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

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]Days of Remembrance[/large]

Source: Committee for the Re-Examination of the History of the Second World War, CRHSWW Bulletin #25

Days of Remembrance / A Department of Defense
Guide for Commemorative Observance.

The front cover also bears the inscriptions: ?This book was produced with the assistance and cooperation of the International Center for Holocaust Studies of the Anti-Defamation League of B?nai B?rith./OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.? U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988 (207-121-814/80028). 96 pages, 27.6 x21 centimeters. 27 illustrations plus two maps.

Reviewed by Charles E. Weber, Ph.D.

Although reviewers customarily place their value judgments of books toward the ends of their reviews, I can not refrain from stating my evaluation at the outset: This book is an outrage. Although the book takes a strongly biased position on a controversial historical question of great importance, all American taxpayers have been forced to pay for its production. This book is an outrage against those members of our armed forces who are sincerely trying to provide security for the United States. It is an outrage against historical reality. It is an outrage against the most important European member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), namely Germany, without whose cooperation the defense of western Europe would hardly be possible. No book could be better calculated to play into the hands of the Kremlin by causing disunity amongst the member nations of the NATO. It repeats propaganda lies against the German nation which have been disproved by competent scholars. How can we Americans expect Germans to tolerate the mendacious abuse against them in this book and still cooperate in the defense of western Europe? Finally, it is an outrage against persons of German extraction who pay taxes to the United States.

The contents of this book are largely a compilation of quotations from the works of various authors, with occasional brief comments on them (pp. 22-88). Prominent amongst these quotations are those from the works of Elie Wiesel, whose improbable tales, self-contradictions and arrogant reproach of President Reagan on his famous visit to the cemetery in Bitburg have made him the object of derision by revisionists. A work frequently quoted also is Jay Lifton?s The Nazi Doctors, which was reviewed in Bulletin 21.

This book contains a good many samples of the errors and absurdities which have caused many people capable of independent critical thought to suspect that the ?Holocaust? material is essentially a fraud propagated with well calculated purposes. Limitations of space allow us to mention only a few examples.

On page 18 the statement is made that German forces were ?within 20 miles of Moscow? on 22 June, 1941. In reality, they were, at their closest, about 500 miles from Moscow on that day, the day on which ?Operation Barbarossa? commenced. Such an elementary mistake about the basic history of the Second World War must make the reader question the reliability of the contents of the book as a whole.

On the same page there is also repeated the long-disproved absurdity of the claim that fat from corpses of Jews was used to manufacture soap. For the disproof, see The Journal of Historical Review, Volume I, no. 2, pp. 131-139, where the origin of the absurdity is traced to a false interpretation of the initials ?RIF? on some soap (i.e., Reichsstelle fuer Insustrielle Fettversorgung ? National Office for the Supply of Industrial Fats) as ?Rein Juedisches Fett? (= purely Jewish fat).

On page 39 the claim is made that in one (unspecified) camp 36 ovens were capable of ?burning 500 bodies an hour.? It takes only a little fifth-grade arithmetic to calculate that this means that each unit could reduce to ashes approximately eleven bodies an hour, while even modern crematory units require about two hours for one body. A somewhat similar absurdity occurs on page 68, where it is claimed that in the spring and early summer of 1942 ?hundreds of thousands of Jews were being gassed every day at Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka.? Assuming 200,000 Jews every day and a period of 120 days, that would mean the gassing of 24,000,000 Jews, many times the maximal number of Jews under German control, which has been estimated at about 3,800,000.

On page 47 the book is spiced up with a sort of Freudian episode, viz., the claim that the camp commander at Flossenburg masturbated at the sight of inmates being tortured.



On page 48 the claim is made that bodies were burned in ?large trenches? at Auschwitz, which was in an area with a high level of ground water. Bodies require a great deal of fuel and oxygen to reduce them to ashes, so that it would not make sense to burn them in pits, where the supply of oxygen would be limited, even if there were no problem of ground water seeping into the pits.

On Page 93 it is claimed that the Wannsee Conference held in January, 1942 planned ?the annihilation of the Jewish people.? (Never mind the fact that only a modest fraction of the Jewish people was ever under German control.) Anyone who has ever read carefully the text of the minutes of this conference could note that it contains no such plans, rather plans for the deportation and employment of Jews. (These minutes are known as the ?Wannsee-Protokoll,? of which only one copy is known out of 30 which were supposedly prepared and classified as secret.) As Prof. Robert Faurisson of the University of Lyons has pointed out, the Wannsee-Protokoll even contemplates the eventual release of the inmates in the phrase, ?bei Freilassung.? Also on page 93 there is even confusion about the dates of the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto, which started on 19 April, 1943.

The map on page 33 claims that the following numbers of Jews from various countries were ?murdered?:

450,000 Hungary

210,000 Germany and Austria

105,000 Holland

90,000 France

80,000 Bohemia and Moravia

75,000 Slovakia

54,000 Greece

40,000 Belgium

26,000 Yugoslavia

14,000 Bulgaria

8,000 Italy

1,000 Luxembourg

900 Norway

1,253,900 Total

Of the six million or so Jews commonly claimed by Zionists to have been ?murdered? while in German captivity, the other nearly five million thus claimed were living in countries occupied or partly occupied by the USSR before June, 1941. During or after the war, the Baltic republics, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, central Germany, Hungary, Poland and Romania were all made part of the Soviet empire with little real sovereignty. For that reason we are dealing with statistics pertaining to Jewish mortality during the war which originated from areas held by communists, who have a strong interest in exaggerating statistics on alleged German crimes in order to make obscure the crimes which the USSR itself committed, such as the Katyn massacres, the genocidal starvation of millions of Ukrainians in the early 1930s, etc. (For an example of the Communist falsification of statistics, see pp. 98-106 of Alfred Schickel?s Vergessene Zeitgeschichte, which was reviewed in Bulletin 18.)

Approximately three million Jews migrated to Palestine after 1939 in addition to huge numbers of them who migrated to various other countries throughout the world. The 90,000 mentioned on the map on page 33 in the case of France are just a little more than one-tenth of the total living in France according to the Wannsee-Protokoll of 20 January, 1942. In view of the fact that the Jewish populations of western Europe were aging as a result of low reproductive rates, natural attrition could easily account for the 90,000 deaths if the number given in the Wannsee-Protokoll, 865,000, is correct. We also know from a Zionist source (Maurice Bisgyer?s Challenge and Encounter, 1967) that approximately as many Jews were living after the war in what is now the territory of the German Federal Republic as there were in 1939 (see Bulletin 9). Even Days of Remembrance, page 33, concedes in fine type under the map: ?There is no way to establish an accurate figure for the total number of Jews murdered in the Final Solution.? Indeed! If the real number of Jews who died from one cause or another while in German captivity could ever be determined, it would probably be a quite modest one in comparison with the number of Germans murdered during the expulsions after the war (see Bulletin 18) or the number of Ukrainians deliberately starved to death in the early 1930s by the Communists. The chaotic conditions and corpses of victims of diseases in such camps as Bergen-Belsen at the time they were liberated by advancing Allied armies furnished shocking pictures, but what fraction of six million do these corpses represent? Such conditions were largely caused by the paralysis of transportation facilities by Allied bombings and the general scarcity of food in Europe as a result of the Allied blockade. For a detailed analysis of the difficult subject of the extent of Jewish mortality during the Second World War, see Walter Sanning, The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry (1983). For a brief summary of the evidence against the Extermination Thesis in general, see Bulletins 14 and 15.

The historical distortions which Days of Remembrance projects are even more a result of what it does not contain than what it does contain. The central fault of this book lies in the fact that it presents only one side of an important argument and that the book was published at the expense of all American taxpayers. Many books written by Zionist authors and by lackeys of Zionists are recommended in the sections entitled ?Further Reading? (pp. 32, 38, 53, 60, 70, 83), but not one revisionist title of the growing number of them concerning the Extermination Thesis is included. There is no mention of the genocidal threats against the German people in such a book as Germany Must Perish (1941), the massacres of the German population in the Bromberg area in September, 1939, the hunger blockade of the European continent from 1939 to 1945, the fact that partisan warfare (p.81) and typhus epidemics (see Bulletin 13) were important reasons for the decision, finally, to intern the Jews 2-1/2 years after the outbreak of the war, the irresponsible demand for the unconditional surrender of Germany, the useless bombing of Dresden, etc. As we know today, the Germans? fears of genocide were well founded, since about 3,000,000 of them died at the end of the war and during the following year or so in conjunction with the brutal expulsion actions (see Bulletin 23).

There is no mention of the shameful Allied Operation Keelhaul, in which hundreds of thousands of anti-Communist Russians were turned over to almost certain death at the hands of Stalin. No mention is made in the book of our interning persons of Japanese descent within a few weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor, presumably for reasons of military security. By contrast, German authorities were so dilatory about interning Jews that as late as April, 1943, some 32 months after the outbreak of the war, there were still so many Jews left in the Warsaw ghetto that they were able to hold off German military forces for weeks during their uprising.

There is no mention of the facts that Hitler?s hostility toward Jews was partly a result of American influences and that eugenic sterilization (to which the book makes a number of references) was not introduced in Germany until 1933, long after the practice had commenced in the United States (see Bulletin 5 and 21). Were the compilers of this book too ignorant to have pointed out such facts or were they simply too dishonest to have done so? Although it is argued (pp. 39 and 71) that the suffering of Jews in Europe during the war was unique, no mention is made of the genocidal, deliberate starvation of millions of Ukrainians during the early 1930s by the Communists (see Bulletin 7), for example. Finally, Days of Remembrance avoids any objective analysis of the main reasons for the hostility toward Jews so prevalent throughout Europe after 1917; the perception that Communism, with its gross cruelty, was essentially a Jewish phenomenon and the perceived economic gains which Jews made at the expense of their host populations as a result of the hyperinflations in central and eastern Europe.

Although such nonsense and questionable, biased material as that which has been enumerated above are commonly contained in other Zionist publications, it is quite frightening to contemplate their occurrence in a book published by ?our? Department of Defense, a book which even includes strong recommendations for it over the signatures of President Ronald Reagan and Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci. These recommendations (pp. 2 and 3) are in the form of letters dated 8 February, 1988 and accompanied by the smiling portraits of these two gentlemen. There can thus be no doubt that President Reagan and Secretary Carlucci must be held responsible for the publication of this book, with its prejudiced, irresponsible and mendacious contents.

Another frightening aspect of this book is the detailed set of instructions for indoctrinating U.S. military personnel (pp. 6-21), which even include sample plans for a ceremony. The compilers of this book are so confident that such indoctrination of military personnel will be extended over a period of many years that they even include observation dates projected for the years 1988 to 2000 (p. 16).

A sharp bone which keeps sticking in the throats of the Zionists, however, are the silence and inaction by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Not only that, important Jews close to Roosevelt, such as Rosenman, Lehman, Baruch and Frankfurter showed little concern about the ?Holocaust? alleged to have been taking place at the time (pp. 67-68). Could it be that these men, with their access to all sorts of intelligence reports, had no ?Holocaust? with which to be concerned? Roosevelt, with his nearly pathological hatred of Germans, would certainly have shouted into many microphones about a ?Holocaust? if one had actually been going on. Why, too, did Pius XII maintain his famous ?silence? about the alleged extermination actions?

In one of the most frightening passages in the whole book, ?Rudolf, son of a Nazi, interviewed by Peter Sichrovsky? declares that he had decided to put an end to his noble lineage by never having any children as a result of his feeling of guilt (pp. 85-86). Germany, in fact, has such a low birthrate that during the coming years its aging population will shrink rapidly, to be replaced by immigrants from many lands.

Why was Days of Remembrance published at a time when the world is aghast at the almost daily criminal behavior of the Jewish state in Palestine? Is the purpose of the book to gain some sort of sympathy and understanding for Jewish members of the armed forces? That could hardly be the case because at present there are extremely few Jewish members of the armed forces. Was the purpose of the book to combat the traditionally hostile, widespread attitudes toward and distrust of Jews on the part of the American officer corps, attitudes intensified by the Israel attack on the ?Liberty?? Was the purpose to justify our role in Europe during and after the Second World War, a war which left nearly half of Europe (west of the western boundaries of the USSR as of 1938) under the tyranny of the Communists and which left the nations which had fought Communism in economic and physical ruin? Or was there a more immediate purpose? Is the Department of Defense contemplating the possibility that our troops will be ordered to defend the criminal Jewish state in Palestine, which has come to be such an abomination to so many Americans? Whatever the motivations for publishing this book at the expense of the American taxpayers, its publication calls for a loud protest. Is the publication of this book an act which none dare call treason? We shall probably be justified at some future time in considering the publication of this book a major blemish on the eight-year administration of Ronald Reagan.

Charles E. Weber, Ph.D., is Chairman of Committee for the Re-Examination of the History of the Second World War. This review was published in CRHSWW Bulletin #25.[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]The Defamation League[/large]
Eric Alterman
January 28, 2009

Take, for example, Foxman?s recent attack on Bill Moyers (a longstanding friend and occasional supporter of my work). When Moyers broadcast a less than laudatory commentary about Israel?s Gaza invasion, Foxman accused the veteran journalist and liberal icon of?I kid you not??moral equivalency, racism, historical revisionism, and indifference to terrorism.? (You can read it online, together with Moyers?s response.) The incident says far more about Foxman than Moyers. As M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum observed, Moyers ?is one of the most admired figures in America. This attack will harm not at all. It will, in fact, enhance his reputation just as Ed Murrow?s was enhanced by the attacks on him during the McCarthy era.? Still, it is demonstrative of the maximalist Manichaean mindset that characterizes so much of American Jewish officialdom. Among Moyers?s myriad sins, says Foxman, was his ?ignorance of the terrorist threat against Israel, claiming that checkpoints, the security fence, and the Gaza operation are tactics of humiliation rather than counter-terrorism.? Now really: is it so hard to imagine that the checkpoints, security fence and Gaza operations are tactics of both humiliation and counter-terrorism? Where, exactly, would be the contradiction?

But for the likes of Foxman, any action Israel takes is de facto defensive and solely in the interests of peace, no matter how warlike. He goes so far as to attack Barack Obama?s choice of former Senator George Mitchell as the US envoy to the region because?get this?Mitchell is ?fair? and ?meticulously even-handed,? and Foxman says he is ?not sure the situation requires that kind of approach.? Foxman?s moral compass has gotten so twisted, he has the ADL working to undermine Congressional resolutions condemning genocide?specifically, that committed by Turks against the Armenians. Foxman does not dispute that genocide took place; rather, he argues that it would be inconvenient for Turkish (and Israeli) Jews were Congress to take note of it. So we have reached a point where an organization founded by Jews in 1913 to ?secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike? is now in the business of defaming those with whom its director disagrees and purposely turning a blind eye to genocide. In light of the desire of so many anti-Semites to treat the Holocaust in a similar fashion, Foxman?s position strikes this Jew at least as one too many ironies to be tolerated.

What?s more, the defamation of Moyers escalated further. Following Foxman?s fusillade, New York Times neocon William Kristol inserted in a regular column?yet another devoted as usual to the majesty of George W. Bush?s leadership?an attack on Moyers for allegedly ?lambast[ing] Israel for what he called its ?state terrorism,? its ?waging war on an entire population? in Gaza.? Like Foxman, Kristol also implied that Moyers was guilty of racism.

Again, read the text of Moyers?s remarks. Neither Kristol nor Foxman notes his stated belief that ?every nation has the right to defend its people. Israel is no exception, all the more so because Hamas would like to see every Jew in Israel dead,? or his deep concern about the growth of ?a radical stream of Islam [that] now seeks to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth.? Yet despite the fact that Bill Moyers is, well, Bill Moyers, the Times editors not only allowed Kristol to deliberately distort and decontextualize his remarks; they would not allow Moyers to defend himself in his own words in response. After the PBS journalist submitted a letter to the editor, he was told, ?We will not print that ?William Kristol distorts or misrepresents,? and the editors will not budge.? They insisted that the letter be changed for publication to read, ?I take strong exception to William Kristol?s characterization,? and they truncated much else.

This is pathetic and ridiculous. If one were to survey, say, 1,000 journalists or even 1,000 New York Times readers and ask them whether they were more likely to trust the judgment, honesty or bravery of Bill Moyers or of William Kristol, my guess is that the result would be a landslide victory in Moyers?s favor that would dwarf that of Barack Obama?s over John McCain. I?d even bet the same would be true in a private survey of Times editors. Yet publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal?rather than admit their colossal mistake in giving so prestigious and influential a perch to Kristol, who was at long last ushered off the page with his next column just one week later?instead chose to empower his McCarthyite slanders against one of America?s most distinguished patriots and practitioners of their profession.

Writing in the Israeli newspaper Ha?aretz, the celebrated author and patriot David Grossman termed the Gaza operation ?just one more way-station on a road paved with fire, violence and hatred,? and added, ?our conduct here in this region has, for a long time, been flawed, immoral and unwise.?

When Foxman and Kristol have the guts to go after Grossman?who, after all, lost his son two years ago in a war both men supported from the comfort of their armchairs?then perhaps we might take seriously their complaints about the relatively moderate sentiments expressed by Moyers. Until then, I fear, we must chalk up their ideological fanaticism and their moral and intellectual confusion as yet another casualty of this endlessly destructive conflict.[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]Desperate Fanatics : The ADL Pounds The Table ![/large]

By Alan Sabrosky

Fanatics, it has been observed, are those who redouble their efforts when they lose sight of their goal, or at least feel its attainment slipping from their grasp. This describes precisely the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), founded in 1913 principally to combat anti-Semitism and closely linked since its inception to the emerging Zionist movement, which increasingly has resorted to the defamation of Israel?s critics as part of its avowed mission to support ?the Jewish State by advocating for Israel.?

It really isn?t surprising that the ADL, along with AIPAC (the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the brigade of associated organizations lobbying for Israel, should employ such tactics. Like lawyers obliged to pound the courtroom table when law and evidence are both against their client, the ADL is faced with the uncomfortable reality that both international law and the evidence on the ground condemn Israel as a rogue state, saved from sanctions and embargoes only by US vetoes in the UN Security Council and endless references to an historical Holocaust perpetrated by Europeans, all to sidestep condemnation and culpability for their systemic oppression of Palestinians who had nothing to do with it.

The New Anti-Semitism

The ADL?s shift in emphasis from justifiably combating bigotry (the ?old? anti-Semitism) to being an advocate for Israel by suppressing critics and criticism of Israel?s misconduct (the ?new? anti-Semitism) has been dramatic. The difficulty is that the so-called ?new anti-Semitism? is so wide-ranging in scope that it encompasses almost everyone who is not an Israeli partisan, while anyone who criticizes Israeli war crimes or the Zionist lobby?s support of Israel becomes in their lexicon an indictable accessory after the fact to the architects of the Holocaust.

The ADL understands that while the national mainstream media can be manipulated and elected politicians can be bought, none of that would matter greatly if the American public ever learned what actually happens in the Middle East. Disinformation alone is not enough; critics need to be discredited and, if necessary, destroyed as well. Character assassination is a common place weapon. Outright lies and half-truths confuse the issues. Bribes and coercion in the form of political contributions or so-called ?charitable? donations given or withheld add muscle to their efforts. A large stable of syndicated columnists disseminate their propaganda and erode the legitimacy of their victims.

The ADL and its cohorts have enjoyed a remarkable string of successes over the years in implementing this strategy, but a series of recent developments have started to shake its pillars. One is the growth of the internet, and with it the availability of news from sources that the Zionists can neither manage nor contain. Another was the brutal onslaught against Gaza in 2008-2009, conducted to applause from then-President Bush and the US Congress but an upswing in criticism of Israel, especially in the Jewish community. A third was AIPAC?s successful opposition to the appointment of a distinguished diplomat named Charles Freeman to a senior intelligence post, a success undermined in part because the timing dictated that it be done so publicly. And the last was the election in Israel of a government that would openly and accurately be characterized as ?fascist? if it had come to power anywhere else, further unsettling many of the ADL?s erstwhile supporters, who could tolerate (barely) Netanyahu?s return but viewed Avigdor Lieberman with distaste or loathing.

The Price of Arrogance

A misreading of these developments plus a measure of arrogance led the ADL to make one of the few serious missteps in its history, when it attempted to use its influence to pressure the University of California to censure a professor at the Santa Barbara campus who had used highly critical graphics of Israel?s assault on Gaza in his class. That the professor, William Robinson, was Jewish made the ADL?s efforts more pointed, because Jewish critics of Israel are more difficult for them to counter ? labels like ?self-hating Jew? don?t go quite as far as ?neo-Nazi? and the like. The details are available elsewhere (see links below), but the ADL ended up with mud on its organizational face when the campus community rallied around Professor Robinson and the administration rejected (albeit belatedly) their effort.

When it looked like the ADL?s action would succeed, the international director of a pro-Zionist group called ?Stand With Us? had stated ?that the investigation against sociology professor William I. Robinson could set a precedent for more action against Israel critics at other universities.? When it didn?t end the way they expected, they turned out not to be good losers, putting this spin on the outcome at their website: If you are concerned about our college campuses, here is an important bulletin: UCSB professors are free to peddle propaganda designed to indoctrinate students with their personal prejudices. Neither professional conduct codes nor intellectual standards set limits on this freedom. Anything goes. This anarchy is defended in the name of ?academic freedom.?

One must concede that pro-Zionist groups are better than most at identifying propaganda and prejudice, if only because they themselves indulge in so much of it. They just aren?t used to losing, but they had better get ready to lose a good deal more in the future. Too much is happening that they cannot either conceal or finesse, and images from Gaza and elsewhere tell a tale to Americans and others that all of the verbiage from the Zionist propaganda machine simply cannot counter indefinitely.

But perhaps ADL and company have the right of it in one respect, and the new definition of anti-Semitism is any criticism of any domestic or foreign policy of the state of Israel, or of any action on the part of some Jews in the Diaspora in support of Israel. So be it. In that case, the rest of us need to understand that the oppression of Palestinians and the victimization of Israel?s neighbors are crimes that cry out for opposition, no matter what label their perpetrators try to hang on it. And if opposing those crimes is now anti-Semitism, according to the ADL, then anti-Semitism in its new form has become a badge of honor to be worn with pride by people of conscience everywhere.[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]Disgusting Jews Suppress Christmas Celebrations[/large]

Source: U.S. Newswire | November 18, 2002

[Jews blindly shuffle themselves towards the slaughterhouse.]

ADL Offers Guidance for Negotiating
?December Dilemma?

ADL Offers Schools, Public Institutions ?Guidance? For Negotiating the ?December Dilemma?

NEW YORK ? With the 2002 holiday season set to begin, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has reached out to public schools and public institutions nationwide with materials and information to help foster constitutionally permissible recognitions of the December holidays.

?We want to work together with schools, parents and community leaders to ensure that classrooms as well as the content of special events, assemblies, concerts and programs held this time of year are welcoming to all, regardless of faith or beliefs,? said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. ?By providing information that minimizes any sense of discomfort during the December holiday season, we can help America?s schools and public institutions approach the holidays in a constitutionally sound and educationally ideal manner.?

As a guardian of the constitutional guarantee of the separation of church and state, ADL routinely offers advice and guidelines to help successfully negotiate court limitations and common questions and concerns in regard to the ?December Dilemma.? At this time of year, the League fields more requests for guidance on church-state issues than at any other period.

A letter is being disseminated through ADL?s 30 regional offices nationwide to school districts, emphasizing the need to be cautious in how they employ religious symbols and teach about the holidays. ?By choosing to celebrate certain religious holidays,? the letter states, ?schools run the risk of sending the message that they favor certain faiths over others.?

Some of matters highlighted and explained in detail by ADL include:

The difference between practicing religion and teaching about religion
Guidelines for holiday assemblies, concerts and other public school activities where religious themes or music may be performed
Choosing appropriate holiday symbols to decorate school grounds
Choosing appropriate holiday activities
Understanding what can ? and cannot ? be displayed on city property

The League will also place special emphasis on classroom and educational issues surrounding the ?December Dilemma? at [small]http://www.adl.org/education[/small]. Among the many resources are non-religious materials and activities for the classroom, a detailed question-and-answer page and a printable graphic of acceptable public displays during the holidays.

Contact: Myrna Shinbaum, 212-885-7747
Sara Ladenheim, 212-885-7715
both of the Anti-Defamation League[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify]Source: AlterNet.org | August 28, 2000

[large]FBI Calling the Kettle Black[/large]

by Tim Wise, AlterNet

That I?m no Biblical scholar is an understatement of monumental proportions. And yet, recently I found myself ? for reasons I?ll explain shortly ? thinking of the following verse from the book of Matthew, if memory serves:

Why behold the mote in thy brother?s eye, but consider not the beam in thine own eye?

Arcane language aside, let it suffice to say this verse has something to do with what we?d now refer to as the ?pot calling the kettle black.?

Upon reading the headline of my local paper a few weeks ago, I couldn?t help but think of these pots, and kettles, and motes, and beams. For there, in black and white was the following:

?Police role in Holocaust added to FBI Agent?s training.?

According to the article, FBI Director Louis Freeh has implemented new training for Bureau recruits, to ?teach of the failure of law enforcement to protect citizen?s rights,? in Nazi Germany. According to Freeh, the course will demonstrate the evil of law enforcement when it ?abandons its mission to protect people,? and becomes ?an engine of repression.?

Applauded by the Anti-Defamation League, the new training takes recruits on a guided tour of the Holocaust Museum and then asks them to write essays on the relevance of the training to their work. One recruit who went through the process explained it had made clear his duty to ?preserve human life and protect the civil rights of every man, woman and child.?

How nice. Presumably if Hitler ever comes back, this recruit will make sure to stand tall against the impending threat of German fascism, since apparently, that?s the only kind worth fretting over, and the only kind capable of teaching the lesson intended here. The pot calling the kettle black, indeed.

One hardly need travel thousands of miles away and a half-century back in time to demonstrate the complicity of law enforcement with repression. Frankly, new FBI recruits would do better to learn about the nefarious history of their own employer, which provides more than enough examples of the same phenomena Freeh seeks to demonstrate.

The new training spends a great deal of time discussing the passivity of German law enforcement in the face of growing repression under the Third Reich. But we needn?t look to Hitler?s regime for that lesson.

After all, FBI agents were notorious for standing around, watching, and doing nothing while civil rights workers and freedom riders were beaten by racists throughout the South in the 1960?s.

Just ask Howard Zinn: he?ll tell you how FBI agents looked him in the eye and insisted they had no power to do anything, even as Selma, Alabama police below the Bureau?s own window, dragged, beat, and shocked with stun guns those seeking to register black voters.

Or how, in 1964, J. Edgar Hoover waited 37 hours after the disappearance of three other civil rights workers in Philadelphia, Mississippi before finally beginning a pathetically weak investigation.

Or how FBI operative, Gary Rowe, rode along with the assassins of Viola Liuzzo, after the Selma to Montgomery march, knowing they planned to kill someone, and yet, did nothing.

And as for the new training?s discussion of how law enforcement sometimes takes an active role in repression, here too it?s hardly necessary to study German history.

As noted in Michael Linfield?s book, Freedom Under Fire, by the late 1920?s, the FBI had already compiled an ?enemies list? of nearly half-a-million suspected ?subversives,? and in 1936, even as Hitler was consolidating his power, President Roosevelt authorized the Bureau to spy on organizations considered ?dangerous.? Four years later, FDR would authorize massive wiretapping by the Bureau, increasing the number of ?anti-subversive? investigations to nearly 70,000 annually. From 1947-1952, the FBI conducted roughly 6.6 million ?security investigations? of U.S. citizens: about 3000 such actions every day.

And for involvement with direct repression, you can?t get much better than the 2,400 or so FBI COINTELPRO operations to ?disrupt and neutralize? targeted groups and individuals from the mid-?50-?s to 1971. According to declassified documents and a Senate Committee investigation (about which I doubt FBI recruits are informed), the Bureau actively attempted to discredit and destroy the civil rights movement, the antiwar movement, and dozens of organizations dedicated to Black, Latino, and Indigenous liberation.

Martin Luther King Jr. may be a revered icon today, but from the early 1960?s until his death, the Bureau marked him for political (if not literal) destruction by wiretapping his phones (with the approval of Attorney General and liberal hero Bobby Kennedy), as well as spreading rumors about marital infidelity and sending him letters encouraging him to commit suicide. A month before his assassination, Hoover wrote that there was a need to ?pinpoint potential troublemakers? in the black movement, ?and neutralize them.? William Sullivan ? the agent in charge of the anti-King operation ? told the Senate, ?No holds were barred. We?ve used similar techniques against Soviet agents. We did not differentiate. This is a rough business.?

One suspects the new recruits are too busy learning about the suppression of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising to be told that the agency they?ve joined conspired with Chicago police in 1969 to assassinate Black Panther Party leader Fred Hampton, by providing them with detailed floor plans of Hampton?s apartment prior to a raid they knew the police were planning to launch. Or that the Bureau collaborated with other police departments in killing nearly 30 Panthers in the late ?60?s and early ?70?s.

One imagines the new FBI recruits writing heartfelt essays about the horrors of Kristallnacht, while studiously ignoring their employer?s admitted role in fomenting the factional dispute within the Nation of Islam that led to the assassination of Malcolm X, or their all-out war on the American Indian Movement that led to the murder of over seventy residents of Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota.

I can only guess that these FBI recruits will emerge from their Holocaust training with a newfound revulsion for the support given racism and Nazism by German police, but with no knowledge of their own agency?s financial support of a group of white supremacists from California who attacked Chicano activists and tried to murder anti-war activist Peter Bohmer in 1972.

Figuring that most of the new recruits probably grew up in the Reagan ?80?s, they should perhaps know ? but I?m sure won?t be told ? that even after COINTELPRO, the FBI continued spying on domestic organizations. Early in his administration, President Reagan ? himself a former FBI informant against fellow actors ? issued Executive Order 12333, allowing the FBI to wiretap without a warrant and engage in undercover operations against organizations opposed to his Central America policies.

One of the FBI?s key infiltrators in this period, Frank Varelli, has said the FBI paid him to destroy the Dallas chapter of the Committee in Solidarity With the People of El Salvador (CISPES) by burglarizing member homes, recruiting thugs to start fights at CISPES rallies, and even seducing an activist nun so as to procure blackmail photos for use against the group. The FBI encouraged him to plant guns on CISPES members, and Varelli regularly passed information on U.S. and Central American-based activists to the Salvadoran National Guard: the entity in control of that nation?s vicious death squads, responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Salvadorans.

And I would imagine Freeh?s new foot soldiers will learn all about the diabolical experiments conducted on twins by Joseph Mengele, but nothing about the program operated by the FBI?s sister agency ? the CIA ? called MK ULTRA, whereby unsuspecting residents of the San Francisco Bay area were intentionally exposed to a whooping cough virus, and unwitting hospital patients were subjected to chemical experiments using hallucinogenic drugs.

And while we?re on the subject of Nazis, one can only wonder if the Holocaust Museum will mention that after World War Two, U.S. intelligence agencies helped over 5,000 Nazi scientists and doctors find refuge in the states, including many who had been directly involved in mass atrocities. Somehow, I doubt it.

That the Anti-Defamation League is giddy about the new training ought to be enough evidence that there is something wrong with it: after all, it was this group?s San Francisco area affiliates who were exposed in the early ?90?s as having spied on, and passed information to the FBI about, assorted Central American peace and justice activists, as well as anti-apartheid activists and those supporting Palestinian rights and liberation. Birds of a feather, are, in this instance, flocking very closely together.

Let this serve as yet another exhibit item, to be filed away under ?passing the buck,? 101: yet further proof that we are more than comfortable discussing the crimes of others, but still unwilling to peek under the hood of our own engines of repression. The one thing the FBI?s new attempt at ?tolerance training? apparently can?t tolerate, is the truth that hits a bit too close to home.

Tim Wise is a Nashville-based writer, activist, and lecturer. He can be reached at tjwise@mindspring.com.[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify]Source: National Vanguard Magazine ? Number 114

[large]Freedom Under Attack[/large]

The government assault on the Second Amendment has been much in the news this year. Less noticed, however, even by the Second Amendment?s fervent defenders, has been the ongoing effort to scrap the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Just as with the effort against the Second Amendment, which has been depicted by the mass media as an effort to ?control crime,? the campaigns against other fundamental liberties have been mounted under false rubrics for the purpose of deception. The enemies of the First Amendment, for example, want their efforts to stamp out Politically Incorrect speech to be viewed as a campaign for ?human rights.? Paramount among these human rights, in their view, is the right to feel good about oneself at all times (unless, of course, one is a heterosexual White male): hence, any spoken or printed word which may be offensive to members of an officially favored segment of the population is to be banned.

The efforts to stamp out ?offensive? speech have been reported earlier in these pages: see, for example, ?The Campaign to Outlaw ?Hate?? in issue No. 111, and ?The Destruction of the Academy? in issue No. 112. Unfortunately, the enthusiasm of the speech regulators for their work continues to grow. At the same time that they are becoming more Orwellian in their efforts, they are having more success at enlisting the police powers of the state to back them up.

In some recent cases the law already has gone far beyond anything George Orwell himself could have imagined. In 1988 Congress enacted the Fair Housing Amendments Act (an enhancement of the Fair Housing Act of 1968), imposing severe criminal and civil penalties on anyone who interferes with the housing rights of federally favored groups. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which administers both acts, interprets as illegal interference any complaint?even a letter to a newspaper?about any of its projects to homogenize the U.S. population by establishing housing projects for its favored groups in predominantly White areas. It has sued or threatened criminal and/or civil action against a number of complainers recently: people who have objected to HUD plans for ?rehabilitation centers? or ?group homes? in their neighborhoods to house drug addicts or homeless alcoholics, for example. (The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 added mentally and physically handicapped persons to the federally favored list, and HUD and the courts since have ruled that alcoholics, drug addicts, and persons with AIDS are included among the handicapped.)

HUD?s campaign to imprison or bankrupt dissenters has been in the spotlight recently as the result of its threats against three Berkeley, California, residents?Alexandra White, Joseph Deringer, and Richard Graham?who protested HUD plans to establish a housing project for homeless alcoholics in their neighborhood. Before recent publicity caused HUD to back off a bit, the three were threatened with a year in prison and fines of $100,000 each if they did not cease their protests. They were ordered to turn over to HUD all of their correspondence, memoranda, press statements, and other papers connected with their objections to the project, so that government lawyers could look for evidence against them.

If this sounds like HUD never heard about the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, don?t be alarmed. Assistant Secretary Roberta Achtenberg, the lesbian Jewess appointed by Bill Clinton to the second-ranking position in HUD, has assured reporters covering the aforementioned Berkeley case that HUD will not infringe the Constitutional rights of persons who object to its projects?provided that their objections are not based on the specific characteristics of the favored group for whom the housing is being provided.

Thus, HUD will not bring charges against someone who objects to a home for persons with AIDS being established in his neighborhood, if his objection is that the home would be too far from the nearest hospital or that the neighborhood lacks other facilities needed by the home?s residents. But if he objects that people with AIDS are a generally unsavory lot?homosexuals, non-Whites, drug addicts?and he doesn?t want his children coming in contact with them, then the Bill of Rights goes out the window. Ms. Achtenberg, who seems to have a larger role in making housing policy than her nominal superior at HUD, Henry Cisneros, believes that when the Bill of Rights collides with the special rights legislated in recent decades for the government?s favored minorities, the special rights should prevail. After all, the Bill of Rights was enacted more than 200 years ago by White males, some of them slave owners and none of them ?gay? or Jewish, and this in itself makes it déclassé.

Unfortunately for most of us, the courts have been moving inexorably toward Ms. Achtenberg?s view of things. The controlled media already are there. The August 29, 1994, issue of U.S. News & World Report, the most ?conservative? of America?s major weekly newsmagazines, commented on the Berkeley case:

HUD should clear the air quickly with clear guidelines that acknowledge First Amendment protections. It is one thing to organize to keep blacks out of an all-white area and quite another to question, as some Berkeley people did, a decision to put a home for alcoholics near two liquor stores. . . .
HUD officials suggest that it is illegal discrimination to question housing programs on the basis of protected characteristics of those to be housed. That is clear and just when we are talking about race, illness or physical disability. It?s not so clear when the people to be housed are disorganized street people who qualify as a protected class because of drug problems or the fact that they happened to contract AIDS.

A careless reader who skims quickly over this commentary might get the false impression that U.S. News & World Report believes in the First Amendment. Actually, the magazine is owned and edited by one of Ms. Achtenberg?s kinsmen, Mortimer Zuckerman, and he is clever enough with words to create such an impression even in careful readers. Too many people will let themselves be bullied into positions they really didn?t want to take, rather than appear unreasonable or ?extreme?: ?We must acknowledge First Amendment protections of our right to dissent?so long as we don?t say anything racist or anti-homosexual or . . . .? It?s much like the ?defense? of the Second Amendment we?ve been hearing from a lot of politicians recently: ?We must not infringe the right to keep and bear arms?that is, the right of a well-regulated militia, under the control of the government.?

Criticizing HUD?s housing policies is not the only thing White Americans no longer can do: they also must be extraordinarily careful in formulating their personal housing policies, if that involves advertising to sell or rent real estate. The Fair Housing Act, as amended in 1988, prohibits advertising which ?indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin or an intention to make any such preference,? and this provision of the law is now being enforced with a vengeance by Ms. Achtenberg and her cohorts at HUD. Almost any indication in an apartment or real estate advertisement that the owner is looking for normal, healthy, or decent tenants or buyers is verboten. The guiding philosophy is that no member of a favored group must feel excluded, no one must be offended, no one must even be reminded of whatever it is that gives him an officially favored status. Thus, an advertisement for an apartment that specifies ?no drug addicts? or ?no drinkers? will bring a team of HUD enforcers with a subpoena in a hurry.

The tyranny of the Fair Housing Act goes far beyond the imposition of punishment by the government itself, however; like other ?civil rights? laws, it encourages aggrieved members of favored groups to file ruinous civil suits against anyone who has offended them, and many members of these increasingly uppity groups are very easily offended. This provides a lucrative opportunity for some lawyers, who are getting together with local minorities and organizing ?fair housing councils? or the like to ferret out possibilities for lawsuits and for complaints to HUD against property owners, realtors, and even the newspapers which carry real estate advertising.

Some of the complainants feel compelled to push the law to its limits. A woman describing her religion as ?non-Christian? is suing a newspaper in Salem, Oregon, for religious discrimination because it ran an apartment-for-rent advertisement on Easter Sunday under a logo consisting of a bunny in a flower basket and the words ?Happy Easter.? Ms. Achtenberg is investigating the matter.

Such complaints may seem ridiculous, but they are not amusing at all to a property owner of modest means who becomes a target. He usually finds himself in a no-win situation: even if he prevails against the complainant and HUD, he may have to sell his property to pay his legal expenses.

Terrified of lawsuits, newspapers and realtors are censoring themselves. They have compiled a long list of ?discriminatory? and ?offensive? words and phrases which should not be used in advertisements. Some especially careful realtors have gone so far that they no longer use the phrase ?master bedroom,? because Blacks may be offended by a reminder of the master/slave relationship. Nor will they mention a ?walk-in closet? or a ?spectacular view,? lest a lame or blind person take offense.

Absurd? Not to the favored groups, who are intoxicated with their new power to exact vengeance for a thousand real or imagined slights by making the resented majority dance to their tune. Tim Kearney (disability unspecified), program coordinator for the Fair Housing Council of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, is typical. He is eager to hold the majority?s feet to the fire by suing whenever he imagines that he sees an objectionable advertisement: ?If somebody didn?t pick up the phone [to respond to a housing ad] because they [sic] felt excluded by the wording, you have [grounds for] a complaint. All day long some people suffer pangs and stings of discrimination, and it adds up. That?s what civil rights is all about.?

Many Americans, even those who are well read and keep up with politics and current events, simply cannot grasp the monstrousness of what has happened to their country. They have learned in school that the American Revolution was fought by men who valued their honor and freedom above all else, men who established the U.S. government and wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and they know that the officeholders who make, administer, and judge our laws today are sworn to uphold that Constitution and that Bill of Rights. They cannot grasp the fact that a substantial portion of these officeholders are now people who hold the Constitution in utter contempt and are working diligently to undermine and destroy it, and virtually all the rest are people willing to go along with the former as long as it is the fashionable thing to do.

Most Americans, who have grown up believing that they had an absolute right to say whatever they wanted to say, do not understand that they no longer have that right. It has been taken away from them, almost without a fight.

Should Americans really be surprised by this development, though? Do they really believe that they can permit a lesbian Jewess to set government policy and not use her power against the heterosexual Gentiles she despises so vehemently? Do they really believe that they can permit a piece of filth like Bill Clinton to occupy the White House, and still keep their freedom?

The key, of course, is the control of the media by an element utterly alienated from the White majority of Americans; an element whose ancestors did not share in our revolutionary struggle for freedom; an element with no conception of personal honor and no tradition of liberty; an element whose whole, parasitic history is one of conspiracy, subversion, deception, and conflict with the host people among whom they have lived. They spent decades laying the groundwork for what is happening now. When they finally were able to get a man like Clinton in a position where he could make top-level appointments of their kind of people to the Supreme Court and the Federal bureaucracy, why should they forbear? They want their pound of flesh, and they want it now.

They will get it, and more. They will feast on the goyim again, as their ancestors feasted on the fat of Egypt and a hundred other nations. They will feast until the emasculated, liberalized, fashion-subservient goyim find their manhood again and put a final end to them and their collaborators.


Politically Inappropriate Listening Habit

George Orwell wrote in 1984 of ?thought crime? (thinking a Politically Incorrect thought) and ?face crime? (having a Politically Inappropriate expression on one?s face?e.g., smiling at a joke about homosexuals, or failing to smile when passing a racially mixed couple on the sidewalk), but one that Orwell didn?t think of might be called ?ear crime?: listening to something that is deemed ?offensive.? That?s what 30-year-old Nunzio Bonaccorsy, of Annapolis, Maryland, did earlier this year, and it cost him dearly.

Bonaccorsy was employed as a shipping clerk by Alcon Labs, Inc., which sells contact lens products. He worked in Alcon?s warehouse in Savage, about 20 miles from Annapolis, and he had his radio tuned to a local rock music program one day last May: the Grego and Mo Show. The program?s two disk jockeys were discussing a news report about a Jaguar executive who was in hot water because he had referred to Mercedes Benz as a ?nigger in the woodpile.?

A Black warehouse worker who heard the word ?nigger? coming from Bonaccorsy?s radio several times became incensed. He complained to Bonaccorsy, and, without Bonaccorsy?s permission, tuned the radio to another station. Then the Black, still indignant, complained to the warehouse manager about the program Bonaccorsy had been listening to. The manager called Bonaccorsy into his office and told him he was fired. The reason Bonaccorsy was given was that he had an ?inappropriate racial attitude.?

Such corporate bigotry is still a step away from government enforcement of ?appropriate? radio listening habits, of course. And the chances are that Alcon Labs doesn?t really care what programs its employees listen to. What Alcon cares about is minimizing its problems with the government, and it knows well that a complaint to the bureaucrats in Washington from any minority employee can mean big problems. Bonaccorsy probably would have been fired if his Black coworker had complained instead about an ?insensitive? slogan on his T-shirt or an ?offensive? bumper sticker on his car. The customary response of employers to governmental programs favoring minorities has been to go beyond even what is required by law, just to be safe.


Newspeak in the Making

The great fascination which George Orwell?s 1984 holds for readers is that it is uncannily prophetic. One after another the features of the nightmare society he imagined in his futuristic novel nearly a half-century ago are appearing in our society today.

Consider, for example, Newspeak. The task of Orwell?s government was to control its citizens. It did this by controlling their thoughts. This was easy with most citizens, who were happy to think only Politically Correct thoughts. Some citizens, however, were not as public-spirited as the rest: they insisted on thinking whatever they wanted to think, and the Thought Police were kept busy tracking them down. The government?s solution to this problem was to limit the vocabulary of its citizens. Without words to represent disapproved ideas, the citizens would not be able to think dangerous thoughts. Therefore, the government began pruning Politically Incorrect words from the dictionary. Each new edition of the dictionary which appeared had fewer words than the previous one.

The Anti-Defamation League of B?nai B?rith (ADL), the Jewish Thought Police organization commissioned to promote Political Correctness among the Gentiles, believes that Orwell?s Newspeak is a wonderful idea. It has been working diligently to pressure the publishers of dictionaries into deleting disapproved words, starting with the word ?jew? used as a verb.

The ADL scored a notable success recently when it persuaded Hasbro Inc., the company which makes the board game Scrabble, to purge as many as 100 ?offensive? words from the Official Scrabble Players Dictionary. After the ADL publicly accused Hasbro of ?literally playing games with hate,? Hasbro agreed to delete words such as ?wetback,? ?kike,? ?nigger,? ?lezzie,? and a number of others.

The public reaction to the announcement of this shrinking of the Scrabble vocabulary has been less than encouraging. Instead of a cry of outrage from non-Jewish logophiles, there has been a rush by other favored segments of the population to have even more words tossed down the memory hole. Gypsies want the word ?gyp? flushed, among others. Homosexuals want to get rid of a number of words besides ?lezzie.? The feminists, who already have succeeded in changing the rules of grammar, so that a pronoun no longer must agree in number with its antecedent, have a very long list of words they insist must go. Fundamentalist Christians?who are not even an officially favored minority?want all those awful words referring to the nastier parts of the human body and to bedroom activity deleted.

Hasbro is not happy about this development but says that it will consider carefully all requests for further deletions from the Scrabble dictionary.


Political Correctness, Swiss Style

It?s not just White Americans and South Africans who are in a self-destructive mood: voters in Switzerland trooped to the polls on September 25 and voted obediently to give up their right to free speech, in the name of ?anti-racism.?

The government and the controlled media had argued that in order for Switzerland to play a more active role in the European Union and the United Nations, it was necessary to ban ?racist? speech and writing. Swiss citizens, despite their reputed love of freedom and independence, let themselves be convinced, and 55 per cent of those who cast ballots voted for a government ban on any public expression which ?injures human dignity? or which ?justifies, denies, or minimizes acts of genocide.? It is now forbidden in Switzerland for anyone to make a ?racist? statement or to question in any way the official Jewish ?Holocaust? myth. Forty-four percent of the eligible electorate participated in the voting.

Rosmarie Dormann, co-president of the ?Yes to the Anti-Racism Law? committee which pushed hard for the new law, says she is satisfied that free-speech advocates have been silenced, but she is unhappy that 45 per cent of those who voted opposed giving up their freedom.

The anti-racism committee?s other co-president, Sigi Feigel, a prominent Jewish lawyer in Zurich, also is unhappy. Feigel said that he is ?full of consternation that almost half of the Swiss people have said no? to the ban, despite the barrage of very clever television and newspaper propaganda designed to help them ?get it.?

Feigel, Dormann, and other advocates of prison for Political Incorrectness are made uneasy by the fact that only 24 per cent of Switzerland?s total electorate voted with them (i.e., 55 per cent of the 44 per cent turnout), and that those who voted were sharply divided between urban and rural parts of the country. The rural areas remained strongly in favor of freedom, while the cities?where virtually all of Switzerland?s Jews and other minorities live?voted for repression.

Feigel, who also is a leading figure in Switzerland?s Israeli Cultural Community, complained bitterly that Swiss voters also have failed to respond with sufficient enthusiasm to other measures he and the media have backed recently. This year they rejected two proposals he was especially eager to see adopted: one was to send Swiss troops on United Nations ?peace keeping? missions abroad, and the other was to make it easier for the children of recent immigrants, most of them from the Third World, to become Swiss citizens. And in 1992 Swiss voters rejected a ?free? trade proposal promoted by Feigel.

Feigel and his collaborators console themselves with the knowledge that, with their opponents silenced by the new ban on free speech, it will be easier for the media to bring the remaining Swiss voters into line and get other proposals approved.


Stealing Freedom at the State Level

While the spotlight focused on the nation?s capital city at least makes alert citizens aware of assaults on the Bill of Rights by the White House or the Congress, similar assaults at the state level often remain unnoticed by most of the citizens whose liberties they are intended to destroy. The unfortunate fact is that, as rotten as the gang in Washington is, the politicians at the state and local level usually are cut from the same cloth, and the same piper plays the tune to which they dance.

One of the principal Jewish lobbying organizations, the Anti-Defamation League of B?nai B?rith (ADL), has been especially successful in persuading state and local politicians to assist them in their efforts to silence and disarm Politically Incorrect Americans. A pet project of the ADL has been state ?hate crime? laws.

The first stage of the ADL?s ?hate crime? campaign was to persuade legislators in a number of states to enact new laws drastically increasing the penalties for a wide range of crimes already on the books, if those crimes were motivated in part by what the ADL defines as ?hate.?

The next stage was to create a whole new class of crimes by criminalizing what the ADL calls ?hate speech.? In both stages the ADL has provided lawmakers with ?model statutes? to be introduced into their respective legislatures, and legislators have been obedient tools in this program of subversion.

An example of a stage-two ?model statute? is a bill introduced this year into the New Jersey Assembly (No. 1447, introduced March 7 by Assemblyman Roma, Republican). It provides for any ?person who, in a public place, expresses ill will, hatred, or bias towards an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, with a purpose to incite any other person to commit a crime against such individual or group? to be imprisoned for up to 18 months. If the expression of ill will ?causes, or is a contributive factor in causing, another person to commit a crime against an individual or group of individuals,? then the person who expressed the ill will may be sentenced to as much as five years in the state penitentiary. The bill defines ?public place? as ?any place to which the public or any substantial group thereof has access.?

Think what this means: A state college or university campus is a ?public place.? There already are laws in many states criminalizing discrimination against homosexuals in hiring. A professor or a student who states in a classroom that he believes that homosexual behavior is abhorrent and that homosexuals should not be hired as teachers has not only expressed ?ill will . . . towards an individual or group of individuals because of . . . sexual orientation,? but he has incited ?other person[s] to commit a crime against such individual or group? by refusing to hire homosexuals for teaching positions. Whereas before he merely would have exposed himself to censure from his Politically Correct peers and perhaps to a demonstration by a shrieking, spitting mob of homosexuals, feminists, and Jews, under this new bill he can be thrown into prison for a year and a half. If someone who heard him make his remark later refuses to hire a homosexual, his term of imprisonment can be increased to five years.

Bills of this sort are becoming commonplace across the land, as legislators scramble to please their masters?and as the citizens who elected them acquiesce in such behavior rather than risk being considered unfashionable. Do such citizens really deserve to be free?

Our forefathers, who were free men, would have marched on Assemblyman Roma?s office in fury and hanged him from the nearest lamppost. They deserved their freedom, unfashionable though they may have been.[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]Frist Accused of Exploiting Religion Issue[/large]

Frist Accused of Exploiting Religion Issue
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and CARL HULSE
[small]www.nytimes.com[/small]
April 16, 2005

DEMOCRATIC SENATORS ACCUSED Senator Bill Frist, the Republican majority leader, of exploiting religion for partisan ends by taking part in a telecast portraying them as ?against people of faith? for blocking President Bush?s judicial nominations.?Our debate over the rules of the Senate and the use of the filibuster has nothing to do with whether one is religious or not,? Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said at a news conference with Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader from Nevada. ?I cannot imagine that God ? with everything he has or she has to worry about ? is going to take the time to debate the filibuster in heaven.?

The Family Research Council, a Christian conservative advocacy group, has organized an April 24 telecast, ?Justice Sunday,? which includes prominent conservative Christians speaking by simulcast to churches, Web sites and Christian broadcast networks. Under the heading ?The filibuster against people of faith,? a flier for the telecast reads, ?The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith.?

Dr. Frist will join the telecast through a four-minute videotape, his spokesman said yesterday. Its organizers hope to enlist the grass-roots support of conservative Christians for an imminent Senate battle over Republican proposals to change Senate rules that have enabled the Democratic minority to filibuster, blocking Senate votes on 10 of Mr. Bush?s appeals court nominees.

Both sides say the procedural fight over the Democrats? power as the minority party could take place within the next two weeks and will shape the contests over nominees to the Supreme Court.

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said in a statement that he was ?deeply troubled? by Dr. Frist?s participation. ?Whatever one?s views may be on this or any other issue,? Mr. Foxman said, ?playing the religious card is as unacceptable as playing the race card.?

The event is scheduled for the second night of Passover, when many Jews will be attending seders.

Democrats seized on Dr. Frist?s participation in an effort to portray Republicans as intolerant extremists. ?In America, we are in a democracy, not a theocracy,? Mr. Reid said, urging Dr. Frist to back out of the event. ?God does not take part in partisan politics.?

In response, Bob Stevenson, a spokesman for Dr. Frist, accused the Democrats of a double standard, noting that Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, sometimes used biblical phrases and religious language to denounce President Bush from church pulpits during the presidential campaign.

?Senate Democrats said nothing in response,? Mr. Stevenson said. ?Now, as they prepare to continue their unprecedented filibuster against the president?s judicial nominations, they criticize the leader for agreeing to deliver a similar address pressing for fair treatment of the president?s judicial nominees.?

Both sides are escalating their campaigns to win over public opinion.

On Wednesday, the Judicial Confirmation Network, a conservative group set up to organize grass-roots support for the judicial nominees, said it was making an initial purchase of $250,000 in cable and local television advertisements with similar religious themes.

Displaying pictures of Senator Reid and Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, an announcer declares: ?They want God out of the Pledge of Allegiance. They say child pornography is protected by the Constitution. Who are these people? Arrogant judges.?

Yesterday, Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way, which is already spending $5 million on television advertisements defending Democratic filibusters, responded by noting that courts had never found a right to child pornography and that the Supreme Court had overturned an appeals court ruling that public schools could not require recitation of the phrase ?under God? as part of the pledge.

After learning that the Judicial Confirmation Network had bought advertisements on the Sunday morning political news programs, Mr. Neas said his group had spent $170,000 for advertising on the same ones, setting up ?dueling ads.? Mr. Neas said the organization was now considering creating another advertisement designed for what he called the Republican ?manipulation of religion for political purposes.?[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify]Source: Michael A. Hoffman, http//:www.hoffman-info.com

[large]Gathering Wind: Morris Dees and The Rise of Mental Flatulence in America[/large]

Gathering Storm: America?s Militia Threat by Morris Dees with James Corcoran.

Reviewed by Michael A. Hoffman II. Copyright ©1996 by Michael A. Hoffman II. All Rights Reserved.

A windbag stalks the land, casting its dessicating shadow over our American heritage of personal freedom. This vessel of gas is Morris Dees, witchfinder general of the American hinterland and proprietor of the Southern ?Poverty Palace? Law Center, from which he has reaped millions of dollars in personal profit, (cf. ?Poverty Palace,? John Egerton, ?The Progressive,? July, 1988).

Dees is in the business of stampeding his vast mailing list into a panic at the spectre of a massive threat to the American people, posed by wicked militiamen who are hiding under every bed.

He is not ringing any alarm bells however, over the threat posed by inner city youth gangs who, armed with machine guns provided by our Most Favored Nation trading partner, the dear Chinese Communists, commit an estimated half-million crimes a year.

Nor does Dees have much interest in any threat from the Federal government, with its hundreds of thousands of mercenary killers, such as the late CIA director William Colby, who, as station chief in Vietnam from 1962 onward, ordered the assassination of at least 20,000 Vietnamese, as part of ?Operation Phoenix.?

Assassins like Colby, occupying high office, with billion dollar budgets at their disposal, are no threat to liberty, in the eyes of Morris Dees. Now that the forces of liberalism and Zionism have the Federal government firmly in hand (no matter which Republican or Democrat fills the President?s shoes), neo-Marxists like Dees are all in favor of it.

No, what rankles ol? Morris are those trailer-park Americans hiking in the weeds with their surplus-store rifles, readying themselves for the apocalypse. By golly, there?s a ?threat? Dees can market to his yuppie mailing list.

He opens his book (actually it?s only half his, since Mr. Dees is semi-literate and cannot author a book without the collaboration of a factotum), with a melodramatic profile of the main villain of his piece, ?the most dangerous,? Louis R. Beam Jr.

Mr. Beam was charged in 1987 with sedition and placed on the FBI?s Ten Most Wanted list. He fled to Mexico where pursuing FBI agents told the Mexicans that Beam was a drug trafficker. Beam was seized and his wife assaulted by Mexican troops. Mrs. Beam fired back, wounding one Mexican (Dees erroneously claims that the Mexican was killed).

Mrs. Beam was tortured (a fact Dees omits). It was only after her husband informed the Mexicans that he was not a drug dealer, but an opponent of the Federal government, that the Mexicans understood how badly they had been used by the Feds. They subsequently freed Mrs. Beam.

Louis Beam was extradited to Arkansas where he was acquitted of all charges in the landmark Federal sedition trial (which was only the third such trial in American history); a trial in which the presiding judge declared the prosecutor?s case a disgusting travesty.

In Gathering Storm, Dees implies that Beam is the head of the militia in the U.S. This is the tabloid style of prevarication that sells the lucrative wolf tickets from which Dees derives his fortune.

In truth, Louis Beam has never been a member of any militia. But as a white separatist, he?s just the scapegoat Dees requires in order to stigmatize the entire militia movement with volatile smear and bogey epithets intended to press the buttons of the corporate media.

Dees attempts to link the contemporary militia with a grab-bag of mostly defunct Klan groups, from out of Dees? aging hit-parade of lawsuits. But there is little evidence of such linkage.

In fact, white racist leaders such as Rick E. Cooper of Oregon, have decried the militia movement for its black membership and its refusal to make race?rather than resistance to the Federal government?its primary focus.

In any dissident movement one will encounter a whole spectrum of radical opinion, and undoubtedly persons concerned about the integrity of the white race are attracted to the militia, but that hardly renders the militia itself a racist core group. The phenomenon is too disparate for any such sweeping generalization.

However, if one examines Mr. Dees? own organization, one finds a host of erstwhile government bureaucrats and repackaged Marxists, using the court system and their direct line to crony Janet Reno, to hammer their political opponents.

This is Dees? actual agenda?demonizing those whose politics are repugnant to his imperial personality, and then using the power of Federal repression to silence or jail those dissident activists.

Dees momentarily allows his mask to drop when he defends the government?s mass murder at Waco and the slaughter of Randy Weaver?s wife and son, at Ruby Ridge:

?Viewing the Waco incident?the deaths were by accident?The FBI pleaded with Koresh and the Davidians to come out of their compound for 51 days?.

?Randy Weaver?and his wife inflamed the situation by making threatening statements?Weaver and his wife also used their children to help shield Randy from arrest.? (Dees, pp. 195-196).

This claim of hiding behind children is the same ignominious one the Israeli regime and its American mouthpiece-media make, whenever Palestinian kids are gunned down, along with their parents, by Zionist soldiers and police.

Apparently, when governments?whether in occupied Palestine or the U.S.?target the homes of civilians, where children are quite naturally going to be present, then the victims are blamed, for ?using their children as shields.? Such a charge is beneath contempt.

Dees? analysis of the Oklahoma City bombing is surreal. One the one hand, he cites the militia belief that the government bombed the facility itself. Dees characterizes that allegation as ?absurd.?

Then, forgetting his own agit-prop, he says later, in a bid to paint the militia as inhuman, that, ?The militia fanatics who rail against the New World Order do not even pretend that Oklahoma City bombers thought they had anything to worry about from the little children in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.?

How could they, when they believe Federal agents perpetrated the bombing? Most militiamen have championed the cause of the deceased children in Oklahoma from the beginning, magnifying the cry of one dead child?s mother, who wondered why the parents were not given the same advance warning that key government officials apparently possessed, when those officials absented themselves from their offices in the Murrah building, that fateful day.

Dees can?t keep his lies straight however and factoring subtle aspects of the Oklahoma case are clearly not in his interest or perhaps even within his intellectual capacity.

Furthermore, he claims that, ?President George Bush did the nation a great service when he resigned from the National Rifle Association. The organization had described ATF agents as ?jack-booted government thugs?? (p. 195).

Of course Dees would be the first to condemn Nazi stormtroops, but he upholds ATF stormtroops. It?s not the tactics Dees disagrees with, but the targets. Suppressing the yeomanry of America by placing them under the iron heel of a police state, is necessary for the imposition of the kind of plutocracy of which Dees is an adherent.

The contention of Gathering Storm is that the militia movement has a hidden, Klan-like agenda, but for the time being, is attiring itself in more palatable imagery and rhetoric.

The same can be said of the well-connected Dees, who came close to being named Attorney General during the Jimmy Carter administration. Dees is in favor of the disarmament of the poor and working class through gun confiscation schemes advanced by his ideological soul-mate, Rep. Charles Schumer of New York.

Schumer is a rabid gun-controller who, like his cohorts at the N.Y. Times, does not believe in gun control for Jewish ?settlers? on the West Bank, however. Israeli ?settlers? (the Palestinians are presumably, the Indians), are allowed to have the most powerful automatic weapons. Only American working stiffs are to be disarmed. The rich and the well-connected, whether in Hebron or Brooklyn, can be assured of receiving weapon permits.

Dees, like the Bolsheviks he emulates, ardently desires to use the police and the jails against his political foes. But he articulates little of this overtly. Rather, he strikes a chameleon?s pose and presents himself as a ?concerned citizen? determined to halt ?extremism? and ?fanaticism.?

That he himself is a frontman for fanatical Zionists and Marxist extremists is never mentioned. Dees denounces ?private militias? when they are of a political philosophy which he execrates. He has not one word of condemnation however, for the private Jewish paramilitary groups such as the JDL, who maneuver with tacit government approval in the California desert and the Catskill mountains of New York. Dees himself employs a heavily armed private goon squad.

Morris Dees is a political soldier, fighting an unconditional war on behalf of the Money Power, for the extirpation of nationalist and nativist communities. The bottom line lurking beneath Dees? humanitarian jargon, is the disarmament of his political enemies as a prelude to their slaughter.

?Gathering Storm? is a tedious, p.c. flop, bound for the remainder shelves. Its solipsistic fantasies, cycled through the distorting prism of the hysterical alarmism of liberal hypocrisy, make the Report of the Tenth Plenary Session of the the People?s Republic of Albania, compelling reading by comparison.

Matters are not helped by Dees? incessant self-promotion and whining, which managed to exasperate even a couple of employees of the corporate media.

Bill Wallace, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle states that ??the self-congratulatory tone of Gathering Storm soon begins to cloy??

Joel Connelly of the Seattle Post Intelligencer says, ?Gathering Storm? is the work of a windbag. Morris Dees is a man of towering ego. Page upon page is given over to the author blowing his own horn?The reader gets a gassy account of how Dees took his quarter-horse for a long ride, to work off his frustrations after the 1994 election.?

Indeed, this book is the 254 page equivalent of Dees breaking wind. The militia ?threat? seems not half so odious as the mental flatulence retailed by the authors.

©1996 by Michael A. Hoffman II. Distributed by The Independent History and Research Co.[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify]Source: European/American Issues Forum, CW Kuhn, Secretary?CW Johns, Treasurer?FP Williams, Sgt. at Arms
Louis Calabro, President ?David Winzer, Vice President

[large]?Hate Hurts- How Children Learn and Unlearn Prejudice- A Guide for Adults and Children?[/large]

By The Anti-Defamation League of B?nai B?rith,
September 2000-Publisher-Scholastic Inc. New York.

Book Review, by Louis Calabro

September 27, 2000

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) recently joined forces with Barnes and Noble to launch a campaign called ?Close the Book on Hate?. Their recently published book ?Hate Hurts?? being reviewed herein, is considered a first step in that direction.

Unfortunately the book is a continuation of what appears to be their policy of stigmatizing and stereotyping European Americans as the primary purveyors of racial animus and the primary perpetrators of hate crimes. In fact, the ADL and Barnes and Noble, acting as the teachers of minimizing bigotry, racism and stereotyping are eagerly practicing and promoting those exact undesirable traits. For example, the first page of the book starts out:

?Dear Readers, Mention Laramie, Wyoming, Jasper, Texas, or Littleton, Colorado, and our collective conscience is assaulted by the brutal hate crimes committed in those places. We store in our mind?s eye the image of five year old children clutching one another?s hands as they run from a Jewish Community day care center under attack by an anti-semite.?

What that opening paragraph tells the readers of this book is that all of the perpetrators of bigotry, racism and stereotyping are European Americans and our collective conscience is assaulted by the brutal hate crimes committed [by European Americans}?.

Yes, the book begins by teaching that all of the ?bad? people in those three cases are European Americans and follows that pattern throughout the book. That isn?t reality.

That pattern is consistent throughout the book. A review of Chapter 13, titled ?Crimes of Hate: Physical and Emotional Violence?, solidifies by using concrete examples the notion of emphasizing European American involvement in racial animus cases and as the perpetrators of hate crimes. All other racial/ethnic groups are their victims. The Chapter has victims like ?spic?, black, Jewish, Asian and gay victims, but no European American victims. The Chapter also mentions Nazi Germany and KKK members burning black churches, but no other racial/ethnic groups or members are cited as concrete examples of being the purveyors of racial animus or the perpetrators of hate crimes.

The ADL and Barnes and Noble could easily have included the Racine, Wisconsin and Jacksonville, FL. as concrete examples of hate crime cases where European Americans were victims of significant and brutal racially motivated hate crimes.

The significance of the Racine, Wisconsin case is that it was used by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wisconsin vs. Mitchell, (1993) to confirm the constitutionality of hate crime penalty enhancement statutes.

In Wisconsin vs. Mitchell a group of non-European American men and boys discussed the picture Mississippi Burning which had a scene where a white man beat a young black boy who was praying. They wanted to move on some white people and while they were out walking they passed a white boy and Mitchell said, ?You all want to fuck somebody up? There goes a white boy, go get him.? They did get him and they beat the boy so severely he remained in a coma for four days.

Similarly, and in an almost exact mirrored case, in August 1999, and after seeing a picture called A Time to Kill, 5-6 non-European American young men decided to beat up the first white man that came along. The picture was about two white men who raped a young African American girl and her father sought revenge by shooting both of them. Unfortunately, European American mentally retarded 50 year old Gregory Griffith was the first ?white? man to come along and they proceeded to brutally beat and stomp him to death. Two have been convicted. Others await trial.

The ADL knows, and Barnes and Noble should know that the 1998 FBI Hate Crime Statistical report reflects that there were nine (9) racially motivated murders in 1998 and five (5) of the nine victims were European Americans. But, it appears these facts are of no importance to the ADL and Barnes and Noble.

The ADL knows that the San Francisco Police Department Hate Crime Statistical reports 1995-1999, document that European Americans were victims of racially motivated multiple assailant street attacks more often than any other racial/ethnic group.

Knowing that they are cognizant of the above censored facts that are not presented in their book is deeply troubling and frightening to European Americans. It is incomprehensible that the ADL would write a book that will be read by parents, teachers, administrators, students and some citizens that fails to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is an unacceptable form of bigotry.

This book ?Hate-Hurts-How Children Learn and Unlearn Prejudice? debases, denigrates, dehumanizes and discriminates against European American students and the at-large European American community and is not appropriate as material that can be used for instructional material in San Mateo county. We respectfully request that the San Mateo County Board of Education declare this book as inappropriate for use in our county and remove it from the county Resource Center.

Sincerely,

Louis Calabro, President.
European/American Issues Forum[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify]Source: [small]http://www.codoh.org[/small] | October 5, 2000


[large]Hate Hurts, But Bullets Kill[/large]

by George Brewer

The Anti-Defamation League of B?nai Brith, an organization devoted to combating Anti-Semitism and bigotry, has started up a new campaign to promote tolerance among children. It?s called the ?Close the Book on Hate Campaign? and is keyed to the marketing of a new ADL sponsored book, entitled, Hate Hurts.

According to the promotional literature, the ?innovative? new book ?explores how to answer difficult questions? that children might ask, presumably about prejudice, and about how and why people are different. All in all this is a good idea. Children should not be taught to hate, or to draw snap judgments about other people.

We haven?t received our copy yet but we can guess what kinds of things are in the book, based on the kinds of things that are on the ADL website. Judging by what we read there, the ADL is committed to making sure that kids aren?t exposed to anything that might give them a tummy ache or maybe hurt their tender little feelings.

So, for example, we see that in the past few days the ADL has laid into the Nextel Corporation, a Filipino outfit that markets cellular equipment, for an ad campaign that touts the ?Final Communication Solution? and which features Adolf Hitler jaw-jacking on his own cell phone.

Another recent ADL press release describes how the ADL succeeded in getting another apology from the people who brought you Pokemon, but, no, this apology had nothing to do with inflicting Pikachu, the yellow rat with an electrified tail, onto the American public.

No, this has to do with a prize competition being touted on cereal boxes, featuring a six-pointed star that for some reason came out on some of the boxes as ?Jude Star? instead of the intended ?Jade Star.? Of course, this was a goof, and we would expect the cereal company to correct it, what we don?t expect, and don?t need, is to be informed that the ADL is on the supermarket cereal trenches ensuring that no child inadvertently consumes prejudice that stays crunchy in milk.

Of course, both of these recent press releases are indicative of the ADL?s hyper-sensitivity and inability to deal with the fact that the three billion or so people who live in Asia do not really think much about the Holocaust or its sacred symbols, as was discussed in a Revisionist article earlier this year ?Asians Just Don?t Get It?. But the ADL did at least make a tiny concession in the latest Pokemon release about how the swastika is a sacred symbol to ?some? Asians.

In addition to the latest press releases that are geared to protecting kids, in recent years the ADL has also extracted apologies
from Superman Comics, for a story line about the Holocaust that was ?insensitive? because it didn?t specify that any of the victims were Jews, and a TV show for its portrayal of a lovable Yiddish zeyde (grandfather). We can imagine that Hate Hurts, with or without an exclamation point, will cover similar ground.

Yet, after receiving some recent correspondence, we wonder if one of the ?difficult questions? being ?explored? in Hate Hurts might be one like this: ?What happens when a 12 year old kid is shot while cowering behind his father in Israeli occupied territory?? For some reason, we don?t think that question is going to be addressed, and if it were, the answer, based on what we have seen, would be ?Nothing.?

It seems that a few days ago a 37 year old Palestinian living in the occupied Gaza Strip went out with his 12 year old son to look at a used car. They found themselves in the middle of a street battle between Palestinian demonstrators and Israeli soldiers. They tried to hide behind a small cinder block abutment to a building, and that?s when they were caught by the French cameramen.

You can see the father start waving, in a panic, for the soldiers not to shoot. And you can see the boy, clearly terrified, trying to hide behind his slender father?s frame. And then there?s a fusillade of bullets and the boy is dead, with the father severely injured.

You can tell it?s a big story because immediately there were denials from the Israeli Defense Forces, claiming that they hadn?t fired the shots. Of course, the alternative, that some Palestinians shot the two for propaganda purposes, is kind of hard to believe, but furthermore most of the eyewitnesses, including the father, insist that the killers were Israeli soldiers, and from the camera shot it appears that it occurred at close range.

We guess the Israeli authorities felt they had a credibility problem, because a day later Israel?s deputy chief of staff, Moshe Yaalon, announced that the Israelis were convinced that the boy intended to throw rocks. Well, I guess that settles that. Read people?s minds, and then blow their heads off.

Now, we would expect something to be done about this. Sometimes a photograph can really have an impact. We all remember how the American people turned against the Vietnam war, we forget the critical photos that turned the tide of public opinion: the naked girl running in terror from a napalm raid, the South Vietnamese general casually shooting a blindfolded hostage.

So we would expect this photo of this little boy being shot in cold blood to change some minds, or at least to create enough pressure to generate some decency. Maybe a court martial or two, at the very least. Unfortunately, it appears the flagrant shooting of this boy is being forgotten. Naturally, thinking about how hate hurts our kids, and thinking about how the ADL is always on the front line in protecting them, we turned to their Website to see how they would handle this affair.

Mind you, we don?t believe that every Jew or even any American Jew is responsible for the reckless shootings by the Israeli Defense Forces. But on the other hand, if an organization sells itself as defending Jewish interests, constantly delivers sermons about Jewish and Israeli interests, and furthermore is always carrying on about protecting children, we have a certain expectation that they will have something to say about this case, too.

Imagine our surprise when we found that the ADL?s only pronouncement on the recent violence, which has taken the lives of 46 Arabs and two Jews, is that the current violence was ?clearly incited and stoked by the Palestinian leadership? and that Arafat should do something to stop it. That?s all.

Nothing about our 12 year old kid at all. Nothing about a measure of individual justice for an inexcusable individual killing of a child, nothing about an apology, or a desire to make amends, or pay compensation, or punishing the boy?s killers. Nothing.

Moral leadership is a difficult thing. But if you can?t stand up on your hindlegs and condemn the brutal and careless killing of a child, you don?t deserve to be listened to. The ADL?s silence in the case of the shooting of a 12 year old Palestinian boy on TV reminds us of the extent to which the ADL is willing to close the book on its own moral authority by its timidity, and it further reminds us of the extent to which the ?Close the Book on Hate? campaign is a stupid joke.

Zealously monitoring comic books, trading cards, TV shows, and cereal boxes: that?s the caliber of ADL moral leadership. But when it comes to dead kids, the ADL is, to quote a title, Eyeless in Gaza.

Hate Hurts? Yeah, sure. But Bullets Kill.

George Brewer is editor of The Revisionist [small]www.codoh.org[/small], Email: brewer@codoh.org

Source: European/American Issues Forum, CW Kuhn, Secretary?CW Johns, Treasurer?FP Williams, Sgt. at Arms
Louis Calabro, President ?David Winzer, Vice President

?Hate Hurts- How Children Learn and Unlearn Prejudice- A Guide for Adults and Children?

By The Anti-Defamation League of B?nai B?rith,
September 2000-Publisher-Scholastic Inc. New York.

Book Review, by Louis Calabro

September 27, 2000

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) recently joined forces with Barnes and Noble to launch a campaign called ?Close the Book on Hate?. Their recently published book ?Hate Hurts?? being reviewed herein, is considered a first step in that direction.

Unfortunately the book is a continuation of what appears to be their policy of stigmatizing and stereotyping European Americans as the primary purveyors of racial animus and the primary perpetrators of hate crimes. In fact, the ADL and Barnes and Noble, acting as the teachers of minimizing bigotry, racism and stereotyping are eagerly practicing and promoting those exact undesirable traits. For example, the first page of the book starts out:

?Dear Readers, Mention Laramie, Wyoming, Jasper, Texas, or Littleton, Colorado, and our collective conscience is assaulted by the brutal hate crimes committed in those places. We store in our mind?s eye the image of five year old children clutching one another?s hands as they run from a Jewish Community day care center under attack by an anti-semite.?

What that opening paragraph tells the readers of this book is that all of the perpetrators of bigotry, racism and stereotyping are European Americans and our collective conscience is assaulted by the brutal hate crimes committed [by European Americans}....

Yes, the book begins by teaching that all of the "bad" people in those three cases are European Americans and follows that pattern throughout the book. That isn't reality.

That pattern is consistent throughout the book. A review of Chapter 13, titled "Crimes of Hate: Physical and Emotional Violence", solidifies by using concrete examples the notion of emphasizing European American involvement in racial animus cases and as the perpetrators of hate crimes. All other racial/ethnic groups are their victims. The Chapter has victims like "spic", black, Jewish, Asian and gay victims, but no European American victims. The Chapter also mentions Nazi Germany and KKK members burning black churches, but no other racial/ethnic groups or members are cited as concrete examples of being the purveyors of racial animus or the perpetrators of hate crimes.

The ADL and Barnes and Noble could easily have included the Racine, Wisconsin and Jacksonville, FL. as concrete examples of hate crime cases where European Americans were victims of significant and brutal racially motivated hate crimes.

The significance of the Racine, Wisconsin case is that it was used by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wisconsin vs. Mitchell, (1993) to confirm the constitutionality of hate crime penalty enhancement statutes.

In Wisconsin vs. Mitchell a group of non-European American men and boys discussed the picture Mississippi Burning which had a scene where a white man beat a young black boy who was praying. They wanted to move on some white people and while they were out walking they passed a white boy and Mitchell said, "You all want to fuck somebody up" There goes a white boy, go get him." They did get him and they beat the boy so severely he remained in a coma for four days.

Similarly, and in an almost exact mirrored case, in August 1999, and after seeing a picture called A Time to Kill, 5-6 non-European American young men decided to beat up the first white man that came along. The picture was about two white men who raped a young African American girl and her father sought revenge by shooting both of them. Unfortunately, European American mentally retarded 50 year old Gregory Griffith was the first "white" man to come along and they proceeded to brutally beat and stomp him to death. Two have been convicted. Others await trial.

The ADL knows, and Barnes and Noble should know that the 1998 FBI Hate Crime Statistical report reflects that there were nine (9) racially motivated murders in 1998 and five (5) of the nine victims were European Americans. But, it appears these facts are of no importance to the ADL and Barnes and Noble.

The ADL knows that the San Francisco Police Department Hate Crime Statistical reports 1995-1999, document that European Americans were victims of racially motivated multiple assailant street attacks more often than any other racial/ethnic group.

Knowing that they are cognizant of the above censored facts that are not presented in their book is deeply troubling and frightening to European Americans. It is incomprehensible that the ADL would write a book that will be read by parents, teachers, administrators, students and some citizens that fails to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is an unacceptable form of bigotry.

This book 'Hate-Hurts-How Children Learn and Unlearn Prejudice' debases, denigrates, dehumanizes and discriminates against European American students and the at-large European American community and is not appropriate as material that can be used for instructional material in San Mateo county. We respectfully request that the San Mateo County Board of Education declare this book as inappropriate for use in our county and remove it from the county Resource Center.

Sincerely,

Louis Calabro, President.
European/American Issues Forum

Where 'Caught in the Crossfire' Can Leave No Room
for Doubt

By Robert Fisk, 2 October 2000

When I read the word "crossfire", I reach for my pen. In the Middle East, it almost always means that the Israelis have killed an innocent person. When the Israelis fired shells into the United Nations compound at Qana in southern Lebanon in 1996, Time magazine printed a photograph of a dead baby with a caption saying it had been killed in "crossfire". This was untrue. The baby had been killed in the Israeli bombardment along with 105 other civilians - which started after Hizbollah guerrillas opened fire on an Israeli army unit that was laying booby-trap mines inside the UN zone.

So when 12-year-old Mohammed al-Durah was killed in Gaza on Saturday and I read on the Associated Press wire that the child was "caught in the crossfire", I knew at once who had killed him. Sure enough, reporters investigating the killing said the boy was shot by Israeli troops. So was his father - who survived - and so was the ambulance driver who was killed trying to rescue the boy. Yet BBC World Service Television was still saying yesterday morning that Mohammed al-Durah was "caught in the crossfire of a battle that has left hundreds wounded and killed many others". I knew what this meant.

True, the Israeli soldiers who killed the boy may not have known whom they hit. They were apparently firing through a wall. But why the reluctance on the part of journalists to tell the truth? Why was it that in its report from Jerusalem on Saturday, the AP only mentioned - in paragraph 17, for heaven's sake - that Israeli troops, on the word of their own officer, fired anti-tank missiles during the confrontation? What was the Israeli army doing using missiles against rioters?

By yesterday afternoon, the story had been transformed into a "blame" conflict. The Israelis blamed the Palestinian authority for organising riots. BBC World Service radio ran a tape of an Israeli official stating that rioters were "shooting [sic] Molotov cocktails and stones? which ?kill people?. A listener might have been forgiven for thinking that 22 Israelis had been killed ? rather than 22 Palestinians ? in the previous 72 hours. The BBC then ran a tape of Nabil Shaath, the Palestinian spokesman, saying that the Israelis, not the Palestinians, had been shooting.

Truth is a hard bullet to bite. Palestinian policemen had also opened fire on the Israelis. Ironically, the Arab press in Beirut had no hesitation in saying this. The press in Lebanon showed photographs of Palestinian policemen firing Kalashnikov rifles at Israeli troops. But, given the fact that they did not kill Israelis ? one of them was hit while firing ? was it not worth mentioning that the Palestinians were the victims, not the Israelis?

When BBC Television got round to mentioning Ariel Sharon?s flagrantly provocative visit to the Haram as-Sharif/Temple Mount on Thursday, they yesterday called him an ?Israeli leader? when ? for Palestinians ? he was the man who bore indirect responsibility (according to Israel?s own inquiry) for the massacre of up to 2,000 Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in Beirut 18 years ago. The BBC correspondent, Paul Adams, was one of the very few who bravely drew attention to Sharon?s appalling record, pointing out Sharon had ?an extraordinary capacity to leave? destruction in his wake.?

And so, by last night, the story had changed. No longer did Israeli soldiers and policemen kill at least 22 Palestinians in three days; now the question was whether the Palestinian Authority organised the riots that ?led? [sic] to their deaths. The Israeli soldiers, who disobeyed every human rights commitment by firing on rioters with live rounds, were respectfully called the ?Israeli security forces?, disregarding the fact that ?security? was the one thing Israeli soldiers were clearly unable to provide.

On CNN and the BBC and other satellite chains, reporters were asked if the killings would upset the ?peace process?, with no willingness to explain that it was the collapse of the peace process which lay at the heart of the riots. The Muslim holy areas of Jerusalem were ?disputed? ? although UN Security Council resolution 242, upon which the ?peace process? is supposedly based, demands the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories captured during the 1967 war, including east Jerusalem.

What lies behind this ? apart from the sheep-like inability of many journalists to call a spade a spade ? was the continuing belief that Palestinians are, by nature, violent and riotous.

The United States called for an end to the ?violence? ? this courtesy of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright ? without making any reference to Sharon?s grotesque visit to the mosque grounds of east Jerusalem. By yesterday afternoon, the BBC were at it again, reporting that ?Israeli authorities were bracing themselves for what may lie ahead?. Weren?t the Palestinians also doing that?

Source: New York Times, September 12, 2000

Close the Book on Hate

NEW YORK, NY September 12, 2000 Barnes & Noble, Inc., the nations largest bookseller, and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the premier organization in the fight against racism, anti-Semitism and bigotry, will announce this morning an unprecedented and highly ambitious joint campaign entitled, Close the Book on Hate. The purpose of this nationwide effort is to provide children and their parents, caregivers, teachers and civic leaders with the tools, resources and programs they need to better understand and help eliminate prejudice and discrimination in their communities. While the goal of Close the Book on Hate. is to gain respect for all types of differences, the campaign emphasizes fighting racism, anti-Semitism and homophobia.
Former Senator Bill Bradley, a longtime advocate of racial unity, is serving as the honorary chairman for Close the Book on Hate. . He will make appearances on behalf of the campaign today in New York, beginning at 10 a.m. at the Union Square Barnes & Noble (33 East 17th Street). On Thursday, September 14, Senator Bradley will be in Atlanta at the Cumberland Barnes & Noble (2952 Cobb Parkway).

?Despite the growth of the U.S. economy, advances in technology and our leadership of the free world, hate, racism and bigotry still invade our schools, homes and places of business,? commented Senator Bill Bradley. ?Now is the time for us to re-commit ourselves to embracing diversity and celebrating our differences. I applaud the work of Barnes & Noble and the Anti-Defamation League to give children and adults the tools they need to make this happen in their own ommunities and schools.?

At the heart of the campaign is ADLs innovative new book, Hate Hurts, co-authored by Caryl Stern-LaRosa and Ellen Hofheimer Bettmann, and published by Scholastic Inc., the leading publisher of childrens books. Hate Hurts explores how to answer difficult questions frequently asked by young people, helps caregivers comfort children who are the victims of hate, and offers assistance when working with those who are the perpetrators of intolerance. Hate Hurts will be available for sale at Barnes & Noble stores and on its Web site, [small]http://www.barnesandnoble.com[/small], as well as other retail and online bookstores.

Another campaign element is a special brochure that Barnes & Noble and ADL have produced, which features a recommended reading list of all the books included in the Close the Book on Hate. campaign. The brochure, entitled Close the Book on Hate: 101 Ways to Combat Prejudice, is available for free at all Barnes & Noble stores.

To help make a difference in communities and neighborhoods across the country, Barnes & Noble is teaming up with ADLs 30 local offices to hold special in-store educational programs and events with community leaders and local schools in September and October. During this time, each Barnes & Noble store will dedicate a special display table for works of fiction, non-fiction, photography and poetry that emphasize the importance of valuing diversity for both children and adults. As part of its continuing commitment to the program, all Barnes & Noble stores will have a permanent Close the Book on Hate. shelf in the ?Parenting? section, starting in November.

For its part, Barnes & Noble.com has launched a Close the Book on Hate. boutique, which can be found in ?Kids!? and the ?Parenting? subject areas. The ?Home? and ?Bookstore? pages also link to the boutique. The site will feature an interview with Caryl Stern-LaRosa, co-author of Hate Hurts, in ?Parenting & Family,? which will run from September 12 through 18. In addition, a Barnes & Noble University course, ?Hate Hurts: How Children Learn and Unlearn Prejudice,? developed by the ADL, will start enrolling online students on September 15. The site will also has links to ADLs and Scholastics [small]http://www.scholastic.com/home[/small] Web sites.

?Prejudice is a vicious poison that affects all of us, particularly our children,? said Leonard Riggio, chairman and chief executive officer of Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL national director. ?The only cure is to replace ignorance with knowledge. If bigots can teach people to hate, Barnes & Noble and the Anti-Defamation League can teach them not to hate. That is what this campaign is all about.?

Mr. Riggio and Mr. Foxman added that, ?through exposure to good books and discussion, children and their parents will better understand the richness and beauty of our multicultural society. Close the Book on Hate. will raise awareness of the profoundly personal and social consequences of prejudice, while promoting respect at home, in schools, and in our communities.?

In addition to events at all Barnes & Noble stores nationwide, the campaign will concentrate on the following ten key markets in which both Barnes & Noble and ADL have a strong community presence: Atlanta, Georgia Los Angeles, California Boston, Massachusetts Miami, Florida Chicago, Illinois New York, New York Denver, Colorado Washington, D. C. Houston, Texas Westport, Connecticut About Barnes & Noble, Inc.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. (NYSE: BKS) operates 551 Barnes & Noble and 379 B. Dalton bookstores, and, with its acquisition of Babbages Etc. and Funco, Inc., is the nations largest operator of video game and entertainment software stores. Barnes & Noble stores stock an authoritative selection of book titles and provide access to more than one million titles. They offer books from more than 50,000 publisher imprints with an emphasis on small, independent publishers and university presses. Barnes & Noble is one of the worlds largest booksellers on the World Wide Web [small]http://www.barnesandnoble.com[/small]), and the [small]http://www.bn.com[/small] exclusive bookseller on America Online (Keyword: bn). Barnes & Noble.com has the largest standing inventory of any online bookseller. Barnes & Noble also publishes books under its own imprint for exclusive sale through its retail stores and Web site.[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify]Source: This story ran on page 1 of the Boston Globe?s City Weekly on 12/10/2000.
© Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.

[large]Helping Police Probe Hate Crimes:
ADL to Give Officers How-to Cards[/large]

By Emily Shartin, Globe Correspondent

As more police officers are schooled in the complexities of investigating hate crimes, the Anti-Defamation League in Boston is helping to build a more unified police response to incidents of hate statewide.

At police roll calls across the state this Thursday, including Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, and Somerville, the ADL, a unit of B?nai B?rith, will distribute laminated cards that detail strategies for investigating crimes that appear motivated by hate or bias.

ADL officials say the 3-by-7-inch cardsare meant to encourage the 16,000 officers in 170 participating departments ? 90 percent of the state?s police departments ? to look more carefully at the motivations for a crime. They say officers will be reminded to consider whether the victims have been singled out because of their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or gender ? all indicators of hate crimes.

?It just gets them to be thinking a little more globally around the incident,? said Christina Bouras, executive director of the Governor?s Task Force on Hate Crimes, which has been working with the ADL on this project.

Given the fact that hate crime statutes are relatively new, police say they welcome just about any resource that helps them on the job. Although police departments now routinely offer hate crimes investigation training, that hasn?t always been the case, said John Collins, general counsel for the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, also a partner in the campaign.

?Hate crimes [is] one of the areas where traditionally we didn?t train people,? said Collins, noting that such training only became standard for most police departments within the past decade.

Identifying what constitutes a hate crime can sometimes be an overwhelming task for an officer.

Frank Pasquarello, Cambridge police spokesman, says those who are first on the scene of a crime have very little time to assess the situation before determining whether to call it a hate crime.

?We have to make a decision in about 10 seconds,? Pasquarello said. ?That decision can largely determine how the investigation will proceed. The cards remind officers to look for tell-tale signs or symbols, to take into account the history of the neighborhood, to consider whether the incident occurred on a significant date, such as Hitler?s birthday (April 20), and offer strategies for talking with victims.?

The card will ?give us kind of a standard to go by,? said Pasquarello.

According to Andrew Tarsy, the ADL?s civil rights director in Boston, the campaign is not a criticism of how police handled hate crime investigations. Instead, the campaign?s goal is to foster trust and communication between victims and police.

Tarsy said the ADL is concerned that hate crime victimsare often reluctant to report incidents to authorities.

The more that police officers demonstrate they understand the unique pain of a hate crime victim, Tarsy said, the more likely victims will be to come forward.

According to the state?s 1998 crime statistics, the latest available, there were 497 reported bias crimes ? 358 of them in Boston, 13 in Brookline, eight in Cambridge, and one in Somerville. The state figure was up 7 percent from 1997.

Under Massachusetts law, penalties for assaults or vandalism motivated by hate or bias are more serious than those for similar crimes not motivated by hate, according the Middlesex District Attorney?s office. For example, an assault motivated by hate that injures someone can carry a fine of $10,000 and a jail term of five years, whereas a ?regular? assault can carry a $5,000 fine and a 21/2-year jail term.

But just as important as prosecuting hate crimes, officials say, is bringing to light the antagonism that causes the incidents.

?It?s an indication that there?s an undercurrent that we all, as a community, should know about,? said Charles McDonald, a spokesman for the Executive Office of Public Safety.

Like other officers in Massachusetts, Brookline police Captain Peter Scott says local bias-motivated crime has been limited to vandalism and assault, often also involving racial or other offensive epithets.

Scott believes Brookline?s diversity has rendered the community more tolerant of its differences, but also says it is still the duty of police officers to remain prepared for whatever might happen.

Bouras, the Governor?s Task Force director, added that it is crucial to treat what seem to be minor incidents seriously. ?If left unchecked, the incidents always escalate? inseverity, she said.

Over the past 10 years, police departments across the state have been moving toward a model of community policing, which includes more beat foot patrols, and away from what Collins refers to as ?You call, we haul.?

That is especially important, Tarsy says, because of the destabilizing effects a hate crime can have on an entire group of people.

Police and other agencies across the state already carry cards put together by the state public safety office on strategies for various emergencies, McDonald said, like gas leaks, school violence,or plane crashes.

Somerville police carry similar cards reminding them of how best to assess and handle instances of domestic violence.

Somerville Police Sergeant Dan Cotter believes the hate crime card will help promote awareness among his officers. ?It?s another tool,? he said.

Boston police are also getting the hate crime cards on Thursday. But a spokeswoman last week said she could not comment because police officials are not scheduled to meet with the ADL until Tuesday.

In Cambridge, Pasquarello said there is nothing wrong with holding all police departments to the same standardsof investigation, although he noted that the cards will not significantly change how his department will handle hate crimes.

Considering that police will likely be the first people a victim contacts, Pasquarello said it is important to ensure that all officers respond in a professional manner. ?We want people to feel comfortable to call us,? he said.

A more unified police response to such incidents will likely show the public that intolerance exists in their communities. ?A lot of people believe it doesn?t happen, but it does,? he said.[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]Hitler's Apologists Review of ADL Smear Pamphlet[/large]

Source: The CODOH web-site

[large]Hitler?s Apologists[/large]

Hitler?s Apologists: The Anti-Semitic Propaganda of Holocaust ?Revisionism?. An Anti-Defamation League Publication. Available from the Anti-Defamation League of B?nai B?rith, 823 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017, 1993. $8.00 plus $2.50 postage. 8 +88 pages. Preparation of the publication is credited to Marc Caplan and a number of research and editorial contributors.

Reviewed by Charles E. Weber, Ph.D.

AS A REVISIONIST HISTORIAN I have written many a page in an attempt to inform readers about the absurdities and falsehoods of the ?Holocaust? material, which has been used for various political, psychological and economic purposes by organized Jewry. This book contains obvious absurdities, self-contradictions and evidence against the ?Holocaust? material. For that reason I welcome its publication, even thought its purpose is to denigrate the many historians who have had the courage and moral compulsion to raise questions about the ?Holocaust? material in spite of the huge sums that have been expended, even by the United States government, to propagate it. Many Americans are quite unaware that there are historians who question the ?Holocaust? material. This book will bring them information about their existence and efforts.

Any halfway thoughtful, unbiased and perceptive reader of this book is compelled to ask himself why the many historians with respectable academic credentials and impressive publications presented in this book have risked their careers, relationships with their publishers, costly litigations and even their physical safety by raising questions about the ?Holocaust? material. Even the Jewish historian, Professor Arno J. Mayer of Princeton University, has pointed out in his book, Why Did the Heaven Not Darken? (1988; reviewed in our Bulletin 38, reprinted in the Liberty Bell of August, 1989), that sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable. Mayer?s book seems like an attempt to admonish Zionist propagandists to tone down their claims lest they make fools of themselves, even if Mayer adheres to many of the traditional aspects of the ?Holocaust? material. Pages 48-49 express the discomfort which the authors of Hitler?s Apologists feel with regard to Mayer?s book.

One very great advantage which purveyors of the ?Holocaust? material have in the United States lies in the simple fact that most Americans who lived during the Second World War and its aftermath want to believe the material for some very strong emotional reasons. We allied ourselves with a regime, Stalin?s, which was so evil that by comparison National Socialism looked benign. Our airplanes burned scores, if not hundreds of thousands of Germans to death. The ruined European cities the refugees from the east and the starving German children were there for the world, including millions of American soldiers, to witness, quite in contrast to the Soviet death camps in remote sites in Polish forests. The war crimes of our Soviet allies later became known, even on the basis of postwar Congressional investigations. The ?Holocaust? material thus provides a psychological rationalization for what our armed forces and politicians did in Europe, and in particular Germany, a country of a size comparable to our state of Texas (as of 1938).

The whole ?Holocaust? controversy is a complicated one. It is unfair and misleading to assert that revisionist historians simply ?deny the Holocaust,? a formulation which the Zionist propagandists favor. Revisionists do not deny that Jews suffered during the Second World War, especially during the chaos of the closing phases of the war, a war which influential Jews helped to bring about by bribing British political figures, notable Churchill, as David Irving has pointed out (see our Bulletin 12). The suffering of Jews, however, was only a small fraction of the enormous suffering caused by the war, the suffering of the people of most European nations. Even if the gas chamber tales were true, it must be admitted that death from Zyklon B would have been far less painful than being burnt to a crisp in incendiary bombing attacks, such as those against Hamburg (1943) and Dresden (1945). The suffering of Jews was by no means unique. Taken as a whole, it was probably far less than that of such nations as the Ukrainians in the early 1930?s during the famines deliberately caused by the cruelty of Stalin?s regime or the suffering of the Baltic nations as a result of the Soviet occupation during 1940-1941 and 1945 ff. It is entirely understandable why Ukrainians and Balts welcomed German armed forces as liberators, even if German administrators were not astute in taking advantage of these sentiments, a point almost universally conceded by German historians. Hitler?s Apologists makes the usual ethnocentric claim that Jewish suffering was unique, a claim that is a misleading distortion of history and a callous disregard for the suffering of the Jews? host populations. I, for one, would certainly not deny to Jews the right to mourn their dead anymore than I would deny that right to Ukrainians and Balts, to mention two groups that suffered especially from American support of Stalin?s tyranny ( see our Bulletins 7 and 15), including the infamous ?Operation Keelhaul,? a dark stain on the history of the United States. It would have been far more appropriate to build a memorial museum to the victims of Communism than the one which has been recently dedicated in Washington.

Much of Hitler?s Apologists is directed against specific revisionist historians and investigators, such as Fred Leuchter (pages 8-9), David McCalden (pages 16-18), David Irving (pages 19-25), Charles Weber (pages 28-29), Hans Schmidt (pages 30-32), the nationally know journalist Pat Buchanan (pages 35-36), and even the Jewish (!) historian, Professor Arno J. Mayer (pages 48-49). The book by the Canadian journalist James Bacque, Other Losses, is bitterly attacked on pages 49-51. Bacque found evidence in American military archives that hundreds of thousands of German prisoner of war were killed by very severe and easily preventable condition in prison camps after the war. A rather long section (pages 68-73) is devoted to editorial advisors of the Journal of Historical Review.

Parts of the book convey an almost gloating boastfulness about Jewish power to frustrate the efforts of revisionists by any means, such as attacking the professional status of the revisionist in question, as in the case of Fred Leuchter (pages 8-9), physical attacks, as in the case of Prof. Robert Faurisson (page 42), or deprivation of academic degrees, as in the case of Wilhelm Staglich and Henri Roques (page 43). Such unscrupulous tactics, which would be impossible if it were not for the remarkable power of organized Jewry in North American and European courts, universities, legislative bodies and the media, simply serve to emphasize how weak and assailable the ?Holocaust? claims are. Crimes such as the arson attack against the Institute for Historical Review in 1984 or the nearly fatal attack against Prof. Robert Faurisson in Vichy in 1989 are a striking demonstration of the validity of the revisionists? arguments.

In the ?Foreword? Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, claims that Willis Carto, I, Hans Schmidt and Ernst Zundel are motivated to deny the ?Holocaust? in order to defend totalitarianism. Actually, there is a far simpler and more obvious motivation involved. Those of us who are Germans or are of German descent are angered by the lies and distortions which have put us at social, professional and economic disadvantages. Even the title, Hitler?s Apologists, is misleading. It implies that revisionists dealing with the ?Holocaust? material have some sort of unified, complicated political agenda. The truth of the matter is that such revisionists have quite varied political, philosophical and religious orientations.

Mr. Foxman also continues to adhere to the assertion that Hitler?s regime murdered six million Jews during World War II. This figure is contradicted on page 82 of the book, where Raul Hilberg gives a total of 5,100,000, a total which is also impossible on the basis of prewar and postwar population statistics. Hilberg, by the way, is the man who declined to testify at the second trial (1988) of Ernst Zundel for fear of the withering cross-examination by Zundel?s brilliant defense attorney, Douglas Christie, as he had to admit in a letter dated 5 October, 1987 to the crown Attorney John Pearson. Even Polish authorities, who also have a vested interest in the ?Holocaust? material, finally came to the realization that four million deaths at Auschwitz was so absurd that the claim had to be withdrawn and memorial stones to that effect had to be effaced. Six minus three equals three!

Elie Wiesel is quoted at some length on page 67. This man, as well as millions of other members of his race who survived the occupations by German forces, have provided living proofs that there was no general extermination order.

On the cover of the book is a picture of a German (?) soldier pointing a rifle in the direction of a boy with upraised arms. Although the fact is not mentioned on any page of the book, this particular child survived the war and went on to a successful career in London after the War. (See VHO-Nieuwsbrief 1993, nr. 2, page 6.)

The Anti-Defamation League has advocated with considerable success that compulsory ?Holocaust? courses be introduced into schools, where, of course, there is a captive audience consisting of pupils hesitant to contradict their teachers and not yet possessing much critical capacity. One Illinois couple had the courage to protest such indoctrination of their daughter (pages 27-28). If this book is used in such compulsory courses, there might even be a few bright seventh-graders who will notice the statistics on page 78, where the claim is made that the ?Nazis forced to their deaths 700 to 800 men, women, and children at a time? into gas chambers measuring an average of 225 square fee. Thus, as many as 800 divided by 225 = more than 3 1/2 persons per square foot, an obvious impossibility. The further claim is made that the gas chambers at various camps accounted for 20,000 victims per day at the height of the extermination program. How could such a number of bodies be cremated? Where would the huge quantities of scarce fuel required for such cremations be obtained? If the bodies were not cremated, where are they buried? Revisionists have been pointing out such absurdities for years in the ?Holocaust? tales, but Zionist propagandists continue to publish them, confident that their control of the media would prevent the raising of questions.

In the section aimed against David Irving, the matter of the recently released death records of Auschwitz is brought up (page 23). The statement is made that crucial to Irving?s ?misrepresentation? the fact is ignored that these rosters ?were only a partial listing of victims killed during a few months of 1942.? This statement is simply false. Actual death certificates from the years 1941 and 1943 are reproduced in the fall, 1992 issue of the Journal of Historical Review.

I have expressed my own criticisms of David Irving in Bulletin 65, which was republished in the Christian News of 5 April 1993 and the Liberty Bell of May, 1993. In particular, I feel that by the time Hitler?s War was published in 1977, Irving should have been well aware of the mass of evidence against the usual versions of the ?Holocaust? material, even the absurdities in some of the ?documents? and confessions produced by torture presented at the Nuremberg trials. (For details, see Carlos Porter, Made in Russia/The Holocaust.) These, of course, had been published many years before 1977. Before that year there were also books by the earlier revisionists, by Rassinier, App and Butz.

I felt flattered that 1 1/2 pages (pages 28-29) were devoted to the Committee for the Reexamination of the History of the Second World War, with its tiny financial expenditures. My own writings are mentioned in some detail, such as my arguments in favor of the use of the ?Aryan? and Bulletin 5, in which I analyzed the factors which brought about National Socialism and in which I pointed out that some of the features of National Socialism were by no means peculiarly German, and that some American influences on National Socialism were obvious. Bulletins 14-15 are also mentioned, which bore the title, ?How to Discuss the Extermination Thesis (Holocaust) at a Cocktail Party or at a ?Holocaust? Seminar Sponsored by Zionists.? I am accused of making ?ongoing efforts at revitalization of National Socialism and ?Aryan? supremacy.? Having been involved in Denazification after the war when I was still in military service, I am well aware what a thorough job of brainwashing was done by the Allied occupation authorities in Germany and how close to impossible a revitalization of National Socialism would be, even in Germany itself. I am also delighted that the authors of Hitler?s Apologists believe that the Committee for the Reexamination of the History of the Second World War consists of only one person.

On page 74 we have a quite welcome list of representative revisionist books offered for sale by the Institute for Historical Review. This list is a valuable guide for the reader who wishes to investigate the other side of the ?Holocaust? controversy, the side which is never presented in Hollywood films or network television series or, for that matter, typical courses in universities on recent European history, even though universities should be redoubts of historical objectivity if they really intend to serve their students honestly.

The Anti-Defamation League grows in importance and hence the ability to attract donations by frightening Jews into believing that historical revisionism is only very modestly financed and virtually completely excluded form influence on the media of the United States, especially its television networks, which continue to pour out a stream of programs based on the ?Holocaust? claims, such as the very expensively produced television series, War and Remembrance. (For reviews of this series, see our Bulletins 32 and 37. The thought has sometimes crossed my mind that a preoccupation with the ?Holocaust? material has done considerable psychological damage to Jews themselves.

Although several of my own writings were presented in a somewhat critical manner in this book (pages 28-29) and in spite of the basic intent of the book, I hope that it will be widely read. The materials presented in this book, including the valuable little guide to revisionist literature on page 74, and the quotations from various revisionist authors should indicate to a reader with capacities for analysis and critical thought that there is a reasonable basis for questioning the usual versions of the ?Holocaust? material.

Committee for the Reexamination of the History of the Second World War (Bulletin No. 66)[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]Israel Lobby[/large]
Milton Viorst on ?The Israel Lobby?

Posted on Oct 4, 2007
israellobbybook.com
RELATED LINKSThe original article that inspired the book can be found on the London Review?s Web site. The letters it provoked along with Mearsheimer and Walt?s reply are well worth reading. The essay also prompted a response by, among others, Christopher Hitchens on Slate. Some months later, the London Review of Books sponsored a debate at Cooper Union in New York City, which can be viewed here. Also, be sure to read this interview with the authors.

By Milton Viorst

About 30 or so years ago, when I first began to write of my concern that Israel was embarked on a course that would lead only to recurring wars, or perhaps worse, I received a letter from Abraham H. Foxman, then as now the voice of the Anti-Defamation League, admonishing me as a Jew not to wash our people?s dirty linen in public. I still have it in my files. His point, of course, was not whether the washing should be public or private; he did not offer an alternative laundry. His objective was?and remains?to squelch anyone who is critical of Israel?s policies.

In the ensuing years, Foxman and a legion of like-minded leaders, most but not all of them Jewish, have been remarkably successful in suppressing an open and frank debate on Israel?s course. In view of Israel?s impact on America?s place in the world, it is astonishing how little discussion its role has generated. As a practical matter, the subject has been taboo. John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, professors of political science at the University of Chicago and Harvard?s John F. Kennedy School of Government, respectively, have challenged this taboo in their new book, ?The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.? Foxman, in an effort to discredit them, has written a rejoinder in his book ?The Deadliest Lies: The Jewish Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control.?

The controversy over Mearsheimer and Walt?s views has been going on since March of last year, when they first presented their argument in the London Review of Books. In their essay, they contended that support of the magnitude that the United States gives Israel might have been justified during the Cold War but is not defensible, ?on either strategic or moral grounds,? under the conditions that currently prevail in the Middle East. America?s unconditional backing, they argued, is harmful to its own interests and possibly even to Israel?s, and it is made possible only by the influence of the Israel lobby over U.S. foreign policy. The article touched a sensitive chord among many of Israel?s defenders, generating a furor. Now Mearsheimer and Walt have written a book which, while more comprehensive at nearly 500 pages, recapitulates the original themes. Foxman acknowledges basing his book-length reply on the article, so impatient was he to proclaim its authors guilty of ?distortions, omissions and errors.?

The late social critic Irving Howe, deeply committed to Israel himself, used to argue that Jewish leaders like Foxman depend for their status on ceaselessly trumpeting the dangers faced by the Jewish people, and particularly by Israel, from a hostile world. These leaders, Howe insisted, exploit the scars which inquisitions, pogroms and the Holocaust have left on the collective Jewish psyche, scars which distort Jewish political judgment. Foxman is no doubt sincere in agonizing over the dangers that Jews have historically faced. But Howe argued that these dangers had become a vested interest for the leaders of Jewish organizations, making an open and honest debate all but impossible in American Jewish circles and in America?s political culture generally.

Foxman does not quite accuse Mearsheimer and Walt?though other disapproving critics do?of being anti-Semitic. But he uses intimidating language nonetheless, pointing to a ?level of quiet, subtle bigotry?an attitude that may not run to the actual hatred of Jews but that assumes that Jews are somehow different, less respectable, less honorable, more treacherous, more devious than other people. ? t?s only natural that people who exhibit this kind of bias against Jews should look a little askance at the special relationship that exists between American Jews and the nation of Israel.?

One can admit the legitimacy of Foxman?s warnings on anti-Semitism and still ask for the evidence of ?subtle bigotry? in the Mearsheimer-Walt text. I found none, unless the reader accepts the premise that anti-Semitism is present in any scrutiny of relations between the U.S. government and American Jews, or the Israel lobby. Foxman says the authors? objective is to make Israel into a ?pariah? state, though nothing that they write reveals such a goal. On the contrary, Mearsheimer and Walt recognize lobbies?all lobbies?as a legitimate part of the American political system, existing to shape or shift policy in the interest of the various causes they serve. Foxman, backed by quotes from such dubious authorities as Dennis Ross, an ex-U.S. ambassador and a vigorous defender of official Israeli views, seeks to attribute something sinister to their motives.

Without question, Mearsheimer and Walt have written less a work of political science than a brief for their position. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as they maintain the standards of scholarship incumbent on their craft, which exhaustive footnotes of more than a hundred pages suggest strongly that they do. Some of their critics, ill at ease with the charge of anti-Semitism or ?subtle bigotry,? have accused them of being ?unbalanced,? in omitting the sins of ?the other side.? By their nature, briefs are not balanced, but in this case the accusation seems doubly contrived. Assuming that the Palestinians or radical Muslims are ?the other side,? the critics can scarcely claim that the literature is not already overflowing with negative evaluations, readily at hand in any library or bookstore. The objective of Mearsheimer and Walt is to break new scholarly ground, which is what academics are supposed to do. Their findings will come as no surprise to those familiar with American political institutions, but, judging by the reverberations of the Foxman line, they have ignited panic by daring to put so much of the available material on the public record.

That is not to say that Mearsheimer and Walt do not leave a great deal of room for disagreement: for example, their contention, presented in a discussion of Israel?s role in instigating the invasion of Iraq, that ?absent the lobby?s influence, there almost certainly would not have been a war.? Surely the American decision to invade Iraq, like most of history?s grand events, arose out of a confluence of causes, no single one of which would have sufficed to bring it about. Here are just a few of those causes: oil, the rebound to 9/11, President Bush?s relations with his father, concern over free navigation in the Persian Gulf, a sense of Christian mission, the Pentagon?s hunger for Middle East bases to provide ?forward thrust? for American power. Moreover, many in decision-making circles swallowed Bush?s claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and a few may even have believed that we had a moral duty to liberate Iraqis from Saddam?s heartless tyranny. Though we know now there were no WMD, much less plans to improve the life of the Iraqis, each of these considerations played a part in generating the momentum to invade.

As for the Israel lobby, no doubt it weighed in during the deliberations. Israel?s fears of Iraq, though exaggerated, were surely real. But the lobby?s power was only marginal on President Bush and his entourage of neocons who long before had made up their minds. On this matter, the authors overstate their case. The Israel lobby was a player in the discussion on going to war, but there is little evidence to regard its role as decisive.

Indeed, it is not clear whether Mearsheimer and Walt fully understand what the Israel lobby is. At its apex, of course, is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Washington-based organization whose power strikes fear in the executive branch and, even more so, in Congress. AIPAC is complemented by a constellation of satellites, among them the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the American Jewish Committee and Foxman?s own Anti-Defamation League. Their agenda seeks not only to assure Israel?s survival but to pursue particular partisan policies. They function, in effect, as the U.S. arm of Likud, serving Israel?s right wing in rejecting the exchange of land for peace with the Arabs, in standing up for the Jewish settlements that blanket the territories conquered in 1967, in condoning the mistreatment of the Palestinians of the occupied lands, whose life grows more onerous each day.

But Mearsheimer and Walt go on to add to their taxonomic mix such groups as Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum and the Tikkun Community, on the grounds that they also support Israel. They do, of course, but their values are precisely the opposite of the AIPAC coalition?s. They argue for peace with the Arabs, while casting doubt on the hard-line position?encouraged by the Bush administration?that only military superiority will guarantee Israel?s security. Their point of departure, to be sure, is not so much America?s strategic interests as Zionism in the old-fashioned sense, i.e. the survival of a humane, secular and democratic Jewish state. But their politics lead them to conclusions about relations with Israel?s U.S. patron that are much like those of Mearsheimer and Walt.

These groups are much smaller than the AIPAC coalition, and have far more modest budgets, but most polls suggest their goals are consistent with the vision held by a majority of American Jews. Despite the ceaseless efforts of Foxman and his allies, many Jews who have thought hard about how best to assure Israel?s survival have rejected the call to march in lock step with Israel?s hard-liners. I would add that Mearsheimer and Walt, by calling the AIPAC alliance the ?Israel lobby? or the ?pro-Israel lobby,? perpetuate a misnomer in all but ignoring the peace groups. It would be more accurate to call AIPAC?s coalition the ?right-wing Israel lobby,? which might at least provoke Israel?s friends, Jewish and non-Jewish, to examine whether AIPAC?s effort might not actually be harmful to Israel?s long-term well-being.

What is impossible to dispute is that the AIPAC coalition, by its own standards, has been hugely successful, starting with imposing a kind of political omerta in the consideration of Israeli policies. Its promotion of silence zeroes in heavily on Congress, whose members seem especially vulnerable to its muscle. A prominent senator once told me he long ago gave up arguing against AIPAC?s orthodoxy and now signs on to anything it puts on his desk. Over the decades, AIPAC has used the money at its disposal to influence electoral campaigns that have defeated more than a few senators and congressmen who have had the temerity to break the taboo. Their loss has served as a lesson that intimidates the rest.

But money is not AIPAC?s only weapon. Brilliantly organized, AIPAC counts on sympathizers nationwide to deluge Congress, as well as the media, with its messages. It is an adage of democratic politics that intensity of feeling trumps the sentiments of passive majorities, as revealed by polls. In this, AIPAC is not alone. The gun lobby is another example. The producer of an evening news program in which I made a critical remark about Israeli policy informed me that the next morning the station had received a record number of denunciatory e-mails. He has since stopped inviting me on the show.

Today, a campaign is being waged against Rep. James Moran, an anti-war Democrat from Virginia, who has occasionally questioned Israel?s course. Moran, said to hold a ?safe? seat, dared in a recent interview on Iraq to say that ?Jewish Americans as a voting bloc and as an influence on foreign policy are overwhelmingly opposed to the war. ? But AIPAC is the most powerful lobby and has pushed this war from the beginning. ? Their influence is dominant in the Congress.? Then, in a zinger, he added that AIPAC?s members were often ?quite wealthy,? a characterization that makes Jews wince. Moran?s words elicited attacks by both Republicans and Democrats, demonstrating not that he had conveyed any falsehood but that neither political party, with an eye to the next election, is willing to provoke AIPAC?s ire.

Yet, even taking money and organization into account, there remains something of a mystery about the influence that AIPAC and its allies wield. In contrast to AIPAC, the gun lobby is routinely called upon to defend itself. But AIPAC?s task, it seems, is easier, because non-Jews, no less than Jews, unquestioningly accept its marching orders. Why, when it comes to AIPAC, do so many Americans abandon the skepticism they apply to other interests within the political spectrum? Europe is much less accommodating to Israel. AIPAC, naturally, blames the difference on Europe?s anti-Semitism, though?apart from Europe?s Muslims, who start with political grievances against Israel?there is little evidence to support its theory. Mearsheimer and Walt credit AIPAC?s skillful manipulation of the system, but the search for an answer needs more.

Perhaps the answer has something to do with America?s being the most religious, the most Christian, the most church-going society in the Western world. Once upon a time, deeply held Christian faith could be taken as a measure of hostility to Jews; that certainly is the case no longer. If anything, American Christianity?led by but not exclusive to evangelicals?seems to take the biblical promise of a homeland for the Jews as a test of its beliefs and a commitment of its own. This commitment goes beyond guaranteeing Israel?s existence. It provides a body of sympathy for Israel?s hard line, and for the economic aid and weaponry that the United States dispatches to support it.

Unfortunately, the pro-peace segment of the American Jewish community does not have a parallel lobby. It has a few organizations, with dedicated adherents. Its members try to persuade the American Jewish community that reaching out to the Arab world, and particularly to the Palestinians, is better for Israel than perpetual war. AIPAC does its best to de-legitimize them, but they hang in stubbornly, though they are barely a whisper in the debate over Israel?s course. Despite the polls suggesting that many Jews agree with them, the influence of the peace groups is no threat to AIPAC?s pre-eminence. It is ironic that without Foxman and the like-minded critics who echo him, the Mearsheimer-Walt book might well have vanished with barely a ripple. Instead, their shrill voices have propelled it onto best-seller lists. Whether the book?s success means, however, that the American people and the politicians who lead them are readier than before to seriously consider the issues that it raises is still far from clear.

Milton Viorst, a former correspondent for The New Yorker, has written six books on the Middle East. His most recent is ?Storm from the East: The Struggle between the Arab World and the Christian West.?[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify]Israel Now For Journalists of the Future

Source: The Jerusalem Post | September 11, 2000

Israel Now for Journalists of the Future

By Chani Cohen

(September 11) ? As editor of The Rice Thresher, the student newspaper of Rice University in Texas, Mariel Tam doesn?t often have the opportunity to cover foreign affairs.

So, not surprisingly, she found her trip to Poland, Bulgaria, and Israel ? as part of the Anti-Defamation League?s seminar for editors-in-chief of American college and university newspapers ? an eye-opening experience.

?The trip gave me a whole new worldview,? said Tam last week in Jerusalem.

?I visited an impoverished Gypsy camp in Bulgaria, walked through Auschwitz, and chilled with Beduin in the desert. I now see how people view America from the outside, and how Americans are all too often self-centered.?

For the past eight years the ADL has sponsored the all-expenses-paid seminar, in the hope that the program will serve to heighten awareness among future journalists of the impact of the Holocaust and the historic events that led to the creation of the State of Israel.

?We want to give the students an increased understanding of the incredible complexities facing Israel today and the hope for peace shared by all,? said Jeffrey Ross, director of campus affairs for the ADL, to assist them in becoming ?factual journalists with guaranteed integrity.?

?They are the gatekeepers of ideas in their universities? trendsetters who, for example, stand on the front lines of Holocaust denial on campus.

?Many will also go on to achieve top positions at leading American newspapers.?

Through firsthand exposure, and by discussing the inaccuracies and distortions found in media coverage of Israeli and Jewish affairs, ?we want to show the students that many of the simplistic images conveyed by the American media are devoid of essential context.

?Our aim is to dispel the myths that surround the reporting on Israel and increase awareness of antisemitism in the media.?

Ross, who helps organize the trip and accompanies the group every year, strives to achieve this goal by exposing the students to various sides of the political spectrum. They meet with a diversified network of decision-makers, government and military officials, peace negotiators, journalists, and locals in all three countries.

?If the students were exposed to only one side the program would not be a success; the diversity of the program is what gives it credibility? he continued. ?This is a very sophisticated group of students who can handle exposure to all ranges of thought.?

?ENCOUNTERING and actually listening to these different viewpoints will help me as a journalist,? said Letitia Stein, editor-in-chief of the Yale Daily News. ?I will not be as likely to simplify a situation.

?Talking to representatives of different viewpoints, who are so passionate about their cause, has allowed me to see that the situation is more complex. We are dealing with real people and real feelings, not just ?news.? ?

The program?s itinerary is constructed to convey an ideological message.

The first country visited is Poland, the ground zero of Jewish annihilation during the Holocaust. Then the group moves on to Bulgaria, a country that united to save its Jewish populace. The trip culminates in Israel, the symbol of Jewish resurrection and self-empowerment.

?Visiting Bulgaria right after Poland provides an immediate historical balance to the destruction witnessed in Poland,? said Ross. ?The students see how Poland and Bulgaria have been ravaged by 50 years of communist rule, while Israel has been built into a dynamic and attractive society during the same time period.

?Through witnessing the situation firsthand they will be able to look at media reports in a different way and be better journalists because of this experience.?

The students agreed.

Nathan Ashby-Kuhlman, co-editor of The Phoenix, the student newspaper of Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, said the seminar had helped him realize the importance of detail while reporting.

?Too much journalism is done on a hasty basis, where the reporter is desensitized to what is taking place and does not acquire the necessary detailed background to offer an accurate perspective,? he said.

?Being here and actually walking where the news and history occurs, has made me realize that it is essential to have all the necessary background and a real understanding of the place and people you are reporting on.?

?I will utilize this skill with all reporting,? he declared.

Brian Fiske, editor-in-chief of the Cornell Review, credited his experiences here with helping him realize that he had been influenced by media hype.

?Israel and the Middle East are so heavily reported, a lot of it is misconceptions? In truth, we [in America] don?t know much at all about what goes on here.?

DESPITE THE ADL?s sponsorship the program does not target Jewish students, and only about a quarter of the 21 participants were actually Jewish. Some said they came away from the seminar with a renewed sense of Jewish identity.

?Before the program, I backed away from really accepting Israel,? said Yale?s Stein. ?Now, I feel more comfortable with embracing Israel as part of my Jewish identity.?

Arthur Harris, city news editor of the Columbia Daily Spectator, experienced a similar epiphany which even has him thinking about a possible move to Israel after he graduates from college.

?I was walking in Jerusalem on Shabbat and met with scores of Jews on their way to synagogue wearing kippot and carrying prayer books,? said Harris.

?It was incredible to see. In America this is accompanied by a degree of self-consciousness. I felt a level of comfort that is difficult to explain.

?My feeling of identifying with the Jews in Israel was much stronger than I had expected, and I found that my foremost concern was the survival of Israel.?

As a journalist Harris credited the seminar with having ?deepened my sense of obligation to give all sides a fair chance. It will compel me to understand all the forces that create a situation.

?There are always factors much deeper than the rhetoric, and this is a challenge I look forward to.?[/justify]

[Dejuificator II]

[justify][large]Israel's Bellin Rips Us Jews[/large]

Israel's Beilin Rips U.S. Jews For Undercutting P.A. Chief
'Does the ADL Have Another Partner for Me?'

By RACHEL DONADIO
[small]www.forward.com[/small]

American Jews should stop acting "more Israeli than Israelis" by
undermining Yasser Arafat at a time when Israel is trying to
negotiate with him, Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin said last
week.

Addressing the editorial board of the Forward, the controversial
minister singled out the Anti-Defamation League for particular
criticism, calling the league's recent advertising campaign against
Palestinian violence "a mistake."

"Why should the ADL publish an ad in the American press to tell the
world that Arafat is not my partner?" Mr. Beilin asked. "The ADL
doesn't have another partner for me. If they had somebody else, I
would love it." Since they do not, he continued, campaigning to
delegitimize Mr. Arafat "doesn't help Israel. It doesn't help
anybody, it doesn't help peace."

The national director of the ADL, Abraham Foxman, called Mr.
Beilin's remarks "ironic," and suggested that his group might have
been more in synch with Prime Minister Barak than Mr. Beilin is.

Mr. Beilin's remarks were part of a wide-ranging discussion of
Israeli policy, Palestinian violence and the prospects for a
renewed peace process. Mr. Beilin said there was blame on both
sides for the current failure of the peace process that he helped
launch in Oslo seven years ago. "There are no saints in this
story," he said. "On both sides we breached the agreement."

Nonetheless, he insisted, peace was still achievable if both sides
were willing to compromise. In particular, he said, the
Palestinians would have to give up their demand for a right of
return to former homes within the State of Israel. (Please see
related article, Page 6.)

"If we can find compromises ? on the borders, the settlements, on
Jerusalem, and if they understand that the right of return for us,
as Jews, as Zionists, is the most important red line, then I think
that we can cut a deal in a short while," he said.

Mr. Beilin was en route to Washington, where he met the next day
with National Security Adviser Samuel Berger and had an unscheduled
conversation with President Clinton. According to Israeli press
reports, Mr. Clinton promised the Israeli minister that he would
make Israeli-Palestinian peace talks his highest foreign-policy
priority in his remaining weeks in office.

Mr. Beilin told the Forward that he was not intending to dictate
the role American Jews should play in expressing their views on
Israel. "I don't want American Jews to march in the streets of New
York to say that peace is the only solution," he said. "Although I
would like to see them doing it, I don't demand it."

What he was asking, he said, was that mainstream Jewish
organizations refrain from campaigns that hurt the chances of
peace. "I just believe that it is important that the mainstream
organizations will not make such mistakes," he said.

On November 19, the ADL ran an advertisement on the op-ed page of
the New York Times. "If you really wanted peace with Israel," the
ad asked, "would you: teach your young children anti-Israel,
anti-Semitic hatredÖ. Put your children in front of your own
snipersÖ. Walk away from

negotiations with the Israeli government after it has offered more
than any government before it?" Answering its own question, the ad
continued: "Of course not. Mr. Arafat: Put down the violence, pick
up the peace."

" not think I was saying anything unique or new in the ad.
I thought I was being supportive of

the Israeli government. That's not what Yossi Beilin was. He's not
always in synch with the prime minister. I was," Mr. Foxman said.

Ironically, Mr. Foxman noted, Mr. Beilin has been a champion of the
rights of Diaspora Jews to challenge the Israeli government and
voice their own views.

"Yossi Beilin used to tell me that I had an obligation to tell
Israel what to think. I said no, I'm not a citizen, I don't bear
the consequences of my opinions," Mr. Foxman said. "Now he comes
and criticizes what I believe I heard his prime minister and his
fellow ministers say."

"He can't have it both ways," Mr. Foxman said. "On the one hand, he
says that Diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews are equal partners ? which
I don't think we are, because when it comes to consequences, we are
limited partners and they are general partners. The consequences
for them are total and for us are limited."

"I continue to respect him," Mr. Foxman said. "And I will continue
to disagree with him."

One of Mr. Beilin's potentially most controversial statements to
the Forward was his assertion that both sides were to blame for the
failure of the peace talks.

Under the 1993 Oslo accords, Israelis and Palestinians were to
begin negotiations toward a permanent solution on May 4, 1996, Mr.
Beilin said. That day, the Israeli Foreign Ministry's then-director
general, Uri Savir, and a senior aide to Mr. Arafat, Abu Mazen, met
at the Egyptian resort of Taba to start talks on a final-status
accord. "It was a big ceremony and nothing happened," Mr. Beilin
said. "There was never a second meeting after that."

"It's not that we negotiated with them and were not successful,"
Mr. Beilin said. "It's that we did not negotiate about the
permanent solution.

Moreover, he said, Israel failed to honor several other provisions
of the Oslo accord. "We did not hand over territory to them
according to the agreement," he said. "We did not establish the
passage between Gaza and the West Bank, which made their lives
awful."

"On the other hand, they were not saints either," Mr. Beilin
continued. "They did not end the incitementÖ. They did not collect
unauthorized weaponsÖ. I think today we are all paying the price of
the fact that we both breached the agreement."

The most immediate fallout from the agreement's collapse, it
appears, is the fall of Prime Minister Barak's government and the
move toward early elections. Current polls show Mr. Barak losing
badly to the man he beat in 1999, then-Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, the likely Likud contender.

Mr. Beilin acknowledged that a strong "feeling of insecurity,"
compounded by "frustration, the feeling that everything is falling
apart," would affect Israeli voting trends. Nonetheless, he said,
it would not necessarily translate into a victory for Mr.
Netanyahu.

He said reminders about Mr. Netanyahu's corruption scandals might
be enough to sway voters. "It's been a year and a half, and people
tend to forget," he said. "They actually chose Barak mainly because
they didn't want Netanyahu. And I'm not sure that they're going to
chose Netanyahu only because they don't want Barak, although it's
possible."

As for Israel's image in the media, Mr. Beilin said, "It is a very
strange situation. In Israel we are being criticized for
restraining our force, by the world we are criticized for using
excessive force."

The reason Israel uses force, he said, is because it has no other
options for confronting Palestinian violence. "We cannot just take
a bus of kids from Jerusalem and send them to Gaza to throw stones
at their peers. There is no such arrangement."

"We have an army, and we use it. We don't have slingshots," he
continued. "This is the way we know how to use our force. By
definition it may be excessive force, but the feeling in Israel is
that there is no excessive use of force, rather we are restrained."

Citing "the hunger and poverty" in the territories, Mr. Beilin said
that Palestinians were suffering from their own use of violence. "I
think that the Palestinians understand today much better that at
least up to a certain point they are paying the price for this
ongoing violence," he said. "But it is more difficult for them than
for us to stop it."

"The irritating thing is that we were so close to an agreement,"
Mr. Beilin said. "We went such a long way toward an agreement, and
they went a very significant way too, [although] not as far as we
went."

"The question I ask myself is why did it happen now?" he said. "Why
didn't it happen 15 years ago or 25 years ago? Why did it happen on
the verge of the end of occupation, on the verge of having a
Palestinian state recognized by us?"

"But, you know, I'm old enough to understand that I won't have the
answers to all my questions," Mr. Beilin said. "I'll have to be
satisfied with changing the future rather than with understanding
the past."[/justify]