my office hours, and greet me on the street often. He never informed me
or acted in a way that showed intimidation. Indeed, he would write me E-
mails, even after he stopped being my student, to argue with me about
Israel. I have kept our correspondence. On March 10, 2002, a year after
he took a class with me, Noah wrote me an E-mail chastising me for
having invited an Israeli speaker to class the year before when he was in
attendance. It turned out that Noah?s memory failed him again, as he
mistook the speaker I had invited for another Israeli scholar. After a long
diatribe, Noah excoriated me: ?How can you bring such a phony to speak
to your class??? I am not sure if his misplaced reproach was indicative of
an intimidated student or one who felt comfortable enough to rebuke his
professor!26
As for the claim made by Ariel Beery, whom I have never met and who
has never been my student, that my ?favorite description is the
Palestinian as the new Jew and the Jew as the new Nazi.? Such a
statement is an outright lie. Beery gets this quote not from anything I
said or wrote, but from the fabrication made up by Rabbi Sheer on his
Hillel web posting of January 4th 2004. As for the claims made by Deena
Shanker, whose story suddenly appeared in a report in the New York
Sun after my posted statement dismantled the false claims made by
Liben and Schoenfeld, her claims are also outright lies.27 In her New
York Sun account, Ms. Shanker stated that she asked me
?if it is true that Israel gives prior warning before launching strikes in
Palestinian Arab territories??That provoked him to start screaming, ?If
you?re going to deny the atrocities being committed against the
Palestinians then you could leave the class,? Ms. Shanker said?She
said she was ?shocked? by his reaction, and that Mr. Massad ?usually
answered civilly along the lines of, ?No, you?re wrong.? She said Mr.
Massad compared Israelis to Nazis during lectures in class.
Shanker later told the New York Times a different story: ?She said that
Professor Massad sometimes ridiculed her questions and during one
class exchange yelled at her to get out. (She stayed.) ?People in the
class were like blown away,? she said.?28 Her account to the Jerusalem
Post was also inconsistent with the other two accounts:
?If you?re going to deny the atrocities being committed against the
Palestinian people then you can get out of my classroom!? Massad
shouted, according to Shanker?s account?Shanker was shocked?
?Sometimes teachers and professors yell at students ? it happens ? but
this was not like anything I?ve ever experienced. He was not treating me
like a student,? she said? Shanker said she had grown accustomed to
Massad?s antagonism toward Israel, but the professor?s rage at her for
speaking up was frightening? ?I felt ? I wouldn?t say ?intimidated? was the
right word ? I would say: humiliated, violated, scared. This was very overt
and explicit.?29
Deena Shanker is lying in all three versions of her story. I have never
asked her or any student to leave my class no matter what question they
asked. In fact, I never asked any of my students to leave class for any
reason. I have no visual memory of Deena Shanker who never came to
office hours or spoke with me after class. The incident she describes
has never taken place.
In the aftermath of the film, I have received, and still receive, a barrage
of hate mail and racist E-Emails and voicemail messages. The first such
E-mail message was from a medical school professor called Moshe
Rubin. Professor Rubin wrote me on October 20th, the same day as the
first report was published in the Sun. Under the subject heading ?Anti-
Semite? he wrote:
?Go back to Arab land where Jew hating is condoned
get the hell out of America
you are a disgrace
and a pathetic typical arab liar
Moshe Rubin?
Many more such E-mails would follow. The campaign would quickly
expand and include medical school professor Judith Jacobson. Such
threatening E-mails have also targeted others in my department. A
recent E-mail was sent last week to all the Jewish students and faculty at
MEALAC from an Israeli group calling itself ?United Trial Group ?
Peoples Rights International,? informing them that:
?We advise you to immediately dismiss/kick ass of Joseph Goebbels, aa
Joseph Massed based on the President Bush Bill against anti-Semitism
and according with the US anti-terrorism law, proscribing Nazi
propaganda and incitement to terror. If you and the administration
won?t immediately dismiss that fascist bastard, you and the
administration will be personally liable and accountable for
aiding, abetting and harboring this Muslim criminal, and subject to
criminal prosecution and multimillion compensations in damages?
You have 30 days to comply and inform us.?
I should state that I have received immense support from across the
world, through countless letters and thousands of signatures on an
online petition. These include hundreds of individual letters from
academics, students, and supporters, and tens of letters from my own
students, especially my Jewish students. All these letters were sent to
President Bollinger, Provost Brinkley, and Vice-President Dirks. Copies
of many of these letters were sent to me. In addition, a colleague at the
University of Texas at Austin, Professor Neville Hoad, circulated a letter
within a few days of the controversy and obtained 828 signatures of
major scholars and academics around the United States and the world,
which he also submitted to the President, the Provost, and the Vice-
President. Another academic colleague at the State University of
California, As?ad AbuKhalil, set up an on-line petition, which obtained
upwards of 3000 signatures, a copy of which was also sent to Bollinger.
Hooligans attempted to undermine the petition by signing names like
?Adolf Hitler? and ?Osama Ben Laden,? but they were not able to shut the
petition down. In addition, two letters were sent to the Prsident, the
Provost, and the Vice-Presdient, one by 24 graduate students at
MEALAC, and another by 52 graduate students from other departments
at Columbia. The Middle East Studies Association?s Academic Freedom
Committee also issued a letter defending my academic freedom, as did
the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the New York
chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the American-
Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Thirty professors from the American
University in Cairo also sent a letter defending me. President Bollinger
has as of yet not responded to any of these individuals or organizations
with the notable exception of the ACLU. A response was also sent by the
Provost to the AAUP. In the meantime, my own senior colleague Dan
Miron had joined the fray with claims to the New York Sun that students
in the department had been complaining to him of class humiliation by
professors every week for years.30
President Bollinger?s Failure to Defend the Faculty
The response of the Columbia University administration to the David
Project was swift. As I will show below, in statement and action, Columbia?
s President Bollinger has prejudged the accused faculty, and failed to
defend us or the MEALAC department, and he refused to defend
Columbia?s own record of pluralism and tolerance, the variety of courses
the university offers on the Middle East, or Columbia?s established
commitment to promote Jewish and Israel Studies. Instead President
Bollinger and his administration, as the evidence I will present will show,
gave legitimacy to the film ?Columbia Unbecoming,? referred to its claims
as facts, and promised an ?investigation.? His subsequent statements
and actions have emboldened those engaged in the campaign to
intimidate me and would confirm to the public that the allegations against
me are in fact true, at least, as far as he was concerned. Let me
illustrate how this transpired.[/justify]
Statement to the Ad Hoc Committee1
March 14, 2005
Joseph Massad
I have prepared a statement to read to you. I would be happy to
answer your questions afterwards. Before I begin, however, I want to
ascertain that as professor Katzneslson has informed me, the only
complaints that your committee has heard about me are the two
complaints that the press reported from my students, namely the
complaint by Noah Liben and the complaint by Deena Shanker. As for
the complaint by Tomy Schoenfeld, who was not my student, I presume,
his case is irrelevant to this body, as your mandate states that ?as a
result of the expression of concern by a number of students that they
were being intimidated by faculty members and being excluded from
participating fully in classroom discussions because of their views,? you
are expected ?to identify cases where there appear to be violations of
the obligation to create a civil and tolerant teaching environment.?2 If
there are any other complaints against me, unless I am told what they
are and who made them, and the date and place where they allegedly
took place, I shall not respond to them.
I appear before you today because of a campaign of intimidation to
which I have been subjected for over three years. While this campaign
was started by certain members of the Columbia faculty, and by outside
forces using some of my students as conduits, it soon expanded to
include members of the Columbia administration, the rightwing tabloid
press, the Israeli press, and more locally the Columbia Spectator. Much
of this preceded the David Project film ?Columbia Unbecoming,? and the
ensuing controversy. In the following statement, I will provide you with
the history of this coordinated campaign, including the facts pertaining
to the intimidation to which I am being subjected by the Columbia
University administration, most manifestly through the convening of your
own committee before which I appear today out of a combined sense of
intimidation and obligation and not because I recognize its legitimacy.
You need to bear with the details of the following narrative, as the
campaign of intimidation against me is most insidious in its details.
I started teaching at Columbia in the Fall of 1999. At the conclusion of
my first academic year, during which I taught my class on Palestinian
and Israeli Politics and Societies, I received a Certificate of Appreciation
for teaching presented by ?The Students of Columbia College, Class of
2000,? and was nominated and was one of the two finalists for the Van
Doren teaching award which went that year to Professor Michael
Stanislawski. In my second year, I began to be told of whispers about
my class on Palestinian and Israeli politics and Societies. Jewish
Students in my class in the Spring 2001 would tell me that I was the main
topic of discussion at the Jewish Theological Seminary and at Hillel and
that my class is making the Zionists on campus angry. I took such
reports lightly, as the class had doubled in size from the first year. I did
notice however that the class included some cantankerous students who
insisted on scoring political points during the lectures. I would always
defuse the situation by allowing all questions to be asked and by
attempting to answer them informatively. I would do so in class and
during office hours. I had strong positive evaluations from most of my
students with some complaining that the class was biased. Although my
course description explained that ?The purpose of the course is to
provide a thorough yet critical historical overview of the Zionist-
Palestinian conflict to familiarize undergraduates with the background to
the current situation,?3 I decided in the following year (Spring 2002) to
emphasize that point more clearly. The course description read as
follows:
The course examines critically the impact of Zionism on European Jews
and on Asian and African Jews on the one hand, and on Palestinian
Arabs on the other ?in Israel, in the Occupied Territories, and in the
Diaspora. The course also examines critically the internal dynamics in
Palestinian and Israeli societies, looking at the roles class, gender, and
religion play in the politics of Israel and the Palestinian national
movement. The purpose of the course is not to provide a ?balanced?
coverage of the views of both sides, but rather to provide a thorough yet
critical historical overview of the Zionist-Palestinian conflict to familiarize
undergraduates with the background to the current situation from a
critical perspective.4
The point of the class description is to make sure the students
understood that no side was being presented, neither the Palestinian
nor the Zionist side, but rather that this was a course that was critical of
both Zionism and Palestinian nationalism. When I taught the class in
2004, after returning from my sabbatical, I decided to remove the
sentence on ?balance,? especially after CampusWatch began to attack
me for including it, to which I will return below. I removed it.5
It was with this as background that I started my Spring 2002 semester.
My Palestinian and Israeli course seemed to have a more cantankerous
crowd that year than before. Even though this year, the class had two
discussion sections to accommodate the number of students, a number
of students insisted on having discussions during the lecture. Some
would bring with them a pro-Israel lobby propaganda book from which
they would insist on reading in class. I would let them.
One student in particular stood out. A smart older student in General
Studies, who identified herself as having a South African Jewish
background, would insist on asking many questions every lecture, most
of which were about scoring political points. The class had over 80
students and therefore it was difficult to accommodate such a large
number of questions from students. No matter, I decided to let her ask
all her questions in every lecture in order to make her feel comfortable
and that she feel that the class is a space where she could express
herself freely. She would E-mail me asking for exact sources for
information that I would give in class. I would E-mail her back what she
needed. For a while, it seemed that I was her research assistant, which I
was happy to do, in order to teach her that there are indeed scholarly
sources and scholarly answers to her political queries. I later found out
from other students that she was circulating a petition in the class to
have me fired from Columbia. I asked her after class one day if that was
the case, and told her that if it were so, that she would be free to
circulate it outside of class, not inside. She smiled back without comment.
I saw her on college walk one day after Spring break. She came up to
me and told me that she had just been to Israel and the Occupied
Territories and expressed how bad she felt about the situation there.
She apologized about the petition and told me that she had been
approached ?from the outside? to do it but she had dropped the matter.
She spoke of people at the medical school and others from outside the
university who were behind the idea, but did not provide details. I did not
inquire.
Another student of mine (now at the School of International and Public
Affairs), who self-identified as a ?Likudnik,? also approached me on
campus one day during the Spring 2002 semester, telling me that he
and a few other students had been invited to see a female professor at
the medical school. He described that the meeting was so
?surreptitious? and ?conspiratorial,? that it felt that they were planning on
having me ?murdered.? In fact, the plan was to strategize how to get me
fired. The student told me that they discussed the option of meeting with
a female administraror who worked at the time at the Middle East
Institute, to coordinate the plan with her. He told me that he had
informed the students and the medical school professor that even
though he disagreed with me, that he thought I had the right to express
my views.
The female student who initiated the petition against me was not alone
in class who consistently posed hostile questions. Three or four other
students would do so intermittently. One of them insisted on reading out
loud in class paragraphs from a propaganda book issued by a pro-Israel
lobbying organization. The book is ?Myths and Facts: A Guide to the
Arab-Israeli Conflict? written by one Mitchell Bard and published by the
American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, which states on its website that
?We are committed to arming students with the information they need to
respond to the very difficult issues raised on the campus? through the
publication of Bard?s book.6 Many students complained that these few
students were disruptive of class, especially as there are discussion
sections for them to raise their concerns. I allayed their anxiety by
explaining that there is something to learn from some of the students?
politically-motivated questions, namely that all students would learn the
political arguments of proponents and opponents of certain scholarly
analyses of the conflict, and that students who had political queries
would also learn that there are indeed persuasive answers to the
queries they raise from a critical and scholarly angle. For me, allowing
these students to disrupt my lecture was of pedagogical benefit to them
and to the rest of the class.
During the same semester, in April 2002, I was attacked and misquoted
by the Spectator after attending an on-campus rally in support of
Palestinians under Israeli military attack in the West Bank and Gaza, and
an op-ed piece and letters were published in the Spectator accusing me
of ?anti-Semitism? for a lecture I had given at the Middle East Institute in
February 2002.7 The op-ed piece by a junior at Barnard named
Daphna Berman, who was not my student, drew parallels between a
swastika found in a law school bathroom and my lecture and rebuked
the university for allowing me to speak out:
?I was struck by the University?s willingness to publicly condemn blatant
expressions of anti-Semitism [such as the swastika incident] while
simultaneously condoning, and even sponsoring, more tacit and subtle
forms of that same evil. Massad?s talk is lent a certain legitimacy by mere
virtue of the fact that his views exist within an academic framework. The
rhetoric is polished, the multisyllabic words characteristic of academia
are pleasing to the ear, and so Massad?s message somehow becomes
more acceptable, more palatable. Yet fundamentally, the difference
between Massad?s message and its more blatant and visually tangible
manifestation are only subtle.?8
As for the political rally, which took place on Wednesday April 17, 2002, I
was one of countless speakers. I spoke out and asserted the following:
??Like white South Africans who felt threatened under apartheid and who
only felt safe when they gave up their commitment to white supremacy,
Israeli Jews will continue to feel threatened if they persist in supporting
Jewish supremacy. Israeli Jews will only feel safe in a democratic Israeli
state where all Jews and Arabs are treated equally. No state has the
right to be a racist state.? The Spectator misquoted me as saying that
Israel is ?a Jewish supremacist and racist state,? and that ?every racist
state should be threatened.?9 When I protested the misquotation, the
Spectator journalist who wrote the story, Xan Nowakowski, apologized
and informed me via E-mail that she did not even attend the rally and
got the quotes from another reporter. She assured me that the
newspaper would run a correction. After a back and forth for almost a
week on E-mail, the Spectator ran the correction on April 24, 2002.
However, two major pro-Israeli propagandists, namely Martin Kramer
and Daniel Pipes, would insist on reproducing the misquote in articles
that they wrote to newspapers and that they posted on their websites.
On June 20, 2002, Martin Kramer, an Israeli academic who teaches at
Tel Aviv university, posted an article on the Middle East Forum website
titled ?Arab Panic,? in which he attacked a number of Columbia
professors, myself included. He argued that ?Massad?s views are not all
that unusual in Middle Eastern studies, and he has every right to
express them on Columbia?s Low Plaza, in public lectures, and in print.
But should someone who is busy propagandizing against the existence
of Israel be employed by Columbia to teach the introductory course on
the Arab-Israeli conflict?? Suffice it to say that this column has received
a surfeit of student complaints about the course, suggesting that there is
no difference between what Massad teaches and what he preaches.? In
his article, Kramer reproduced the misquote from the Spectator. Prior to
Kramer?s column, a website for an organization called ?The Columbia
Conservative Alumni Association? listed me among the six ?worst faculty?
at Columbia, a list that also included Edward Said who was identified as
a ?homosexual? who supports Hamas. Martin Kramer was only too
happy to quote from that website in his article, as would other columnists
writing for the New York Sun.
On June 25 2002, Daniel Pipes and one Jonathan Schanzer published
an article in the New York Post titled ?Extremists on Campus,? in which
they listed me as one such extremist and complained that I use my class
as a ?soapbox for anti-Israeli polemics.? The Wall Street Journal
published on September 18, 2002 an article about a pro-Israel website
calling itself CampusWatch being launched by Daniel Pipes, stating that
the website listed 8 professors (including me) with our own public
dossiers as enemies of America and Israel and called on our students to
monitor us in class. Following the launch of CampusWatch, my E-mail
was spammed for months with over 4000 E-mails daily, which I had to sift
through until finally Columbia was able to install an anti-spamming
program. Moreover, I was subjected to identity theft when thousands of
racist E-mails would be sent in my name to individuals and listservs,
including a few to the White House and Congressmen threatening them
with terrorist action. Moreover, thousands of other E-mails would be sent
to people with requests of notes of receipt being sent back to my E-mail
account which clogged it further with thousands of such E-mail receipts.
I also received tens of racist E-mails and phone messages including
death threats directed at me. In the meantime, Pipes?s website called on
our own students to spy on us in the classroom and report to him, and
Kramer called for my dismissal from Columbia University.10 In interviews
that I gave to the press, I spoke about the misquotation which Pipes and
Kramer continued to propagate, and about my experience in my Spring
2002 class, with regards to the petition to get me fired and the secret
meeting at the Medical school which my student had told me about.11
As I was on sabbatical in London that year, I was relatively shielded
from the campaign, even though my E-mail account continued to be
disrupted. I did come to Columbia to deliver a lecture on Palestinian
cinema in January 2003. My lecture, titled ?The Weapon of Culture,?
discussed how Palestinian cinema was a weapon of resistance and an
act of culture in reference to Amilcar Cabral?s famous essay ?the
Weapon of Theory.? Kramer immediately attacked my paper based on
reports in the press.12
In late January 2003, I began to write a column to the Egyptian Weekly
Al-Ahram which deals mostly with Palestinian-Israeli affairs and with the
Arab World more generally. Every time I published an article, Kramer
and Pipes would write about it, as would new student recruits that they
had on campuses. One such ideological recruit was a first year student
in General Studies whom I had never met called Ariel Beery. Beery
would become one of the main people defending the claims of the David
Project in whose film he appeared and called me ?one of the most
dangerous intellectuals? on campus.? Beery has never taken a class
with me and never met me. Beery, who claims to have served in the
Israeli army in Lebanon, had his own Spectator column and a personal
blog. Beery arrived on the Columbia campus when I was on sabbatical,
yet, surprisingly, he chose to write about me in his column. After
criticizing my Palestinian and Israeli Politics and Societies course, which
he never took, Beery asserted:
One would think that we need a teacher in the classroom, not a
critic?The problem lies not in what Massad believes, but in his openly
biased presentation in the classroom. The statements he issues are
anywhere from questionable to fundamentally wrong.
Basing his arguments on of one my newspaper columns, Beery added
the following:
?If anything, Massad?s claim [in his column] that there is no anti-Semitism
in the Arab world should disqualify him from setting foot in a Columbia
University classroom as a professor of Modern Arab Politics. Just as you
would not trust a surgeon with shaky knowledge of the human anatomy,
Columbia should not trust the minds of its charges to a professor with a
limited knowledge of the body politic of the region he supposedly is an
expert in. [Massad also] says that the claim that Israel is democratic is
no more than a ?propagandistic image.?? th[is]?charge on Israel should
again disqualify Massad from teaching at Columbia.?13
In a second column, Beery again railed against me and lamented that
?Our educations are bound in intellectual Egypt, enslaved by the post-
colonialist slant that has permeated our social sciences, while our
institution is trapped by its old-fashioned bylaws into protecting the
employment of those who espouse hateful and violent rhetoric? Will
President Bollinger and future Provost Alan Brinkley be our gate and our
key to a new and better University? Only time will tell. Let?s just hope that
our time in the wilderness will be short and that next year we will enjoy a
rebuilt Columbia.?14
This is in addition to myriad log entries on me on his website.
In April 2003, I decided to respond to Kramer and Pipes in an article
titled ?Policing the Academy,? in which I fleshed out their agenda and
their plans. I concluded by stating that
?Kramer, Pipes, and co. are angry that the academy still allows
democratic procedure in the expression of political views and has an
institutionalised meritocratic system of judgment?to evaluate its
members. Their goal is to destroy any semblance of either in favour of
subjecting democracy and academic life to an incendiary jingoism and to
the exigencies of the national security state with the express aim of
imploding freedom. Their larger success, however, has been in
discrediting themselves and in reminding all of us that we should never
take the freedoms that we have for granted, as the likes of Kramer and
Pipes are working to take them away.?15
I attach the text of my article at the end of this statement.
Upon returning to Columbia in the Fall of 2003, I was scheduled to
give a lecture on the 2nd of October at the Society of Fellows at the
Heyman Center. The lecture was attended by a large number of people
including many faculty members, Professor Nicholas Dirks, who had not
yet become vice-president, was among them. After the lecture I was
asked a number of hostile questions from young students and from one
Rabbi Charles Sheer, about whom I had heard the previous year when
he railed against MEALAC professors in the context of the pro-
Palestinian rally that took place on campus in April 2002. I had never
met him before. I answered all the questions put before me. Several
professors came to me afterwards, including Brinkley Messick of the
Department of Anthropology and my departmental colleague Janaki
Bakhle, among others, wondering how I managed to remain calm in the
face of rude and hostile questions of the caliber I had been asked.
Rabbi Sheer?s secretary called me and left a message asking for the text
of the lecture. I never responded. The lecture has been published in the
scholarly journal Cultural Critique and has recently been the topic of a
newspaper article in the New York Sun, and I believe also in the Daily
News.16 On 6 January 2004, Rabbi Sheer posted a letter on the Hillel
website addressed to Columbia and Barnard students, in which he
discussed my lecture and made a startling announcement. In his letter,
Sheer shared an article he had written called ?The Treatment of the
Middle East Studies at Columbia University.?17 Sheer declared that ?the
principal anti-Israel voices [on Columbia?s campus] are not pro-
Palestinian student leaders and groups, but Columbia faculty and
academic departments.? He added that ?On the one hand, there are
many fine courses taught by CU faculty on Hebrew language and
literature, the history of Israel and Zionism, Arab culture, languages and
nationalism, etc. These courses, offered in various departments, are
taught with the usual CU standard of careful scholarship and
balance?On the other hand, some faculty members whose teaching
style is called ?advocacy education? espouse a consistent anti-Israel and
pro-Palestinian bias. Their personal politics pervade the classroom and
academic forums. The record is public: search under ?Columbia
University? at websites such as www.campus-watch.org and www.
martinkramer.org. Be prepared; it is not a pleasant read.?18
Sheer proceeded to mention that he had attended my lecture at the
Heyman Center and then summarized it by making outrageous claims
that were never made in the lecture:
?Professor Massad has reversed the roles of all the players and
redefined many of the historic events: the Zionists are the new Nazis; the
Palestinians are oppressed victims and therefore the new Jews? From a
distance, this diatribe may sound ludicrous. However, its impact on
campus is serious. MEALAC should enable our students to explore
issues vital to their understanding of the modern Middle East in a
balanced way??
We will see how the false claim attributed to me by Rabbi Sheer that I
said that ?the Zionists are the new Nazis,? a claim I never made, would
find its way to Ariel Beery who would make the same claim in the video
?Columbia Unbecoming,?19 as would Noah Liben in his description of my
course ?a false claim that would be repeated ad absurdum in the media.
Sheer concluded with two interesting claims, one which effectively called
on students not to take my class, and another announcing the filming of
Columbia Unbecoming:
?Of course, academic freedom is a cornerstone of our University.
However, students are understandably reluctant to take courses from
faculty who impose their biases in their teaching. A student group is
currently working on a video that records how intimidated students feel
by advocacy teaching, and how some are discouraged from taking
MEALAC courses or majoring in Middle East studies.?
Sheer further called on Columbia University to ?share my passion for
unbiased scholarship and the establishment of a proper learning
environment so our students ? Jews and non-Jews ? can learn about
complex issues with honesty and integrity.? 20
Suffice it to say that my class had over fifty students for the Spring
2004 and students did not heed the call made by Sheer. The class did
however include a number of auditors (I found out they were
unregistered during the last week of class) who would consistently
harass me with hostile ideological questions that ignored all the
readings. Students complained about the disruption this caused the
class. I tried to emphasize to the auditors that their questions must be
relevant to the subject at hand and that they must do the readings. They
never did and I continued to answer their questions until the end of the
semester to avoid creating a tense atmosphere in the classroom.
During this period, the New York Sun and Kramer and Pipes continued
to attack me in their columns and on their websites. In an article on
December 30, 2003, the Sun had again attacked one of my newspaper
columns misquoting me. In my column, I stated that ?While Israel has no
legitimacy and is not recognized by any international body as a
?representative? of the Jewish people worldwide but rather as the state of
the Israeli people who are citizens of it?,? the Sun quoted me as saying
that ?Israel has no legitimacy.? I asked for a correction from the reporter
Jacob Gershman. He agreed and the newspaper ran it the next day.21
This however was just a brief lull. On May 4, 2004, the Sun ran another
article about me by one Jonathan Calt Harris, identified as an associate
of Daniel Pipes at Campus Watch, titled ?Tenured Extremism.? After a
litany of misquotes, half quotes, and outright fabrications, Calt Harris,
who referred to my views as akin to those of ?Nazis,? concluded by
stating: ?Mr. Massad is soon up for tenure review. Should this once
distinguished university stoop to provide a permanent forum for his
views, it would signify a truly stunning oversight?He knows no
distinction between a classroom lecture and advocacy at a public
demonstration.?22
Based on this repeated call to deny me tenure at Columbia, which had
already been expressed by Martin Kramer, I set up an appointment with
Provost Brinkley and met with him. I sought his help and the help of the
university?s legal services to fight this defamation of character. The
latest article in the New York Sun included such blatant and insidious
misrepresentations that I seriously considered suing them for
defamation. I provided copies of my written work for the Provost and told
him of the campaigns to which I had been subjected in the previous
years. While the provost seemed mildly supportive, he did not think that
suing would be practical. I asked him if he could arrange for me to meet
with legal services to which he reluctantly agreed. I had to remind him by
E-mail to set up a meeting for me. After he put me in touch with legal
services, my E-mails to them went unanswered. I asked the provost to
intervene which he did. His intervention produced a response from their
office asking me about my available times to set up an appointment. I
sent it to them and never heard back. I dropped the matter after I left in
mid summer for vacation abroad.
In the meantime however, I received a letter from Joel J. Levy, director
of the
New York chapter of the Anti-Defamation League, copies of which had
been sent to President Bollinger and Provost Brinkley. The letter was
significantly dated on May 6, 2004, two days after Calt Harris published
his article in the Sun. The letter complained to me that, according to one
report it received from one student who attended a lecture that I had
given at the University of Pennsylvania on March 24, 2004 (which
incidentally was the same lecture I gave at Columbia?s Society of Fellows
the previous October), ideas expressed in my lecture are ?anti-Semitic.?
The letter made false claims about what my lecture said and asked that I
retract them and issue an apology for my allegedly anti-Semitic remarks.
I wrote Mr. Levy back and copied President Bollinger and Provost
Brinkley. I stated in my letter that:
?My principled stance against anti-Semitism and all kinds of racism is a
matter of public record and cannot be assailed by defamatory ?reports?
or by letters from the ADL that consider them credible sources. Indeed I
have condemned anti-Semitism in my Arabic and English writings,
regardless of whether the person expressing it was pro-Israel or anti-
Israel, an Arab, an American Christian, or an Israeli Jew? I therefore
expect a prompt correction of the errors contained in your letter and
demand an immediate apology, a copy of which should be sent to
President Bollinger.?23
I never heard back from the ADL, or from the provost.
It was with this as background that news about the David Project film
?Columbia Unbecoming,? surfaced on October 20, 2004 in a New York
Sun article.24
The Aftermath of Columbia Unbecoming
I was horrified by the media campaign against me and the calls for my
dismissal from Columbia that were issued by Congressman Weiner and
by the editors of the Daily News and the New York Sun, as well as calls
by Jewish members of the New York City Council to investigate the
matter. These calls were issued as declarations about the controversy
by the national head of the ADL and Mayor Bloomberg were also made
to the press and the film was suddenly being shown in Israel before a
government minister at an anti-Semitism conference. I had requested a
meeting with Provost Brinkley who did not contact me once during the
early days of the controversy during which President Bollinger was
making all kinds of statements to the press. My request to meet with the
Provost was made through the chair of my department, Marc van de
Mieroop, who attended our meeting in the Provost?s office on the 27th of
October. I inquired of the provost as to why he would sit down secretly to
watch a propaganda film produced by a lobbying group and why he
would remain silent about it after he had seen it. The provost apologized
and admitted that these were mistakes but that now we needed to
contain the problem. He assured me that he had received countless
letters in my support and few against me. When I spoke with Vice-
President Dirks later, he also informed me that he had received
?hundreds? of letters in my support and ?three or four? against me. I trust
that the President, the Provost, and the Vice-President, have shared
with you these letters. While the provost and I corresponded briefly on E-
mail, mainly about my concerns regarding statements made by
President Bollinger, which the Provost would challenge and represent as
the media?s inaccurate rendering, soon there would be no further
communication with him. President Bollinger to this day has not
contacted me.
The Columbia Spectator ran an editorial asking me to respond to the
allegations. They wrote me and called me asking that I issue a
statement. I agreed with their editorial page editor, Rachael
Scarborough King, on the number of words and sent it to them. They
refused to publish it unless I cut it to 1600 words, 400 words below what
they had agreed to. I cut down my statement and resent it. They still
refused to publish it. The editorial page editor, Ms. King sent me an
apology about her sense of shame that the editor in chief ?overruled?
her and refused to run it. I have kept our E-mail correspondence. I opted
to post my response to the allegations on my Columbia Webpage on
November 3, 2005, against the advice of the Provost, who counseled
that my silence was of more benefit to me. The Spectator would later
publish Charles Jacobs, the director of the David Project?s response to
my statement.25
Let me begin by responding to the claims put forward in ?Columbia
Unbecoming,? both based on press reports and on the recent transcript
of the film made available on the web. I still have not seen the film. Let
me reiterate what I said in my statement regarding the claims put by the
students in the film:
I am now being targeted because of my public writings and statements
through the charge that I am allegedly intolerant in the classroom, a
charge based on statements made by people who were never my
students, except in one case, which I will address momentarily. Let me
first state that I have intimidated no one. In fact, Tomy Schoenfeld, the
Israeli soldier who appears in the film and is cited by the New York Sun,
has never been my student and has never taken a class with me, as he
himself informed The Jewish Week. I have never met him. As for Noah
Liben, who appears in the film according to newspaper accounts (I have
not seen the film), he was indeed a student in my Palestinian and Israeli
Politics and Societies course in the spring of 2001. Noah seems to have
forgotten the incident he cites. During a lecture about Israeli state
racism against Asian and African Jews, Noah defended these practices
on the basis that Asian and African Jews were underdeveloped and
lacked Jewish culture, which the Ashkenazi State operatives were
teaching them. When I explained to him that, as the assigned readings
clarified, these were racist policies, he insisted that these Jews needed
to be modernized and the Ashkenazim were helping them by civilizing
them. Many students gasped. He asked me if I understood his point. I
informed him that I did not. Noah seems not to have done his reading
during the week on gender and Zionism. One of the assigned readings
by Israeli scholar and feminist Simona Sharoni spoke of how in Hebrew
the word ?zayin? means both penis and weapon in a discussion of Israeli
militarized masculinity. Noah, seemingly not having read the assigned
material, mistook the pronunciation of ?zayin? as ?Zion,? pronounced in
Hebrew ?tziyon.? As for his spurious claim that I said that ?Jews in Nazi
Germany were not physically abused or harassed until Kristallnacht in
November 1938,? Noah must not have been listening carefully. During
the discussion of Nazi Germany, we addressed the racist ideology of
Nazism, the Nuremberg Laws enacted in 1934, and the institutionalized
racism and violence against all facets of Jewish life, all of which
preceded the extermination of European Jews. This information was also
available to Noah in his readings, had he chosen to consult them.
Moreover, the lie that the film propagates claiming that I would equate
Israel with Nazi Germany is abhorrent. I have never made such a
reprehensible equation.
I remember having a friendly rapport with Noah (as I do with all my
students). He would drop off newspaper articles in my mailbox, come to
my office hours, and greet me on the street often. He never informed me
or acted in a way that showed intimidation. Indeed, he would write me E-
mails, even after he stopped being my student, to argue with me about
Israel. I have kept our correspondence. On March 10, 2002, a year after
he took a class with me, Noah wrote me an E-mail chastising me for
having invited an Israeli speaker to class the year before when he was in
attendance. It turned out that Noah?s memory failed him again, as he
mistook the speaker I had invited for another Israeli scholar. After a long
diatribe, Noah excoriated me: ?How can you bring such a phony to speak
to your class??? I am not sure if his misplaced reproach was indicative of
an intimidated student or one who felt comfortable enough to rebuke his
professor!26
As for the claim made by Ariel Beery, whom I have never met and who
has never been my student, that my ?favorite description is the
Palestinian as the new Jew and the Jew as the new Nazi.? Such a
statement is an outright lie. Beery gets this quote not from anything I
said or wrote, but from the fabrication made up by Rabbi Sheer on his
Hillel web posting of January 4th 2004. As for the claims made by Deena
Shanker, whose story suddenly appeared in a report in the New York
Sun after my posted statement dismantled the false claims made by
Liben and Schoenfeld, her claims are also outright lies.27 In her New
York Sun account, Ms. Shanker stated that she asked me
?if it is true that Israel gives prior warning before launching strikes in
Palestinian Arab territories??That provoked him to start screaming, ?If
you?re going to deny the atrocities being committed against the
Palestinians then you could leave the class,? Ms. Shanker said?She
said she was ?shocked? by his reaction, and that Mr. Massad ?usually
answered civilly along the lines of, ?No, you?re wrong.? She said Mr.
Massad compared Israelis to Nazis during lectures in class.
Shanker later told the New York Times a different story: ?She said that
Professor Massad sometimes ridiculed her questions and during one
class exchange yelled at her to get out. (She stayed.) ?People in the
class were like blown away,? she said.?28 Her account to the Jerusalem
Post was also inconsistent with the other two accounts:
?If you?re going to deny the atrocities being committed against the
Palestinian people then you can get out of my classroom!? Massad
shouted, according to Shanker?s account?Shanker was shocked?
?Sometimes teachers and professors yell at students ? it happens ? but
this was not like anything I?ve ever experienced. He was not treating me
like a student,? she said? Shanker said she had grown accustomed to
Massad?s antagonism toward Israel, but the professor?s rage at her for
speaking up was frightening? ?I felt ? I wouldn?t say ?intimidated? was the
right word ? I would say: humiliated, violated, scared. This was very overt
and explicit.?29
Deena Shanker is lying in all three versions of her story. I have never
asked her or any student to leave my class no matter what question they
asked. In fact, I never asked any of my students to leave class for any
reason. I have no visual memory of Deena Shanker who never came to
office hours or spoke with me after class. The incident she describes
has never taken place.
In the aftermath of the film, I have received, and still receive, a barrage
of hate mail and racist E-Emails and voicemail messages. The first such
E-mail message was from a medical school professor called Moshe
Rubin. Professor Rubin wrote me on October 20th, the same day as the
first report was published in the Sun. Under the subject heading ?Anti-
Semite? he wrote:
?Go back to Arab land where Jew hating is condoned
get the hell out of America
you are a disgrace
and a pathetic typical arab liar
Moshe Rubin?
Many more such E-mails would follow. The campaign would quickly
expand and include medical school professor Judith Jacobson. Such
threatening E-mails have also targeted others in my department. A
recent E-mail was sent last week to all the Jewish students and faculty at
MEALAC from an Israeli group calling itself ?United Trial Group ?
Peoples Rights International,? informing them that:
?We advise you to immediately dismiss/kick ass of Joseph Goebbels, aa
Joseph Massed based on the President Bush Bill against anti-Semitism
and according with the US anti-terrorism law, proscribing Nazi
propaganda and incitement to terror. If you and the administration
won?t immediately dismiss that fascist bastard, you and the
administration will be personally liable and accountable for
aiding, abetting and harboring this Muslim criminal, and subject to
criminal prosecution and multimillion compensations in damages?
You have 30 days to comply and inform us.?
I should state that I have received immense support from across the
world, through countless letters and thousands of signatures on an
online petition. These include hundreds of individual letters from
academics, students, and supporters, and tens of letters from my own
students, especially my Jewish students. All these letters were sent to
President Bollinger, Provost Brinkley, and Vice-President Dirks. Copies
of many of these letters were sent to me. In addition, a colleague at the
University of Texas at Austin, Professor Neville Hoad, circulated a letter
within a few days of the controversy and obtained 828 signatures of
major scholars and academics around the United States and the world,
which he also submitted to the President, the Provost, and the Vice-
President. Another academic colleague at the State University of
California, As?ad AbuKhalil, set up an on-line petition, which obtained
upwards of 3000 signatures, a copy of which was also sent to Bollinger.
Hooligans attempted to undermine the petition by signing names like
?Adolf Hitler? and ?Osama Ben Laden,? but they were not able to shut the
petition down. In addition, two letters were sent to the Prsident, the
Provost, and the Vice-Presdient, one by 24 graduate students at
MEALAC, and another by 52 graduate students from other departments
at Columbia. The Middle East Studies Association?s Academic Freedom
Committee also issued a letter defending my academic freedom, as did
the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the New York
chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the American-
Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Thirty professors from the American
University in Cairo also sent a letter defending me. President Bollinger
has as of yet not responded to any of these individuals or organizations
with the notable exception of the ACLU. A response was also sent by the
Provost to the AAUP. In the meantime, my own senior colleague Dan
Miron had joined the fray with claims to the New York Sun that students
in the department had been complaining to him of class humiliation by
professors every week for years.30
President Bollinger?s Failure to Defend the Faculty
The response of the Columbia University administration to the David
Project was swift. As I will show below, in statement and action, Columbia?
s President Bollinger has prejudged the accused faculty, and failed to
defend us or the MEALAC department, and he refused to defend
Columbia?s own record of pluralism and tolerance, the variety of courses
the university offers on the Middle East, or Columbia?s established
commitment to promote Jewish and Israel Studies. Instead President
Bollinger and his administration, as the evidence I will present will show,
gave legitimacy to the film ?Columbia Unbecoming,? referred to its claims
as facts, and promised an ?investigation.? His subsequent statements
and actions have emboldened those engaged in the campaign to
intimidate me and would confirm to the public that the allegations against
me are in fact true, at least, as far as he was concerned. Let me
illustrate how this transpired.[/justify]
Nous serons toujours là.
-
Dejuificator II
- Erudit
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:47 pm
[justify]Columbia?s first response to the allegations contained in the film,
?Columbia Unbecoming,? was a statement released by the President
himself. This statement was released after Congressman Anthony
Wiener called on Columbia to fire me in a letter to Bollinger, and after
two newspapers (the New York Sun and the Daily News) added their
voices to Wiener?s and asked that I be fired, and after a medical school
faculty member, Moshe Rubin, sent me a racist E-mail which I had
immediately forwarded to Provost Brinkley. In his statement, Bollinger
referred to the ?disturbing and offensive nature of incidents described in
the film? without using the word ?alleged? before incidents. This was
certainly not an oversight, especially coming from a lawyer. He further
added that academic freedom ?does not, for example, extend to
protecting behavior in the classroom that threatens or intimidates
students who express their viewpoints.? Bollinger failed to make any
reference as to whether academic freedom extends to protecting
students engaged in intimidating professors by raising a media
campaign against them. Nor did the statement address whether the
intimidation of the faculty and the Columbia administration by outside
pressure groups, the press, and government officials would be tolerated.
31 In his statement, instead, Bollinger announced that he had asked
the Provost to ?look into? the students? claims, which in subsequent
press reports quoting him, he referred to as an ?investigation.? 32
The next day, on October 28, Bollinger met with national director of the
Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, an organization that had
targeted me since May 6, 2004, when it sent a letter to me copied to
Bollinger accusing me of anti-Semitism. According to press accounts,
Bollinger sought to meet with Foxman and other leaders of Jewish
organizations. On November 11, after delivering a lecture at the
University Club on Fifth Avenue, Mr. Bollinger was asked about the
student accusations against Columbia faculty members, ?according to
an audience member who did not wish to disclose his identity? Mr.
Bollinger? said he was committed to academic freedom but wouldn?t
condone ?stupid? behavior by faculty members.? 33 Such a biased and
disrespectful choice of words would continue in Bollinger?s press
declarations. In response to allegations by students repeated to him by
a reporter from New York Magazine that ?On day one, students say,
[Massad] tells his class they shouldn?t expect ?balance.? There?s even a
disclaimer in his syllabus.? Bollinger responded:
?I believe a disclaimer before starting your course is insufficient?It
doesn?t inoculate you from criticism for being one-sided or intolerant in
the classroom?That?s not to prejudge any claims here. But if you?re
asking, in the abstract, ?Can a faculty member satisfy the ideal of good
teaching by simply saying at the beginning, I?m going to teach one side
of a controversy and I don?t want to hear any other side and if you don?t
like this, please don?t take my course,? my view is, that?s irresponsible
teaching.?34
Bollinger never contacted me to check whether this is true and has not
seen copies of my syllabi. While he claimed that he was answering a
hypothetical question to New York Magazine, he would soon be so
emboldened by the very repetition of the claims against me that he
would abandon the necessity he initially saw for the hypothetical caveat.
This is how the reporter of the Jewish Week put it:
?Bollinger is careful not to name names, but he makes clear he is at
odds with some professors in the [MEALAC] department, whether or not
they are guilty of the allegations against them??Just as I can?t go in to
my First Amendment class and say you know, I happen to think that
censorship is a very good idea, and if you want to take a course on
freedom of speech that emphasizes, you know, against censorship, God
bless you, and go do that,? he said.?35
Indeed, Bollinger now speaks of these allegations as outright facts.
Witness what he told students over dinner a few days ago as reported
by the Columbia Spectator: ??I?m not going to talk about whether the
accusations are true or not. Let?s just assume they?re true,? Bollinger
said.? 36 The Spectator reporter adds the following:
?The second claim made by the film, according to Bollinger, was that
some professors did not permit students to voice their own opinions
about matters of discussion in the classroom. He identified this action as
a clear violation of academic freedom?The third claim was that some
MEALAC courses are blatantly biased, presenting only one side of the
spectrum of opinions on contentious subjects. Bollinger said that the
warnings professors gave ahead of time about the one-sidedness of
their courses were ?unacceptable.??37
Note that the situation was no longer hypothetical. I should emphasize
here that not only did Bollinger or Provost Brinkley never contact me
about my course, neither of them responded to my announcement that I
had cancelled it, which I made in my publicized statement in response to
the intimidation to which I was being subjected. I had indeed sent a copy
of my statement to Provost Brinkley before posting it. He wrote me back
counseling me not to release it. However neither he nor Bollinger, nor
even Vice President Dirks, expressed any discomfort that I, a Columbia
faculty member, was canceling one of my courses because of
intimidation. None of them informed me that I would be protected by the
university were I to teach it again and that the university would ensure
my rights and protect me against intimidation. Indeed, what I was
subjected to is not more protection by my own university but more
intimidation. The most concrete manifestation of which was the formation
of your committee.
On the issue of the formation of your ad-hoc committee, the first point I
want to refer to is the establishment of the committee and then move to
its mandate. The step taken by the administration to establish a
committee to investigate professors based on student grievances that
were not lodged with any university body but rather aired through an off-
campus lobbying group sets a dangerous precedent of violating the
academic freedom of professors. The establishment of the committee
coupled with the statements by Bollinger to the press have given the
clear impression that the David Project had legitimate issues to raise
with Columbia, and that even though Bollinger himself had assured
everyone that there were no registered complaints against any of the
accused professors through any Columbia channel, and that he had
already convened a secret committee to investigate similar allegations
the previous semester, the so-called Blasi committee, which found no
evidence of bias, he still saw a need for a second special committee to
become the address of such complaints.
The matter of the committee charge is of grave importance. I
requested and had a meeting with Vice President Dirks in his office on
December 9 to discuss this particular matter. I told him then that I would
not consider the ad-hoc committee a legitimate body unless it included
in its charge the investigation of claims of intimidation of faculty by
students, by administrators, and by off campus pressure groups. He
responded positively to my concerns by asking me for my telephone
number in Amman, Jordan, as I was traveling the next day on December
10th. He said that I needed to be next to a phone and fax in the next day
or two so that he could call me and fax me a draft of the charge to
approve so that he could release it then to the public. I was satisfied with
this arrangement. Vice President Dirks however never contacted me. I E-
mailed him on December 14 to inquire about the charge. He wrote back
on December 19th informing me that he had not ?yet been able to come
up with a statement about the committee. I?ll send you something as
soon as it is ready.? I never heard back from him. Upon returning to
Columbia in mid-January, my students forwarded to me a mass E-mail
that Vice-President Dirks had sent out inviting students to appear before
the committee. I was taken aback by such a step, as I still did not know
what the committee?s charge was. I wrote to the vice-president to inquire
on January 20 as to what had transpired. He wrote me back clarifying
that he had not promised to share with me the circular he had sent out
to the students. As for the charge, he explained that he still had not
finalized it and would do so in a couple of days. I heard again from him a
week later asking me to pick up a copy of the charge from his office. I
did and was shocked to find that it did not include the investigation of
faculty intimidation by students and administrators. I never heard back
from Vice-President Dirks who never offered an explanation or an
apology for his disrespectful conduct, having failed to inform me of the
change of plans and then offering me the charge as a fait accompli.
I am very concerned about the choice of Floyd Abrams as your
advisor, a position whose mandate has not been made public. Mr.
Abrams is publicly identified with pro-Israeli politics and activism. He has
spoken at fund raisers for causes in Israel,38 has worked and consulted
with the Anti-Defamation League, one of the parties campaigning
against me, and received a major award from it in 2003, the Hubert H.
Humphrey Award, and has endorsed the book The Case for Israel by
Alan Dershowitz who has been speaking publicly in lectures and to the
media against me, in the context of the ongoing witch-hunt, alleging that
I support terrorism. In his blurb endorsing Dershowitz?s book, Abrams
states:
?In a world in which Israel seems always to be the accused, regardless of
the facts, Alan Dershowitz?s defense offers an oasis of sanity and
straight talk. It may be too much to hope that Israel?s accusers will read
this powerful and persuasive response to their charges. It is not at all
too much to ask that fair?minded observers do so.?39
Given these statements by Abrams, the decision to appoint him as
advisor to this committee conveys at the least the appearance of
partiality.
On the question of my scholarship and my integrity as a teacher,
Bollinger?s statements sadly suggest that he has taken sides against the
faculty and the university in this controversy. Compare his recent
declarations with those of Martin Kramer, one of the main people behind
this witch-hunt. Kramer wrote on November 5, 2002 in a web posting:
?The other issue of overriding concern here is the apparent absence of
any effort by the Columbia administration to promote diversity. Here I
don?t mean the false diversity of academic mafias. They think it?s crucial
to assemble people of different ethnic, national, religious, racial, gender,
and disciplinary backgrounds?provided they say the same thing. I?m
talking about intellectual diversity, which used to be a value at Columbia.
The only historian of the modern Middle East at Columbia [besides the
possible employment of Rashid Khalidi] is another Palestinian, Joseph
Massad, who is a militant follower of Edward Said. (He?s now up for
tenure.) Imagine that Khalidi were added, and Massad were tenured,
both to teach history. They work in the same area, and their politics,
while not identical, are very similar. The whole thing begins to look like a
cozy club of like-minded pals, who peer at the Middle East through
exactly the same telescope, from exactly the same vantage point.?40
Compare Kramer?s statement with Bollinger?s. After reviewing Kramer?s
views and those of others on the alleged lack of intellectual diversity at
Columbia and in Middle East Studies more generally, and after citing
Bollinger?s own record on ?racial diversity? at the University of Michigan,
New York Magazine?s reports that: ?today, [Bollinger] says he?s equally
committed to intellectual diversity.?41 This led the reporter to conclude
that this ?may not augur well for professor Massad?s longevity at
Columbia, no matter how favorably disposed the provost?s committee
may be to him.?42 Bollinger would elaborate on that point later to the
Jewish Week, where according to the newspaper, ?Bollinger
acknowledged, albeit elliptically, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not
being taught in a balanced way that reflects the complexity of the region.
He believes that ?the historic, horrific treatment of Jews, especially in the
20th century, is not something to be taken as a matter of the past, and
while I may not share all the policy judgments of the Israeli government, I
believe the conflict cannot in any way be fairly regarded as lying at the
feet of choices that Israel has made.?? 43 Instead Bollinger recommends
that MEALAC be ?expanded? and that it continue to teach the
Palestinian Israeli conflict but not as it has done so far:
?I happen to think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is of central
importance in the modern world,? he said, ?and we want to be able to
think about that in its full complexities. That?s going to mean that there
will be thoughts some people will find difficult, or even offensive, and yet
we must be able to explore given our belief in academic freedom.
However, it is our obligation to do that with full respect to the complexity,
and if we don?t do that, we have failed ourselves, we have failed our own
principles.?44
The implication being that those of us, and the reference is clearly to
me, who teach the Palestinian Israeli conflict at MEALAC do not teach it
with its ?full complexity? or that I do not ?respect? such complexity.
Perhaps I need to state to the committee that I derive my authority as a
scholar of the Middle East from my doctoral training here at Columbia?s
Political Science Department which granted me my PhD with distinction,
a rare honor that was further certified by the Middle East Studies
Association which granted me its most prestigious award for a social
science dissertation for 1998, the Malcolm Kerr Award. My book, which
was based on my dissertation, was published by Columbia University
Press, and has been endorsed and reviewed favorably by the most
prominent Middle East scholars in the academy. The only unfavorable
review, out of seventeen favorable reviews, it received was in Martin
Kramer?s unscholarly magazine, Middle East Quarterly. My book and my
articles on the Palestinian Israeli conflict are used as standard texts for
courses on nationalism and on Palestine and Israel across the United
States and Europe. My recent work on sexuality and queer theory is also
taught across the country, and a book length study on the subject is
forthcoming from Harvard University Press. I currently have two
standing offers from prestigious presses for a book based on my
published essays on Zionism and Palestinian nationalism. An attack on
my scholarship therefore is not only an attack on me and on MEALAC
but on Columbia?s political science department, on prestigious academic
presses, including Columbia University Press, and on the Middle East
Studies Association (MESA), an opinion expressed by Martin Kramer
who also condemns Middle East Studies at Columbia and MESA itself. I
should affirm here that President Bollinger is under the impression that
he can set the research agenda for Middle East scholarship at Columbia
much better than Columbia?s Middle East faculty. He told the Jewish
Week that ?we need to integrate better than we have other fields that
have knowledge relevant to the work being done in MEALAC. What is
the relationship, for example, between the environmental facts of life in
the Middle East and Asia, or its diseases, and the culture there?? 45
This retreat to 19th century climatology and medical anthropology is
disturbing. Would President Bollinger also think that there is a
relationship between ?environmental facts, its diseases and the culture?
of African Americans or of American Jews?
I am concerned that Bollinger may well be making an academic
judgment about me that is based not on my scholarship or pedagogy but
on my politics and even my nationality. A case in point is Bollinger?s
recent response to a letter sent by one James Schreiber, a member of
Columbia Law School?s board of visitors and former federal prosecutor,
who says that a lecture that I gave and which he attended at Columbia?s
Middle East Institute three years ago was comparable to a speech at a
?neo-Nazi rally.? Bollinger met with Schreiber privately at his home and
reportedly told him that he found his letter to be ?powerful? and that he
seeks to ?upgrade? the faculty in the Middle East studies department.46
In addition, when a number of faculty members and I signed a petition in
2002 calling on Columbia to divest from companies that sell weapons to
Israel, a country guilty of human rights abuses, Bollinger?s response
betrayed a strong emotional reaction and a stronger political bias:
?The petition alleges human rights abuses and compares Israel to South
Africa at the time of apartheid, an analogy I believe is both grotesque
and offensive.?47
While the campaigners against me off this campus do not have the
direct power to influence my future employment at Columbia, Bollinger
clearly does, and therefore his failure to defend academic freedom is
detrimental to my career and my job. I am further chilled in this regard by
reports that at the recent general meeting of the Faculty of Arts and
Sciences, Bollinger sought to change the fifty-year tradition regarding
how tenure cases are decided at Columbia when he stated that he and
the trustees, in accordance with the statutes but in contravention of a
fifty-year tradition, would want to have the final say in tenure cases in
the future.48
In conclusion, the foregoing has given you the minimum of details
and historical narrative regarding this coordinated campaign from inside
and outside the university targeting me, my job, and my chances for
tenure, based on my political views, my political writings, and my
nationality. That the Columbia University administration acted as a
collaborator with the witch-hunters instead of defending me and offering
itself as a refuge from rightwing McCarthyism has been a cause of grave
personal and professional disappointment to me. I am utterly
disillusioned with a university administration that treats its faculty with
such contempt and am hoping against hope that the faculty will rise to
the task before them and force President Bollinger to reverse this
perilous course on which he has taken Columbia?s faculty and students.
The major goal of the witch-hunters is to destroy the institution of the
university in general. I am merely the entry point for their political
project. As the university is the last bastion of free-thinking that has not
yet fallen under the authority of extreme rightwing forces, it has become
their main target. The challenge before us is therefore to be steadfast in
fighting for academic freedom.
APPENDIX
?Policing the Academy?
Published in Al-Ahram Weekly, No. 633, 10-16 April 2003
Joseph Massad* on the McCarthyism stalking American campuses
As I was reading one of the latest death threats I received via e-mail, I
remembered the defamatory campaigns to which Edward Said has been
subjected since the 1970s and which included the firebombing of his
office in the 1980s. Since last summer, apologists for Israel?s ?right? to
be a racist state (and to use whatever violence it can muster in defence
of that ?right?) have begun a campaign of defamation against anyone in
the US academy who dares to question any Israeli action or practice.
This campaign is part of a larger effort to discredit US universities as
arenas for independent scholarship and thought. It also aims to
delegitimise universities who refuse to serve the interests of either the
national security state or the Israeli government. The fact that those
spearheading this campaign are almost exclusively part of a large
conglomerate known as the pro-Israel lobby in the US is hardly
surprising. Since 11 September, the campaign has expanded to include
any academic who believes that Islam is not a terroristic evil religion bent
on murdering the ?civilised?, and that Muslims and Arabs are humans
who are entitled to civil, political, and human rights in their own countries
as well as in the United States.
While academics live in a world where intellectual disagreements are
registered through scholarly debates and discussions, and where
methodological disputes are negotiated on the pages of academic
journals and books and in the context of conferences, the new self-
designated academic policemen refuse to acknowledge such modes of
argumentation and fora as appropriate. In their fantasy world, the
offending academics must be silenced, dismissed from their jobs, and
their offending publications heaped and burned in an auto-da-fé. The
strategy of the thought policemen consists of a refusal to address any of
the offending contentions made by scholars and instead relies on the
use of policing methods of discrediting, intimidation, and character
assassination often used in societies run by the secret police. The
overall purpose of this policing agenda is the destruction of academic
freedom and the subversion of democratic procedure.
Take the examples of two of the better known academic policemen in
recent years, the American Daniel Pipes and the Israeli Martin Kramer,
neither of whom teaches in the US academy; as a result, some might say
that they have an ax to grind with a system that refuses to recognise
their talents, especially in the field of policing and propaganda. Pipes
and Kramer are two of the most outspoken defenders of Israel?s ?right?
to be a racist state. They are also keen to defend Israel?s prerogative to
kill and bomb anyone who stands in its way of protecting its right to
discriminate on racial grounds. Their role in the debate is to extend
Israeli violence to the US academic arena by bombarding all enemies of
Israel with defamatory accusations. It is not Merkava tanks, Uzi
submachine guns, or Apache helicopters that are used in this
bombardment, but rather newspaper gossip columns and secret police-
style dossiers to name the preferred methods; as for the e-mail
spamming, identity theft, and the death threats to which the unrepentant
have been subjected, one can be sure that Kramer and Pipes are
unconnected to either of them. Admittedly, their campaigns, unlike the
Israeli government?s campaigns, have not yet eliminated anyone
physically (although the death threats sent by others to many of us
continue), but the main point is to eliminate us professionally, and,
failing that, to terrorise us into silence. Like the Israeli strategy of
indiscriminate violence and terror, these campaigns have failed to
achieve their purpose, whether to stop the Palestinians from resisting
Israel?s illegal occupation and violence in the case of Israel, or to stop
Israel?s academic critics in the case of the academic policemen.
This campaign of intimidation against academics has been well planned
and conceived with one major goal in mind: defamation. This is
undertaken by following a number of steps involving refusal to engage
any of the ideas or propositions put forth by the targeted professors,
much less to refute them, consistent use of innuendo, fabrication of
claims based on half-quotes pulled out of context, recruitment of young
and impressionable defenders of Israel?s aforementioned ?rights? on
college campuses, use of the right-wing press to whip up hysteria about
anti- Israel sentiment being allegedly rampant on US campuses, and
calls for outright dismissal of professors found guilty of not upholding
Israel?s ?right? to be a racist state. The less the US public believes in
defending Israel?s crimes, the more intense the campaign becomes.
While the pro-Israel lobby?s campaigns to discredit people who criticise
Israel had decreased in relative terms after Oslo, they were revived after
the failure of the Camp David talks and the eruption of the second
Intifada. The lobby and its individual manifestations have become rabid
in their campaigns of discrediting offenders to the point that they have
become embarrassing to many Americans who support Israel.
The campaign against university professors and instructors began in
earnest in the Spring of 2002 and has not abated since. Columbia
University, where I teach, is a major focus of the campaign, as it is seen
by Kramer and Pipes as a major battleground for their cause. In addition
to the unceasing campaigns against Edward Said, the campaign is now
focussing on new professors, namely University of Chicago Professor
Rashid Khalidi who will be joining Columbia University next fall, Professor
Hamid Dabashi, the chairperson of the Department of Middle East and
Asian Languages and Cultures at Columbia, and myself. Other
professors and academics targeted on other campuses include John
Esposito, Juan Cole, Ali Mazrui, M Shahid Alam, and Snehal Shingavi,
among others.
The effort was inaugurated by a newspaper article published by Pipes
(who has no academic post whatsoever) under the title ?Extremists on
Campus?, and a book published by Kramer who is ?senior researcher? at
Tel Aviv University?s aptly named ?Moshe Dayan Centre?. Kramer, the
cleverer of the two, assailed American Middle East academics for their
?failure? to explain the Middle East to the US public. What Kramer means
is that unlike many of their Israeli Jewish counterparts, American
academics have failed to explain to Americans that Muslims and Arabs
are violent uncivilised creatures and that Israel has a right to be a racist
state (although in fact many of them do exactly that). As Kramer works at
the Moshe Dayan Centre, named after that luminary of Israeli military
conquerors, one hopes in vain that some of Dayan?s wisdom would have
rubbed off on Kramer. Alas, if Dayan acknowledged in reference to
Israel that ?there is no single place in this country that did not have a
former Arab population?, Kramer in turn chases down any academic who
would remind the world of such forgotten facts and demands that such
an academic repent his sins. Dayan, ever the pragmatist, was never
upset with legitimate Palestinian rage at Israel which he was determined
to crush. He insisted to the likes of Kramer: ?Let us not today fling
accusations at the [Palestinian] murderers [of Jewish colonial settlers].
Who are we that we should argue against their hatred? For eight years
now they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their very eyes,
we turn into our homestead the land and the villages in which they and
their forefathers have lived.?
Pipes, on his part, set up McCarthyist public dossiers on the eight
professors of choice on a Web site and called on our students to spy on
us and report any anti-Israel statements that we might make in class.
Tens of professors (among tens of thousands who work at US
universities and colleges) rushed to defend the blacklisted professors by
demanding that their names also be added to the blacklist. For Pipes
and Kramer, this was indication enough of how anti-Israel US academic
culture had become, never mind the tens of thousands of professors
who fell silent and did not defend academic freedom or us. This skewed
view is all the more telling in the case of the ebullient Kramer who
dubbed Columbia University ?Bir Zeit on the Hudson?.
Now, in the tradition of Zionist lobbyists, the issue is not to have an
Israeli view balanced with a Palestinian view about the subject, but
rather, failing the suppression of Palestinian views altogether, to insist
on a second, a third, and a fourth Israeli view to ?balance? the one
Palestinian view. Take the campaign against a course that I teach at
Columbia titled ?Palestinian and Israeli Politics and Societies? as an
example. This course has enraged Kramer and his ilk and is used as
evidence that Columbia University is an anti-Israel university. The fact
that there are many other courses at Columbia (in existence for years,
long before my course was even conceived) covering topics on
contemporary Israeli society and politics, on Zionism, on conflict
resolution in the Middle East, on Israeli literature, as well as on the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict itself, all taught from an Israel-friendly angle
(and not always by full-time professors) is immaterial; it is this orphan
course taught with a critical view of Israel (and of Palestinian
nationalism) that is the problem and which must be balanced. The fact
that Columbia University features an important centre for Israel and
Jewish studies but no centre on Palestine and Arab studies let alone a
centre on Arab studies more generally, is not taken to mean that
Columbia is a place friendly to Israel, rather the opposite: the existence
of one course that criticises Israel is sufficient to conclude that rampant
anti-Israelism (often dubbed ?anti-Semitism?) has taken over the
university.
If this was not enough, Columbia?s Bir Zeit status is augmented by the
divestment campaign started last year by the Faculty Committee on
Palestine (of which I am a member), which indicates further to Kramer
that US academics are not upholding Israel?s right to be a racist state.
The fact that Columbia has a counter-divestment petition whose
signatures outnumber the pro-divestment petition by a factor of 33 to
one (among faculty the rate is four to one against divestment) does not
allay his fears or those of his followers, nor the fact that Columbia
University?s new president has publicly denounced the divestment
campaign as ?grotesque?. Any questioning of the policemen?s cause
unto itself is seen as a thought crime, even a mortal sin against the
sacrosanct cause of Israel. If anyone were to use these facts to label
Columbia ?Hebrew University on the Hudson?, this would be seen
legitimately as anti-Semitic. However, Kramer and his followers are never
brought to task for their virulent anti- Arab racism.
What Kramer, Pipes, and their ilk want to achieve is a subversion of the
democratic process as well as of the academic process. Their intent is to
subvert the academy by deriding its independence and by attempting to
make it subject to the national security state and the thought police. As
far as the democratic process is concerned, their goals are to suppress
dissenting views by defaming them and calling for people to be
dismissed from their jobs if they expressed them. Kramer has called for
the dismissal of Dabashi, myself, and others and began an unsuccessful
campaign to pressure Columbia University to withdraw its offer to Khalidi.
Notice that the academic qualifications of the targeted professors based
on our recognised publications and academic records are negated a
priori by Kramer who questions the very legitimacy of the institutions that
have granted them to us, whether Middle East Studies as a field, the
Middle East Studies Association, the university presses that publish us,
or the universities that employ us (he lamentingly calls me ?the flower of
Columbia University?). In Kramer?s and Pipes? fantasy world, the only
recognition that academics should seek in order to qualify to teach and
publish on the Middle East is that of Israel?s academic police in the
United States. As a gesture of good will, such academics should
perhaps attempt to publish in Kramer?s and Pipes? journal Middle East
Quarterly, which is indeed impressive for the absence of scholarship in
it. Maybe one day Kramer and Pipes would demand of the academy that
publishing in Middle East Quarterly become a condition for any
academic to obtain tenure or promotion!
Kramer and his young dupes have huffed and puffed lately about my
recent article in Al-Ahram Weekly on ?The Legacy of Jean-Paul Sartre?,
claiming that ?The Jews, not being a nation by (Massad?s) definition,
cannot have nationalism. They have only racism?? I of course have not
made such a claim. Israel is a racist state not because of Jewish
nationalism but because of its legally institutionalised racism where only
Jews (not Israelis) have rights and privileges based on their national
belonging. I oppose any state that discriminates against its own citizens
based on ethnic, religious, racial, national (or any other) grounds, and
this especially includes those states that have discriminatory laws as
Israel does. It is this and similar questions that Kramer and his followers
do not want to draw attention to, as they have no convincing answers to
offer. The question is: do Kramer and Pipes actually believe that these
methods will work in suppressing our views and freedom of thought and
force us to worship at the altar of their favourite settler-colony?
Kramer, Pipes, and co are angry that the academy still allows
democratic procedure in the expression of political views and has an
institutionalised meritocratic system of judgment (admittedly with its own
faults) to evaluate its members. Their goal is to destroy any semblance
of either in favour of subjecting democracy and academic life to an
incendiary jingoism and to the exigencies of the national security state
with the express aim of imploding freedom. Their larger success,
however, has been in discrediting themselves and in reminding all of us
that we should never take the freedoms that we have for granted, as the
likes of Kramer and Pipes are working to take them away.
* The writer is assistant professor of Modern Arab Politics and
Intellectual History at Columbia University .
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 10 -16 April 2003 (Issue No. 633)
Located at: [small]http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/633/op2.htm[/small]
FOOTNOTES
1 The only change I have made in this version of the statement is to
remove the names of students, professors, and administrators that I had
included in the original statement but who have not sought publicity on
this issue. I did so to protect their privacy. I have kept the names of
students who have spoken publicly.
2 Charge to Ad Hoc Committee from the Vice President for Arts and
Sciences.
3 This is the full course description for Spring 2001:
?This course covers the history of Zionism in the wake of the Haskala in
mid nineteenth century Europe and its development at the turn of the
century through the current ?peace process? between the state of Israel
and the Palestinian national movement. The course examines the
impact of Zionism on European Jews and on Asian and African Jews on
the one hand, and on Palestinian Arabs on the other ?in Israel, in the
Occupied Territories, and in the Diaspora. The course also examines
the internal dynamics in Palestinian and Israeli societies, looking at the
roles class, gender and religion play in the politics of Israel and the
Palestinian national movement. The purpose of the course is to provide
a thorough yet critical historical overview of the Zionist-Palestinian
conflict to familiarize undergraduates with the background to the current
situation.?
4 This is the full course description for Spring 2002:
?This course covers the history of Zionism in the wake of the Haskala in
mid nineteenth century Europe and its development at the turn of the
century through the current ?peace process? between the state of Israel
and the Palestinian national movement. The course examines critically
the impact of Zionism on European Jews and on Asian and African Jews
on the one hand, and on Palestinian Arabs on the other ?in Israel, in
the Occupied Territories, and in the Diaspora. The course also
examines critically the internal dynamics in Palestinian and Israeli
societies, looking at the roles class, gender and religion play in the
politics of Israel and the Palestinian national movement. The purpose of
the course is not to provide a ?balanced? coverage of the views of both
sides, but rather to provide a thorough yet critical historical overview of
the Zionist-Palestinian conflict to familiarize undergraduates with the
background to the current situation from a critical perspective.?
5 This is the course description for Spring 2004:
?This course covers the history of Zionism in the wake of the Haskala
in mid nineteenth century Europe and its development at the turn of the
century through the current ?peace process? between the state of Israel
and the Palestinian national movement. The course examines critically
the impact of Zionism on European Jews and on Asian and African Jews
on the one hand, and on Palestinian Arabs on the other ?in Israel, in
the Occupied Territories, and in the Diaspora. The course also
examines critically the internal dynamics in Palestinian and Israeli
societies, looking at the roles class, gender and religion play in the
politics of Israel and the Palestinian national movement. The purpose of
the course is to provide a thorough yet critical historical overview of the
Zionist-Palestinian conflict to familiarize undergraduates with the
background to the current situation.?
6 [small]http:// israelcc.org[/small] (site is slow)
7 See Daphna Berman, ?Masks of Tolerance,? February 26, 2002.
8 Ibid.
9 Xan Nowakowski, Students Organize Sit-In To Support Palestinians,?
Columbia Spectator, 18 April 2002.
10 In a column that he posted on his website titled ?Bir Zeit-on-Hudson,?
on 5 Februray 2003, Kramer wrote this threatening statement: [Massad
has] also failed to learn from Said that you lie low until you have tenure,
but that?s another matter.? On February 20, 2004, he wrote an entry
about me stating Massad?wants tenure at Columbia, and will seek it with
a new book entitled The Persistence of the Palestinian Question. Will
Columbia scrape bottom?? In an entry on June 14, 2004, Kramer wrote
?Here?s my idea: Massad should be de-Columbia-nized when he comes
up for tenure.? On October 22, after the David Project film was revealed
to the public, Kramer wrote ?I sincerely hope that Columbia will have the
good sense not to tenure Massad, who is a pseudo-scholar?? and
followed that on November 6 with the question: ?So is Columbia
prepared to tenure a professor who teaches that Christian (and Jewish)
supporters of Israel in America are the world?s most powerful anti-
Semites? That?s the crux of the Massad question.? On
December 10, 2004, he wrote ?If Columbia has any sense at all, he?ll
eventually have to struggle with the meaning of this word: unemployed.?
11 See for example my interview with Nigel Parry of Electronic Intifada,
posted on [small]http:// electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/732[/small] (link broken)
12 See Kramer?s ?Bir Zeit-on-Hudson,? posted on 5 February 2003 (link broken)
13 Ariel Beery, ?Middle East Certitude,? Columbia Spectator, 10 March
2003.
14 Ariel Beery, ?Between the Narrow Points,? Columbia Spectator, 14
April 2003. See also his article ?The Burning Flames,? Columbia
Spectator, 24 April 2003.
15 Joseph Massad, ?Policing the Academy,? Al-Ahram Weekly, 10-16
April 2003.
16 Jacob Gershman, ?Massad?s Theory: The Zionists are the Anti-
Semites,? New York Sun, 22 February 2005.
17 Rabbi Charles Sheer, ?The Treatment of the Middle East Studies at
Columbia University,? 6 January 2004, posted on the Hillel website: [small]http://akko.hillel.columbia.edu/announc ... llel?id=91[/small]
18 Ibid.
19 See the transcript of ?Columbia Unbecoming,? 10.
20 I Rabbi Charles Sheer, ?The Treatment of the Middle East Studies at
Columbia University,? op.cit.
21 Jacob Gershman, ?Israel Is Accused of Anti-Semitism,? New York Sun,
30 December 2003. They ran the correction on December 31.
22 Jonathan Calt Harris, ?Tenured Extremism,? New York Sun, 4 May
2004.
23 This is the full text of my letter:
May 16, 2004
Mr. Joel J. Levy, Director
Anti-Defamation League
823 United Nations Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10017
Dear Director Levy,
I was deeply disturbed by the accusations that your letter of May 6,
2004 leveled against me. The ?reports? that you have received from ? a
student who attended the lecture? are utterly inaccurate and bear little
relationship to the text of my lecture. My principled stance against anti-
Semitism and all kinds of racism is a matter of public record and cannot
be assailed by defamatory ?reports? or by letters from the ADL that
consider them credible sources. Indeed I have condemned anti-
Semitism in my Arabic and English writings, regardless of whether the
person expressing it was pro-Israel or anti-Israel, an Arab, an American
Christian, or an Israeli Jew (you may consult with my review of Israel
Shahak?s and Norton Mezvinsky?s book Jewish Fundamentalism
published by the Electronic Journal of Middle East Studies
where I condemn the anti-Semitic approach used by anti-Zionist Israeli
Jewish scholars to analyze Judaism and Jewish fundamentalism).
I therefore expect a prompt correction of the errors contained in your
letter and demand an immediate apology, a copy of which should be
sent to President Bollinger.
Sincerely,
Joseph Massad
Assistant Professor
Cc: President Lee C. Bollinger
Provost Alan Brinkley
24 Jacob Gershman, ?Columbia Abuzz Over Underground Film,? New
York Sun, 20 October 2004.
25 Charles Jacobs and Avi Goldwasser, ?In Defense of the David
Project,? Columbia Spectator, 16 November 2004.
26 See my ?Response to the Intimidation of Columbia University,? posted
on my Columbia webpage on 3 November 2004: [small]http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1350[/small]
27 Shanker?s claim was first reported by Jacob Gershman, ?Columbia
Prepared to Protect Students from anti-Israel bias,? New York Sun, 17
November 2004.
28 N.R. Kleinfield, ?Mideast Tensions Are Getting Personal on Campus
at Columbia,? New York Times, 14 January 2005.
29 Uriel Heilman, ?Non-Academic Debate,? Jerusalem Post, 23 December
2004.
30 Jacob Gershman, ?Bias Festerd ?For Years,? Professor Says,? New
York Sun, 29 October 2004.
31 Statement from Lee C. Bollinger on the David Project Film, October
27, 2004.
32 See for example Sam Dillon, ?Columbia to Check Reports of Anti-
Jewish Harassment,? New York Times, 29 October 2004.
33 Jacob Gershman, ?Columbia Probe Eyed By Council, ? New York
Sun, November 12, 2004.
34 Jennifer Senior, ?Columbia?s Own Middle East War,?New York
Magazine, January 10, 2005.
35 Liel Leibovitz, ?The Winter of His Content,? Jewish Week, 4 March
2005.
36 Lisa Hirshmann, ?Over Dinner, Bollinger On Academic Freedom,?
Columbia Spectator, 10 March 2005
37 Ibid.
38 See ?Israel Cancer research fund, Women of Achievement Lunch to
Fight Cancer,? in 15 Minutes, about his emceeing such an event.
39 The quote is posted on the book publisher?s website: [small]http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-102314.html[/small]
40 Martin Kramer, ?The Columbia Club of Middle Eastern Studies,? 5
November 2002, weblog can be found on: [small]www.martinkramer.org[/small]
41 Jennifer Senior, ?Columbia?s Own Middle East War,?, New York
Magazine, January 10, 2005.
42 Ibid.
43 Liel Leibowitz, ?The Winter Of His Content,? Jewish Week, 4 March
2005.
44 Ibid.
45 Liel Leibowitz, ?Winter of his Content,? op.cit.
46 Jacob Gershman, ?Ex-Prosecutor Likens Massad Speech to a ?Neo-
Nazi Rally?,? New York Sun, 25 February 25.
47 ?President Lee Bollinger?s Statement on the Divestment Campaign? 7
November 2002
48 Minutes of the General Meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences,
16 February 2005[/justify]
?Columbia Unbecoming,? was a statement released by the President
himself. This statement was released after Congressman Anthony
Wiener called on Columbia to fire me in a letter to Bollinger, and after
two newspapers (the New York Sun and the Daily News) added their
voices to Wiener?s and asked that I be fired, and after a medical school
faculty member, Moshe Rubin, sent me a racist E-mail which I had
immediately forwarded to Provost Brinkley. In his statement, Bollinger
referred to the ?disturbing and offensive nature of incidents described in
the film? without using the word ?alleged? before incidents. This was
certainly not an oversight, especially coming from a lawyer. He further
added that academic freedom ?does not, for example, extend to
protecting behavior in the classroom that threatens or intimidates
students who express their viewpoints.? Bollinger failed to make any
reference as to whether academic freedom extends to protecting
students engaged in intimidating professors by raising a media
campaign against them. Nor did the statement address whether the
intimidation of the faculty and the Columbia administration by outside
pressure groups, the press, and government officials would be tolerated.
31 In his statement, instead, Bollinger announced that he had asked
the Provost to ?look into? the students? claims, which in subsequent
press reports quoting him, he referred to as an ?investigation.? 32
The next day, on October 28, Bollinger met with national director of the
Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, an organization that had
targeted me since May 6, 2004, when it sent a letter to me copied to
Bollinger accusing me of anti-Semitism. According to press accounts,
Bollinger sought to meet with Foxman and other leaders of Jewish
organizations. On November 11, after delivering a lecture at the
University Club on Fifth Avenue, Mr. Bollinger was asked about the
student accusations against Columbia faculty members, ?according to
an audience member who did not wish to disclose his identity? Mr.
Bollinger? said he was committed to academic freedom but wouldn?t
condone ?stupid? behavior by faculty members.? 33 Such a biased and
disrespectful choice of words would continue in Bollinger?s press
declarations. In response to allegations by students repeated to him by
a reporter from New York Magazine that ?On day one, students say,
[Massad] tells his class they shouldn?t expect ?balance.? There?s even a
disclaimer in his syllabus.? Bollinger responded:
?I believe a disclaimer before starting your course is insufficient?It
doesn?t inoculate you from criticism for being one-sided or intolerant in
the classroom?That?s not to prejudge any claims here. But if you?re
asking, in the abstract, ?Can a faculty member satisfy the ideal of good
teaching by simply saying at the beginning, I?m going to teach one side
of a controversy and I don?t want to hear any other side and if you don?t
like this, please don?t take my course,? my view is, that?s irresponsible
teaching.?34
Bollinger never contacted me to check whether this is true and has not
seen copies of my syllabi. While he claimed that he was answering a
hypothetical question to New York Magazine, he would soon be so
emboldened by the very repetition of the claims against me that he
would abandon the necessity he initially saw for the hypothetical caveat.
This is how the reporter of the Jewish Week put it:
?Bollinger is careful not to name names, but he makes clear he is at
odds with some professors in the [MEALAC] department, whether or not
they are guilty of the allegations against them??Just as I can?t go in to
my First Amendment class and say you know, I happen to think that
censorship is a very good idea, and if you want to take a course on
freedom of speech that emphasizes, you know, against censorship, God
bless you, and go do that,? he said.?35
Indeed, Bollinger now speaks of these allegations as outright facts.
Witness what he told students over dinner a few days ago as reported
by the Columbia Spectator: ??I?m not going to talk about whether the
accusations are true or not. Let?s just assume they?re true,? Bollinger
said.? 36 The Spectator reporter adds the following:
?The second claim made by the film, according to Bollinger, was that
some professors did not permit students to voice their own opinions
about matters of discussion in the classroom. He identified this action as
a clear violation of academic freedom?The third claim was that some
MEALAC courses are blatantly biased, presenting only one side of the
spectrum of opinions on contentious subjects. Bollinger said that the
warnings professors gave ahead of time about the one-sidedness of
their courses were ?unacceptable.??37
Note that the situation was no longer hypothetical. I should emphasize
here that not only did Bollinger or Provost Brinkley never contact me
about my course, neither of them responded to my announcement that I
had cancelled it, which I made in my publicized statement in response to
the intimidation to which I was being subjected. I had indeed sent a copy
of my statement to Provost Brinkley before posting it. He wrote me back
counseling me not to release it. However neither he nor Bollinger, nor
even Vice President Dirks, expressed any discomfort that I, a Columbia
faculty member, was canceling one of my courses because of
intimidation. None of them informed me that I would be protected by the
university were I to teach it again and that the university would ensure
my rights and protect me against intimidation. Indeed, what I was
subjected to is not more protection by my own university but more
intimidation. The most concrete manifestation of which was the formation
of your committee.
On the issue of the formation of your ad-hoc committee, the first point I
want to refer to is the establishment of the committee and then move to
its mandate. The step taken by the administration to establish a
committee to investigate professors based on student grievances that
were not lodged with any university body but rather aired through an off-
campus lobbying group sets a dangerous precedent of violating the
academic freedom of professors. The establishment of the committee
coupled with the statements by Bollinger to the press have given the
clear impression that the David Project had legitimate issues to raise
with Columbia, and that even though Bollinger himself had assured
everyone that there were no registered complaints against any of the
accused professors through any Columbia channel, and that he had
already convened a secret committee to investigate similar allegations
the previous semester, the so-called Blasi committee, which found no
evidence of bias, he still saw a need for a second special committee to
become the address of such complaints.
The matter of the committee charge is of grave importance. I
requested and had a meeting with Vice President Dirks in his office on
December 9 to discuss this particular matter. I told him then that I would
not consider the ad-hoc committee a legitimate body unless it included
in its charge the investigation of claims of intimidation of faculty by
students, by administrators, and by off campus pressure groups. He
responded positively to my concerns by asking me for my telephone
number in Amman, Jordan, as I was traveling the next day on December
10th. He said that I needed to be next to a phone and fax in the next day
or two so that he could call me and fax me a draft of the charge to
approve so that he could release it then to the public. I was satisfied with
this arrangement. Vice President Dirks however never contacted me. I E-
mailed him on December 14 to inquire about the charge. He wrote back
on December 19th informing me that he had not ?yet been able to come
up with a statement about the committee. I?ll send you something as
soon as it is ready.? I never heard back from him. Upon returning to
Columbia in mid-January, my students forwarded to me a mass E-mail
that Vice-President Dirks had sent out inviting students to appear before
the committee. I was taken aback by such a step, as I still did not know
what the committee?s charge was. I wrote to the vice-president to inquire
on January 20 as to what had transpired. He wrote me back clarifying
that he had not promised to share with me the circular he had sent out
to the students. As for the charge, he explained that he still had not
finalized it and would do so in a couple of days. I heard again from him a
week later asking me to pick up a copy of the charge from his office. I
did and was shocked to find that it did not include the investigation of
faculty intimidation by students and administrators. I never heard back
from Vice-President Dirks who never offered an explanation or an
apology for his disrespectful conduct, having failed to inform me of the
change of plans and then offering me the charge as a fait accompli.
I am very concerned about the choice of Floyd Abrams as your
advisor, a position whose mandate has not been made public. Mr.
Abrams is publicly identified with pro-Israeli politics and activism. He has
spoken at fund raisers for causes in Israel,38 has worked and consulted
with the Anti-Defamation League, one of the parties campaigning
against me, and received a major award from it in 2003, the Hubert H.
Humphrey Award, and has endorsed the book The Case for Israel by
Alan Dershowitz who has been speaking publicly in lectures and to the
media against me, in the context of the ongoing witch-hunt, alleging that
I support terrorism. In his blurb endorsing Dershowitz?s book, Abrams
states:
?In a world in which Israel seems always to be the accused, regardless of
the facts, Alan Dershowitz?s defense offers an oasis of sanity and
straight talk. It may be too much to hope that Israel?s accusers will read
this powerful and persuasive response to their charges. It is not at all
too much to ask that fair?minded observers do so.?39
Given these statements by Abrams, the decision to appoint him as
advisor to this committee conveys at the least the appearance of
partiality.
On the question of my scholarship and my integrity as a teacher,
Bollinger?s statements sadly suggest that he has taken sides against the
faculty and the university in this controversy. Compare his recent
declarations with those of Martin Kramer, one of the main people behind
this witch-hunt. Kramer wrote on November 5, 2002 in a web posting:
?The other issue of overriding concern here is the apparent absence of
any effort by the Columbia administration to promote diversity. Here I
don?t mean the false diversity of academic mafias. They think it?s crucial
to assemble people of different ethnic, national, religious, racial, gender,
and disciplinary backgrounds?provided they say the same thing. I?m
talking about intellectual diversity, which used to be a value at Columbia.
The only historian of the modern Middle East at Columbia [besides the
possible employment of Rashid Khalidi] is another Palestinian, Joseph
Massad, who is a militant follower of Edward Said. (He?s now up for
tenure.) Imagine that Khalidi were added, and Massad were tenured,
both to teach history. They work in the same area, and their politics,
while not identical, are very similar. The whole thing begins to look like a
cozy club of like-minded pals, who peer at the Middle East through
exactly the same telescope, from exactly the same vantage point.?40
Compare Kramer?s statement with Bollinger?s. After reviewing Kramer?s
views and those of others on the alleged lack of intellectual diversity at
Columbia and in Middle East Studies more generally, and after citing
Bollinger?s own record on ?racial diversity? at the University of Michigan,
New York Magazine?s reports that: ?today, [Bollinger] says he?s equally
committed to intellectual diversity.?41 This led the reporter to conclude
that this ?may not augur well for professor Massad?s longevity at
Columbia, no matter how favorably disposed the provost?s committee
may be to him.?42 Bollinger would elaborate on that point later to the
Jewish Week, where according to the newspaper, ?Bollinger
acknowledged, albeit elliptically, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not
being taught in a balanced way that reflects the complexity of the region.
He believes that ?the historic, horrific treatment of Jews, especially in the
20th century, is not something to be taken as a matter of the past, and
while I may not share all the policy judgments of the Israeli government, I
believe the conflict cannot in any way be fairly regarded as lying at the
feet of choices that Israel has made.?? 43 Instead Bollinger recommends
that MEALAC be ?expanded? and that it continue to teach the
Palestinian Israeli conflict but not as it has done so far:
?I happen to think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is of central
importance in the modern world,? he said, ?and we want to be able to
think about that in its full complexities. That?s going to mean that there
will be thoughts some people will find difficult, or even offensive, and yet
we must be able to explore given our belief in academic freedom.
However, it is our obligation to do that with full respect to the complexity,
and if we don?t do that, we have failed ourselves, we have failed our own
principles.?44
The implication being that those of us, and the reference is clearly to
me, who teach the Palestinian Israeli conflict at MEALAC do not teach it
with its ?full complexity? or that I do not ?respect? such complexity.
Perhaps I need to state to the committee that I derive my authority as a
scholar of the Middle East from my doctoral training here at Columbia?s
Political Science Department which granted me my PhD with distinction,
a rare honor that was further certified by the Middle East Studies
Association which granted me its most prestigious award for a social
science dissertation for 1998, the Malcolm Kerr Award. My book, which
was based on my dissertation, was published by Columbia University
Press, and has been endorsed and reviewed favorably by the most
prominent Middle East scholars in the academy. The only unfavorable
review, out of seventeen favorable reviews, it received was in Martin
Kramer?s unscholarly magazine, Middle East Quarterly. My book and my
articles on the Palestinian Israeli conflict are used as standard texts for
courses on nationalism and on Palestine and Israel across the United
States and Europe. My recent work on sexuality and queer theory is also
taught across the country, and a book length study on the subject is
forthcoming from Harvard University Press. I currently have two
standing offers from prestigious presses for a book based on my
published essays on Zionism and Palestinian nationalism. An attack on
my scholarship therefore is not only an attack on me and on MEALAC
but on Columbia?s political science department, on prestigious academic
presses, including Columbia University Press, and on the Middle East
Studies Association (MESA), an opinion expressed by Martin Kramer
who also condemns Middle East Studies at Columbia and MESA itself. I
should affirm here that President Bollinger is under the impression that
he can set the research agenda for Middle East scholarship at Columbia
much better than Columbia?s Middle East faculty. He told the Jewish
Week that ?we need to integrate better than we have other fields that
have knowledge relevant to the work being done in MEALAC. What is
the relationship, for example, between the environmental facts of life in
the Middle East and Asia, or its diseases, and the culture there?? 45
This retreat to 19th century climatology and medical anthropology is
disturbing. Would President Bollinger also think that there is a
relationship between ?environmental facts, its diseases and the culture?
of African Americans or of American Jews?
I am concerned that Bollinger may well be making an academic
judgment about me that is based not on my scholarship or pedagogy but
on my politics and even my nationality. A case in point is Bollinger?s
recent response to a letter sent by one James Schreiber, a member of
Columbia Law School?s board of visitors and former federal prosecutor,
who says that a lecture that I gave and which he attended at Columbia?s
Middle East Institute three years ago was comparable to a speech at a
?neo-Nazi rally.? Bollinger met with Schreiber privately at his home and
reportedly told him that he found his letter to be ?powerful? and that he
seeks to ?upgrade? the faculty in the Middle East studies department.46
In addition, when a number of faculty members and I signed a petition in
2002 calling on Columbia to divest from companies that sell weapons to
Israel, a country guilty of human rights abuses, Bollinger?s response
betrayed a strong emotional reaction and a stronger political bias:
?The petition alleges human rights abuses and compares Israel to South
Africa at the time of apartheid, an analogy I believe is both grotesque
and offensive.?47
While the campaigners against me off this campus do not have the
direct power to influence my future employment at Columbia, Bollinger
clearly does, and therefore his failure to defend academic freedom is
detrimental to my career and my job. I am further chilled in this regard by
reports that at the recent general meeting of the Faculty of Arts and
Sciences, Bollinger sought to change the fifty-year tradition regarding
how tenure cases are decided at Columbia when he stated that he and
the trustees, in accordance with the statutes but in contravention of a
fifty-year tradition, would want to have the final say in tenure cases in
the future.48
In conclusion, the foregoing has given you the minimum of details
and historical narrative regarding this coordinated campaign from inside
and outside the university targeting me, my job, and my chances for
tenure, based on my political views, my political writings, and my
nationality. That the Columbia University administration acted as a
collaborator with the witch-hunters instead of defending me and offering
itself as a refuge from rightwing McCarthyism has been a cause of grave
personal and professional disappointment to me. I am utterly
disillusioned with a university administration that treats its faculty with
such contempt and am hoping against hope that the faculty will rise to
the task before them and force President Bollinger to reverse this
perilous course on which he has taken Columbia?s faculty and students.
The major goal of the witch-hunters is to destroy the institution of the
university in general. I am merely the entry point for their political
project. As the university is the last bastion of free-thinking that has not
yet fallen under the authority of extreme rightwing forces, it has become
their main target. The challenge before us is therefore to be steadfast in
fighting for academic freedom.
APPENDIX
?Policing the Academy?
Published in Al-Ahram Weekly, No. 633, 10-16 April 2003
Joseph Massad* on the McCarthyism stalking American campuses
As I was reading one of the latest death threats I received via e-mail, I
remembered the defamatory campaigns to which Edward Said has been
subjected since the 1970s and which included the firebombing of his
office in the 1980s. Since last summer, apologists for Israel?s ?right? to
be a racist state (and to use whatever violence it can muster in defence
of that ?right?) have begun a campaign of defamation against anyone in
the US academy who dares to question any Israeli action or practice.
This campaign is part of a larger effort to discredit US universities as
arenas for independent scholarship and thought. It also aims to
delegitimise universities who refuse to serve the interests of either the
national security state or the Israeli government. The fact that those
spearheading this campaign are almost exclusively part of a large
conglomerate known as the pro-Israel lobby in the US is hardly
surprising. Since 11 September, the campaign has expanded to include
any academic who believes that Islam is not a terroristic evil religion bent
on murdering the ?civilised?, and that Muslims and Arabs are humans
who are entitled to civil, political, and human rights in their own countries
as well as in the United States.
While academics live in a world where intellectual disagreements are
registered through scholarly debates and discussions, and where
methodological disputes are negotiated on the pages of academic
journals and books and in the context of conferences, the new self-
designated academic policemen refuse to acknowledge such modes of
argumentation and fora as appropriate. In their fantasy world, the
offending academics must be silenced, dismissed from their jobs, and
their offending publications heaped and burned in an auto-da-fé. The
strategy of the thought policemen consists of a refusal to address any of
the offending contentions made by scholars and instead relies on the
use of policing methods of discrediting, intimidation, and character
assassination often used in societies run by the secret police. The
overall purpose of this policing agenda is the destruction of academic
freedom and the subversion of democratic procedure.
Take the examples of two of the better known academic policemen in
recent years, the American Daniel Pipes and the Israeli Martin Kramer,
neither of whom teaches in the US academy; as a result, some might say
that they have an ax to grind with a system that refuses to recognise
their talents, especially in the field of policing and propaganda. Pipes
and Kramer are two of the most outspoken defenders of Israel?s ?right?
to be a racist state. They are also keen to defend Israel?s prerogative to
kill and bomb anyone who stands in its way of protecting its right to
discriminate on racial grounds. Their role in the debate is to extend
Israeli violence to the US academic arena by bombarding all enemies of
Israel with defamatory accusations. It is not Merkava tanks, Uzi
submachine guns, or Apache helicopters that are used in this
bombardment, but rather newspaper gossip columns and secret police-
style dossiers to name the preferred methods; as for the e-mail
spamming, identity theft, and the death threats to which the unrepentant
have been subjected, one can be sure that Kramer and Pipes are
unconnected to either of them. Admittedly, their campaigns, unlike the
Israeli government?s campaigns, have not yet eliminated anyone
physically (although the death threats sent by others to many of us
continue), but the main point is to eliminate us professionally, and,
failing that, to terrorise us into silence. Like the Israeli strategy of
indiscriminate violence and terror, these campaigns have failed to
achieve their purpose, whether to stop the Palestinians from resisting
Israel?s illegal occupation and violence in the case of Israel, or to stop
Israel?s academic critics in the case of the academic policemen.
This campaign of intimidation against academics has been well planned
and conceived with one major goal in mind: defamation. This is
undertaken by following a number of steps involving refusal to engage
any of the ideas or propositions put forth by the targeted professors,
much less to refute them, consistent use of innuendo, fabrication of
claims based on half-quotes pulled out of context, recruitment of young
and impressionable defenders of Israel?s aforementioned ?rights? on
college campuses, use of the right-wing press to whip up hysteria about
anti- Israel sentiment being allegedly rampant on US campuses, and
calls for outright dismissal of professors found guilty of not upholding
Israel?s ?right? to be a racist state. The less the US public believes in
defending Israel?s crimes, the more intense the campaign becomes.
While the pro-Israel lobby?s campaigns to discredit people who criticise
Israel had decreased in relative terms after Oslo, they were revived after
the failure of the Camp David talks and the eruption of the second
Intifada. The lobby and its individual manifestations have become rabid
in their campaigns of discrediting offenders to the point that they have
become embarrassing to many Americans who support Israel.
The campaign against university professors and instructors began in
earnest in the Spring of 2002 and has not abated since. Columbia
University, where I teach, is a major focus of the campaign, as it is seen
by Kramer and Pipes as a major battleground for their cause. In addition
to the unceasing campaigns against Edward Said, the campaign is now
focussing on new professors, namely University of Chicago Professor
Rashid Khalidi who will be joining Columbia University next fall, Professor
Hamid Dabashi, the chairperson of the Department of Middle East and
Asian Languages and Cultures at Columbia, and myself. Other
professors and academics targeted on other campuses include John
Esposito, Juan Cole, Ali Mazrui, M Shahid Alam, and Snehal Shingavi,
among others.
The effort was inaugurated by a newspaper article published by Pipes
(who has no academic post whatsoever) under the title ?Extremists on
Campus?, and a book published by Kramer who is ?senior researcher? at
Tel Aviv University?s aptly named ?Moshe Dayan Centre?. Kramer, the
cleverer of the two, assailed American Middle East academics for their
?failure? to explain the Middle East to the US public. What Kramer means
is that unlike many of their Israeli Jewish counterparts, American
academics have failed to explain to Americans that Muslims and Arabs
are violent uncivilised creatures and that Israel has a right to be a racist
state (although in fact many of them do exactly that). As Kramer works at
the Moshe Dayan Centre, named after that luminary of Israeli military
conquerors, one hopes in vain that some of Dayan?s wisdom would have
rubbed off on Kramer. Alas, if Dayan acknowledged in reference to
Israel that ?there is no single place in this country that did not have a
former Arab population?, Kramer in turn chases down any academic who
would remind the world of such forgotten facts and demands that such
an academic repent his sins. Dayan, ever the pragmatist, was never
upset with legitimate Palestinian rage at Israel which he was determined
to crush. He insisted to the likes of Kramer: ?Let us not today fling
accusations at the [Palestinian] murderers [of Jewish colonial settlers].
Who are we that we should argue against their hatred? For eight years
now they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their very eyes,
we turn into our homestead the land and the villages in which they and
their forefathers have lived.?
Pipes, on his part, set up McCarthyist public dossiers on the eight
professors of choice on a Web site and called on our students to spy on
us and report any anti-Israel statements that we might make in class.
Tens of professors (among tens of thousands who work at US
universities and colleges) rushed to defend the blacklisted professors by
demanding that their names also be added to the blacklist. For Pipes
and Kramer, this was indication enough of how anti-Israel US academic
culture had become, never mind the tens of thousands of professors
who fell silent and did not defend academic freedom or us. This skewed
view is all the more telling in the case of the ebullient Kramer who
dubbed Columbia University ?Bir Zeit on the Hudson?.
Now, in the tradition of Zionist lobbyists, the issue is not to have an
Israeli view balanced with a Palestinian view about the subject, but
rather, failing the suppression of Palestinian views altogether, to insist
on a second, a third, and a fourth Israeli view to ?balance? the one
Palestinian view. Take the campaign against a course that I teach at
Columbia titled ?Palestinian and Israeli Politics and Societies? as an
example. This course has enraged Kramer and his ilk and is used as
evidence that Columbia University is an anti-Israel university. The fact
that there are many other courses at Columbia (in existence for years,
long before my course was even conceived) covering topics on
contemporary Israeli society and politics, on Zionism, on conflict
resolution in the Middle East, on Israeli literature, as well as on the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict itself, all taught from an Israel-friendly angle
(and not always by full-time professors) is immaterial; it is this orphan
course taught with a critical view of Israel (and of Palestinian
nationalism) that is the problem and which must be balanced. The fact
that Columbia University features an important centre for Israel and
Jewish studies but no centre on Palestine and Arab studies let alone a
centre on Arab studies more generally, is not taken to mean that
Columbia is a place friendly to Israel, rather the opposite: the existence
of one course that criticises Israel is sufficient to conclude that rampant
anti-Israelism (often dubbed ?anti-Semitism?) has taken over the
university.
If this was not enough, Columbia?s Bir Zeit status is augmented by the
divestment campaign started last year by the Faculty Committee on
Palestine (of which I am a member), which indicates further to Kramer
that US academics are not upholding Israel?s right to be a racist state.
The fact that Columbia has a counter-divestment petition whose
signatures outnumber the pro-divestment petition by a factor of 33 to
one (among faculty the rate is four to one against divestment) does not
allay his fears or those of his followers, nor the fact that Columbia
University?s new president has publicly denounced the divestment
campaign as ?grotesque?. Any questioning of the policemen?s cause
unto itself is seen as a thought crime, even a mortal sin against the
sacrosanct cause of Israel. If anyone were to use these facts to label
Columbia ?Hebrew University on the Hudson?, this would be seen
legitimately as anti-Semitic. However, Kramer and his followers are never
brought to task for their virulent anti- Arab racism.
What Kramer, Pipes, and their ilk want to achieve is a subversion of the
democratic process as well as of the academic process. Their intent is to
subvert the academy by deriding its independence and by attempting to
make it subject to the national security state and the thought police. As
far as the democratic process is concerned, their goals are to suppress
dissenting views by defaming them and calling for people to be
dismissed from their jobs if they expressed them. Kramer has called for
the dismissal of Dabashi, myself, and others and began an unsuccessful
campaign to pressure Columbia University to withdraw its offer to Khalidi.
Notice that the academic qualifications of the targeted professors based
on our recognised publications and academic records are negated a
priori by Kramer who questions the very legitimacy of the institutions that
have granted them to us, whether Middle East Studies as a field, the
Middle East Studies Association, the university presses that publish us,
or the universities that employ us (he lamentingly calls me ?the flower of
Columbia University?). In Kramer?s and Pipes? fantasy world, the only
recognition that academics should seek in order to qualify to teach and
publish on the Middle East is that of Israel?s academic police in the
United States. As a gesture of good will, such academics should
perhaps attempt to publish in Kramer?s and Pipes? journal Middle East
Quarterly, which is indeed impressive for the absence of scholarship in
it. Maybe one day Kramer and Pipes would demand of the academy that
publishing in Middle East Quarterly become a condition for any
academic to obtain tenure or promotion!
Kramer and his young dupes have huffed and puffed lately about my
recent article in Al-Ahram Weekly on ?The Legacy of Jean-Paul Sartre?,
claiming that ?The Jews, not being a nation by (Massad?s) definition,
cannot have nationalism. They have only racism?? I of course have not
made such a claim. Israel is a racist state not because of Jewish
nationalism but because of its legally institutionalised racism where only
Jews (not Israelis) have rights and privileges based on their national
belonging. I oppose any state that discriminates against its own citizens
based on ethnic, religious, racial, national (or any other) grounds, and
this especially includes those states that have discriminatory laws as
Israel does. It is this and similar questions that Kramer and his followers
do not want to draw attention to, as they have no convincing answers to
offer. The question is: do Kramer and Pipes actually believe that these
methods will work in suppressing our views and freedom of thought and
force us to worship at the altar of their favourite settler-colony?
Kramer, Pipes, and co are angry that the academy still allows
democratic procedure in the expression of political views and has an
institutionalised meritocratic system of judgment (admittedly with its own
faults) to evaluate its members. Their goal is to destroy any semblance
of either in favour of subjecting democracy and academic life to an
incendiary jingoism and to the exigencies of the national security state
with the express aim of imploding freedom. Their larger success,
however, has been in discrediting themselves and in reminding all of us
that we should never take the freedoms that we have for granted, as the
likes of Kramer and Pipes are working to take them away.
* The writer is assistant professor of Modern Arab Politics and
Intellectual History at Columbia University .
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 10 -16 April 2003 (Issue No. 633)
Located at: [small]http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/633/op2.htm[/small]
FOOTNOTES
1 The only change I have made in this version of the statement is to
remove the names of students, professors, and administrators that I had
included in the original statement but who have not sought publicity on
this issue. I did so to protect their privacy. I have kept the names of
students who have spoken publicly.
2 Charge to Ad Hoc Committee from the Vice President for Arts and
Sciences.
3 This is the full course description for Spring 2001:
?This course covers the history of Zionism in the wake of the Haskala in
mid nineteenth century Europe and its development at the turn of the
century through the current ?peace process? between the state of Israel
and the Palestinian national movement. The course examines the
impact of Zionism on European Jews and on Asian and African Jews on
the one hand, and on Palestinian Arabs on the other ?in Israel, in the
Occupied Territories, and in the Diaspora. The course also examines
the internal dynamics in Palestinian and Israeli societies, looking at the
roles class, gender and religion play in the politics of Israel and the
Palestinian national movement. The purpose of the course is to provide
a thorough yet critical historical overview of the Zionist-Palestinian
conflict to familiarize undergraduates with the background to the current
situation.?
4 This is the full course description for Spring 2002:
?This course covers the history of Zionism in the wake of the Haskala in
mid nineteenth century Europe and its development at the turn of the
century through the current ?peace process? between the state of Israel
and the Palestinian national movement. The course examines critically
the impact of Zionism on European Jews and on Asian and African Jews
on the one hand, and on Palestinian Arabs on the other ?in Israel, in
the Occupied Territories, and in the Diaspora. The course also
examines critically the internal dynamics in Palestinian and Israeli
societies, looking at the roles class, gender and religion play in the
politics of Israel and the Palestinian national movement. The purpose of
the course is not to provide a ?balanced? coverage of the views of both
sides, but rather to provide a thorough yet critical historical overview of
the Zionist-Palestinian conflict to familiarize undergraduates with the
background to the current situation from a critical perspective.?
5 This is the course description for Spring 2004:
?This course covers the history of Zionism in the wake of the Haskala
in mid nineteenth century Europe and its development at the turn of the
century through the current ?peace process? between the state of Israel
and the Palestinian national movement. The course examines critically
the impact of Zionism on European Jews and on Asian and African Jews
on the one hand, and on Palestinian Arabs on the other ?in Israel, in
the Occupied Territories, and in the Diaspora. The course also
examines critically the internal dynamics in Palestinian and Israeli
societies, looking at the roles class, gender and religion play in the
politics of Israel and the Palestinian national movement. The purpose of
the course is to provide a thorough yet critical historical overview of the
Zionist-Palestinian conflict to familiarize undergraduates with the
background to the current situation.?
6 [small]http:// israelcc.org[/small] (site is slow)
7 See Daphna Berman, ?Masks of Tolerance,? February 26, 2002.
8 Ibid.
9 Xan Nowakowski, Students Organize Sit-In To Support Palestinians,?
Columbia Spectator, 18 April 2002.
10 In a column that he posted on his website titled ?Bir Zeit-on-Hudson,?
on 5 Februray 2003, Kramer wrote this threatening statement: [Massad
has] also failed to learn from Said that you lie low until you have tenure,
but that?s another matter.? On February 20, 2004, he wrote an entry
about me stating Massad?wants tenure at Columbia, and will seek it with
a new book entitled The Persistence of the Palestinian Question. Will
Columbia scrape bottom?? In an entry on June 14, 2004, Kramer wrote
?Here?s my idea: Massad should be de-Columbia-nized when he comes
up for tenure.? On October 22, after the David Project film was revealed
to the public, Kramer wrote ?I sincerely hope that Columbia will have the
good sense not to tenure Massad, who is a pseudo-scholar?? and
followed that on November 6 with the question: ?So is Columbia
prepared to tenure a professor who teaches that Christian (and Jewish)
supporters of Israel in America are the world?s most powerful anti-
Semites? That?s the crux of the Massad question.? On
December 10, 2004, he wrote ?If Columbia has any sense at all, he?ll
eventually have to struggle with the meaning of this word: unemployed.?
11 See for example my interview with Nigel Parry of Electronic Intifada,
posted on [small]http:// electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/732[/small] (link broken)
12 See Kramer?s ?Bir Zeit-on-Hudson,? posted on 5 February 2003 (link broken)
13 Ariel Beery, ?Middle East Certitude,? Columbia Spectator, 10 March
2003.
14 Ariel Beery, ?Between the Narrow Points,? Columbia Spectator, 14
April 2003. See also his article ?The Burning Flames,? Columbia
Spectator, 24 April 2003.
15 Joseph Massad, ?Policing the Academy,? Al-Ahram Weekly, 10-16
April 2003.
16 Jacob Gershman, ?Massad?s Theory: The Zionists are the Anti-
Semites,? New York Sun, 22 February 2005.
17 Rabbi Charles Sheer, ?The Treatment of the Middle East Studies at
Columbia University,? 6 January 2004, posted on the Hillel website: [small]http://akko.hillel.columbia.edu/announc ... llel?id=91[/small]
18 Ibid.
19 See the transcript of ?Columbia Unbecoming,? 10.
20 I Rabbi Charles Sheer, ?The Treatment of the Middle East Studies at
Columbia University,? op.cit.
21 Jacob Gershman, ?Israel Is Accused of Anti-Semitism,? New York Sun,
30 December 2003. They ran the correction on December 31.
22 Jonathan Calt Harris, ?Tenured Extremism,? New York Sun, 4 May
2004.
23 This is the full text of my letter:
May 16, 2004
Mr. Joel J. Levy, Director
Anti-Defamation League
823 United Nations Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10017
Dear Director Levy,
I was deeply disturbed by the accusations that your letter of May 6,
2004 leveled against me. The ?reports? that you have received from ? a
student who attended the lecture? are utterly inaccurate and bear little
relationship to the text of my lecture. My principled stance against anti-
Semitism and all kinds of racism is a matter of public record and cannot
be assailed by defamatory ?reports? or by letters from the ADL that
consider them credible sources. Indeed I have condemned anti-
Semitism in my Arabic and English writings, regardless of whether the
person expressing it was pro-Israel or anti-Israel, an Arab, an American
Christian, or an Israeli Jew (you may consult with my review of Israel
Shahak?s and Norton Mezvinsky?s book Jewish Fundamentalism
published by the Electronic Journal of Middle East Studies
where I condemn the anti-Semitic approach used by anti-Zionist Israeli
Jewish scholars to analyze Judaism and Jewish fundamentalism).
I therefore expect a prompt correction of the errors contained in your
letter and demand an immediate apology, a copy of which should be
sent to President Bollinger.
Sincerely,
Joseph Massad
Assistant Professor
Cc: President Lee C. Bollinger
Provost Alan Brinkley
24 Jacob Gershman, ?Columbia Abuzz Over Underground Film,? New
York Sun, 20 October 2004.
25 Charles Jacobs and Avi Goldwasser, ?In Defense of the David
Project,? Columbia Spectator, 16 November 2004.
26 See my ?Response to the Intimidation of Columbia University,? posted
on my Columbia webpage on 3 November 2004: [small]http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1350[/small]
27 Shanker?s claim was first reported by Jacob Gershman, ?Columbia
Prepared to Protect Students from anti-Israel bias,? New York Sun, 17
November 2004.
28 N.R. Kleinfield, ?Mideast Tensions Are Getting Personal on Campus
at Columbia,? New York Times, 14 January 2005.
29 Uriel Heilman, ?Non-Academic Debate,? Jerusalem Post, 23 December
2004.
30 Jacob Gershman, ?Bias Festerd ?For Years,? Professor Says,? New
York Sun, 29 October 2004.
31 Statement from Lee C. Bollinger on the David Project Film, October
27, 2004.
32 See for example Sam Dillon, ?Columbia to Check Reports of Anti-
Jewish Harassment,? New York Times, 29 October 2004.
33 Jacob Gershman, ?Columbia Probe Eyed By Council, ? New York
Sun, November 12, 2004.
34 Jennifer Senior, ?Columbia?s Own Middle East War,?New York
Magazine, January 10, 2005.
35 Liel Leibovitz, ?The Winter of His Content,? Jewish Week, 4 March
2005.
36 Lisa Hirshmann, ?Over Dinner, Bollinger On Academic Freedom,?
Columbia Spectator, 10 March 2005
37 Ibid.
38 See ?Israel Cancer research fund, Women of Achievement Lunch to
Fight Cancer,? in 15 Minutes, about his emceeing such an event.
39 The quote is posted on the book publisher?s website: [small]http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-102314.html[/small]
40 Martin Kramer, ?The Columbia Club of Middle Eastern Studies,? 5
November 2002, weblog can be found on: [small]www.martinkramer.org[/small]
41 Jennifer Senior, ?Columbia?s Own Middle East War,?, New York
Magazine, January 10, 2005.
42 Ibid.
43 Liel Leibowitz, ?The Winter Of His Content,? Jewish Week, 4 March
2005.
44 Ibid.
45 Liel Leibowitz, ?Winter of his Content,? op.cit.
46 Jacob Gershman, ?Ex-Prosecutor Likens Massad Speech to a ?Neo-
Nazi Rally?,? New York Sun, 25 February 25.
47 ?President Lee Bollinger?s Statement on the Divestment Campaign? 7
November 2002
48 Minutes of the General Meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences,
16 February 2005[/justify]
Last edited by Dejuificator II on Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nous serons toujours là.
-
Dejuificator II
- Erudit
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:47 pm
[justify][large]Couple Tarred as Anti Semites[/large]
Judge Slams ADL for Hurting Couple Tarred As 'Anti-Semites'
By MARC PERELMAN
FORWARD CORRESPONDENT
UPHOLDING most of a $10 million defamation suit against the Anti-
Defamation League, a federal judge in Denver has lambasted the
organization for labeling a nasty neighborhood feud as an anti-Semitic
event.
In upholding the first-ever court defeat handed to the 87-year-old ADL,
U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham said the organization had endorsed
and publicized the bigotry accusations of a Jewish couple against its
neighbors without either investigating the case or weighing the
consequences.
"Based on its position and history as a well-respected civil-rights
institution, it is not unreasonable to infer that public charges of
anti-Semitism leveled by the ADL will be taken seriously and assumed by
many to be true without question," the judge wrote on March 31 in a 46-
page order and memorandum of decision obtained by the Forward. "In that
respect, the ADL is in a unique position of being able to cause
substantial harm to individuals when it lends its backing to allegations
of anti-Semitism."
The judge's opinion confirmed a verdict reached last April by a federal
jury, which essentially accused the Denver chapter of the ADL and its
regional representative, Saul Rosenthal, of falsely portraying William and
Dorothy Quigley as anti-Semites. Mr. Quigley, an executive of the United
Artists theater chain, said his career in the "predominantly Jewish and
close-knit" film business had stalled after the incident.
"The ADL seized an opportunity to aggrandize itself as the defender of the
Jews by unjustly accusing a middle-class couple of being anti-Semitic
crooks," said Jay Horowitz, the Quigleys' Denver-based lawyer. "And all
along, they showed an unbelievable arrogance."
At the same time, the judge reduced last year's judgment by some $675,000,
cutting the punitive damages awarded to Mrs. Quigley under state law and
reducing the Quigleys' compensatory damages to reflect money they received
in an earlier settlement with opposing lawyers.
The ADL said it would appeal the decision to the 10th Circuit Court of
Appeals in Denver later this spring. The ADL's law firm, Long and Jaudon,
claimed in a statement issued by the ADL last week that "there were
reversible errors made during both pretrial and trial proceedings." Both
the ADL and attorney Joe Jaudon refused to comment further.
What is not in dispute is that the ADL, after springing to the defense of
a Jewish couple essentially seeking to strengthen their hand in a private
dispute, now finds itself entangled in an embarrassing and potentially
costly legal stew. The league's annual budget hovers around $50 million.
The judgment could harm its reputation as an aggressive but reliable
monitor of anti-Semitism.
The ruling comes at a time when the ADL is also embroiled in the Marc Rich
pardon scandal. The organization said it received some $250,000 in the past 15 years from the fugitive financier who received a controversial
11th-hour pardon from President Clinton. The league's national director,
Abraham Foxman, declared last month that he "probably" had made a mistake
in writing a letter to Mr. Clinton supporting the Rich pardon.
All this was not lost on Mr. Horowitz, the Denver attorney.
"Can you imagine an organization using money from Marc Rich, a guy who
made millions dealing with anti-Semitic countries like Iran, attacking
powerless people for some alleged anti-Semitic slurs?" he said.
The Denver dispute began in August 1994, when Mitchell and Candice Aronson
moved to the affluent suburb of Evergreen, Colo. The couple was initially
befriended by the Quigleys, their neighbors, but relations quickly began
to sour, escalating from complaints about dogs and stolen plants to an
allegation by Mrs. Aronson that Mr. Quigley tried to run her over with his
car.
The Aronsons contacted the ADL on October 21, after concluding that the
Quigleys were plotting to drive them out of the neighborhood because they
were Jewish. The suspicions were based partly on a conversation on the
Quigleys' cordless phone, which the Aronsons claimed they inadvertently
overheard through their police scanner. They said they heard the Quigleys
talking about sticking pictures of oven doors on their house, burning
their children and wishing they had been blown up in a terrorist attack in
Israel.
The ADL, after consulting with the district attorney, suggested that the
Aronsons tape another six weeks' worth of conversations. None of the
parties reportedly knew that Congress had outlawed such wiretaps on
October 25.
In December, the Aronsons filed a federal suit against the Quigleys,
accusing them of ethnic intimidation and violation of their civil rights.
The following day, at a press conference, Mr. Rosenthal of the ADL labeled
the Quigleys anti-Semitic and said they were planning attacks against the
Aronsons. The district attorney's office also filed felony criminal
charges of ethnic intimidation.
At that point, the case began to unravel. The Quigleys accused the
Aronsons of waging a smear campaign against them. In January 1996, they
sued the Aronsons and the ADL for violating their rights under the Federal
Wiretap Act.
In the meantime, the district attorney, who realized that the tapes were
illegal, dropped the ethnic intimidation charge and agreed to pay
compensation to the Quigleys. In February 1998, an out-of-court settlement
was reached between the couples. But the settlement did not include Mr.
Rosenthal and the ADL.
Mr. Horowitz said he tried to settle numerous times with the ADL, but was
rebuffed.
The Quigleys accused the ADL of libel, false light invasion of privacy,
invasion of privacy and violation of the Federal Wiretap Act. In April
2000, a jury accepted nearly all the charges and awarded them $10.5
million in damages, one of the largest defamation awards ever in Colorado.
In reply, the ADL and Mr. Rosenthal called for a reduction of the
judgment, or a new trial.
Judge Nottingham, ruling on the ADL's motion to overturn the verdict,
accepted none of the league's arguments. He pointed to evidence that Mr.
Rosenthal and the ADL had not bothered to listen to the tapes, read the
transcripts or investigate in-depth before publicly leveling the charge of
anti-Semitism. He criticized what he called the selection of isolated
comments from thousands of pages of transcripts to build the anti-Semitism
accusation "in what could otherwise be regarded as mere sarcastic, banal
and tasteless remarks uttered in a garden-variety dispute among
neighbors."
To support his argument, the judge cited an internal ADL memorandum
written by Mr. Rosenthal in January 1995, in which the league official
said he wanted "to be sure we are maximizing all opportunities that are
available from the Aronson case and arrests.... In short, 'make hay while
the sun shines' - graciously of course."
Mr. Quigley, a New York native, was a chief financial officer at Paramount
pictures and president of Vestron Pictures. There he produced the movies
"Dirty Dancing" and "The Dead." He moved to Denver in 1993 to head the
United Artists' theater chain in the region.
As a result of the anti-Semitism charge, said his attorney of Mr.
Horowitz, "He has become a pariah in the business."
The judge concurred, repeatedly underlining what he called the
"catastrophic impact" of the accusations on Mr. Quigley's career. He said
the issue was actually raised in discussions within the Denver ADL. "In
that respect, Rosenthal's conduct could be perceived as even more
egregious, given his awareness of the stigmatizing consequences attached
to accusations of anti-Semitism."
Regarding the large damage award, the judge wrote that "it will, at a
minimum, provide a deterrent effect against the ADL from engaging in
future conduct involving the use of intercepted telephone conversations to
pursue a civil lawsuit against persons perceived to be anti-Semitic."
(c) 2001 The Forward[/justify]
Judge Slams ADL for Hurting Couple Tarred As 'Anti-Semites'
By MARC PERELMAN
FORWARD CORRESPONDENT
UPHOLDING most of a $10 million defamation suit against the Anti-
Defamation League, a federal judge in Denver has lambasted the
organization for labeling a nasty neighborhood feud as an anti-Semitic
event.
In upholding the first-ever court defeat handed to the 87-year-old ADL,
U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham said the organization had endorsed
and publicized the bigotry accusations of a Jewish couple against its
neighbors without either investigating the case or weighing the
consequences.
"Based on its position and history as a well-respected civil-rights
institution, it is not unreasonable to infer that public charges of
anti-Semitism leveled by the ADL will be taken seriously and assumed by
many to be true without question," the judge wrote on March 31 in a 46-
page order and memorandum of decision obtained by the Forward. "In that
respect, the ADL is in a unique position of being able to cause
substantial harm to individuals when it lends its backing to allegations
of anti-Semitism."
The judge's opinion confirmed a verdict reached last April by a federal
jury, which essentially accused the Denver chapter of the ADL and its
regional representative, Saul Rosenthal, of falsely portraying William and
Dorothy Quigley as anti-Semites. Mr. Quigley, an executive of the United
Artists theater chain, said his career in the "predominantly Jewish and
close-knit" film business had stalled after the incident.
"The ADL seized an opportunity to aggrandize itself as the defender of the
Jews by unjustly accusing a middle-class couple of being anti-Semitic
crooks," said Jay Horowitz, the Quigleys' Denver-based lawyer. "And all
along, they showed an unbelievable arrogance."
At the same time, the judge reduced last year's judgment by some $675,000,
cutting the punitive damages awarded to Mrs. Quigley under state law and
reducing the Quigleys' compensatory damages to reflect money they received
in an earlier settlement with opposing lawyers.
The ADL said it would appeal the decision to the 10th Circuit Court of
Appeals in Denver later this spring. The ADL's law firm, Long and Jaudon,
claimed in a statement issued by the ADL last week that "there were
reversible errors made during both pretrial and trial proceedings." Both
the ADL and attorney Joe Jaudon refused to comment further.
What is not in dispute is that the ADL, after springing to the defense of
a Jewish couple essentially seeking to strengthen their hand in a private
dispute, now finds itself entangled in an embarrassing and potentially
costly legal stew. The league's annual budget hovers around $50 million.
The judgment could harm its reputation as an aggressive but reliable
monitor of anti-Semitism.
The ruling comes at a time when the ADL is also embroiled in the Marc Rich
pardon scandal. The organization said it received some $250,000 in the past 15 years from the fugitive financier who received a controversial
11th-hour pardon from President Clinton. The league's national director,
Abraham Foxman, declared last month that he "probably" had made a mistake
in writing a letter to Mr. Clinton supporting the Rich pardon.
All this was not lost on Mr. Horowitz, the Denver attorney.
"Can you imagine an organization using money from Marc Rich, a guy who
made millions dealing with anti-Semitic countries like Iran, attacking
powerless people for some alleged anti-Semitic slurs?" he said.
The Denver dispute began in August 1994, when Mitchell and Candice Aronson
moved to the affluent suburb of Evergreen, Colo. The couple was initially
befriended by the Quigleys, their neighbors, but relations quickly began
to sour, escalating from complaints about dogs and stolen plants to an
allegation by Mrs. Aronson that Mr. Quigley tried to run her over with his
car.
The Aronsons contacted the ADL on October 21, after concluding that the
Quigleys were plotting to drive them out of the neighborhood because they
were Jewish. The suspicions were based partly on a conversation on the
Quigleys' cordless phone, which the Aronsons claimed they inadvertently
overheard through their police scanner. They said they heard the Quigleys
talking about sticking pictures of oven doors on their house, burning
their children and wishing they had been blown up in a terrorist attack in
Israel.
The ADL, after consulting with the district attorney, suggested that the
Aronsons tape another six weeks' worth of conversations. None of the
parties reportedly knew that Congress had outlawed such wiretaps on
October 25.
In December, the Aronsons filed a federal suit against the Quigleys,
accusing them of ethnic intimidation and violation of their civil rights.
The following day, at a press conference, Mr. Rosenthal of the ADL labeled
the Quigleys anti-Semitic and said they were planning attacks against the
Aronsons. The district attorney's office also filed felony criminal
charges of ethnic intimidation.
At that point, the case began to unravel. The Quigleys accused the
Aronsons of waging a smear campaign against them. In January 1996, they
sued the Aronsons and the ADL for violating their rights under the Federal
Wiretap Act.
In the meantime, the district attorney, who realized that the tapes were
illegal, dropped the ethnic intimidation charge and agreed to pay
compensation to the Quigleys. In February 1998, an out-of-court settlement
was reached between the couples. But the settlement did not include Mr.
Rosenthal and the ADL.
Mr. Horowitz said he tried to settle numerous times with the ADL, but was
rebuffed.
The Quigleys accused the ADL of libel, false light invasion of privacy,
invasion of privacy and violation of the Federal Wiretap Act. In April
2000, a jury accepted nearly all the charges and awarded them $10.5
million in damages, one of the largest defamation awards ever in Colorado.
In reply, the ADL and Mr. Rosenthal called for a reduction of the
judgment, or a new trial.
Judge Nottingham, ruling on the ADL's motion to overturn the verdict,
accepted none of the league's arguments. He pointed to evidence that Mr.
Rosenthal and the ADL had not bothered to listen to the tapes, read the
transcripts or investigate in-depth before publicly leveling the charge of
anti-Semitism. He criticized what he called the selection of isolated
comments from thousands of pages of transcripts to build the anti-Semitism
accusation "in what could otherwise be regarded as mere sarcastic, banal
and tasteless remarks uttered in a garden-variety dispute among
neighbors."
To support his argument, the judge cited an internal ADL memorandum
written by Mr. Rosenthal in January 1995, in which the league official
said he wanted "to be sure we are maximizing all opportunities that are
available from the Aronson case and arrests.... In short, 'make hay while
the sun shines' - graciously of course."
Mr. Quigley, a New York native, was a chief financial officer at Paramount
pictures and president of Vestron Pictures. There he produced the movies
"Dirty Dancing" and "The Dead." He moved to Denver in 1993 to head the
United Artists' theater chain in the region.
As a result of the anti-Semitism charge, said his attorney of Mr.
Horowitz, "He has become a pariah in the business."
The judge concurred, repeatedly underlining what he called the
"catastrophic impact" of the accusations on Mr. Quigley's career. He said
the issue was actually raised in discussions within the Denver ADL. "In
that respect, Rosenthal's conduct could be perceived as even more
egregious, given his awareness of the stigmatizing consequences attached
to accusations of anti-Semitism."
Regarding the large damage award, the judge wrote that "it will, at a
minimum, provide a deterrent effect against the ADL from engaging in
future conduct involving the use of intercepted telephone conversations to
pursue a civil lawsuit against persons perceived to be anti-Semitic."
(c) 2001 The Forward[/justify]
Nous serons toujours là.
-
Dejuificator II
- Erudit
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:47 pm
[justify][large]Court Rules for Activists on ADL[/large]
Tuesday, November 17, 1998
San Francisco Chronicle
Ruling Allows Activists To Sue Over Disclosure
Bay Area political activists who have sued a Jewish
civil rights organization are entitled to learn whether
the group illegally disclosed confidential information
about them, a state appeals court ruled yesterday .
The ruling by the Court of Appeals should enable the
activists to go to trial in their long-stalled suit
against the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.
The activists' suit, which asks for class-action
status for as many as 1,000 people, relies on a state law
banning disclosure of confidential government
information, with damages of $2,500 for each disclosure.
Filed in 1993, the suit has been delayed by a dispute
over the confidentiality of ADL files.
ADL regional director Barbara Bergen said that
although the decision "leaves open the possibility of
limited future discovery from the League," ADL officials
predicted it would lead to a legal victory for the group
in future litigation. The organization, which publishes
newsletters about hate groups, has the legal status of a
journalist, and it says it is therefore entitled to keep
its files and sources confidential.
The appeals court, however, ruled 3 to 0 that the
ADL could not keep its files secret if they were used for
nonjournalistic activity.[/justify]
Tuesday, November 17, 1998
San Francisco Chronicle
Ruling Allows Activists To Sue Over Disclosure
Bay Area political activists who have sued a Jewish
civil rights organization are entitled to learn whether
the group illegally disclosed confidential information
about them, a state appeals court ruled yesterday .
The ruling by the Court of Appeals should enable the
activists to go to trial in their long-stalled suit
against the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.
The activists' suit, which asks for class-action
status for as many as 1,000 people, relies on a state law
banning disclosure of confidential government
information, with damages of $2,500 for each disclosure.
Filed in 1993, the suit has been delayed by a dispute
over the confidentiality of ADL files.
ADL regional director Barbara Bergen said that
although the decision "leaves open the possibility of
limited future discovery from the League," ADL officials
predicted it would lead to a legal victory for the group
in future litigation. The organization, which publishes
newsletters about hate groups, has the legal status of a
journalist, and it says it is therefore entitled to keep
its files and sources confidential.
The appeals court, however, ruled 3 to 0 that the
ADL could not keep its files secret if they were used for
nonjournalistic activity.[/justify]
Nous serons toujours là.
-
Dejuificator II
- Erudit
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:47 pm
[justify][large]David Duke Exploiting Anti-Semitism in Russia -ADL[/large]
Source: Reuters, February 26, 2001
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) ? White supremacist David Duke has launched a campaign to exploit anti-Semitism in Russia, a nation he considers ripe to accept his racist theories, a Jewish organization said on Monday.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said in a report on anti-Semitism in present-day Russia that Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi leader, considered the country key to ?white survival.?
?There is an underbelly of anti-Semitism in Russia which David Duke is hoping to add to and exploit,? said Abraham Foxman, ADL national director.
?Anti-Semitism, with deep roots in Russia is being stirred up by nationalist leaders and extremists,? he said. ?David Duke has detected an opportunity to spread his hatred of Jews and other minority groups to like-minded bigots.?
Duke was in Russia on Monday and unavailable for comment, his personal assistant, Roy Armstrong, said. But Armstrong described the ADL report as ?bulls?? and ?pure defamation? and said Duke was in Russia to expose the activities of ?Zionist Jewish figures involved in Mafia activities, organized crime and prostitution.?
An article on his web site, (http:/www.davidduke.com), is headlined: ?Is Russia the Key to White Survival?? and calls the former Soviet Union a ?white nation? that is threatened by the ?overwhelmingly Jewish? Russian Mafia.
The ADL said in its report that Duke has made several visits to Russia to meet with nationalist leaders and promote a Russian translation of a Duke book titled called ?The Jewish Question Through the Eyes of an American.?
The ADL said that while Duke was notorious as a white supremacist in the United States, he has introduced himself to an unsuspecting Russia as a respected author and politician. It said Duke has met with well-known anti-Semitic leaders in Russia and expressed a desire to move there and work with extremists.
The ADL said 18 major attacks on Jews and Jewish property were reported in Russia in 2000 and that likely many more went unreported. The group said that Russian ultra-nationalists were working to increase their presence.[/justify]
Source: Reuters, February 26, 2001
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) ? White supremacist David Duke has launched a campaign to exploit anti-Semitism in Russia, a nation he considers ripe to accept his racist theories, a Jewish organization said on Monday.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said in a report on anti-Semitism in present-day Russia that Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi leader, considered the country key to ?white survival.?
?There is an underbelly of anti-Semitism in Russia which David Duke is hoping to add to and exploit,? said Abraham Foxman, ADL national director.
?Anti-Semitism, with deep roots in Russia is being stirred up by nationalist leaders and extremists,? he said. ?David Duke has detected an opportunity to spread his hatred of Jews and other minority groups to like-minded bigots.?
Duke was in Russia on Monday and unavailable for comment, his personal assistant, Roy Armstrong, said. But Armstrong described the ADL report as ?bulls?? and ?pure defamation? and said Duke was in Russia to expose the activities of ?Zionist Jewish figures involved in Mafia activities, organized crime and prostitution.?
An article on his web site, (http:/www.davidduke.com), is headlined: ?Is Russia the Key to White Survival?? and calls the former Soviet Union a ?white nation? that is threatened by the ?overwhelmingly Jewish? Russian Mafia.
The ADL said in its report that Duke has made several visits to Russia to meet with nationalist leaders and promote a Russian translation of a Duke book titled called ?The Jewish Question Through the Eyes of an American.?
The ADL said that while Duke was notorious as a white supremacist in the United States, he has introduced himself to an unsuspecting Russia as a respected author and politician. It said Duke has met with well-known anti-Semitic leaders in Russia and expressed a desire to move there and work with extremists.
The ADL said 18 major attacks on Jews and Jewish property were reported in Russia in 2000 and that likely many more went unreported. The group said that Russian ultra-nationalists were working to increase their presence.[/justify]
Nous serons toujours là.