You are not logged in.

WAWA CONSPI - The Savoisien

Exegi monumentum aere perennius

Announcement

#47 14-10-2013 16:27:49

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

Adversaries Go Inside ADL's Spying Operation

Source: The San Francisco Examiner | April 1, 2002

Adversaries Go Inside ADL’s Spying Operation

The hidden workings of the Anti-Defamation League and how three Bay Area activists were able to uncover a spy operation that reached into the San Francisco Police Department.

By Dan Evans Of The Examiner Staff

Paper trail of deceit.

Locked in a nondescript computer database, a shadowy operative named Roy Bullock kept file upon file on liberal San Francisco Jews who disagreed with Israeli policies.

The files included Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, addresses, phone numbers and group memberships. Some of the information was sold to foreign governments, including Israeli and South African intelligence groups.

Shockingly, Bullock was in the employ of a civil rights group whose motto is “fighting anti-Semitism, bigotry and extremism”: the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. Numerous targets of the ADL — who drew parallels to COINTELPRO, the FBI’s tainted domestic surveillance program — say the profiling and covert activities continue to this day.

“They are continuing to gather facts,” said Abdeen Jabara, a Manhattan attorney and former president of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. “That, of course, is a euphemism for what we say is private spying.”

Not only were liberal Jews a target, but information also was kept on labor unions, pro-Palestinian organizations, anti-apartheid groups, American Arabs and anti-Semites. After the Federal Bureau of Investigation broke the case in 1993, a number of these targets filed suit against the ADL. The last lawsuit was recently settled.

The settlement in February marked the first time any of the organization’s victims were allowed to speak out. Usually, the ADL demands plaintiffs keep quiet as a condition of any settlement.

Without those constraints, victims Jeffrey Blankfort, Steve Zeltzer and Anne Poirier are revealing the underbelly of an organization that previously had successfully shielded itself from condemnation. They are using the ADL’s own spy as a fulcrum.

Bullock’s relationship with Blankfort and Zeltzer began when he infiltrated a pro-Palestinian group started by the two, both of whom are Jewish. Once inside, Bullock collected and sold information about the two men to the ADL and, possibly the Mossad, the foreign arm of Israeli intelligence.

Although Bullock never met Poirier, he may have sold information on her organization to the South African government. The woman, who lives in Berkeley, ran a scholarship program for South African exiles in the early 1990s. During the course of her lawsuit against the ADL, she discovered the ADL’s operative had sold confidential information to a South African agent in San Francisco for $15,000.

Poirier had never done any work relating to the Middle East, and she was astounded when she found out that the ADL had kept tabs on her. During her nine-year court fight with the group, she found out more than she needed to know about its operation, and now nothing much surprises her.

“They gathered information on anti-apartheid activities,” she said, “anyone the organization felt, by definition, would be against Israel because they were too left-wing.”

A few files, so what?

The fact the ADL has a file on a group doesn’t imply clandestine activities, said San Francisco regional director Jonathan Bernstein. He resents the implication of the word spying, saying it implies people were being followed around and trailed. That simply wasn’t the case, he said, though he acknowledged he never met Bullock.

“We have files on the NAACP because we’ve done collaborative projects with them,” he said. “They probably have files on the ADL, too.”

In Bernstein’s eyes, the group’s fact-finding operations are one of its most important missions.

Much of the time, the “missions” are nothing more than gleaning information from media reports, he said. People employed by the ADL do attend public meetings to keep an eye on people, just as other journalists do.

The area’s top boss, however, repeatedly sidestepped questions on whether fact-finders employed subterfuge to get information. The fact that some of the people being watched by the ADL were Jewish was immaterial, Bernstein said.

Other civil rights groups, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, do similar things on a limited scale, he said.

A representative of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is headquartered in Birmingham, could not be reached for comment.

Because the ADL has 30 regional offices, the organization is much better equipped to ferret out anti-Semitism and other racist behavior.

“It can help us to respond to hate activity before someone gets hurt,” Bernstein said. “That’s the ultimate objective.”

But are there times when fact-finding becomes a civil rights violation?

The San Francisco office of the American Civil Liberties Union, a group one might expect to have a dim view on the tactics employed by the ADL, refused to comment on the group’s fact-finding activities. Nor would spokeswoman Rachel Swain give a reason for the silence.

Ongoing complaints

Groups have been saying for years that the ADL isn’t the civil rights organization it claims to be, but no one has been listening. Mostly, it’s because those groups have been thinly-veiled anti-Semites, such as the Liberty Lobby, or hate groups such as White Aryan Resistance and the KKK.

But, as vile as some of these groups are, there is a significant amount of evidence that their vitriol is not unfounded. For at least four decades, the ADL continuously has tracked and spied on groups it considers not only a threat to the Jewish community, but to the state of Israel.

Hussein Ibish certainly thinks so. Ibish is the spokesman for the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee — an organization that is, in many ways, the Arab counterpart to the ADL. Though certainly at odds with many Israeli policies, the ADC is not anti-Semitic, and plays a rather moderate role.

“Was the ADL spying on people?” asked Ibish, quickly answering his own question. “Certainly in San Francisco they were. We know they were engaging in illegal activities to gain information. They, and their operatives, were working hand-in-glove with South African intelligence and Israeli intelligence.”

Meet Mr. Spy

By his own admission, Bullock had been working off the books as a fact-finder for the ADL since the mid-1960s. He would infiltrate not only openly anti-Semitic groups, but also pro-Palestinian and anti-apartheid organizations, usually under false pretenses. Bullock, who is not Jewish, would then pass that information along to the ADL.

He received information about his targets from former San Francisco Police Inspector Tom Gerard, who fled to the Philippines after being indicted in 1994 for illegal use of a police computer. Gerard’s current whereabouts are unknown.

Bullock, who no longer does undercover work for the organization, declined to be interviewed for this article.

Nobody could have known about the extent of Bullock’s surveillance, if police had not seized his computer database in April 1993. It contained thousands of files on liberal Jewish San Franciscans, Arab-Americans, anti-apartheid activists, anti-Semitic groups, and plain ol’ white racists.

On April 8, 1993, armed with this information, police in San Francisco and Los Angeles searched the ADL offices in those two cities. In San Francisco, roughly 10 banker’s boxes of information — 75 percent of which officers said was illegally obtained — were seized.

A majority of data in those boxes confirmed police suspicions that it had come from Bullock’s computer. On that computer was information on 9,876 people, including 1,394 driver’s licenses. The files were divided into five categories: “Pinko,” “Right,” Arabs,” “Skins,” and “ANC,” the last standing for African National Congress.

Bullock also told the FBI that he had information on various labor groups. These groups included: the San Francisco Labor Council, the Oakland Educators Association, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Irish Northern Aid, the International Indian Treaty Council and the Asian Law Caucus.

Lawsuits galore

After the SFPD raid on the ADL offices, then-District Attorney Arlo Smith filed a lawsuit against the organization to stop the spying. The suit was settled that November. Though the ADL acknowledged no wrongdoing, the group agreed to stop using police to get confidential information. The league also agreed to pay $75,000 to a fund used to help stop hate crimes.

On April 18, 1993, 19 people who Bullock kept files on sued the ADL in San Francisco Superior Court. Pete McCloskey, a former Republican congressman from San Mateo County, was the group’s attorney. His wife, Helen, was one of the original plaintiffs.

A few months later, in October, the ADC slapped its Jewish counterpart with a similar lawsuit in Los Angeles federal court. The ADC claimed the ADL passed along information on the group to the Israeli government. The ADC’s suit was settled in October 1996.

The ADL agreed to pay $175,000 toward the Arab group’s legal costs. The ADL also agreed to contribute $25,000 to a foundation, administered by the ADL and the ADC, dedicated to improving relations between Jews and Arabs. The ADL was able to deny all wrongdoing.

Journalistic enterprise?

The McCloskey case, however, would drag on. The main point of contention in that case was whether the ADL could be considered a journalistic enterprise, a point won in court by the ADL.

The ADL publishes hundreds of newsletters, papers and books on a wide range of subjects, attorney David Goldstein said. As with any other journalistic enterprise, it contended it was not required to release its confidential information or sources.

After a 1998 ruling by the 1st District Court of Appeal, giving the ADL journalistic protection, 14 of the remaining 17 plaintiffs — two had died in the interim — dropped their cases against the ADL.

On Feb. 22, 2002, the ADL settled with Blankfort, Zeltzer and Poirier.

What held up the process, said McCloskey, was his clients’ refusal to sign a confidentially agreement. The three felt they had been viciously wronged, he said, and wanted to publicize that fact.

With the settlement, each of the three plaintiffs received about $50,000. None of the three, or McCloskey, believes the ADL will stop their spying ways.

“It was settled partially out of fatigue,” said the attorney. “Everyone figured it might be best if we all just moved on.”

Even if the case had continued, said Goldstein, there is a debate over how much the three plaintiffs could prove they had been injured. Most of the contested information consisted of Social Security and driver’s license numbers, which are hardly difficult items to find.

Nine years later, McCloskey is still angry about the case and wants the federal government to revoke the group’s tax-exempt status.

Since they obviously are working in conjunction with the Israeli government, he said, they should register as such. Referring to themselves as an education group, said the attorney, is simply a sham.

Acerbic battle leaves sour taste.

After nearly a decade of fighting the Anti-Defamation League in court, attorney Pete McCloskey is as bitter as a man who consumed a gallon of vinegar.

The former Republican congressman from San Mateo, who recently won a settlement from the civil rights group for three Bay Area residents, is still tending to emotional wounds he endured from the ADL simply for defending his clients’ rights.

“They come after anyone that disagrees with them,” he said of the organization’s tactics to paint him as an anti-Semite.

The decorated retired Marine, who represented his San Mateo County district in the House of Representatives from 1967 to 1983, is anything but an ideologue. He was one of the few Republicans who opposed the Vietnam War and fought with President Nixon on numerous occasions.

While he vehemently denies any ties to anti-Semitic or neo-Nazis groups, some of the avenues he chose to express his views have not helped his case.

Anti-Semitic newspaper

While in Congress, McCloskey granted an interview in 1982 with the anti-Semitic newspaper Spotlight. And in May 2000, he gave a speech at a conference of the Institute of Historical Review, a Holocaust revisionist group.

McCloskey spoke to the Spotlight because, he believes, one should speak to people they disagree with as much as people they agree with. The newspaper was the publication of the now-defunct Liberty Lobby.

Though he acknowledged the newspaper’s subscribers were primarily right-wingers and racists, ascribing him similar views are ridiculous, he said.

“Not a year didn’t go by during the years I was in Congress that the Spotlight didn’t blast me as being a liberal Republican,” he said.

In the Oct. 11, 1982 edition of the paper, McCloskey said Republicans were far better politically positioned than Democrats to push for a Palestinian state because GOP candidates were not as beholden to Jewish money to get elected.

“The battle will be for public opinion in the United States, whether the Congress will be willing to back Reagan and stand up to the Jewish lobby in this country,” he said.

However, he also stated in the interview that he disagreed with 90 percent of the group’s views, and suggested that peace in the Middle East would only be realized when the United States gave equal merit to both Arab and Israeli viewpoints.

Disagreement

As for his connection to the Institute of Historical Review, McCloskey said he respected the group’s determination to question historical records. He said he strongly disagreed with the group’s view on the Holocaust, but supported its right to say it.

In a letter last year to the group’s president, Mark Weber, McCloskey spoke of his visits to death camps and his conviction that “there was a deliberate policy of extermination of Jews, Poles, gypsies and homosexuals by the Nazi leadership.”

McCloskey also suggested Weber’s group give up its views about the Holocaust, and instead focus on what he called the ADL’s distortions of truth, one of them being its claim McCloskey was a Holocaust denier.

“It was like when Bush went down to Bob Jones University, and his political opponents tried to identify him with Bob Jones,” he said, referring to the conservative South Carolina school that, until recently, prohibited interracial dating. “It’s ridiculous.”

“The primary view of the ADL is that Jews should not be stereotyped or guilty by association,” he continued. “Yet you see them trying to discredit people by virtue of their association.”

One of his clients, Steve Zeltzer, acknowledged he wasn’t entirely comfortable with McCloskey going to the Institute of Historical Review convention. Still, he said, he supports the right of free speech, even if he strongly disagrees with the content.

“I wouldn’t have done it, and I was opposed to him going,” Zeltzer said. “I wouldn’t attend one of their conferences. They have a right to say what they want to say, but I don’t support their positions.”

Another client, Anne Poirier, said she had not heard about her attorney’s attendance at the conference and so couldn’t comment on it.

“One thing I know for sure, though, is he’s not an anti-Semite,” said the Berkeley resident. “I’ll go mano-a-mano with anybody that says so.”

E-mail Dan Evans at devans@sfexaminer.com


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#48 14-10-2013 16:28:49

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

A Heated Argument About Israel


June 24, 2009
Letters
A Heated Argument About Israel

To the Editor:

“Fictions on the Ground,” by Tony Judt (Op-Ed, June 22), is the real work of fiction, past, present and future.

Israelis settled in the West Bank because it was deemed part of the historic home of the Jewish people and because the Arabs and the Palestinians rejected opportunities for peace with Israel after the Six-Day War in 1967. The territory in legal terms was undecided because the Palestinians from 1947 rejected the United Nations resolution dividing the land into Arab and Jewish states.

Saying — as Mr. Judt does — that Israel will never give up the settlements ignores the fact that former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to dismantle 80 percent of the settlements at Camp David; that his successor, Ariel Sharon, dismantled all of the settlements in Gaza; and that Israeli leaders have repeatedly indicated that most of the settlements will go if there is peace, and those held will be part of a swap for Israeli territory.

Settlements are not an obstacle to peace if there is serious peacemaking, peace-teaching and compromise from the other side. As for fictions — as Mr. Judt has made clear in his writings, his problem is not with Israeli settlements, but with Israel’s very existence as a Jewish state.

Abraham H. Foxman
National Director
Anti-Defamation League
New York, June 22, 2009
•

To the Editor:

Tony Judt does a wonderful job of clarifying why all the “settlements” are illegal and stand in the way of peace in the Middle East, and of explaining how the small but significant political constituency in Israel prevents meaningful change from taking place.

He rightly calls on the United States to change its stance but neglects to point out how a small but significant constituency in this country plays a similar role. Some of us, presumed to be part of that very constituency, certainly hope that President Obama will disregard the wrongful wishes of that constituency and put the United States on the right side of this issue once and for all.

For the sake of Israel and the wider world, expansion of settlements must stop, and all of them must be dismantled.

Howard Rubinstein
Brooklyn, June 22, 2009

•

To the Editor:

Tony Judt casts the road map for peace in the Middle East exclusively in terms of his lament for the disappearance of the idealistic kibbutzim of his youth and his fury with the policies of the right-wing prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Yet oddly, in the article, the outside world, including the Palestinians, doesn’t seem to exist.

In these difficult times the United States will have enough difficulty brokering a peace between Israel and the Palestinians — it can’t referee internal Israeli politics. That there are both idealistic and corrupt Israelis and Palestinians is a given. The real issue is how do we pragmatically get to a two-state solution.

Barbara Probst Solomon
New York, June 22, 2009

•

To the Editor:

Tony Judt misleads in many ways, among them by implying that the West Bank was captured by Israel in 1967 from some Palestinian country and not Jordan (which does not seek its return), and contending that Yigal Amir was inspired to assassinate Yitzhak Rabin by “rabbinical” influence at Bar-Ilan University (Mr. Amir has stated clearly otherwise).

Most egregious, though, is Mr. Judt’s amazing objection to demilitarizing any Palestinian state established in the West Bank, because it would “have no means of defending itself against aggression.” Considering how the Palestinians in a militarized Gaza responded to Israel’s withdrawal from that territory, raining thousands of rockets onto Israeli cities, for Israel to help establish a weaponized Arab country in its very heart, within range of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, would be to commit national suicide.

(Rabbi) Avi Shafran
Director of Public Affairs
Agudath Israel of America
New York, June 22, 2009

•

To the Editor:

Tony Judt didn’t answer my most basic question: Why does a future Palestinian state have to be free of Jews? If Arabs can live in Israel, why can’t Jews live in Palestine?

By refusing to answer this question, he and all the proponents of a settlement freeze turn the settlement argument into a facade. Because if the settlements don’t have to be removed, then why waste time arguing about what is a settlement, where are the boundaries, what is natural growth?

Making Jews, and only Jews, leave their homes is ethnic cleansing. Isn’t this exactly what Israel’s critics accuse it of?

Jonathan D. Reich
Lakeland, Fla., June 23, 2009

•

To the Editor:

Tony Judt provides a realistic assessment of both the illegality of settlements in international law as well as the collusion of Israeli governments of all tendencies to support them.

As he points out, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu government’s sudden support of a Palestinian state is meaningless because the settlements would remain, something no Palestinian leader could accept. This will enable Mr. Netanyahu and his supporters in this country to claim once again that there is no partner for peace.

While not all Palestinian factions openly accept Israel’s existence, Fatah does.

But Mahmoud Abbas could never accept Mr. Netanyahu’s supposedly sincere offer because the bypass roads for Jews only and the carefully placed settlements would ensure that no viable Palestinian state could be created — precisely what Israeli rightists and their American lobbies intend.

After all, when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon assured President George W. Bush of his support for a Palestinian state in April 2004, he referred to Palestinians in the West Bank having what he called “transportation contiguity,” meaning tunnels beneath Israeli bypass roads to settlements that only Israelis could use. That constitutes a viable state?

Charles D. Smith
San Diego, June 22, 2009

The writer is a professor of Middle East history at the University of Arizona.

•

To the Editor:

Among the many fictions in Tony Judt’s article was his portrayal of Bar-Ilan University. In his remark about the university, Mr. Judt ignored the tremendous diversity of political opinion and religious observance at Bar-Ilan, Israel’s fastest-growing and largest university, with an academic community of 33,000 students.

Bar-Ilan is a leading force in unifying Israel’s religious and secular communities. More than 60 percent of its students identify as primarily secular. They are attracted by the university’s commitment to a first-class education in the sciences, humanities, law, engineering, business and the arts — all within a learning environment that fosters Jewish values and promotes dialogue among Israelis from different backgrounds.

Bar-Ilan University stresses the Jewish people’s ties to Israel for more than 3,000 years — a point that was emphasized in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech. He wanted to speak at a university that is grounded in the Zionist enterprise.

It is the respect that Israelis have for Bar-Ilan University and its efforts to unify Israeli society that led to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision to give his recent address at the university’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

Mark D. Medin
New York, June 22, 2009

The writer is executive vice president and chief executive, American Friends of Bar-Ilan University.

•

To the Editor:

If the Israelis and the Palestinians are ever to come to an agreement — in three years or 30 years — becoming much clearer and more honest about what the issues really are will need to come first.

In this regard, the article by Tony Judt is a difficult but important step forward. The truth hurts. The “settlements” are indeed the key issue. If “settlements” can be solved, then “security” will come quite naturally. James Opie
Portland, Ore., June 22, 2009

Copyright 2009-The New York Times Company
www.nytimes.com


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#49 14-10-2013 16:29:51

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

AIPAC & ADL Refuse to Condemn Ethnic Cleansers


                AIPAC, ADL refuse to condemn inclusion of
                ethnic cleansers in new Israel government

                             By Ali Abunimah

                        The Electronic Intifada
                             3 March 2003

http://electronicintifada.net/content/a … nment/4432



        LEADING PRO-ISRAELI ORGANIZATIONS in the United States have
        pointedly refused to condemn Ariel Sharon's inclusion in his new
        government of the National Union alliance parties whose members ran
        for election on a platform openly advocating the "transfer" -- or
        ethnic cleansing -- of the Palestinians. The National Union is made
        up of three parties, Moledet, Tekuma and Israel Beitenu and won
        seven seats in the recent Israeli election.

        The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), widely
        regarded as the most influential pro-Israeli group on Capitol Hill,
        did not issue any statement marking the formation of the new
        government. Rebecca Needler, AIPAC's press secretary explained to me
        that, "we don't comment on domestic Israeli issues." When I asked
        her if she thought that the inclusion in the Israeli government of a
        party that openly espouses ethnic cleansing would make AIPAC's
        advocacy work more difficult, Needler replied, "Israel's coalition
        government is representative of a true democracy."

        The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which boasts of "90 years fighting
        anti-Semitism, bigotry and extremism," also remained publicly
        silent. When I called for a comment, a woman named Sarah in the
        media relations office initially told me that, "we don't usually
        issue statements on changes of government in democratic countries."
        I later received a call from ADL National Director Abraham Foxman. I
        asked Foxman if his organization planned to issue a statement
        commenting on the inclusion of the National Union parties in the
        Israeli government. Foxman's first reply was "Why would we?" I
        countered, "because they ran on a platform in favor of physically
        removing all the Palestinians from their homeland."

        Foxman said that it is "an overstatement to say that the party ran
        on a platform of transfer." He claimed that this was just the
        personal view of a few individual members. On its website, however,
        one of the National Union parties says, "Moledet ("homeland" in
        Hebrew) is an ideological political party in Israel that embraces
        the idea of population transfer as an integral part of comprehensive
        plan to achieve real peace between the Jews and the Arabs Living in
        the Land of Israel. [sic] " The party further boasts that, "Moledet
        has successfully raised the idea of transfer in the public discourse
        and political arena in both Israel and abroad."

        The National Union's combined platform states, "Within the framework
        of any agreement, it is necessary to solve the Palestinian refugee
        problem -- refugees who have spent the past 55 years in refugee
        camps. The proposed solution is transfer by agreement (population
        exchange) by which the refugees would be settled in Arab countries
        in place of Jews who emigrated to Israel from these countries." More
        than eighty percent of the population of Gaza and up to forty
        percent of the population of the West Bank are refugees.

        Foxman explained that since "transfer" is not part of the coalition
        agreement, on which the new Israeli government is built, there was
        no reason to issue a public comment. "We disagree," he said, "with
        many parties on many things, and we don't make statements about
        everything." I asked if he didn't think the ADL had a special duty
        to respond to proposals that fit the international legal definition
        of genocide. Foxman assured me that he thought the idea of transfer
        was "unacceptable" and "undemocratic," but made no firm commitment
        to condemn the new Israeli government for including parties with a
        clear pro-ethnic cleansing platform. Foxman said he had not read the
        relevant party platforms "in a while," a remarkable admission from a
        man whose organization apparently scrutinizes for evidence of
        'anti-Semitism' every obscure pamphlet issued in the backstreets of
        Cairo. "I will go back and read them," Foxman assured, "and if
        transfer becomes part of the coalition agreement, then you can be
        sure you will hear from us."

        The very high tolerance for racist and potentially genocidal ideas
        that Foxman evinces when they come from Israelis is not evident in
        other, lesser cases. For example, when the far-right Freedom Party
        made gains in Austria's elections in 2000 on an anti-immigrant
        platform, Foxman issued a statement saying, "It is astonishing that
        a significant portion of the [Austrian] population is ready to
        embrace a party and leadership that espouse xenophobic and nativist
        positions and statements." (ADL press release, 1 February 2000)

        Foxman and ADL President Howard Berkowitz even flew off to Vienna to
        meddle directly in Austrian politics, and met with Austrian
        President Thomas Klestil, as well as the president of the Austrian
        parliament and other senior officials. According to a 28 February
        2000 press release, "The Anti-Defamation League has watched the
        political situation in Austria with great concern. After meeting
        with elected officials, including President Thomas Klestil, we
        remain deeply concerned about the decision by Chancellor Wolfgang
        Schuessel to include Joerg Haider's Freedom Party as part of his
        coalition."

        The idea of "solving" the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by ethnic
        cleansing of the Palestinians is gaining increasing exposure in the
        United States as well as in Israel. In February 2002, the ubiquitous
        daily USA Today published an op-ed calling for "resettling" all the
        Palestinians in Jordan, and in May 2002, then US Republican Majority
        Leader, Congressman Dick Armey, explicitly backed transfer on
        national television. More recently, popular comedian Jackie Mason
        wrote an article in The Jewish Press headlined, "Time To Threaten
        Arabs With Mass Eviction."

        It is hardly surprising that such dangerous notions are becoming
        increasingly mainstream when the leading pro-Israeli organizations
        utterly fail to condemn them, and not a single American newspaper
        devotes an editorial to rejecting them. In such an unrestrained
        atmosphere it cannot be long before Sharon is indeed able to openly
        espouse "transfer" and still be lauded in Washington as a "man of
        peace."

        This article was first published in The Daily Star on 3 March 2003

http://dailystar.com.lb/default.aspx


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#50 14-10-2013 16:30:47

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

AIPAC and Iraq Playing Politics at Ground Zero

Playing Ethnic Politics At Ground Zero

Sam Smith

MARCH 2003 “Progressive Review” — One of the reasons Rep. Jim Moran thinks Jewish leaders are powerful is because the ones he sees are. Jews outside of Washington – like gun-owners, doctors, and Chamber of Commerce members outside of Washington – don’t have a strong sense of just how precisely their “community” is being defined daily by their capital lobbyists.

There is no doubt – if one considers the ‘Jewish community’ as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and various large Jewish campaign contributors – that Rep. Moran was quite correct in saying that they could have had a significant effect on the course of our policy in the Middle East. For example, it took only three days for them to have a significant effect on the course of Rep. Moran’s career, getting his cowardly colleagues to force him out of his House leadership position. Earlier, they helped to have a similar effect on Rep Cynthia McKinney, who went down to defeat thanks in part to an influx of pro-Israel money. AIPAC, after all, is a lobby powerful enough that at its most recent conference, one half of the Senate and one-third of the House showed up.

The fact that the Washington leadership may not accurately reflect the diversity of its national constituency is not uniquely a Jewish problem; it is part of the displacement of democracy from the consensus of the many to the will of a select few that is speeding the decline of the Republic. And never have the selected been fewer than under the present Bush.

In talking about the Jewish manifestation of this, politicians and the media use two different approaches. One is the sanitized patois of ethnic sensitivity as when the perpetually clichéd Eleanor Clift wrote: “Moran apologized, but the historical echoes that he awakened are so antithetical to what Democrats claim to stand for that he might as well bid goodbye to his political career.”

But in the same article in which he quotes Clift, Greg Pierce of the Washington Times also writes, “One political analyst said he counseled two Democratic presidential campaigns to call for Moran’s resignation. ‘It would be a cheap way to reassure Jewish voters,’ he said. ‘I don’t understand why they haven’t done it yet.’”

In other words, what is considered anti-Semitic when stated at a town meeting, becomes in another context just your standard keen political analysis.

When you look at the facts rather than the Washington rhetoric, you find that Moran was even more right than it appeared at first. A study by Belief Net found that only the Southern Baptist Convention and some Jewish groups supported the military approach and every other listed major denomination opposed it. True, the Southern Baptists were unequivocally in favor of war while the Jewish groups – Orthodox Union, Union Of American Hebrew Congregations (Reform), and United Synagogue Of Conservative Judaism – wanted to exhaust other alternatives first, but every other religion Belief Net checked opposed the war including the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Episcopal Church, Greek Orthodox Church in America, Mormons – Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Presbyterian Church (USA), Quakers – American Friends Service Committee, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Unitarian Universalist Association. The Catholics weren’t included but the Pope took a clear stand against the war.

So why go to such efforts to deliberately conceal and prevaricate concerning the role of key Jewish organizations in supporting the Iraq invasion?

Part of the answer can be found in none other than the hypocritically outraged Washington Post, in an article written by its White House correspondent, Dana Milbank, last November:

A group of U.S. political consultants has sent pro-Israel leaders a memo urging them to keep quiet while the Bush administration pursues a possible war with Iraq. The six-page memo was sent by the Israel Project, a group funded by American Jewish organizations and individual donors. Its authors said the main audience was American Jewish leaders, but much of the memo’s language is directed toward Israelis. The memo reflects a concern that involvement by Israel in a U.S.-Iraq confrontation could hurt Israel’s standing in American public opinion and undermine international support for a hard line against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. . .

The Iraq memo was issued in the past few weeks and labeled ‘confidential property of the Israel Project,’ which is led by Democratic consultant Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi with help from Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and Republican pollsters Neil Newhouse and Frank Luntz. Several of the consultants have advised Israeli politicians, and the group aired a pro-Israel ad earlier this year. ‘If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful with your language because of the potential backlash,’ said the memo, titled ‘Talking About Iraq.’

“It added: ‘You do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel rather than to protect America.’ In particular, the memo urged Israelis to pipe down about the possibility of Israel responding to an Iraqi attack. ‘Such certainty may be Israeli policy, but asserting it publicly and so overtly will not sit well with a majority of Americans because it suggests a pre-determined outcome rather than a measured approach,’ it said.”

This is not the first time this strategy has been tried. For example, in January 1991, David Rogers of the Wall Street Journal wrote:

When Congress debated going to war with Iraq, the pro-Israel lobby stayed in the background – but not out of the fight. Leaders of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee now acknowledge it worked in tandem with the Bush administration to win passage of a resolution authorizing the president to commit U.S. troops to combat. The behind-the-scenes campaign avoided AIPAC’s customary high profile in the Capitol and relied instead on activists-calling sometimes from Israel itself-to contact lawmakers and build on public endorsements by major Jewish organizations. “Yes, we were active.” says AIPAC director Thomas Dine. “These are the great issues of our time, If you sit on the sidelines, you have no voice. . . ”

The debate revealed a deep ambivalence among Jewish lawmakers over what course to follow, pitting their generally liberal instincts against their support of Israel. Friends and families were divided. And even as some pro-Israel advocates urged a more aggressive stance, there was concern that the lobby risked damaging Israel’s longer term interests if the issue became too identified with Jewish or pro-Israel polities.

. . . AIPAC took pains to disguise its role, and there was quiet relief that the vote showed no solid Jewish bloc in favor of a war so relevant to Israel. “It isn’t such a bad idea that we were split,” says one Jewish lawmaker. . .

Pro-Israel PACs have poured money into campaigns for Southern Democrats not immediately identified with their cause. For example, the Alabama delegation voted in a bloc with Mr. Bush in both the House and Senate. At first glance, this can be ascribed to the conservative, pro military character of the state. But pro-Israel PACs have also cultivated Democrats there in recent years.”

It is hard to imagine such a frank description of ethnic politics today. Thus it is not surprising that few know that the aforementioned Thomas Dines – then executive director of AIPAC and now head of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty – is a member of the advisory committee of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

The Post, which didn’t mentioned Dines’ involvement in plotting the seizure of Iraq, described the new organization as “modeled on a successful lobbying campaign to expand the NATO alliance.”

In fact, the last time prior to the war itself that the Post even mentioned AIPAC was back in August before the Iraq invasion plot took full shape. So you had to look elsewhere to find out what the Jewish leadership was up to. For example, the Jerusalem Post reported last October:

After weeks of debate and consideration, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which represents 52 Jewish national groups, announced its support for US military action against Iraq “as a last resort.” In a statement released Saturday, the Conference of Presidents announced that all of its member groups “support President [George W.] Bush and the Congress in their efforts to gain unequivocal Iraqi compliance with the obligation to divest itself of weapons of mass destruction and the means to develop such weapons.” The statement also endorsed the Bush administration’s “efforts to enlist the United Nations and international cooperation to secure Iraqi compliance, including the use of force as a last resort.

The chairman of the group, Mortimer Zuckerman went a bit further, declaring that the failure to attack Iraq would “ruin American credibility in the Muslim world.”

Now let us imagine that the 52 Jewish organizations had instead reached a consensus that invading Iraq was illegal, unwise, unconstitutional, and an act of reckless endangerment against the whole world. Would that have influenced American policy? Of course it would.

Here’s what happened instead, as described by Nathan Guttmann of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

An unusual visitor was invited to address the annual conference held last week in Washington by AIPAC, the pro-Israeli lobby in the United States: the head of the Washington office of the Iraqi National Congress, Intifad Qanbar. The INC is one of the main opposition groups outside Iraq, and its leaders consider themselves natural candidates for leadership positions in the post-Saddam Hussein era. Qanbar’s invitation to the conference reflects a first attempt to disclose the links between the American Jewish community and the Iraqi opposition, after years in which the two sides have taken pains to conceal them.

The considerations against openly disclosing the extent of cooperation are obvious – revelation of overly close links with Jews will not serve the interests of the organizations aspiring to lead the Iraqi people. Currently, at the height of rivalry over future leadership of the country among opposition groups abroad, the domestic opposition and Iraqi citizens, it is most certainly undesirable for the Jewish lobby to forge – or flaunt – especially close links with any one of the groups, in a way that would cause its alienation from the others.

“At the current stage, we don’t want to be involved in this argument,” says a major activist in one of the larger Jewish organizations. In the end, Intifad Qanbar did not attend the AIPAC conference. . .

The Jewish groups maintain quiet contacts with nearly every Iraqi opposition group, and in the past have even met with the most prominent opposition leader, Ahmed Chalabi. The main objective was an exchange of information, but there was also an attempt to persuade the Iraqis of the need for good relations with Israel and with world Jewry. . . .

Aside from the annual AIPAC conference, two other major events in the United States last week underscored the gamut of opinions and perspectives in the American Jewish community on the war. The positioning of the AIPAC people behind the coalition forces and behind those who sent them is not surprising. AIPAC is wont to support whatever is good for Israel, and so long as Israel supports the war, so too do the thousands of the AIPAC lobbyists who convened in the American capital.

There is no such uniformity among the various religious Jewish movements, and indecisiveness is still very much the case. In Los Angeles, members of the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly gathered and tried to clarify their position on the . . . In the end, the issue was submitted to an executive council, which issued a draft resolution that offered support for the war, albeit with reservations. . .

The dilemma is more pronounced among Reform Jews. They also convened last week to formulate a joint position, and they too were careful not to launch any strident criticism of the war itself. . . The only decision relevant to the war was agreement on a prayer for the welfare of the soldiers at the front, and recognition of the fact that there are a variety of opinions on the war. The resolution that was adopted is very far from constituting an expression of support of any kind for the war, but is also far from constituting criticism of it.

The situation is simpler among the Orthodox. Immediately upon the outbreak of the war, the Orthodox Union, the umbrella organization of the community, released a statement that expressed unequivocal support for President Bush and his decision to launch the war on Iraq, which was described as having “noble aims.”

Despite the ambivalence within the various religious segments of Judaism, not to mention the split among Jews themselves, AIPAC carried on its aggressive pro-war activity with impunity.

Of course they had some help, as Michael Lind pointed out in the New Statesman:

Most neo-conservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history. Their admiration for the Israeli Likud party’s tactics, including preventive warfare such Israel’s 1981 raid on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for “democracy.” They call their revolutionary ideology “Wilsonianism” (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as the Palestinians.

The neo-con defense intellectuals, as well as being in or around the actual Pentagon, are at the center of a metaphorical “pentagon” of the Israel lobby and the religious right, plus conservative think-tanks, foundations and media empires. . .

The major link between the conservative think-tanks and the Israel lobby is the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, which co-opts many non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew out the retired General Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of occupied Iraq. In October 2000, he co-signed a JINSA letter that began: “We . . . believe that during the current upheavals in Israel, the Israel Defense Forces have exercised remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of [the] Palestinian Authority.”

The Israel lobby itself is divided into Jewish and Christian wings. [Pentagon officials Paul] Wolfowitz and [Douglas] Feith have close ties to the Jewish-American Israel lobby. Wolfowitz, who has relatives in Israel, has served as the Bush administration’s liaison to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Feith was given an award by the Zionist Organisation of America, citing him as a “pro-Israel activist”. While out of power in the Clinton years, Feith collaborating with Perle, co-authored for Likud a policy paper that advised the Israeli government to end the Oslo peace process, reoccupy the territories and crush Yasser Arafat’s government.

Such experts are not typical of Jewish-Americans, who mostly voted for Gore in 2000. The most fervent supporters of Likud in the Republican electorate are southern Protestant fundamentalists. The religious right believes that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews, and fundamentalist congregations spend millions to subsidize Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

Then, of course, there is Israel itself which has been a huge beneficiary of American aid only to have repeatedly thwarted the better efforts of American presidents and other leaders – including those in Israel – seeking a bit of rationality in the Middle East. Much of this subversion of sanity has been masochistic; de facto, right wing Israelis have been among the world’s most effective anti-Semites.

In a recent Counterpunch article, Kathleen and Bill Christison offer an explication of this phenomenon;

[Jeff Halper] is an Israeli anthropologist, until his retirement a year ago a professor at Ben Gurion University, a transplant 30 years ago from Minnesota, a harsh critic of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and, as founder of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, one of the leading peace and anti-occupation activists in Israel. . .

Zionism, he says, “is a very compelling narrative, but it is totally self-contained, a bubble in which Israelis separate themselves from all others.” Israelis regard everyone else as irrelevant. When it is suggested that fear motivates this self-absorption, Halper disagrees. “It’s not so much fear,” he says; Israelis “just don’t give a damn. They make everyone else a non-issue. They see themselves as the victim, and if you’re the victim, you’re not responsible for anything you do.”

Anything goes if you are the victim, he explains: you don’t care about the consequences of your actions for other people, you need not take any responsibility for the effect of your policies on others, you don’t care about how others feel. Israelis always think they’re right, he says. They believe everything they do is right because the Jewish nation is “right,” because they are only responding to what others do to them, only retaliating. “If you combine three elements: the idea that we are right, with the notion that we’re the victim, and with our great military power,” he says, you have a lethal combination. . . . Israel can act with brutality, but the responsibility, the fault, lies elsewhere.

To define good Jewishness – or conversely, anti-Semitism – by one’s reaction to the Sharon government makes no more sense than to define good Americanism by one’s reaction to Bush. Sharon not only blasphemously mocks the lessons supposedly learned from the Holocaust, his policies represent a huge departure from the humanistic and progressive politics that long characterized American Judaism. This tradition, born in European socialism and blended with American populism, helped mightily to form the social democracy our country increasingly enjoyed during the 20th century.

I, in fact, grew up alnost believing that there were three branches of Judiasm: Orthodox, Reform, and Liberal Democratic. And it often seemed that the last was the most powerful. In fact, you couldn’t be an urban progressive of my age without becoming part Jewish.

But history doesn’t stop, and just as greater America moved sharply right after 1980s, so did this country’s Jewish politics. It wasn’t alone. Feminism forgot lower class women, labor forgot its own members, the biggest thing the Congressional Black Caucus did anymore was an annual dinner, the environmental movement became embedded in the Washington bureaucracy, and white liberals in general looked the other way as our civil liberties disintegrated.

To sweep this problem under the bed, to fail to discuss the disaster that pro-Israeli politics have become for fear of being called anti-Semitic is both cowardly and dangerous. At a time when the Washington Post is urging its readers to stock up on several days’ food and buy gas masks because of the possible consequences of the internationally criminal policies it so vigorously supports, we no longer have time or tolerance for such cynical games. If you want to die for your own faith, fine, but you have no right to take the rest of the world with you.

The danger of the dishonest debate about the Middle East was well described by Joan Didion in a recent New York Review of Books:

[We need to] demystify the question of why we have become unable to discuss our relationship with the current government of Israel. Whether the actions taken by that government constitute self-defense or a particularly inclusive form of self-immolation remains an open question. The question of course has a history.

This open question, and its history, are discussed rationally and with considerable intellectual subtlety in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Where the question is not discussed rationally, where in fact the question is rarely discussed at all, since so few of us are willing to see our evenings turn toxic, is in New York and Washington and in those academic venues where the attitudes and apprehensions of New York and Washington have taken hold. The president of Harvard recently warned that criticisms of the current government of Israel could be construed as ‘anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent.’

The very question of the US relationship with Israel, in other words, has come to be seen as unraisable, potentially lethal, the conversational equivalent of an unclaimed bag on a bus. We take cover. We wait for the entire subject to be defused, safely insulated behind baffles of invective and counter-invective. Many opinions are expressed. Few are allowed to develop. Even fewer change.”

We are entangled, in major part, in a religious war in which bin Laden, Bush and Sharon comprise a triptych of theological terror that is putting everyone at great risk. They are each involved in a vicious heresy, falsely defining their own myopic, immoral, and sadistic ambitions as their religion’s moral faith. This is no time for politeness, politics, or silence. And while Jews are far from alone in needing to call their leadership back to sanity, neither are they exempt.

Copyright: Progressive Review


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#51 14-10-2013 16:31:52

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

American Jews Support Direct Negotiations

Press Release     Israel / Middle-East

New ADL Poll: American Jews Support Direct Negotiations Between the Parties as Path to Two-State SolutionStrong Support for Israel and the U.S. to Act Against Iran If NeededWashington, DC, April 20, 2009 … The steadfast support of American Jews for Israel, for Israel’s action in Gaza and for Israel’s right, if all else fails, to use military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, was reaffirmed by a survey commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).  The findings show that, overwhelmingly, American Jews believe that Israel is committed to peace with the Palestinians and reject the notion that America should pressure Israel to make peace.

The national telephone survey of 1,200 American Jews was conducted by Marttila Communications between March 31 and April 8 and has a margin of error of +/-2.8% for questions answered by the 1,200.  The survey also used the technique of “split sampling” a process in which questions were asked of two demographically representative national samples of 600 each, with a margin of error of +/-4%.

Survey Highlights

• By a margin of 73%-2%, American Jews believe that Israel is doing more to bring peace to the region than the Palestinians (view graph).
• 74% believe that Hamas is not interested in peace, while 52% believe Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is (view graph).
• 61% of American Jews support the future creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza (view graph).

• Asked about the US role in the peace process, a small plurality (47%) believe the parties need to solve their own problems with the US playing the role of facilitator; versus 44% who believe peace depends on continuing US leadership and involvement (view graph).

• There is eroding support for Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza; as late as January 2009, 63% of American Jews still supported it.  Now, it’s down to 54% (view graph).

• Sympathy with Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians is overwhelming – 80% for Israel, versus 6% for the Palestinians (view graph).
• 74% approve of Israel’s military action in Gaza, and by a margin of 66%-28%, American Jews supported the notion that Israel’s military response in Gaza was appropriate and not excessive (view graph).

• 73% support Israel’s right to close the borders to Gaza to prevent resupply of arms even if it slows down humanitarian relief (view graph).

• Regarding Iran, a significant majority (58%-27%) believe that if diplomatic and economic steps fail to get Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program, they would support Israel’s right to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities. And, under similar circumstances, American Jews would similarly support US military action by 55%-27% (view graph).

• 50% of American Jews support US direct negotiations with Iran without preconditions, while 45% believe the US should not enter into negotiations until Iran agrees to suspend its uranium enrichment (view graph).

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, said the survey demonstrates that, “contrary to certain reports that American Jewish support for Israel is waning and that American Jews would welcome pressure by the U.S. on Israel, American Jews continue to support Israel overwhelmingly and advocate direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians as the best path for peace.”

Mr. Foxman said the findings show that, “American Jews continue to believe that Israel wants peace with its neighbors, and continue to understand the threats to Israel and its legitimate right to defend itself, whether against Hamas rockets or Iran nuclear capabilities.  That support for Israel will be very significant as the Jewish state faces immense challenges in the months and years ahead.”
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#52 14-10-2013 21:48:36

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

A Mockery of Justice The Great Sedition Trial of 1944
By Michael Collins Piper & Ken Hoop


According to historian Harry Elmer Barnes—this magazine’s namesake— who was one of FDR’s leading critics from the academic arena, the purpose of the Great Sedition Trial was to make the Roosevelt administration “seem opposed to fascism” when, in fact, the administration was pursuing totalitarian policies. Too few Americans today know of this travesty, a shameful blot on U.S. history.
Judges and lawyers alike will tell you the mass sedition trial of World War II will go down in legal history as one of the blackest marks on the record of American jurisprudence. In the legal world, none can recall a case where so many Americans were brought to trial for political persecution and were so arrogantly denied the rights granted [guaranteed—Ed.] an American citizen under the Constitution.”1

This is how the Chicago Tribune, then a voice for America First in a media world already brimming with internationalism, described the infamous war time “show trial” and its aftermath.

“The Great Sedition Trial” formally came to an unexpected halt on November 30, 1944, having been declared a mistrial upon the death of the presiding judge. Yet, the case continued to hang in limbo with Justice Department prosecutors angling for a retrial.

However, on November 22, 1946, Judge Bolitha Laws of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissed the charges against the defendants, saying that to allow the case to continue would be “a travesty on justice.”2

Although the Justice Department prosecutors appealed the dismissal, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld Judge Laws’ ruling and, as a consequence, the saga of the Great Sedition Trial at long last came to a close. This brought to an end five years of harassment that the defendants had suffered, including—for some—periods of imprisonment.

Judge Laws had thus called a halt to this Soviet-style attack on American liberty. Sanity had prevailed and the case was shelved forever. The war was over and the one individual who was the prime mover behind the trial—Franklin D. Roosevelt—was dead.

According to historian Ronald Ra dosh, a self-styled “progressive” who has written somewhat sympathetically of the pre-World War II critics of the Roosevelt administration, “FDR had prodded Attorney General Francis Biddle for months, asking him when he would indict the seditionists.”3 Biddle himself later pointed out that FDR “was not much interested . . . in the constitutional right to criticize the government in wartime.”4

However, as we shall see, there were powerful forces at work behind the scenes prodding FDR. And they, more than FDR, played a major role in pushing the actual investigation Biddle was not enthusiastic to undertake.

Although there was a grand total of 42 people (and one newspaper) indicted—over the course of three separate indictments, beginning with the first indictment, which was handed down on July 21, 1942, the number of those who actually went on trial was 30, and several of them were severed from the trial as it proceeded.

Roosevelt’s biographer, James McGregor Burns, waggishly called the trial “a grand rally of all the fanatic Roosevelt haters.”5 But there’s much more to the story than that.

In fact, there were a handful of influential figures among the indictees. Among them included:

• Noted German-American poet, essayist and social critic, George Sylvester Viereck (a well-known foreign publicist for the German government as far back as World War I);

• Former American diplomat and economist Lawrence Dennis, an informal behind-the-scenes advisor to some of the more prominent congressional critics of the Roosevelt administration;

• Mrs. Elizabeth Dilling of Chicago, an outspoken and highly articulate author and lecturer who was well re garded and widely known nationally as a leader of the anti-communist movement and a fierce opponent of the ad ministration;

• Rev. Gerald Winrod of Kansas. With a national following and wide-ranging connections among Christian ministers and lay leaders throughout the country, Winrod had emerged as a force to be reckoned with. In 1938 he ran a strong race for the U.S. Senate. (One of Winrod’s protégés was none other than evangelist Billy Graham, who is said to have “learned much but kept quiet publicly about what he learned privately”6 as a young man traveling with Winrod.) And:

• William Griffin, a New York-based publisher with strong connections in the Roman Catholic Church. Many American Catholics were strongly anti-communist, and Irish-American Catholics, in particular, were generally skeptical of FDR’s war policies at a time when, it will be remembered, the government of Ireland remained neutral in the war being waged against Germany by the United States and England, Ireland’s traditional enemy.

However, most of those who finally went to trial were little known and hardly influential on a national level, other than the few exceptions just noted. Among the defendants were: a sign painter who was 80 percent deaf, a Detroit factory worker, a waiter and a maid.

In short, they were at best “average” Americans, without the means or the opportunity to be able to conduct the kind of seditious and internationally connected conspiracy that the government had charged, nor were they in any position to defend themselves against the unlimited resources of the central government. In many cases, the defendants were paupers, virtually penniless. Many of them were “one-man” publishers, reaching small audiences—hardly a threat to the mighty forces that controlled the New Deal. Several were very elderly. Few of the indictees even knew each other before the trial, despite the fact that the indictments charged them with being part of a grand conspiracy, orchestrated by Adolf Hitler, to undermine the morale of the American military during wartime.

Lawrence Dennis commented later that: “One of the most significant features of the trial was the utter insignificance of the defendants in relation to the great importance which the government sought to give to the trial by all sorts of publicity-seeking devices.”7

Unfortunately, in this brief study of the tangled circumstances surrounding the great sedition trial, we will be un able to provide all of the defendants the recognition they deserve. But by virtue of having been targeted for destruction by the Roosevelt administration and its behind-the-scenes allies for their patriotic anti-war stand, this handful of otherwise insignificant Americans became folk heroes.

Thanks to their more vocal compatriots, such as, perhaps most notably, Lawrence Dennis, we are able to commemorate the details of their plight today.

According to Dennis, it was the design of the sedition trial to target not the big-name critics of the Roosevelt war policies, but instead to use the publicity surrounding the trial to frighten the vast numbers of potential grass-roots critics of the intervention in the Eurasian war into silence, essentially showing them that, they, too, could end up in the dock if they were to dare to speak out as the defendants had in opposition to the administration’s policies.

Wrote Dennis:

The crackpots, so-called, or the agitators, are never intimidated by sedition trials. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.

The people who are intimidated by sedition trials are the people who have not enough courage or enough indiscretion ever to say or do anything that would get them involved in a sedition trial. And it is mainly for the purpose of intimidating these more prudent citizens that sedition trials are held . . .

A government seeking to suppress certain dangerous ideas and tendencies and certain types of feared opposition will not, if its leaders are smart, indict men like Col. [Charles] Lindbergh or senators [Burton] Wheeler [D-Mont.], [Robert] Taft [R-Ohio] and Gerald Nye [R-N.D.], who did far more along the line of helping the Nazis by opposing Roosevelt’s foreign policy as charged against the defendants than any of the defendants.

The chances of conviction would be nil, and the cry of persecution would resound throughout the land.

It is the weak, obscure and indiscreet who are singled out by an astute politician for a legalized witch-hunt. The political purpose of intimidating the more cautious and respectable is best served in this country by picking for a trick indictment and a propaganda mass trial the most vulnerable rather than the most dangerous critics; the poorest rather than the richest; the least popular rather than the most popular; the least rather than the most important and influential.

This is the smart way to get at the more influential and the more dangerous. The latter see what is done to the less influential and less important, and they govern themselves accordingly. The chances of convicting the weaker are better than of convicting the stronger . . .”8

One of the defendants—one of the weaker, less influential and less important, insignificant Americans targeted by FDR—was Elmer J. Garner of Wichita, Kansas. This elderly American patriot died three weeks after the trial began.

Sen. William Langer (R-N.D.), an angry critic of the trial, described the victim in a speech on the floor of the Senate. Garner, he said, was:

“A little old gentleman of 83, almost stone deaf, with three great-grandchildren. After he lost the mailing permit for his little weekly paper, he lived with his aged wife through small donations, keeping a goat and a few chickens and raising vegetables on his small home plot.

“Held in the [Washington, D.C.] jail for several weeks, for lack of bond fees, and finally impoverished by three indictments and forced trips and stays in Washington, he died alone in a Washington rooming house early in this trial, with 40 cents in his pocket. His body was shipped naked in a wooden box to his ailing, impoverished widow, his two suits and typewriter being held, so that clothing had to be purchased for his funeral. That is one of the dangerous men about whom we have been hearing so much.”9

According to attorney Henry Klein, an American Jew who defied the ADL by boldly serving as defense counsel for another of the defendants, Garner—who was a first cousin of FDR’s first vice president (1933-1941), John Nance Garner—died at his typewriter in a tiny room in a Washington flophouse, typing out his defense.10

Who was it, then, that brought about the series of events that led to the indictment of Elmer Garner and his both more distinguished and perhaps even less distinguished fellow “seditionists”?

It was, of course, Franklin D. Roosevelt who ordered the Justice Department investigation. Attorney General Francis Biddle (who opposed this blatantly political prosecution), followed the president’s orders. And Assistant Attorney General William Power Maloney handled the day-to-day details of the investigation that won the indictments before a federal grand jury in Washington. But behind the scenes there were other forces at work: the power brokers who dictated the overall grand design of the Roosevelt administration and its foreign and domestic policies.

In A Trial on Trial, his sharply written critique of the trial, which is a veritable dissection of the fraud that the trial represented, Lawrence Dennis and his co-author, Maximilian St. George (who was Dennis’ counsel during the trial, although Dennis—not an attorney—did most of the legal work himself), concluded—based upon very readily available evidence in the public record—that the three prime movers behind the trial were—in his words—extreme leftists, organized Jew ish groups, and internationalists in general, all of whom were loud and persistent advocates of the trial, editorializing in favor of the investigation and indictments in their newspapers and through media voices such as radio personality Walter Winchell.

However, Dennis pointed out, “the internationalists behind the trial are not as easy to link with definite agitation for this prosecution as are the leftists and the Jewish groups.”11 Den nis stated unequivocally: “One of the most important Jewish organizations behind the sedition trial was the B’nai B’rith [referring, specifically, to the B’nai B’rith adjunct known as the Anti-Defamation League or ADL].”12

According to Dennis: “Getting the federal government to stage such a trial, like getting America into the war, was a ‘must’ on the agenda of the fighters against isolationism and anti-Semitism.13

“What the people behind the trial wanted to have judicially certified to the world was that anti-Semitism is a Nazi idea and that anyone holding this idea is a Nazi, who is thereby violating the law—in this instance, by causing insubordination in the armed forces—through his belief in or advocacy of this idea.”14

This was not just Dennis’s conclusion, by any means. One of the other defendants, David Baxter, later pointed out that a United Press report published in 1943 said:

Under pressure from Jewish organizations, to judge from articles appearing in publications put out by Jews for Jews, the [indictment] . . . was drawn to include criticisms of Jews as “sedition.”

It appeared that a main purpose of the whole procedure, along with outlawing unfavorable comments on the administration, was to set a legal precedent of judicial interpretations and severe penalties which would serve to exempt Jews in America from all public mention except praise, in contrast to the traditional American viewpoint which holds that all who take part in public affairs must be ready to accept full free public discussion, either pro or con.15

“In a word,” commented Dennis, “the sedition trial as politics was smart. It was good politics.”16

Baxter himself determined in later years that certain Jewish groups, specifically the ADL, had been prime movers behind the Justice Department investigation that resulted in the indictments of the defendants in the sedition trial. According to Baxter, commenting many years later:

I demanded, through the Freedom of Information Act, that the FBI turn over to me its investigation records of my activities during the early 1940s leading up to the Sedition Trial. I learned that the investigation had extended over several years and covered hundreds of pages . . . The FBI blocked out the names of those who had given information about me, much of it as false as anything could be. I was never given a chance to face these people and make them prove their accusations. Yet everything they said went into the investigation records.

Oddly enough, in a great many cases, it wasn’t the FBI that conducted the investigation, but the Anti-Defamation League, with the FBI merely receiving the reports of the ADL investigators. One can hard ly tell from the reports whether a given person was an FBI or an ADL agent. But at the time all this was so hush-hush that I didn’t even suspect the web-spinning going on around me. I hadn’t considered myself that important.17

For his own part, commenting on the way that the FBI had been used by the ADL, for example, Lawrence Dennis pointed out: “The FBI, like the atomic bomb and so many other useful and dangerous tools, is an instrument around the use of which new safeguards against abuse by unscrupulous interests must soon be created.”18

[To our shame, Americans did not learn that lesson, in light of FBI intrigue alongside the ADL, later exposed in the course of such controversies as the holocaust at Waco, the slaughter of the Wea ver family members at Ruby Ridge, Idaho and the mysterious Oklahoma City bombing.—Ed.]

Writing in his 1999 book, Mon tana’s Lost Cause (see review on page 27), a study of Sen. Burton Wheel er and other members of Mon tana’s congressional delegation who opposed the Roosevelt administration’s war in Europe, historian Roger Roots also points out another fascinating cog in the be hind-the-scenes maneuvering that led to the sedition trial:

The Jewish-owned Washington Post assisted in the detective work of the Justice Department from the beginning. Dillard Stokes, the [Post] columnist who was most conspicuous in his insider reporting of the sedition grand jury proceedings, actually became part of the Justice Department’s case against the isolationists when he wrote requests to numerous of the defendants to send their literature to him under an assumed name. It was this that allowed defendants to be brought from the farthest reaches of the country into the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C.19

David Baxter elaborated on the role played by the Post columnist Stokes, who used the pseudonym “Jefferson Breem,” in order to obtain some of the allegedly seditious literature that had been published by some of the defendants:

In order to try us in Washington as a group, it was necessary to establish that a crime had been committed in the District of Columbia, thus giving jurisdiction to the federal courts there. So the grand jury, which was obviously con trolled by the prosecutor, charged us with the crime of sedition, and then established District of Columbia jurisdiction to try us on the grounds that a District of Columbia resident, “Jefferson Breem,” had received the allegedly seditious literature. Thus was the alleged “crime” committed in the capital. The defendants were charged with having conspired in the District of Columbia, despite the fact that I had never been in Washington in my life until ordered there by the grand jury.20

Kirkpatrick Dilling, now an attorney in Chicago but then a young man in uniform and the son of one of the more prominent defendants, Elizabeth Dilling, pointed out in a letter to TBR publisher Willis Carto that: “My mother was indicted with many others, most of whom she had never had any contact with whatsoever. For example, some of such co-indictees were members of the German-American Bund. My mother said they were included to give the case a ‘sauerkraut flavor.’ ”21

Later, during the trial itself, the afore mentioned Sen. Langer, scored what he described as: “the idea of bringing together for one trial in Washington 30 people who never saw each other, who never wrote to each other, some of whom did not know that the others existed, with some of them allegedly insane and the majority of them unable to hire a lawyer.

“And remember,” Langer pointed out, “[the defendants] were brought to Washington from California and [Illinois] and other states a long way from Washington, placed in one room and all tried at the same time, with the 29 sitting idly by while the testimony against one of them may go on for weeks and weeks and weeks, the testimony of a man or woman [whom the] other defendants never saw before in their lives. That is what is taking place in Washington [the District of Columbia] here today.”22

As mentioned previously, there were actually three indictments handed down. The first indictment came on July 21, 1942. The indictments came as a surprise to more than a few people, including the defendants. As David Baxter said: “Actually, at that time I was simply a New Deal Democrat interested in what was going on in the country politically.”23 But as a consequence of the indictment, he was being accused of sedition by the very regime he had once supported.

Elizabeth Dilling learned of her indictment on the radio. The nature of one of the charges against Mrs. Dilling exposes precisely how trumped up the sedition trial was from the start. The indictment charged that Mrs. Dilling had committed “sedition” by reprinting, in the pages of her newsletter, a speech in Congress by Rep. Clare Hoffman (R-Mich.), an administration critic, in which the congressman quoted an American soldier in the Philippines who complained his outfit lacked bombers because the planes had been given to Britain.24 This ostensibly was dangerous to military morale.

But Mrs. Dilling’s many supporters around the country rose to her defense, raising money through dances, dinners and bake sales. Mrs. Dilling, ever courageous, would not let even a federal criminal indictment silence her. She still continued to speak out.

On August 17, 1942 Sen. Robert A. Taft spoke out against the indictment:25 “I am deeply alarmed by the growing tendency to smear loyal citizens who are critical of the national administration and of the conduct of the war . . .

“Something very close to fanaticism exists in certain circles. I cannot understand it—cannot grasp it. But I am sure of this: Freedom of speech itself is at stake, unless the general methods pursued by the Department of Justice are changed.”26

Taft noted that the indictment, in his words, was “adroitly drawn”27 and said it claimed that groups such as the Coalition of Patriotic Societies were linked to the accused conspirators. The coalition, Taft noted, included among its member organizations such groups as the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, the General Society of Mayflower Descendants and the Sons of the American Revolution, among others.

On the basis of the way in which the indictment was written, Taft said, a considerable number of members of both the House and the Senate could also be indicted, along with a considerable number of the nation’s newspaper editors.

The second indictment came on January 4, 1943. Lawrence Dennis summarized the nature of the indictments: “The first indictment charged conspiracy to violate the seditious propaganda sections of both the wartime Espionage Act of 1917 and the peacetime Smith Act of 1940, sometimes called the Alien Registration Act. This indictment . . . was that the defendants had conspired to spread Nazi propaganda for the purpose of violating the just mentioned laws. The government case consisted of showing the similarity between the propaganda themes of the Nazis and the defendants.”28

However, as Dennis pointed out, for a conviction on such an indictment to stand under the law, it is necessary to prove similarity of intent of the persons accused rather than similarity of content of what they said.

“The weaknesses of these first two indictments were that they fitted neither the law nor the evidence. The government’s difficulty was that, to please the people behind the trial, it had had to indict persons whose only crime was isolationism, anti-Semitism and anti-communism when there was no law on the statute books against these ‘isms.’ The two laws chosen for the first two indictments penalized advocacy of the overthrow of the government by force and of insubordination in the armed forces.”29

Several new defendants were added with the second indictment. Among them was Frank Clark. Considering the charge that Clark (and the others) had been conspiring to undermine the morale of the American military, it is worth noting that Clark was “a highly decorated veteran of World War I, who was wounded eight times in action. Clark had been an organizer of the famous Bonus March of World War I veterans to Washington in the 1920s. He had lobbied for early payment of veterans’ bonuses that had been promised to the war’s veterans, returning home a hero. When arrested, he lacked enough money to hire a lawyer.”30

All of this, however, meant nothing in the course of the ongoing effort by the Roosevelt administration to silence its critics and to prevent more and more Americans from speaking out.

Throughout this period, the major media was rife with reports of how a group of Americans, in league with Hitler and the German National Socialists, were trying to destroy America from within and how the Roosevelt administration was bravely taking on this conspiracy. However, the Justice Department had made a misstep and the second indictment, like the first, was thrown out.

As Roger Roots notes, “The indictment was unlawful. It was discarded due to the obvious absence of evidence for conviction, among other flaws. Past Supreme Court decisions clearly showed that a conviction for advocating the overthrow of the government by violent force must include some evidence of actual plans to use violence, not just political literature. Again, the indictment was never dismissed formally but simply retired.”31

Sen. Burton Wheeler, in particular, was a harsh critic of the Justice Department and publicly made clear his intention, as new head of the Senate Judiciary Committee following the 1942 elections, to keep a close watch on the affair as it unfolded. As far as the legal procedures used in the first two indictments, he declared: “If it happened in most jurisdictions of this country, the prosecuting attorneys would be held for contempt of court.”32

Thus, despite all the determined efforts of the Justice Department and its allies in the Anti-Defamation League and at The Washington Post, the first two indictments were indeed thrown out as defective.

On March 5, 1943 Judge Jesse C. Adkins dismissed the count in the indictment that accused the defendants of conspiring together “on or about the first day of January 1933, and continuously thereafter up to and including the date of the filing” of the indictment since, as the judge held, the law which the defendants were accused of conspiring to violate had not been enacted until 1940.33 At this juncture, under pressure from Sen. Wheeler, Attorney General Biddle agreed to remove prosecutor William Power Maloney as the chief “Nazi-hunter.”

Thus, a new Justice Department prosecutor entered into the case, O. John Rogge. As defendant David Baxter pointed out, Rogge was a fitting choice for the administration’s chief point man in this Soviet-style show trial:

It later turned out that Rogge had been a good friend of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, was involved in numerous communist front groups, and had visited Russia, where he spoke in the Kremlin and laid a wreath at the grave of American Communist Party co-founder John Reed in Red Square. His wreath was inscribed: “In loving memory from grateful Americans.” . . . Rogge was an American delegate to a world communist “peace conference” in Paris and was a lawyer for many communists in trouble with the law. He was the attorney for David Greenglass, the atomic spy who saved his own life by turning state’s evidence against his sister and brother-in-law, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg [who] went to the electric chair for turning over U.S. atomic secrets to the Soviets. [Rogge] was thus eventually exposed for what he was. No wonder he was so fanatical in his hatred against the Sedition Trial defendants, all of whom were anti-communists.34

Rogge was an ideal choice for the Roosevelt administration and its allies, who were determined to pursue the prosecution, one way or the other. He moved forward relentlessly.

As Roger Roots points out: “Not wishing to waste momentum, the government reconvened another grand jury, resubmitted the same pamphlets, publications, and materials that the previous grand jury had already seen, re-called the same testimony of the witnesses, and once again pleaded the grand jury to return yet another indictment.”35

The third (and final) indictment was handed down on January 3, 1944. In fact, Rogge and his Justice Department allies had decided to take a new tack and added eight new names (including Lawrence Dennis, who had not been named in the first indictments) and dismissed 12 defendants who had been named.

Among those whose names were dismissed were influential New York Catholic lay leader William Griffin and his newspaper, The New York Evening Enquirer (the only publication indicted) former American diplomat Ralph Town send of San Francisco and Washington, D.C. and Paquita (“Mady”) de Shishmareff, the well-to-do American-born widow of a former Russian czarist military figure.

Townsend, who had enraged the Roosevelt administration by opposing its anti-Japanese policies in the Pacific, had written an explosive book, Ways That Are Dark, highly critical of imperial China.* But although he was now “free,” he and his family had been broken financially by the indictment, and, according to his late wife, Janet, many of their close friends deserted them in this time of crisis.

“It was a very difficult period in our lives,” she later recalled. “But it didn’t prevent Ralph from continuing to speak out.”36 Townsend did continue to speak out, and in later years he became a friend of Willis A. Carto, publisher of The Barnes Review, and, today, portions of Townsend’s personal library are a part of TBR’s archives.

Tony Blizzard, who is now research director for Liberty Lobby, the Washing ton-based populist institution, was a protégé in the early 1960s of Paquita de Shishmareff (who wrote as L. Fry) and he recently commented on the circumstances surrounding the decision to drop the indictment against her—along with some fascinating, little-known details about this remarkable woman. In Blizzard’s in formed estimation:

One of the reasons they dropped the indictment against Mady was precisely because they knew they were dealing with a very sharp lady with a great deal of brain power. A woman of the old school, Mady would never put herself in the forefront, but she knew how to use the strengths of the men around her. She also was a woman of some means—unlike most of the other defendants—and was a formidable opponent.

The government clearly decided that it was in their best interests to dismiss the case against her. There was no way they could ever make “Nazis” out of all of these defendants, whose only real “crime” was exposing Jewish pow er as long as Mady was on the dock with the rest of them.

The prosecutors knew quite well, although it was not widely known then nor is it widely known today, that it was Mady who had supplied Henry Ford virtually all of the information that Ford had published in his controversial series about Jewish power in The Dearborn Independent. With her wide-ranging, high-level connections, Mady was an encyclopedic storehouse of inside in formation about the power elite.

The last thing the prosecution wanted was for Mady to take the stand. By releasing her as a defendant, they eliminated, to them, what was a very frightening possibility.37

But there were 30 others who were not so lucky as Paquita de Shishmareff, Ralph Townsend and the others who had been released, and their trial commenced on April 17, 1944 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colum bia.

Kirkpatrick Dilling, son of defendant Elizabeth Dilling, captured the essence of the indictment. According to Dilling, “The indictment was premised on an alleged ‘conspiracy to undermine the morale of the armed forces.’ Thus criticizing President Roosevelt, who was armed forces commander in chief was an alleged overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Denouncing our ally, communist Soviet Russia, was a further alleged overt act. Opposing communism was an alleged overt act because our enemy Hitler had also opposed communists.”38

Ironically, while his mother was on trial for her alleged participation in this “conspiracy to undermine the morale of the armed forces,” Kirkpatrick Dilling was promoted from corporal to second lieutenant in the U.S. Army.39

Other defendants, including George Sylvester Viereck, George Death er age, Robert Noble and Rev. Gerald Winrod, also had sons in the U.S. Armed Forces during this period.40 Viereck’s son died in combat while his father was on trial and in prison (see the memorial poem on these pages).

Presiding as judge at the trial was ex-Iowa Democratic Congressman Edward C. Eicher, a New Deal stalwart who had served a brief period as chairman of FDR’s Securities and Exchange Com mis sion (SEC) after being defeated for re-election to Congress. After Eicher’s term at the SEC, FDR then appointed Eicher to the judgeship. And serving as prosecutor was Eicher’s former legal counsel at the SEC, the aforementioned O. John Rogge. 41

It seemed that the case was “fixed” from top to bottom.

Albert Dilling, the attorney, who represented his wife Elizabeth Dilling, called for a congressional investigation of the trial on the grounds that it was impossible for such a trial to be fair during wartime.42 But that was not enough to stop the trial juggernaut.

Although proving “sedition” was the ostensible purpose of the prosecution, Lawrence Dennis reached other conclusions about the actual political basis for the trial: “The trial was conceived and staged as a political instrument of propaganda and intimidation against certain ideas and tendencies which are popularly spoken of as isolationism, anti-communism and anti-Semitism. The biggest single idea of the trial was that of linking Nazism with isolationism, anti-Semitism and anti-communism.”43 How ever, as Dennis pointed out:

American isolationism was born with George Washington’s Farewell Address, not with anything the Nazis ever penned. As for “anti-Semitism,” it has flourished since the dawn of Jewish history. It is as old and widespread as the Jews . . . As for anti-communism, while it was one of Hitler’s two or three biggest ideas, it is in no way peculiar to Hitler or the Nazis, any more than anti-capitalism is peculiar to the Russian communists.44

To add shock value to the indictment, the government—in an accompanying bill of particulars, which was basically a rehash of the history of the Nazi Party in Germany—named German Chancellor Adolf Hitler as a “co-conspirator.”

During the trial, the prosecutor, Rogge, charged that Hitler had picked the defendants to head a Nazi occupation government in the United States once Germany won the war.45

What the prosecutor was essentially trying to do, according to Lawrence Dennis, was “to perfect a formula to convict people for doing what was against no law. It boiled down to choosing a crime which the Department of Justice would undertake to prove equaled anti-Semitism, anti-communism and isolationism. The crime chosen was causing insubordination in the armed forces. The law was the Smith Act,”46 which had been enacted in 1940.

As Dennis pointed out: “One of the many ironies of the mass sedition trial was that the defendants were charged with conspiring to violate a law aimed at the communists and [of using] a communist tactic—that of trying to undermine the loyalty of the armed forces. What makes this so ironic is the fact that many of the defendants, being fanatical anti-communists, had openly supported the enactment of this law.”48

Defendant David Baxter later re called:

After Hitler and Stalin concluded a treaty, American communists enthusiastically endorsed those of us who opposed getting into the European war between Germany and the British-French alliance. The communists even stomached the Jewish issue that some of us raised, and many Jewish communists, who wanted the United States to join the war against Hitler, left their party. All that changed overnight, however, when war broke out between Germany and Russia. The communists then turned against us with a vengeance and eagerly backed FDR and American participation in the war to save the Soviets.48

Lawrence Dennis’s assessment of the government’s case is reminiscent of that of Kirkpatrick Dilling: “The pattern of the prosecution gradually emerged something like this: Our country is at war; Russia is our ally; the Russian government is communist; these defendants fight communism; they are therefore weakening the ties between the two countries; this is interfering with the war efforts; this in turn is injuring the morale of the armed forces. The indictees should therefore be sent to prison.”49

Henry H. Klein, an outspoken Jewish anti-communist, was the attorney who represented defendant Eugene Sanctuary, and he took issue with the very constitutionality of the trial.

“This alleged indictment,” thundered Klein in his opening address to the jury, “is under the peace-time statute, not under the wartime act, and the writings and speeches of these defendants were made when this nation was at peace, and under a Constitution which guarantees free press and free speech at all times, including during wartime, until the Constitution is suspended, and it has not yet been suspended. These people believed in the guarantees set forth in the Constitution, and they criticized various acts of the administration.”50

About his own client, Klein noted: “He is 73 years old and devoutly religious. He and his wife ran the Presbyterian foreign mission office in New York City for many years, and he has written and published several hundred sacred and patriotic songs.”51 One of those songs, Klein noted, was Uncle Sam We Are Standing by You and was published in June of 1942, well after the war had begun—hardly the actions of the dangerous seditionist that the prosecution and the sympathetic press painted Sanctuary to be.

As far as Lawrence Dennis’s purported sedition was concerned, “the prosecution had attempted to prove its case exclusively by placing in evidence seven excerpts from his public writings, reprinted in the publication of the German-American Bund rather than as originally published.”52 In other words, the “evidence” that Dennis had committed sedition was because he had written something (published and freely available to the public) that was later reprinted by a group sympathetic to Nazi Germany—not that Dennis himself had actively done anything to stir dissension among the American armed forces. According to Dennis:

The government’s prosecution theory said, in effect: “We postulate a world conspiracy, the members of which all conspired to Nazify the entire world by using the unlawful means of undermining the loyalty of the armed forces. We ask the jury to infer the existence of such a conspiracy from such evidence as we shall submit about the Nazis. We shall then ask the jury to infer that the defendants joined this conspiracy from the nature of the things they said and did. We do not need to show that the defendants ever did or said anything that directly constituted the crime of impairing the morale or loyalty of the armed forces. Our thesis is that Nazism was a world movement, which, by definition, was also a conspiracy to undermine the loyalty of the armed forces and that the defendants were members of the Nazi world movement.”53

There was no more reason to bring out in a charge of conspiracy to cause military insubordination the facts that most of the defendants were anti-Semites, isolationists or anti-communists than there would have been in a trial of a group of New York City contractors on a charge of conspiring to defraud the city to bring out the facts that the defendants were all Irish or Jews and had always voted the Democratic ticket.54

Eugene Sanctuary’s attorney, Henry Klein, pulled no punches when he laid out the defense, declaring:

We will prove that this persecution and prosecution was undertaken to cover the crimes of government—remember that.

We will prove that it was undertaken by order of the president, in spite of the opposition of Attorney General Biddle.

We will prove that Mr. Rogge was selected for this job of punishing these defendants because no one else in the Department of Justice felt that he could find sufficient grounds in to spell out a crime against these defendants.

We will prove that the communists control not only our government but our politics, our labor organizations, our agriculture, our mines, our industries, our war plants and our armed encampments.

We will prove that the law under which these defendants are being tried was enacted at the repeated demands of the heads of our armed forces to prevent communists from destroying the morale of our soldiers, sailors, marine and air forces [and that this prosecution] was undertaken to protect communists who were and are guilty of the very crimes charged against these defendants who are utterly innocent and have been made the victims of this law.55

Klein minced no words when he told the jury that Jewish organizations were using the trial for their own ends:

We will prove that this persecution was instigated by so-called professional Jews who make a business of preying on other Jews by scaring them into the belief that their lives and their property are in danger through threatened pogroms in the United States [and that] anti-Semitism charged in this so-called indictment, is a racket, that is being run by racketeers for graft purposes.56

Klein also forcefully made the allegation that FBI agents had been acting as agents provocateurs, attempting to stir up acts of sedition:

We will show that the most vicious written attack on Jews and on the Roosevelt administration emanated from the office of the FBI by one of its agents, and that the purpose of this attack was to provoke others to do likewise. We will show that this agent also drilled his underlings in New York with broom sticks preparatory to “killing Jews.”57

Klein also put forth a rather interesting allegation about the source of certain funds purportedly supplied by Nazi Germany to no less than Franklin D. Roosevelt himself. According to Klein: “We will show that large sums of Hitler money helped finance Mr. Roosevelt’s campaign for re-election in 1936 and that right at this moment, British, American and German capital and industry are cooperating together in South America and other parts of the world.”58

What Klein alleged about international collaboration of high-finance capitalism has been part of the lore of the populist right and the populist left for over a century and is a theme that has been analyzed in scores of books, monographs and other literature, but largely ignored in the so-called academic mainstream.

According to Lawrence Reilly’s ac count of the sedition trial, Klein’s speech was a critical turning point in the defense: “Klein did much in his brief speech to torpedo Rogge’s case by bringing to light the hidden agencies responsible for its existence.”59

However, noted Reilly, even many of the daily newspapers which opposed the trial editorially were afraid to discuss this hidden aspect of the case that Klein had dared bring forth in open court. Reilly said that readers were often left “confused”60 because the papers never touched on the real factors involved. Some of these “friendly” papers, Reilly noted, insisted on referring to the defendants as “crackpots.”

But the fact is that, as a direct consequence of his offensive against the ADL and the other Jewish groups that had played a part in orchestrating the trial, Klein was targeted, specifically because he was Jewish, by organized Jewish groups that resented Klein’s defense of the purported “anti-Semites” and “seditionists.”

For his own part, Lawrence Dennis stood up in court to take on his own defense and delivered what even liberal writer Charles Higham was inclined to acknowledge was “a high-powered ad dress”61 calling Rogge’s outline of the government case, “corny, false, fantastic, untrue, unproveable and unsound [and describing the trial as] a Roosevelt administration fourth-term conspiracy [and] another Dreyfus case [in which the government was] trying to write history in the heat of battle.”62 To the loud applause of his fellow defendants, Dennis declared: “Pearl Harbor did not suspend the Bill of Rights.”63

A critical juncture in the case came when one of the defense attorneys, James Laughlin (a public defender representing Ernest Elmhurst) said in open court that it would be impossible for the trial to continue unless the private files of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith could be impounded and introduced as evidence.

It was clear that much of the prosecution was based on the ADL’s “fact finding” and Laughlin concluded that it would be necessary to determine precisely what the ADL had provided the government if the defendants would be able to put on an effective defense.

The judge seemed prepared to ignore Laughlin’s motion, but the clever attorney had already prepared copies of his motion in advance and distributed copies of the motion to the press. As a direct consequence, Washington newspapers reported that the ADL files had been made an issue in the case. As Reilly summarized the situation: “Laughlin had placed the spotlight upon the big secret of the case.”64 This, according to Reilly, was “a bomb, which, some have said, had more to do with demoralizing [the prosecution’s] case than any other single [factor].”65

At that point, there seemed to be a strange turnabout in the way that the press supporting the trial began looking at the case. Even The Washington Post (which had played a part in orchestrating the trial by lending the services of its reporter, Dillard Stokes, to the joint ADL-FBI investigation) “completely reversed itself,” according to Reilly, “and started demanding that the case be brought to a quick conclusion.”66

In short, The Post wanted to keep “the big secret” of the case—behind-the-scenes orchestration of the case by the ADL—under wraps and now seemed to be calling to bring the trial to a rapid conclusion before the truth came out.

The Post even commented editorially that: “We fear that, whatever may be the outcome of this trial, it will stand as a black mark against American justice for many years to come.”67 As David Baxter later remarked: “Such were the remarkable words of the very paper whose own reporter had plotted with the original prosecutor to entrap the defendants and bring them to trial in Washington.”69

Despite these concerns, Rogge seemed to intensify his efforts. There was clearly a great deal of behind-the-scenes maneuvering by the prosecutor and his backers as to how to deal with the challenge that had been presented. Since the judge never ordered the ADL’s files impounded, Rogge was free to move forward. He was determined to carry the trial through to conclusion, and he had many more witnesses to present.

Author Roger Roots describes the course of events as follows:

Day after day, the trial wore on. Page after page of publications authored by the defendants was introduced into evidence, giving rise [among] all in attendance to the idea that it was their writings which were really on trial. The government announced that it intended to introduce 32,000 exhibits. It became obvious that what the defendants were really being prosecuted for was “Jew-baiting” which gave an indication of one principal source of the prosecution’s support. It became one of the longest and most expensive trials in U.S. history. In essence, the trial was little more than an assault against free speech.69

As the trial proceeded, outspoken trial critic Sen. William Langer visited defendants in jail and defied the media and its allies in the prosecution by publicly escorting defendant Elizabeth Dilling in and out of court and around Washington while she was on bail.70

Said Roots: “The government worked with unlimited funds, unlimited personnel, and unlimited access to intelligence information. The defense had to work with mostly court-appointed lawyers who were unacquainted with the defendants and the arguments of the case.”71

What is particularly interesting, as pointed out by liberal historian Glenn Jeansonne, is that: “Many of the defense attorneys were liberals unsympathetic with the clients’ beliefs. But they came to see the defendants’ side on a human basis, and instead of conducting a perfunctory defense, as many observers had expected, they put up a vigorous de fense.”72

Even Charles Higham, who, writing retrospectively, was an enthusiastic advocate of the trial, pointed out that “after two and a half months, neither defendants nor prosecution had managed to present a satisfactory case,”73 and, ultimately, “both press and public were beginning to lose interest in the case.”74

At the same time, according to Paquita de Shishmareff, the defendants had managed to survive and develop their own way of dealing with their predicament: “Their physical lives were made almost impossible. They got little to eat and were hamstrung in every way possible. But when they got into court, it was such a farce they really just enjoyed themselves.”75

At one point, when the prosecutor was solemnly reading off a list of names of individuals—allies of the Roosevelt administration who had been attacked in some way by the defendants—defendant Edward James Smythe shouted out, “and Eleanor Roosevelt,” resulting in laughter from the courtroom.76 Smythe didn’t want Mrs. Roosevelt’s name to go unrecorded in the pantheon of villainy.

This, by the way, was only one of many amusing events that took place during this circus. In many respects, the sedition trial could be the basis for a Hollywood comedy, the serious and scandalous violation of the rights of the defendants notwithstanding.

But this is not to suggest that the sedition trial was all a lot of merriment for the attorneys or for the defendants. Far from it. Two of the attorneys had a shot fired at them as they drove in their car. One of those attorneys lost a 12-year law association. Another was beaten by five thugs and hospitalized for five days.

Henry Klein was harassed relentlessly, held in contempt of court for his defense of his client, and, then, ultimately, driven from the case altogether (although the contempt of court charges were eventually overturned).

In addition, strenuous efforts were made to keep the defendants who were out on bail from holding jobs during the course of the trial, a particular problem for those who were not of independent means (and that was most of them).

One defendant, Ernest Elmhurst, got a job as a headwaiter in a Washington hotel in order to make ends meet during the trial, but the ADL’s leading broadcasting voice, Walter Winchell, learned of Elmhurst’s employment and agitated on his widely heard radio show for Elmhurst’s firing, resulting in Elmhurst’s dismissal.77

As the trial dragged on, however, the government began to realize that its efforts were going nowhere. Roger Roots points out: “The prosecution had undoubtedly expected one or more of the defendants to break and testify against the others . . . [Yet] not one defendant gave any indication of such an inclination. Though they disagreed and some even disliked each other, they came together as a cohesive unit.”78

David Baxter had the pleasure to learn that he was going to be severed from the trial and the charges dismissed. His increasing deafness made it impossible for Baxter to have a fair trial. Baxter recalls that Judge Eicher called Baxter into his chamber, smiled, held out his hand, and said: “Go back to California and forget about it, Dave.”79

The judge reportedly told Baxter that if Baxter and his wife wanted to buy a car to return to California, he would help and handed Baxter a roll of gasoline coupons (which, during wartime, were severely rationed). Despite everything, it seems, even the judge realized what a farce the trial really was.

It was something totally unexpected that brought the trial to a halt: Judge Eicher’s sudden death on November 29, 1944. The judge’s demise came at a point where Rogge was not even halfway through the prosecution’s case. At this point he had brought 39 witnesses to the stand, and expected to present 67 more. The defense had not even yet begun.80

Defendant David Baxter later commented (reflecting on his own friendly personal experience with the judge): “That trial could have killed any judge with a Christian conscience and any semblance of fairness. I felt genuinely sorry about Judge Eicher’s death.”81 Rogge accused the defense of having effectively killed the judge by having put up such a defense that it made the judge’s life (and that of the prosecutor) uncomfortable. Under the circumstances, it was apparent that there was no way that the case could continue on a fair basis.

As a consequence, after a period of legal haggling on both sides (with one defendant, Prescott Dennett, actually asking for the trial to continue, determined to present his defense after having been tried and convicted in the media), a mistrial was declared.

Prodded primarily by Jewish groups, Prosecutor Rogge hoped to be able to keep the case alive and set a new trial in motion. But by the spring of 1945, the trial’s chief instigator, President Roos velt, was dead, and the war had come to a close. Rogge, however, continued to ask for delays in setting a new trial date. Since Germany had fallen, Rogge claimed, he was confident that he could find “evidence” in the German archives that the sedition trial defendants had been Nazi collaborators. However, according to historian Glen Jeansonne, no friend of the purported seditionists, “nothing Rogge found proved the existence of a conspiracy”82 between the Ger man government and the defendants.

Undaunted, Rogge launched a na tion wide lecture tour that was, not surprisingly, conducted under the auspices of B’nai B’rith. The combative and loquacious Rogge, prodded by his sponsors, could not contain himself in his enthusiastic recounting of the events of the trial and of the personalities in volved and, in the end, was fired by the Justice Department on October 25, 1946, for leaking information to the press.83 At that time Rogge was ordered to hand over all Justice Department and FBI documents in his possession. The Justice Department had apparently decided that Rogge had outlived his usefulness.

Less than a month later, District Judge Bolitha Laws dismissed the charges altogether, declaring that the defendants had not received a speedy trial as guaranteed by the Constitution. Although the Justice Department ap pealed, the dismissal was upheld on June 30, 1947 by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The “Great Sedition Trial” thus came to a close.

As even defendant Lawrence Dennis was moved to comment:

Some or all may even have been guilty of conspiring to undermine the loyalty of the armed forces, but not as charged by the [government] . . . Nothing in the evidence brought out during the trial proved or even suggested that any one of the defendants was ever guilty of any such conspiracy, except on the prosecution theory. And on that theory, opponents of President Roosevelt’s pre-Pearl Harbor foreign policy and steps in foreign affairs, such as Col. Lindbergh, Sen. Taft, Sen. Nye or Sen. Wheeler, and Col. McCormick, publisher of The Chicago Tribune, would be equally guilty.

Indeed, the prosecution case, according to the prosecution theory, would have been much stronger against these prominent isolationists than it ever could be against the less important defendants in the Sedition Trial.84

Many years later it is grimly amusing to note that organized Jewish groups and Jewish newspapers attacked the attorney general, Francis Biddle, for having failed to see the sedition trial through to the bitter end and achieve the conviction of the defendants. Lawrence Dennis wryly commented that all of this showed a great deal of ingratitude on their part.

According to Dennis: “It shows what a public servant gets for attempting to do dirty work to the satisfaction of minority pressure groups. Biddle did the best anyone in his position could do to carry out the wishes of the people behind the trial. They simply did not appreciate the difficulties of railroading to jail their political enemies without evidence of any acts in violation of the law.”85

Dennis added a further warning for those who would allow themselves to be caught up in promoting “show trials” such as that which was effected in the Great Sedition Trial of 1944: “What the government does today to a crackpot, so-called,” Dennis said, “it may do to an elder statesman of the opposition the day after tomorrow.86

“The trial made history,” Dennis said, ”but not as the government had planned. It made history as a government experiment, which went wrong. It was a Department of Justice experiment in imitation of a Moscow political propaganda trial.”87

There are at least five definitive conclusions which can be drawn about this trial, based upon all that is in the historical record:

1) The defendants charged were largely on trial for having expressed views that were either anti-Jewish or anti-communist or both. The actions of the defendants had little or nothing to do with encouragement of dissension or insurrection within the U.S. armed forces. In short, the “sedition” trial was a fraud from the start.

2) The prime movers behind the prosecution were private special interest groups representing powerful Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith that were closely allied with the Roosevelt regime in power.

3) As a consequence, high-level politicians (including the U.S. president) and bureaucrats beholden to those private interests used their influence to ensure that the police powers of the government were used to advance the demands of those private pressure groups agitating for the sedition trial.

4) Major media voices (such as The Washington Post), working with the ADL and allied with the ruling regime, were prime players in promoting and facilitating the events that led to the trial.

5) The police powers of government can easily be abused, and innocent citizens, despite Constitutional guarantees of protection, can be persecuted under color of law, their innocence notwithstanding.

About a decade after “The Great Sedition Trial” had come to a close, the major media in America began devoting much energy to denouncing so-called anti-communist “witch-hunts” by Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy and others, the media (not to mention “mainstream” historians) never drew the obvious parallel with the precedent for such witch-hunting that had been set by the activities of the ADL and its allies in the Roosevelt administration who had orchestrated the sedition trial.

The events of “The Great Sedition Trial” are a black page of American history (and little known at that). Civil libertarians should take note: It can happen here, and it did.


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#53 14-10-2013 21:49:11

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

Source: American Dissident Voices

A New Outlet for American Dissident Voices

We are sorry to have to say it, but it is a constant battle to secure my right to speak freely on the public airwaves. There are many threats to the continued airing of this program. One is the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” which is now making its way through Congress. It is very important for all of you to understand just what this so-called “Fairness Doctrine” is all about.

The Doctrine is promoted as a way to ensure that all points of view on controversial issues of public importance are presented on radio and television stations. Its actual effect, its intended effect is the exact opposite — it will stifle the expression of all non-Establishment points of view.

Here’s how it works: Under the Doctrine, if a station airs a program dealing with a controversial issue — say this program, for example — any individual or group with an opposing point of view on that issue would be able to force the station to air its opposing point of view free of charge. If the Communist Workers Party or the NAACP don’t like what I say on the radio, they would be able to demand equal time without paying for it. This, of course, would create a legal and logistical nightmare for radio and television licensees, with the ultimate effect that they would be unwilling to air any controversial programs at all, just to avoid all the hassle. Another effect, also intended by the framers of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” would be to put the final decision of what individuals and groups are given free time to air their views into the hands of the Federal courts. We much prefer the present situation, where honorable Americans are still free to purchase time on independent stations. If someone opposes our views, then, by God, let them purchase time just like we do! Today, by purchasing expensive airtime with funds donated by our listeners, we are at least able to add our ounce or two of truth to counterbalance the 10,000 tons of lies on the other side of the scale. But that is exactly the situation that the enemies of freedom want to put an end to. America’s enemies already control 99.9% of what is broadcast on the AM, FM, and TV dials. They don’t need to and don’t want to purchase time to debate us. They want to use this law to intimidate stations into cancelling us. Americans need to say, “Thanks, but NO THANKS” to their Congressman, and urge them to reject the misnamed “Fairness Doctrine.”

Another form of intimidation practiced by America’s enemies is economic intimidation. It is often used to try to get American Dissident Voices thrown off the air. Here’s how it usually works: agents of the criminal foreign spy agency, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith or ADL for short, either openly in their official capacity, or covertly, depending upon the strength and reputation of the ADL in the town where the station is located; approach the radio station or some of its major advertisers. Pressure is applied, by threats of advertising boycotts or cancellation of lucrative contracts, or unfavorable publicity is threatened, backed up with proof of ADL influence in the newsroom. Sometimes well-known politicians who are ADL properties are brought in if the initial pressure fails to produce the desired effect. Sometimes, economic intimidation comes from local leftist or minority activists, too. In either case, the result is a stifling of freedom of speech. Unfortunately, economic intimidation sometimes works, and it is with regret that I must announce that the two stations owned by the Positive Radio Group, with whom we have had an excellent relationship for over a year, have cancelled this program.

October 2nd will be the last day that American Dissident Voices will be carried on WKGM, Virginia Beach, Virginia; and on WNOW, Charlotte, North Carolina. Listeners to those two stations should get out paper and pencil and write the following information down. To replace WKGM and WNOW, we have signed on with 50,000-Watt station WLAC-1510 in Nashville, Tennessee. We’ll start on WLAC on October 16th. WLAC covers the Charlotte and Virginia Beach areas as well as all of the Southeastern US, the Gulf Coast states, and the Midwest east of the Mississippi River. Beginning October 16th, and every Saturday thereafter, we’ll be on WLAC, 1510 on your AM dial, at 11:30 p.m. Eastern Time, 10:30 p.m. Central Time. That’s every Saturday, 11:30 p.m. Eastern Time, at 1510 on your AM dial. Drop us a line and let us know how it’s coming in. We’ll give you the address in a few moments.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no better way to educate yourself, or open the eyes of your friends and family, than with the brilliant speech by Professor Revilo P. Oliver entitled What We Owe Our Parasites. What We Owe Our Parasites is an amazing speech, quite possibly the finest patriotic speech ever committed to cassette tape. Dr. Oliver was for 32 years Professor of the Classics at the University of Illinois, and has been a patriotic leader since 1954. He is not only an outstanding scholar, but is also one of greatest living stylists in the English language. With brilliant wit and humor, and an inspiring sweep of history, Dr. Oliver will explain to you the subversion of our nation and what it is about us that has made us such willing dupes of our enemies. There is no speech which can remotely compare in sheer intellectual impact to Dr. Oliver’s What We Owe Our Parasites. It is now available to every listener who contributes $12 or more to keep this program on the air as our Radio Offer Number 7. To receive this brilliant speech by a master of the orator’s art, just send the largest gift you can afford today, a minimum of $12, to National Vanguard Books, Department R, PO Box 90, Hillsboro WV 24946 USA, and remember to ask for Radio Offer Number 7.

Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom telling you to keep on thinking free.


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#54 14-10-2013 21:49:51

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

Anti Defamation League and The FBI


More on FOIA; The Anti-Defamation League and the FBI
Dec 29, 2002
IN THIS MESSAGE
* More on FOIA
* The Anti-Defamation League and the FBI
______________________________________________

Freedom of Information:  attempts, procedures etc

"The Freedom of Information Act process is obviously under heavy attack
[administrative, foot-dragging, statutory thrusts] from the
Bush/Ashcroft et al. forces -- and certainly doesn't seem to be getting
any substantive defense from the Democrats.  Much of the "mechanism",
however, is still intact . . . ."  The mechanism may be technically
intact in that all the steps are still there.  But Asscroft ordered the
agencies, in the wake of 911, to routinely not disclose.  The effect is
to add another step to the mechanism--going to court to get disclosure.
I don't know how closely the agencies have followed Asscroft's advice.

And some cautionary notes:  The request goes into the file of the
requester and probably the subject's file, to.  So that should be in the
mind of the person drafting it.

Second, no reason for wanting the material need be given; it's entirely
irrelevant.  Giving the kinds of reasons that exist here, it seems to
me, just waves red flags (double meaning intended) that might move the
request from the regular track to the high resistance track.  A
countervailing consideration is when the requester thinks there might be
information not indexed or filed under the subject's name but in the
file maintained on an organization.  So the requester should consider
whether to ask that the search include the files on named organizations.

FBI field offices sometimes have information they didn't send to
Washington, so consider querying selected offices in addition to
headquarters.

- Reber Boult
============================================

The Anti-Defamation League and the FBI

Note by Hunterbear:

There's been something of a discussion today on a couple of Left lists --
including that of Socialists Unmoderated [SPUSA] -- about the
Anti-Defamation League.  The consensus certainly is -- and quite
accurately -- that ADL is a reactionary outfit indeed.  Here is a post on
that -- which includes a little personal experience on my part -- which I
sent out early last June to several lists.  Now on our large website, I'm
reposting it on several lists -- including a few that never saw it.
Following my comment is a very revealing ADL news release about its
cooperation with FBI.

ADL AND FBI [HUNTER GRAY  6/8/02]
Note by Hunterbear:

The fact that the Anti-Defamation League is working very conspicuously with
the FBI -- and at a point where FBI is functioning in a more openly [I say
openly]  repressive fashion than it has in decades [FBI, of course, has
always been repressive as hell], should come as absolutely no surprise to
anyone even generally familiar with the civil liberties turf in the United
States.  ADL has been doing this as long as I, at least, can remember -- and
one of its traditional areas of concern has always been everything from
militant liberalism into and across the Left spectrum [with the exception of
right-wing "social democrats."]

About ten years or so ago, the now very well established and broad-based and
always quite circumspect  American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, then
spearheaded by former US Senator James Abourezk from South Dakota [married
to a Rosebud Sioux and a major figure in Indian rights], released documents
that had been secretly issued by ADL:  its so-called list of "subversive
organizations" which numbered into the hundreds -- and included, among
others, not only the various racist and anti-Semitic hate groups -- BUT also
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, all sorts of Native American
and Chicano and Black and Asian rights organizations, virtually everything
on the Left, labor unions, liberal outfits, Islamic groups, social
justice-oriented  Christian church organizations -- and on and on and on.

All of this was in the context of ADL working covertly with various police
organizations and operations.

My own experiences with ADL were many, many years ago and relatively
minimal -- but not friendly.  In the Southern Movement days, ADL was working
with the right-wing Jay Lovestone elements in AFL-CIO [mostly on the AFL end
of it] to  "track" and hunt alleged "subversives" in the Civil Rights
Movement -- with an especial focus on SNCC and SCEF [I was the SCEF Field
Organizer.]  On the other hand, its influence in the hard-core South was
essentially nil and its sabotaging  thrusts occurred mostly in the North,
East, and West Coast regions.

In the late Fall, 1963, veteran activist Miss Ella J. Baker [Advisor to
SNCC, Consultant to SCEF -- and an old and dear friend always] and I [as
SCEF Organizer] spent a few hard-traveling and very demanding weeks on a
speaking tour in the North and West, building support for the Civil Rights
Bill [to become the 1964 CR Act] and for the Movement generally.  This
trip -- focused on church and labor and academic groups -- went extremely
well.

A year later -- late in 1964 -- I did a shorter solo run which was mostly in
the Western Mountain states.  By this time, the old national solidarity
behind the Southern Movement was beginning to crack:  many northern liberals
were "tired" and wanted to feel that the passage of the '64 CR Act was the
apex,   various ideological divisions within the Movement were becoming more
and more publicly apparent, war clouds in Southeast Asia were very visible,
there had been several Northern ghetto upheavals,  the integrationist /
separatist debates were obviously incipient, a plethora of New Left outfits
had emerged -- many healthy,  and some not so.  In addition, FBI COINTELPRO
was in full swing.

That late 1964 speaking trip of mine in the West, focused mostly on labor
and academic sectors, was quite successful -- very large turnouts -- but
there were occasionally turbulent dimensions.  John Birchers and Young
Americans for Freedom et al were traditional, frequent and noisy nuisances.
Now and then, there were very ultra-Left thrusts which may well have been in
actuality COINTELPRO.

But, in at least one setting, ADL was definitely involved as a would-be
sabotaging force.

That was at Colorado State, Greeley, where my host was an internationally
known educator and where most of the people who came to hear me were
faculty, labor officials, and Chicano and Black civil rights activists.  No
visible problems -- but I was told that one faculty person at Greeley, who
did not come to the meeting, had advised everyone in advance that I and SCEF
were very "suspect"  and "probably Communists" and he cited information he'd
gotten from the ADL regional office at Denver.  No one listened to him and
the meeting at Greeley and environs was an excellent one.

My next engagement was at Denver and, as soon as I got there, I went to the
ADL Regional Office and raised High Hell with its director [while grinning
junior staff, out of his sight, and in my general age range,
enthusiastically signaled me to lay it on him.]  For his part, he beat a
very hasty retreat indeed, blamed the Greeley prof for everything, and
apologized profusely.  I had brought with me on this trip a great deal of
United Klans and other Klan-type White supremacist material from the Deep
Dixie setting in which I was deeply involved -- and I left some of that with
them.  Although I invited him, he did not come to my large Denver meeting
which had many officials from the Mine-Mill and OCAW international offices,
other labor people, Native Americans, many academics and students, and a
large number of Black and Chicano activists.  There, a very weird  and
ostensibly far, far Left threesome tried to disrupt things -- but got
nowhere.

So my own experiences with ADL have been neither extensive nor friendly.
Still, the Colorado thing was certainly revealing -- and the ADL connections
with the Lovestone finks in AFL-CIO were also becoming more and more
apparent to many of us working in the Southern battlefields.  Decades later,
when I saw, via American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the massive ADL
"subversive list," I was certainly not surprised at all.

Nor am I at all surprised now to see ADL cooperating so openly and
congenially with FBI -- in the blank-check name, of course, of "national
security."

Hunter Gray  [ Hunterbear ]

========================================
Law Enforcement From Across The U.S. Participate In Joint ADL-FBI
Conference On Terrorism
Anti-Defamation League
6/6/02    staff

More than 500 representatives of federal, state and local law enforcement
agencies were briefed on extremist and terrorist threats during a daylong
conference co-sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.

The May 31 program, held at the FBI Academy in Quantico, VA, was an
outgrowth of ADL's longtime involvement in providing information and
training to law enforcement on threats posed by extremists. The conference,
"Extremist and Terrorist Threats: Protecting America After 9/11" included
presentations from ADL, FBI and other nationally recognized experts on
extremist groups, investigative techniques, counterterrorism strategies,
domestic security and threat assessment.

"Now more than ever, law enforcement must have the resources and know-how to
prevent future acts of terrorism," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National
Director. "In order to assess threats against the United States, law
enforcement must have credible information about domestic and foreign
extremists whose rhetoric promotes violence. Through our network of regional
offices and our experts in the field, ADL is uniquely suited to aid in the
war against terrorism. This conference was an opportunity for law
enforcement and extremism watchdogs to compare notes and forge alliances."

The conference brought together representatives of federal, state and local
law enforcement from every region of the U.S., and included participants in
the FBI National Academy, ADL regional directors, area counsels and
investigative researchers.

The program featured opening remarks from Mr. Foxman and Dr. Kathleen L.
McChesney, the FBI's Executive Assistant Director for Law Enforcement
Services. The plenary session, "Right and Left, Domestic and Foreign: An
Overview of Extremist and Terrorist Movements and Groups," featured
presentations from Dr. Bruce Hoffman, Director of the Washington office of
The Rand Corporation; Greg Comcowich, Intelligence Research Specialist in
the FBI's Counterterrorism Division; and Mark Pitcavage, ADL Director of
Fact Finding.

James T. Caruso, the FBI's Deputy Executive Assistant Director for
Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence, delivered the keynote address.

Five concurrent workshops focused on Threat Assessment on the State and
Local Level; Strategies for Police-Community Cooperation to Combat Extremism
and Terrorism; The Changing Role of Law Enforcement: Policy, People and
Technology; Inside the Minds of Terrorists and Extremists; and New
Partnerships: Law Enforcement, the Military and Non-Governmental
Organizations. Among the presenters were police chiefs from Arlington, VA,
Irvine, CA, and Spokane, WA; and officials from the U.S. Army Criminal
Investigation Command; the U.S. Army War College, the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, and ADL and FBI professionals.

David Friedman, Director of ADL's Washington, D.C. Regional Office, and
Louis Quijas, Assistant Director for the FBI's Office of Law Enforcement
Coordination, delivered closing remarks.

EDITORS NOTE: Additional information on extremist groups and ideologies, and
the League's partnerships with law enforcement agencies across the country,
is available at ADL's online Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network, at
www.adl.org/LEARN.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hunter Gray  [ Hunterbear ]
www.hunterbear.org  ( strawberry socialism )
Protected by Na´shdo´i´ba´i´


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#55 14-10-2013 21:50:31

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

Anti Defamation League Case Upheld

Source: Associated Press | April 4, 2001



DENVER (AP National) — A federal judge upheld a jury’s findings that the Anti-Defamation League defamed a couple by publicly accusing them of being anti-Semitic, but reduced punitive damages against the organization.

U.S. District Court Judge Edward Nottingham said Tuesday that evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that the ADL ”acted recklessly in its efforts to publicize what it perceived to be anti-Semitic conduct.”

In April 2000, a jury awarded William and Dorothy Quigley $10.5 million in damages, saying the organization had gone too far in accusing the couple of anti-Semitism stemming from a dispute with their Jewish neighbors.

Nottingham reduced the amount the ADL must pay the Quigleys to $9.75 million. But Dorothy Quigley will receive interest that Nottingham estimated could add $545,000 to the total payment.

A statement from Long & Jaudon, the law firm representing the ADL’s Mountain States chapter, promised an appeal, citing ”reversible errors made during both pretrial and trial proceedings.”

The Quigleys and Mitchell and Candace Aronson had been neighbors and friends in the upscale mountain community of Evergreen, 15 miles west of Denver. The Aronsons’ large dog allegedly attacked the Quigleys’ smaller dog, and a feud followed.

The Aronsons claimed the Quigleys made anti-Semitic remarks in telephone conversations on their cordless phone. The Aronsons overheard and taped the conversations, violating federal anti-wiretap laws.

At a news conference in support of the Aronsons, ADL leaders claimed the Quigleys were anti-Semites.

Nottingham reduced the jury award because the Quigleys had already received compensation from another lawsuit involving the wiretaps.

03AP-NY-04-04-01 1757EDT


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#56 14-10-2013 21:51:19

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

Source: Institute for Historical Review, http://www.ihr.org

Anti-Defamation League Suffers Major Legal Defeat
Colorado Jury Orders Jewish Group to Pay $10.5 Million for Defamatory Statements

In a legal decision rich with irony, a jury in a federal court case in Denver, Colorado, has found that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a powerful Jewish special interest group, had defamed a local couple. On April 28, 2000, the jurors awarded $10.5 million in damages to William and Dorothy Quigley. This is the first court verdict ever against the influential 87-year-old organization. The award, a quarter of the ADL’s $45 million annual budget, was substantially more than the Quigleys had requested.

At a 1994 news conference, the ADL had accused the Quigleys, a couple in the Denver suburb of Evergreen, of perpetrating the worst anti-Semitic incident in the area in ten years. The ADL accused them of launching a campaign against their Jewish neighbors, Mitchell and Candace Aronson, to run them out of town and threatening to commit acts such as painting oven doors on their neighbors’ home. Concluding a four week trial, the jury found that more than 40 statements by Saul F. Rosenthal, director of the ADL’s Mountain States chapter, were defamatory and “not substantially true.”

The Quigleys, who are Roman Catholic, and the Aronsons — neighbors on the same street two houses away — got along until the Aronsons’ large dog allegedly attacked the Quigley’s smaller dog. As the dispute escalated, Mitchell Aronson tuned in a police scanner to eavesdrop on private conversations by the Quigleys over their cordless telephone. The Aronsons’ nearly 100 hours of recorded telephone conversations violated the amended federal wiretap law, which makes it illegal to record conversations on a cordless telephone, to transcribe the material, and to use the transcriptions for any purpose.

The Aronsons sought help from the ADL, whose local director publicly denounced the Quigleys as anti-Semites. Director Rosenthal illegally used the tapes to charge at a news conference in December 1994 that the Quigleys were engaged in “a vicious anti-Semitic campaign.” He expanded on these charges later that same day in an interview on a Denver radio talk show.

No overt acts or physical actions followed any of the recorded conversations.

Acting on complaints from the Aronsons, the local District Attorney filed ethnic intimidation charges against the Quigleys. But the county prosecutor later dropped the charges and, in an open letter, apologized to the couple, saying he had found no evidence that either had engaged in “anti-Semitic conduct or harassment.” The DA also paid the Quigleys $75,000 as part of an out-of-court settlement.

Lawsuits by the Aronsons and the Quigleys against each other were eventually resolved, with no exchange of money.

In their lawsuit against the ADL and its local director, the Quigleys charged not only that the ADL had defamed them, but that the Jewish group was supportive of the illegal invasion of their privacy through its use of the improperly recorded telephone conversations.

During closing arguments, Quigley attorney Jay Horowitz said that while Dorothy Quigley had a “big mouth,” and may have said things over the telephone that she later regretted, there is no evidence that the Quigleys were anti-Semites. When talking about damages suffered by the Quigleys, Horowitz noted that William Quigley, who was employed by United Artists theaters, was a marked man because of the ADL’s public allegations of anti-Semitism. His income, Horowitz argued, was less than half of what it would have been.

The numerous damage awards include one million dollars in economic and non-economic damages for William Quigley and $500,000 for Dorothy Quigley. The couple was also awarded more than $8.7 million in punitive damages and other, lesser amounts.

The ADL is appealing the verdict, expressing confidence that the jury’s award will be reduced, or even that the verdict will be thrown out altogether.

The Washington Jewish Week, a paper that serves the Jewish community of the nation’s capital, commented with sympathetic concern in an editorial: “In a disturbing irony, the Jewish world’s premier discrimination fighter, whose mission is ‘to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment for all people alike,’ found itself convicted of defamation … When does being in the forefront mean invading someone’s personal privacy, and even violating the human dignity that ADL holds so dear?”

The Denver court’s verdict shows that the sometimes seemingly invincible Jewish activist group is not invulnerable. Unlike prominent political and social figures, who are often beholden to special interest groups such as the ADL, independent-spirited citizens, acting as jurors, can sometimes still defy such powerful organizations.

The ADL’s defeat in a Denver court was a consequence of its own arrogance in recklessly defaming the Quigleys. Such brazen contempt — not only for decency and common ethics, but even the law — is nothing new for the ADL. Similar arrogance was also manifest in the ADL’s extensive spying operation, which was uncovered in 1993, and its decades of censorship and intimidation activities directed against libraries, book publishers, journalists and Internet service providers. (See The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist ‘Watchdog Groups’, a well documented 102-page booklet by independent researcher Laird Wilcox [and available through the IHR].)

Although the ADL claims to fight discrimination and promote “fair treatment,” for decades it has been a staunch defender of Israel and its well-entrenched policies of discrimination against non-Jews, and of the Zionist state’s wars of aggression and numerous violations of international law. Similarly, in the United States the ADL upholds a double standard in ardently promoting Jewish ethnic-religious particularism while protesting comparable ethnic-racial particularism by non-Jews.

(Sources: “Charges of bigotry backfire,” The Denver Post, April 29, 2000; M. Janofsky, “Privacy Rights Win Over Bias Charges in Defamation Case,” The New York Times, May 13, 2000; “ADL won’t be deterred by court defeat,” JTA, Washington Jewish Week, May 18, 2000, p. 14; “Defaming Defamers”,” Editorial, Washington Jewish Week, May 16, 2000, p. 16; H. Berkowitz & A. Foxman, “ADL in Denver: setting the record straight,” Washington Jewish Week, May 25, 2000, p. 18.)


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#57 14-10-2013 21:52:43

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

Anti Defamation Leagues National Director Is Crazy Like a Foxman

Republished with permission Of Lenni Brenner

              The Anti-Defamation League's National Director
                          is crazy like a Foxman

                             by Lenni Brenner

          ABRAHAM FOXMAN, the ADL's National Director, is well and
     truly crazy, and for two reasons: 1) He libeled me and 2) he thinks
     he can get away with it.

          The saying is that one good turn deserves another. Since
     Foxman and the ADL have spread malicious nonsense about me, I will
     tell the exact truth about them, putting their dishonesty about my
     ideas within the context of the ADL's unending history of
     right-wing stupidity and dishonor.

          In October 1993, Foxman gave a speech at a Paris conference on
     xenophobia. Later he adapted it as an article, "Holocaust Denial:
     The Growing Danger," published in an ADL magazine, Dimensions: A
     Journal of Holocaust Studies, vol. 8, number 1, released in the
     Spring of 1994. There we find the following remarks:

          "Another aspect of Holocaust 'revisionist' thinking can be
     found on the radical left. A writer named Lenni Brenner maintains
     that Zionists, in effect, were in league with the Nazis. He asserts
     that there was a close link between elements of the Zionist
     movement and the Nazi party, that Zionists were willing to foster
     and exploit anti-Semitism in Europe to bring about a Zionist state,
     and that they had proposed an alliance with Nazi Germany."

          "Brenner's thesis, with its coupling of Zionists with Nazis,
     serves as a propaganda tool to undermine Israel: as such, it has
     found favor with the American radical left, and with the press of
     the former Soviet Union. The erstwhile Soviet daily Izvestia wrote
     of his work: 'During the World War, Brenner points out, Zionism
     showed its real meaning: for the sake of its ambitions, it
     sacrificed the blood of millions of Jews.' Brenner has also won
     approval on the other end of the spectrum, the neo-fascist right:
     His books have been promoted by the Institute for Historical
     Review." [1]

           Has Foxman even read me on Zionism's role during the Nazi
     era? His speech and article unmistakably relied on "Hitler's
     Apologists: The Anti-Semitic Propaganda of Holocaust Revisionism,"
     prepared by Marc Caplan of the Research and Evaluation Department
     of the ADL, in 1993. Here we find the original, slightly longer,
     but no more honest, version of Foxman's libel, labeled "A
     Revisionist Echo on the Left." Foxman's two paragraphs on me are
     virtually the same as Caplan's first two paragraphs. Caplan added
     that

          "In 1987 this point of view surfaced in England, when a
     stridently anti-Zionist play, 'Perdition,' by Jim Allen, was
     scheduled for production at London's prestigious Royal Court
     Theater. The play generated intense public controversy and,
     finally, it did not open. The writer acknowledged Brenner's work as
     a source in writing his play, which portrayed a wartime Zionist
     leader who allegedly collaborated with the Nazis to save his family
     and other Zionists while deserting the rest of the community. Allen
     said he was seeking to mount 'the most lethal attack on Zionism
     ever written.'" [2]

          I've written four books and about 100 articles. Jim Allen is
     a prize-winning British playwright. I defy the ADL to point to one
     word in either of our writings that supports even a particle of the
     Holocaust revisionists' depravity.

          In the February 18, 1985 New Republic, Eric Breindel, now an
     editor of the New York Post, reported that my first book, Zionism
     in the Age of the Dictators,

          "has been applauded, and made available by the Institute for
     Historical Review, a pseudo-scientific flat-earth society which
     endeavors to prove that the Holocaust was a hoax." [3]

          Not having seen anything on the book by the Institute, I wrote
     them and received a letter from Tom Marcellus of the IHR. They had
     'promoted' the book on two occasions. They sent me a booklist:

          "397. ZIONISM IN THE AGE OF THE DICTATORS: A REAPPRAISAL by
     Lenni Brenner. An astounding, bombshell expose of the active
     collaboration between Nazis and Zionists, by a courageous
     anti-Zionist Jew who spent years piecing together the story.
     Details the close links between the 'Zionist Revisionism' movement
     (to which both the young Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir
     belonged) and the Jewish question experts of the Nazi Party,
     Brenner's charge, overwhelmingly documented: that Zionism and its
     leaders from the beginning were prepared to go to any lengths to
     achieve their goal of a state in Palestine -- lengths that included
     fostering and exploiting anti-Semitism in Europe, and proposing an
     alliance with Germany at the zenith of that nation's power. This
     book has certain surviving WWII-era Zionists quaking in their boots
     -- including the present Prime Minister of Israel!" [4]

          The IHR's letter went on:

          We also promoted it in an IHR Newsletter of a couple of years
     ago, but the remaining copies of that issue and the records
     concerning it were all lost in an arson that completely destroyed
     our business address and inventory on 4 July last. [5]

          I replied to Marcellus in a letter, on April 11, 1985. I
     quoted from it in my third book, Jews In America Today, published
     in 1986:

          "The depravity of the Institute is clearly expressed in a box,
     'The Holocaust,' in the same booklet: 'A catch-all term to identify
     the alleged extermination of European Jewry which insists on the
     following presumptions: 1) The Nazis executed a deliberate plan to
     destroy (not resettle) European Jewry, (2) Six million or more Jews
     perished as a result, and (3) A majority of these were killed by
     poison gas (Zyklon B) in gas chambers designed for the purpose of
     taking human life en masse. This is the orthodox or Establishment
     view. A subscriber to this view could be called an
     EXTERMINATIONIST: whereas one who endeavors to show that one or
     more of the above presumptions is not factual is a REVISIONIST.'"

          "All of the above is bullshit. I share not one iota of your
     mad ideology. I am your implacable opponent. I do not believe you
     have any right to exist.... and I support any and all attempts, by
     any and all, Zionist or anti-Zionist, to bust up your institute and
     your meetings. [6]

           I had sent a letter to the New Republic, in response to
     Breindel, but Martin Peretz's strange journal wouldn't run it.
     Fortunately Alex Cockburn defended me in June 29, 1985 Nation.
     Breindel replied, in the August 1, 1985 Nation. Cockburn retorted
     that

          "Breindel is fond of saying that the Institute... applauds and
     disseminates Brenner's work, though he denies that he is thus
     trying to saddle Brenner with the Institute's views. But of course
     that is what Breindel has been trying to do.... The Institute lists
     Brenner's book as it does books by such diverse people as A.P.J.
     Taylor, former Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett and New
     Republic contributors Ronald Radosh and Allen Weinstein. [7]

          Caplan and Foxman may have read of this in the New Republic
     and The Nation. But at any rate Caplan certainly was aware of my
     opinion of the IHR when he wrote Hitler's Apologists. He had
     attacked me in a previous ADL pamphlet, "Jew-Hatred As History. An
     Analysis of the Nation of Islam's and The Secret Relationship
     Between Blacks and Jews." In that screed he had quoted -- out of
     context, of course -- from Jews In America Today. So he certainly
     read of the entire IHR episode, as I devoted six pages to it.

          It is in order for me to dismiss the Institute's praise of
     Zionism in the Age of the Dictators by saying that this is of no
     more importance the fact that roaches like gourmet cooking just as
     much as you do. But readers are entitled to know why these nutsies
     liked it. Basically, they minimize the Holocaust: ŒAw right, so
     Hitler didn't exactly like Jews. And he rounded them up, as
     enemies, and some of them died of disease. And besides, what about
     Roosevelt rounding up the Japanese Americans on the West Coast? And
     look at Stalin's Katyn massacre, and Churchill's horrific bombing
     of Dresden, and the A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Here the
     Yids are, yelling about Hitler, while the Allied leaders were
     monsters, just like Hitler. Damned if it isn't true that everyone
     has skeletons in their closet. Why go on dumping on po' ol' Adolf?'
     Given this loony psychology, their catalogue is full of books on
     Allied crimes, no less crimes for being emphasized by these
     crazies. In the same way, my exposure of real Zionist activities
     during the Nazi era became additional 'proof' that Hitler was no
     worse than the rest of the wicked world.

          As I don't waste my time reading such crackpots, I have no
     idea if they still even mention my book. Certainly they are insane
     if they went on praising me, or my book, after I told them that I
     hailed anyone who burns their headquarters. As the ADL monitors
     their publications, it is reasonable to think that the ADL would
     have mentioned this in their attacks on me.

          Caplan's paragraph re Jim Allen's Perdition is disingenuous in
     its omissions. Allen is a prize-winning British TV playwright.
     Perdition was based on a chapter in Zionism in the Age of the
     Dictators, dealing with the role of Rezs-Kasztner, a Zionist leader
     in Nazi-occupied Hungary in 1944. The play was driven out of the
     Royal Court Theatre by a Zionist campaign, but their methods
     alienated public opinion. David Cesarani, now an editor of Patterns
     of Prejudice, published by the London Jewish establishment's
     Institute of Jewish Affairs, admitted this in the July 3, 1987
     Jewish Chronicle:

          "Was it worth all the fuss? Had the play gone on, it would
     have been seen by around 2,000 people. It might have attracted some
     bad reviews and then disappeared.... In the event.... Personal
     representations coincided with the threat of a mass protest outside
     the theatre, the combined effect of which made it seem as if
     pressure was being applied.... This was (theatre director) Stafford
     Clark's autonomous decision, but the clamour made it appear
     disastrously as if he had been bullied into censoring the play....
     It is certainly difficult to know how to respond...without
     resorting to heavy-handed methods. [8]

          In fact Perdition was produced, first in print, then as a
     reading at the Edinburgh Festival in 1987 and then in London in
     May, 1988. It received massive media attention, including favorable
     reviews. Stuart Hood reflected on the print version in the July 10,
     1987 Guardian:

          "There are certain themes from the history of the Second World
     War which are subject to taboos.... (T)he Holocaust has come to
     play an important ideological role. It has been in this sense
     appropriated by the state of Israel and the Zionist movement. It
     has thus become a shield against criticism of the policies and
     actions of that state and of Zionism itself...... Allen was a bold
     man to write Perdition.... Although he develops his argument with
     understanding of the terrible dilemmas of the main persons
     involved, his criticism of the role of Zionist ideology, then and
     now, has led to his being accused of anti-Semitism, of which his
     whole political past is a denial.... By refusing to stage a play
     which honestly and compassionately examines a terrible moment in
     human history, the Royal Court was guilty of failure of nerve, of
     civil courage. By giving way to powerful lobbying it has reinforced
     an indefensible political taboo." [9]
          There is more to this story. The Jewish Chronicle for November
     27, 1992 was forced to run an article which announced that

          "The collapse of a libel action has allowed the controversial
     anti-Zionist play 'Perdition' to be published in full for the first
     time.... Pluto Press, omitted several pages from the original text
     because of a libel action which was brought by Nathan Dror, a
     senior figure in the Israeli Labour Federation, who headed the
     Jewish rescue committee in Switzerland during the war. He brought
     the action... for references to a letter quoted in 'Perdition,'
     allegedly written by Mr. Dror during the Second World War, which
     claimed Jewish deaths would help justify the foundation of a Jewish
     state. The action, heard in the High Court in London, collapsed due
     to lack of evidence." [10]

          Dror's letter will be quoted below, in its proper
     chronological place. I had quoted it in my book, which appeared in
     Britain and America, in 1983. Dror didn't sue me. But when Allen
     quoted the same letter, he was sued. Because of Britain's
     reactionary libel laws, the publisher was compelled to print
     Allen's play with a blank space where the letter was cited because
     the libel case was before the courts. I had an accompanying essay
     in that printing of the play, and had the unique experience for an
     American writer, of having it in effect censored, with similar
     blank spaces where I also quoted the letter.. II - Zionism and the
     Nazis: The documentary record

          By now two things should be clear to open-minded readers: l)
     My ideas regarding Zionism's role during the Holocaust have nothing
     in common with Holocaust revisionists, who deny that the Holocaust
     happened, and 2) the Zionist movement has used both libel and a
     spurious libel suit in its attempt to keep the facts from the
     public. But at this point readers are better informed as to what I
     didn't say than what I do say re Zionism's Holocaust role.
     Naturally I refer them to Zionism in the Age of the Dictators,
     which is obtainable in bookstores and libraries. But for now I will
     describe some of the low points of their activities, using a small
     part of the documentation included in my book.

          The Nazis came to power in January, 1933. On June 21 the
     Zionistische Vereinigung fur Deutschland (the Zionist Federation of
     Germany) sent a memorandum to the Nazi Party. The document first
     saw the light of day in 1961, when it was printed in Israel, but in
     German. The Nazis were asked, very politely:

          "(M)ay we therefore be permitted to present our views, which,
     in our opinion, makes possible a solution in keeping with the
     principles of the new German State of National Awakening and which
     at the same time might signify for Jews a new ordering of the
     conditions of their existence..."

          "(A)n answer to the Jewish question truly satisfying to the
     national state can be brought about only with the collaboration of
     the Jewish movement that aims at a social, cultural, and moral
     renewal of Jewry...a rebirth of national life, such as is occurring
     in German life through adhesion to Christian and national values,
     must also take place in the Jewish national group. For the Jew,
     too, origin, religion, community of fate and group consciousness
     must be of decisive significance in the shaping of his life...."

          "On the foundation of the new state, which has established the
     principle of race, we wish so to fit our community into the total
     structure so that for us too, in the sphere assigned to us,
     fruitful activity for the Fatherland is possible... Our
     acknowledgment of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and
     sincere relationship to the German people and its national and
     racial realities. Precisely because we do not wish to falsify these
     fundamentals, because we, too, are against mixed marriage and for
     the maintaining of the purity of the Jewish group... (R)ootedness
     in one's own spirituality protects the Jew from becoming the
     rootless critic of the national foundation of German essence. The
     national distancing which the state desires would thus be brought
     about easily as the result of an organic development... We believe
     in the possibility of an honest relationship of loyalty between a
     group-conscious Jewry and the German state..."

          "For its practical aims, Zionism hopes to be able to win the
     collaboration even of a government fundamentally hostile to Jews,
     because in dealing with the Jewish question no sentimentalities are
     involved but a real problem whose solution interests all peoples,
     and at the present moment especially the German people."

          "The realization of Zionism could only be hurt by resentment
     of Jews abroad against the German development. Boycott propaganda
     -- such as is currently being carried on against Germany in many
     ways -- is in essence un-Zionist, because Zionism wants not to do
     battle but to convince and to build... Our observations, presented
     herewith, rest on the conviction that, in solving the Jewish
     problem according to its own lights, the German Government will
     have full understanding for a candid and clear Jewish posture that
     harmonizes with the interests of the state." [11]

          I admit to being the Shakespeare of our times, but I didn't
     make that up. Indeed the Lenni Brenner of the Elizabethean age
     didn't have the imagination to concoct anything as grotesque as
     this memorandum. It is found, complete, in A Holocaust Reader,
     edited by the late Lucy Dawidowicz. But let's not stop here. Let's
     look at some more Zionist wonderfulness.

          The Nazis used the World Zionist Organization to break the
     efforts of those Jews who were trying to boycott German goods.
     German Jews could put money into a Berlin bank. It was then used to
     buy export goods which were sold in Palestine. When the emigres
     arrived there, they would receive payment for the goods that had
     been sold. German Jews were attracted to this scheme because it was
     the least painful way of getting their wealth out of the country.
     However, with the Nazis determining the rules, they naturally got
     worse with time. By 1938 users of the "Transfer Agreement" were
     losing 30% and even 50% of their money. But this was still three
     times, and eventually five times better than the losses endured by
     Jews whose money went to other destinations.

          The WZO naturally wanted better terms. Accordingly, in 1937,
     the Haganah, the military arm of the Labor Zionists, who dominated
     the Jewish Agency, the WZO's headquarters in Palestine, obtained
     Berlin's permission to negotiate directly with the
     Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the Security Service of the SS. A Haganah
     agent, Feival Polkes, arrived in Germany on February 26, 1937 and
     Adolf Eichmann was assigned to negotiate with him. Their
     conversations were recorded in a report by Eichmann's superior,
     Franz-Albert Six. It was found in SS files captured by the
     Americans at the end of WWII. David Yisraeli, a well-known Israeli
     scholar, reprinted it, in German, in his PhD thesis, The Palestine
     Problem in German Politics 1889-1945:

          "Polkes is a national-Zionist... As a Haganah man he fights
     against Communism and all aims of Arab-British friendship... He
     declared himself willing to work for Germany in the form of
     providing intelligence as long as this does not oppose his own
     political goals. Among other things he would support German foreign
     policy in the Near East. He would try to find oil sources for the
     German Reich without affecting British spheres of interest if the
     German monetary regulations were eased for Jewish emigrants to
     Palestine." [12]

          Polkes had to cut short his visit. But in October it was the
     Zionists' turn to receive Eichmann. He arrived in Haifa on October
     2, 1937. Polkes took him to a kibbutz, but the British CID had
     become aware of Eichmann's presence and expelled him to Egypt.
     Polkes followed him and further discussions were held in Cairo. The
     German report, photocopied in its entirety in volume five of John
     Mendelsohn's Holocaust, gives us the rationale for the Haganah's
     would-be collaboration:

          "(I)n Jewish nationalist circles people were very pleased with
     the radical German policy, since the strength of the Jewish
     population in Palestine would be so far increased thereby that in
     the foreseeable future the Jews could reckon upon numerical
     superiority over the Arabs in Palestine." [13]

          Polkes passed on two pieces of intelligence information to the
     Nazis:

          "(T)he Pan-Islamic World Congress convening in Berlin is in
     direct contact with two pro-Soviet Arab leaders: Emir Shekib Arslan
     and Emir Adil Arslan.... The illegal Communist broadcasting station
     whose transmission to Germany is particularly strong, is, according
     to Polkes' statement, assembled on a lorry that drives along the
     German-Luxembourg border when transmission is on the air." [14]

          The Laborites main Zionist rivals in the '30s were the
     "Zionist-Revisionist" followers of Vladimir Jabotinsky. Their
     Revisionism had nothing in common with present-day Holocaust
     Revisionism. They wanted to revise the Zionist and British policy
     towards the Palestinians. They wanted to crush them by force, with
     an "iron wall" of weaponry. Today they are the dominant ideological
     tendency in Israel's opposition Likud bloc.

          As the British weren't in Palestine to do Jabotinsky's
     bidding, he and his movement looked to Mussolini's Italy as a
     potential replacement for Britain as Zionism's then necessary
     imperial patron against overwhelming Palestinian numbers. While
     Jabotinsky insisted that he personally didn't like Fascism,
     Wolfgang von Weisl, the Revisionists' financial director, had no
     hesitation about telling a Bucharest paper that although opinions
     among the Revisionists varied, in general they sympathized with
     Fascism. He eagerly announced that he personally was a supporter of
     Fascism, and he rejoiced at the victory of Fascist Italy in
     Abyssinia as a triumph of the White races against the Black. [15]

          Italy was quite willing to support the Revisionists, who were
     obviously the Fascists of Zionism. In 1934 Mussolini allowed the
     Betar, the Revisionist youth group, to set up a squadron at the
     maritime academy at Civitavecchia run by the Blackshirts. The March
     1936 issue of L'Idea Sionistica, the Revisionists' Italian
     magazine, described the ceremonies at the inauguration of the Betar
     squad's headquarters:

          "The order -- 'Attention!' A triple chant ordered by the
     squad's commanding officer -- 'Viva L'Italia! Viva IL Re! Viva IL
     Duce!' resounded, followed by the benediction which rabbi Aldo
     Lattes invoked in Italian and in Hebrew for God, for the king and
     for IL Duce ... Giovinezza (the Fascist Party's anthem) was sung
     with much enthusiasm by the Betarim." [16]

          Even after the outbreak of WWII, a wing of Jabotinsky's
     following tried to get the patronage of the Axis powers. According
     to their crackpot notions, Britain was the main enemy of Jewry
     because London controlled Palestine and wouldn't establish a Jewish
     state which, they believed, was the only solution to anti-Semitism.
     Accordingly they sent an agent to Lebanon, then run by the
     Vichy-French regime. He delivered a memorandum to a German
     diplomat. After the war it was found in the files of the German
     embassy in Turkey. The Ankara document called itself a "Proposal of
     the National Military Organization (Irgun Zvai Leumi) Concerning
     the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe and the Participation
     of the NMO in the War on the side of Germany." It is dated *11
     January 1941. At that time they still thought of themselves as the
     real Irgun, Jabotinsky's underground terrorists. Later they adapted
     the name Lohami Herut Yisrael, Fighters for the Freedom of Israel.
     However they are universally known as the Stern Gang, the name
     given to them by the British, after their founder, Avraham Stern.
     Their entire document is reprinted in Yisraeli's thesis, in German.
     They told the Nazis that

          "The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a
     precondition for solving the Jewish question; but this can only be
     made possible and complete through the settlement of those masses
     in the home of the Jewish people, Palestine, and through the
     establishment of a Jewish state in its historical boundaries... The
     NMO... is of the opinion that... The establishment of the
     historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and
     bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest
     of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in
     the Near East. Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in
     Palestine, under the condition the above-mentioned national
     aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the
     side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war
     on Germany's side." [17]

          At the time the Sternists were a numerically insignificant
     minority of the Zionist movement and were reviled as the pro-Nazi
     loons that they obviously were. This monstrous offer took on vastly
     greater contemporary significance when one of their leaders,
     Yitzhak Yzernitsky, later became prime minister of Israel under his
     underground name, Yitzhak Shamir. As it happened, I was in
     Jerusalem when Menachem Begin nominated him as his successor and
     had the complete text of the traitors' memorandum printed, in
     English, in an Arab-owned paper. An Israeli daily used the occasion
     to confront Shamir on this episode. The story was picked up in the
     21 October 1983 London Times. Yes, Shamir admitted,

          "There was a plan to turn to Italy for help and to make
     contact with Germany on the assumption that these could bring about
     a massive Jewish immigration.. I opposed this, but I did join Lehi
     after the idea of contacts with the Axis countries was dropped."
     [18]

          Even if we were to take this fairy tale as gospel, didn't
     Shamir confess to knowingly joining a pro-Nazi movement? But he was
     lying. In 1963, Gerold Frank wrote The Deed, a study of the 1944
     Stern Gang assassination of Lord Moyne, Churchill's High
     Commissioner for the Middle East. Frank tells of an incident
     shortly after Jabotinsky's death, on August 3, 1940. The Jabotinsky
     loyalists, led by David Raziel, and the Sternists sent speakers to
     try to convince the undecided among the Irgun to go with them.
     Frank relates that

          "(T)he movement all but disintegrated. In September Stern
     walked out and set up his own group... Eliahu (Bet Zouri) and David
     Danon... were summoned to a remote schoolhouse... (T)hey were to be
     addressed by a representative of each faction... (A) short,
     square-shouldered, square-faced, muscular man awaited them. Itzhak
     Yizernitsky... spoke tersely, summing up the reasons behind Stern's
     decision to walk out... 'Men!' His deep voice rumbled, 'If you want
     to smell fire and powder, come with us!' (pp. 91-3)... David, for
     his part, could not forget Yizernitsky's 'fire and powder' remark
     in the days immediately following the Raziel-Stern split." [19]

          Frank had covered the trial of the two Stern Gang youths who
     killed Moyne. Shamir organized the slaying. In 1963 Frank had no
     reason to invent Yizernitsky-Shamir's speech, which is a minor
     incident in the book. But Shamir had the best reason in the world
     to make up his 1983 fraud. The world was still naive. It wasn't
     ready for an Israeli Prime Minister who would admi t that he wanted
     to ally himself with Hitler.

          By 1994, when Shamir wrote his memoirs, Summing Up, he had
     abandoned his lie about only joining the Sternists after they had
     given up their treason to the Jews. Now we are told that ³In
     September 1940, my life altered too, for I left the Irgun with Yair
     (Stern's nom de guerre - LB) to enter the deeper underground from
     which Lehi fought our outlawed war against the British. [20] But he
     still cannot honestly deal with his own personal treason. He
     doesn't even mention their memorandum, known to all scholars, of
     course, but he rationalizes it away:

          "What Yair hoped for was that the Nazis, so eager to rid
     themselves of Jews, would help to bring the majority of Jews from
     Europe, thru the British blockade, to Palestine, thus making havoc
     of British illusions regarding post-war control of the Middle East,
     facilitating Allied defeat and, possibly, if Britain knew what was
     afoot, even producing the withdrawal of the White Paper (limiting
     Jewish immigration - LB). Whatever the result, he reasoned, Jews
     would be brought to Palestine. He didn't make this plan public, but
     Lehi termed the world war a conflict between the forces of evil,
     between Gog and Magog, and made unmistakable its position -- again
     it must be remembered that all this was in 1940 and 1941 -- when it
     was reasonable to feel that there was little for Jews to chose from
     between the Germans and the British. All that counted for Yair was
     that this idea might, after all, be a way to save Jews about whom,
     no one else, least of all the British, seemed to care. Nothing came
     of it, of course. By that time, though no one yet knew it, the
     Nazis were already at work on a very different solution to the
     Jewish problem. In the meanwhile, however, Lehi was not only feared
     and disapproved of by the Yishuv (the Jews of Palestine - LB), but
     also suspected of fifth column activities by a public that went on
     believing -- incredibly, in the face of accumulating evidence to
     the contrary -- that the British would open the gates of Palestine
     to the anguished Jews and which refused to be weaned of emotional
     and political dependence on Britain." [21]

          The destruction of Hungarian Jewry is one of the most tragic
     chapters in the Holocaust. When the Germans occupied Hungary, on
     March 19, 1944, its Jewish community leaders knew what to expect,
     as the country had been a refuge for Polish and Slovakian Jews. In
     postwar years, the role of Rezsö Kasztner, a leader of the Budapest
     Rescue Committee, was subjected to detailed scrutiny in Israeli
     courtrooms.

          In 1953 the Ben-Gurion government prosecuted an elderly
     pamphleteer, Malchiel Gruenwald, for having libeled Kasztner as a
     collaborator for his dealings with Eichmann in 1944. Gruenwald
     denounced Kasztner for having kept silent about German lies that
     the Hungarian Jews were only being resettled at Kenyermezo, in
     Hungary. In return, he was allowed to organize a special train to
     Switzerland, and place his family and friends on it. Further,
     Gruenwald claimed, Kasztner later protected SS Colonel Becher from
     hanging as a war criminal by claiming that he saved Jewish lives.

          On June 21, 1955, Judge Benjamin Halevi found that there had
     been no libel of Kasztner, apart from the fact that he hadn't been
     motivated by monetary considerations. Later yet, Ben Hecht, a
     Zionist, and one of the most famous American writers of his day,
     wrote up the trial and its appeal in his book, Perfidy. Hecht
     quoted Halevi's declaration that

          "The Nazis' patronage of Kasztner, and their agreement to let
     him save six hundred prominent Jews, were part of the plan to
     exterminate the Jews. Kasztner was given a chance to add a few more
     to that number. The bait attracted him. The opportunity of rescuing
     prominent people appealed to him greatly. He considered the rescue
     of the most important Jews as a great personal success and a
     success for Zionism." [22]

          The Labor government remained loyal to their party comrade and
     appealed the case. Attorney-General Chaim Cohen put the fundamental
     issue before the Supreme Court:

          "Kasztner did nothing more and nothing less than was done by
     us in rescuing the Jews and bringing them to Palestine... You are
     allowed --in fact it is your duty -- to risk losing the many in
     order to save the few...It has always been our Zionist tradition to
     select the few out of many in arranging the immigration to
     Palestine. Are we therefore to be called traitors?" [23]

          On March 3, 1957 Kasztner was gunned down by right-wing
     Zionist assassins. However the Supreme Court handed down its
     decision in the case on January 17, 1958. It ruled, 5 to O, that
     Kasztner had perjured himself on Becher's behalf, But it concluded,
     3 to 2, that he could not be legitimately considered a
     collaborator. The most forceful majority argument was presented by
     Judge Shlomo Chesin:

          "The question is not whether a man is allowed to kill many in
     order to save a few, or vice-versa. The question is altogether in
     another sphere and should be defined as follows: a man is aware
     that a whole community is awaiting its doom. He is allowed to make
     efforts to save a few, although part of his efforts involve
     concealment of truth from the many; or should he disclose the truth
     to the many though it is his best opinion that this way everybody
     will perish. I think the answer is clear. What good will the blood
     of the few bring if everyone is to perish?... There is no law,
     either national or international, which lays down the duties of a
     leader in an hour of emergency toward those who rely on leadership
     and are under his instructions." [24]

          Indeed the most important aspect of the trial was its full
     exposure of the working philosophy of the WZO throughout the Nazi
     era: the sanctification of the betrayal of the many in the interest
     of a selected immigration. Once we understand this, we can deal
     with Nathan Dror's letter.

          The Nazis began taking the Jews of Slovakia in March 1942.
     Rabbi Michael Dov-Ber Weissmandel, a member of the Agudat Yisrael,
     an ultra-Orthodox political party, contacted Dieter Wisliceny,
     Eichmann's representative, and told him that he was in touch with
     the leaders of world Jewry. Would the Nazi take money for
     Slovakia's Jews? Money was paid and the surviving Jews were spared
     until 1944.


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#58 14-10-2013 21:53:14

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

Weissmandel became one of the outstanding Jewish rescue
     figures during the Holocaust because he was the first to demand
     that the Allies bomb Auschwitz.. His post-war book, Min HaMaitzer
     (From the Depths) written in Talmudic Hebrew, also tells of his
     further efforts to pay off the Nazis to save Jewish lives.
     Wisliceny took the matter up with Berlin and told the rabbi, in
     1943, that he could have all the Jews in western Europe and the
     Balkans for $2 million in American money, then a substantial sum.
     Weissmandel sent a courier to Switzerland to try to get the money
     from Jewish organizations. The courier brought back a letter from
     Nathan Schwalb, the representative of the Hechalutz, a youth
     section of the Labor Party. Dror is Schwalb's Zionist, i.e.,
     Hebrew, name. Weissmandel described the document:

          "There was another letter in the envelope, written in a
     strange foreign language and at first I could not decipher at all
     which language it was until I realized that this was Hebrew written
     in Roman letters, and written to Schwalb's friends in Pressburg
     (Bratislava)... It is still before my eyes, as if I had reviewed it
     a hundred and one times. This was the content of the letter: 'Since
     we have the opportunity of this courier, we are writing to the
     group that they must constantly have before them that in the end
     the Allies will win. After their victory they will divide the world
     again between the nations, as they did at the end of the first
     world war. Then they unveiled the plan for the first step and now,
     at the war's end, we must do everything so that Eretz Yisroel will
     become the state of Israel, and important steps have already been
     taken in this direction. About the cries coming from your country,
     we should know that all the Allied nations are spilling much of
     their blood, and if we do not sacrifice any blood, by what right
     shall we merit coming before the bargaining table when they divide
     nations and lands at the war's end? Therefore it is silly, even
     impudent, on our part to ask these nations who are spilling their
     blood to permit their money into enemy countries in order to
     protect our blood -- for only with blood shall we get the land. But
     in respect to you, my friends, atem taylu, and for this purpose I
     am sending you money illegally with this messenger.'" [25]

          The letter startled rabbi Weissmandel, to say the least. He
     pondered over it many times:

          "After I had accustomed myself to this strange writing, I
     trembled, understanding the meaning of the first words which were
     'only with blood shall we attain land.' But days and weeks went by,
     and I did not know the meaning of the last two words. Until I saw
     from something that happened that the words 'atem taylu' were from
     'tiyul' (to walk which was their special term for 'rescue.') In
     other words: you my fellow members, my 19 or 20 close friends, get
     out of Slovakia and save your lives and with the blood of the
     remainder --the blood of all the men, women, old and young and the
     sucklings -- the land will belong to us. Therefore, in order to
     save their lives it is a crime to allow money into enemy territory
     --but to save you beloved friends, here is money obtained
     illegally." [26]

          He went on: ³It is understood that I do not have these letters
     --for they remained there and were destroyed with everything else
     that was lost. [27]

          Weissmandel assured us that the dedicated Zionist rescue
     workers in Slovakia were appalled by Schwalb-Dror's letter. But it
     expressed the morbid thoughts of the rancid elements running the
     WZO: Instead of Zionism being the hope of the Jews, their blood was
     to be the salvation of Zionism.

          Reasonable readers have seen for themselves that the ADL
     libeled me. But they may say that 'every movement has its lunatic
     fringe. Libelers are not reviewers. What do responsible Zionist
     historians have to say about Brenner and his charges?'

          Walter Laqueur, the chairman of the International Research
     Council of the Center for Strategic and International Studies at
     Georgetown University, devoted six pages to attacking me in the
     November 2, 1987 New Republic. (Again, I sent in a reply, but
     Martin Peretz has no honor and his magazine did not run it.)
     Laqueur insists that

          "Even if all his facts were correct, Brenner's book would not
     be a serious study of Zionism, any more than a collection of
     profiles in scurrility from Benedict Arnold to Al Capone would be
     a serious history of the United States." [28]

          Surely Capone wasn't the last American rogue! At any rate,
     after showing me to be the monster that I surely am, this Zionist
     defense attorney makes a few concessions concerning my charges:

          "It is quite true that some Zionists should not have looked
     for Mussolini's support, even in the 1920s; they were grievously
     mistaken to do so... It is true, moreover, that German Zionists did
     not fully understand the meaning of Hitler when he came to power in
     1933. Some of their comments and declarations make embarrassing
     reading 50 years later." [29]

          Laqueur wrote his plaidoyer for his movement's treachery
     before Schwalb-Dror's suit had been flung through the courtroom
     door. In the wake of that debacle for Zionism, his comments sound
     more than a bit odd:

          "The story of one Nathan Schwalb... is absolutely crucial for
     the play.... Still, something went very wrong with this star
     witness for the prosecution... Schwalb is alive... Thus, to their
     dismay, Allen and Brenner found themselves suddenly confronted with
     a libel action. Instead of refusing to change a single word in
     their manuscript, they have excised ten pages from Perdition. They
     must know that they could not possibly make their case in a court
     of law -- or indeed, in the court of public opinion." [30]

          In fact Laqueur was deliberately deceptive in this matter. On
     page 144 of his 1980 book, The Terrible Secret, the great historian
     himself had reported that Schwalb-Dror refused access to his files
     to scholars.

          Robert Wistrich is a professor of modern Jewish History at
     Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He devoted not a few words to
     denouncing me in his book, Between Redemption and Perdition. He

          "(W)ould claim that the falsifiers of the anti-Israeli Left
     who now rewrite the history of the Holocaust as a story of
     Nazi-Zionist 'collaboration' are no less dangerous than the
     neo-Nazi 'revisionists' and possibly more effective... (W)orks by
     Lenni Brenner, such as Zionism in the Age of the Dictators... are
     increasingly symptomatic of the times we live in." [31]

          Nevertheless he, like Laqueur, has to make a few admissions
     that some of my charges are quite true:

          "In my view the entire Jewish leadership of that generation --
     including the Zionists -- failed the test of the times and no
     useful purpose is served by covering this up. Nor can it be denied,
     given that the major priority of the Zionist movement at the time
     was indeed building Palestine, that the tragedy of Diaspora Jewry
     was inevitably given less attention than it deserved. Equally, one
     can make a reasonable case that Zionists did not fight antisemitism
     before 1939 with the appropriate vigour, that some Zionists
     favoured the principle of racial separateness, and that others
     wanted to develop a 'special relationship' with the Nazis for
     opportunistic or other reasons." [32]

          Readers must realize that not one responsible historian grants
     a flyspeck of credence to even a syllable of any Holocaust
     revisionist's scribblings. But even though Foxman and Caplan insist
     that my writings are "another aspect of Holocaust 'revisionist'
     thinking," two star Zionist historians confessed that a raft of my
     accusations are --alas! -- all too true. So much for the
     Anti-Defamation League's crude attempt to defame me. III - The
     squalid history of the ADL

          Even now, after I've adduced overwhelming evidence that the
     Zionist movement failed European Jewry in its fatal hour, and that
     therefore the ADL has libeled me, readers may ask a bewildered
     question: Why is the ADL doing this? That is because the public is
     so appalled at what the Nazis did to the Jews that it usually
     doesn't think to ask what the ADL did for the Jews. Additionally,
     most people identify the ADL with its contemporary reports on
     anti-Semitism. It appears to be a bone fide civil rights watchdog.
     But it did nothing for the Jews in the Nazi era and it has always
     been an ultra-rightist nest.

          The ADL is an autonomous branch of the B'nai B'rith (The Sons
     of the Covenant), an international fraternal order, established on
     October 13, 1843, with the declared "mission of uniting Israelites
     in the work of promoting their highest interests and those of
     humanity." [33] The first challenge confronting the group was the
     slavery question, which it evaded in the interest of maintaining
     unity between northern and southern Jews. The ADL itself was set up
     in 1913, the year that a Jew, Leo Frank, was lynched in Georgia.
     Its role in fighting anti-Semitism in the years before Hitler came
     to power was pathetic. Deborah Moore's B'nai B'rith and the
     Challenge of Ethnic Leadership says that

          "(T)he ADL's internal-education section (was) devoted to
     changing the behavior of Jews perceived to be unethical in the eyes
     of Americans... In 1928, commenting on a lynching in Illinois, the
     (B'nai B'rith) Magazine had admitted that 'when another kind of a
     man gets hanged, we feel those revulsions that are natural at the
     sight of a fellow-being going to his doom in the flush of life. But
     when we read of a Jew being hanged, we discover ourselves feeling
     resentful, not towards the hanging but towards the erring Jew.'"

          The Magazine had concluded that "the sinning of the Jew is
     counted by men not alone against himself but against his people
     likewise." [34]

          A booklet, This is B'nai B'rith, published in 1943 by the
     organization, listed very few activities for those years, with the
     main ADL accomplishment being to effect

          "a profound change in the treatment of Jews in vaudeville.
     Jewish comedians were loath in some instances to correct their
     caricature of their fellow Jews, but earnest efforts on the part of
     the League in presenting the social aspects of the problem resulted
     in pronounced modification of the objectionable "humor." [35]

          This is B'nai B'rith talking vaguely about the ADL's anti-Nazi
     career in the years between Hitler's taking power and the war:

          "In the years of persecution and propaganda that followed in
     the wake of 1933, the A.D.L., through its program of research,
     widespread fact dissemination, neutralization of libels and a
     systematic campaign of education for democracy to counteract the
     effects of un-American movements, was able to make a major
     contribution to the common struggle against anti-Semitism." [36]

          The booklet couldn't say more because the ADL and B'nai B'rith
     role was disgraceful. The spontaneous reaction of American Jews to
     the Nazis' ascendency to power was to boycott German goods. But
     there were those who opposed a boycott. These worthies confined
     themselves to charity efforts for German Jewry and its refugees.
     Not least of these do-nothings was the B'nai B'rith. The B'nai
     B'rith Magazine ran an editorial in its May, 1933 issue. Be sure
     you are sitting down when you read this:

          "Criticism is heard: B'nai B'rith did not join the public
     protests against the German-Jewish tragedy!... The members of this
     organization have cause to be proud of their affiliation with a
     Jewish body that obscured its own prestige in order to serve its
     German brethren the better... With the Hitler government
     threatening reprisals against Jews, should B'nai B'rith have rushed
     forward with loud protests?... Even those who were at first hot for
     public protest have come to see that discretion is the better part
     of valor in an hour when lives are in the balance... As for B'nai
     B'rith, it feels that its action in this crisis will make a worthy
     chapter in its history. [37]

          Samuel Untermeyer, leader of the boycott movement, explained
     the stance of elements like B'nai B'rith and the American Jewish
     Committee (the parent of today's Commentary magazine, which the
     B'nai B'rith always bracketed itself with, and which also opposed
     boycotting Hitler). Boycott, he said, in 1933,

          "conjures up to them images of force and illegality, such as
     have on o ccasions in the past characterized struggles between
     labor unions and their employers. As these timid souls are
     capitalists and employers, the word and all that it implies is
     hateful to their ears." [38]

          The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust article on the B'nai B'rith
     reports that even after the Nazis closed down the organization in
     Germany, in 1937, the president of the order "remained opposed to
     public protest and boycott, and still believed that 'quiet
     diplomacy' could help the Jews of Germany." The Encyclopedia goes
     on:

          "B'nai B'rith, fearful of arousing antisemitism in the United
     States -- like most American Jews at the time -- did not challenge
     the quota system of the 1924 Immigration Act and did not try to
     arouse public opinion against the administration's policy of not
     fully utilizing even the quotas provided by that act." [39]

          Nor did the ADL do anything of any significance in the fight
     against the German-American Bund and its home-grown allies, the
     followers of the Catholic clerical-fascist, Father Coughlan, or the
     KKK. Nathan Belth's A Promise to Keep, published in 1979 by the
     ADL, mentions a pamphlet on Coughlin, published in 1939 by a
     coalition of Jewish groups, including the ADL. It then relates that
     "The League and the (American Jewish) Committee... had as a matter
     of policy and tactics been inclined to maintain low profiles in
     public." [40] When the Bund staged a rally in New York's Madison
     Square Garden on February 20, 1939, the Trotskyist Socialist
     Workers Party called a counter-demonstration. Fifty-thousand Jews
     and others fought a five hour street battle with the cops, who
     protected the Jew-haters. But the night belonged to the
     demonstrators. The 20,000 Nazis and Coughlanites would have been
     mauled if the police weren't present. The ADL did absolutely
     nothing to fight the Nazis that night. Indeed it was never prepared
     to fight the enemies of the Jews. IV - The ADL and McCarthyism

          Given the ADL's bankruptcy during the Hitler era, it is hardly
     surprising that it continued on as an integral part of the
     witchhunting apparatus that emerged in America at the onset of the
     cold war. Arnold Forster, the ADL's counsel, wrote about this
     morbid episode in his book, Square One.

          In 1956 the Fund for the Republic issued a report on
     blacklisting in Hollywood and TV. It described how the victims of
     the right-wing "security clearance system" were either
     'rehabilitated' or driven out of the industry.. An unnamed "public
     relations expert" is quoted on the process. Forster acknowledged
     that he was the expert and reprinted the relevant passages in his
     book:

          "If a man... finds his way to me... (and) I am convinced that
     he is not a Communist, or if he has been a Communist, has had a
     change of heart, I ask him whether he has talked to the FBI. If he
     hasn't, I tell him the first thing he must do is go to them and
     tell them everything he knows..."

          The public relations expert concluded: "A guy who is in
     trouble, even if he has a good case for himself, will stay dead
     unless he finds someone like me who can lead him through the jungle
     of people who have to be satisfied. He has to persuade those people
     one by one. Usually he finds his way to a lawyer and that comes a
     cropper, or he finds a public relations man or press agent who
     doesn't have the confidence of the 'clearance men,' and he's only
     wasting his time." [41]

          Forster would take the hapless actor to right-wing journalists
     like Victor Reisel or Fred Woltman for "affidavits" and then go to
     CBS and try to get his "boy" a job. Square One was written after
     McCarthyism had been thoroughly discredited and Forster made it
     look like he was an unwilling collaborator with the witchhunters.
     But the truth breaks out through the eyes of a cat, as they say. A
     Communist magazine, Jewish Life, uncovered an internal ADL memo,
     dated July 3, 1953, and ran it in their September, 1953 issue. It
     dealt with a conference that took place in the office of the House
     Un-American Activities Committee, on July 2, 1953. Herman
     Edelsberg, the memo's author, was there, as were Washington
     representatives of the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish War
     Veterans. The question before them was how HUAC should deal with
     hostile Jewish Communist witnesses. Edelsberg's report says that
     they made the following proposals to Harold Velde, HUAC's chair:
          "The files of the ADL and AJC should be consulted for
     information about such witnesses. Where responsible Jewish
     organizations had repudiated the witness or the line he peddles,
     that fact should be put in the record before the witness sounds
     off. In such cases, it would be most unlikely that the newspapers
     would play up the witness' charges against the Committee... The
     Committee staff handling such witnesses should be familiar with our
     analyses of the Communists' studied tactics of exploiting charges
     of persecution and discrimination. The witnesses should be
     confronted with material from ADL's report, The Troublemakers, and
     our two pamphlets on Communism... Velde and counsel agreed then and
     there that in the future, Committee investigators would be sent to
     the ADL and AJC for material on prospective witnesses. (That would
     be a good opportunity to make specific suggestions on
     procedure.)... We left on the most friendly basis. My colleagues
     and I were heartened by the understandings achieved." [42]

          Witchhunting began to decline after Senator Joe McCarthy of
     Wisconsin was censured by the Senate in 1954, for trying to
     red-bait the US army. Forster claimed that

          "(T)he senator had built himself enough of a record to
     convince me he was bad medicine. Not that the League itself,
     although recognizing the evil in the man, had yet become
     sufficiently resolute to attack McCarthy frontally. We were
     suffering from the same fear of him and his destructive, national
     movement, that affected so many others. ADL had been treading
     cautiously about him while demonstrating its opposition to his
     frenetic crusade. It was not until 1956, when Ben Epstein and I
     released our book, Cross-Currents, that we openly attacked McCarthy
     himself." [43]V - ADL witchhunting after McCarthy

          McCarthyism may have declined but the ADL's hatred of the left
     most certainly didn't. On February 22, 1967, the New York Times
     reported that the Institute for International Labor Research, led
     by Norman Thomas, the most prominent figure in the Socialist Party,
     had received $1,048,940 between 1961 and 1963 from the CIA. Later,
     in the July 1982 Commentary, Sidney Hook revealed that Thomas had
     "telephoned Allen Dulles of the CIA and requested a contribution"
     for their American Committee for Cultural Freedom in the mid-1950s.
     [44] From 1957 through 1962 Irwin Suall was the National Secretary
     of the SP. Today he is the "chief fact-finder," i.e., the head spy,
     for the ADL.

          I met Suall in 1957. I was a member of another socialist group
     which was merging with the SP. Of course we had no idea about
     Thomas's ties with the CIA. I left the SP in 1959 and was in
     California when the Times broke the Thomas story, and I didn't see
     it. Therefore I suspected nothing when I encountered Suall in the
     Lion's Head Tavern in Greenwich Village in the early Œ70s. (I
     believe the year was 1971.) He spotted me at the bar, called out my
     name, and triumphantly announced that I was "with the National
     Association for Irish Justice," the support group for the Northern
     Ireland Civil Rights Association. He told me that he was the ADL's
     chief fact-finder and explained that he knew all about the NAIJ
     because he had files on the American tours of Ian Paisley, a
     right-wing Protestant fanatic, who was the most vehement foe of
     civil rights for Catholics. Whenever he came here he associated
     with our own right-wing Protestant screwballs, some of them
     anti-Semites. We two old friends drank the night into morning when
     I suggested that he let me see his Paisley file. NAIJ could use it
     to show the Irish Catholic community here where Paisley fit into
     right-wing politics in this country. "I can't do that. You have
     enemies of Israel in your organization." At that time I had little
     interest in Israel. I knew that we had various leftists in the
     NAIJ, who were anti-Zionist, but the topic of Israel never came up
     in our pro-Irish movement. I explained to him that people would
     think it rather odd if we asked prospective members how they stood
     on Israel. That didn't matter.. Enemies of Israel are enemies of
     Israel and that was that. Suall then began to rattle off intimate
     details about NAIJ, including the name of a Communist who had just
     started working for us. I realized he had a spy in my organization.
     We knew the British, Irish and American governments automatically
     put agents into our ranks. Therefore we were discreet when we did
     anything illegal under US law. But we had a policy of not starting
     a witchhunt for such spies because that only tends to make everyone
     into paranoids, and that can kill a movement. I figured out who
     Suall's mole was.. However, as I couldn't prove my suspect was
     Suall's operative, and the certain presence of more important spies
     wasn't affecting us, I prudently didn't mention this singular
     conversation to anyone.

          In fact the ADL even boasts that it spies on leftists. In
     their 1974 book, The New Anti-Semitism, Forster and Benjamin
     Epstein brazenly announced that ADL agents attended conventions
     closed to the general public:

          "The ADL has traditionally viewed close monitoring of
     extremist activities as part of its obligation to the Jewish and
     American communities. Therefore, its representatives often attend
     open meetings, conventions, and conferences of extremist groups
     (left wing and right wing) to keep abreast of what the groups are
     doing." [45]

          The two authors rationalized ADL infiltration of the Socialist
     Workers Party:

          "The SWP... take(s) umbrage when its anti-Israel, anti-Zionist
     extremism is called anti-Semitism. Its domestic political course
     has been clearly anti-Jewish... Although its spokesmen have been
     careful to avoid the use of crude anti-Semitic phraseology, the
     SWP's program and activities... have been totally hostile...
     whenever Jews have been under attack from anti-Semites who happen
     to be black, the SWP has consistently joined the fray against the
     Jews." [46]

          As we know from the Bund episode, the SWP believes in busting
     up Nazi rallies. It is careful not to utilize anti-Semitic phrases.
     It welcomes Jews into its leadership. Therefore, isn't it plain
     that "its domestic course has been clearly anti-Jewish." That
     charge from an organization which did next door to nothing vs.
     Hitler, wins the all-time chutzpah prize.

          The magnitude of ADL spying on progressive movements became
     public knowledge in 1993 when the San Francisco papers revealed
     that Tom Gerard, a local cop (and ex-CIA man) illegally gave police
     information to Roy Bullock, Suall's man in SF. Further police
     sleuthing revealed that they spied on a mass of groups, from Nazis
     clear thru Armenian nationalists, the American Friends Service
     Committee, the Mobilization for Peace, Jobs and Justice, the Bay
     Area's broad-spectrum peace marchers, and the ANC and the
     anti-apartheid movement. The two also spied directly on these last
     for BOSS, South Africa's s ecret police.

          As things stand, Gerard has pled no contest to a charge of
     illegal access to police computers. He got three years probation,
     a $2,500 fine and 45 days on the sheriff's work crew. The ADL made
     a 'we didn't do it, but we won't do it again' deal with the DA. It
     agreed to an injunction not to use illegal methods in its
     'monitoring' of the entire political universe. Foxman said that,
     rather than go to trial, where they would certainly be found
     innocent, of course, ADL settled because "continuing with an
     investigation over your head for months and years leads some to
     believe there is something wrong." [47] The arrangement prevents
     prosecution of Bullock.

          In spite of the DA's slap-on-the-wrist deal, the documentation
     of Bullock's activities provided by the police when they sought a
     warrant to search the ADL offices in SF and Los Angeles, was
     extensive. The ADL claims that Bullock was a free-lance informer
     and that his activities for the apartheid regime were unknown to
     them. But an FBI report on a January 26, 1993 interview with
     Bullock takes up a letter found in his computer files, "prepared
     for transmission to the South Africans." It read "during an
     extended conversation with two FBI agents" in March 1990, they
     asked "why do you think South African agents are coming to the West
     Coast?"

          "'Did I know any agents,' they finally asked?... I replied
     that a meeting had been arranged, in confidence, by the ADL which
     wanted information on radical right activities in SA and their
     American connections. To that end I met an agent at Rockefeller
     Center cafeteria."

          The FBI report says that "Bullock commented that the TRIP.DBX
     letter was a very 'damning' piece of evidence.' He said he had
     forgotten it was in his computer." Of course he hastened to tell
     the FBI that "his statements to the FBI that the ADL had set up his
     relationship with the South Africans were untrue." [48]

          It is far more likely that Bullock was telling the truth in
     March 1990 and lying in January 1993. Apparently the FBI came to
     him on another matter in 1990 and surprised him with their
     questions about the South Africans. In 1993, Bullock met the feds
     in his lawyers' office. It is reasonable to presume that they had
     told him what to say, and what not to say. Certainly he knew that
     if he wanted ADL assistance in his troubles with the FBI concerning
     the South Africans, he would have to claim that they had nothing to
     do with his South African ties.

          We must also look at this situation from the ADL's
     perspective. In 1993 it had the same access to these FBI reports as
     anyone else. It then knew that he had implicated them with
     Pretoria. Why didn't they repudiate him then for daring to lie
     about them in such a grave affair? And, for that matter, why didn't
     they repudiate him for trafficking with the apartheid regime, which
     they claimed to oppose? Could it be that they didn't dare do so? If
     they dumped him, he would have an incentive to tell the FBI
     everything he knew about their illegal activities, regarding the
     South Africans, and/or any ADL involvement in Israeli spying and
     other criminal activities there.

          Robert Friedman, known for his factual reliability when
     writing on Jewish matters, reported that "Suall later told the FBI
     that 'he didn't think dealing with South African intelligence was
     different than dealing with any other police agency,' according to
     a law enforcement source." [49] At any rate, the November 17, 1993
     Daily News Bulletin, an organ of the Zionist movement's Jewish
     Telegraphic Agency, reported that, after the settlement with the
     SFDA, "the ADL continues to work with Bullock, according to Abraham
     Foxman." [50]

          Israel was South Africa's intimate military ally, selling
     weaponry to the masters of apartheid in the face of a UN arms
     embargo. And the ADL's own public stance was so opposed to the
     African National Congress that it stretches credulity to the
     breaking point for anyone to think that they didn't know that
     Bullock was working with the South Africans. When he told the FBI
     that the ADL put him in contact with the South Africans, he
     expected them to believe him, because the world knew that Israel,
     the ADL's political holy land, was Pretoria's ally.

          The ADL Bulletin for May 1986 ran an article by Nathan
     Perlmutter and David Evanier, "The African National Congress: A
     Closer Look," which revealed the organization's intense hatred of
     the movement leading the struggle in South Africa. The piece
     started off with a pious "self-evident stipulation that apartheid
     is racist and dehumanizing." But, it then went on,

          "(T)his is not to suggest closing our eyes to what may emerge
     once apartheid is gone.... We must distinguish between those who
     will work for a humane, democratic, pro-western South Africa and
     those who are totalitarian, anti-humane, anti-democratic,
     anti-Israeli and anti-American."

          The article went on to document what everyone already knew.
     The Soviet Union supported the ANC. The ANC backed the PLO as
     fellow colonized people. Then came the moral to the story:

          "The fall of South Africa to such a Soviet oriented and
     Communist influenced force would be a severe setback to the United
     States, whose defense industry relies heavily on South Africa's
     wealth of strategic minerals.... The survival of freedom in South
     Africa will be possible only if the forces of violence on the far
     left and of racial violence on the far right are defeated by the
     democratic forces of moderation."

          Those forces of moderation were -- didn't you know? -- the
     apartheid regime itself: "The US State Department," i.e., Reagan,
     said that "more positive changes have taken place in South Africa
     in the last five years than in the previous 300." [51]

          For propagandistic reasons, Israel had to make it look like it
     was against apartheid and supported responsible opposition to it.
     So it openly patronized Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi, head of the
     Inkatha Freedom Party and its death squads. When he toured here in
     1992, Israel got the Conference of Presidents of Major American
     Jewish Organizations to host him at their New York office.. They
     knew that, according to the June 12, 1992 DNB, "many
     observers....say the violence among blacks reflects collusion
     between the South African security forces and Inkatha aimed at
     disabling the ANC." Yet, according to Kenneth Jacobson, the ADL's
     director of international affairs, there was "nothing for us to
     feel guilty about. He's a man with a point of view, and that should
     be heard." The Mr. Nice Guy of South African politics declared
     himself a free-market freedom-fightin' kind of fella and "not a
     friend of Gadhafi or Yasir Arafat. All these are friends of the
     ANC." [52]

          The ADL thought so highly of their 1986 anti-ANC tirade that
     they sent it to every member of the US Congress! And even after
     Bullock was exposed as specifically reporting to the South Africans
     on an LA meeting for Chris Hani of the ANC, Foxman fanatically
     defended their venomous hatred of South Africa's liberators. The
     Northern California Jewish Bulletin for May 7, 1993 described how

          "Foxman, seeming like a general dressing down his troops,
     marched into the Jewish Bulletin office...where he lambasted
     critics of the ADL, speaking angrily of a conspiracy and at times
     fuming as he turned several shades of red... 'People are very upset
     about the (files on the) ANC,' he agrees. 'At the time we exposed
     the ANC, they were Communist. They were violent, they were
     anti-Semitic, they were pro-PLO and they were anti-Israel. You're
     going to tell me I don't have the legitimacy to find out who they
     were consorting with.'" [53]

          Time hasn't been kind to Foxman. The ANC runs its country and
     is a model of ethnic and religious tolerance. It never was
     anti-Semitic and today there are seven Jewish ANCers in the
     Pretoria parliament. Foxman was -- and is -- exactly what the
     Jewish Bulletin's journalist described: a
     steam-coming-out-of-his-ears right-wing ranter. VI - The ADL and
     the affirmative action question

          As many readers well know, whole Canadian forests have been
     chopped down in recent years to provide newsprint for articles on
     Black anti-Semitism. Such pieces frequently begin with a nostalgic
     look back at the good ol' 'Black-Jewish alliance' of the early '60s
     when the ADL was part of the great -- dare I say it? --
     multicultural coalitions that marched behind Martin Luther King.

          Such articles usually then turn into tales of Black
     ingratitude. In life the Jewish establishment was only part of such
     an alliance until the Black movement began to call for affirmative
     action quotas, and the left-wing of the movement began to support
     the Palestinians as fellow oppressed. From then on the ADL has been
     a fanatic opponent of Black liberation. Jonathan Kaufman's Broken
     Alliance tells of how Jack Greenberg, long-time head of the NAACP
     Legal Defense Fund, came to see the ADL:

          "As legal cases involving affirmative action began to appear
     in the courts in the early 1970s, the Legal Defense Fund began
     filing lawsuits... One of the first cases involved a challenge to
     the New York prison system, which had never promoted a black
     correction officer above the entry level... The Legal Defense Fund
     sued successfully... When the case was appealed, Greenberg was
     stunned to discover that the Anti-Defamation League had filed a
     brief opposing the affirmative action plan... He did not know
     officials at the ADL well. But he...called several of them up...
     (Eventually) Greenberg felt some officials of the ADL, the most
     vociferous opponents of affirmative action, had become "haters."
     [54]

          In its most notorious anti-affirmative action campaign, the
     ADL was one of a gaggle of rightwing Jewish groups, plus several
     gentile "unmeltable ethnic" outfits, the Fraternal Order of Police,
     the Chamber of Commerce and other free-market freedom-fightin'
     guys, who submitted amici curiae briefs on Allen Bakke's behalf
     when he sued the University of California at Davis for setting
     aside 16 seats in its medical school for minorities. In 1978 the
     Supreme Court ruled that the school's plan discriminated against
     whites.

          In the August 1985 issue of Commentary, Harvard sociology
     professor Nathan Glazer gave us the "pragmatic considerations"
     behind the Jewish establishment's undying hatred of quotas:

          "Jews were already 'over-represented' in the institutions that
     were becoming battlefields... If it were to be generally conceded
     that each ethnic/racial group should be represented
     proportionately... what would happen to the over-represented? [55]

          There is no doubt that Glazer, who is intimate with the Jewish
     establishment, was referring to the ADL, amongst the others, when
     he wrote the above. And in fact the ADL does give a distinctly
     'Jewish' spin to its opposition to quotas. The December, 1978 ADL
     Bulletin quotes Nathan Perlmutter, Foxman's predecessor as National
     Director, on quotas:

          "The message of the 1960s civil rights movement, he explains,
     was to be color blind, to judge a person on his individual merits.
     'Now, guided and abetted by government agencies, there is massive
     backsliding to quotas, to evaluating a person on such extraneous
     factors as race. The simple incontrovertible fact is that quotas in
     favor of one group, by definition, means quotas against another
     group. That's the very essence of the Nuremberg Laws.'" [56]

          According to the November, 1979 ADL Bulletin, the ADL
     "submitted a 'friend of the court' brief" in a case, Fullilove v.
     Kreps,

          "concerned with the constitutionality of the Federal Public
     Works Employment Act of 1977, which provides that no grant for
     public works shall be made unless the applicant assures... that at
     least 10 percent of each grant sum be expended for 'minority'
     business enterprises... (The) ADL... opposes this quota and
     questions the legality of laws which establish
     governmentally-designated and protected groups. 'Stamping the
     imprimatur of the Federal government upon a particular racial or
     ethnic definition, and granting and withholding benefits to
     individuals accordingly,' our brief points out, 'calls to mind
     notorious examples of attempts by other governments to define
     racial and ethnic groups, such as the Nuremberg laws in the Third
     Reich defining a 'Jew'." [57]

          People get sent to mental institutions for a lot less than
     this. The notion that a law, doubtlessly supported by a majority of
     congressional Democrats, designed to bring a small measure of
     economic justice to Blacks, Spanish-speakers, Orientals, Indians,
     Eskimos and Aleuts, was really no better than Nazi anti-Jewish
     legislation, takes my breath away. The idea that affirmative action
     quotas in favor of minorities, might be used, some day in the
     future, as a pretext to discriminate against Jews, is a notion that
     hasn't occurred to anyone outside the Jewish establishment. There
     were Jews among the congressional majorities that voted in every
     affirmative action law. Surely no such scheme was thought to be
     sanctioned by them. Were the gentiles in those congresses, black or
     white, even remotely contemplating discrimination against Jews? Of
     course not! The Nazi laws were measures taken against a minority
     hated by the German government. American affirmative action laws
     are policies projected by a government with a white majority in
     favor of minorities. Jews are affected only insofar as they are
     overwhelmingly white. And, of course, affirmative action has
     actually benefited Jews. Glazer points out that

          "(F)emales were one of the groups designated as beneficiaries
     of affirmative action. Thus... one could argue that Jewish women
     were as much helped by affirmative action as Jewish men were hurt,
     or helped even more than Jewish men were hurt." [58]

          Arguments utilizing previous discrimination against Jews to
     oppose present proposals to redress past discrimination against
     America's ethnic minorities, and women, are ideological
     self-deceptions, at best, and sophistries at worst. They are
     designed to put a pseudo-progressive gloss on efforts to preserve
     the economic status quo. And, as affirmative action in favor of
     women stands or falls with similar policies towards Blacks and
     other minorities, such specious reasoning is a razor against the
     interest of the majority of Jews, who, as with all other groups,
     are majority female.

          VII - Yo! Abe! Make me rich and famous, not just famous

          Since one of the most important things we learn from the past
     is that most people don't learn from the past, I must automatically
     presume that at least some of my readers will still say, even after
     this obviously factual recounting of the ADL's record, that,
     whatever its past sins, it performs a valuable service in exposing
     some anti-Semites. But its reactionary politics constantly leads it
     to libel and lunacy, so much so that I must confess that I
     celebrated when I discovered Foxman's attack on me. It meant that
     I certified as part of the intellectual elite.

          Surely the most hilarious of the ADL's cockeyed accusations
     were uttered by Forster and Epstein in their book:

          "Film cartoons - like the the X-rated Fritz the Cat which...
     had a tasteless synagogue sequence... contributed to the atmosphere
     of anti-Jewish denigration, along with anti-Jewish stereotyping
     found in such full-length 1972 feature films as Woody Allen's
     Everything You've Always Wanted to Know About Sex, Such Good
     Friends, and Made for Each Other in addition, of course, to
     Portnoy.... Capping and capitalizing on the vogue for sick "ethnic"
     humor and dehumanization was... The National Lampoon... October
     1972. A major item was a mock comic book entitled "The Ventures of
     Zimmerman," a put-down on folksinger Bob Dylan, drawn with Jewish
     features, blue Yarmulke, and portrayed as a scheming, avaricious,
     money-hungry "superman" type who poses as a simple idealistic
     folksinger.... The mock cover... bore a 'seal' reading 'Approved by
     the Elders of Zion'.... Are the editors of Lampoon anti-Semitic?
     Probably not. But they have made a signal contribution to the
     perpetuation of those destructive stereotypes - like the Stuermer
     cartoons so intimately associated with the annihilation of European
     Jewry." [59]

          For my immediate purpose of defending myself, a Jew, against
     a libelous accusation of being a Holocaust denier, I call your
     attention to the fact that at least two of the people accused of
     contributing to the atmosphere of anti-Jewish denigration were
     Jews, Woody Allen and Philip Roth, two of the greatest comic
     talents of our age. But frankly I must say that comparing a Lampoon
     spoof to the Hitler regime's most virulent Jew-hating rag is easily
     the maddest thing I've ever seen in any ADL production.

          You didn't know that Spike Lee is an anti-Semite? Well then,
     you just are not as smart as one Abraham Foxman. Here is the
     Forward for August 10, 1990:

          "Filmmaker Spike Lee's portrayal of two Jewish jazz club
     owners in the new film 'Mo' Better Blues' is being called
     anti-Semitic by... the Anti-Defamation League.... The
     two-dimensional depiction of the two brothers, named Moe and Josh
     Flatbush, who appear in brief scenes throughout the movie, was
     sharply criticized by Abraham Foxman.... "Spike Lee's
     characterization of Moe and Josh Flatbush as greedy an unscrupulous
     club owners dredges up an age-old and dangerous form of
     anti-Semitic stereotyping." [60]

          Spike Lee isn't the kind of person to take that kind of crap
     from anyone, and he replied to the charge in a New York Times
     op-ed:

          "I'm not a racist; I'm not a bigot; I am not an anti-Semite.
     What I try to do with all my characters is offer what I feel are
     honest portraits of individuals with both faults and endearing
     characteristics.... I challenge anyone to tell me why I can't
     portray two club owners who happen to be Jewish and who exploit the
     Black jazz musicians who work for them. All Jewish club owners are
     not like this, that's true, but these two are....I'm an artist and
     I stand behind all my work, including my characters, Moe and Josh
     Flatbush. As of now, this matter is closed for me." [61]

          I have presented more than enough evidence for any serious
     reader to grasp the base character of both the ADL and the Zionist
     movement. Therefore it is time for me to close as well. I will do
     so with a quote, from a Zionist writer's article in The New
     Republic, a pro-Zionist publication:

          "(W)hile ever growing numbers of Jews believe anti-Semitism in
     America is rising to crisis proportions, by nearly every available
     measure it is actually on the decline.... In private, some Jewish
     agency staffers insist the alarmist tone set by a few national
     Jewish agencies, mainly for fund-raising purposes, is a key cause
     of Jewish anxiety. Fingers point most often at the ADL and the Los
     Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, both of which specialize in
     mass mailings warning of impending doom and urging donations.
     'People don't give if you tell them everything's o.k.,' says a
     cynical staffer at one of the smaller agencies. People give
     generously to the Wiesenthal Center and the ADL." [62]

          J.J. Goldberg concludes by saying that "maybe it's time for
     the leadership to start leading, and tell their public the truth."
     But of course they won't. Therefore I ask my readers to help me
     expose these incurable frauds. Now that you have read this critique
     of the ADL, pass it along to the general public, Jew and gentile
     alike. And let me thank you, in advance, for your time and trouble
     in this regard.

     NOTES

       1. Abraham Foxman, "Holocaust Denial: The Growing Danger,"
     Dimensions, vol. 8, 1994, p. 14.
       2. Marc Caplan, "Hitler's Apologists: The Anti-Semitic Propaganda
     of Holocaust Revisionism," p. 51.
       3. Eric Breindel, "The Price of Rescue," New Republic, February
     18, 1985, pp. 39-41.
       4. Fall/Winter 1984 Books and Tapes of Revisionist History.
       5. Letter from Institute for Historical Review, March 8,1985.
       6. Letter to Institute for Historical Review, April 11, 1985.
       7. Alex Cockburn, "Cockburn Replies," Nation, August 31, 1985, p.
     130.
       8. David Cesarani, "Back To Perdition," Jewish Chronicle
     (London), July 3,1987, p. 26.
       9. Stuart Hood, "Questions of Guilt and Taboo, Guardian (London),
     July 10, 1987.
       10. Julian Kossoff, "Full Version of 'Perdition' to be
     published," Jewish Chronicle (London), November 27, 1992, p. 8.
       11. Lucy Dawidowicz (ed.), A Holocaust Reader, pp. 150-155.
       12. David Yisraeli, The Palestine Problem in German Politics
     1889-1945 (Hebrew) Bar-Ilan University, Appendix (German): "Geheime
     Kommandosache Bericht," pp.. 301-302.
       13 Heinz Hohne, The Order of the Death's Head, p. 337.
       14 Klaus Polkehn, "The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany
     1933-41," Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring 1976, p. 75.
       15. "Dr. von Weisl Believes in Fascism," World Jewry (London),
     June 12, 1936, p. 12.
       16. "Supplemento al no. 8 di L'Idea Sionista," March 1936, p. 2.
       17. "Grundzuege des Vorschlages der Nationalen Militaerischen
     Organisation in Palastina (Irgun Zwei Leumi) betreffend der Loesung
     der j uedischen Frage Europas und der aktiven Teilnahme der NMO am
     Kriege an der Seite Deutschlands," Yisraeli, pp., 315-317.
       18. Christopher Walker, "Shamir Defends Terrorist Past," The
     Times (London), October 21, 1983, p. 24.
       19. Gerald Frank, The Deed, pp. 91-93, 124, 139.
       20. Yitzhak Shamir, Summing Up, p. 31.
       21. Ibid., p. 34.
       22. Ben Hecht, Perfidy, p. 180
       23. Ibid., pp. 194-195, 268.
       24. Ibid., pp. 270-271.
       25. Michael Dov-Ber Weissmandel, Min HaMaitzer, p. 92.
       26. Ibid., p. 93.
       27. Ibid., p. 93.
       28. Walter Laqueur, "The Anti-Zionism of Fools," New Republic,
     November 2, 1987, p. 34.
       29. Ibid., p. 34.
       30. Ibid., p. 37.
       31. Robert Wistrich, Between Redemption and Perdition, p.. 22.
       32. Ibid., p. 244.
       33. Bernard Postal (ed.), This is B'nai B'rith, p. 7.
       34. Deborah Moore, B'nai B'rith and the Challenge of Ethnic
     Leadership, p. 181.
       35. This is B'nai B'rith, p. 61.
       36. Ibid., p. 20.
       37. "B'nai B'rith and the German-Jewish Tragedy," B'nai B'rith
     Magazine, May, 1938, p. 227.
       38. Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement, p. 277.
       39. "B'nai B'rith," Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, vol. 1, p.
     223.
       40. Nathan Belth, A Promise to Keep, p. 141.
       41. Arnold Forster, Square One, pp. 164-166.
       42. "Memorandum of the ADL," Jewish Life, September 1953, p. 8.
       43. Forster, p. 160
       44. Sidney Hook, "My Running Debate with Einstein," Commentary,
     July 1982, p. 47.
       45. Benjamin Epstein and Arnold Forster, The New Anti-Semitism,
     p. 336.
       46. Ibid., pp. 137-138.
       47. Debra Cohen, "ADL Settles California Case Over Collecting
     Information," Jewish Telegraphic Agency Daily News Bulletin,
     November 17, 1993.
       48. Joel Moss and Kathleen Puckett, (FBI) FD-302 of Roy Edward
     Bullock, pp. 19-21.
       49. Robert Friedman, Village Voice, July 27, 1993.
       50. Cohen
       51. Nathan Perlmutter and David Evanier, "The African National
     Congress: A Closer Look," ADL Bulletin, May 1986.
       52. Larry Yudelson, "South African Black Leader Seeks Closer Ties
     with Jewish Community," JTADNB, June 12, 1992, p. 3.
       53. Garth Wolkoff, "ADL Chief Lashes Out at Critics, Press,
     D.A.," Northern California Jewish Bulletin, May 7, 1992, pp. 1, 26.
       54. Jonathan Kaufman, Broken Alliance, pp. 111-112.
       55. Nathan Glazer, "On Jewish Forebodings," Commentary, August
     1985, pp. 32-34.
       56. "National Director: Nathan Perlmutter," ADL Bulletin,
     December 1978, pp. 7-8.
       57. Jeffrey Sinensky, "The Supreme Court and Racial Quotas," ADL
     Bulletin, November 1979, p. 8.
       58. Glazer
       59. Epstein and Forster, pp. 113-114
       60. "Spike Lee Stumbles on Stereotypes," Forward, August 10,
     1990, p. 8.
       61. Spike Lee, "I am Not an Anti-Semite," New York Times, August
     22, 1990.
       62. J.J. Goldberg, "Scaring The Jews," New Republic, May 17,
     1993, pp. 22-23.

*My special thanks to Adam Chandler for his editorial and printing
service, without which this pamphlet could not have been produced.


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#59 14-10-2013 21:53:59

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

A Revisionist Response to the ADL

A Revisionist Response to the Anti-Defamation League:
Bradley Smith, His Publications, and the Charge of Extremism

By Paul Grubach

Recently, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) published a high profile, online study of alleged political extremism. Titled “Extremism in America,” it is “the fourth national survey and analysis of far-right extremism in America that ADL has published over the past two decades.”1

First, let’s see how they define and identify “political extremism.”

ADL claims that American society has been characterized by an ever expanding “democratic consensus and inclusiveness,” and thus, has gradually grown to be a more tolerant, multicultural, integrated and inclusive society. In their own words, America is based upon the ideal that “anyone, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, or other immutable characteristics, can participate in the search for a better social order.”2

Standing in opposition to this march toward an integrated, multicultural society are (according to the ADL) the extremists, those who oppose the “principles of inclusion and social acceptance.” These are “hate groups,” the alleged forces of intolerance: “nativists, haters and ideological extremists.” These groups “have posed threats to both public safety and civic unity because of their willingness to engage in violence and intimidation.” Extremists use “familiar tactics: violence, threats, and intimidation; conspiracy theories, usually involving Jews and big government; Holocaust denial and other falsifications of history; and the derision and scapegoating of minorities.”3

The ADL guide then goes on to list individuals and groups they consider to be the contemporary extremists. Only one such individual and group will concern us here—Bradley Smith and his enterprises, Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH) and The Revisionist.4

Smith and his publications should have never been included on the ADL’s list. Smith has never, in his long career, “posed a threat to both public safety and civic unity because of his willingness to engage in violence and intimidation.” He has never used “violence, threats and intimidation against his opponents.” Bradley Smith is now, and has always been, a free speech advocate and libertarian who uses only peaceful means to attain his ends.

Smith has never been a member of any group that advocates violence against or the forcible deportation of minority groups. He has never campaigned on issues involving race or ethnicity, as the race issue has never been his beat. Just for the record, his present wife is of twenty-five years is Mexican and his ex was Jewish—hardly the “right stuff” for a neo-Nazi “extremist.”

So why was Smith classified as an “extremist?” The answer is quite simple. Smith and his publications advocate open and free debate on the Holocaust controversy, and this is both a sociopolitical and psychological threat to those Zionists who comprise the vast majority of the ADL.

How is he a sociopolitical threat? As the Jewish political scientist Norman Finkelstein has shown, the Holocaust has become an “ideology” in the Marxist sense of the term. It is a distorted–and to a significant extent fictitious–body of ideas which reflect and serve the sociopolitical interests of a power elite, organized Zionism. To be sure, Finkelstein does believe in the traditional view of the tragedy of the Jews during WWII, but he maintains its is distorted and misrepresented for sociopolitical purposes. Regarding the Holocaust ideology, he has written: “Its central dogmas sustain significant political and class interests. The Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world’s most formidable military powers [Israel], with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a ‘victim’ state, and the most successful ethnic group in the United States [the Jews] has likewise acquired victim status. Considerable dividends accrue from this specious victimhood—in particular, immunity to criticism, however justified.”5

Smith and company are a sociopolitical threat because they are forcing society to question an ideology which “justifies,” bolsters and “legitimates” Jewish-Zionist cultural and political influence in America and throughout the Western world today.

How is Smith a psychological threat? As the writer Natasha Walter observed in The Independent (Great Britain), “…the Holocaust seems to loom ever larger. For many non-observant Jews like myself…it has become the touchstone of our identity.”6 Presumably, this observation would apply to many of the activists who comprise the ADL. The Holocaust ideology is a central part to their identity as Jews, and thus, any questioning of it poses a serious psychological threat to that identity.

Smith’s ultimate “sin” in the eyes of the ADL is that he is questioning an ideological belief system that serves Jewish-Zionist sociopolitical and psychological needs. Consequently, he and his publications must be neutralized or done away with. Because of their intolerant dogmatism, ADL refuses to debate him; an open and fair debate would expose to the public how weak and questionable the ADL’s Holocaust ideology really is. (This was demonstrated when revisionist historian Mark Weber publicly debated anti-revisionist historian Michael Shermer. Weber made Holocaust revisionism look too good and the ADL’s version of the Holocaust severely deficient.7)

The only option left open to the ADL with regard to the “Smith threat” is to use it’s immense financial and political resources to marginalize and discredit him by labeling this free-speech activist an “extremist.” So many will now say: “Smith is an anti-Jewish political extremist. Whatever his publications say about the Holocaust must be false and should be rejected.”

It must be emphasized again and again what the policy of Smith’s publications is: open and straightforward debate on the Holocaust and other sociopolitical issues which are connected with it, such as Jewish-Gentile relations, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and Zionist political influence. It is only by engaging in open and free dialogue—refusing to obey the taboos of our day—that we can begin to come to grips with the problems which surround the Holocaust issue, and then formulate peaceful and humane solutions.

In a word, Smith and his publications stand for freedom of dialogue and the peaceful resolution of problems. They adhere to the motto of a founder of revisionism, the late Professor Harry Elmer Barnes: “Revisionism—a key to peace.”

To be sure, some of those individuals and groups that are labeled by ADL as “extremist” do in fact advocate violence against their opponents, and they do act with a crass intolerance. But Smith and Company are not to be classified with them. He simply desires open and free debate on the Holocaust controversy, and the peaceful resolution of crises directly or indirectly associated with the Holocaust question.

Which brings us to my next point. Is the ADL claim of being “the world’s leading organization to fight anti-Semitism, prejudice, hatred and bigotry” really sincere?8 Or are they really just an organization of extremists who use talk of love, brotherhood, tolerance, anti-racism and anti-bigotry as an ideological cloak, under which they further Jewish-Zionist interests? The case of Bradley Smith and his publications are most instructive in this regard.

In 1991, Smith—then the media representative of the Institute for Historical Review and director of CODOH—placed advertisements in student newspapers calling for open debate on the Holocaust issue. At about the same time, Rabbi Avhram Toledano, head of the Jewish-supremacist “Kach” movement founded by the late Meir Kahane, conducted a lecture tour of the US and Canada. Toledano advocates the forcible mass expulsion of Arabs from “greater Israel.”9 He told a Cleveland, Ohio Jewish institution meeting on November 14, 1991, that Arabs would be forced out of Israel. In response to the question, “What would the nations of the world say to Israel’s expulsion of Arabs?,” Toledano said: “I don’t know and I don’t care. We are proud to be Jews and have a Jewish State.”10

In spite of his intolerant views, Toledano was given a respectful public forum in prominent Jewish synagogues throughout North America. In Cleveland, for example, his lecture was announced beforehand in the city’s main Jewish community paper.11 This was nothing new. While he was still alive, this same paper also routinely announced the lecture appearances of the Jewish extremist, Rabbi Meir Kahane.

ADL, which is so alert to every public expression of real and imagined racism, intolerance and bigotry, never (to this writer’s knowledge) publicly protested against the advertisements in Cleveland Jewish News announcing the appearances of Toledano and Kahane. Nor did the Zionist group publicly label Rabbi Toledano an “extremist” and attempt to deny him a public forum.

At the same time though, the ADL was “urging college newspapers to reject ads by individuals or groups denying the reality of the Holocaust.”12 To show that it meant business, an ADL official was sent to the University of Texas to make sure that the student paper there did not publish Smith’s ad.13

While the ADL insists the Holocaust issue is “not debatable,”14 and works to deny Holocaust revisionists a public forum, this same organization seemingly has no problem with advertisements in Jewish community papers by militant Zionists who demand the brutal forcible expulsion of Arabs from what only a few years ago was their homeland.

On July 2, 2001, the Associated Press reported that Israel’s minister of tourism, Rehavam Zeevi, made these statements about certain Palestinians living in Israel: “They arrived here and are trying to become citizens because they want social security and welfare payments… We should get rid of the ones who are not Israeli citizens the same way you get rid of lice. We have to stop this cancer from spreading within us.”15

Zeevi heads the far-right National Union party that advocates the expulsion of Arabs living under Israeli rule.16 According to the ADL’s moral criteria, this is clearly an example of racist hate. I sent two email messages to the ADL suggesting they publicly condemn his comments and demand that he resign.17 After all, they advertise themselves as “the world leading organization fighting hate, prejudice and bigotry.”

Here is the message I received in return to both e-mails. “We received your e-mail message and want to thank you for sharing your thoughts. Even though the volume of e-mail to us is high, every message is reviewed and forwarded to the appropriate ADL professional when a response is required. We try our best to be responsive quickly, but sometimes that isn’t always possible, so we ask for your patience and understanding. Please check our web site, www.adl.org, for current ADL concerns, reports, news releases, educational materials and a wide variety of other useful informational items. You can also search our online library. Thanks again for your comments. We welcome your interest.”18

They never did issue any public condemnation of this Zionist extremist, Rehavam Zeevi, who expressed intolerance and hate toward Arabs. Yet, they label Bradley Smith—a man who never referred to any ethnic group as “lice” and a “cancer” and has never advocated the forcible expulsion of any ethnic groups from anywhere—an “extremist.”

That ADL “moral judgments” vis-à-vis political extremism are riddled with a hypocritical double standard should be readily apparent. They believe that it is “evil and immoral” to contest the Holocaust ideology. Apparently, however, it is somehow “morally excusable” for Jewish-Zionists to spew forth intolerance and hate about non-Jews. <

Two experts on political extremism, John George and Laird Wilcox, have noted that one characteristic of an extremist is that he/she promotes double standards and feels no guilt for so doing.19 As we have shown here, the ADL applies a hypocritical double standard in regard to Jews and non-Jews when they employ the label of extremist. They appear to have no guilt for so doing. Thus, the charge of “extremism” hurls right back at them.

In a spirit of fair play, the ADL was given the opportunity to review this essay prior to publication. They were informed that any errors or false statements that they point out would be corrected.20 They did not respond.
NOTES

1. See “Extremism in America: Introduction,” online: www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/default.asp

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (Verso, 2000), p.3.

6. See Richard J. Evans, Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial(Basic Books, 2001), p.262.

7. “The Holocaust Story in the Crossfire: The Weber-Shermer Holocaust Debate,” quality VHS color video, $21.95 postpaid (CA sales tax $1.55), add $1.00 for foreign shipping, available from INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW, P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659.

8. This motto in on the ADL homepage. Online: http://www.adl.org

9. See Cleveland Jewish News, November 22, 1991.

10. Ibid.

11. Cleveland Jewish News, November 8, 1991, p.12.

12. Religious News Service dispatch of November 27, 1991, published in Christian News, December 9, 1991, p.16.

13. Houston Chronicle, December 19, 1991.

14. Christian News, December 9, 1991, p.16.

15. “Israel Minister Makes Palestinian Slur,” Associated Press report, July 2, 2001. Online: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/2001070 … lur_l.html

16. Ibid.

17. Two e-mails were sent to the ADL at webmaster@adl.org. Printouts in possession Paul Grubach.

18. E-mail from ADL. Printout in possession of Paul Grubach.

19. See Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? (University of California Press, 2000), p.88.

20. E-mail from Paul Grubach to webmaster@adl.org. Printout in possession of Paul Grubach.

© Copyright 2001, Paul Grubach

Last edited by DejuificatorII (14-10-2013 21:55:21)


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#60 14-10-2013 23:06:39

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

A Victory Against Hate

Source: The New American | Vol. 16, No. 13 | June 19, 2000

A Victory Against Hate

by David Eisenberg


abe-foxman-2.jpg

The ADL’s Foxman

The Jewish Anti-Defamation League’s power and prosperity depend upon an increase in anti-Jewish feelings among Americans, thus it has no scruples about both committing and provoking acts of religious bigotry.

Mr. Eisenberg, a retired aeronautical engineer, is a member of the National Council of The John Birch Society.

Shortly after Pope John Paul II conducted a “Liturgy of Forgiveness” last March, Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), attacked the Catholic Church by accusing the pope of ignoring “specific Catholic wrongs against the Jewish people, especially the Holocaust.” Foxman?s statement was an astonishing denigration of the Catholic Church, which was recognized as an enemy by the pagan National Socialist (Nazi) regime and which saved hundreds of thousands of Jews during World War II.

While it may strike uninformed Americans as peculiar that an organization supposedly committed to fighting defamation would conspicuously disparage the Catholic Church, this incident makes perfect sense once it is understood that the ADL’s power and prosperity depend upon an increase in anti-Jewish feelings among Americans — and the organization’s public vilification of the Catholic Church is sure to provoke just that sort of hostility.

ADL’s Bluff Is Called

The ADL has played this game for decades, but a court decision in Colorado indicates that the price of playing that game just went up. On April 28th, a jury found that the ADL had publicly defamed William and Dorothy Quigley and awarded the plaintiffs $10.5 million in damages. The ADL had accused the Quigleys of mounting an anti-Semitic campaign against Mitchell and Candace Aronson, their neighbors in Evergreen, Colorado. In a December 1994 press conference, ADL spokesman Saul Rosenthal denounced the Quigleys for threatening to burn a cross on the Aronsons’ property and to douse their child with a flammable liquid. The jury in the Quigleys’ suit found that Rosenthal’s statements were false and therefore defamatory.

But the suffering caused the Quigleys by the ADL was not limited to defamation. The day after the ADL’s press conference, the Quigleys, who had already been hit with an ADL-instigated civil lawsuit, were arrested and charged with ethnic harassment — a felony. The basis for the felony charges was a tape recording of cell phone conversations in which the Quigleys expressed their hostility toward the Aronsons in ways that, according to the ADL, evinced anti-Semitism. The local print and electronic media took up the story, ruining the Quigleys’ reputation and provoking death threats against them.

Upon examining the ADL’s “evidence,” however, Jefferson County District Attorney Jay Thomas concluded that the Quigleys’ “intent was not racially and ethnically motivated.” Describing the incident as “a neighborhood dispute,” Thomas concluded, “we have an obligation, ethically, to drop the charges.” In addition, the Aronsons admitted that they had illegally taped the phone conversations, using a police scanner — with the encouragement of an ADL attorney. Eventually, the Aronsons filed suit against their ADL-connected attorney, accusing him of pursuing the organization’s interests rather than those of his clients.

Patterns of Attack

The original dispute between the Quigleys and the Aronsons involved petty issues that, in all likelihood, could have been worked out between the feuding neighbors. It was the intrusion of the ADL that prevented civility from breaking out in that Colorado neighborhood. The $10.5 million judgment against the ADL — reportedly an amount equivalent to nearly one quarter of the group’s worldwide operating budget — indicates that the organization, at long last, is being held accountable. “I will say this: thank God for the jury system,” exulted the Quigleys’ attorney, Jay Horowitz.

The most remarkable aspect of this case is that it illustrates, in miniature, how the ADL has operated for decades. Wherever possible, acting under the guise of battling “hatred” and “intolerance,” the group has vilified honorable people as “bigots” by defining “bigotry” in the most expansive and dishonest terms (essentially, for the ADL “bigot” and “conservative” are synonyms). Although, thankfully, anti-Semitism has not been a significant social problem for decades in the United States, the ADL has cynically preyed upon the fears of American Jews, many of whom have family histories written in the innocent blood of those who perished from persecution. And, as Foxman’s unprovoked attack on the Catholic Church illustrates, the ADL has no scruples about committing, and provoking, acts of religious bigotry.

In 1994 — shortly before the Quigleys’ ordeal began — the ADL published a 193-page smear entitled The Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance and Pluralism in America. Cast in the same mold as earlier ADL screeds such as Danger on the Right (1964) and The Radical Right: Report on the John Birch Society and Its Allies (1967), the 1994 ADL report was designed as a resource for left-wing columnists, editors, academics, and policy makers — anyone looking for a handy sound-bite that links principled American conservatives with Nazis, Klansmen, and other genuine practitioners of bigotry.

Not content to besmirch conservative American Christians, the ADL banished its former southwest regional director, Gary Polland, after Polland condemned the Religious Right report. Polland was among the 75 notable Jewish Americans who signed a full-page paid advertisement in the August 2, 1994 New York Times criticizing the ADL for “engaging in defamation of its own” against the “religious right.” The ad pointed out that since Jews have too often been on the receiving end of religious bigotry, “we have a special obligation to guard against it, and all the more so when in the case of the ADL attack on our Christian fellow citizens, it emanates from our own community.”

Mark this well: The ADL cast Gary Polland from its ranks because he took a principled stand against religious prejudice. “After much agonizing I signed the ad because the message needed to be sent,” Polland explained in a letter to ADL members. “The ad informs the Christian community that there are prominent Jewish Americans who reject the [ADL] report – and regret the publication of such an inaccurate and poorly-researched report.” Polland learned, much to his dismay, that there was no room in the ADL’s leadership for someone who opposes religious bigotry in principle, rather than employing the charge of bigotry as a weapon against honorable conservatives.

Following the ADL’s attack on the John Birch Society in 1967, I and many other Jewish members of the John Birch Society participated in the Conference of Jewish Conservatives in Chicago. From that meeting came an organization called The Jewish Right, through which we sought to help Jewish Americans understand the truth about the JBS and the conspiratorial forces the Society was created to expose. We also sought to help patriotic Christians understand that they had millions of potential allies among patriotic Jews who seek to save our Bible-based civilization from the conspiratorial threat to everything we hold dear.

The late Rabbi Chaim Etner (of blessed memory), who was the advisor to The Jewish Right, lamented that for the ADL and its allied left-wing Jewish groups, “Dishonesty is accepted as a kind of political license. This cannot have any place in Jewish politics, as Jewish politics must be based on principles of Jewish law. The weapons used can only be [those] which are in harmony with Jewish ethics and Jewish standards according to Jewish tradition of many millennia.” The ADL and similar left-wing groups, while posing as protectors of Jewish tradition, are “in many instances – anti-Jewish and dangerous to the Jewish cause,” argued Rabbi Etner, not only because of the dishonesty involved but also because of the way in which such left-wing groups engender hostility against the Jewish community they presume to represent.

Divisive Influence

As collectivists, the ADL and similar groups want to delude people into defining their enemies in collectivist terms — that is, to regard “the Jews,” or “the Christians,” or some other group, as the enemy. The John Birch Society has always understood that enemies of freedom are defined by their actions, not their racial or religious identity. In a 1969 address entitled “If You Want It Straight,” Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society, referred to the “use of hatred as a tool of the [Communist] revolution,” particularly the “building up and exploitation of the – potential bitterness and distrust between Christians and Jews.”

“For more than a hundred years, the Communists have done everything possible to revive and increase this source of hatred which was actually dying out during the 19th century,” continued Mr. Welch. Has this been the case with the Anti-Defamation League? It seems to have created its own “hate groups” where none were available. Consider the career of “Jim Anderson,” the alleged leader of a paramilitary group called the “Christian Patriot’s Defense League.” Anderson was featured in a 1981 television documentary called “Armies of the Right.” As researcher Laird Wilcox reports in his recent study The Watchdogs, “‘Jim Anderson’ was no less than James Mitchel Rosenberg, an agent for the ADL….” Along with another ADL plant, Rosenberg was arrested in New York City in October 1981 for carrying an unregistered rifle in public view. The two ADL agents, Wilcox observes, had been “posing as paramilitary extremists for a photographic fabrication exaggerating the threat from the far right.”

We should also remember the case of Roy Bullock, an ADL operative in San Francisco who had illegally compiled an extensive ADL “enemies list” with the help of a police intelligence officer named Tom Gerard. An investigation into Bullock’s spy activities revealed, in the words of the San Francisco Examiner, that the ADL has a network of “undercover operatives throughout the nation….” Foxman responded to these revelations in characteristic fashion, denouncing critics of the organization as “anti-Semitic, undemocratic, and anti-American b*****ds.” Abusive arrogance of this type, of course, will help feed antagonism between Jewish and non-Jewish Americans — which, in turn, means more business for the ADL. Tragically, it also helps keep Americans divided and thereby advances the long-term designs of the enemies of liberty.

Urging that the $10.5 million defamation judgment against the ADL be set aside, Barry Curtiss-Lusher, the group’s Mountain States chairman, sanctimoniously insisted: “It’s quite important that the Anti-Defamation League continue to pursue its mission and fight racism, bigotry, hatred, including anti-Semitism.” Curtiss-Lusher’s description of the ADL’s “mission” is selective: The ADL “fights” bigotry in the same sense that a fireman who moonlights as an arsonist “fights” fires.


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#61 14-10-2013 23:07:23

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

Source: The David Duke Report Online, http://www.davidduke.com

Behind the Mask of Respectability : The truth about the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith

Research Staff

Introduction

The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, or ADL for short, presents itself as an organization against ethnic, racial or religious intolerance. It’s very name suggests that it opposes “defamation.”

In reality, the Anti-Defamation League is an organization that supports Jewish ethnic and religious supremacy, and relentlessly “defames” anyone who dares to point out its own hypocrisy. While supposedly opposing ethnic segregation and ethnic superiority, the ADL supports Israel and international Zionism which promotes not a vision of a “multi-cultural,” “multi-ethnic” Israel, but of a “Jewish state.” That state is openly dedicated to the advancement of the Jewish religion, culture, and even the genetic preservation of the Jewish people. This is, of course, the very opposite of the policies it proposes for our American nation.

Consider the following:

The ADL supports forced integration of schools, neighborhoods, apartment complexes, clubs, churches and communities in America.

Yet, it supports Israel which has a policy of segregated schools, neighborhoods, apartment complexes and even whole towns for Jews and Gentiles.

The ADL has been instrumental in changing America’s immigration policies that will result in European Americans becoming a minority in America by the middle of this century.

Yet, the ADL supports Israel, which has a “Jews only” immigration policy. In fact, it even keeps out Palestinians who were born there and then forced out during the Zionist takeover in 1948.

The ADL has condemned European Americans, such as the administrators of Bob Jones University, who oppose racial intermarriage, Yet, the ADL supports Israel, a nation that does not even recognize as a legal union, marriage between a Jew and Gentile, The ADL has also never condemned the extensive Jewish opposition to intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews (every major Jewish organization around the world has openly stated policies opposing intermarriage).

The ADL has condemned Sadaam Hussein and any of his supporters around the world for his invasion of Kuwait, production of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and for violating United Nations resolutions.

Yet, the ADL did not condemn Israel for the brutal invasion of neighboring Lebanon, resulting in at least 30,000 civilians dead, and lasting almost twenty years in violation of U.N. resolutions. Nor has the ADL condemned Israel for its extensive development of biological and chemical weapons.

The ADL has repeatedly condemned scientists who show that there are significant genetic differences in intelligence between Whites and Blacks, and they have condemned me for simply pointing out that scientific truth.

Yet, the ADL has not condemned the founder of Israel, David Ben Gurion, for his statement that he believed in the “intellectual and moral superiority” of the Jewish people.

The ADL is by its own definition a racist, supremacist organization, and recognizing that fact should not make someone deserve the label of “anti-Semite.” The truth is that the ADL is anti-Gentile! They are not about anti-defamation, but their whole modus operandi is concerned with defaming anyone of any nationality who wants for their own people what the Jewish ADL leaders what for theirs. In other words, they are opposed to every other ethnic nationalism but their own! The whole organization is based on on attacking, intimidating and defaming anyone who opposes their Jewish supremacism.

In fact, anyone who criticizes their hypocrisy and that of Israel, whether or not the critics are “racially aware” or “anti-racist,” will be condemned by the ADL. For their real mission is simply to advance the Jewish Supremacist agenda in America and around the world.

The following article on the ADL by our research staff should be enlightening to all readers of the David Duke Report Online.

ADL of B’nai B’rith

The ADL was founded in 1913 as an adjunct to the international Jewish fraternal order and secret society, the “B’nai B’rith,” whose name, translated literally from Hebrew means “sons of the cut” – referring to circumcision.

The ADL operates 28 offices domestically and 3 offices abroad. They bring in nearly $60 million a year.

Current ADL National Director is Abraham Foxman.

Links to Organized Crime

For years, the ADL has been linked to Jewish organized crime.

The ADL gave Las Vegas Jewish gangster, Moe Dalitz, their “Torch of Freedom” award in 1985 for his donating millions of dollars to the state of Israel. Donations from Dalitz, who headed the Cleveland mob known as the Mayfield Road Gang, allegedly came from his ownership of Las Vegas casinos such as the Desert Inn.

Las Vegas Review-Journal article “The Double Life of Moe Dalitz” by John L. Smith, explains Dalitz’ background in their series “The First 100 Persons Who Shaped Southern Nevada” (at http://www.1st100.com/part2/dalitz.html).

“Early in his life, Dalitz was a bootlegger and racketeer mentioned in the same breath as (Jewish) Meyer Lansky and (Jewish) Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel. In Cleveland, one longtime member of law enforcement would tell the Kefauver Commission, ‘Ruthless beatings, unsolved murders and shakedowns, threats and bribery came to this community as a result of gangsters’ rise to power.’ Dalitz was considered part of that rise.”

Theodore Silbert worked simultaneously for the ADL and the Sterling National Bank (a mafia operation controlled by the Lansky syndicate).

Mira Lansky Boland, the granddaughter of notorious Jewish mafia boss, Meyer Lansky, was described in a Village Voice article by Robert Friedman of May 11th, 1993, as the ADL’s top ‘fact-finder’ in Washington.

Spy Ring and Murder Squads?

An Article in the Los Angeles Times of 9th April, 1993, by Richard C. Paddock, detailed a police raid on ADL offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles where the police seizing evidence of a nationwide intelligence network accused of keeping files on more than 950 political groups, newspapers, and labor unions and as many as 12,000 people.

Describing the spy ring in detail, San Francisco authorities simultaneously released voluminous documents telling how operatives of the Anti-Defamation League searched through trash and infiltrated organizations to gather intelligence on Arab-American, right-wing, and what they called “pinko” organizations…

Police alleged that the organization maintains undercover operatives to gather political intelligence in at least seven cities, including Los Angeles and San Francisco.

According to police officials, groups that were the focus of the spy operation span the political spectrum, including such groups as the Ku Klux Klan, the National Alliance, Greenpeace, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the United Farm Workers, and the Jewish Defense League. Also on the list were Mills College, the board of directors of San Francisco public television station KQED, and the San Francisco Bay Guardian newspaper.

In addition to allegations of obtaining confidential information from police, the Anti-Defamation League could face a total of 48 felony counts for not properly reporting the employment of its chief West Coast spy, Roy Bullock, according to the affidavit filed to justify the search warrant.

The Anti-Defamation League disguised payments to Bullock for more than 25 years by funneling $550 a week to Beverly Hills attorney Bruce I. Hochman, who then paid Bullock, according to the documents released in San Francisco. Hochman, a former president of the Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles is one of the state’s leading tax attorneys.

“Until 1990, Hochman, a former U.S. prosecutor, also was a member of a panel appointed by then-Senator Pete Wilson to secretly make initial recommendations on new federal judges in California.”

Hochman is a former regional president of the Anti-Defamation League.

A second article from the Los Angeles Times, 13th April, 1993, also by Richard C. Paddock, details ADL spy Roy Bullock’s possible role in death squads, torture and kidnapping.

The article introduces another ADL spy, Tom Gerard, a former CIA agent and San Francisco police officer was accused of providing confidential material from police files to the Anti-Defamation League.

Gerard fled to the Philippines after the FBI interviewed him, but left behind a briefcase in his police locker. Its contents, according to the Los Angeles Times, included passports, driver’s licenses, and identification cards in 10 different names; identification cards in his own name for four different embassies in Central America; and a collection of blank birth certificates, Army discharge papers, and official stationery from various agencies.

Also in Tom Gerard’s briefcase were extensive information on death squads, a black hood, apparently for use in interrogations, and photos of blindfolded and chained men.

Investigators suspect that Gerard and other police sources gave the ADL confidential driver’s license or vehicle registration information on a vast number of people, including as many as 4,500 members of [just] one target group [of interest to the ADL], the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Service of a Foreign Government?

While posing as a community oriented group of American Jews working to combat bigotry, the ADL has been alleged to used its spy network to illegally provide the government of Israel with information.

In an article entitled “Spies for Zion,” in the San Francisco Weekly for 28th April, 1993, police officials expose an illegal spy ring working for Israel. “For decades the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith has gathered secret files on critics of Israel. As the San Francisco District Attorney prepares criminal charges against the group, will pressure from prominent Jewish leaders derail the prosecution?”

The San Francisco Weekly described how the ADL spy network passed information to the Israeli government about a professor who made a negative remark about Israel in his class:

“Professor Dwight Simpson and the consul general of Israel stood in a corner at the Fairmont Hotel discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict amid a bright tinkling of glasses and soft murmuring of voices. Halfway through the conversation at the cocktail party, the Israeli diplomat, Harry Kney-Tal, said: ‘By the way, that was a very funny joke you told your class the other day.’

“The San Francisco State University international relations professor didn’t think much of the comment at first. But later that night, he asked himself: ‘How in the hell does the Israeli consul general know the jokes I tell in my class?”

“As a critic of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Simpson had been targeted by Jewish students in the past. They picketed his class on several occasions, handing out leaflets charging that he’s anti-Semitic and opposes a Jewish homeland.

“So the professor didn’t have to wrestle with the consul general’s statement for long. He quickly surmised that Kney-Tal got his information from the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith [or ADL for short] by way of Jewish students who do political surveillance work on campus for them. ‘It’s always confused me why they have to spy on me,’ Simpson said, ‘My work isn’t secret. My whole life is an open book.’

“After a heated demonstration in 1989 that disrupted Simpson’s class, the Jewish Student Action committee was expelled from campus for violating academic freedom. ‘This is a serious problem in academia,’ Simpson added. ‘Whenever you have monitoring and surveillance, it stifles the free discussion of ideas…’

“Simpson is just one of thousands of people whose lives have been affected by the far-ranging spy activities of the ADL. An 80-year-old nonprofit, whose professed mission is to fight anti-Semitism, the ADL uses a less controversial term – ‘fact-finding’ – for its spying…

The article expressed concern that the ADL was above the law:

“Mark my words, this is going to be obfuscated, obliterated, and desecrated,’ said one veteran police inspector. ‘It’s going to a classic study in how things get covered up. You don’t do Jewish people in San Francisco. It’s not PC. Especially when you have two U.S. Senators who are Jewish (Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein) and the city’s chief of protocol is Dick Goldman (a prominent fundraiser in the Jewish community).”

Did Jewish interest work to protect the ADL? The San Francisco Weekly explains how:

“Last week, Goldman called Police Chief Tony Ribera about the police department’s own internal investigation. After the call, the police decided to exclude the ADL and Bullock from the probe…

In a Village Voice article by Robert Friedman of 11th May, 1993, the ADL’s top ‘fact-finder’ in Washington and granddaughter of notorious Jewish mafia boss, Meyer Lansky, Mira Lansky Boland, arranged a trip to Israel for Mr. Tom Gerard, the same man in who’s briefcase was found information on death squads, a black hood, used in interrogations, and photos of blindfolded and chained men.

According to this same article, Boland admitted at a 1990 criminal trial that she had, in typical ADL Newspeak, “shared information” with members of the CIA at an invitation-only ADL conference.

The same article pointed to an ADL connection to the Jonathan Pollard spy affair:

“In 1987, the ADL came under FBI scrutiny in the wake of the Pollard spy scandal. While assigned to the Navy’s Anti-Terrorist Alert Center, where he had access to the most closely-guarded U.S. secrets, Jonathan Pollard stole thousands of pages of classified documents for Israel, which, according to Federal prosecutors, ‘could fill a room the size of a large closet … ten feet by six feet by six feet.’ Pollard’s handler was Avi Sella, an Israeli air force colonel whose wife worked for the New York ADL as a lawyer. Pollard later wrote to friends that a prominent ADL leader was deeply involved in the Israeli spy operation.”

Additional evidence of ADL cooperation with Israeli

Intelligence comes from a letter written by then National Director of the ADL, Benjamin Epstein on July 7, 1961, would indicate otherwise. Epstein was writing to Saul Joftes who was, at the time, the Executive Secretary of the International Council of B’nai B’rith, the ADL’s parent organization, requesting additional funds.

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

Promotion of Thought Crime

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

- Bill of Rights, Amendment I

The Anti-Defamation League has been leading the fight for thought crime legislation. It was through their efforts that the FBI began tracking “Hate Crimes” and it was the ADL who has lobbied hardest for state and federal hate crime laws. Under the Orwellian-sounding “hate crimes” laws, American citizens would receive different sentences for the same crime, depending on whether or not their thoughts are “Politically Correct” on issues relating to homosexuality, race, nationality, and politics. Ultimately, having certain “politically incorrect” opinions would become a crime in itself. These new laws would make it a crime to say or publish any fact or opinion that could “incite racial hatred and bigotry”.

The promotion of Hate Crime legislation, which would designate Jews and other minorities as special classes of citizens, is a primary concern to the ADL. Top on the list in 1999 was the “Hate Crimes Prevention Act” that would have given federal prosecutors new authority to prosecute crimes against minorities and circumvent the Constitution’s protection against Double Jeopardy. Though the measure failed because of Republican opposition, the ADL vowed to fight on. A Jewish Telegraphic Agency story titled “Jewish groups did not get all they wanted in Congress” dated November 20, 1999 explains:

“But on their other top priorities, Jewish groups were not as successful.”

“Tougher hate crimes legislation was dropped during the final days of negotiations over the budget bill.”

“Michael Lieberman, the Anti-Defamation League’s Washington counsel, said his group will push for the measure again when Congress comes back in January.”

The ADL has pioneered Thought Crime and what they call “Hate Crime” legislation. The ADL web site proudly admits to the ADL’s leading role in the introduction to their 1999 Hate Crime Laws article:

“ADL has long been in the forefront of national and state efforts to deter and counteract hate-motivated criminal activity.”

“In June 1993, the United States Supreme Court upheld a Wisconsin hate crime statute that was based on model legislation originally drafted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in 1981.”

Role in Internet Censorship

In an attempt to limit access to unapproved web sites on the world wide web, the ADL pioneered what they call their “Hate Filter”. The ADL has promoted their Hate Filter to parents who want to limit what the ADL considers objectionable content. More insidious are efforts by the ADL to provide their Hate Filter to public institutions such as public libraries, schools and colleges. The ADL has also worked with major Internet carries like America Online (AOL) to create “Terms of Service” which would prohibit any speech the ADL finds offensive.

The ADL web site proudly claims that their Hate Filter:

“.protects children by blocking access to World Wide Web sites of individuals or groups that, in the judgment of the Anti-Defamation League, advocate hatred, bigotry or even violence towards Jews or other groups on the basis of their religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or other immutable characteristics.”

Limiting facts or opinions the ADL find objectionable is not limited to their Hate Filter. ADL operatives now work with major Internet providers such as AOL to limit access to objectionable web site. Subscribers to these services that post opinions that the ADL doesn’t like on their web pages or on Usenet are notified that their accounts are cancelled.

The ADL works to ensure that commercial ISPs create terms of service that limit what their users can read or say. By lobbying commercial carriers to censor their users, the ADL acheives their aim of outlawing free speech and expression without the contraints of the First Amendment’s protections.

An ADL press release from October 21, 1996 titled “New ADL Report Documents Increased Use of Internet By Haters; ADL and AOL Explore Ways To Set Standards Against Hate Online,” ADL National Director, Abe Foxman, explains typical ADL double-talk how they are working with AOL to set policies against politically incorrect speech. These policies, known as “Terms of Service” can then be used by commercial carriers to enforce speech regulations without concern for Constitutional Rights.

“We are working with America Online to create an atmosphere of responsibility on-line, to set standards within the framework of the First Amendment that will give assurances to parents, educators and communities that there is no tolerance for hate on-line.”

In a follow-up press release from April 7, 1997 titled “ADL Calls On America Online To Adhere To Own Guidelines Regarding Hate Material” the ADL explains their relationship with AOL and what “standards within the framework of the First Amendment” means.

“In the past, the League has been gratified by the responsiveness of AOL to complaints about racism and bigotry but now calls on AOL to adhere to their terms of service regarding hate material with equal vigilance as those regarding pornography.”

“While we strongly believe in freedom of speech and do not advocate censorship on the Internet,” said Mr. Foxman, ” we expect those companies which have created guidelines to adhere to them.”

“AOL’s terms of service state that AOL, Inc., its affiliates and ICPs have the right to remove content they deem, in their discretion, “harmful” or “offensive.” The League calls on AOL to live up to its own commitments.”

In the ADL article “Responding to Extemist Speech Online: 10 Frequently Asked Questions”, the ADL explains how they work around the Constitution to stifle free speech. In this article, the ADL suggests the following:

“Commercial ISPs, such as America Online (AOL), may voluntarily agree to prohibit users from sending racist or bigoted messages over their services. Such prohibitions do not implicate First Amendment rights because they are entered into through private contracts and do not involve government action in any way.

“Once an ISP promulgates such regulations, it must monitor the use of its service to ensure that the regulations are followed. If a violation does occur, the ISP should, as a contractual matter, take action to prevent it from happening again. For example, if a participant in a chat room engages in racist speech in violation of the “terms of service” of the ISP, his account could be cancelled, or he could be forbidden from using the chat room in the future. ISPs should encourage users to report suspected violations to company representatives.”

The ADL suggests in the same article that Universities limit the use of their computer systems to prevent students from promoting or reading objectionable material.

“Because private universities are not agents of the government, they may forbid users from engaging in offensive speech using university equipment or university services.”

“Nonetheless, public universities may promulgate content-neutral regulations that effectively prevent the use of school facilities or services by extremists. For example, a university may limit use of its computers and server to academic activities only. This would likely prevent a student from creating a racist Web site for propaganda purposes or from sending racist E-mail from his student E-mail account. One such policy — at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana — stipulates that its computer services are “provided in support of the educational, research and public service missions of the University and its use must be limited to those purposes.”

Conclusions

Behind this mask of humanitarian public service hides an organization with links to organized crime, murder squads, a domestic spying ring used to “monitor” tens of thousands of Americans, and the Mossad, the secret police and assassination service of the Israeli government. With the help of a friendly media, the ADL has become the premier lobby for Jewish interests in America, and the source of hate crime legislation and curtailment of First Amendment freedom of speech through their attempted censorship of the Internet.

Last edited by DejuificatorII (14-10-2013 23:08:06)


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#62 14-10-2013 23:09:15

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

Bnai Brith ADL on the German-Jewish Tragedy

ADL is under B’Nai B’rith

B'nai B'rith Magazine, May 1933.

CRITICISM is heard: B¹nai B¹rith did not join the public protests against the German-Jewish tragedy! The power of B¹nai B¹rith was not exploited sufficiently in the public press! What an opportunity B¹nai B¹rith had to keep its fame on the front pages in this crisis!

Such things have been said.

The members of this organization have cause to be proud of their affiliation with a Jewish body that obscured its own prestige in order to serve its German brethren the better. Not the glory of B¹nai B¹rith but the safety of German Jews was paramount at the moment and quietly B¹nai B¹rith moved to the defense of these brethren through the strong hand of the State Department.

What was the position of American Jewry in the tragic hour? It was as if a robber had entered one¹s house and seized one¹s child and held it for a shield… ³You shoot at me and you kill your child!²

What does a man do in such a pass? Shoot? He puts aside his pistol. He considers other means of meeting the crisis.

With the Hitler government threatening reprisals against Jews, should B¹nai B¹rith have rushed forward with loud protests? In the eyes of the unthinking this might have enhanced the prestige of B¹nai B¹rith… ³How courageous is B¹nai B¹rith!² they might have said.

B¹nai B¹rith puts aside the opportunity for valor (5,000 miles from the scene of danger!) and with what power is in its hand and in co-operation with other Jewish agencies, set in motion the diplomatic efforts that are already historic. Aye, B¹nai B¹rith might have thrown itself alone into the breach so that it could be said of it, ³Single-handed this organization battles for the rights of Jewry.² But B¹nai B¹rith greatly desires unity in Israel and it marched with other organizations and still so marches.

If there has not been complete unity in Israel in this crisis, it is no fault of B¹nai Brith.

Weeks before the German-Jewish tragedy became the pain of all Jewry, B¹nai B¹rith, conscious of forebodings, took steps, met with the leaders of other organizations, considered what was best to do, having always in mind that nothing ought to be done that would endanger rather than mitigate the unhappy situation of the German Jews.

This policy directs and will continue to direct every move of B¹nai B¹rith acting in co-operation with the American Jewish Committee. We have no quarrel with other organizations that went their own way to make public protest. We believe, however, that time will show that the policy of B¹nai B¹rith is founded on better wisdom. We regret that in the momentous hour American Jewry is not united.

Even those who were at first hot for public protest have come to see that discretion is the better part of valor in an hour when lives are in the balance. They have announced that ³In deference to the wishes of the State Department² they ³refrain from making (further) comment on the tragic situation of the Jews in Germany.²

For B¹nai B¹rith there was, besides, a poignant special cause to restrain it from action that might seem rash in the moment. It has fraternal ties with many Jews in Germany where the finest of Jewry is included in the membership of B¹nai B¹rith. Hostile public words or actions by B¹nai B¹rith in America might have reflected dangerously on the B¹nai B¹rith of Germany of whom it mi ght have been said by their enemies, ³They have instigated their fellow members in America against us.

The conscience of B¹nai B¹rith could never have acquitted itself had any ill-considered action by the Order in America caused injury to our brethren in Germany.

And what of the future? It may be answered that B¹nai B¹rith in co-operation with the American Jewish Committee is alert; that things are being carefully done; that perfect unity of speech and action exists between the B¹nai B¹rith and the American Jewish Committee.

If the Jews desire the unity of all Israel in America in the presence of this tragedy they can have it by demanding it of the organizations that represent them. As for B¹nai B¹rith, it feels that its action in this crisis will make a worthy chapter of its history.


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#63 14-10-2013 23:12:25

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

B’nai B’rith and ADL Hypocritical, Say Critics
“They say, but they do not do what they say” - Jesus Christ

On June 18th the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a powerful political advocacy wing of B’nai B’rith that focuses largely on suppression of anti-Semitic “hate-groups”, flexed its considerable political muscle against an organization whose only crime they claim is “refuting the Holocaust.”

B’nai B’rith’s ADL, ignoring that glowingly obsolete and irrelevant document called the First Article of Amendment to the Constitution, has issued a press release stating that they have “urged the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the non-profit status granted to a Holocaust-denying organization. The California-based Institute for Historical Review (IHR) and its parent organization, Legion for the Survival of Freedom, Inc., have recently been granted 501(c)(3) status.”[1]

IHR claims that there are two lies in that statement alone. The first being that the Institute, according to its director Mark Weber, does not deny the Holocaust, only some of the numbers and many of the traditional historically accepted incidents surrounding it. Secondly, again according to IHR, they were not “recently” granted tax-exempt status but IHR and its parent organization have held that not-for-profit standing for over forty years.

Weber, director of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), took his master’s degree in European History from Indiana University, has been certified by Canadian courts as an expert on the Holocaust, the “Final Solution” and modern Jewish history, and has taught English, history and geography to African children in Ghana.

“I grew up very pro-Israeli,” Weber told The WINDS, then he encountered the culture shock of truth “that anyone who spends any time overseas understands very quickly that the way we look at the whole Middle East is very different in our media, compared even to, say, the British media or any other country. When talking with others it took no great amount of time for me–or anyone for that matter,–to disabuse me of my really sterling views I had on such matters.”

Mr. Weber’s observations about the American media were strongly reminiscent of the interview this reporter had with the British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard who told The WINDS that even compared to England, let alone the rest of the world, the American press is very highly controlled.

“Concerning B’nai B’rith, the ADL and others, I’m just struck over and over again how these Jewish organizations condemn and denounce practices done in this country that they passionately defend when they’re done in Israel. It’s a tremendous double standard.

“I’m not at all against the Jews having a state of their own. What I am against is that the U.S. supports policies in Israel that we wouldn’t support in any other country.

“Just the other week there was a vote in the United Nations on upgrading the observer status of the Palestinian Delegation. The vote was 124 to 4 in favor of the Palestinians. The only country voting against was the United States, Israel, Micronesia and the Federated Pacific States–two dependencies of the the United States. Essentially, the whole rest of the world took a different view than the United States.”

Those of the Jewish community who see the truth of this, Weber says, and speak out against it–and there are many–are called “self-hating Jews” by such organizations as ADL.

“I’m especially appalled at what I regard as the prostitution of our political leadership to these interests. They just fall over each other. Gingrich, Gore, Clinton–they just prostrate themselves in a shameless bid for Jewish money and support.

“The proof of the power of the Jewish lobby in Washington is that unlike other lobbies that might arguably be very powerful–like the tobacco lobby and the gun-control lobby–the Jewish lobby has no effective opposition. The NRA may be a powerful lobby but there are plenty of voices that oppose the NRA. There is nothing comparable to that in opposition to the Jewish lobby.

B’nai B’rith and the ADL have labeled the Institute for Historical Review as anti-Semitic because it expresses apparently documented disagreement with ADL’s position on the Holocaust. Whether or not that documentation is genuine, or even if IHR’s motives are anti-Semitic, is not at issue. What is at issue is whether they have the right to express them.

B’nai B’rith claims it “is the only Jewish organization to maintain a full-time presence in the United Nations…” seemingly to imply that they are the only legitimate voice of the Jewish people in the UN, yet its practices seem to defy the very tenets they have helped establish in that international body.

Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” [2]

“‘It is very troubling to us,” ADL’s complaint to the IRS continues, ‘that a group whose identity centers on refuting the Holocaust should be granted tax-exempt status,’ wrote Elizabeth Coleman, ADL Director, Civil Rights Division, in a letter to Charles O. Rossotti, Commissioner, IRS.”

It might logically be asked what legal difference the IRS could possibly see between two groups claiming tax-exempt status, one promoting the conventional view of the Holocaust and the other refuting that view.

“‘Far from being an educational or public-service organization committed to exploring historical events, IHR is the major center for Holocaust-denial propaganda and anti-Semitic vitriol,’ continued Ms. Coleman. ‘We question the decision granting this group the benefits afforded to legitimate non-profit educational institutions and urge you to reconsider.’”

Additionally, B’nai B’rith’s ADL accuses the Institute of distributing “a number of books and propaganda materials saturated with anti-Semitic innuendo.”

Is it not interesting how one’s own position consists of solid data and information while the opposing faction’s material is just “propaganda”? Perusing IHR’s materials and website, this agency was unable to uncover any expressions of “anti-Semitic vitriol” or even “Holocaust-denial propaganda.”

Unparalleled Ability to Monitor and Shape Events

B’nai B’rith, whose name in Hebrew means “Brotherhood of the Covenant,” was founded over 150 years ago and is primarily a political and social advocacy organization for Jewish people and causes around the world.

“B’nai B’rith is a network of members in 55 nations around the world,” the organization claims, “providing us with an unparalleled ability to monitor and shape events.” [3] Those last two words, “shape events,” are indeed, as shall be seen, an apt description of the consummate abilities of B’nai B’rith and the Anti-Defamation League.

There are apparently a growing number of prominent Jews, many of respected academic achievement, who are strongly opposed to much of what is being practiced publicly in the name of Judaism. Among those, according to Ha’aretz,  a Jewish daily newspaper published in Israel, are Ruth Bettina Birn of Canada, “a German living in Toronto…recognized as an international expert on Nazi war crimes,”[4] and Norman J. Finkelstein of Hunter College, University of New York.

In a feature article published by Ha’aretz, the author, Tom Segev, quotes Birn and Finkelstein in their scathing critique of a best-selling book on the Holocaust by Daniel Goldhagen entitled Hitler’s Willing Executioners.  So popular has Goldhagen’s book become in Judaism that in many circles he is referred to as “Mr. Holocaust.”[ibid]

Accosted as a supremely unacademic piece of work, the newspaper claims, “Many scholars have attacked [Goldhagen's] thesis, which boils down to this: all the Germans took part in the murder of the Jews because all of them are anti-Semitic.” That “thesis” by Goldhagen seems to be the embodiment, in a few words, of the prevailing technique used to slur and discredit anyone who lays a finger on the sacred cow of the Holocaust.

The Ha’aretz columnist says that, in reviewing Goldhagen’s book, Birn and Finkelstein “have done the unthinkable: they have checked his references, one by one, and reached the conclusion that Hitler’s Willing Executioners is not worthy of being called an academic text. It is a tiresome task,” the author continues, “requiring a comparison of texts and a careful examination of sources….” [ibid.]

It should be noted that Ha’aretz is a major Jewish newspaper published in Israel even though it seems to have little tolerance for any academic and intellectual dishonesty on the part of its fellow countrymen. The Ha’aretz writer goes on to make the claim that is most certainly at the heart of nearly every controversy and dispute surrounding Jewish/Holocaust issues. “As things stand now,” Segev says, “anyone who criticizes Goldhagen is an anti-Semite, possibly a Holocaust-denier, and certainly an opponent of the State of Israel.”

That term “Holocaust-denier” is one with which the Institute for Historical Review is most painfully aware. As pointed out earlier, even though they do not in any way deny the existence of the Holocaust, they do challenge many of the claims of its appalling intensity asserting that the numbers and incidents were greatly exaggerated. And that has been the source of their troubles with the Jewish community. It must again be noted that what is truly at contest is not whether the IHR’s claims about the Holocaust are true or false, but whether they, or anyone else, have the right to even express ideas dissonant to the conventional mindset of that terrible period of history.

So riddled, it seems, with academic dishonesty and error is Goldhagen’s book that Metropolitan Books in New York published a small volume entitled A Nation on Trial in which it includes “Birn’s and Finkelstein’s critiques of Goldhagen’s book. All the claims are backed up.” However, according to Ha’aretz, there has been “tremendous pressure exerted on the publishing company to keep it from coming out.” [ibid.]

“At a certain point,” the Ha’aretz columnist continues, the assault on Metropolitan Books “bordered on cultural terrorism.” The apparent source of that “cultural terrorism”, Abraham H. Foxman, National Director for the Anti-Defamation League, drafted a letter to the the publisher supporting Goldhagen’s book. Foxman stated that “the issue is not whether Goldhagen’s thesis is right or wrong, but what is legitimate criticism”. Please excuse the impertinence, but when is ANY “legitimate criticism” not based on what is right or wrong?[4]

“Historians all over the world, including Israel, agree that [Goldhagen] has written a bad book” but, apparently, facts do not sway those who would seek to eliminate any opinion but their own.[ibid.]

Ha’aretz’s Segev concludes that “the formula goes like this: not only the Germans, but all the gentiles hate the Jews. Hence the need for Jewish unity and solidarity. Hence the need for more and more books about Jewish hatred, and the simpler and shallower they are, the better.”

Marco Polo Takes a Poison Pill

In the firestorm of these Jewish organ Color izations’ exceedingly effective programs of censorship, few compare with the resulting destruction of the highly respected world magazine Marco Polo. In the February 1995 issue of the 250,000-circulation monthly was published a ten-page article by Japanese neurologist Dr. Masanori Nishioka entitled, “The Greatest Taboo of Postwar World History: There were no Nazi ‘Gas Chambers.’”

Publisher Bungei Shunju, who also issues the Japanese language version of The Diary of Anne Frank, allowed Nishioka’s article into print “only after Marco Polo staff members spent five months checking the author’s sources, conducting additional research, and carefully editing the text.” [5]

While Dr. Nishioka does not deny the Holocaust, he strenuously refutes its degree and intensity. “Comparing the wartime fate of Europe’s Jews with that of Chinese killed by Japanese troops and the victims of American atomic bombings of Japanese cities, Nishioka concludes his article with an expression of sympathy for the ‘tragic deaths’ of many European Jews.” [ibid.] The result of this apparently meticulous piece of research was seppuku or, as the Japanese ritual of suicide is better known in the West, hara-kiri. It proved the death of the publication.

    Through its embassy in Tokyo, the Israeli government formally protested to the Japanese government, while the Simon Wiesenthal Center of Los Angeles mounted a boycott campaign against the Bungei Shunju company.

    The magazine’s initial response was a statement defending the provocative article. In explaining his decision to publish it, Marco Polo editor Kazuyoshi Hanada – one of Japan’s most prominent journalists – said that Dr. Nishioka had found evidence to show that standard views about gassings of Jews are not accurate. ‘We would not run an article we thought was wrong,’ Hanada said….”

    Marco Polo also generously announced that it would welcome a rebuttal of Nishioka’s article, offering both the Wiesenthal Center and the Israeli embassy an opportunity to respond with a ten-page article of its own.” That is a total of twenty pages of rebuttal to a ten-page article. “The offer was promptly and predictably rejected.

    Rabbi Abraham Cooper, deputy chief of the Wiesenthal Center, said: ‘Their [the revisionist's] goal is to get debate going. They’re seeking to give legitimacy to their view.’ In a Jan. 25 letter, the Israeli embassy wrote to the publisher: ‘If your magazine is going to take a neutral observer position, that of a courtroom trial, in which both sides’ arguments and claims are to be introduced, we must decline.’

    The Wiesenthal Center mounted an international boycott campaign against Marco Polo advertisers, and quickly succeeded in persuading major firms – including Volkswagen, Cartier, Philip Morris, Mitsubishi Motors and Mitsubishi Electric – to cancel their advertising.” [With that kind of heavy-hitting advertising money you don't mess around].

    As a result of the campaign, the Japanese government on January 30 issued a statement calling the Marco Polo article ‘extremely improper.’ A Foreign Ministry official added that Japanese embassies and consulates around the world would be instructed about the government’s ‘position on the Holocaust.’

    At a packed news conference…with Wiesenthal Center deputy director Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Bungei company president Kengo Tanaka formally apologized for causing Jews ‘immeasurable pain’ by publishing Nishioka’s article. To atone for its grievous sin, Tanaka said he had closed down the offending magazine for good, and had relieved the responsible staff members of their duties. All remaining copies of the February issue were being recalled and destroyed. Tanaka resigned a few days after the news conference.

    A dissenting voice broke the tranquility of the canned news conference. Journalist, author and revisionist researcher Aiji Kimura loudly harangued Cooper and demanded that the company president explain specifically what was inaccurate about Nishioka’s article. Kimura also defended historical revisionism, speaking of its peaceful, truth-seeking motivation. Hundreds of fellow journalists responded to his remarks with spontaneous applause and expressions of agreement.

    ‘Marco Polo was crushed,’ Dr. Nishioka responded, ‘by Jewish organizations using advertising [pressure]….’[5]

It should be noted at this juncture that The WINDS takes no position either refuting or accepting “Holocaust revision” nor is this said out of fear of reprisal by any of the political organizations mentioned that are the focus of this article–but, rather, because The WINDS has not researched the available material sufficiently to take a position on the issue. The focus of this news agency, rather, is the unfair and hypocritical posture taken by those Jewish organizations against those who do take the unpopular position of revisionism or even denial. That, while claiming reverence for freedom of speech and the press, they apparently leave no means unexploited to deny that freedom to those who disagree with them on the “sacred” matter of their Holocaust.

The opinion has been expressed that the First Amendment was placed in the number one position because of its relative importance to the rest of the Bill of Rights. It now seems that it is there as the number one target for extinction. The extinction of the document, however, is not being accomplished by open assault but, rather, by groups and powerful individuals who masquerade as those venerating the Bill of Rights while simultaneously, under cover of hypocritical pretensions, are shredding it by their actions. Groups with these well-disguised motives appear to be such as B’nai B’rith, its Anti-Defamation League and its foreign affiliates, along with the Jewish Defense League and others.

A Jewish Activist Takes on Jewish Activist Organizations

“The ADL did a lot of good in this country up until they took a sharp turn to the left,” says Aaron Zelman, a soft-spoken, articulate Jewish activist for Second Amendment rights. “They became a tool of left-wing politics. Once they did that they quit being objective.”

Mr. Zelman, himself a conservative Jew, the son of orthodox parents, sends his two children to orthodox schools, he says, in hopes of their learning about and keeping in touch with their Jewish heritage. At the same time, he heads an organization called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JFPO) and is quite outspoken about what he perceives as the extreme damage groups like B’nai B’rith and the Anti-Defamation League do–and have done–to Judaism–especially in the approach they take against those who oppose their views on the Holocaust.

“The Holocaust in Germany,” Mr. Zelman says, “was just one of several holocausts–against humanity in general.”

While he does not dispute the popular Jewish/world doctrine on the event, Zelman’s position about the “Jewish” Holocaust is that, in the overall picture, it is not nearly as significant as the vast majority of his fellow Jews make it out to be.

“Holocaust, slash, genocides have happened to lots of people–not just Jews….In fact if you look at the Nazi genocide, the records indicate they murdered more non-Jews than Jews.”

“Some of the methods the ADL uses are despicable,” Zelman claims. “We’ve locked horns with them in the past and confronted them suggesting that they shouldn’t consider themselves a Jewish organization.”

Those at Marco Polo are not the only ones with which ADL has refused to enter into meaningful dialogue. “We’ve claimed that they lie about the militia movement in America. We challenged them to a public debate and they wouldn’t do it” — perhaps, somewhat in the manner in which they will not engage in public debate about Holocaust history and figures, according to the Institute for Historical Review. They are unwilling to debate the issues but prefer, rather, to attack the people presenting them–a somewhat modified take on killing the messenger because of the contents of the message.

“I think people need to start challenging them to public debates,” Zelman says. “If they’re not going to do it then they must not have much to stand on.”

Mr. Zelman Speaks His Mind

“The ADL is essentially a misguided organization and dangerously stupid. One of the problems with a lot of the Jewish leaders (and I use the word “leaders” in double quotes) is that they don’t understand or appreciate the Bill of Rights.

…On Jewish-American History:

“The majority of Jews have come to America over the last 150 years or so and they come from socialist societies and they believe in big government–they are comfortable with big government. They came to America primarily for two reasons,”–the same two reasons, it seems, which originally drew our first European settlers. “One–to be able to practice Judaism [freedom of religion?]; two–to be able to earn a living.

“But what they don’t do,” Zelman observes, “is they don’t embrace American ideals that are embodied in the Bill of Rights. They don’t understand the Bill of Rights. Abe Foxman [head of the Anti-Defamation League] does not understand the Bill of Rights–he fundamentally does not grasp the Bill of Rights. He does not have the intellectual capability to appreciate the Bill of Rights.

“He’s not alone,” Zelman adds. “This is typical of the majority of Jewish leaders in this country even if they were born here. They do not appreciate, they do not grasp, they do not comprehend all of the Bill of Rights for all citizens. They don’t understand the document. We say around here it’s sort of a defect in the gene-pool. In other words, they brought this lack of understanding and appreciation for liberty with them–and then passed it on to their children, their grandkids, great-grandkids and so on. This is one of the problems that Americans have in trying to figure out ‘What’s with these Jews? Don’t they like America? Don’t they like the freedom that America offers people?’

“Most of these Jewish leaders don’t understand that it was a Jew by the name of Hiem Solomon, a personal friend of George Washington, who helped raise money to back the American Revolution. He was a Jew who believed so much in freedom and liberty that he personally gave $640,000 over 200 years ago for the American Revolution.

“The point I’m making is that if you talk about Hiem Solomon to the American Jewish community today, they don’t care. They don’t appreciate the sacrifice–they really don’t.

“To quote Michael Medved, an orthodox Jewish talk-show host, he says reformed Judaism is essentially the Democratic Party with holidays. There are Jews who appreciate the Bill of Rights, and then there are Jews like Abe Foxman, and the leaders of the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, who don’t have a clue about what the Bill of Rights means. Not a clue! And that’s why they’re more concerned with ingratiating themselves with whomever’s in power — even if the people in power are evil. They will do this rather than to take a position that is in the best interest of all Americans.

“If you study the history of the Jewish leadership in Nazi Germany, the leaders of the Udronaut, the Jewish council, they collaborated with the Nazis. These are the people who made lists of Jews to put on the cattle cars to go to their deaths. They did this because the Jews have always mistakenly felt that if you collaborate with evil–whoever is running the government–things will be better for you.

…On Modern Judaism:

“The leadership of the Jewish community today is so far removed from basic Jewish concepts that for them to call themselves Jews is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler calling himself a Jew. These people haven’t got a clue about real Judaism–not a clue. They know more about peanut butter and jelly sandwiches than they do about Judaism.”

…On the UN:

“The world needs the United Nations like it needs a syphilis epidemic.”

When asked what he thought of the conspiracy theories that point to Jewish Zionists as the driving force behind the New World Order and a world government, Mr. Zelman responded that he did not believe in such a movement. “How can a people that comprise less than two percent of the population,” he questioned, “wield such power?”

B’nai B’rith’s own figures, in answer to Mr. Zelman’s rhetorical question, list the current number of senators and congressmen they claim are Jewish. The names on that list (ten senators and twenty-four representatives) comprise fully ten percent of the Senate and nearly six percent in the House, which gives them three to five times that of their percentage in the general population.

IHR’s Mark Weber concurs with B’nai B’rith in this matter. “Jews make up about two percent of the population,” he said, “but have something like six times that representation in places like the Presidential Cabinet, the Executive Branch overall–and of course in media its just unbelievable.”

“Spinning” The Middle East Issues

B’nai B’rith seemingly attempts to engender a form of political tunnel vision among not only the Jewish people, but the world at large as to who really counts in the Middle East. A typical example of this is illustrated in the first press release listed on their web site under the heading “B’nai B’rith Speaks Out” entitled “B’nai B’rith Calls On Arafat To Eliminate Anti-Israel, Antisemitic [sic] References From Palestinian Broadcasts”.

It cannot be imagined that B’nai B’rith has forgotten that Yasser Arafat is the acknowledged spokesman for a people as fully Semitic as the Jews, therefore, in this instance, not only rendering the epithet of “antisemitic” meaningless, but ridiculous as well. This appears to be part of an ongoing effort to define Semites as Jews only and a standard approach Israel has always taken with Palestinians–to deny by inference and direct attack that they are somehow of lesser humanity than themselves.

B’nai B’rith also projects the image that they, and they alone, are the definitive source of information on how history should be viewed–especially when any aspect of the Holocaust is involved. An example of this can be found in a B’nai B’rith press release in which the organization’s president, Tommy Baer took extreme exception to a statement made by Nagasaki Mayor Hitoshi Motoshima in which the mayor stated that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was “one of the two greatest crimes against humanity in the 20th century, along with the Holocaust.”

In Baer’s response he stated that “the bombings and the Holocaust cannot be compared and should not be linked.”

Why? “The U.S. bombing was undertaken,” Baer remonstrated, “after the sovereign government of the Japanese people…refused repeated U.S. offers of peace….The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a last-ditch act of war.”

Translation: “They” deserved to have their innocent men, women and children incinerated. “We” did not.

That the statements by B’nai B’rith are historically untrue is no hidden fact to anyone willing to do some reading. Documents all along the historic time line from August of 1945 to the present clearly show that Japan began as early as August of 1944 to make peace overtures toward the United States. This historical “revision” is clearly set forth, among others, by a Jewish historian Gar Alperovitz in his meticulously documented 850-page tome, “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.”[6]

In documented opposition to B’nai B’rith’s claim, Alperovitz’s and other’s research show clearly that President Truman, urged on by Secretary of State James Byrnes, fully intended that the atomic bomb should be used as both a live field-test on a virgin target to determine its results on human subjects and, also, to intimidate the Soviets into greater submission in postwar negotiations. Those documents also show that, with the exception of Byrnes, none of Truman’s advisors, even in the military, had any objection to acceding to Japan’s only provision to “unconditional surrender”–that the Emperor would not be punished or removed.

Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II, Fleet Admiral William Leahy, said the use of the atomic bomb on Japan was barbarous because “the Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender….in being the first to use [the atomic bomb] we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.” [emphasis supplied]. This makes B’nai B’rith’s rebuke of the Japanese mayor nonsense and blatant historical re-revisionism.

Apparently, no one has the privilege of invoking the Holocaust as a genuine tragedy except B’nai B’rith, or at least in a context approved by them and compatible with their “dictionary”.

The Anti-Defamation League, B’nai B’rith and their political arms do not target only the non-Jewish population with their opinion-shaping efforts. They have been quite successful in manipulating the outlook of their Jewish brethren also. So effective has the campaign been to label Jews as the constant target of discrimination and bigotry, that most of them actually believe it themselves. According to IHR’s Weber, “A poll taken in the San Francisco area indicated that fully one-third of Jews surveyed thought that anti-Semitism was so strong that a Jew could not be elected to the U.S. Congress. The survey was taken at the very time when three of the four congressional representatives were Jewish and the mayor of San Francisco was Jewish–and well identified as Jewish.”

Censorship by Filter

There are organizations who attempt to dictate exactly to what information the poor, terminally ignorant Gentile and Jewish public should have access. They do this by, among other means, pressuring Internet servers into refusing to continue hosting “hateful Web sites”. MSNBC columnist Brock Meeks says, “This is a tactic the Simon Wiesenthal Center has chosen to use and for which it has been soundly, and rightly, thrashed.”

Meeks, however, goes on to laud the ADL for their “even-handed approach” toward “High Tech Hate” on the Internet. He quotes them as saying, “‘Hate must be countered with information that promotes understanding, tolerance and truth.’ In other words,” Meeks translates, “the best way to fight hate speech is with more speech.”

The ADL themselves make the statement that they are “a staunch advocate of the First Amendment, [and] the League has never advocated the censorship of controversial literature, no matter how offensive.” [7]

Will someone please ‘splain how the foregoing harmonizes with ADL’s attempt at getting the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Institute for Historical Review? Is this countering hate “with information that promotes understanding, tolerance and truth”? Or is it a very real attempt at practical censorship? Would Mr. Rogers respond with, “Can you spell hypocrisy”?

A recent alliance between the ADL and software maker Cyber Patrol resulted in an announcement of “a new filter that will bar access to anti-Semitic, racist, and other forms of hate speech online.”[8] On last check, the First Amendment makes no differentiation in its “freedom of speech” clause between “anti-Semitic, racist, and other forms” of speech and what ADL would call legitimate freedom of expression–which seems more and more to be that which is defined only by them. They are, however, quite willing to share their dictionary with the rest of the world–whether or not the world wants it.

Typical of the standards of Internet filter software manufacturers is the censorship criteria published by SurfWatch. Their blocking criteria is broken down into four major categories:

    Sexually Explicit
    Violence/Hate Speech
    Drugs/Alcohol
    Gambling

Under the “Violence/Hate Speech” category are listed ten subheadings, the last of which is “Holocaust revision/denial sites.” It must be asked why and how they arrived at the conclusion that the entire category of the Holocaust not included within traditional historical thinking is a taboo subject? Did those writing the software, or those publishing or commissioning it, check out the growing mountain of evidence against the currently accepted view of that event, and did they find it to be specious and wanting in credibility?

How does “Holocaust revision/denial sites” harmonize with the intensity and moral turpitude inherent in SurfWatch’s other listings in the same subheading?

    wanton and gratuitous violence
    torture, mutilation and gore
    bomb making instructions or encouragement of destructive acts
    inciting violence

[Oops! Someone apparently forgot about Saturday morning children's cartoons].

    the portrayal or encouragement of extreme cruelty, or of physically or emotionally abusive acts to any animal or person including injury or death
    depiction of humans or animals injured or killed
    militant organizations that encourage violence to or extermination of a specified population or government
    satanic cults and rituals
    hate speech toward humans or specified populations

In the seemingly endless attempts by these organizations to engage in functional censorship, a large and reputable publisher, St. Martin’s Press, has come under considerable fire for its decision to publish Goebbels a David Irving book about Hitler’s propaganda minister.

In the book Irving makes several controversial statements strenuously objected to by the ADL and other Jewish organizations. Consistently enough, the debate over the book does not center around the factualness of its content, but the author himself.

The Washington Post quotes St. Martin’s publisher Thomas Dunne as saying, “Joseph Goebbels is doubtless laughing in Hell. He, after all, was the man who loved nothing better than burning books, threatening publishers, suppressing ideas, and judging the merits of ideas based not on their content but by their author’s racial, ethnic or political purity. That is indeed a sad irony.”

How did this publisher fare in standing up against their opposition? Strangely, the very next day after The Washington Post published Dunne’s statement, St. Martin’s cancelled the publication of Irving’s book. “A humiliated St. Martin’s Press yesterday cancelled publication of its new book by historian David Irving, admitting that the work it had so righteously defended is in fact ‘an insidious’ piece of anti-Semitic propaganda.” [The Washington Post,  April 3, 1996].

“‘It’s not a question of book burning or censorship,’ said ADL Director Abraham Foxman. ‘That’s just poppycock. It’s a question of responsibility. I think they finally made the right decision.’” [ibid.]

Jewish Terrorism! Isn’t that Stretching Things a Bit?

Another organization of apparently the same stripe as ADL is the Jewish Defense League (JDL). Although ADL claims that JDL’s philosophy of terrorism is at odds with ADL’s non-violent approach, some have likened the difference as to that between Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Army.

The Institute for Historical Review has been accused repeatedly of being an anti-Semitic hate group. In fact, historical revision of the Holocaust is only a part of their agenda–but it is the part that constantly gets them in trouble with Jewish watchdog groups like B’nai B’rith, ADL–and–the Jewish Defense League.

The IHR claims that, “Far from being a fomenter of hate, the Institute has been a target of hate groups. During the 1980s, the Jewish Defense League [JDL]…repeatedly assaulted Institute offices and staff members. Following numerous death threats by telephone and mail, extensive property damage, five relatively minor fire bombings, one drive-by shooting and two physical assaults, the Institute’s office-warehouse was destroyed in an arson attack on July 4, 1984. Estimated property loss was more than $400,000, including tens of thousands of books, rare documents, irreplaceable files and expensive office equipment.”[9]

The Los Angeles Times reports that “the Jewish Defense League…is the second most active terrorist group in the United States, according to FBI reports.”[10]

The Simon Wiesenthal Center

The Simon Wiesenthal Center was established in 1977 by Rabbi Marvin Hier under a grant from Jewish businessman Samuel Belzberg. Naming the Center after the famous “Nazi Hunter” Hier parlayed Belzberg’s grant into one of the most powerful of Jewish organizations. The Los Angeles Times in a 1990 story claimed at that time that “…second in membership only to B’nai B’rith International with 380,000 members, the Simon Wiesenthal Center at times rivals the venerable American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and the World Jewish Congress for its impact and access to world leaders.” [11]

Alfred Lilienthal, a well known Jewish/American historian once said that this country is absorbed in what he calls “Holocaustomania.” The Wiesenthal Center is apparently foremost among peers in promoting this form of backdoor racism and in marginalizing the need for any debate of historical issues with which it disagrees. The director of Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust Center was quoted in the Jewish Press and Ha’aretz Daily newspaper as saying that “Rabbi Hier and the Wiesenthal Center are, in my opinion, the most extreme of those who utilize the Holocaust….The Jewish people do many vulgar things,” he continued, “but the Wiesenthal Center raised it to a complete level: The optimum use of sensitive issues in order to raise money….” [12]

“The enormous success of the Simon Wiesenthal Center,” says New York Times Deputy Media Editor Judith Miller in her book One by One by One: Facing the Holocaust, [13]“has given new meaning to what was once a macabre in-house joke…’There’s no business like shoah business’” shoah, of course, is the Hebrew word for Holocaust.

So influential have these Zionist organizations been in establishing their singular agenda for Holocaust definition that, “to dispute Holocaust claims,” according to Mark Weber, “is a crime in, among others, France, Germany, Austria and Spain.”

In France, for instance, the Fabius-Gayssot Law (13 July 1990), makes a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for up to a year and a fine up to 300,000 Franks ($50,000) to openly deny or dispute the Holocaust as defined in “crimes against humanity” by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg following World War II.

Voltaire, arguably the most famous of French philosophers, once said, “I do not agree with a thing you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Now, in Voltaire’s homeland, that philosophical right to freedom of speech has indeed been relegated to just that–philosophy.

If the Holocaust and its purported six million Jewish victims is provable fact, as the vast majority believe it to be, then it will stand against all who oppose it, and will do so by merely presentation and debate of the evidence. But when an individual or group seeks to close off debate and examination of evidence, they give another kind of evidence–that they, themselves, do not fully believe their claims.

Some will read the foregoing and conclude that the author is anti-Semitic. Some will know better. What is, in reality, presented here is nothing more or less than humanity. It is the nature of man to control all he can and to destroy all he cannot. This nature is based on fear. One does not need to be Nazi, Communist, Zionist, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or anything else in order to express this degeneracy. All one needs for the fruition of that nature is to be born on this planet. This is where lies the true defect in the gene pool. The sum of all disputes among men amounts to no more than two children holding the opposite ends of the same rope arguing who has the longest piece.


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#64 14-10-2013 23:13:06

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

Bnai Brith Moves to Suppress Jewish Communist Atrocities

Source: Canadian Jewish News | July 19, 2001

Polish Magazine Under Fire for Wartime Memoir

By Paul Lungen

TORONTO - The editor of a Polish magazine will meet this month with representatives of Canadian Jewish Congress to discuss an article that Congress believes repeats anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews.

The article, which appeared in the February edition of Miedzy Nami magazine, is presented as part of the memoirs of author Chris Gladun’s late mother, Janina Sulkowska-Gladun.

The memoir repeatedly refers to Jews in a way that “tars the entire Jewish community,” said Len Rudner, Congress’ director of community relations.

In a letter to Jolanta Bugajski, editor and publisher of Miedzy Nami, Rudner points out the article, which reflects Sulkowska-Gladun’s memories of the Soviet occupation of Poland from 1939-41, describes members of the local Communist party as almost exclusively Jewish.

The memoir repeatedly refers to Jews as supporters of the Communist regime and it alleges the NKVD (the Soviet secret police), aided by Jews, decided the fate of its victims. It also states innocent people were in fear of arrest because of a Jewish militia.

“Your readers are presented with a litany of horrors either perpetrated by Jews, ‘a young Jew,’ ‘two local Jews’, ‘a young Jewish female doctor,’ ‘Jewish assistants,’ ‘armed and bullying Jews,’ ‘teenaged Jewish thugs,’ ‘a local Jewish militiaman’ and ‘a rather dim-witted Jewish girl.’…On only two occasions does Mr. Gladun provide us with the actual names of these supposed Jewish perpetrators. For the rest, he is content to let the words ‘the Jews’, without proof, stand as condemnation of an entire community,” Rudner’s letter states. Bugajski said she was not troubled by the references to Jews in the memoir, although she said “it’s not my point of view or that of anybody else working for us.

“You have to show readers what other people think. It doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not. You have to let her (the author) express views the way she sees things. It’s her memoir. It’s her words, not my words,” Bugajski said.

“I certainly stand by what my mother wrote and her experiences,” Gladun said. “I take umbrage at any accusations [the article] is anti-Semitic.”

Gladun, a writer, researcher and poet, said the memoir is “just a representation of what was happening in Eastern Poland. It’s not a reflection on all Jews…Certainly a sizable minority of Jews did collaborate with Soviets in imposing Soviet power in Eastern Poland.”

Gladun, a past member of the Polish-Jewish Heritage Foundation, said a community can’t be judged by the actions of a few individuals. Referring to the current controversy over the Polish village of Jedwabne, in which a recent book revealed that Jews were massacred by Polish villagers early in the Holocaust, he said that just as all Poles were not responsible for the murder of Jews, not all Jews were like those who collaborated with the Communists.

Rudner said the cumulative effect of the repeated references to Jews “is to present Jews in a highly unflattering and extremely negative way, It would be difficult for a reader to go through this portion of the memoirs and not conclude all Jews are like this.”

Rudner said Congress will ask Bugajski to run a letter in the magazine expressing the concerns of the Jewish community.

“If [Bugajski] fails to understand the damage this kind of unsubstantiated claims make to the Jewish community, we will have to see what legal remedies are available to us,” he added.

Miedzy Nami is a mostly Polish-language publication with 10,000 copies printed monthly.


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#65 14-10-2013 23:14:06

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

Bnai Brith Offers Brainwashing Program to Counter Flyer

Source: Press Release | B’nai Brith Canada | December 27, 2001
http://www.bnaibrith.ca/press4/pr-011227-82.htm

B’nai Brith Canada Offers Consultation, Training,
in Wake of Hate Incident

Guelph Residents Incensed as Antisemitic Flyer from Realtor Blankets Area

December 27, 2001

For Immediate Release

December 27, 2001 — B’nai Brith Canada has communicated with the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) and the Ontario-Atlantic Head office of Re/Max in the aftermath of what has been called by one Real Estate specialist “The first incident of its kind in Canada.” Mr. Peter Ysselstein, a Re/Max agent in Guelph, distributed a flyer containing a blatant antisemitic comment to numerous homes in a Guelph neighborhood.

Intended to garner more business, the flyer instead shocked many residents. After receiving complaints, B“nai Brith has requested an immediate and full investigation of the incident, followed by disciplinary proceedings if RECO and Re/Max deem the incident to be actionable.

Toni Silberman, Senior Vice President of B’nai Brith Canada, and Ontario Chair of its League for Human Rights, commented, “Our action is a clear indication that it is not enough to complain about prejudice, but rather that it is incumbent upon us all to combat it. B’nai Brith Canada has offered the services of its League for Human Rights to both RECO and Re/Max in the hope that its recognized expertise in anti-racism, combating antisemitism, and promoting tolerance will be used by these organizations.”

Frank Dimant, Executive Vice President of B’nai Brith Canada, wrote to the management of RECO “In these trying times, it is more important than ever that we promote tolerance and eliminate prejudice in our homes, our institutions, and our workplaces.”

For further information, please contact Arieh Rosenblum, Ontario Regional Director, at 416-529-4699

B’nai Brith has been active in Canada since 1875 as the community’s senior human rights organization.


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#66 14-10-2013 23:21:18

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

Bookburners and Their Victims First Hand Accounts of Pro Israel Mccarthyism

     Bookburners and Their Victims: First-Hand Accounts
               of Pro-Israel McCarthyism

     In California Court Case, ADL Still Delaying Disclosure
     of Where It Got and What It Did With Personal Data
     on Anti-Apartheid and Pro-Palestinian Activists

                    By Kurt Holden

     WASHINGTON REPORT on Middle East Affairs
               DECEMBER 1997, Page 57

In late 1992, the FBI informed the San Francisco police
that one of its officers, Tom Gerard, had been secretly
cooperating with a "spy," Roy Bullock, who had been
secretly paid by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of
B'nai B'rith for over 30 years to infiltrate
organizations which the ADL deemed hostile to Israel.

Gerard was believed to have illegally turned over to
Bullock material gathered from police files. Worse, the
police previously had been ordered to destroy those
files, which a court had ruled violated the civil rights
of the people upon whom files had been opened.

Bullock's job was to collect facts about "enemies of
Israel" which were then organized in central ADL files in
Los Angeles and New York, and used for confidential
dissemination to the "active" Jewish community, which
could be counted on to take "counter-action" to
neutralize or discredit these "enemies."

In the 1980s, Bullock's assignments had been expanded to
include surveillance of individuals and organizations
opposed to apartheid in South Africa, presumably because
Israel and South Africa were allies, drawn to each other
because both were resisting United Nations human rights
resolutions regarding the Palestinians and indigenous
South Africans.

Bullock would ingratiate himself into Arab-American and
anti-apartheid groups by indicating he was in sympathy
with their goals. Attending their meetings and going into
their homes, he would note their car license plates and,
through "official friends" who were police officers or
who had access to government records, try to get drivers'
license numbers, P. O. boxes and criminal investigative
reports, if such existed.

FBI officials had become interested in 1992 when they
discovered that in addition to collecting information for
the ADL, Bullock and Gerard wereselling information to
South African intelligence agents.

The San Francisco police, made up of officers largely of
Irish and Italian ethnic backgrounds (and certainly not
aware of the enormous political clout of the Jewish
community), obtained search warrants and seized some 12
boxes of records at the ADL headquarters in Los Angeles
and San Francisco in early 1993.

Subsequently they sent notices to some 12,000 people and
organizations whose names were found in ADL's files. In
at least two cases, they also provided such individuals
with excerpts from ADL's files on them which obviously
had come from confidential government records.

Both individuals, Jeffrey Blankfort and Steve Zeltzer,
were prominent Jewish advocates of fairness to
Palestinians and for ending apartheid in South Africa.
From those activities they already were aware that the
ADL worked in cooperation with Israel's Mossad.

The ADL worked in cooperation with Israel's Mossad.

In 1993 they and 17 other plaintiffs filed a class-action
lawsuit in the San Francisco Superior Court. The suit has
become known as Audrey Parks Shabbas, et al., plaintiffs,
vs. Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, et al.,
defendants. In addition to the three above-named
plaintiffs, others are Victor Ajlouny, Yigal Arens (son
of former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens), Amal
Barkouky-Winter, Manuel Dudum, Colin Edwards, Carol
El-Shaib, George Green, Paula Kotakis, Stephen Mashney,
Helen Hooper McCloskey, Margaret Ann McCormack, Donald
McGaffin, Anne Poirier, Agha Saeed, Jock Taft and
Marianne Torres. Attorney for the plaintiffs is former
Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey, who practices law
in Woodside, California.

In fact, the suit was filed on behalf of two classes of
individuals--those who opposed Israeli policies toward
the Palestinians and those who opposed apartheid in South
Africa. The lawsuit alleged an invasion of their privacy,
citing a California law which imposes a minimum of $2,500
in punitive damages for each act of publication of
confidential information obtained from governmental
files.

The ADL responded by arguing that it is a newsgathering
organization and thus entitled to the reporter's
privilege of keeping sources of information secret.

Under California law and a famous Supreme Court ruling
known as the Mitchell decision, a plaintiff is barred
from obtaining what a reporter claims is "privileged"
information until the plaintiff can show that he has
exhausted all other reasonable means of obtaining the
facts necessary to prove his case, and has met four other
requirements. For four and a half years, ADL refused to
produce the information.

An Order to Disclose

Depositions were taken of ADL employees and law
enforcement personnel, but ADL was able to withhold the
information until Aug. 19, 1997, when Judge Alexander
Saldamando of San Francisco ruled that ADL and the San
Francisco police would have to disclose to the plaintiffs
the illegally obtained information, from whom it had been
obtained, and to whom it was sent.

ADL has announced it will seek a writ from the Court of
Appeals to block enforcement of Judge Saldamando's order.
The result should be known by Oct. 30, which is the date
ADL is required to produce the information.

The stubborn refusal of ADL to reveal where it received
its information, and to whom and for what purposes it was
disclosed, promises many more revealing insights on the
methods and motivations of this American-incorporated
organization which has been working diligently on behalf
of the governments of Israel and apartheid South Africa.

Kurt Holden is a free-lance writer who divides his time
between the U.S. and the Middle East.


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#67 14-10-2013 23:22:16

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

CA Appeals Court Decision on ADL

Filed 11/16/98

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO

ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE
OF B'NAI B'RITH et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

Respondent;
AUDREY SHABBAS et al.,

Real Parties in Interest. ______________________________/

A080694

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

(San Francisco County
Superior Court No.951031)

     The underlying issue in this case relates to the
right to privacy.  Whether that right was violated cannot
be determined, however, without the disclosure of
relevant evidence.  The question before us now is whether
such disclosure can be compelled without violence to the
First Amendment values requiring protection of a
journalist's confidential sources and information.

     Petitioners Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith
(ADL) and Roy Bullock seek to set aside a discovery order
issued by respondent superior court (Judge Alex
Saldamando) on September 19, 1997, granting
reconsideration and ordering compliance with certain
discovery requests by real parties in interest after
finding that they have now met the criteria set forth in
Mitchell v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 268, to
overcome the journalist's qualified privilege.
Respondent court stayed the effect of its order pending
final determination of this writ petition.  Initially,
this court denied the petition without opinion.
Thereafter, the Supreme Court directed us to issue an
order to show cause and to place the matter on calendar.

     As explained hereafter, we hold that petitioners, as
journalists, are immune from liability for violating
Civil Code section 1798.53 under the First Amendment as
to all but one and possibly two other real parties in
interest by virtue of their status as limited purpose
public figures.  As to the remaining non-public figure or
figures, petitioners are not protected by the First
Amendment from liability and a discovery order.

     Petitioners are entitled to the protection of the
First Amendment, however, only insofar as the information
sought to be discovered was obtained and used by them for
legitimate journalistic purposes.  The journalist's
privilege would not protect against discovery directed to
whether any non-public information gathered about real
parties in interest was privately disclosed to a foreign
government or others in violation of Civil Code section
1798.53, as claimed, because such usage does not
constitute journalism.  The discovery order issued by the
trial court was not so limited.  The order must therefore
be vacated and the matter remanded for reconsideration in
light of our opinion. I.  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND

     Petitioners ADL and Roy Bullock, along with Richard
Hirschhaut and Thomas Gerard, are defendants in an action
brought by real parties in interest for invasion of
privacy in violation of Civil Code section 1798.53.
Defendant Hirschhaut was the director o f ADL's office in
San Francisco; defendant Bullock has been a paid
"fact-finder" for ADL for the past 32 years; and
defendant Gerard was employed by the San Francisco Police
Department.  The complaint alleges that defendants
secretly gathered and disclose d personal information
about real parties in interest, 17 individuals, in
violation of Civil Code section 1798.53 because of their
expressed views in opposition to the apartheid policy of
the then-government of South Africa and/or Israeli
policies vis--vi s the Palestinians.

     Real parties learned of defendants' activities as a
result of an investigation conducted by the San Francisco
District Attorney and the Police Department.  The
District Attorney commenced the investigation in 1993
after the Police Department learned that one or more of
its officers might have been improperly providing
confidential government information to Bullock, who was
employed by ADL to investigate organizations opposing the
aforesaid policies of the governments of Israel and South
Africa.

     At the conclusion of his investigation, the District
Attorney determined that Bullock and/or ADL had solicited
and received government information not made public from
San Francisco police officers and others.  In November
1993, the District Attorney commenced a civil action
against ADL and Bullock alleging violation of Business
and Professions Code section 17200.1 That action was
settled after ADL agreed to a permanent injunction
prohibiting ADL and Bullock from obtaining documents or
other information they know could not legally be
disclosed to them.  Real parties in interest, who
commenced this action in April 1993, claim that
non-public information contained in government records
relating to each of them was improperly obtained and
disclosed to others by ADL.

     Civil Code section 1798.53 is part of the
Information Practices Act of 1977, which generally
imposes limitations on the right of governmental entities
to disclose personal information about an individual.
(Nicholson v. McClatchy Newspapers (1986) 177 Ca l.App.3d
509, 514, fn. 2.) The statute was designed by the
Legislature to prevent misuse of the increasing amount of
information about citizens which government agencies
amass in the course of their multifarious activities, the
disclosure of which could be embarrassing or otherwise
prejudicial to individuals or organizations.2 Indeed, the
Legislature made express findings to that effect:  "(a)
The right to privacy is being threatened by the
indiscriminate collection, maintenance, and dissemination
of personal information and the lack of effective laws
and legal remedies.  (b) The increasing use of computers
and other sophisticated information technology has
greatly magnified the potential risk to individual
privacy that can occur from the maintenance of personal
information.  (c) In order to protect the privacy of
individuals, it is necessary that the maintenance and
dissemination of personal information be subject to
strict limits."  (Civ. Code, $ 1798.1.)

     Civil Code section 1798.53 is a key remedial
provision of the Information Practices Act.  It provides
a civil cause of action for damages against any "person,
other than an employee of the state or of a local
government agency acting solely in his or her official
capacity, who intentionally discloses information, not
otherwise public, which they know or should reasonably
know was obtained from personal information maintained by
a state agency or from 'records' within a 'system of
records' (as these terms are defined in the Federal
Privacy Act of 1974) . . . maintained by a federal
government agency. . . ."  Civil Code section 1798.53
additionally authorizes an award of exemplary damages of
at least $2,500 and attorney's fees and costs to a
successful plaintiff.

     On June 10, 1993, real parties served their first
demand for production and inspection of documents.  ADL
moved for a protective order on the ground that ADL is a
journalist protected by the qualified journalist's
privilege set forth in Mitchell v. Superior Court, supra,
37 Cal.3d 268.  After a lengthy hearing on the motion,
the court (Judge Barbara Jones) ruled on November 17,
1993, that ADL, which publishes magazines and
newsletters, qualified as a journalist, and that ruling
is not now disputed.  The court granted ADL's motion for
a protective order and denied real parties' document
request as then phrased on the ground that the latter had
failed to satisfy the criteria set forth in Mitchell v.
Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d 268.  The order stated
t he court would reconsider the matter if real parties
reformulated the document requests and were unsuccessful
in obtaining the information from alternative sources.

     Real parties continued their discovery attempts.  On
November 19, 1993, they served a second document request
on ADL.  On November 24, 1993, real parties served the
San Francisco District Attorney with a subpoena for
documents referring to specified persons and
organizations that had been seized by the police
department during its investigation of ADL.  On April 6,
1994, the court granted ADL's motion to quash the
subpoena "with respect to any documents that originated
with ADL or Bullock, or that were obtained, procured or
developed by ADL or Bullock."  In September 1994, the
court ordered Bullock to appear for deposition to explore
only information not within the ambit of the journalist's
privilege set forth in Mitchell and to produce certain
documents .  Discovery of other categories of documents
was stayed "without prejudice unless and until plaintiffs
have established, pursuant to Mitchell, their entitlement
to proceed with discovery of matters protected by the
journalist's privilege."

     Mitchell v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d 268,
holds that there is a qualified journalist's privilege in
a civil action to refuse to reveal confidential sources
or information obtained from those sources and that the
scope of the privilege depends up on a weighing of five
factors.

     The first is the nature of the litigation and
whether the reporter is a party.  "In general, disclosure
is appropriate in civil cases, especially when the
reporter is a party to the litigation."  (Id. at p. 279.)
"A second consideration is the relevance of the
information sought to plaintiff's cause of action. . . .
[M]ere relevance is insufficient to compel discovery;
disclosure should be denied unless the information goes
'to the heart of the plaintiff's claim.'"  (Id. at p.
280.) Third, discovery should be denied unless the
plaintiff has exhausted all alternative sources of
obtaining the needed information.  Fourth, the court
should consider the importance of protecting
confidentiality in the case at hand.  (Id. at p. 282.)
"Finally, the court may require the plaintiff to make a
prima facie showing that the alleged defamatory
statements are false before requiring disclosure."  (Id.
at p. 283.)

     In June 1996, real parties sought reconsideration of
the earlier limitations on discovery, arguing that they
had now satisfied the Mitchell criteria.3 Specifically,
they asked the court to order (1) ADL to produce
documents in response to their third document request,
(2) reissuance of the subpoena duces tecum to the police
department, and (3) Irwin Suall to answer certain
questions and to produce documents listed in his notice
of deposition.  Real parties memorandum of points and
authorities recited the efforts undertaken since the
earlier ruling:  They took the depositions of defendants
Gerard, Bullock and Hirschhaut, San Diego Sheriff's
Deputy Tim Carroll, San Francisco Police Lieutenant Ron
Roth, former Israeli Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky and
ADL' s fact-finding director, Irwin Suall.  Real parties
had reframed their document requests to seek information
solely about plaintiffs and members of the putative
class.4 Despite an order allowing real parties to
ascertain the job assignments of Roy Bullock, ADL refused
to produce documents or allow Irwin Suall, who made 95
percent of those job assignments, to identify them.

     In their memorandum of points and authorities in
support of the request for reconsideration, respondents
characterized the facts that had emerged from their
discovery as follows:  (1) Bullock, with Hirschhaut's
knowledge and under Suall's direction, soli cited and
received confidential information including driver's
license numbers and post office box numbers from law
enforcement officers; (2) up to half of ADL's efforts
during 1986 to 1993 were directed to obtaining
information about individuals such as real parties in
interest and organizations holding views opposing
Israel's policies or apartheid in South Africa; (3) of
the ADL files in police possession, some seven and
one-half boxes contain illegally-obtained confidential
information about individual s and organizations; (4)
Bullock and/or Hirschhaut admitted that ADL or its agents
gave information to the Government of Israel and sold
information to the Government of South Africa; (5) from
1986-1993, Bullock and Hirschhaut transmitted hundreds of
reports to Suall and other ADL offices that included
information from confidential sources or "official
friends" (law enforcement officers); (6) ADL routinely
provided information on individuals, including real party
in interest Yigal Arens, to the greater community of
12,000 ADL supporters in the Bay Area, characterizing
those opposed to Israel as propagandists using their
anti-Zionism as a guise for deeply-felt anti-Semitism;
(7) ADL's files seized by the police contained
information from confidential government files on real
parties in interest Steven Zeltzer and Jeffrey Blankfort;
(8) information on real party in interest Helen McCloskey
in ADL's files contained information that appeared to
have come from the Government of Israel; and (9) ADL's
head "fact -finder," Irwin Suall, had met with the
Israeli intelligence officials in Israel.

     Respondent court heard argument on the motion to
reconsider on June 27, 1997, and filed its written order
on September 19, 1997.  The court found that real parties
had met the criteria of Mitchell:  (1) The news gatherers
are parties to the action; (2) the information goes to
the heart of real parties' case in that it will identify
the source of illegally-obtained information admittedly
obtained by ADL and the dissemination, if any, of such
information in violation of Civil Code section 1798.53
and article I, section 1, of the California Constitution:
(3) real parties have exhausted all reasonable
alternative sources of information and do not have any
practical way of obtaining such information from sources
other than defendants and the San Francisco Police
Department; (4) the non-public information to be
disclosed does not relate to public figures or refer to
matters of great public importance that would justify
nondisclosure under Nicholson v. McClatchy Newspaper Co.,
supra, 177 Cal.App.3d 509; (5) plaintiffs have presented
a prima facie case that defendants Bullock, Hirschhaut
and ADL have illegally solicited, obtained and
transmitted Civil Code section 1798.53 information in the
cases of plaintiffs Blankfort and Zeltzer, and there is
a reasonable probability that they have done so in the
case of the other named plaintiffs.

     The court ordered the following discovery:  (A)
Reissuance of the subpoena duces tecum to the San
Francisco Police Department and "in response to such
subpoena the San Francisco Police Department shall
produce for Plaintiffs' inspection and copying subject to
the Protective Order herein all non-public information
obtained by ADL from public agents which is contained in
the ADL records seized by the Police Department in 1992
and 1993."  The parties are authorized to select a
discovery referee or master to be compensated by the
parties to supervise and monitor the production of the
seized records.  (B) ADL is to fully respond to
Plaintiffs' third document request within 20 days by
producing the following documents:  "(1) all memoranda or
documents describing or relating to the work assignments
of Roy Bullock from Irwin Suall which involve police or
other public agents; (2) each document containing
illegally-obtained non-public information relating to
Plaintiffs and individuals or organizations in their
putative class as described by Lt. Roth; (3) each item of
non-public information gathered or acquired by ADL and/or
Bullock which refer or relate to any of the named
Plaintiffs; (4) each ADL publication distributed outside
the ADL which includes the name of a Plaintiff or spouse;
(5) all 'pink' reports [indicating information had come
from confidential informant] dating from 1988 to 1993
transmitted from San Francisco as described by Bullock
which contain or refer to non-public information about
Plaintiffs' or members of organization in their putative
class; (6) any ADL communications to the ADL, 'Jewish or
larger community' identified by Mr. Hirschhaut in his
deposition which referred to Plaintiffs or their class;
and (7) a roster of the ADL 'community' as identified by
Mr. Hirschhaut."  (C) Irwin Suall was to answer in
writing within 20 days specified questions that had been
propounded to him at his deposition in April 1996, and he
was to produce any documents demanded of him in his
notice of deposition that are in his possession and have
not been previously produced.  (D) The time for Victor
Ostrosky to comply with the request to produce documents
not within the journalist's privilege was extended to 60
days following completion of the deposition of Irwin
Suall.  II.  DISCUSSION

     Petitioners mount two challenges to the superior
court's ruling.  First they argue that discovery from ADL
may not be compelled because ADL cannot, consistent with
free press guarantees, be liable under Civil Code section
1798.53.  Petitioners' second argument is that respondent
court erred in finding that real parties in interest had
now met the Mitchell criteria to overcome the qualified
privilege.5 A.

     Turning first to the question of immunity,
petitioners maintain that Civil Code section 1798.53 must
give way to a journalists free press rights, including
the right to ask for, receive and publish confidential
information from government sources.

     Mitchell clearly does not provide journalists an
absolute immunity.  "When called upon to weigh the
fundamental values arguing both for and against compelled
disclosure, the overwhelming majority of courts have
concluded that the question of a reporter's privilege in
civil cases must be decided on a case-by-case basis, with
the trial court examining and balancing the asserted
interests in light of the facts of the case before it.
Thus, the courts conclude, there is neither an absolute
duty to disclose n or an absolute privilege to withhold,
but instead a qualified privilege against compelled
disclosure which depends on the facts of each particular
case.  [Citations.]"  (Mitchell v. Superior Court, supra,
37 Cal.3d at p. 276.)

     Petitioners maintain that the weighing undertaken by
the trial court in this case cannot be squared with a
series of assertedly similar cases in which it was found
that disclosure could not be punished.  They rely on
Nicholson v. McClatchy Newspapers, supra, 177 Cal.App.3d
509; Alim v. Superior Court (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 144;
Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia (1978) 435 U.S.
829; and The Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989) 491 U.S. 524.
Petitioners also find support in the California Supreme
Court's recent opinion in Shulman v. Group W Productions,
Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 200.  Real parties in interest
respond that the cited cases are all manifestly
distinguishable on their facts; and, indeed, that the
cases petitioners rely upon actually support disclosure
in the different circumstances presented in this case.

     In Nicholson, an unsuccessful candidate for Attorney
General sued the State Bar, two newspapers, and their
reporters for damages arising from the publication of the
unauthorized disclosure of the confidential fact that the
Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation had found him
not qualified for judicial appointment.  The causes of
action asserted against the media defendants included one
for breach of Civil Code section 1798.53 and one for
breach of the common law right of privacy by intrusion.
The trial court found that the publication was
constitutionally privileged and sustained the media
defendants' demurrers without leave to amend.  The Court
of Appeal affirmed, noting that the allegations as to the
media defendants were only that they had sought out
newsworthy information which they subsequently published.
Such allegations were insufficient to avoid the effect of
the constitutional privilege.  (Id. at p. 520.) There was
no allegation of impermissible reporting techniques.6 The
plaintiff was a public figure since he had recently run
for statewide office, and the evaluation of the judicial
qualifications was a newsworthy subject.  (Id. at p.
515.) While the government may desire to keep some
proceedings confidential and may impose the duty upon
participants to maintain confidentiality, it may not
impose criminal or civil liability upon the press for
obtaining and publishing newsworthy information through
routine reporting techniques."  (Id. at pp. 519-520.) The
court observed that although reporters are not privileged
to commit crimes and independent torts in gathering the
news, there was no allegation that any such impermissible
techniques had been employed.  (Id. at pp. 519-520.)

     In Alim v. Superior Court, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d
144, Walter Atlee, former Chief Deputy Director of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, sued a newspaper
reporter, editor and publisher for invasion of privacy
under Civil Code section 1798.53 and libel based on an
article containing allegedly false and confidential
information from federal Veterans Administration records
indicating that he had wrongfully received overpayments
of a veteran's disability stipend while employed.  The
trial court granted the newspaper defendants' motion for
summary judgment on all causes of action but that under
Civil Code section 1798.53 on the ground that Atlee, who
was a public figure, could not prove malice under the New
York Times doctrine.  (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
(1964) 376 U.S. 254.) The trial court denied summary
judgment on the Civil Code section 1798.53 claim on the
ground that the constitutional doctrine did not apply to
it.  The Court of Appeal disagreed, rejecting the claim
that an action under Civil Code section 1798.53 is not
subject to free press defenses analogous to those
available in common law actions for invasion of privacy.
The court held that a cause of action under Civil Code
section 1798.53 is subject to the New York Times actual
malice standard and that there is a privilege for
truthful publication of information bearing on the
fitness for office of a public official.  (Id. at pp.
152-153.)

     In Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, supra,
435 U.S. 829, the Supreme Court held that the First
Amendment did not permit the criminal punishment of a
newspaper for publishing truthful information regarding
confidential proceedings of the Virginia Judicial Inquiry
and Review Commission.  "The operation of the Virginia
Commission, no less than the operation of the judicial
system itself, is a matter of public interest,
necessarily engaging the attention of the news media.
The article published by Landmark provided accurate
factual information about a legislatively authorized
inquiry pending before the Judicial Inquiry and Review
Commission and in so doing clearly served those interests
in public scrutiny and discussion of governmental affairs
which the First Amendment was adopted to protect."  (Id.
at p. 839.) The court specifically noted, however, that
the case did not involve "the possible applicability of
the statute to one who secures the information by illegal
means and thereafter divulges it.  We do not have before
us any constitutional challenge to a State's power to
keep the Commission's proceedings confidential or to
punish participants for breach of this mandate."  (Id. at
p. 837.) The only issue before the court was whether a
newspaper could be punished for publishing truthful
information about confidential proceedings.  (Ibid.)

     The Florida Star v. B.J.F., supra, 491 U.S. 524,
held that a newspaper could not be held liable for
violating a state statute prohibiting the publishing of
a rape victim's name which it had obtained from a
publicly released police report.  The court emphasized
that its holding was limited to the situation in which
the newspaper published truthful information that had
been lawfully obtained.  (Id. at p. 541.) The court
expressly noted it was not addressing the question of
whether a newspaper may ever be punished for publishing
information that had been unlawfully acquired.  (Id. at
p. 535, fn. 8.)

     Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc., supra, 18
Cal.4th 200, addressed the common law invasion of privacy
torts of public disclosure of private facts and intrusion
in an action brought by two automobile accident victims
against a television producer that videotaped and
broadcast a documentary rescue program showing the
plaintiffs' rescue and transportation to the hospital in
a medical helicopter.  The court held that summary
judgment was proper as to the cause of action for
publication of private facts b ut not as to the cause of
action for intrusion.  Lack of newsworthiness was held to
be an essential element of a cause of action based on a
claim that publication has given unwanted publicity to
allegedly private aspects of a person's life.  The
subject matter of the broadcast as a whole was of
legitimate public concern.  "Automobile accidents are by
their nature of interest to that great portion of the
public that travels frequently by automobile.  The rescue
and medical treatment of accident victims is also of
legitimate concern to much of the public, involving as it
does a critical service that any member of the public may
someday need."  (Id. at p. 228.) Likewise, the victim's
appearance and words as she was extricated from the
overturned car, placed in the helicopter, and transported
to the hospital were of legitimate public concern.  The
intrusion cause of action, by contrast, was held not to
carry any special immunity or privilege for the press.
"In contrast to the broad privilege the press enjoy s for
publishing truthful, newsworthy information in its
possession, the press has no recognized constitutional
privilege to violate generally applicable laws in pursuit
of material.  Nor, even absent an independent crime or
tort, can a highly offensive intrusion into a private
place, conversation, or source of information generally
be justified by the plea that the intruder hoped thereby
to get good material for a news story."  (Id. at p. 242,
italics in original.) Thus, summary judgment was improper
as to the cause of action for intrusion based on the
cameraman's presence in the medical helicopter and the
recording and amplifying of the victim's conversations
with medical personnel.  (Id. at pp. 237-238.)

     The trial court found that the cases just discussed
were inapplicable because they involved newsworthy
information, plaintiffs who were public figures, or both.
According to the trial court, the non-public information
gathered about real parties was not newsworthy, and real
parties were not public figures.  Petitioners challenge
these determinations, arguing that real parties are
political activists visibly engaged in public opposition
to policies of the Israeli government and have therefore
made themselves limited purpose public figures.

     Petitioners rely primarily on Reader's Digest Assn.
v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244; Copp v. Paxton
(1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 829; and Lind v. Grimmer (9th Cir.
1994) 30 F.3d 1115.  After reviewing these authorities
and the information provided in the exhibits relating to
the political activities that real parties in interest
have undertaken, we agree that at least 14 and possibly
16 of the 17 real parties in interest must be considered
limited purpose public figures in relation to this
litigation.

     The leading California case on public figures is
Reader's Digest Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d
at pages 254-255, where Synanon, a rehabilitation program
for drug addicts, and Charles Dederich, its founder, were
held to be public figures by virtue of their myriad
attempts to thrust their case and Synanon in general into
the public eye.  In reaching that conclusion, the court
traced the evolution of the public figure doctrine,
noting that it was first recognized in Curtis Publishing
Co. v. Butt s (1967) 388 U.S. 130, and subsequently
refined in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S.
323, where "the court provided a twofold rationale for
extending the New York Times rule to 'public figures.'
First, it recognized that public figures are gene rally
less vulnerable to injury from defamation because of
their ability to resort to effective 'self help.' Such
persons ordinarily enjoy considerably greater access than
private individuals to the media and other channels of
communication.  This access in turn enables them to
counter criticism and to expose the fallacies of
defamatory statements.  (418 U.S. at p. 344.) Second, and
more significantly, the court cited a normative
consideration that public figures are less deserving of
protection than private persons because public figures,
like public officials, have 'voluntarily exposed
themselves to increased risk of injury from defamatory
falsehood concerning them.' (418 U.S. at p. 345; see also
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, supra, 388 U.S. at p.
164 (Warren, C.J., conc. in result).)"  (Reader's Digest
Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 253.)

     "Having thus explained the rationale for the public
figure classification, the Gertz decision defined two
classes of public figures.  The first is the 'all
purpose' public figure who has 'achiev[ed] such pervasive
fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all
purposes and in all contexts.' The second category is
that of the 'limited purpose' or 'vortex' public figure,
an individual who 'voluntarily injects himself or is
drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby
becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues.'
(418 U.S. at p. 351.) Unlike the 'all purpose' public
figure, the 'limited purpose' public figure loses certain
protection for his reputation only to the extent that the
allegedly defamatory communication relates t o his role
in a public controversy."  (Reader's Digest Assn. v.
Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d at pp. 253-254.)

     In determining that Synanon and Dederich must be
accorded public figure status for purposes of their
defamation action, the court based its conclusion on
their efforts to thrust themselves into the public eye.
Synanon and Dederich had been the subject o f a
full-length commercial movie, four books, favorable
magazine articles in Life, Time and even Reader's Digest,
and numerous newspaper articles.  "For many years Synanon
engaged in extensive publicity campaigns in which it
sought and achieved a favorable reputation as an
organization for the rehabilitation of drug addicts."
(Reader's Digest Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.
3d at p. 255.) The court concluded:  "While any person or
organization has the right to engage in publicity efforts
and to attempt to influence public and media opinion
regarding their cause, such significant, voluntary
efforts to inject oneself into the public arena require
that such a person or organization be classified as a
public figure in any related defamation actions. "  (Id.
at p. 256.)7

     In Copp v. Paxton, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th 829, a
self-proclaimed earthquake expert undertook efforts to
organize a worldwide conference on disaster mitigation.
In connection with his efforts he took issue with the
conventional duck-and-cover advice given to
schoolchildren and distributed a flyer describing his
views.  After being subjected to public criticism and
attacks on his credentials, Copp brought an action for
defamation against a county emergency services officer
and others.  Our colleagues in Division One of this court
concluded that Copp was a limited purpose public figure
because he had attempted to thrust himself into the
forefront of debate on emergency preparedness by
organizing a worldwide conference, passing out flyers and
speaking at public meetings.  (Id. at p. 846.) In
reaching this conclusion, the court observed:  "It is not
necessary to show that a plaintiff actually achieves
prominence in the public debate; it is sufficient that
'[a plaintiff] attempts to thrust himself into the public
eye' (Rudnick v. McMillan (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1183,
1190) or to influence a public decision."  (Id. at pp.
845-846.)

     In Lind v. Grimmer, supra, 30 F.3d 1115, a
newsletter publisher brought an action challenging the
constitutionality of a Hawaii statute prohibiting
disclosure of information concerning investigations
undertaken by Hawaii's campaign spending commission.  The
Ninth Circuit held the statute unconstitutional as
applied to Lind who revealed in a newsletter that he had
filed a complaint against the University of Hawaii
professional assembly alleging it had failed to disclose
certain campaign contributions.  The court rejected
Hawaii's claim that it was justified in restricting
political speech about complaints before the Campaign
Spending Commission in order to promote other political
speech by candidates and their supporters.  The court
observed that candidates "surely are public figures, and
therefore must be prepared to endure a heightened level
of criticism -- including charges of campaign spending
improprieties -- precisely in order to promote First
Amendment values. . . .  Candidates' supporters, by
injecting themselves into public debate and attempting
financially to influence its outcome, also must be
prepared to suffer what to them may be unpleasant
discussion of their contribution practices."  (Lind v.
Grimmer, supra, 30 F.3d at p. 1120.)

     Petitioners contend that real parties have
sufficiently injected themselves into the maelstrom of
public debate over Israeli-Palestinian relations and
other topical issues to qualify as limited purpose public
figures.  As examples, they cite declaration s and
interrogatory responses submitted by real parties Jeffrey
Blankfort and Steven Zeltzer (who the trial court found
to have made out prima facie cases of violation of their
rights under the privacy statute) describing their
interest and activities in support of Palestine and in
speaking out against Israeli policies and against
apartheid in South Africa.  Blankfort stated:  In 1981 he
was a charter member of the November 29th Coalition for
Palestine; in June 1982 he solicited names and funds for
an ad in the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner
protesting the Israeli invasion of Lebanon; in 1983, he
spent four months in Israel, Lebanon, Jordan and the West
Bank as a free-lance photojournalist; in January 1987, he
organized an anti-apartheid demonstration in San
Francisco; in May 1987, he and Steve Zeltzer organized a
forum on the Middle East at a church; in November 1989,
he spoke at a conference in Boston on the connection
between Israel and South Africa; he spoke on Israeli
censorship in June 1993 at a meeting of the American
Library Association; he is the editor of the Middle East
Labor Bulletin.  Zeltzer recited similar activities:  He
helped Blankfort form the Labor Committee on the Middle
East in 1987 whose purpose was to provide information to
t he U.S. workers about the conditions of working people
of the Middle East and to counter anti-Arab racism in the
United States; in the early 1980s he helped form the
Committee to Free Moses Mayekiso, a South African who had
been jailed because of his union activities in defense of
Black South African workers.

     We agree that the activities undertaken by Blankfort
and Zeltzer are sufficient to make them limited purpose
public figures under the authorities previously
discussed.  (Accord Nadel v. Regents of University of
California (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1269 -1270 [public
figure status where plaintiffs played leadership role in
protesting university's plan to build volleyball courts
in People's Park by speaking at city council meetings and
demonstrations, communicating with news media, and
staffing information table at park]; Lewis v. Ueberroth
(1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 442 [public figure status where
plaintiffs were officers in organization opposing
construction of Olympics sports facilities in Sepulveda
Basin]; see also Annot., Who is "Public Figure" for
Purposes of Defamation Action (1994) 19 A.L.R.5th 1.)

     We have reviewed the declarations and interrogatory
responses prepared by the fifteen other real parties in
interest and submitted as part of the exhibits to
determine whether the level of their activities was such
that they may also be found to be limit ed purpose public
figures.  We conclude that all but three of the fifteen
have described sufficient involvement in Middle East
and/or South African causes to be considered public
figures for purposes of this litigation.  These twelve
individuals are each energetic members of numerous
organizations dedicated to advancing human rights in the
Middle East or South Africa or have otherwise been
actively involved in such political efforts.

     Jock Taft, however, does not appear to qualify as a
limited purpose public figure.  So far as the record
reveals, the only pertinent activity in which he is
engaged is teaching a class on the Palestinians at U.C.
Berkeley between 1984 and 1990.  Taft states that his
classes were disrupted by students allegedly connected
with ADL and may have been monitored by Bullock.  Merely
teaching a university class does not, in our view,
constitute the purposeful political activity that
warrants classification as a limited purpose public
figure.  Taft cannot be said to have voluntarily injected
himself into the public arena merely because he teaches
at a university.
     The present record does not satisfactorily show
whether the remaining two real parties in interest --
Paula Kotakis and Margaret McCormack -- are limited
purpose public figures.  The declaration of Paula Kotakis
indicates that for an unspecified period o f time she has
been active in several unidentified organizations
allegedly listed as targets of Roy Bullock's efforts to
collect information.  The information about McCormack's
activities is even more sketchy.  In response to an
interrogatory inquiring whether protected information
about her was disclosed, she responded: "The Palestine
Human Rights Campaign is no longer active and its office
in Washington, D.C. was burned."  The record contains no
other information regarding any relevant political
activities in which Ms. McCormack may have been engaged.
As we shall remand the case, the parties will have an
opportunity to augment the record and obtain a ruling
from the trial court as to whether Paula Kotakis and
Margaret McCormack are limited purpose pub lic figures
for purposes of this litigation.

     Aside from the question of public figure status,
real parties in interest still dispute petitioners' claim
of First Amendment immunity under Civil Code 1798.53 by
arguing that because their news gathering techniques were
unlawful these activities fell outside the scope of First
Amendment protection.  We do not believe the alleged
unlawfulness of petitioners' information-gathering
activities is dispositive of their right to the
protection of the First Amendment.  Petitioners would be
entitled to that protection even if they did violate the
statute, but only if they obtained, used and disseminated
the information at issue as journalists.

     One of the unusual aspects of this case is that,
unlike most newsgathering organizations, petitioners'
activities are not limited to journalism.  ADL is a tax
exempt non-profit membership organization which describes
itself in its pleadings as "a civil rights and human
relations organization [which] engages in a broad range
of activities designed to combat anti-Semitism, prejudice
and bigotry of all kinds.  Through its Intergroup
Relations Division, ADL works to promote greater
understanding of Jews, Judaism and Jewish concerns, as
well as intergroup and interreligious understanding.
Through its International Affairs Division, ADL seeks to
focus attention on the security of Jews around the world
and the strategic importance of the State of Israel."

     Many of the activities through which ADL seeks to
achieve the foregoing purposes are unrelated to
conventional journalism, which we conceive to be the
gathering and editing of material of current interest for
presentation through print or broadcast media , or on the
internet, and available to interested members of the
public.  For example, ADL privately circulates
information, some of it "confidential," only to certain
members and persons affiliated with other groups that
share its goals.

     Unfortunately, the cases arising under Civil Code
section 1798.53 do not shed a great deal of light on the
breadth of constitutionally protected journalistic
activities.  Nicholson provides some guidance, at least
with respect to the gathering (as oppose d to the
dissemination) of information.  That case involved a
cause of action for breach of privacy by intrusion based
upon news gathering activities similar to that at issue
here, namely, "requesting and persuading" employees of
the State Bar to engage i n the "unauthorized and
unlawful disclosure" of confidential information.  (See
fn. 6, ante.) The court characterized the allegation as
simply stating that the media defendants sought out the
newsworthy information which they subsequently published
in a newspaper of general circulation.  The court held
that this type of activity was within the news gathering
activities protected by the First Amendment.  (Nicholson
v. McClatchy Newspapers, supra, 177 Cal.App.3d at p.
520.) In reaching this conclusion the court relied upon
Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. (1979) 443 U.S. 97,
which held that the state could not punish the
publication of information obtained through routine
newspaper reporting techniques (i.e., asking witnesses,
police, and an assistant prosecutor for the youthful
offender's name).

     The Nicholson court distinguished routine news
gathering techniques from those employed in Dietemann v.
Time, Inc. (9th Cir. 1971) 449 F.2d 245, where newsmen
gained entrance to the plaintiff's home by subterfuge and
surreptitiously photographed him and recorded his
conversations by means of a hidden camera and electronic
devices.  Such activities were not protected by the First
Amendment, according to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  Likewise, a photographer's constant
surveillance, obtrusive and intruding presence in
photographing Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis was held to be
outside the news gathering privilege of the First
Amendment.  (Galella v. Onassis (2d Cir. 1973) 487 F.2d
986.) Such conduct was contrasted with the routine news
gathering techniques which include "asking persons
questions, including those with confidential or
restricted information.  While the government may desire
to keep some proceedings confidential and may impose the
duty upon participants to maintain confidentiality, it
may not impose criminal or civil liability upon the press
for obtaining and publishing newsworthy information
through routine reporting techniques."  (Nicholson v.
McClatchy Newspapers, supra, 177 Cal.App.3d at pp.
519-520.)

     In light of the foregoing, it is apparent that,
except with respect to Jock Taft and possibly also Paula
Kotakis and Margaret McCormack, the manner in which
petitioners allegedly obtained information about real
parties constitutes legitimate newsgathering.  At least
fourteen real parties are limited purpose public figures
engaged in a newsworthy activity.  The fact that ADL
apparently never published information about these
fourteen individuals in the magazines and newspapers they
publish and make available to the public is of no great
moment, as such information may well have been sought in
connection with stories that never materialized.

     The problem in this case, however, relates not so
much to the manner in which petitioners may have obtained
the information in question, but the manner in which they
may have used and disseminated that information.  The
case law does not address this aspect of the journalistic
enterprise since the situations it deals with are
invariably those in which the defendant published the
information in question in a newspaper or magazine
available to the public.  Here, the complaint alleges
that petitioners disclosed protected non-public
information to foreign governments and other persons and
organizations with no compelling need to know such
information, in some cases for a fee.  As indicated,
petitioner Bullock testified at his deposition testimony
that he ha d sold or given undisclosed information to
representatives of the government of South Africa.
Suall, ADL's chief "fact-finder," stated at his
deposition that he had met in Israel with agents of the
Mossad, the Israeli security agency, presumably for the
purpose of sharing information.  If Bullock's disclosures
to South African officials involved non-public
information about real parties, or if Suall's meetings
with Israeli officials also involved disclosures of such
information, the protections of the First Amendment would
not be available, because private disclosures of such
information to foreign governments could not conceivably
constitute a legitimate and constitutionally protected
journalistic activity.  Nor would the private or
"confidential" disclosure of such information to a
network consisting of members of ADL and/or affiliated
organizations not involved in journalism constitute a
protected activity.

     To be sure, it has not been shown that any
information that may have been gathered by petitioners
about real parties in interest was in fact privately
disclosed to the governments of Israel or South Africa,
or to any other entities or individuals.  Nonetheless,
real parties have made a showing that ADL was found by
the San Francisco Police Department to be in possession
of non-public information pertaining to certain real
parties in interest.  The deposition testimony of Bullock
and Suall creates a possibility this information was
privately disclosed sufficient to justify discovery
calculated to lay the matter to rest.  Accordingly, we
conclude real parties are entitled to discovery
specifically tailored to learn whether any information
gathered about them by ADL and its agents in violation of
Civil Code section 1798.53 was privately disclosed to the
government of Israel or South Africa, or to any other
agency or individual not a member of or employed by ADL,
or to any individual who was then a member or employee of
ADL for a non-journalistic purpose. B.

     Our conclusion that Jock Taft is not a limited
purpose public figure (and that Paula Kotakis and
Margaret McCormack also may not be such public figures)
requires us to address petitioners' challenge to the
trial court's finding that the Mitchell criteria had been
satisfied.  Petitioners assert that only one of the five
factors set forth in Mitchell has been met -- namely,
that they are parties to the litigation.  According to
petitioners, the remaining four factors do not justify
disclosure in this case:   (1) the importance of the
information sought to plaintiffs' case; (2) exhaustion of
all alternative sources of obtaining the needed
information; (3) the importance of protecting
confidentiality in the case at hand; and (4) making a
prima facie showing.  (37 Cal.3d at pp. 279-282.)

     Petitioners dispute that the information sought goes
to the heart of real parties' case.  Real parties, on the
other hand, claim the information at issue is vital to
their case. They emphasize that they cannot prevail
without identifying exactly what Bullock illegally
learned about them from confidential government sources,
from whom he illegally obtained the information, and to
whom he and ADL illegally transmitted it.  The complaint
alleges violation of privacy under article I, section 1,
of the California Constitution and under Civil Code
sections 1798.53 and 1798.569 as a result of a spying
operation conducted by defendants who secretly gathered
personal information about real parties in interest from
state and federal agencies and disclosed it to
individuals and entities with no compelling need to know
such information.  Petitioners contend that the discovery
order goes well beyond the narrow confines of a Civil
Code section 1798.53 claim in that it is not narrowly
limited to tracking the language o f the statute.
Discovery, however, is not confined to the actual issues
framed by the pleadings.  The information sought need not
be in a form that would be admissible at trial.  There
need only be a reasonable prospect that it might lead to
admissible evidence.  (See Hogan and Weber, 1 Cal. Civil
Discovery (1997) $ 1.5, p. 9.) In any event, petitioners
have acknowledged that their complaints about possible
overbreadth of certain requests may still be litigated
below.  (See fn. 5, supra.)

     Petitioners vigorously dispute the trial court's
finding that real parties have exhausted all reasonable
alternative sources of information and do not have any
practical way of obtaining such information from sources
other than defendants and the San Francisco Police
Department.  According to petitioners, real parties never
made any genuine effort to find alternative sources of
the evidence they need.  Petitioners argue, for example,
that real parties could establish who transmitted the
information by se eking discovery from certain
governmental agencies.

     The sufficiency of real parties' discovery efforts
was argued below.  Real parties deposed defendants
Bullock, Hirschhaut, and Suall, and each refused to
identify any information obtained about real parties.
They deposed Gerard and Carroll, the only po lice
officers Bullock named as sources, who denied
transmitting any of the illegally-obtained confidential
information regarding real parties Zeltzer and Blankfort
found in the possession of ADL.  Real parties also
deposed Lieutenant Roth, who could not provide any useful
information due to a protective order earlier entered by
Judge Jones.  The court agreed with real parties that
they had exhausted alternative sources.  The finding that
real parties here, unlike those in Mitchell, had deposed
all known potential alternative sources was justified.
(See Mitchell v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p.
282.)

     Petitioners contend the court ignored the factor of
the importance of protecting confidentiality in the case
at hand.  Mitchell directs that "when the information
relates to matters of great public importance, and when
the risk of harm to the source is a substantial one, the
court may refuse disclosure even though the plaintiff has
no other way of obtaining essential information."  (37
Cal.3d at p. 283.) The information sought as to Jock Taft
does not relate to a public figure or refer to matters of
great public importance that would justify nondisclosure
under Nicholson v. Superior Court, supra, 177 Cal. 509.
This case is unlike Mitchell where the information at
issue related to criminal or unethical conduct on the
part of a powerful private organization.  (Mitchell,
supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 283.) Petitioners do not suggest
that the information sought in this case reveals improper
conduct on the part of powerful interests, but relates
only to political activity on the part of private
individuals which, so far as appears, is constitutionally
protected.  Moreover, petitioners have not persuasively
shown that revelation of the information at issue would
expose them or their sources to harmful retaliation.

     Finally, petitioners object to the court's finding
that real parties had satisfied the Mitchell requirement
that a prima facie showing be made.  The showing that
needed to be made in Mitchell related to the falsity of
the allegedly defamatory information .  The Mitchell
court explained that the routine granting of motions
seeking compulsory disclosure would emasculate the
important principle established in New York Times Co. v.
Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. 254, and other cases, unless
the substance of the libel charge was first established.
A showing that the alleged defamatory statements are
false would tend to tip the balance in favor of discovery
since there is very little public interest in protecting
the source of false accusations of wrongdoing.  (37
Cal.3d at p. 283.) Accordingly, Mitchell states that "the
court may require the plaintiff to make a prima facie
showing that the alleged defamatory statements are false
before requiring disclosure."  (Ibid; italics added, fn.
omitted.)

     The Mitchell court's use of the word "may" indicates
it viewed the prima facie showing as a discretionary
requirement.  Requiring a prima facie showing that the
alleged defamatory statements are false before ordering
disclosure of journalists' sources makes sense in the
context of a defamation action.  The information needed
to show falsity would ordinarily be readily available to
the plaintiffs.  Thus, requiring such a showing before
ordering discovery would not be an onerous burden on such
parties.

     As, unlike Mitchell, this is not a defamation case,
the prima facie showing that would be made here relates
not to the falsity of petitioners' statements but the
likelihood that, in violation of Civil Code section
1798.53, they intentionally disclosed in formation, not
otherwise public, which they knew or should reasonably
have known was obtained from personal information
maintained in the records of one or more government
agencies.  Such a showing is harder for a plaintiff to
make in a suit under Civil C ode section 1798.53 than the
showing of falsity that may be required in a defamation
action.  The defendant in a defamation action ordinarily
cannot prevent the plaintiff from independently
establishing the falsity of charges, whereas a defendant
in an action under Civil Code section 1798.53 often can
prevent the necessary showing from being made simply by
resisting disclosure.  In the latter situation it may be
unfair to permit the defendant to resist discovery if,
having exhausted other possible source s of the necessary
evidence, that is the only way the plaintiff can make the
requisite showing.  This possible unfairness was one of
the reasons the Mitchell court was careful not to say
that a trial court must always require the party seeking
discovery t o make a prima facie showing, stating instead
that the trial court "may" require such a showing.
(Mitchell, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 283.)10

     Ignoring the discretionary nature of the prima facie
showing requirement, petitioners claim the court imposed
such a requirement and found that it had been met only as
to 2 of the 17 plaintiffs.  According to petitioners, the
trial court ruled that 15 of the 17 plaintiffs had not
made out a prima facie case of any potential Section
1798.53 violation by ADL.  This is not an accurate
characterization of the ruling.

     In pertinent part, the trial court stated as
follows:  "Plaintiffs have presented a prima facie case
that Defendants Bullock, Hirschhaut and ADL have
illegally solicited, obtained and transmitted Civil Code
Sec 1798.53 information in the cases of Plaintiffs
BLANKFORT and ZELTZER, and there is a reasonable
probability that they have done so in the case of the
other named Plaintiffs and members of their class."  The
italicized language, which petitioners simply ignore,
amounts to a statement that the remaining fifteen
plaintiffs had either also made a prima facie showing,11
or had at least made a showing that was sufficient under
the circumstances.  Since it allowed discovery to proceed
on behalf of all seventeen plaintiffs, the trial court
must have concluded that all had made the necessary
showing that petitioners violated Civil Code section
1798.53.  Since imposition of the prima facie showing
requirement is not mandatory, the imposition of a
somewhat lesser standard -- if indeed that is what the
trial court had in mind -- is certainly permissible.

     We agree with the finding of the trial court that
real parties in interest have met the criteria set forth
in Mitchell v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d 268, as
to Jock Taft.  It is evident, however, that the discovery
order itself is too broad and must be tailored to the
disclosure of non-public information about Jock Taft
contained in ADL files and to whom, if anyone, such
information was disclosed. C.

     The discovery order must be vacated.  To the extent
that the information sought was within the scope of ADL's
function as a journalist, ADL has a First Amendment
privilege as to claims by all but one, and possible two
others, of the 17 real parties in interest.  As to the
real parties who do not have "public figure" status,
discovery may be ordered, but it must be tailored to
obtaining non-public information about them in ADL's
files and discovering to whom, if anyone, such
information was disclosed.

     We have also concluded that, with respect to all
real parties, ADL is protected under the First Amendment
only to the extent its activities or those of its agents
constitute journalism.  Thus, allegations that ADL and
its agents privately disclosed non -public information
about real parties in interest to foreign governments or
others not acting as ADL journalists are outside the
scope of the journalist's privilege.  Accordingly,
discovery tailored to reveal whether such private
disclosures were made should be permitted.12 III.
DISPOSITION

     The order to show cause is discharged.  The petition
for writ of prohibition and/or mandate is granted, and
respondent court is directed to set aside and vacate its
September 19, 1997, order (as amended at the November 6,
1997 status conference).  The parties shall bear their
own costs on appeal. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

_________________________

Kline, P. J.

We concur:  _________________________
Haerle, J.  ______________________
Lambden, J.
Trial Court: San Francisco Superior Court Trial Judge:
Honorable Alex Saldamando  Attorneys for Petitioner:
David Goldstein Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe
Attorneys for Real Parties in Interest: Audrey Shabbas

Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith v.
Superior Court- A080694

1    Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code
defines unfair  competition as including any act
prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with  section 17500)
of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions
Code.
Section 17500 makes it unlawful for any person, firm,
corporation or association . . . to make or disseminate
or cause to be made or disseminated . . . any statement,
concerning . . . real or personal property or services,
professional or  otherwise, or concerning any
circumstance or matter of fact connected with the
proposed performance or disposition thereof,  which is
untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the
exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue
or misleading .  . . ."

2    Authorities trace the crisis of informational
privacy in government  records to a number of factors:
(1) government's increased role in the  lives of
individuals through its provision of benefits and
services and  its regulation of the activities of private
and public organizations;
(2) an increasingly complex government  bureaucracy's
reliance on written records, rather than face-to-face
contact or direct evaluation, for decision-making;
(3) the vogue of  behavior-predictive theories of
decisionmaking, which presume that a maximum amount of
information will allow fine-grained  distinctions on
decisions and predictions as to future behavior; and
(4)  the unprecedented technological revolution in
information handling,  storage, transfer, and
manipulation."  (Note, California's Privacy Act:
Controlling Government's Use of  Information? (1980) 32
Stan. L. Rev. 1001, fn. 2, citing, inter alia,  Statewide
Information Policy Comm., California State Assembly,
Final  Report, reprinted in 1 Cal. State Legislature,
1970  Reg. Sess., Appendix to the Journal of the
Assembly.)

3    The motion, memorandum of points and authorities,
and declarations in  opposition to the motion are
included in the documents that we had  ordered sealed
pursuant to ADL's request.  It would be nearly
impossible,  however, to write a meaningful opinion re
viewing the court's discovery order without referring to
the documents  supporting and opposing the ruling.  In
response to our inquiry at oral  argument, ADL consented
to unsealing all exhibits we had previously  ordered
sealed.  Accordingly, we hereby order Exhibits 36-38, 43,
44, 45, 46, and 49 unsealed.

4    On March 3, 1997, respondent court entered a
stipulated order stating,  inter alia, that the pending
discovery motions shall pertain only to the  17
individual plaintiffs, and not to the putative class they
purport to  represent.

5    Petitioners acknowledge in their petition (pp.
14-15) that the only  matter before the trial court on
the motion for reconsideration was ADLs  objection based
on the journalists privilege and that their other
objections to discovery are still outstanding  and may be
addressed after resolution of this petition.  Thus,
petitioners' objection to the order to produce "a roster
of the ADL  'community' as identified by Mr. Hirschhaut"
on First Amendment freedom  of association grounds (NAACP
v. State of Alabama (1 958) 357 U.S. 449; Britt v.
Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844) may be  addressed,
if necessary, and resolved upon termination of these
proceedings.

6    The cause of action for breach of privacy by
intrusion alleged that  the defendants pursued and
conducted an unreasonably intrusive  investigation into
Plaintiff's confidential and private affairs by means  of
soliciting, inquiring, requesting and persuading agents,
employees and members of the State Bar to engage in the
unauthorized and unlawful disclosure of information
[knowing such  information to be confidential].'"
(Nicholson v. McClatchy Newspapers,  supra, 177
Cal.App.3d at p. 520.)

7    The California Supreme Court recently addressed the
definition of a  public figure for purposes of tort and
First Amendment law in Khawar v.  Globe International,
Inc. (1998) ___ Cal.4th ___ (98 Daily Journal D.A.R.
11307) where it held that plaintiff Khawar, who was
photographed near Senator Robert Kennedy shortly before
the  Senator's assassination, was not a public figure.
Khawar's appearance  near Kennedy was not conduct by
which he thrust himself into the  limelight in an attempt
to influence the resolution of issues.  Mere association
with a matter that attracts public  attention, such as
Senator Kennedy's candidacy, does not transform one  into
a public figure in the absence of some purposeful
activity to invite  public comment or to influence the
public with relation to some issue.  (Id. at p. 11310.)

8    Victor A. Ajlouny, Yigal Arens, Amal
Barkouki-Winter, Manuel Dudum,  Carol El-Shaieb, Stephen
B. Mashney, Helen Hooper McCloskey, Donald E.  McGaffin,
Anne Poirer, Agha Saeed, Audrey Park Shabbas and Marianne
Torres.

9    Civil Code section 1798.56 provides:  Any person who
willfully requests  or obtains any record containing
personal information from an agency  under false
pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not
more  than five thousand dollars ($5,000), o r imprisoned
not more than one year, or both."

10   The other reasons suggested in Mitchell for not
imposing the prima  facie showing requirement is that it
is closely related to another  requirement, that there be
no or little public interest in protecting
confidentiality.  (Ibid.)

11   Prima facie evidence is simply that evidence which
will support a  ruling in favor of its proponent if no
controverting evidence is  presented.  (People v. Bell
(1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 554 . . . (conc. opn.  of Kaufman,
J.); 9 Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn rev. 1981)
Sufficiency of Evidence, $ 2494, pp. 379, 381, 387;
Black's  Law Dict. (5th ed. 1979) p. 1071.)  It may be
slight evidence which  creates a reasonable inference of
fact sought to be established but need  not eliminate all
contrary inferences.  ( People v. Towler (1982) 31 Cal.3d
105, 115 . . .)"  (Evans v. Paye (1995)  32 Cal.App.4th
265, 280, fn. 13.)

12   Petitioners raised some procedural objections in
their reply  memorandum that merit mention.  They claim
that real parties failed to  file a verified answer or
demurrer as required by rule 56(e), California  Rules of
Court.  Real parties, however, did file a verified answer
and return to the order to show cause.  Petitioners  also
object to the exhibits filed by real parties with their
verified  answer and return on the ground that many of
the documents contained  therein were not before the
trial court at  the time of its ruling.  Since we are
reviewing the trial court's ruling,  it is improper to
consider documents that were not before the trial  court.
Accordingly, we have not considered matters not presented
below.


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#68 14-10-2013 23:22:54

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

Cal on Spying and Names

Date: Fri Sep 18 00:23:41 1998

ADL Spy Network 2nd Part

Question: "What was the purpose of keeping all those
names, Cal?

Answer: "What was the purpose? I was an investigator for
the ADL. I investigated any and all anti-democratic
movements.

Question: "And these investigations that you were doing,
were they all in behalf of the ADL?

Answer: "They were all in behalf of the ADL."

(From deposition of Roy "Cal" Bullock, interviewed by San
Francisco Police inspector Ron Roth, January 25. (Pp. 138
and 139)

     ROY "CAL" BULLOCK has been on the "unofficial"
payroll of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith for
nearly 40 years and as recently as July 19, 1992*, was
described by its New York-based chief spymaster, Irwin
Suall, as "our Number One investigator." Bullock, as of
1992, was receiving close to $25,000 annually for
monitoring what Bullock and the ADL apparently considered
to be "anti-democratic" organizations and individuals.
The numbers of the former stretched into the hundreds and
the names of individuals he had in his computer went well
beyond 10,000, according to 700 pages of documents
released in April by San Francisco District Attorney Arlo
Smith.

     While Bullock monitored and at times infiltrated
neo-Nazi and skinhead groups, his and the ADL's main
concerns were organizations and individuals considered
threats or potential threats to Israel. These seemed to
include not only the more obvious targets, Palestinians
and Arab- Americans and their support groups, but
organizations representing virtually every segment of the
progressive social, legal and political spectrum, with a
special emphasis on those opposing apartheid.

     Under a separate "Arab" category he kept 77 files on
58 Arab-American organizations; among 647 groups
described as "pinko," multiple files were maintained on
the African National Congress and 47 other anti-apartheid
organizations, both here and South Africa-based. His
surveillance of the latter reflected the ADL's desire, as
part of Israel's "unofficial" U.S. propaganda arm, to
neutralize critics of Israel's military and economic ties
to the apartheid state, an effort, which, the records
show, was largely successful.

     This eventually led him to do similar spying for the
South African intelligence service together with his
buddy, now retired San Francisco police inspector Tom
Gerard who kept his own set of files (which is more than
just a departmental no-no and has him already indicted
and facing a possible conviction).

     Among the hundreds of others groups spied upon were
such diverse organizations as the NAACP, the National
Indian Treaty Council, Greenpeace, the Japanese-Americans
Citizens League, the Centro Legal de La Raza, the
American Civil Liberties Union, the Earth Island
Institute and the Harvey Milk Gay and Lesbian Democratic
Club. A half dozen American Jewish and Israeli groups
also received his attention including the Jerusalem-based
Alternative Information Center, Americans for Peace Now,
Friends of Yesh G'vul, the International Jewish Peace
Union and Israelis Against Occupation.

     There were also files on 20 Bay Area labor unions,
plus the San Francisco Central Labor Council, the
Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, the Boycott Shell
Committee, the Green Giant Frozen Food Workers Committee
and the San Francisco Chapter of the Committee for Labor
Union Women. In alphabetical order, files were maintained
on: AFSCME Local 3218, AFT 151, AFSCME Local 3506,
Carpenters Local 22, NABET Local 51, HERE Local 2, IAM
Local 565, ILWU, ILWU Local 6, NALC Local 214, OCAW, OCAW
8149, Plumbers & Fitters Local 93; SEIU Local 535, SEIU
Local 616; Teamster Local 921 (S.F. TDU), United Farm
Workers and UTU Local 1730.

     In addition, records were kept on the Bay Area
Network on Central America, the Portland Labor Committee
on Central America, the Free South Africa Labor Committee
and the Labor Committee on the Middle East.

     In Bullock's computer, all were labeled "pinko,"
(which in his interview with SFPD inspector Roth, he
equated with "left wing.")

     Robert Carl Miller, writing in The Voice, (July/Aug.
'93) the publication of the spied-upon Letter Carriers
Local 214, asked:

     "Why would the ADL, dedicated to 'translating the
country's democratic ideals into a way of life for all
Americans'," be wasting their time and resources (an
estimated 34 million dollars a year) investigating all of
the above-named groups?

     Why was this spy network interested in rooting out
possible anti-Semitism in the Boycott Shell Committee but
had no interest in any anti-Semitism in the boardroom of
Standard Oil? Are the wealthy purer of heart than the
working class?

     The history of oil companies is littered with
anti-Semitism. Henry Ford, not the UAW, was supporter of
Hitler. There were no files listed for corporations with
this spy network."

     What information Bullock entered into in his files
will be secret, at least until September 10th, thanks to
an accommodating San Francisco judge, Henry Louie, who
accepted the ADL's version of reality Q that their files
and those of Bullock, who remains on the ADL payroll, are
their private property, as well as protected by the First
Amendment.

     On a more ominous note, an announcement by Smith in
April that indictments would be filed against Bullock
and/or the ADL by the middle of June, appears, at best,
to have been premature, and at worst, projects the
possibility that the massive pressure being applied to
stop the investigation by the city's Jewish establishment
Q not only on the D.A.'s office, but on the mayor and the
chief of police Q may result in a compromise that would
leave the ADL free of criminal charges (see accompanying
story on Page x).

     A private class action suit has already been filed
by Attorney and former Congressman Paul "Pete" McCloskey,
himself a long-time victim of ADL surveillance and
disinformation, representing, initially, 19 individuals
who believe they were victimized by the ADL either for
their public opposition to Israeli policies and/or their
opposition to South African apartheid. The suit contends
that the ADL violated certain right to privacy laws that
are protected by the California civil code which are
designed to prevent private institutions, such as the
ADL, from receiving and disseminating personal
information that is not publicly available.

     To refresh those who have not kept up with a
fast-breaking story that has now slowed down to a crawl:
in early December, a recently retired San Francisco
policeman and former CIA operative in El Salvador,
Afghanistan, Algeria and Honduras, the aforementioned
Gerard, was accused by the FBI (for whom he had also
previously worked) of being in possession of files on
anti-apartheid activists which he had illegally obtained
and was passing on to South Africa.

     It was apparent, from an investigation of Gerard's
computer files,that he was also, illegally, providing
personal information on individuals to the ADL. He also
had turned over to Bullock, hundreds of San Francisco
Police Department files that the SFPD had been ordered to
be destroy following a previous investigation of local
police spying.

     They also found in a search of Gerard's gym locker
in February, a black executioner's hood, photos of
blindfolded men, presumably El Salvadorans, 10 passports
in different names, a CIA cable marked "Secret," what
were apparently CIA interrogation manuals and over a 100
names and phone numbers under the title, "International
Activities Division-Special Activities Group," a who's
who of the CIA," Gerard told an L.A. Times reporter who
sought him out in the Philippines where he had initially
headed, one step ahead of the authorities, and from where
has since returned and been indicted.

     All this was proof, Gerard told the Times, (April
27) that the CIA was directly involved in the training
and support of torturers and death squads operating in El
Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala in the mid-80s.

     It turned out that Gerard had a partner, a beefy,
pathologically anti-communist (of the Joe McCarthy
stripe) dealer in Asian art named Roy Bullock, who had
been a paid agent of the ADL since 1954, and who, like
Gerard, had also been working for the South African
government as well as moonlighting for the FBI.( In
August, 1987, Bullock was revealed to be an ADL agent
after joining LCOME; see MELB 4/2.)

     The ADL predictably pleaded innocent and attempted
to distance itself from both Gerard and Bullock,
referring to the latter as a "independent contractor." To
keep Bullock's undercover identity intact, the ADL paid
him through a "cut- out," Bruce Hochman, a Beverly Hills
attorney who serves on the organization's Southern
California Board.

     The ADL's alleged lack of knowledge of Bullock's
activities failed to convince Yehuda Lev, associate
editor of Los Angeles's Jewish Journal (April 30). Lev
wrote:

     "I also have enough common sense to know that a
40-year relationship with a client and agent should
result in some knowledge , each about the other. The
official explanation that Bullock was an "independent
contractor," holds no water. That may affect his Social
Security payments and tax deductibilty, but an employee
of a firm for more than four decades is more than a free
lance researcher."

     Between 1985 and 1982, Hochman's checks to Bullock
totaled $169,375. His salary for 1992 was $24,400. The
ADL's failure to his pay social security taxes and
withhold income tax are among the possible felonies with
which ADL may be charged.

     As late as February 25, the ADL was not even willing
to admit to many of its own senior employees that Bullock
was working for "the firm." In a memorandum sent to ADL
Regional Directors on that date, Jeffrey Sinensky, ADL's
Director of its Division on Civil Rights, and Ann Tourk,
its Director of Community Service refer to "information
[that] was found in the possession of an individual who
is alleged to have a relationship with ADL." The memo
also attacked reports "falsely implying that ADL worked
covertly with Tom Gerard to monitor Arab Americans."
Similar statements were included in a five-page booklet,
"Talking Points," which the directors were advised to use
in defusing criticism from ADL's "allies" in the civil
rights field.

     In the memo and in statements to the press, ADL
officials denied any wrong doing and kept repeating that
they were "cooperating" with law enforcement agencies, It
was soon clear, at least to the San Francisco Police
Department, that they weren't.

     What the San Francisco investigators found
remarkable was the refusal of the Los Angeles Police
Department, which evidently had been heavily infiltrated
by the ADL, to assist the SFPD in the investigation, a
decision that was shamelessly hailed by the B'nai B'rith
Messenger, the ADL mother organization's weekly paper in
Los Angeles. (The Messenger also applauded the New York
Times for not reporting the story.)

     The story took a major leap when the SFPD and FBI
staged multiple raids on ADL offices in San Francisco and
Los Angeles, and found thousands of files on individuals
and organizations, some of which the ADL had apparently
"doctored" in the meantime.

     Subsequently, some 718 pages of documents and police
and FBI interviews with Bullock, David Gurvitz, a former
ADL operative in Los Angeles, a and San Diego Police
Officer, who had collaborated with Bullock, were released
to the public by District Attorney Smith along with the
list of organizations spied upon. They appeared to
contain enough information to file multiple charges
against the ADL and, at the very least, seriously,
threaten its tax-exempt status.

     "We are talking about the use of information from
DMV files, criminal files, and other confidential files,"
Smith told ABC News, "files from state and local agencies
that were being illegally furnished and illegally
received."

     His opinion was corroborated by SFPD police
inspector Ron Roth. "Based on the evidence," Roth wrote
in summarizing his findings, "exhibits and facts in this
affidavit, I believe that Roy Bullock and the ADL had
numerous peace officers supplying them with confidential
criminal and DMV information." He was not just referring
to San Francisco.

     Citing his interview with former ADL employee
Gurvitz, he learned of the existence of "other [ADL] code
named fact finders and field investigators. In Chicago
there is an ex- police officer named CHI-3 (there are
also references to CHI-1 and CHI-2 who apparently are not
policemen.QED.). In St. Louis there is IRONSIDES. In
Atlanta there is an Arab speaking man named FLIPPER."

     Roth was unable to locate any files on the
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) in
ADL's San Francisco office. Gurvitz explained that there
were many files on the ADC in the ADL's Los Angeles
office, along with the names of "any Arab American with
anti-Israel leanings or any Arab Americans that wrote
letters to the newspaper editors." He also volunteered
the information that Bullock's home computer was "the
repository of the fact finding information for the San
Francisco ADL office."

     Roth estimated "after numerous interview and
analysis of the documents seized in eight searches," that
"inquiries were made to DMV vehicle registration and
driver's license numbers of members listed at a ration of
approximately 10- 15% of the total [ADC] membership." One
of Gerard's assignments with the police was to act as
liaison to the

     Arab community, which "required" that he attend
community events, giving him the necessary cover to join
Bullock in recording the vehicle licenses of those
attending.

     Some of Bullock's responses to inquiries by Roth and
the FBI were truly extraordinary. One of the individuals
he was keeping tabs on was Alex Odeh, the head of the ADC
office in Orange County, who was murdered in 1987 by a
bomb in his office, believed to have been planted by the
Jewish Defense League.

     "I happened to know Alex Odeh, a very nice, decent,
humane guy," Bullock told Roth. "In fact, I missed going
to the office by one day: I might have been there to open
the door instead of him because he allowed me to go into
the office if I was down there; just by sheer coincidence
it wasn't me."

     Bullock's expressed reason for spying on the
anti-apartheid movement appeared even more disingenuous:
"Because," read the FBI report of its interview with him,
"he wanted to help South Africa make a better assessment
of the anti-apartheid situation in the United States.
Bullock said he hoped that by doing this he would
encourage the Government of South Africa to bring it to
an end." It should be noted that Bullock made this
statement after learning that a document was found in his
computer, addressed to his South African contact, warning
him that he (Bullock) had been questioned by the FBI
concerning S.A. agents in the area.

     A more honest reason for the ADL's snooping on the
movement was forthcoming from ADL's national director,
Abe Foxman, on a sweep through the Bay Area in May.

     "People are very upset about the [files on the]
ANC," he agrees. "At the time we exposed the ANC, they
were communist. They were violent, they were antisemitic,
they were pro-PLO and they were anti-Israel. You're going
to tell me I don't have the legitimacy to find out who
they were consorting with, who their buddies are, who
supports them." (No. Ca. Jewish Bulletin, May 7).

     In May, 1986, the ADL Bulletin featured a cover
story bashing the ANC. The article, co-authored by its
then national director, Nathan Perlmutter, suggested that
the organization "so frequently discussed as an
alternative to the Botha government, merits a close,
unsentimental look. The question can be fairly asked,
what has all this to do with Jews?"

     After favorably quoting an author who reported that
"P.W. Botha has been dismantling apartheid by stealth,"
the article let loose with a litany of charges that
focused mainly on the ANC's siding with the Palestinians,
beginning with its support of "Soviet attempts to
undermine the legitimacy of Israel," its "strident"
support of the PLO; its denunciation of "Israel's
aggressive expansionism" supported by the U.S. and its
allies and its linkage of zionism with racism.

     Since Bullock was already spying on the domestic
anti- apartheid movement for the ADL, taking on the task
for the South Africans meant little extra work, since, as
he acknowledged to Roth, much of the information they
wanted he and the ADL already possessed. One of the items
found in his computer files was a report on a meeting in
Los Angeles in 1991 that anti-apartheid activists staged
for ANC leader Chris Hani. (Hani was assassinated in S.A.
this Spring by a gunman who allegedly was hired by J.
Darby Grace, the new president of the World
Anti-Communist League, an organization formerly headed by
Gen. John Singlaub, which curiously enough, was not on
Bullock's or the ADL's list of right-wing organizations.)


     Bullock acknowledged receiving $16,000 from the
South Africans, some of which he shared with Gerard, who
supposedly had help set up the connection.

     The reaction of the Jewish establishment to ADL's
predicament has been supportive, accepting, with but a
handful of exceptions, the ADL denials of wrongdoing as
statements of fact. On a national level this has come
from the Conference of Presidents of the Major American
Jewish Organizations, the National Jewish Community
Relations Advisory Council, the World Jewish Congress ,
AIPAC and the American Zionist Movement. Locally, the
city's leading Jewish political players whose wealth and
influence is considerable Q as is their philanthropy Q
are apparently doing what they can to get the ADL off the
hook, although few have been as public as the mayor's
chief of protocol, Robert Goldman.

     Goldman, who owns one of the city's largest
insurance brokerages and who is extremely active in
Jewish community circles, contacted police chief Tony
Ribera to let him know that the investigation of the ADL
had caused the Jewish community a great deal of
"anxiety." He claimed his call was a personal call, and
"I wasn't trying to influence anybody or anything of the
kind" (SF Examiner, April 25).

     An apparent lone voice within the organized Jewish
community who has the courage to criticize and ask hard
questions of the ADL is Leonard Fein, former editor of
Moment magazine, and now a columnist for the New
York-based Jewish weekly, Forward.

     Fein has devoted two columns to the ADL case. the
first, "Circling the Wagons," (June 25) suggested that
the organization has a responsibility to the Jewish
community to do more than issue a blanket denial of
wrongdoing and "accuse the accusers of the 'big lie.'"
Wrote Fein: "One wants to believe that the 'sinister'
files others have accused it of maintaining Q files not
only on extremist organizations but on utterly
respectable organizations (e.g., NAACP) Q "are, as the
ADL claims they are, merely benign background files,
newspaper clippings and such, and whatever crimes the
ADL's principal mole [Bullock] may have been guilty of
were not in the course of his duties or at the behest of
the ADL.

     "Given the source of the accusations and their
apparent gravity, wanting to believe doesn't quite make
it. Nor, for that matter, do the enthusiastic
endorsements of the ADL's probity by a variety of Jewish
organizations and leaders who know only the details that
the ADL has shared with them. The ADL has sought to quiet
our legitimate concerns by claiming that behind all the
smoke, there's no fire, just a smoke- machine."

     Declaring that "no organization can be taken
seriously as it own judge and jury," Fein suggested that
an independent investigation of the ADL's activities take
place within the organized Jewish community. "One might
have hoped that the ADL board would itself have invited
such an examination.

     Apparently, it has not." Fein concluded his column
with the question, asking "why, in any case, should an
organization that has done no wrong not welcome such a
proposal?" As would be expected, the ADL's Foxman, fired
off a letter in rebuttal,(July 16) attacking Fein for not
"seeing this episode for what it is Q not only an attack
on ADL, but an attack on the whole community and its
efforts to protect Jewish security and rights."

     Fein's response on July 30, is worth quoting: "Over
and over again, all we have heard from ADL is an
ever-more strident denial of any and all wrongdoing, In
its earliest response to the matter, ADL asserted that if
its procedures had in any respect been faulty, it would
correct them.

     "Yet if there has since been information offered to
either the public or even the ADL board regarding the
faulty procedures, I am not aware of it. Evidently,
somewhere along the line there was a policy decision that
the best defense would be simply to stonewall.

     "That style of haughty dismissal ill-becomes an
organization opposed to defamation. there is distress and
even anger among ADL's undoubted friends that they have
given no thorough or even adequate explanation of the
alleged felonies. I believe the community is entitled to
more than verbal reassurance.

     "ADL linen, which he [Foxman] and I both agree is
Jewish communal linen, is hanging out there in public for
all to see, and the question of whether that linen is
clean or dirty is a real question that deserves a real
answer, both for the ADL's sake and those who depend on
ADL for their own protection."


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#69 14-10-2013 23:23:41

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Leo Frank and the Birth of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

American Jews Support Direct Negotiations
Press Release
Israel / Middle-East

New ADL Poll: American Jews Support Direct Negotiations Between the Parties as Path to Two-State SolutionStrong Support for Israel and the U.S. to Act Against Iran If NeededWashington, DC, April 20, 2009 … The steadfast support of American Jews for Israel, for Israel’s action in Gaza and for Israel’s right, if all else fails, to use military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, was reaffirmed by a survey commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).  The findings show that, overwhelmingly, American Jews believe that Israel is committed to peace with the Palestinians and reject the notion that America should pressure Israel to make peace.

The national telephone survey of 1,200 American Jews was conducted by Marttila Communications between March 31 and April 8 and has a margin of error of +/-2.8% for questions answered by the 1,200.  The survey also used the technique of “split sampling” a process in which questions were asked of two demographically representative national samples of 600 each, with a margin of error of +/-4%.

Survey Highlights

• By a margin of 73%-2%, American Jews believe that Israel is doing more to bring peace to the region than the Palestinians (view graph).
• 74% believe that Hamas is not interested in peace, while 52% believe Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is (view graph).
• 61% of American Jews support the future creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza (view graph).

• Asked about the US role in the peace process, a small plurality (47%) believe the parties need to solve their own problems with the US playing the role of facilitator; versus 44% who believe peace depends on continuing US leadership and involvement (view graph).

• There is eroding support for Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza; as late as January 2009, 63% of American Jews still supported it.  Now, it’s down to 54% (view graph).

• Sympathy with Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians is overwhelming – 80% for Israel, versus 6% for the Palestinians (view graph).
• 74% approve of Israel’s military action in Gaza, and by a margin of 66%-28%, American Jews supported the notion that Israel’s military response in Gaza was appropriate and not excessive (view graph).

• 73% support Israel’s right to close the borders to Gaza to prevent resupply of arms even if it slows down humanitarian relief (view graph).

• Regarding Iran, a significant majority (58%-27%) believe that if diplomatic and economic steps fail to get Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program, they would support Israel’s right to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities. And, under similar circumstances, American Jews would similarly support US military action by 55%-27% (view graph).

• 50% of American Jews support US direct negotiations with Iran without preconditions, while 45% believe the US should not enter into negotiations until Iran agrees to suspend its uranium enrichment (view graph).

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, said the survey demonstrates that, “contrary to certain reports that American Jewish support for Israel is waning and that American Jews would welcome pressure by the U.S. on Israel, American Jews continue to support Israel overwhelmingly and advocate direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians as the best path for peace.”

Mr. Foxman said the findings show that, “American Jews continue to believe that Israel wants peace with its neighbors, and continue to understand the threats to Israel and its legitimate right to defend itself, whether against Hamas rockets or Iran nuclear capabilities.  That support for Israel will be very significant as the Jewish state faces immense challenges in the months and years ahead.”
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

Board footer


Minds - VK - GAB - RSS

Balder Ex-libris - Histoire Ebook - Free PDF - Aryana Libris - PDF Archive

Aldebaran Video - Viva Europa - Le Gentil - Un grain de Sable

WAWA CONSPI
WAWA CONSPI
The Savoisien
The Savoisien - Lenculus
Exegi monumentum aere perennius