You are not logged in.

WAWA CONSPI - The Savoisien

Exegi monumentum aere perennius

Announcement

#70 14-10-2013 23:24:20

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: Arabia Online Ltd. | January 2001

ADL: Censoring the Internet on Behalf of Israel

The Internet showed that the pro-Israel Anti Defamation League, despite
its resources and influence, is still vulnerable.

By Ramzy Baroud

SEATTLE – In a mid December conference in Jerusalem, computer experts, governmental officials, and academics gathered under the banner of , “Confronting On-Line Terrorism and Anti-Semitism.” Amongst the names of sponsors and co-sponsors, one organization stands as the most active by far in the field of censorship, mainly in the United States; the Anti Defamation League (ADL).

What compels dozens of professionals and activists to fly long distances from all corners of the globe to meet in a “disputed city” only miles away from a war zone? It’s the fear of losing a greater war, a war that has cost Israel an abundance, the Internet media war that is.

Perhaps since the establishment of the ADL in 1913 to “fight anti-Semitism and bigotry in the world”, the gigantic organization with hundreds of offices in the US, Europe and Israel has never felt as outnumbered as it feels today. The Internet revolution, among its many positive aspects has given a voice to those, who unlike the ADL, are unable to rely on a $46 million budget to spread their message.

The ADL, has a powerful lobby which deeply impacts US domestic as well as foreign policy, and has come under repeated attacks over the years, and was heavily cited for failing to champion what its preaches. In fact, it is accused of being a promoter of hatred and bigotry itself.

In the 1970′s, the group was caught distributing lists of persons deemed as enemies, according to SF Weekly in its February issue. Among those who were defamed for being “pro-Arab propagandists” was the highly renowned professor Noam Chomsky. In 1993, according to the same source, the ADL was caught illegally spying on nearly 10,000 people “including members of socialist, labor and anti-apartheid groups.”

But why would an organization whose “ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike, and to put an end forever to injustice and unfair discrimination against, and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens” carry out such suspicious tasks?

“The number one goal of the ADL is the protection of Israel,” a former Republican congressman from San Mateo Pete McCloskey told SF Weekly in a recent interview.

The organization however, who claims to fight for other issues beside its vibrant defense of Israel, has done very little in recent months to demonstrate those claims. The outbreak of the Palestinian uprising against the Israeli occupation had caused the ADL to gear up for one fight, and one fight only, supporting Israel and censoring those who criticize the Jewish state for using excessive violence, for violating international law and for committing genocide in areas which are supposed to be protected under human rights laws.

The organization which often legitimizes its missions by fighting minor and highly despised groups in the US like white supremacists, has unmasked its real identify and has joined Israel’s propaganda war, employing all of its resources to justify the Israeli army’s ongoing genocide of unarmed civilians.

ADL’s Abraham Foxman

The ADL’s website is a perfect example of the organization’s full-fledged support of Israel. While the overwhelming majority of deaths, many of whom were children, were Palestinians, the ADL seemed only concerned with the Israeli army and settlers’ losses. “Anti-Israel violence” is a section that is updated daily. Nothing was said regarding the loss of life among Palestinians, nothing about the murder of children like Muhammad Al Durra, nothing to explain the illegal status of the Israeli settlers, and of course, nothing to site the international laws concerning the Arab Israeli conflict.

In fact, the United Nations was itself under attack. “The ADL says UN Human Rights Chief has accepted ‘hook, line and sinker’ Palestinian strategy, calls her report distorted and detrimental,” charged one of the site’s top reports. The US government was itself under attack. “The ADL says US criticism of Israel’s retaliatory action for an attack on school bus is counterproductive.” And of course, Arabs and Muslims were left with the largest share of attacks and threats; “the ADL says if Egypt doesn’t return its ambassador to Israel in a timely manner, America should reassess US aid to Egypt.”

But the Internet showed that the ADL, despite its resources and influence no matter how large and long armed, is still vulnerable. The rapidly growing Arab and Muslim presence on the Internet alarmed the ADL that its endless propaganda campaign may be doomed, if the Internet is not censored, so that the ADLís voice is the only one heard. Hence, the introduction of the Hate Filter.

The ADL describes its Hate Filter as “a software product designed to act as a gatekeeper.” Once more to legitimize its censorship efforts, the ADL succeeded in introducing its product as part of Mattel’s Cyber Patrol, a software package set to block a large range of offensive web sites, including pornographic ones. Moreover, the organization is ceaselessly working to enforce its product on private and public libraries and educational institutions. President Clinton endorsed the software. In a statement made October of last year [2000] following a meeting with the ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman, Clinton said, “thank you for your pioneering work to filter out hate on the internet.” The ADL’s director of civil rights Elizabeth Coleman said in a seminar earlier this year that former Vice President Al Gore has also seen and has endorsed the product and in fact “loved it.”

McCloskey on the other hand, protested the ADL’s seemingly successful censorship attempts saying, “Any group whose sole purpose is to protect a foreign nation should not have anything to say about what’s said or written here in America.”

The Intifada, and the cyber war which was provoked by Israeli hacker attacks on pro-Palestinian web sites, was another reminder of the vulnerability of the ADL and other Israeli and pro-Israeli groups, when it comes to the World Wide Web. As a result, the recent Jerusalem conference was a badly needed chance for the re-making of a new media strategy that would withstand the upsurge of Arab and Muslim presence on the Internet.

The mounting worries of pro-Israeli groups were stressed in the speech delivered by the director of the ADL’s Israel office, David Rosen. Rosen warned of what he called Islamic propaganda, which he described as one upholding Christian Anti-Semitic themes. “The lone wolf of the past is no longer such and can link up to become a pack,” he said.

© January 2001 Arabia Online Ltd. All rights reserved


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#71 14-10-2013 23:25:41

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

Censoring Thought and the ADL Effort to Deny Tenure to Joseph Massad

Statement to the Ad Hoc Committee1

March 14, 2005
Joseph Massad

I have prepared a statement to read to you.  I would be happy to
answer your questions afterwards. Before I begin, however, I want to
ascertain that as professor Katzneslson has informed me, the only
complaints that your committee has heard about me are the two
complaints that the press reported from my students, namely the
complaint by Noah Liben and the complaint by Deena Shanker. As for
the complaint by Tomy Schoenfeld, who was not my student, I presume,
his case is irrelevant to this body, as your mandate states that “as a
result of the expression of concern by a number of students that they
were being intimidated by faculty members and being excluded from
participating fully in classroom discussions because of their views,” you
are expected “to identify cases where there appear to be violations of
the obligation to create a civil and tolerant teaching environment.”2 If
there are any other complaints against me, unless I am told what they
are and who made them, and the date and place where they allegedly
took place, I shall not respond to them.

I appear before you today because of a campaign of intimidation to
which I have been subjected for over three years. While this campaign
was started by certain members of the Columbia faculty, and by outside
forces using some of my students as conduits, it soon expanded to
include members of the Columbia administration, the rightwing tabloid
press, the Israeli press, and more locally the Columbia Spectator. Much
of this preceded the David Project film “Columbia Unbecoming,” and the
ensuing controversy. In the following statement, I will provide you with
the history of this coordinated campaign, including the facts pertaining
to the intimidation to which I am being subjected by the Columbia
University administration, most manifestly through the convening of your
own committee before which I appear today out of a combined sense of
intimidation and obligation and not because I recognize its legitimacy.
You need to bear with the details of the following narrative, as the
campaign of intimidation against me is most insidious in its details.

I started teaching at Columbia in the Fall of 1999. At the conclusion of
my first academic year, during which I taught my class on Palestinian
and Israeli Politics and Societies, I received a Certificate of Appreciation
for teaching presented by “The Students of Columbia College, Class of
2000,” and was nominated and was one of the two finalists for the Van
Doren teaching award which went that year to Professor Michael
Stanislawski.  In my second year, I began to be told of whispers about
my class on Palestinian and Israeli politics and Societies. Jewish
Students in my class in the Spring 2001 would tell me that I was the main
topic of discussion at the Jewish Theological Seminary and at Hillel and
that my class is making the Zionists on campus angry. I took such
reports lightly, as the class had doubled in size from the first year. I did
notice however that the class included some cantankerous students who
insisted on scoring political points during the lectures. I would always
defuse the situation by allowing all questions to be asked and by
attempting to answer them informatively. I would do so in class and
during office hours. I had strong positive evaluations from most of my
students with some complaining that the class was biased. Although my
course description explained that “The purpose of the course is to
provide a thorough yet critical historical overview of the Zionist-
Palestinian conflict to familiarize undergraduates with the background to
the current situation,”3 I decided in the following year (Spring 2002) to
emphasize that point more clearly. The course description read as
follows:
The course examines critically the impact of Zionism on European Jews
and on Asian and African Jews on the one hand, and on Palestinian
Arabs on the other –in Israel, in the Occupied Territories, and in the
Diaspora.  The course also examines critically the internal dynamics in
Palestinian and Israeli societies, looking at the roles class, gender, and
religion play in the politics of Israel and the Palestinian national
movement.  The purpose of the course is not to provide a “balanced”
coverage of the views of both sides, but rather to provide a thorough yet
critical historical overview of the Zionist-Palestinian conflict to familiarize
undergraduates with the background to the current situation from a
critical perspective.4

The point of the class description is to make sure the students
understood that no side was being presented, neither the Palestinian
nor the Zionist side, but rather that this was a course that was critical of
both Zionism and Palestinian nationalism.  When I taught the class in
2004, after returning from my sabbatical, I decided to remove the
sentence on “balance,” especially after CampusWatch began to attack
me for including it, to which I will return below. I removed it.5

It was with this as background that I started my Spring 2002 semester.
My Palestinian and Israeli course seemed to have a more cantankerous
crowd that year than before. Even though this year, the class had two
discussion sections to accommodate the number of students, a number
of students insisted on having discussions during the lecture. Some
would bring with them a pro-Israel lobby propaganda book from which
they would insist on reading in class. I would let them.

One student in particular stood out. A smart older student in General
Studies, who identified herself as having a South African Jewish
background, would insist on asking many questions every lecture, most
of which were about scoring political points. The class had over 80
students and therefore it was difficult to accommodate such a large
number of questions from students. No matter, I decided to let her ask
all her questions in every lecture in order to make her feel comfortable
and that she feel that the class is a space where she could express
herself freely. She would E-mail me asking for exact sources for
information that I would give in class. I would E-mail her back what she
needed. For a while, it seemed that I was her research assistant, which I
was happy to do, in order to teach her that there are indeed scholarly
sources and scholarly answers to her political queries. I later found out
from other students that she was circulating a petition in the class to
have me fired from Columbia. I asked her after class one day if that was
the case, and told her that if it were so, that she would be free to
circulate it outside of class, not inside. She smiled back without comment.

I saw her on college walk one day after Spring break. She came up to
me and told me that she had just been to Israel and the Occupied
Territories and expressed how bad she felt about the situation there.
She apologized about the petition and told me that she had been
approached “from the outside” to do it but she had dropped the matter.
She spoke of people at the medical school and others from outside the
university who were behind the idea, but did not provide details. I did not
inquire.

Another student of mine (now at the School of International and Public
Affairs), who self-identified as a “Likudnik,” also approached me on
campus one day during the Spring 2002 semester, telling me that he
and a few other students had been invited to see a female professor at
the medical school.  He described that the meeting was so
“surreptitious” and “conspiratorial,” that it felt that they were planning on
having me “murdered.”  In fact, the plan was to strategize how to get me
fired. The student told me that they discussed the option of meeting with
a female administraror who worked at the time at the Middle East
Institute, to coordinate the plan with her. He told me that he had
informed the students and the medical school professor that even
though he disagreed with me, that he thought I had the right to express
my views.

The female student who initiated the petition against me was not alone
in class who consistently posed hostile questions. Three or four other
students would do so intermittently. One of them insisted on reading out
loud in class paragraphs from a propaganda book issued by a pro-Israel
lobbying organization. The book is “Myths and Facts:  A Guide to the
Arab-Israeli Conflict” written by one Mitchell Bard and published by the
American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, which states on its website that
“We are committed to arming students with the information they need to
respond to the very difficult issues raised on the campus” through the
publication of Bard’s book.6  Many students complained that these few
students were disruptive of class, especially as there are discussion
sections for them to raise their concerns. I allayed their anxiety by
explaining that there is something to learn from some of the students’
politically-motivated questions, namely that all students would learn the
political arguments of proponents and opponents of certain scholarly
analyses of the conflict, and that students who had political queries
would also learn that there are indeed persuasive answers to the
queries they raise from a critical and scholarly angle. For me, allowing
these students to disrupt my lecture was of pedagogical benefit to them
and to the rest of the class.

During the same semester, in April 2002, I was attacked and misquoted
by the Spectator after attending an on-campus rally in support of
Palestinians under Israeli military attack in the West Bank and Gaza, and
an op-ed piece and letters were published in the Spectator accusing me
of “anti-Semitism” for a lecture I had given at the Middle East Institute in
February 2002.7  The op-ed piece by a junior at Barnard named
Daphna Berman, who was not my student, drew parallels between a
swastika found in a law school bathroom and my lecture and rebuked
the university for allowing me to speak out:

“I was struck by the University’s willingness to publicly condemn blatant
expressions of anti-Semitism [such as the swastika incident] while
simultaneously condoning, and even sponsoring, more tacit and subtle
forms of that same evil. Massad’s talk is lent a certain legitimacy by mere
virtue of the fact that his views exist within an academic framework. The
rhetoric is polished, the multisyllabic words characteristic of academia
are pleasing to the ear, and so Massad’s message somehow becomes
more acceptable, more palatable. Yet fundamentally, the difference
between Massad’s message and its more blatant and visually tangible
manifestation are only subtle.”8

As for the political rally, which took place on Wednesday April 17, 2002, I
was one of countless speakers. I spoke out and asserted the following:
“”Like white South Africans who felt threatened under apartheid and who
only felt safe when they gave up their commitment to white supremacy,
Israeli Jews will continue to feel threatened if they persist in supporting
Jewish supremacy. Israeli Jews will only feel safe in a democratic Israeli
state where all Jews and Arabs are treated equally. No state has the
right to be a racist state.” The Spectator misquoted me as saying that
Israel is “a Jewish supremacist and racist state,” and that “every racist
state should be threatened.”9 When I protested the misquotation, the
Spectator journalist who wrote the story, Xan Nowakowski, apologized
and informed me via E-mail that she did not even attend the rally and
got the quotes from another reporter. She assured me that the
newspaper would run a correction. After a back and forth for almost a
week on E-mail, the Spectator ran the correction on April 24, 2002.

However, two major pro-Israeli propagandists, namely Martin Kramer
and Daniel Pipes, would insist on reproducing the misquote in articles
that they wrote to newspapers and that they posted on their websites.
On June 20, 2002, Martin Kramer, an Israeli academic who teaches at
Tel Aviv university, posted an article on the Middle East Forum website
titled “Arab Panic,” in which he attacked a number of Columbia
professors, myself included. He argued that “Massad’s views are not all
that unusual in Middle Eastern studies, and he has every right to
express them on Columbia’s Low Plaza, in public lectures, and in print.
But should someone who is busy propagandizing against the existence
of Israel be employed by Columbia to teach the introductory course on
the Arab-Israeli conflict?… Suffice it to say that this column has received
a surfeit of student complaints about the course, suggesting that there is
no difference between what Massad teaches and what he preaches.”  In
his article, Kramer reproduced the misquote from the Spectator. Prior to
Kramer’s column, a website for an organization called “The Columbia
Conservative Alumni Association” listed me among the six “worst faculty”
at Columbia, a list that also included Edward Said who was identified as
a “homosexual” who supports Hamas.  Martin Kramer was only too
happy to quote from that website in his article, as would other columnists
writing for the New York Sun.

On June 25 2002, Daniel Pipes and one Jonathan Schanzer published
an article in the New York Post titled “Extremists on Campus,” in which
they listed me as one such  extremist and complained that I use my class
as a “soapbox for anti-Israeli polemics.”  The Wall Street Journal
published on September 18, 2002 an article about a pro-Israel website
calling itself CampusWatch being launched by Daniel Pipes, stating that
the website listed 8 professors (including me) with our own public
dossiers as enemies of America and Israel and called on our students to
monitor us in class.  Following the launch of CampusWatch, my E-mail
was spammed for months with over 4000 E-mails daily, which I had to sift
through until finally Columbia was able to install an anti-spamming
program. Moreover, I was subjected to identity theft when thousands of
racist E-mails would be sent in my name to individuals and listservs,
including a few to the White House and Congressmen threatening them
with terrorist action. Moreover, thousands of other E-mails would be sent
to people with requests of notes of receipt being sent back to my E-mail
account which clogged it further with thousands of such E-mail receipts.
I also received tens of racist E-mails and phone messages including
death threats directed at me. In the meantime, Pipes’s website called on
our own students to spy on us in the classroom and report to him, and
Kramer called for my dismissal from Columbia University.10  In interviews
that I gave to the press, I spoke about the misquotation which Pipes and
Kramer continued to propagate, and about my experience in my Spring
2002 class, with regards to the petition to get me fired and the secret
meeting at the Medical school which my student had told me about.11

As I was on sabbatical in London that year, I was relatively shielded
from the campaign, even though my E-mail account continued to be
disrupted. I did come to Columbia to deliver a lecture on Palestinian
cinema in January 2003. My lecture, titled “The Weapon of Culture,”
discussed how Palestinian cinema was a weapon of resistance and an
act of culture in reference to Amilcar Cabral’s famous essay “the
Weapon of Theory.”  Kramer immediately attacked my paper based on
reports in the press.12

In late January 2003, I began to write a column to the Egyptian Weekly
Al-Ahram which deals mostly with Palestinian-Israeli affairs and with the
Arab World more generally. Every time I published an article, Kramer
and Pipes would write about it, as would new student recruits that they
had on campuses. One such ideological recruit was a first year student
in General Studies whom I had never met called Ariel Beery. Beery
would become one of the main people defending the claims of the David
Project in whose film he appeared and called me “one of the most
dangerous intellectuals… on campus.” Beery has never taken a class
with me and never met me. Beery, who claims to have served in the
Israeli army in Lebanon, had his own Spectator column and a personal
blog. Beery arrived on the Columbia campus when I was on sabbatical,
yet, surprisingly, he chose to write about me in his column. After
criticizing my Palestinian and Israeli Politics and Societies course, which
he never took, Beery asserted:
One would think that we need a teacher in the classroom, not a
critic…The problem lies not in what Massad believes, but in his openly
biased presentation in the classroom. The statements he issues are
anywhere from questionable to fundamentally wrong.

Basing his arguments on of one my newspaper columns, Beery added
the following:

“If anything, Massad’s claim [in his column] that there is no anti-Semitism
in the Arab world should disqualify him from setting foot in a Columbia
University classroom as a professor of Modern Arab Politics. Just as you
would not trust a surgeon with shaky knowledge of the human anatomy,
Columbia should not trust the minds of its charges to a professor with a
limited knowledge of the body politic of the region he supposedly is an
expert in. [Massad also] says that the claim that Israel is democratic is
no more than a ‘propagandistic image.’… th[is]…charge on Israel should
again disqualify Massad from teaching at Columbia.”13

In a second column, Beery again railed against me and lamented that

“Our educations are bound in intellectual Egypt, enslaved by the post-
colonialist slant that has permeated our social sciences, while our
institution is trapped by its old-fashioned bylaws into protecting the
employment of those who espouse hateful and violent rhetoric… Will
President Bollinger and future Provost Alan Brinkley be our gate and our
key to a new and better University? Only time will tell. Let’s just hope that
our time in the wilderness will be short and that next year we will enjoy a
rebuilt Columbia.”14

This is in addition to myriad log entries on me on his website.

In April 2003, I decided to respond to Kramer and Pipes in an article
titled “Policing the Academy,” in which I fleshed out their agenda and
their plans. I concluded by stating that

“Kramer, Pipes, and co. are angry that the academy still allows
democratic procedure in the expression of political views and has an
institutionalised meritocratic system of judgment…to evaluate its
members. Their goal is to destroy any semblance of either in favour of
subjecting democracy and academic life to an incendiary jingoism and to
the exigencies of the national security state with the express aim of
imploding freedom. Their larger success, however, has been in
discrediting themselves and in reminding all of us that we should never
take the freedoms that we have for granted, as the likes of Kramer and
Pipes are working to take them away.”15

I attach the text of my article at the end of this statement.

Upon returning to Columbia in the Fall of 2003, I was scheduled to
give a lecture on the 2nd of October at the Society of Fellows at the
Heyman Center. The lecture was attended by a large number of people
including many faculty members, Professor Nicholas Dirks, who had not
yet become vice-president, was among them. After the lecture I was
asked a number of hostile questions from young students and from one
Rabbi Charles Sheer, about whom I had heard the previous year when
he railed against MEALAC professors in the context of the pro-
Palestinian rally that took place on campus in April 2002. I had never
met him before. I answered all the questions put before me. Several
professors came to me afterwards, including Brinkley Messick of the
Department of Anthropology and my departmental colleague Janaki
Bakhle, among others, wondering how I managed to remain calm in the
face of rude and hostile questions of the caliber I had been asked.
Rabbi Sheer’s secretary called me and left a message asking for the text
of the lecture. I never responded. The lecture has been published in the
scholarly journal Cultural Critique and has recently been the topic of a
newspaper article in the New York Sun, and I believe also in the Daily
News.16  On 6 January 2004, Rabbi Sheer posted a letter on the Hillel
website addressed to Columbia and Barnard students, in which he
discussed my lecture and made a startling announcement. In his letter,
Sheer shared an article he had written called “The Treatment of the
Middle East Studies at Columbia University.”17 Sheer declared that “the
principal anti-Israel voices [on Columbia’s campus] are not pro-
Palestinian student leaders and groups, but Columbia faculty and
academic departments.” He added that “On the one hand, there are
many fine courses taught by CU faculty on Hebrew language and
literature, the history of Israel and Zionism, Arab culture, languages and
nationalism, etc. These courses, offered in various departments, are
taught with the usual CU standard of careful scholarship and
balance…On the other hand, some faculty members whose teaching
style is called ‘advocacy education’ espouse a consistent anti-Israel and
pro-Palestinian bias. Their personal politics pervade the classroom and
academic forums. The record is public: search under ‘Columbia
University’ at websites such as www.campus-watch.org and www.
martinkramer.org. Be prepared; it is not a pleasant read.”18

Sheer proceeded to mention that he had attended my lecture at the
Heyman Center and then summarized it by making outrageous claims
that were never made in the lecture:

“Professor Massad has reversed the roles of all the players and
redefined many of the historic events: the Zionists are the new Nazis; the
Palestinians are oppressed victims and therefore the new Jews… From a
distance, this diatribe may sound ludicrous. However, its impact on
campus is serious. MEALAC should enable our students to explore
issues vital to their understanding of the modern Middle East in a
balanced way…”

We will see how the false claim attributed to me by Rabbi Sheer that I
said that “the Zionists are the new Nazis,” a claim I never made, would
find its way to Ariel Beery who would make the same claim in the video
“Columbia Unbecoming,”19 as would Noah Liben in his description of my
course –a false claim that would be repeated ad absurdum in the media.
Sheer concluded with two interesting claims, one which effectively called
on students not to take my class, and another announcing the filming of
Columbia Unbecoming:

“Of course, academic freedom is a cornerstone of our University.
However, students are understandably reluctant to take courses from
faculty who impose their biases in their teaching. A student group is
currently working on a video that records how intimidated students feel
by advocacy teaching, and how some are discouraged from taking
MEALAC courses or majoring in Middle East studies.”

Sheer further called on Columbia University to “share my passion for
unbiased scholarship and the establishment of a proper learning
environment so our students – Jews and non-Jews – can learn about
complex issues with honesty and integrity.” 20

Suffice it to say that my class had over fifty students for the Spring
2004 and students did not heed the call made by Sheer. The class did
however include a number of auditors (I found out they were
unregistered during the last week of class) who would consistently
harass me with hostile ideological questions that ignored all the
readings. Students complained about the disruption this caused the
class. I tried to emphasize to the auditors that their questions must be
relevant to the subject at hand and that they must do the readings. They
never did and I continued to answer their questions until the end of the
semester to avoid creating a tense atmosphere in the classroom.

During this period, the New York Sun and Kramer and Pipes continued
to attack me in their columns and on their websites. In an article on
December 30, 2003, the Sun had again attacked one of my newspaper
columns misquoting me.  In my column, I stated that “While Israel has no
legitimacy and is not recognized by any international body as a
‘representative’ of the Jewish people worldwide but rather as the state of
the Israeli people who are citizens of it…,” the Sun quoted me as saying
that “Israel has no legitimacy.” I asked for a correction from the reporter
Jacob Gershman. He agreed and the newspaper ran it the next day.21
This however was just a brief lull. On May 4, 2004, the Sun ran another
article about me by one Jonathan Calt Harris, identified as an associate
of Daniel Pipes at Campus Watch, titled “Tenured Extremism.” After a
litany of misquotes, half quotes, and outright fabrications, Calt Harris,
who referred to my views as akin to those of “Nazis,” concluded by
stating: “Mr. Massad is soon up for tenure review. Should this once
distinguished university stoop to provide a permanent forum for his
views, it would signify a truly stunning oversight…He knows no
distinction between a classroom lecture and advocacy at a public
demonstration.”22

Based on this repeated call to deny me tenure at Columbia, which had
already been expressed by Martin Kramer, I set up an appointment with
Provost Brinkley and met with him. I sought his help and the help of the
university’s legal services to fight this defamation of character. The
latest article in the New York Sun included such blatant and insidious
misrepresentations that I seriously considered suing them for
defamation. I provided copies of my written work for the Provost and told
him of the campaigns to which I had been subjected in the previous
years. While the provost seemed mildly supportive, he did not think that
suing would be practical. I asked him if he could arrange for me to meet
with legal services to which he reluctantly agreed. I had to remind him by
E-mail to set up a meeting for me. After he put me in touch with legal
services, my E-mails to them went unanswered.  I asked the provost to
intervene which he did. His intervention produced a response from their
office asking me about my available times to set up an appointment. I
sent it to them and never heard back. I dropped the matter after I left in
mid summer for vacation abroad.

In the meantime however, I received a letter from  Joel J. Levy, director
of the
New York chapter of the Anti-Defamation League, copies of which had
been sent to President Bollinger and Provost Brinkley.  The letter was
significantly dated on May 6, 2004, two days after Calt Harris published
his article in the Sun. The letter complained to me that, according to one
report it received from one student who attended a lecture that I had
given at the University of Pennsylvania on March 24, 2004 (which
incidentally was the same lecture I gave at Columbia’s Society of Fellows
the previous October), ideas expressed in my lecture are  “anti-Semitic.”
The letter made false claims about what my lecture said and asked that I
retract them and issue an apology for my allegedly anti-Semitic remarks.
I wrote Mr. Levy back and copied President Bollinger and Provost
Brinkley. I stated in my letter that:

“My principled stance against anti-Semitism and all kinds of racism is a
matter of public record and cannot be assailed by defamatory ‘reports’
or by letters from the ADL that consider them credible sources.  Indeed I
have condemned anti-Semitism in my Arabic and English writings,
regardless of whether the person expressing it was pro-Israel or anti-
Israel, an Arab, an American Christian, or an Israeli Jew… I therefore
expect a prompt correction of the errors contained in your letter and
demand an immediate apology, a copy of which should be sent to
President Bollinger.”23

I never heard back from the ADL, or from the provost.

It was with this as background that news about the David Project film
“Columbia Unbecoming,” surfaced on October 20, 2004 in a New York
Sun article.24

The Aftermath of Columbia Unbecoming

I was horrified by the media campaign against me and the calls for my
dismissal from Columbia that were issued by Congressman Weiner and
by the editors of the Daily News and the New York Sun, as well as calls
by Jewish members of the New York City Council to investigate the
matter.  These calls were issued as declarations about the controversy
by the national head of the ADL and Mayor Bloomberg were also made
to the press and the film was suddenly being shown in Israel before a
government minister at an anti-Semitism conference. I had requested a
meeting with Provost Brinkley who did not contact me once during the
early days of the controversy during which President Bollinger was
making all kinds of statements to the press. My request to meet with the
Provost was made through the chair of my department, Marc van de
Mieroop, who attended our meeting in the Provost’s office on the 27th of
October. I inquired of the provost as to why he would sit down secretly to
watch a propaganda film produced by a lobbying group and why he
would remain silent about it after he had seen it. The provost apologized
and admitted that these were mistakes but that now we needed to
contain the problem. He assured me that he had received countless
letters in my support and few against me. When I spoke with Vice-
President Dirks later, he also informed me that he had received
“hundreds” of letters in my support and “three or four” against me. I trust
that the President, the Provost, and the Vice-President, have shared
with you these letters. While the provost and I corresponded briefly on E-
mail, mainly about my concerns regarding statements made by
President Bollinger, which the Provost would challenge and represent as
the media’s inaccurate rendering, soon there would be no further
communication with him. President Bollinger to this day has not
contacted me.

The Columbia Spectator ran an editorial asking me to respond to the
allegations. They wrote me and called me asking that I issue a
statement. I agreed with their editorial page editor, Rachael
Scarborough King, on the number of words and sent it to them. They
refused to publish it unless I cut it to 1600 words, 400 words below what
they had agreed to.  I cut down my statement and resent it. They still
refused to publish it. The editorial page editor, Ms. King sent me an
apology about her sense of shame that the editor in chief “overruled”
her and refused to run it. I have kept our E-mail correspondence. I opted
to post my response to the allegations on my Columbia Webpage on
November 3, 2005, against the advice of the Provost, who counseled
that my silence was of more benefit to me. The Spectator would later
publish Charles Jacobs, the director of the David Project’s response to
my statement.25

Let me begin by responding to the claims put forward in “Columbia
Unbecoming,” both based on press reports and on the recent transcript
of the film made available on the web. I still have not seen the film.  Let
me reiterate what I said in my statement regarding the claims put by the
students in the film:

I am now being targeted because of my public writings and statements
through the charge that I am allegedly intolerant in the classroom, a
charge based on statements made by people who were never my
students, except in one case, which I will address momentarily.  Let me
first state that I have intimidated no one. In fact, Tomy Schoenfeld, the
Israeli soldier who appears in the film and is cited by the New York Sun,
has never been my student and has never taken a class with me, as he
himself informed The Jewish Week. I have never met him.  As for Noah
Liben, who appears in the film according to newspaper accounts (I have
not seen the film), he was indeed a student in my Palestinian and Israeli
Politics and Societies course in the spring of 2001. Noah seems to have
forgotten the incident he cites.  During a lecture about Israeli state
racism against Asian and African Jews, Noah defended these practices
on the basis that Asian and African Jews were underdeveloped and
lacked Jewish culture, which the Ashkenazi State operatives were
teaching them. When I explained to him that, as the assigned readings
clarified, these were racist policies, he insisted that these Jews needed
to be modernized and the Ashkenazim were helping them by civilizing
them. Many students gasped. He asked me if I understood his point. I
informed him that I did not. Noah seems not to have done his reading
during the week on gender and Zionism. One of the assigned readings
by Israeli scholar and feminist Simona Sharoni spoke of how in Hebrew
the word “zayin” means both penis and weapon in a discussion of Israeli
militarized masculinity.  Noah, seemingly not having read the assigned
material, mistook the pronunciation of “zayin” as “Zion,” pronounced in
Hebrew “tziyon.”  As for his spurious claim that I said that “Jews in Nazi
Germany were not physically abused or harassed until Kristallnacht in
November 1938,” Noah must not have been listening carefully. During
the discussion of Nazi Germany, we addressed the racist ideology of
Nazism, the Nuremberg Laws enacted in 1934, and the institutionalized
racism and violence against all facets of Jewish life, all of which
preceded the extermination of European Jews. This information was also
available to Noah in his readings, had he chosen to consult them.
Moreover, the lie that the film propagates claiming that I would equate
Israel with Nazi Germany is abhorrent. I have never made such a
reprehensible equation.

I remember having a friendly rapport with Noah (as I do with all my
students). He would drop off newspaper articles in my mailbox, come to
my office hours, and greet me on the street often. He never informed me
or acted in a way that showed intimidation. Indeed, he would write me E-
mails, even after he stopped being my student, to argue with me about
Israel. I have kept our correspondence. On March 10, 2002, a year after
he took a class with me, Noah wrote me an E-mail chastising me for
having invited an Israeli speaker to class the year before when he was in
attendance. It turned out that Noah’s memory failed him again, as he
mistook the speaker I had invited for another Israeli scholar. After a long
diatribe, Noah excoriated me: “How can you bring such a phony to speak
to your class??” I am not sure if his misplaced reproach was indicative of
an intimidated student or one who felt comfortable enough to rebuke his
professor!26

As for the claim made by Ariel Beery, whom I have never met and who
has never been my student, that my “favorite description is the
Palestinian as the new Jew and the Jew as the new Nazi.” Such a
statement is an outright lie. Beery gets this quote not from anything I
said or wrote, but from the fabrication made up by Rabbi Sheer on his
Hillel web posting of January 4th 2004. As for the claims made by Deena
Shanker, whose story suddenly appeared in a report in the New York
Sun after my posted statement dismantled the false claims made by
Liben and Schoenfeld, her claims are also outright lies.27 In her New
York Sun account, Ms. Shanker stated that she asked me
“if it is true that Israel gives prior warning before launching strikes in
Palestinian Arab territories”…That provoked him to start screaming, “If
you’re going to deny the atrocities being committed against the
Palestinians then you could leave the class,” Ms. Shanker said…She
said she was “shocked” by his reaction, and that Mr. Massad “usually
answered civilly along the lines of, “No, you’re wrong.” She said Mr.
Massad compared Israelis to Nazis during lectures in class.

Shanker later told the New York Times a different story: “She said that
Professor Massad sometimes ridiculed her questions and during one
class exchange yelled at her to get out. (She stayed.) ‘People in the
class were like blown away,’ she said.”28 Her account to the Jerusalem
Post was also inconsistent with the other two accounts:

‘If you’re going to deny the atrocities being committed against the
Palestinian people then you can get out of my classroom!’ Massad
shouted, according to Shanker’s account…Shanker was shocked…
‘Sometimes teachers and professors yell at students – it happens – but
this was not like anything I’ve ever experienced. He was not treating me
like a student,’ she said… Shanker said she had grown accustomed to
Massad’s antagonism toward Israel, but the professor’s rage at her for
speaking up was frightening… ‘I felt – I wouldn’t say ‘intimidated’ was the
right word – I would say: humiliated, violated, scared. This was very overt
and explicit.’29

Deena Shanker is lying in all three versions of her story. I have never
asked her or any student to leave my class no matter what question they
asked. In fact, I never asked any of my students to leave class for any
reason. I have no visual memory of Deena Shanker who never came to
office hours or spoke with me after class. The incident she describes
has never taken place.

In the aftermath of the film, I have received, and still receive, a barrage
of hate mail and racist E-Emails and voicemail messages. The first such
E-mail message was from a medical school professor called Moshe
Rubin. Professor Rubin wrote me on October 20th, the same day as the
first report was published in the Sun. Under the subject heading “Anti-
Semite” he wrote:

“Go back to Arab land where Jew hating is condoned
get the hell out of America
you are a disgrace
and a pathetic typical arab liar
Moshe Rubin”

Many more such E-mails would follow. The campaign would quickly
expand and include medical school professor Judith Jacobson.  Such
threatening E-mails have also targeted others in my department. A
recent E-mail was sent last week to all the Jewish students and faculty at
MEALAC from an Israeli group calling itself “United Trial Group –
Peoples Rights International,” informing them that:

“We advise you to immediately dismiss/kick ass of Joseph Goebbels, aa
Joseph Massed based on the President Bush Bill against anti-Semitism
and according with the US anti-terrorism law, proscribing Nazi
propaganda and incitement to terror. If you and the administration
won’t immediately dismiss that fascist bastard, you and the
administration will be personally liable and accountable for
aiding, abetting and harboring this Muslim criminal, and subject to
criminal prosecution and multimillion compensations in damages…
You have 30 days to comply and inform us.”

I should state that I have received immense support from across the
world, through countless letters and thousands of signatures on an
online petition. These include hundreds of individual letters from
academics, students, and supporters, and tens of letters from my own
students, especially my Jewish students. All these letters were sent to
President Bollinger, Provost Brinkley, and Vice-President Dirks. Copies
of many of these letters were sent to me.  In addition, a colleague at the
University of Texas at Austin, Professor Neville Hoad, circulated a letter
within a few days of the controversy and obtained 828 signatures of
major scholars and academics around the United States and the world,
which he also submitted to the President, the Provost, and the Vice-
President.  Another academic colleague at the State University of
California, As’ad AbuKhalil, set up an on-line petition, which obtained
upwards of 3000 signatures, a copy of which was also sent to Bollinger.
Hooligans attempted to undermine the petition by signing names like
“Adolf Hitler” and ‘Osama Ben Laden,” but they were not able to shut the
petition down. In addition, two letters were sent to the Prsident, the
Provost, and the Vice-Presdient, one by 24 graduate students at
MEALAC, and another by 52 graduate students from other departments
at Columbia. The Middle East Studies Association’s Academic Freedom
Committee also issued a letter defending my academic freedom, as did
the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the New York
chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the American-
Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Thirty professors from the American
University in Cairo also sent a letter defending me. President Bollinger
has as of yet not responded to any of these individuals or organizations
with the notable exception of the ACLU. A response was also sent by the
Provost to the AAUP.  In the meantime, my own senior colleague Dan
Miron had joined the fray with claims to the New York Sun that students
in the department had been complaining to him of class humiliation by
professors every week for years.30

President Bollinger’s Failure to Defend the Faculty

The response of the Columbia University administration to the David
Project was swift. As I will show below, in statement and action, Columbia’
s President Bollinger has prejudged the accused faculty, and failed to
defend us or the MEALAC department, and he refused to defend
Columbia’s own record of pluralism and tolerance, the variety of courses
the university offers on the Middle East, or Columbia’s established
commitment to promote Jewish and Israel Studies. Instead President
Bollinger and his administration, as the evidence I will present will show,
gave legitimacy to the film “Columbia Unbecoming,” referred to its claims
as facts, and promised an “investigation.” His subsequent statements
and actions have emboldened those engaged in the campaign to
intimidate me and would confirm to the public that the allegations against
me are in fact true, at least, as far as he was concerned. Let me
illustrate how this transpired.


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#72 14-10-2013 23:26:44

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

Columbia’s first response to the allegations contained in the film,
“Columbia Unbecoming,” was a statement released by the President
himself. This statement was released after Congressman Anthony
Wiener called on Columbia to fire me in a letter to Bollinger, and after
two newspapers (the New York Sun and the Daily News) added their
voices to Wiener’s and asked that I be fired, and after a medical school
faculty member, Moshe Rubin, sent me a racist E-mail which I had
immediately forwarded to Provost Brinkley. In his statement, Bollinger
referred to the “disturbing and offensive nature of incidents described in
the film” without using the word “alleged” before incidents. This was
certainly not an oversight, especially coming from a lawyer.  He further
added that academic freedom “does not, for example, extend to
protecting behavior in the classroom that threatens or intimidates
students who express their viewpoints.” Bollinger failed to make any
reference as to whether academic freedom extends to protecting
students engaged in intimidating professors by raising a media
campaign against them. Nor did the statement address whether the
intimidation of the faculty and the Columbia administration by outside
pressure groups, the press, and government officials would be tolerated.
31  In his statement, instead, Bollinger announced that he had asked
the Provost to “look into” the students’ claims, which in subsequent
press reports quoting him, he referred to as an “investigation.” 32

The next day, on October 28, Bollinger met with national director of the
Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, an organization that had
targeted me since May 6, 2004, when it sent a letter to me copied to
Bollinger accusing me of anti-Semitism. According to press accounts,
Bollinger sought to meet with Foxman and other leaders of Jewish
organizations.  On November 11, after delivering a lecture at the
University Club on Fifth Avenue, Mr. Bollinger was asked about the
student accusations against Columbia faculty members, “according to
an audience member who did not wish to disclose his identity… Mr.
Bollinger… said he was committed to academic freedom but wouldn’t
condone “stupid” behavior by faculty members.” 33  Such a biased and
disrespectful choice of words would continue in Bollinger’s press
declarations. In response to allegations by students repeated to him by
a reporter from New York Magazine that “On day one, students say,
[Massad] tells his class they shouldn’t expect “balance.” There’s even a
disclaimer in his syllabus.” Bollinger responded:

“I believe a disclaimer before starting your course is insufficient…It
doesn’t inoculate you from criticism for being one-sided or intolerant in
the classroom…That’s not to prejudge any claims here. But if you’re
asking, in the abstract, ‘Can a faculty member satisfy the ideal of good
teaching by simply saying at the beginning, I’m going to teach one side
of a controversy and I don’t want to hear any other side and if you don’t
like this, please don’t take my course,’ my view is, that’s irresponsible
teaching.”34

Bollinger never contacted me to check whether this is true and has not
seen copies of my syllabi. While he claimed that he was answering a
hypothetical question to New York Magazine, he would soon be so
emboldened by the very repetition of the claims against me that he
would abandon the necessity he initially saw for the hypothetical caveat.
This is how the reporter of the Jewish Week put it:

“Bollinger is careful not to name names, but he makes clear he is at
odds with some professors in the [MEALAC] department, whether or not
they are guilty of the allegations against them…”Just as I can’t go in to
my First Amendment class and say you know, I happen to think that
censorship is a very good idea, and if you want to take a course on
freedom of speech that emphasizes, you know, against censorship, God
bless you, and go do that,” he said.”35

Indeed, Bollinger now speaks of these allegations as outright facts.
Witness what he told students over dinner a few days ago as reported
by the Columbia Spectator: “‘I’m not going to talk about whether the
accusations are true or not. Let’s just assume they’re true,’ Bollinger
said.” 36 The Spectator reporter adds the following:

“The second claim made by the film, according to Bollinger, was that
some professors did not permit students to voice their own opinions
about matters of discussion in the classroom. He identified this action as
a clear violation of academic freedom…The third claim was that some
MEALAC courses are blatantly biased, presenting only one side of the
spectrum of opinions on contentious subjects. Bollinger said that the
warnings professors gave ahead of time about the one-sidedness of
their courses were ‘unacceptable.’”37

Note that the situation was no longer hypothetical. I should emphasize
here that not only did Bollinger or Provost Brinkley never contact me
about my course, neither of them responded to my announcement that I
had cancelled it, which I made in my publicized statement in response to
the intimidation to which I was being subjected. I had indeed sent a copy
of my statement to Provost Brinkley before posting it. He wrote me back
counseling me not to release it. However neither he nor Bollinger, nor
even Vice President Dirks, expressed any discomfort that I, a Columbia
faculty member, was canceling one of my courses because of
intimidation. None of them informed me that I would be protected by the
university were I to teach it again and that the university would ensure
my rights and protect me against intimidation. Indeed, what I was
subjected to is not more protection by my own university but more
intimidation. The most concrete manifestation of which was the formation
of your committee.

On the issue of the formation of your ad-hoc committee, the first point I
want to refer to is the establishment of the committee and then move to
its mandate. The step taken by the administration to establish a
committee to investigate professors based on student grievances that
were not lodged with any university body but rather aired through an off-
campus lobbying group sets a dangerous precedent of violating the
academic freedom of professors. The establishment of the committee
coupled with the statements by Bollinger to the press have given the
clear impression that the David Project had legitimate issues to raise
with Columbia, and that even though Bollinger himself had assured
everyone that there were no registered complaints against any of the
accused professors through any Columbia channel, and that he had
already convened a secret committee to investigate similar allegations
the previous semester, the so-called Blasi committee, which found no
evidence of bias, he still saw a need for a second special committee to
become the address of such complaints.

The matter of the committee charge is of grave importance. I
requested and had a meeting with Vice President Dirks in his office on
December 9 to discuss this particular matter. I told him then that I would
not consider the ad-hoc committee a legitimate body unless it included
in its charge the investigation of claims of intimidation of faculty by
students, by administrators, and by off campus pressure groups. He
responded positively to my concerns by asking me for my telephone
number in Amman, Jordan, as I was traveling the next day on December
10th. He said that I needed to be next to a phone and fax in the next day
or two so that he could call me and fax me a draft of the charge to
approve so that he could release it then to the public. I was satisfied with
this arrangement. Vice President Dirks however never contacted me. I E-
mailed him on December 14 to inquire about the charge. He wrote back
on December 19th informing me that he had not “yet been able to come
up with a statement about the committee. I’ll send you something as
soon as it is ready.” I never heard back from him. Upon returning to
Columbia in mid-January, my students forwarded to me a mass E-mail
that Vice-President Dirks had sent out inviting students to appear before
the committee. I was taken aback by such a step, as I still did not know
what the committee’s charge was. I wrote to the vice-president to inquire
on January 20 as to what had transpired. He wrote me back clarifying
that he had not promised to share with me the circular he had sent out
to the students. As for the charge, he explained that he still had not
finalized it and would do so in a couple of days. I heard again from him a
week later asking me to pick up a copy of the charge from his office. I
did and was shocked to find that it did not include the investigation of
faculty intimidation by students and administrators. I never heard back
from Vice-President Dirks who never offered an explanation or an
apology for his disrespectful conduct, having failed to inform me of the
change of plans and then offering me the charge as a fait accompli.

I am very concerned about the choice of Floyd Abrams as your
advisor, a position whose mandate has not been made public. Mr.
Abrams is publicly identified with pro-Israeli politics and activism. He has
spoken at fund raisers for causes in Israel,38 has worked and consulted
with the Anti-Defamation League, one of the parties campaigning
against me, and received a major award from it in 2003, the Hubert H.
Humphrey Award, and has endorsed the book The Case for Israel by
Alan Dershowitz who has been speaking publicly in lectures and to the
media against me, in the context of the ongoing witch-hunt, alleging that
I support terrorism. In his blurb endorsing Dershowitz’s book, Abrams
states:

“In a world in which Israel seems always to be the accused, regardless of
the facts, Alan Dershowitz’s defense offers an oasis of sanity and
straight talk. It may be too much to hope that Israel’s accusers will read
this powerful and persuasive response to their charges. It is not at all
too much to ask that fair–minded observers do so.”39

Given these statements by Abrams, the decision to appoint him as
advisor to this committee conveys at the least the appearance of
partiality.

On the question of my scholarship and my integrity as a teacher,
Bollinger’s statements sadly suggest that he has taken sides against the
faculty and the university in this controversy. Compare his recent
declarations with those of Martin Kramer, one of the main people behind
this witch-hunt. Kramer wrote on November 5, 2002 in a web posting:

“The other issue of overriding concern here is the apparent absence of
any effort by the Columbia administration to promote diversity. Here I
don’t mean the false diversity of academic mafias. They think it’s crucial
to assemble people of different ethnic, national, religious, racial, gender,
and disciplinary backgrounds—provided they say the same thing. I’m
talking about intellectual diversity, which used to be a value at Columbia.
The only historian of the modern Middle East at Columbia [besides the
possible employment of Rashid Khalidi] is another Palestinian, Joseph
Massad, who is a militant follower of Edward Said. (He’s now up for
tenure.) Imagine that Khalidi were added, and Massad were tenured,
both to teach history. They work in the same area, and their politics,
while not identical, are very similar. The whole thing begins to look like a
cozy club of like-minded pals, who peer at the Middle East through
exactly the same telescope, from exactly the same vantage point.”40

Compare Kramer’s statement with Bollinger’s. After reviewing Kramer’s
views and those of others on the alleged lack of intellectual diversity at
Columbia and in Middle East Studies more generally, and after citing
Bollinger’s own record on “racial diversity” at the University of Michigan,
New York Magazine’s reports that: “today, [Bollinger] says he’s equally
committed to intellectual diversity.”41 This led the reporter to conclude
that this “may not augur well for professor Massad’s longevity at
Columbia, no matter how favorably disposed the provost’s committee
may be to him.”42  Bollinger would elaborate on that point later to the
Jewish Week, where according to the newspaper, “Bollinger
acknowledged, albeit elliptically, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not
being taught in a balanced way that reflects the complexity of the region.
He believes that ‘the historic, horrific treatment of Jews, especially in the
20th century, is not something to be taken as a matter of the past, and
while I may not share all the policy judgments of the Israeli government, I
believe the conflict cannot in any way be fairly regarded as lying at the
feet of choices that Israel has made.’” 43 Instead Bollinger  recommends
that MEALAC be “expanded” and that it continue to teach the
Palestinian Israeli conflict but not as it has done so far:

“I happen to think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is of central
importance in the modern world,” he said, “and we want to be able to
think about that in its full complexities. That’s going to mean that there
will be thoughts some people will find difficult, or even offensive, and yet
we must be able to explore given our belief in academic freedom.
However, it is our obligation to do that with full respect to the complexity,
and if we don’t do that, we have failed ourselves, we have failed our own
principles.”44

The implication being that those of us, and the reference is clearly to
me, who teach the Palestinian Israeli conflict at MEALAC do not teach it
with its “full complexity” or that I do not “respect” such complexity.
Perhaps I need to state to the committee that I derive my authority as a
scholar of the Middle East from my doctoral training here at Columbia’s
Political Science Department which granted me my PhD with distinction,
a rare honor that was further certified by the Middle East Studies
Association which granted me its most prestigious award for a social
science dissertation for 1998, the Malcolm Kerr Award. My book, which
was based on my dissertation, was published by Columbia University
Press, and has been endorsed and reviewed favorably by the most
prominent Middle East scholars in the academy. The only unfavorable
review, out of seventeen favorable reviews, it received was in Martin
Kramer’s unscholarly magazine, Middle East Quarterly. My book and my
articles on the Palestinian Israeli conflict are used as standard texts for
courses on nationalism and on Palestine and Israel across the United
States and Europe. My recent work on sexuality and queer theory is also
taught across the country, and a book length study on the subject is
forthcoming from Harvard University Press.  I currently have two
standing offers from prestigious presses for a book based on my
published essays on Zionism and Palestinian nationalism. An attack on
my scholarship therefore is not only an attack on me and on MEALAC
but on Columbia’s political science department, on prestigious academic
presses, including Columbia University Press, and on the Middle East
Studies Association (MESA), an opinion expressed by Martin Kramer
who also condemns Middle East Studies at Columbia and MESA itself. I
should affirm here that President Bollinger is under the impression that
he can set the research agenda for Middle East scholarship at Columbia
much better than Columbia’s Middle East faculty. He told the Jewish
Week that “we need to integrate better than we have other fields that
have knowledge relevant to the work being done in MEALAC. What is
the relationship, for example, between the environmental facts of life in
the Middle East and Asia, or its diseases, and the culture there?” 45
This retreat to 19th century climatology and medical anthropology is
disturbing. Would President Bollinger also think that there is a
relationship between “environmental facts, its diseases and the culture”
of African Americans or of American Jews?

I am concerned that Bollinger may well be making an academic
judgment about me that is based not on my scholarship or pedagogy but
on my politics and even my nationality. A case in point is Bollinger’s
recent response to a letter sent by one James Schreiber, a member of
Columbia Law School’s board of visitors and former federal prosecutor,
who says that a lecture that I gave and which he attended at Columbia’s
Middle East Institute three years ago was comparable to a speech at a
“neo-Nazi rally.” Bollinger met with Schreiber privately at his home and
reportedly told him that he found his letter to be “powerful” and that he
seeks to  “upgrade” the faculty in the Middle East studies department.46
In addition,  when a number of faculty members and I signed a petition in
2002 calling on Columbia to divest from companies that sell weapons to
Israel, a country guilty of human rights abuses, Bollinger’s response
betrayed a strong emotional reaction and a stronger political bias:

“The petition alleges human rights abuses and compares Israel to South
Africa at the time of apartheid, an analogy I believe is both grotesque
and offensive.”47

While the campaigners against me off this campus do not have the
direct power to influence my future employment at Columbia, Bollinger
clearly does, and therefore his failure to defend academic freedom is
detrimental to my career and my job. I am further chilled in this regard by
reports that at the recent general meeting of the Faculty of Arts and
Sciences, Bollinger sought to change the fifty-year tradition regarding
how tenure cases are decided at Columbia when he stated that he and
the trustees, in accordance with the statutes but in contravention of a
fifty-year tradition, would want to have the final say in tenure cases in
the future.48

In conclusion, the foregoing has given you the minimum of details
and historical narrative regarding this coordinated campaign from inside
and outside the university targeting me, my job, and my chances for
tenure, based on my political views, my political writings, and my
nationality. That the Columbia University administration acted as a
collaborator with the witch-hunters instead of defending me and offering
itself as a refuge from rightwing McCarthyism has been a cause of grave
personal and professional disappointment to me.  I am utterly
disillusioned with a university administration that treats its faculty with
such contempt and am hoping against hope that the faculty will rise to
the task before them and force President Bollinger to reverse this
perilous course on which he has taken Columbia’s  faculty and students.
The major goal of the witch-hunters is to destroy the institution of the
university in general. I am merely the entry point for their political
project. As the university is the last bastion of free-thinking that has not
yet fallen under the authority of extreme rightwing forces, it has become
their main target. The challenge before us is therefore to be steadfast in
fighting for academic freedom.

APPENDIX

“Policing the Academy”
Published in Al-Ahram Weekly, No. 633, 10-16 April 2003

Joseph Massad* on the McCarthyism stalking American campuses

As I was reading one of the latest death threats I received via e-mail, I
remembered the defamatory campaigns to which Edward Said has been
subjected since the 1970s and which included the firebombing of his
office in the 1980s. Since last summer, apologists for Israel’s “right” to
be a racist state (and to use whatever violence it can muster in defence
of that “right”) have begun a campaign of defamation against anyone in
the US academy who dares to question any Israeli action or practice.
This campaign is part of a larger effort to discredit US universities as
arenas for independent scholarship and thought. It also aims to
delegitimise universities who refuse to serve the interests of either the
national security state or the Israeli government. The fact that those
spearheading this campaign are almost exclusively part of a large
conglomerate known as the pro-Israel lobby in the US is hardly
surprising. Since 11 September, the campaign has expanded to include
any academic who believes that Islam is not a terroristic evil religion bent
on murdering the “civilised”, and that Muslims and Arabs are humans
who are entitled to civil, political, and human rights in their own countries
as well as in the United States.

While academics live in a world where intellectual disagreements are
registered through scholarly debates and discussions, and where
methodological disputes are negotiated on the pages of academic
journals and books and in the context of conferences, the new self-
designated academic policemen refuse to acknowledge such modes of
argumentation and fora as appropriate. In their fantasy world, the
offending academics must be silenced, dismissed from their jobs, and
their offending publications heaped and burned in an auto-da-fé. The
strategy of the thought policemen consists of a refusal to address any of
the offending contentions made by scholars and instead relies on the
use of policing methods of discrediting, intimidation, and character
assassination often used in societies run by the secret police. The
overall purpose of this policing agenda is the destruction of academic
freedom and the subversion of democratic procedure.

Take the examples of two of the better known academic policemen in
recent years, the American Daniel Pipes and the Israeli Martin Kramer,
neither of whom teaches in the US academy; as a result, some might say
that they have an ax to grind with a system that refuses to recognise
their talents, especially in the field of policing and propaganda. Pipes
and Kramer are two of the most outspoken defenders of Israel’s “right”
to be a racist state. They are also keen to defend Israel’s prerogative to
kill and bomb anyone who stands in its way of protecting its right to
discriminate on racial grounds. Their role in the debate is to extend
Israeli violence to the US academic arena by bombarding all enemies of
Israel with defamatory accusations. It is not Merkava tanks, Uzi
submachine guns, or Apache helicopters that are used in this
bombardment, but rather newspaper gossip columns and secret police-
style dossiers to name the preferred methods; as for the e-mail
spamming, identity theft, and the death threats to which the unrepentant
have been subjected, one can be sure that Kramer and Pipes are
unconnected to either of them. Admittedly, their campaigns, unlike the
Israeli government’s campaigns, have not yet eliminated anyone
physically (although the death threats sent by others to many of us
continue), but the main point is to eliminate us professionally, and,
failing that, to terrorise us into silence. Like the Israeli strategy of
indiscriminate violence and terror, these campaigns have failed to
achieve their purpose, whether to stop the Palestinians from resisting
Israel’s illegal occupation and violence in the case of Israel, or to stop
Israel’s academic critics in the case of the academic policemen.

This campaign of intimidation against academics has been well planned
and conceived with one major goal in mind: defamation. This is
undertaken by following a number of steps involving refusal to engage
any of the ideas or propositions put forth by the targeted professors,
much less to refute them, consistent use of innuendo, fabrication of
claims based on half-quotes pulled out of context, recruitment of young
and impressionable defenders of Israel’s aforementioned “rights” on
college campuses, use of the right-wing press to whip up hysteria about
anti- Israel sentiment being allegedly rampant on US campuses, and
calls for outright dismissal of professors found guilty of not upholding
Israel’s “right” to be a racist state. The less the US public believes in
defending Israel’s crimes, the more intense the campaign becomes.

While the pro-Israel lobby’s campaigns to discredit people who criticise
Israel had decreased in relative terms after Oslo, they were revived after
the failure of the Camp David talks and the eruption of the second
Intifada. The lobby and its individual manifestations have become rabid
in their campaigns of discrediting offenders to the point that they have
become embarrassing to many Americans who support Israel.

The campaign against university professors and instructors began in
earnest in the Spring of 2002 and has not abated since. Columbia
University, where I teach, is a major focus of the campaign, as it is seen
by Kramer and Pipes as a major battleground for their cause. In addition
to the unceasing campaigns against Edward Said, the campaign is now
focussing on new professors, namely University of Chicago Professor
Rashid Khalidi who will be joining Columbia University next fall, Professor
Hamid Dabashi, the chairperson of the Department of Middle East and
Asian Languages and Cultures at Columbia, and myself. Other
professors and academics targeted on other campuses include John
Esposito, Juan Cole, Ali Mazrui, M Shahid Alam, and Snehal Shingavi,
among others.

The effort was inaugurated by a newspaper article published by Pipes
(who has no academic post whatsoever) under the title “Extremists on
Campus”, and a book published by Kramer who is “senior researcher” at
Tel Aviv University’s aptly named “Moshe Dayan Centre”. Kramer, the
cleverer of the two, assailed American Middle East academics for their
“failure” to explain the Middle East to the US public. What Kramer means
is that unlike many of their Israeli Jewish counterparts, American
academics have failed to explain to Americans that Muslims and Arabs
are violent uncivilised creatures and that Israel has a right to be a racist
state (although in fact many of them do exactly that). As Kramer works at
the Moshe Dayan Centre, named after that luminary of Israeli military
conquerors, one hopes in vain that some of Dayan’s wisdom would have
rubbed off on Kramer. Alas, if Dayan acknowledged in reference to
Israel that “there is no single place in this country that did not have a
former Arab population”, Kramer in turn chases down any academic who
would remind the world of such forgotten facts and demands that such
an academic repent his sins. Dayan, ever the pragmatist, was never
upset with legitimate Palestinian rage at Israel which he was determined
to crush. He insisted to the likes of Kramer: “Let us not today fling
accusations at the [Palestinian] murderers [of Jewish colonial settlers].
Who are we that we should argue against their hatred? For eight years
now they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their very eyes,
we turn into our homestead the land and the villages in which they and
their forefathers have lived.”

Pipes, on his part, set up McCarthyist public dossiers on the eight
professors of choice on a Web site and called on our students to spy on
us and report any anti-Israel statements that we might make in class.
Tens of professors (among tens of thousands who work at US
universities and colleges) rushed to defend the blacklisted professors by
demanding that their names also be added to the blacklist. For Pipes
and Kramer, this was indication enough of how anti-Israel US academic
culture had become, never mind the tens of thousands of professors
who fell silent and did not defend academic freedom or us. This skewed
view is all the more telling in the case of the ebullient Kramer who
dubbed Columbia University “Bir Zeit on the Hudson”.

Now, in the tradition of Zionist lobbyists, the issue is not to have an
Israeli view balanced with a Palestinian view about the subject, but
rather, failing the suppression of Palestinian views altogether, to insist
on a second, a third, and a fourth Israeli view to “balance” the one
Palestinian view. Take the campaign against a course that I teach at
Columbia titled “Palestinian and Israeli Politics and Societies” as an
example. This course has enraged Kramer and his ilk and is used as
evidence that Columbia University is an anti-Israel university. The fact
that there are many other courses at Columbia (in existence for years,
long before my course was even conceived) covering topics on
contemporary Israeli society and politics, on Zionism, on conflict
resolution in the Middle East, on Israeli literature, as well as on the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict itself, all taught from an Israel-friendly angle
(and not always by full-time professors) is immaterial; it is this orphan
course taught with a critical view of Israel (and of Palestinian
nationalism) that is the problem and which must be balanced. The fact
that Columbia University features an important centre for Israel and
Jewish studies but no centre on Palestine and Arab studies let alone a
centre on Arab studies more generally, is not taken to mean that
Columbia is a place friendly to Israel, rather the opposite: the existence
of one course that criticises Israel is sufficient to conclude that rampant
anti-Israelism (often dubbed “anti-Semitism”) has taken over the
university.

If this was not enough, Columbia’s Bir Zeit status is augmented by the
divestment campaign started last year by the Faculty Committee on
Palestine (of which I am a member), which indicates further to Kramer
that US academics are not upholding Israel’s right to be a racist state.
The fact that Columbia has a counter-divestment petition whose
signatures outnumber the pro-divestment petition by a factor of 33 to
one (among faculty the rate is four to one against divestment) does not
allay his fears or those of his followers, nor the fact that Columbia
University’s new president has publicly denounced the divestment
campaign as “grotesque”. Any questioning of the policemen’s cause
unto itself is seen as a thought crime, even a mortal sin against the
sacrosanct cause of Israel. If anyone were to use these facts to label
Columbia “Hebrew University on the Hudson”, this would be seen
legitimately as anti-Semitic. However, Kramer and his followers are never
brought to task for their virulent anti- Arab racism.

What Kramer, Pipes, and their ilk want to achieve is a subversion of the
democratic process as well as of the academic process. Their intent is to
subvert the academy by deriding its independence and by attempting to
make it subject to the national security state and the thought police. As
far as the democratic process is concerned, their goals are to suppress
dissenting views by defaming them and calling for people to be
dismissed from their jobs if they expressed them. Kramer has called for
the dismissal of Dabashi, myself, and others and began an unsuccessful
campaign to pressure Columbia University to withdraw its offer to Khalidi.
Notice that the academic qualifications of the targeted professors based
on our recognised publications and academic records are negated a
priori by Kramer who questions the very legitimacy of the institutions that
have granted them to us, whether Middle East Studies as a field, the
Middle East Studies Association, the university presses that publish us,
or the universities that employ us (he lamentingly calls me “the flower of
Columbia University”). In Kramer’s and Pipes’ fantasy world, the only
recognition that academics should seek in order to qualify to teach and
publish on the Middle East is that of Israel’s academic police in the
United States. As a gesture of good will, such academics should
perhaps attempt to publish in Kramer’s and Pipes’ journal Middle East
Quarterly, which is indeed impressive for the absence of scholarship in
it. Maybe one day Kramer and Pipes would demand of the academy that
publishing in Middle East Quarterly become a condition for any
academic to obtain tenure or promotion!

Kramer and his young dupes have huffed and puffed lately about my
recent article in Al-Ahram Weekly on “The Legacy of Jean-Paul Sartre”,
claiming that “The Jews, not being a nation by (Massad’s) definition,
cannot have nationalism. They have only racism…” I of course have not
made such a claim. Israel is a racist state not because of Jewish
nationalism but because of its legally institutionalised racism where only
Jews (not Israelis) have rights and privileges based on their national
belonging. I oppose any state that discriminates against its own citizens
based on ethnic, religious, racial, national (or any other) grounds, and
this especially includes those states that have discriminatory laws as
Israel does. It is this and similar questions that Kramer and his followers
do not want to draw attention to, as they have no convincing answers to
offer. The question is: do Kramer and Pipes actually believe that these
methods will work in suppressing our views and freedom of thought and
force us to worship at the altar of their favourite settler-colony?

Kramer, Pipes, and co are angry that the academy still allows
democratic procedure in the expression of political views and has an
institutionalised meritocratic system of judgment (admittedly with its own
faults) to evaluate its members. Their goal is to destroy any semblance
of either in favour of subjecting democracy and academic life to an
incendiary jingoism and to the exigencies of the national security state
with the express aim of imploding freedom. Their larger success,
however, has been in discrediting themselves and in reminding all of us
that we should never take the freedoms that we have for granted, as the
likes of Kramer and Pipes are working to take them away.

* The writer is assistant professor of Modern Arab Politics and
Intellectual History at Columbia University .

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 10 -16 April 2003 (Issue No. 633)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/633/op2.htm

FOOTNOTES

1 The only change I have made in this version of the statement is to
remove the names of students, professors, and administrators that I had
included in the original statement but who have not sought publicity on
this issue. I did so to protect their privacy. I have kept the names of
students who have spoken publicly.

2 Charge to Ad Hoc Committee from the Vice President for Arts and
Sciences.

3 This is the full course description for Spring 2001:

“This course covers the history of Zionism in the wake of the Haskala in
mid nineteenth century Europe and its development at the turn of the
century through the current “peace process” between the state of Israel
and the Palestinian national movement.  The course examines the
impact of Zionism on European Jews and on Asian and African Jews on
the one hand, and on Palestinian Arabs on the other –in Israel, in the
Occupied Territories, and in the Diaspora.  The course also examines
the internal dynamics in Palestinian and Israeli societies, looking at the
roles class, gender and religion play in the politics of Israel and the
Palestinian national movement.  The purpose of the course is to provide
a thorough yet critical historical overview of the Zionist-Palestinian
conflict to familiarize undergraduates with the background to the current
situation.”

4 This is the full course description for Spring 2002:

“This course covers the history of Zionism in the wake of the Haskala in
mid nineteenth century Europe and its development at the turn of the
century through the current “peace process” between the state of Israel
and the Palestinian national movement.  The course examines critically
the impact of Zionism on European Jews and on Asian and African Jews
on the one hand, and on Palestinian Arabs on the other –in Israel, in
the Occupied Territories, and in the Diaspora.  The course also
examines critically the internal dynamics in Palestinian and Israeli
societies, looking at the roles class, gender and religion play in the
politics of Israel and the Palestinian national movement.  The purpose of
the course is not to provide a “balanced” coverage of the views of both
sides, but rather to provide a thorough yet critical historical overview of
the Zionist-Palestinian conflict to familiarize undergraduates with the
background to the current situation from a critical perspective.”

5 This is the course description for Spring 2004:

“This course covers the history of Zionism in the wake of the Haskala
in mid nineteenth century Europe and its development at the turn of the
century through the current “peace process” between the state of Israel
and the Palestinian national movement.  The course examines critically
the impact of Zionism on European Jews and on Asian and African Jews
on the one hand, and on Palestinian Arabs on the other –in Israel, in
the Occupied Territories, and in the Diaspora.  The course also
examines critically the internal dynamics in Palestinian and Israeli
societies, looking at the roles class, gender and religion play in the
politics of Israel and the Palestinian national movement.  The purpose of
the course is to provide a thorough yet critical historical overview of the
Zionist-Palestinian conflict to familiarize undergraduates with the
background to the current situation.”

6 http:// israelcc.org (site is slow)

7 See Daphna Berman, “Masks of Tolerance,” February 26, 2002.

8 Ibid.

9 Xan Nowakowski, Students Organize Sit-In To Support Palestinians,”
Columbia Spectator, 18 April 2002.

10 In a column that he posted on his website titled “Bir Zeit-on-Hudson,”
on 5 Februray 2003, Kramer wrote this threatening statement: [Massad
has] also failed to learn from Said that you lie low until you have tenure,
but that’s another matter.” On February 20, 2004, he wrote an entry
about me stating Massad“wants tenure at Columbia, and will seek it with
a new book entitled The Persistence of the Palestinian Question. Will
Columbia scrape bottom?” In an entry on June 14, 2004, Kramer wrote
“Here’s my idea: Massad should be de-Columbia-nized when he comes
up for tenure.” On October 22, after the David Project film was revealed
to the public, Kramer wrote “I sincerely hope that Columbia will have the
good sense not to tenure Massad, who is a pseudo-scholar…” and
followed that on November 6 with the question: “So is Columbia
prepared to tenure a professor who teaches that Christian (and Jewish)
supporters of Israel in America are the world’s most powerful anti-
Semites? That’s the crux of the Massad question.”  On
December 10, 2004, he wrote “If Columbia has any sense at all, he’ll
eventually have to struggle with the meaning of this word: unemployed.”

11 See for example my interview with Nigel Parry of Electronic Intifada,
posted on http:// electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/732 (link broken)

12 See Kramer’s “Bir Zeit-on-Hudson,” posted on 5 February 2003 (link broken)

13 Ariel Beery, “Middle East Certitude,” Columbia Spectator, 10 March
2003.

14 Ariel Beery, “Between the Narrow Points,” Columbia Spectator, 14
April 2003. See also his article “The Burning Flames,” Columbia
Spectator, 24 April 2003.

15 Joseph Massad, “Policing the Academy,” Al-Ahram Weekly, 10-16
April 2003.

16 Jacob Gershman, “Massad’s Theory: The Zionists are the Anti-
Semites,” New York Sun, 22 February 2005.

17 Rabbi Charles Sheer, “The Treatment of the Middle East Studies at
Columbia University,” 6 January 2004, posted on the Hillel website: http://akko.hillel.columbia.edu/announc … llel?id=91

18 Ibid.

19 See the transcript of “Columbia Unbecoming,” 10.

20 I Rabbi Charles Sheer, “The Treatment of the Middle East Studies at
Columbia University,” op.cit.

21 Jacob Gershman, “Israel Is Accused of Anti-Semitism,” New York Sun,
30 December 2003. They ran the correction on December 31.

22 Jonathan Calt Harris, “Tenured Extremism,” New York Sun, 4 May
2004.

23 This is the full text of my letter:

May 16, 2004

Mr. Joel J. Levy, Director
Anti-Defamation League
823 United Nations Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10017

Dear Director Levy,

I was deeply disturbed by the accusations that your letter of May 6,
2004 leveled against me. The “reports” that you have received from “ a
student who attended the lecture” are utterly inaccurate and bear little
relationship to the text of my lecture. My principled stance against anti-
Semitism and all kinds of racism is a matter of public record and cannot
be assailed by defamatory “reports” or by letters from the ADL that
consider them credible sources.  Indeed I have condemned anti-
Semitism in my Arabic and English writings, regardless of whether the
person expressing it was pro-Israel or anti-Israel, an Arab, an American
Christian, or an Israeli Jew (you may consult with my review of Israel
Shahak’s and Norton Mezvinsky’s book  Jewish Fundamentalism
published by the Electronic Journal of Middle East Studies
where I condemn the anti-Semitic approach used by anti-Zionist Israeli
Jewish scholars to analyze Judaism and Jewish fundamentalism).
I therefore expect a prompt correction of the errors contained in your
letter and demand an immediate apology, a copy of which should be
sent to President Bollinger.

Sincerely,

Joseph Massad
Assistant Professor

Cc: President Lee C. Bollinger
Provost Alan Brinkley

24 Jacob Gershman, “Columbia Abuzz Over Underground Film,” New
York Sun, 20 October 2004.

25 Charles Jacobs and Avi Goldwasser, “In Defense of the David
Project,” Columbia Spectator, 16 November 2004.

26 See my “Response to the Intimidation of Columbia University,” posted
on my Columbia webpage on 3 November 2004: http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1350

27 Shanker’s claim was first reported by Jacob Gershman, “Columbia
Prepared to Protect Students from anti-Israel bias,” New York Sun, 17
November 2004.

28 N.R. Kleinfield, “Mideast Tensions Are Getting Personal on Campus
at Columbia,” New York Times, 14 January 2005.

29 Uriel Heilman, “Non-Academic Debate,’ Jerusalem Post, 23 December
2004.

30 Jacob Gershman, “Bias Festerd ‘For Years,’ Professor Says,” New
York Sun, 29 October 2004.

31 Statement from Lee C. Bollinger on the David Project Film, October
27, 2004.

32 See for example Sam Dillon, “Columbia to Check Reports of Anti-
Jewish Harassment,” New York Times, 29 October 2004.

33 Jacob Gershman, “Columbia Probe Eyed By Council, ” New York
Sun, November 12, 2004.

34 Jennifer Senior, “Columbia’s Own Middle East War,”New York
Magazine, January 10, 2005.

35 Liel Leibovitz, “The Winter of His Content,” Jewish Week, 4 March
2005.

36 Lisa Hirshmann, “Over Dinner, Bollinger On Academic Freedom,”
Columbia Spectator, 10 March  2005

37 Ibid.

38 See “Israel Cancer research fund, Women  of Achievement Lunch to
Fight Cancer,” in 15 Minutes, about his emceeing such an event.

39 The quote is posted on the book publisher’s website: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-102314.html

40 Martin Kramer, “The Columbia Club of Middle Eastern Studies,” 5
November 2002, weblog can be found on: www.martinkramer.org

41 Jennifer Senior, “Columbia’s Own Middle East War,”, New York
Magazine, January 10, 2005.

42 Ibid.

43 Liel Leibowitz, “The Winter Of His Content,” Jewish Week, 4 March
2005.

44 Ibid.

45 Liel Leibowitz, ‘Winter of his Content,” op.cit.

46 Jacob Gershman, “Ex-Prosecutor Likens Massad Speech to a ‘Neo-
Nazi Rally’,” New York Sun, 25 February 25.

47 “President Lee Bollinger’s Statement on the Divestment Campaign” 7
November 2002

48 Minutes of the General Meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences,
16 February 2005

Last edited by DejuificatorII (14-10-2013 23:38:28)


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#73 14-10-2013 23:39:41

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

Couple Tarred as Anti Semites

     Judge Slams ADL for Hurting Couple Tarred As 'Anti-Semites'

            By MARC PERELMAN
            FORWARD CORRESPONDENT

UPHOLDING most of a $10 million defamation suit against the Anti-
Defamation League, a federal judge in Denver has lambasted the
organization for labeling a nasty neighborhood feud as an anti-Semitic
event.

In upholding the first-ever court defeat handed to the 87-year-old ADL,
U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham said the organization had endorsed
and publicized the bigotry accusations of a Jewish couple against its
neighbors without either investigating the case or weighing the
consequences.

"Based on its position and history as a well-respected civil-rights
institution, it is not unreasonable to infer that public charges of
anti-Semitism leveled by the ADL will be taken seriously and assumed by
many to be true without question," the judge wrote on March 31 in a 46-
page order and memorandum of decision obtained by the Forward. "In that
respect, the ADL is in a unique position of being able to cause
substantial harm to individuals when it lends its backing to allegations
of anti-Semitism."

The judge's opinion confirmed a verdict reached last April by a federal
jury, which essentially accused the Denver chapter of the ADL and its
regional representative, Saul Rosenthal, of falsely portraying William and
Dorothy Quigley as anti-Semites. Mr. Quigley, an executive of the United
Artists theater chain, said his career in the "predominantly Jewish and
close-knit" film business had stalled after the incident.

"The ADL seized an opportunity to aggrandize itself as the defender of the
Jews by unjustly accusing a middle-class couple of being anti-Semitic
crooks," said Jay Horowitz, the Quigleys' Denver-based lawyer. "And all
along, they showed an unbelievable arrogance."

At the same time, the judge reduced last year's judgment by some $675,000,
cutting the punitive damages awarded to Mrs. Quigley under state law and
reducing the Quigleys' compensatory damages to reflect money they received
in an earlier settlement with opposing lawyers.

The ADL said it would appeal the decision to the 10th Circuit Court of
Appeals in Denver later this spring. The ADL's law firm, Long and Jaudon,
claimed in a statement issued by the ADL last week that "there were
reversible errors made during both pretrial and trial proceedings." Both
the ADL and attorney Joe Jaudon refused to comment further.

What is not in dispute is that the ADL, after springing to the defense of
a Jewish couple essentially seeking to strengthen their hand in a private
dispute, now finds itself entangled in an embarrassing and potentially
costly legal stew. The league's annual budget hovers around $50 million.

The judgment could harm its reputation as an aggressive but reliable
monitor of anti-Semitism.

The ruling comes at a time when the ADL is also embroiled in the Marc Rich
pardon scandal. The organization said it received some $250,000 in the past 15 years from the fugitive financier who received a controversial
11th-hour pardon from President Clinton. The league's national director,
Abraham Foxman, declared last month that he "probably" had made a mistake
in writing a letter to Mr. Clinton supporting the Rich pardon.

All this was not lost on Mr. Horowitz, the Denver attorney.
"Can you imagine an organization using money from Marc Rich, a guy who
made millions dealing with anti-Semitic countries like Iran, attacking
powerless people for some alleged anti-Semitic slurs?" he said.

The Denver dispute began in August 1994, when Mitchell and Candice Aronson
moved to the affluent suburb of Evergreen, Colo. The couple was initially
befriended by the Quigleys, their neighbors, but relations quickly began
to sour, escalating from complaints about dogs and stolen plants to an
allegation by Mrs. Aronson that Mr. Quigley tried to run her over with his
car.

The Aronsons contacted the ADL on October 21, after concluding that the
Quigleys were plotting to drive them out of the neighborhood because they
were Jewish. The suspicions were based partly on a conversation on the
Quigleys' cordless phone, which the Aronsons claimed they inadvertently
overheard through their police scanner. They said they heard the Quigleys
talking about sticking pictures of oven doors on their house, burning
their children and wishing they had been blown up in a terrorist attack in
Israel.

The ADL, after consulting with the district attorney, suggested that the
Aronsons tape another six weeks' worth of conversations. None of the
parties reportedly knew that Congress had outlawed such wiretaps on
October 25.

In December, the Aronsons filed a federal suit against the Quigleys,
accusing them of ethnic intimidation and violation of their civil rights.
The following day, at a press conference, Mr. Rosenthal of the ADL labeled
the Quigleys anti-Semitic and said they were planning attacks against the
Aronsons. The district attorney's office also filed felony criminal
charges of ethnic intimidation.

At that point, the case began to unravel. The Quigleys accused the
Aronsons of waging a smear campaign against them. In January 1996, they
sued the Aronsons and the ADL for violating their rights under the Federal
Wiretap Act.

In the meantime, the district attorney, who realized that the tapes were
illegal, dropped the ethnic intimidation charge and agreed to pay
compensation to the Quigleys. In February 1998, an out-of-court settlement
was reached between the couples. But the settlement did not include Mr.
Rosenthal and the ADL.

Mr. Horowitz said he tried to settle numerous times with the ADL, but was
rebuffed.

The Quigleys accused the ADL of libel, false light invasion of privacy,
invasion of privacy and violation of the Federal Wiretap Act. In April
2000, a jury accepted nearly all the charges and awarded them $10.5
million in damages, one of the largest defamation awards ever in Colorado.

In reply, the ADL and Mr. Rosenthal called for a reduction of the
judgment, or a new trial.

Judge Nottingham, ruling on the ADL's motion to overturn the verdict,
accepted none of the league's arguments. He pointed to evidence that Mr.
Rosenthal and the ADL had not bothered to listen to the tapes, read the
transcripts or investigate in-depth before publicly leveling the charge of
anti-Semitism. He criticized what he called the selection of isolated
comments from thousands of pages of transcripts to build the anti-Semitism
accusation "in what could otherwise be regarded as mere sarcastic, banal
and tasteless remarks uttered in a garden-variety dispute among
neighbors."

To support his argument, the judge cited an internal ADL memorandum
written by Mr. Rosenthal in January 1995, in which the league official
said he wanted "to be sure we are maximizing all opportunities that are
available from the Aronson case and arrests.... In short, 'make hay while
the sun shines' - graciously of course."

Mr. Quigley, a New York native, was a chief financial officer at Paramount
pictures and president of Vestron Pictures. There he produced the movies
"Dirty Dancing" and "The Dead." He moved to Denver in 1993 to head the
United Artists' theater chain in the region.

As a result of the anti-Semitism charge, said his attorney of Mr.
Horowitz, "He has become a pariah in the business."

The judge concurred, repeatedly underlining what he called the
"catastrophic impact" of the accusations on Mr. Quigley's career. He said
the issue was actually raised in discussions within the Denver ADL. "In
that respect, Rosenthal's conduct could be perceived as even more
egregious, given his awareness of the stigmatizing consequences attached
to accusations of anti-Semitism."

Regarding the large damage award, the judge wrote that "it will, at a
minimum, provide a deterrent effect against the ADL from engaging in
future conduct involving the use of intercepted telephone conversations to
pursue a civil lawsuit against persons perceived to be anti-Semitic."

(c) 2001 The Forward


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#74 14-10-2013 23:40:19

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

Court Rules for Activists on ADL

Tuesday, November 17, 1998
San Francisco Chronicle

Ruling Allows Activists To Sue Over Disclosure

     Bay Area political activists who have sued a Jewish
civil rights organization are entitled to learn whether
the group illegally disclosed confidential information
about them, a state appeals court ruled yesterday .

     The ruling by the Court of Appeals should enable the
activists to go to trial in their long-stalled suit
against the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.

     The activists' suit, which asks for class-action
status for as many as 1,000 people, relies on a state law
banning disclosure of confidential government
information, with damages of $2,500 for each disclosure.
Filed in 1993, the suit has been delayed by a dispute
over the confidentiality of ADL files.

     ADL regional director Barbara Bergen said that
although the decision "leaves open the possibility of
limited future discovery from the League," ADL officials
predicted it would lead to a legal victory for the group
in future litigation. The organization, which publishes
newsletters about hate groups, has the legal status of a
journalist, and it says it is therefore entitled to keep
its files and sources confidential.

     The appeals court, however, ruled 3 to 0 that the
ADL could not keep its files secret if they were used for
nonjournalistic activity.


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#75 14-10-2013 23:40:56

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

David Duke Exploiting Anti-Semitism in Russia -ADL

Source: Reuters, February 26, 2001

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – White supremacist David Duke has launched a campaign to exploit anti-Semitism in Russia, a nation he considers ripe to accept his racist theories, a Jewish organization said on Monday.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said in a report on anti-Semitism in present-day Russia that Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi leader, considered the country key to “white survival.”

“There is an underbelly of anti-Semitism in Russia which David Duke is hoping to add to and exploit,” said Abraham Foxman, ADL national director.

“Anti-Semitism, with deep roots in Russia is being stirred up by nationalist leaders and extremists,” he said. “David Duke has detected an opportunity to spread his hatred of Jews and other minority groups to like-minded bigots.”

Duke was in Russia on Monday and unavailable for comment, his personal assistant, Roy Armstrong, said. But Armstrong described the ADL report as “bulls—” and “pure defamation” and said Duke was in Russia to expose the activities of “Zionist Jewish figures involved in Mafia activities, organized crime and prostitution.”

An article on his web site, (http:/www.davidduke.com), is headlined: “Is Russia the Key to White Survival?” and calls the former Soviet Union a “white nation” that is threatened by the “overwhelmingly Jewish” Russian Mafia.

The ADL said in its report that Duke has made several visits to Russia to meet with nationalist leaders and promote a Russian translation of a Duke book titled called “The Jewish Question Through the Eyes of an American.”

The ADL said that while Duke was notorious as a white supremacist in the United States, he has introduced himself to an unsuspecting Russia as a respected author and politician. It said Duke has met with well-known anti-Semitic leaders in Russia and expressed a desire to move there and work with extremists.

The ADL said 18 major attacks on Jews and Jewish property were reported in Russia in 2000 and that likely many more went unreported. The group said that Russian ultra-nationalists were working to increase their presence.


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#76 14-10-2013 23:42:02

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

Days of Remembrance

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

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

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

Reviewed by Charles E. Weber, Ph.D.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

450,000 Hungary

210,000 Germany and Austria

105,000 Holland

90,000 France

80,000 Bohemia and Moravia

75,000 Slovakia

54,000 Greece

40,000 Belgium

26,000 Yugoslavia

14,000 Bulgaria

8,000 Italy

1,000 Luxembourg

900 Norway

1,253,900 Total

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#77 14-10-2013 23:43:08

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

foxman-adl.jpg



The Defamation League
Eric Alterman
January 28, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited by DejuificatorII (15-10-2013 02:22:33)


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#78 14-10-2013 23:44:23

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

Desperate Fanatics : The ADL Pounds The Table !

By Alan Sabrosky

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

It really isn’t surprising that the ADL, along with AIPAC (the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the brigade of associated organizations lobbying for Israel, should employ such tactics. Like lawyers obliged to pound the courtroom table when law and evidence are both against their client, the ADL is faced with the uncomfortable reality that both international law and the evidence on the ground condemn Israel as a rogue state, saved from sanctions and embargoes only by US vetoes in the UN Security Council and endless references to an historical Holocaust perpetrated by Europeans, all to sidestep condemnation and culpability for their systemic oppression of Palestinians who had nothing to do with it.

The New Anti-Semitism

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

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

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

The Price of Arrogance

A misreading of these developments plus a measure of arrogance led the ADL to make one of the few serious missteps in its history, when it attempted to use its influence to pressure the University of California to censure a professor at the Santa Barbara campus who had used highly critical graphics of Israel’s assault on Gaza in his class. That the professor, William Robinson, was Jewish made the ADL’s efforts more pointed, because Jewish critics of Israel are more difficult for them to counter – labels like “self-hating Jew” don’t go quite as far as “neo-Nazi” and the like. The details are available elsewhere (see links below), but the ADL ended up with mud on its organizational face when the campus community rallied around Professor Robinson and the administration rejected (albeit belatedly) their effort.

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

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

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


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#79 14-10-2013 23:45:18

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

Disgusting Jews Suppress Christmas Celebrations

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

[Jews blindly shuffle themselves towards the slaughterhouse.]

ADL Offers Guidance for Negotiating
‘December Dilemma’

ADL Offers Schools, Public Institutions “Guidance” For Negotiating the ‘December Dilemma’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited by DejuificatorII (14-10-2013 23:45:46)


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#80 14-10-2013 23:46:38

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: AlterNet.org | August 28, 2000

FBI Calling the Kettle Black

by Tim Wise, AlterNet

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

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

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

Upon reading the headline of my local paper a few weeks ago, I couldn’t help but think of these pots, and kettles, and motes, and beams. For there, in black and white was the following:

“Police role in Holocaust added to FBI Agent’s training.”

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

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

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

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

The new training spends a great deal of time discussing the passivity of German law enforcement in the face of growing repression under the Third Reich. But we needn’t look to Hitler’s regime for that lesson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And for involvement with direct repression, you can’t get much better than the 2,400 or so FBI COINTELPRO operations to “disrupt and neutralize” targeted groups and individuals from the mid-’50-’s to 1971. According to declassified documents and a Senate Committee investigation (about which I doubt FBI recruits are informed), the Bureau actively attempted to discredit and destroy the civil rights movement, the antiwar movement, and dozens of organizations dedicated to Black, Latino, and Indigenous liberation.

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

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

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

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

Figuring that most of the new recruits probably grew up in the Reagan ’80′s, they should perhaps know — but I’m sure won’t be told — that even after COINTELPRO, the FBI continued spying on domestic organizations. Early in his administration, President Reagan — himself a former FBI informant against fellow actors — issued Executive Order 12333, allowing the FBI to wiretap without a warrant and engage in undercover operations against organizations opposed to his Central America policies.

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

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

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

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

Let this serve as yet another exhibit item, to be filed away under “passing the buck,” 101: yet further proof that we are more than comfortable discussing the crimes of others, but still unwilling to peek under the hood of our own engines of repression. The one thing the FBI’s new attempt at “tolerance training” apparently can’t tolerate, is the truth that hits a bit too close to home.

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


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#81 14-10-2013 23:47:55

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: National Vanguard Magazine — Number 114

Freedom Under Attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Politically Inappropriate Listening Habit

George Orwell wrote in 1984 of “thought crime” (thinking a Politically Incorrect thought) and “face crime” (having a Politically Inappropriate expression on one’s face–e.g., smiling at a joke about homosexuals, or failing to smile when passing a racially mixed couple on the sidewalk), but one that Orwell didn’t think of might be called “ear crime”: listening to something that is deemed “offensive.” That’s what 30-year-old Nunzio Bonaccorsy, of Annapolis, Maryland, did earlier this year, and it cost him dearly.

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

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

Such corporate bigotry is still a step away from government enforcement of “appropriate” radio listening habits, of course. And the chances are that Alcon Labs doesn’t really care what programs its employees listen to. What Alcon cares about is minimizing its problems with the government, and it knows well that a complaint to the bureaucrats in Washington from any minority employee can mean big problems. Bonaccorsy probably would have been fired if his Black coworker had complained instead about an “insensitive” slogan on his T-shirt or an “offensive” bumper sticker on his car. The customary response of employers to governmental programs favoring minorities has been to go beyond even what is required by law, just to be safe.


Newspeak in the Making

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

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

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

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

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

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


Political Correctness, Swiss Style

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Stealing Freedom at the State Level

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#82 14-10-2013 23:49:00

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

Frist Accused of Exploiting Religion Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#83 14-10-2013 23:50:02

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: Michael A. Hoffman, http//:www.hoffman-info.com

Gathering Wind: Morris Dees and The Rise of Mental Flatulence in America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©1996 by Michael A. Hoffman II. Distributed by The Independent History and Research Co.


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#84 14-10-2013 23:50:59

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

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

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

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

Book Review, by Louis Calabro

September 27, 2000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Louis Calabro, President.
European/American Issues Forum


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#85 14-10-2013 23:55:26

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: http://www.codoh.org | October 5, 2000


Hate Hurts, But Bullets Kill

by George Brewer

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

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

We haven’t received our copy yet but we can guess what kinds of things are in the book, based on the kinds of things that are on the ADL website. Judging by what we read there, the ADL is committed to making sure that kids aren’t exposed to anything that might give them a tummy ache or maybe hurt their tender little feelings.

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

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

No, this has to do with a prize competition being touted on cereal boxes, featuring a six-pointed star that for some reason came out on some of the boxes as “Jude Star” instead of the intended “Jade Star.” Of course, this was a goof, and we would expect the cereal company to correct it, what we don’t expect, and don’t need, is to be informed that the ADL is on the supermarket cereal trenches ensuring that no child inadvertently consumes prejudice that stays crunchy in milk.

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

In addition to the latest press releases that are geared to protecting kids, in recent years the ADL has also extracted apologies
from Superman Comics, for a story line about the Holocaust that was “insensitive” because it didn’t specify that any of the victims were Jews, and a TV show for its portrayal of a lovable Yiddish zeyde (grandfather). We can imagine that Hate Hurts, with or without an exclamation point, will cover similar ground.

Yet, after receiving some recent correspondence, we wonder if one of the “difficult questions” being “explored” in Hate Hurts might be one like this: “What happens when a 12 year old kid is shot while cowering behind his father in Israeli occupied territory?” For some reason, we don’t think that question is going to be addressed, and if it were, the answer, based on what we have seen, would be “Nothing.”

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

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

You can tell it’s a big story because immediately there were denials from the Israeli Defense Forces, claiming that they hadn’t fired the shots. Of course, the alternative, that some Palestinians shot the two for propaganda purposes, is kind of hard to believe, but furthermore most of the eyewitnesses, including the father, insist that the killers were Israeli soldiers, and from the camera shot it appears that it occurred at close range.

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

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

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

Mind you, we don’t believe that every Jew or even any American Jew is responsible for the reckless shootings by the Israeli Defense Forces. But on the other hand, if an organization sells itself as defending Jewish interests, constantly delivers sermons about Jewish and Israeli interests, and furthermore is always carrying on about protecting children, we have a certain expectation that they will have something to say about this case, too.

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

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

Moral leadership is a difficult thing. But if you can’t stand up on your hindlegs and condemn the brutal and careless killing of a child, you don’t deserve to be listened to. The ADL’s silence in the case of the shooting of a 12 year old Palestinian boy on TV reminds us of the extent to which the ADL is willing to close the book on its own moral authority by its timidity, and it further reminds us of the extent to which the “Close the Book on Hate” campaign is a stupid joke.

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

Hate Hurts? Yeah, sure. But Bullets Kill.

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

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

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

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

Book Review, by Louis Calabro

September 27, 2000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Louis Calabro, President.
European/American Issues Forum

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

By Robert Fisk, 2 October 2000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The United States called for an end to the “violence” – this courtesy of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright – without making any reference to Sharon’s grotesque visit to the mosque grounds of east Jerusalem. By yesterday afternoon, the BBC were at it again, reporting that “Israeli authorities were bracing themselves for what may lie ahead”. Weren’t the Palestinians also doing that?

Source: New York Times, September 12, 2000

Close the Book on Hate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited by DejuificatorII (14-10-2013 23:56:23)


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#86 14-10-2013 23:58:17

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: This story ran on page 1 of the Boston Globe’s City Weekly on 12/10/2000.
© Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.

Helping Police Probe Hate Crimes:
ADL to Give Officers How-to Cards

By Emily Shartin, Globe Correspondent

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

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

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

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

Given the fact that hate crime statutes are relatively new, police say they welcome just about any resource that helps them on the job. Although police departments now routinely offer hate crimes investigation training, that hasn’t always been the case, said John Collins, general counsel for the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, also a partner in the campaign.

”Hate crimes [is] one of the areas where traditionally we didn’t train people,” said Collins, noting that such training only became standard for most police departments within the past decade.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A more unified police response to such incidents will likely show the public that intolerance exists in their communities. ”A lot of people believe it doesn’t happen, but it does,” he said.


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#87 15-10-2013 00:02:07

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

Hitler's Apologists Review of ADL Smear Pamphlet

Source: The CODOH web-site

Hitler’s Apologists

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

Reviewed by Charles E. Weber, Ph.D.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Committee for the Reexamination of the History of the Second World War (Bulletin No. 66)


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#88 15-10-2013 00:17:32

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

Israel Lobby
Milton Viorst on ‘The Israel Lobby’

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

By Milton Viorst

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#89 15-10-2013 00:18:17

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

Israel Now For Journalists of the Future

Source: The Jerusalem Post | September 11, 2000

Israel Now for Journalists of the Future

By Chani Cohen

(September 11) – As editor of The Rice Thresher, the student newspaper of Rice University in Texas, Mariel Tam doesn’t often have the opportunity to cover foreign affairs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The students agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

“Israel and the Middle East are so heavily reported, a lot of it is misconceptions… In truth, we [in America] don’t know much at all about what goes on here.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“There are always factors much deeper than the rhetoric, and this is a challenge I look forward to.”


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#90 15-10-2013 00:19:00

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

Israel's Bellin Rips Us Jews

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

               By RACHEL DONADIO
                www.forward.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited by DejuificatorII (15-10-2013 00:19:29)


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#91 15-10-2013 00:24:02

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

Its Informant Sentenced but ADL Criminal Charges Dropped

Source: The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July/August 1994, Page 21

Its Informant Sentenced, But ADL Criminal
Charges Dropped

By Rachelle Marshall

Tom Gerard, a former San Francisco police officer who shared confidential police information on Arab-American and other political groups with a paid agent of the Anti-Defamation League, has pleaded no contest to the minor charge of illegal access to a police computer system, ending the criminal case against him brought last year by the San Francisco District Attorney’s office, Gerard was sentenced to a three-year period of probation, 45 days on the sheriff’s work crew, and a $2,500 fine.

The original charges brought against Gerard when he was arrested in May 1993 included the theft of confidential police and Department of Motor Vehicle records. In late April of this year Judge J. Dominique Olcomendy said the case could not go forward because the FBI refused to release documents that Gerard’s attorney said would prove his client’s innocence. Gerard’s long career in undercover police work involved frequent contacts with the FBI and included a stint with the CIA in Central America. Some of the documents subpoenaed by his attorney are thought to be summaries of FBI wiretaps that revealed Gerard and ADL employee Roy Bullock were selling data on anti-apartheid groups to the South African government.

The two men may have provided information to Israel’s spy agency Mossad as well. Included in Gerard’s files was information on every major Arab-American organization and hundreds of their members. The arrests last winter in Israel of three Arab Americans who were visiting the occupied territories prompted many supporters of Palestinian causes to suspect that reports of their legal activities in the United States were being sent to Israeli intelligence officials and used as a basis for arrest when they arrived in Israel. Although ADL was found in possession of much of this illegally acquired information, District Attorney Arlo Smith agreed last fall not to file criminal charges against the organization on condition that ADL contribute $75,000 to educational programs over the next three years and refrain from soliciting confidential public records that it knew were illegally obtained.

The FBI’s refusal to cooperate in the case against Gerard is puzzling to those who recall that it was the FBI that tipped off San Francisco police in late 1992 that the former police officer had illegally retained in his home police intelligence files that had been ordered destroyed in 1990. But according to the April 30 San Francisco Examiner, the defense strategy crafted by Gerard’s attorney, James Lassart, “was tosubpoena the FBI records, knowing that the bureau wouldnot turn them over for fear of compromising its own investigative techniques and informants.”

Despite the court’s decision on Tom Gerard, the controversy over the ADL spy case is bound to remain alive. Arab Americans and others whose rights were violated were disappointed and angry when the original charges were dropped. James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, said, “What was on trial was whether or not our system of justice would follow through and protect our rights … Our justice system has been found wanting.” Osama Doumani of the American-Arab AntiDiscrimination Committee (ADC) called it “a reverse David and Goliath situation.”

In the long run it may be up to the victims of the spy operation to bring its perpetrators to justice. Two civil lawsuits against the ADL are inching their way through the courts, unfortunately at what ADL lawyers are trying to assure is glacial speed. One of the suits was filed last year in federal court by ADC and other civil rights organizations, and the other in California state court by a group of individuals represented by former Congressman Paul McCloskey, Jr. Plaintiffs in both suits were listed in ADL’s files and charge that ADL violated their constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of expression.

It is likely to be months or years before these cases are resolved. Meanwhile, the failure of the judicial system to prosecute all of those involved in spying on thousands of their fellow citizens suggests that the effort to achieve full civil rights for all Americans still has a long way to go.

Rachelle Marshall is a free-lance writer living in Stanford, CA.

© Copyright 1995-1999, American Educational Trust. All Rights Reserved.


Nous serons toujours là.

Offline

#92 15-10-2013 00:26:39

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

Jewish Anti Defamation League to Monitor Pro Life Web Sites

Source: EWTN News Brief | 20-Jun-2001

Jewish Anti-defamation League to Monitor
Pro-Life Web Sites

NEW YORK, Jun 20, 01 (CWNews.com/LSN.ca) – The US Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) launched into a left-wing activist project on Monday when it announced a web site to monitor “extremist” and “hate” groups, a category in which they include pro-life groups. The site would serve as a database for law enforcement officials.

While the group claims it is only seeking to identify “anti-abortion groups that advocate violence,” the group’s pro-abortion advocacy and attempts to associate the shooting of abortionists with peaceful pro-life groups such as Human Life International contradicts their reassurances. An ADL press release from October 30, 1998 identified Human Life International among “anti-abortion extremists” and derided any pro-life group comparing the slaughter of the unborn to the Nazi Holocaust.

The ADL often even attacks conservative Jews such as Dr. Laura Schlessinger for their conservative views. In fact, Carl Pearlston, a member of the ADL for 25 years wrote recently in the Jewish World Review that he was booted off the ADL’s Executive Committee and Regional Board for not towing the ADL’s leftist agenda. Pearlston laments that the ADL was “turning Judaism on its head.” He said that for the ADL “fighting ‘hate’ became a euphemism for an attack on sexual morality, the traditional family, and the Jewish view that children deserve a loving father and mother, not two fathers or two mothers.”

The ADL’s aggressive pro-abortion stand was confirmed when in a June 28, 2000 press release they cheered the Supreme Court decision barring a partial-birth abortion ban in Nebraska and admitted that the ADL had “filed an amicus curiae or ‘friend of the court’ brief which said the Nebraska law unconstitutionally interfered in matters of individual choice.”


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