From irimland@zundelsite.org Sun Dec 2 03:12:18 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 19:12:18 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/1/2001 - "Tribal observations"/ Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 1, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Matt Giwer, the intellectual terror of the Nizkorites, shares some worthy, albeit politically incorrect revisionist reflections on "tribal matters": [START] Tribal observations by Matt Giwer, =A9 2001 Nov. 30 I am reminded of the long-standing speculation, even belief, after the discovery of the New World, that the American Indians descended from the lost tribes of Israel - a reason perhaps being that the tribes of Israel included their slaves, dependents and adopted strangers, as described in Exodus, as did the Amerinds. Those were representatives of primitive social forms which, by the end of the 19th century, European countries had by and large outgrown - save for quite literally treaty relationships with tribes of the New World. Even today we refer to "tribal lands", Souix land for example, indicating group ownership rather than individual ownership. This concept of group ownership existed in Europe in terms of Church property, where the land belonged to the Church rather than the later ownership invested in the bishop or archbishop, in comparison to the modern approach, where churches are legally corporations for purposes of ownership. The western world has almost totally adopted the concept of individual ownership - whether it be an actual person or the legal fiction of a corporation being a person. The most glaring exception ... revolves around the retrograde concept of tribal Jews. =46rom the Bolshevik Revolution through the post-WWII expansion of communism to Eastern Europe, tens of millions of individuals lost ownership rights in private property. With the fall of European Communism, churches and synagogues have taken actions to recover properties expropriated by the governments. Some individuals have also taken action. The exception to this is the retrograde concept of tribal Jews. Jewish organizations are threatening, and at times are taking legal action, to recover all property owned by Jews under the tribal concept that such property is uniquely Jewish property. Consider a direct parallel - the Pope in Rome taking legal action to claim all property that had been owned by Catholics as Catholic property whereby the ownership falls to the Pope. When it comes to property which had been owned by Catholics, it takes on no unique Catholic nature. Rather, it is treated as any other personally owned private property. When it comes to Jews, the archaic, even medieval, concept of tribal ownership is invoked as though there is a tribal ownership superior to individual ownership. This anachronism permits self-appointed groups, such as the World Jewish Congress, to make property and financial claims upon countries and organizations in the name of all Jews. Dr. Norman Finkelstein in his short, insightful and polemic work, The Holocaust Industry - which might be better titled The Holocaust Racket - makes short work of these groups. Without mincing words, he demonstrates that these self-appointed groups are keeping almost all the recovered monies and properties, funneling the proceeds remaining, after paying bloated salaries and expenses to organization leaders and their cronies, into pet projects. These pet projects include innumerable projects to remember their self-styled "The Holocaust", (1) are headed by overpaid directors and supernumerary staff who pay far more than is reasonable for academically worthless rehashes of decades of repetative, prior publications. Another parallel, if you will, would be the construction of a US Christian Nazi Holocaust Memorial Museam (USCNHMM) on the Mall in Washington, DC established through the efforts of the United Baptist Church. IT would parallel the US Holocaust Memorial Museum to what happened to non-Americans in Europe during WWII. This hypothetical museum would ignore all Christians but Baptists. It would have all but a few token non-Baptists on its board of directors and senior staff. (2) It would ignore the elementary and minimum standards of a museum by ignoring the elementary intellectual and academic norms for a museum. Rather than a place of learning it would be a place to "feel" what it was like to be a Bapist during WWII. (Imagine the Smithsonian's Aerospace Museum trying to give visitors the "feeling" of flying without exhibiting one airplane or spacecraft.) Clearly the idea of Christians as a particular group of people with rights is no longer in use. Only in circumstances where there is a component related to the Christian religion does the term apply. In contrast the tribal concept commonly applied to Jews permits atheists to be counted as Jews. To do this it applies the concept of tribal membership by birth (3) -otherwise it would hark (harken?) back to membership in a race or nationality by birth and invite the resurrection of racial considerations for everyone. In the US we are currently debating the applicability of group reparations to Blacks. The parallel would be if the NAACP were demanding the right to distribute all compensation funds, set the criteria for who is to get compensation, take a large handling fee for doing so, and keep every dollar not distributed. The NAACP, like the WJC, is unelected and unaccountable to anyone but its members. Neither has any legitimate claim to representing anyone but its members. Unlike the WJC, the NAACP does not claim any motive other than political activism. The WJC is a powerful organization, but even bigger fish have been in the game. Since 1954, the state of Israel has claimed to be the natural recipient of compensation, which should go to individual Jews or their descendants and survivors. Germany has recognized that claim with financial and material support worth billions of US dollars a year. Following the lead of Germany, and for no particular reason, the US annual cash payments to Israel of three billion dollars is about equally divided between military and welfare, without significant conditions. Along with those trade agreements, loan guarantees, loan remissions, and other things of value are estimated to be worth between an additional two to seven billion US dollars annually. The cumulative cash payments as of 2000 are on the order of 93 billion US dollars. As it has long been a popular political fiction attributed to President Richard Nixon, Israel is of "strategic value" to the US - which it clearly is not. The only remaining rationale for this charitable giveaway is recognizing Israel to be the beneficiary of the losses of suffered by individual Jews as a consequence of WWII. A parallel to this would be billions of dollars annually given to the Catholic Church of Poland in compensation for the losses of individual Polish Catholics. This collectivization of Jews, rather than considering Jews as individuals by Jewish organizations and self-proclaimed Jewish leaders, makes anti-semitism understandable. The same people who are gaining financially and in political power are both promoting Jews as a collective and raising sanctimonious cries when people do not consider Jews as individuals. Their working premise: When one Jew is harmed, all or harmed - but when one Jew harms another, one individual has harmed another individual. I can agree that nothing justifies anti-semitism if Jews will agree there are no group claims for all Jews. It cannot be both ways without reinvigorating the long dead anti-semitism. These self-styled representatives of all Jews benefit from discovering anti-semitism. Abraham Foxman director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles - no connection with Simon Wiesenthal except for the franchise fee to use his name - has publically stated that the best way to encourage contributions is to mention Hitler and the Nazis in fund-raising letters. Jewish organizations which collect incidents of anti-semitism have a methodology so flawed it cannot honestly be called a methodology. They simply count the number of reports by individuals. There is no followup to ascertain it actually happened. There is no requirement for a police complaint to be filed. There is no requirement for a court conviction. The closest comparisons to this non-method are chulpacabra sightings and UFO abductions - although the latter is often more thorough. There may or may not be an increase or a decrease in anti-semitic acts these days (4) but there is no way of knowing at present. Given the direct connection between claims of anti-semitism and the increase in contributions, it is clearly following the Foxman rule of raising fears. Even Israel has used this method to increase the number of Jews immigrating to Israel. It is an odd phenomenon that acts committed against individual Jews or their property benefit the self-proclaimed leaders of Jews. (Cui bono is a line of investigation best pursued in a later article.) In the last decade Israel has made practical use of this method. Its leaders have begun talking as if the zionist state of Israel speaks for all Jews in the world - at the same time claiming anti-zionism is a new code word for anti-semitism. What it encourages on one hand it hides behind on the other. It equates the actions of Israel in the occupied territory with acting on behalf all Jews. (5) When people carefully make the distinction between "Judaism the religion" and "Zionism the atheist political movement", Israel claims the latter is a code word for the former. At times it appears to the careful observer these self-proclaimed leaders of Jews are operating an intricate propaganda campaign. Israel refers to it by the Hebrew word "hasbara". To outsiders the word is translated as "information". In the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz the English translation has been candidly "propaganda". This is similar to Israel insisting upon the Hebrew word for "assassination" always to be translated into other languages as "targeted killing". In this propaganda, similar to that noted by Dr. Finkelstein, the target of the campaign by these self-styled leaders of Jews is more their fellow Jews than non-Jews. One target noted in The Holocaust Industry may be the Swiss banks, but the greater target is the average retired Jew of modest means these outfits claim to represent. At the present rate of payment, they will not live long enough to see anything. They will not ever see the money divided evenly among the survivors or even descendants and survivors. The leaders keep what is not disbursed. This reversion to the tribal model, including tribal elders who speak for the tribe and all of its members, represents a return to primitive times where the rabbi ruled the shtetl and was its only spokesman. It is long past the time for individual Jews to stand up and tell their tribal elders to shut up and get an honest job. It is long past the time for non-Jews to ignore them. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Notes: 1 All during WWII up until the late 1960s, the use of the word "holocaust" used in relation to WWII was as in the phrase "the Nazi holocaust". Some time after that the usage became, The Holocaust, as a reference to a Jewish-only occurance. I missed the staff meeting which made the change - so I cannot explain the change, only note it. 2 As the USHMM is owned by the US Government, it must comply with all US laws, including ethnic diversity. At its last audit it was found grievously lacking in ethnic diversity, being almost exclusively Jewish is composition. It was also found failing to address its charter which required coverage of all peoples - not just Jews. It appears the US Congress also missed the staff meeting making The Holocaust a Jewish-only affair. 3 Being a Jew by birth is also a concept found in the Jewish religion. Since by definition an atheist rejects the precepts of religion, an atheist cannot consider himself a Jew save in the same as applied to American Indians. It goes back to times prior to the idea of religious conversion introduced to Europe by Christianity. Before that time there was no difference between membership in a tribe and worshipping the gods of that tribe. Thus there was no religious persecution per se since religion was not a distinguishing feature of a person. 4 I have not collected my own statistics on this, but in the years I have heard about anti-semitic acts I cannot remember one press release saying they have decreased. With a certain skepticism I must observe that after hearing for some three decades that anti-semitic acts are increasing I have to suggest that by now they would be daily occurances around the country. 5 Note the painful irony: Throughout the history of Israel, with the exception of World War II, it has been the most dangerous, life-threatening place in the world for Jews to live for almost the last three centuries - with rare and quite exaggerated exceptions. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Definition: Tribe =46unction: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Latin tribus, a division of the Roman people, tribe Date: 13th century 1. a : a social group comprising numerous families, clans, or generations together with slaves, dependents, or adopted strangers b : a political division of the Roman people originally representing one of the three original tribes of ancient Rome c : [see] PHYLE 2 : a group of persons having a common character, occupation, or interest 3 : a category of taxonomic classification ranking below a subfamily; also : a natural group irrespective of taxonomic rank (courtesy: Merriam-Webster Online) =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Acronyms: WJC - World Jewish Congress NAACP, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People USHMM, United States Holocaust Memorical Museum Souix, a supra-classification of American Indian tribes, the Souix Nation, covering subtribes such as the Ogalala Souix. From irimland@zundelsite.org Sun Dec 2 19:28:16 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 11:28:16 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/2/2001 - "Keep Your Eye on the Target!" - Part I Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 2, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Unrelated to the ZGram below, but for the record: I need to correct an item in yesterday's ZGram written by Matt Giwer, titled "Tribal Observations." Matt made a mistake saying that Abe Foxman was heading the Wiesenthal Center. Foxman heads the ADL. I noticed this mistake and, in fact, secured Matt's permission via e-mail to correct it, but then accidentally sent the ***uncorrected*** version through my automatic mail program because both documents were sitting "open" on my desktop. I should have been more careful. Blame it on work overload! Now to today's Part I of a three-part ZGram. It is a speech given by Congressman Ron Paul, one of America's most courageous and sensitive leaders, in response to the "9-11" crisis. Ron Paul has grasped what this emergency is really all about - and where it can lead, to the detriment of the American people. Here is a Paul Revere-type call to reason and reflection that needs to be as widely distributed as possible among ordinary citizens and community leaders. Please read it several times and let it sink in - and then pass it on, far and wide. [START] Congressman Ron Paul, House of Representatives, November 29, 2001 Keep Your Eye on the Target Mr. Speaker: We have been told on numerous occasions to expect a long and protracted war. This is not necessary if one can identify the target - the enemy - and then stay focused on that target. It's impossible to keep one's eye on a target and hit it if one does not precisely understand it and identify it. In pursuing any military undertaking, it's the responsibility of Congress to know exactly why it appropriates the funding. Today, unlike any time in our history, the enemy and its location remain vague and pervasive. In the undeclared wars of Vietnam and Korea, the enemy was known and clearly defined, even though our policies were confused and contradictory. Today our policies relating to the growth of terrorism are also confused and contradictory; however, the precise enemy and its location are not known by anyone. Until the enemy is defined and understood, it cannot be accurately targeted or vanquished. The terrorist enemy is no more an entity than the "mob" or some international criminal gang. It certainly is not a country, nor is it the Afghan people. The Taliban is obviously a strong sympathizer with bin Laden and his henchmen, but how much more so than the government of Saudi Arabia or even Pakistan? Probably not much. Ulterior motives have always played a part in the foreign policy of almost every nation throughout history. Economic gain and geographic expansion, or even just the desires for more political power, too often drive the militarism of all nations. Unfortunately, in recent years, we have not been exempt. If expansionism, economic interests, desire for hegemony, and influential allies affect our policies and they, in turn, incite mob attacks against us, they obviously cannot be ignored. The target will be illusive and ever enlarging, rather than vanquished. We do know a lot about the terrorists who spilled the blood of nearly 4,000 innocent civilians. There were 19 of them, 15 from Saudi Arabia, and they have paid a high price. They're all dead. So those most responsible for the attack have been permanently taken care of. If one encounters a single suicide bomber who takes his own life along with others without the help of anyone else, no further punishment is possible. The only question that can be raised under that circumstance is why did it happen and how can we change the conditions that drove an individual to perform such a heinous act. The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington are not quite so simple, but they are similar. These attacks required funding, planning and inspiration from others. But the total number of people directly involved had to be relatively small in order to have kept the plans thoroughly concealed. Twenty accomplices, or even a hundred could have done it. But there's no way thousands of people knew and participated in the planning and carrying out of this attack. Moral support expressed by those who find our policies offensive is a different matter and difficult to discover. Those who enjoyed seeing the U.S. hit are too numerous to count and impossible to identify. To target and wage war against all of them is like declaring war against an idea or sin. The predominant nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian. Yet for political and economic reasons, even with the lack of cooperation from the Saudi government, we have ignored that country in placing blame. The Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war. The Taliban, of course, is closely tied to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and the Saudis. Even the United States was a supporter of the Taliban's rise to power, and as recently as August of 2001, we talked oil pipeline politics with them. The recent French publication of "bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth" revealed our most recent effort to secure control over Caspian Sea oil in collaboration with the Taliban. According to the two authors, the economic conditions demanded by the U.S. were turned down and led to U.S. military threats against the Taliban. It has been known for years that Unocal, a U.S. company, has been anxious to build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan, but it has not been possible due to the weak Afghan central government. We should not be surprised now that many contend that the plan for the UN to "nation build" in Afghanistan is a logical and important consequence of this desire. The crisis has merely given those interested in this project an excuse to replace the government of Afghanistan. Since we don't even know if bin Laden is in Afghanistan, and since other countries are equally supportive of him, our concentration on this Taliban "target" remains suspect by many. Former FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned in July over duplicitous dealings with the Taliban and our oil interests. O'Neill then took a job as head of the World Trade Center security and ironically was killed in the 9-11 attack. The charges made by these authors in their recent publication deserve close scrutiny and congressional oversight investigation - and not just for the historical record. To understand world sentiment on this subject, one might note a comment in "The Hindu", India's national newspaper - not necessarily to agree with the paper's sentiment, but to help us better understand what is being thought about us around the world in contrast to the spin put on the war by our five major TV news networks. This quote comes from an article written by Sitaram Yechury on October 13, 2001: "The world today is being asked to side with the U.S. in a fight against global terrorism. This is only a cover. The world is being asked today, in reality, to side with the U.S. as it seeks to strengthen its economic hegemony. This is neither acceptable nor will it be allowed. We must forge together to state that we are neither with the terrorists nor with the United States." The need to define our target is ever so necessary if we're going to avoid letting this war get out of control. It's important to note that in the same article, the author quoted Michael Klare, an expert on Caspian Sea oil reserves, from an interview on Radio Free Europe: "We (the U.S.) view oil as a security consideration and we have to protect it by any means necessary, regardless of other considerations, other values." This, of course, was a clearly stated position of our administration in 1990 as our country was being prepared to fight the Persian Gulf War. Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction only became the issue later on. For various reasons, the enemy with whom we're now at war remains vague and illusive. Those who commit violent terrorist acts should be targeted with a rifle or hemlock - not with vague declarations, with some claiming we must root out terrorism in as many as 60 countries. If we're not precise in identifying our enemy, it's sure going to be hard to keep our eye on the target. Without this identification, the war will spread and be needlessly prolonged. Why is this definition so crucial? Because without it, the special interests and the ill-advised will clamor for all kinds of expansive militarism. Planning to expand and fight a never-ending war in 60 countries against worldwide terrorist conflicts with the notion that, at most, only a few hundred ever knew of the plans to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The pervasive and indefinable enemy - terrorism - cannot be conquered with weapons and UN nation building - only a more sensible pro-American foreign policy will accomplish this. This must occur if we are to avoid a cataclysmic expansion of the current hostilities. It was said that our efforts were to be directed toward the terrorists responsible for the attacks, and overthrowing and instituting new governments were not to be part of the agenda. Already we have clearly taken our eyes off that target and diverted it toward building a pro-Western, UN-sanctioned government in Afghanistan. But if bin Laden can hit us in New York and DC, what should one expect to happen once the US/UN establishes a new government in Afghanistan with occupying troops? It seems that would be an easy target for the likes of al Qaeda. Since we don't know in which cave or even in which country bin Laden is hiding, we hear the clamor of many for us to overthrow our next villain - Saddam Hussein - guilty or not. On the short list of countries to be attacked are North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and the Sudan, just for starters. But this jingoistic talk is foolhardy and dangerous. The war against terrorism cannot be won in this manner. The drumbeat for attacking Baghdad grows louder every day, with Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, and Bill Bennett leading the charge. In a recent interview, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, made it clear: "We are going to continue pursuing the entire al Qaeda network which is in 60 countries, not just Afghanistan." Fortunately, President Bush and Colin Powell so far have resisted the pressure to expand the war into other countries. Let us hope and pray that they do not yield to the clamor of the special interests that want us to take on Iraq. The argument that we need to do so because Hussein is producing weapons of mass destruction is the reddest of all herrings. I sincerely doubt that he has developed significant weapons of mass destruction. However, if that is the argument, we should plan to attack all those countries that have similar weapons or plans to build them - countries like China, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and India. Iraq has been uncooperative with the UN World Order and remains independent of western control of its oil reserves, unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is why she has been bombed steadily for 11 years by the U.S. and Britain. My guess is that in the not-too-distant future, so-called proof will be provided that Saddam Hussein was somehow partially responsible for the attack in the United States, and it will be irresistible then for the U.S. to retaliate against him. This will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke even greater hatred toward the United States, and it's all so unnecessary. It's just so hard for many Americans to understand how we inadvertently provoke the Arab/Muslim people, and I'm not talking about the likes of bin Laden and his al Qaeda gang. I'm talking about the Arab/Muslim masses. In 1996, after five years of sanctions against Iraq and persistent bombings, CBS reporter Lesley Stahl asked our Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeline Albright, a simple question: "We have heard that a half million children have died (as a consequence of our policy against Iraq). Is the price worth it?" Albright's response was "We think the price is worth it." Although this interview won an Emmy award, it was rarely shown in the U.S. but widely circulated in the Middle East. Some still wonder why America is despised in this region of the world! Former President George W. Bush has been criticized for not marching on to Baghdad at the end of the Persian Gulf War. He gave then, and stands by his explanation today, a superb answer of why it was ill-advised to attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power - there were strategic and tactical, as well as humanitarian, arguments against it. But the important and clinching argument against annihilating Baghdad was political. The coalition, in no uncertain terms, let it be known they wanted no part of it. Besides, the UN only authorized the removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The UN has never sanctioned the continued U.S. and British bombing of Iraq - a source of much hatred directed toward the United States. But placing of U.S. troops on what is seen as Muslim holy land in Saudi Arabia seems to have done exactly what the former President was trying to avoid - the breakup of the coalition. The coalition has hung together by a thread, but internal dissention among the secular and religious Arab/Muslim nations within individual countries has intensified. Even today, the current crisis threatens the overthrow of every puppet pro-western Arab leader from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Many of the same advisors from the first Bush presidency are now urging the current President to finish off Hussein. However, every reason given 11 years ago for not leveling Baghdad still holds true today - if not more so. It has been argued that we needed to maintain a presence in Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf War to protect the Saudi government from Iraqi attack. Others argued that it was only a cynical excuse to justify keeping troops to protect what our officials declared were "our" oil supplies. Some have even suggested that our expanded presence in Saudi Arabia was prompted by a need to keep King Fahd in power and to thwart any effort by Saudi fundamentalists to overthrow his regime. Expanding the war by taking on Iraq at this time may well please some allies, but it will lead to unbelievable chaos in the region and throughout the world. It will incite even more anti-American sentiment and expose us to even greater dangers. It could prove to be an unmitigated disaster. Iran and Russia will not be pleased with this move. It is not our job to remove Saddam Hussein - that is the job of the Iraqi people. It is not our job to remove the Taliban - that is the business of the Afghan people. It is not our job to insist that the next government in Afghanistan include women, no matter how good an idea it is. If this really is an issue, why don't we insist that our friends in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait do the same thing, as well as impose our will on them? Talk about hypocrisy! The mere thought that we fight wars for affirmative action in a country 6,000 miles from home, with no cultural similarities, should insult us all. Of course it does distract us from the issue of an oil pipeline through northern Afghanistan. We need to keep our eye on the target and not be so easily distracted. Assume for a minute that bin Laden is not in Afghanistan. Would any of our military efforts in that region be justified? Since none of it would be related to American security, it would be difficult to justify. Assume for a minute that bin Laden is as ill as I believe he is with serious renal disease, would he not do everything conceivable for his cause by provoking us into expanding the war and alienating as many Muslims as possible? Remember, to bin Laden, martyrdom is a noble calling, and he just may be more powerful in death than he is in life. An American invasion of Iraq would please bin Laden, because it would rally his troops against any moderate Arab leader who appears to be supporting the United States. It would prove his point that America is up to no good, that oil and Arab infidels are the source of all the Muslims' problems. We have recently been reminded of Admiral Yamamoto's quote after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in expressing his fear that the event "Awakened a sleeping giant." Most everyone agrees with the prophetic wisdom of that comment. But I question the accuracy of drawing an analogy between the Pearl Harbor event and the World Trade Center attack. We are hardly the same nation we were in 1941. Today, we're anything but a sleeping giant. There's no contest for our status as the world's only economic, political and military super power. A "sleeping giant" would not have troops in 141 countries throughout the world and be engaged in every conceivable conflict with 250,000 troops stationed abroad. The fear I have is that our policies, along with those of Britain, the UN, and NATO since World War II, inspired and have now awakened a long-forgotten sleeping giant - Islamic fundamentalism. Let's hope for all our sakes that Iraq is not made the target in this complex war. [to be continued] ===== Tomorrow: Part II ===== Thought for the Day: "A Constitution is a terrible thing to waste." (Letter to the Zundelsite) From irimland@zundelsite.org Tue Dec 4 02:55:08 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 18:55:08 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/3/2001 - "Keep your eye on the target" - Part II Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 3, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Herewith Part II of the extraordinary summary of what has happened to America and where our world is heading, according to one (!) concerned Congressman, Ron Paul: [START] The President, in the 2000 presidential campaign, argued against nation building, and he was right to do so. He also said, "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us." He wisely argued for humility and a policy that promotes peace. Attacking Baghdad or declaring war against Saddam Hussein, or even continuing the illegal bombing of Iraq, is hardly a policy of humility designed to promote peace. As we continue our bombing of Afghanistan, plans are made to install a new government sympathetic to the West and under UN control. The persuasive argument as always is money. We were able to gain Pakistan's support, although it continually wavers, in this manner. Appropriations are already being prepared in the Congress to rebuild all that we destroy in Afghanistan, and then some - even before the bombing has stopped. Rumsfeld's plan, as reported in Turkey's "Hurriyet" newspaper, lays out the plan for the next Iraqi government. Turkey's support is crucial, so the plan is to give Turkey oil from the northern Iraq Karkuk field. The United States has also promised a pipeline running from Iraq through Turkey. How can the Turks resist such a generous offer? Since we subsidize Turkey and they bomb the Kurds, while we punish the Iraqis for the same, this plan to divvy up wealth in the land of the Kurds is hardly a surprise. It seems that Washington never learns. Our foolish foreign interventions continually get us into more trouble than we have bargained for - and the spending is endless. I am not optimistic that this Congress will anytime soon come to its senses. I am afraid that we will never treat the taxpayers with respect. National bankruptcy is a more likely scenario than Congress adopting a frugal and wise spending policy. Mr. Speaker, we must make every effort to precisely define our target in this war and keep our eye on it. It is safe to assume that the number of people directly involved in the 9-11 attacks is closer to several hundred than the millions we are now talking about targeting with our planned shotgun approach to terrorism. One commentator pointed out that when the mafia commits violence, no one suggests we bomb Sicily. Today it seems we are, in a symbolic way, not only bombing "Sicily," but are thinking about bombing "Athens" (Iraq). If a corrupt city or state government does business with a drug cartel or organized crime and violence results, we don't bomb city hall or the state capital- we limit the targets to those directly guilty and punish them. Could we not learn a lesson from these examples? It is difficult for everyone to put the 9-11 attacks in a proper perspective, because any attempt to do so is construed as diminishing the utter horror of the events of that day. We must remember, though, that the 3,900 deaths incurred in the World Trade Center attacks are just slightly more than the deaths that occur on our nation's highways each month. Could it be that the sense of personal vulnerability we survivors feel motivates us in meting out justice, rather than the concern for the victims of the attacks? Otherwise, the numbers don't add up to the proper response. If we lose sight of the target and unwisely broaden the war, the tragedy of 9-11 may pale in the death and destruction that could lie ahead. As members of Congress, we have a profound responsibility to mete out justice, provide security for our nation, and protect the liberties of all the people, without senselessly expanding the war at the urging of narrow political and economic special interests. The price is too high, and the danger too great. We must not lose our focus on the real target and inadvertently create new enemies for ourselves. We have not done any better keeping our eye on the terrorist target on the home front than we have overseas. Not only has Congress come up short in picking the right target, it has directed all its energies in the wrong direction. The target of our efforts has sadly been the liberties all Americans enjoy. With all the new power we have given to the administration, none has truly improved the chances of catching the terrorists who were responsible for the 9-11 attacks. All Americans will soon feel the consequences of this new legislation. Just as the crisis provided an opportunity for some to promote a special-interest agenda in our foreign policy efforts, many have seen the crisis as a chance to achieve changes in our domestic laws, changes which, up until now, were seen as dangerous and unfair to American citizens. Granting bailouts is not new for Congress, but current conditions have prompted many takers to line up for handouts. There has always been a large constituency for expanding federal power for whatever reason, and these groups have been energized. The military-industrial complex is out in full force and is optimistic. Union power is pleased with recent events and has not missed the opportunity to increase membership rolls. Federal policing powers, already in a bull market, received a super shot in the arm. The IRS, which detests financial privacy, gloats, while all the big spenders in Washington applaud the tools made available to crack down on tax dodgers. The drug warriors and anti-gun zealots love the new powers that now can be used to watch the every move of our citizens. "Extremists" who talk of the Constitution, promote right-to-life, form citizen militias, or participate in non-mainstream religious practices now can be monitored much more effectively by those who find their views offensive. Laws recently passed by the Congress apply to all Americans - not just terrorists. But we should remember that if the terrorists are known and identified, existing laws would have been quite adequate to deal with them. Even before the passage of the recent draconian legislation, hundreds had already been arrested under suspicion, and millions of dollars of al Qaeda funds had been frozen. None of these new laws will deal with uncooperative foreign entities like the Saudi government, which chose not to relinquish evidence pertaining to exactly who financed the terrorists' operations. Unfortunately, the laws will affect all innocent Americans, yet will do nothing to thwart terrorism. The laws recently passed in Congress in response to the terrorist attacks can be compared to the effort by anti-gun fanatics, who jump at every chance to undermine the Second Amendment. When crimes are committed with the use of guns, it's argued that we must remove guns from society, or at least register them and make it difficult to buy them. The counter argument made by Second Amendment supporters correctly explains that this would only undermine the freedom of law-abiding citizens and do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or to reduce crime. Now we hear a similar argument that a certain amount of privacy and personal liberty of law-abiding citizens must be sacrificed in order to root out possible terrorists. This will result only in liberties being lost, and will not serve to preempt any terrorist act. The criminals, just as they know how to get guns even when they are illegal, will still be able to circumvent anti-terrorist laws. To believe otherwise is to endorse a Faustian bargain, but that is what I believe the Congress has done. We know from the ongoing drug war that federal drug police frequently make mistakes, break down the wrong doors and destroy property. Abuses of seizure and forfeiture laws are numerous. Yet the new laws will encourage even more mistakes by federal law-enforcement agencies. It has long been forgotten that law enforcement in the United States was supposed to be a state and local government responsibility, not that of the federal government. The federal government's policing powers have just gotten a giant boost in scope and authority through both new legislation and executive orders. Before the 9-11 attack, Attorney General Ashcroft let his position be known regarding privacy and government secrecy. Executive Order 13223 made it much more difficult for researchers to gain access to presidential documents from previous administrations, now a "need to know" has to be demonstrated. This was a direct hit at efforts to demand openness in government, even if only for analysis and writing of history. Ashcroft's position is that presidential records ought to remain secret, even after an administration has left office. He argues that government deserves privacy while ignoring the 4th Amendment protections of the people's privacy. He argues his case by absurdly claiming he must "protect"the privacy of the individuals who might be involved - a non-problem that could easily be resolved without closing public records to the public. It is estimated that approximately 1,200 men have been arrested as a consequence of 9-11, yet their names and the charges are not available, and according to Ashcroft, will not be made available. Once again, he uses the argument that he's protecting the privacy of those charged. Unbelievable! Due process for the detainees has been denied. Secret government is winning out over open government. This is the largest number of people to be locked up under these conditions since FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Information regarding these arrests is a must, in a constitutional republic. If they're terrorists or accomplices, just let the public know and pursue their prosecution. But secret arrests and silence are not acceptable in a society that professes to be free. Curtailing freedom is not the answer to protecting freedom under adverse circumstances. The administration has severely curtailed briefings regarding the military operation in Afghanistan for congressional leaders, ignoring a long-time tradition in this country. One person or one branch of government should never control military operations. Our system of government has always required a shared-power arrangement. The Anti-Terrorism Bill did little to restrain the growth of big government. In the name of patriotism, the Congress did some very unpatriotic things. Instead of concentrating on the persons or groups that committed the attacks on 9-11, our efforts, unfortunately, have undermined the liberties of all Americans. "Know Your Customer" type banking regulations, resisted by most Americans for years, have now been put in place in an expanded fashion. Not only will the regulations affect banks, thrifts and credit unions, but also all businesses will be required to file suspicious transaction reports if cash is used with the total of the transaction reaching $10,000. Retail stores will be required to spy on all their customers and send reports to the U.S. government. Financial services consultants are convinced that this new regulation will affect literally millions of law-abiding American citizens. The odds that this additional paperwork will catch a terrorist are remote. The sad part is that the regulations have been sought after by federal law-enforcement agencies for years. The 9-11 attacks have served as an opportunity to get them by the Congress and the American people. Only now are the American people hearing about the onerous portions of the anti-terrorism legislation, and they are not pleased. It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that the government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or to spend vast sums of money from the federal treasury. The history of the 20th Century shows that the Congress violates our Constitution most often during times of crisis. Accordingly, most of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two World Wars and the Depression. Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended its provision to place severe restrictions on the federal government, even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for government to sacrifice the Constitution in the name of law enforcement. The"anti-terrorism" legislation recently passed by Congress demonstrates how well-meaning politicians make shortsighted mistakes in a rush to respond to a crisis. Most of its provisions were never carefully studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time taken to debate the bill despite its importance. No testimony was heard from privacy experts or from others fields outside of law enforcement. Normal congressional committee and hearing processes were suspended. In fact, the final version of the bill was not even made available to Members before the vote! The American public should not tolerate these political games, especially when our precious freedoms are at stake. Almost all of the new laws focus on American citizens rather than potential foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of "terrorism," for federal criminal purposes, has been greatly expanded A person could now be considered a terrorist by belonging to a pro-constitution group, a citizen militia, or a pro-life organization. Legitimate protests against the government could place tens of thousands of other Americans under federal surveillance. Similarly, internet use can be monitored without a user's knowledge, and internet providers can be forced to hand over user information to law-enforcement officials without a warrant or subpoena. The bill also greatly expands the use of traditional surveillance tools, including wiretaps, search warrants, and subpoenas. Probable-cause standards for these tools are relaxed, or even eliminated in some circumstances. Warrants become easier to obtain and can be executed without notification. Wiretaps can be placed without a court order. In fact, the FBI and CIA now can tap phones or computers nationwide, without demonstrating that a criminal suspect is using a particular phone or computer. The biggest problem with these new law-enforcement powers is that they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, while checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. Most of the provisions have been sought by domestic law-enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism, but rather to increase their police power over the American people. There is no evidence that our previously held civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. The federal government has made no showing that it failed to detect or prevent the recent terrorist strikes because of the civil liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation. In his speech to the joint session of Congress following the September 11th attacks, President Bush reminded all of us that the United States outlasted and defeated Soviet totalitarianism in the last century. The numerous internal problems in the former Soviet Union - its centralized economic planning and lack of free markets, its repression of human liberty and its excessive militarization - all led to its inevitable collapse. We must be vigilant to resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society, so that our own government does not become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist. [END] ===== TOMORROW: CONCLUSION ===== Thought for the Day: "The Web is not a debating society. It's there for marketing and advertising. We need to apply pre-Net rules: create a policy and stick to it." -- Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, in a presentation at the Virginia Bar Association Annual Meeting on January 14, 2000. From irimland@zundelsite.org Tue Dec 4 17:23:41 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:23:41 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/2/2001 - "Keep Your Eye on the Target!" - Part I Message-ID: >Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 11:31:25 -0800 >To: zgrams@freedomsite.org >From: Ingrid Rimland >Subject: ZGram - 12/2/2001 - "Keep Your Eye on the Target!" - Part I >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > > > >Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland > >ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny > >December 2, 2001 > >Good Morning from the Zundelsite: > >Unrelated to the ZGram below, but for the record: > >I need to correct an item in yesterday's ZGram written by Matt Giwer, >titled "Tribal Observations." Matt made a mistake saying that Abe Foxman >was heading the Wiesenthal Center. Foxman heads the ADL. > >I noticed this mistake and, in fact, secured Matt's permission via e-mail >to correct it, but then accidentally sent the ***uncorrected*** version >through my automatic mail program because both documents were sitting >"open" on my desktop. I should have been more careful. Blame it on work >overload! > >Now to today's Part I of a three-part ZGram. It is a speech given by >Congressman Ron Paul, one of America's most courageous and sensitive >leaders, in response to the "9-11" crisis. Ron Paul has grasped what >this emergency is really all about - and where it can lead, to the >detriment of the American people. > >Here is a Paul Revere-type call to reason and reflection that needs to be >as widely distributed as possible among ordinary citizens and community >leaders. Please read it several times and let it sink in - and then pass >it on, far and wide. > >[START] > >Congressman Ron Paul, House of Representatives, November 29, 2001 > > Keep Your Eye on the Target > > Mr. Speaker: > > We have been told on numerous occasions to expect a long and protracted >war. This is not necessary if one can identify the target - the enemy - >and then stay focused on that target. It's impossible to keep one's eye >on a target and hit it if one does not precisely understand it and >identify it. > >In pursuing any military undertaking, it's the responsibility of Congress >to know exactly why it appropriates the funding. Today, unlike any time >in our history, the enemy and its location remain vague and pervasive. In >the undeclared wars of Vietnam and Korea, the enemy was known and clearly >defined, even though our policies were confused and contradictory. Today >our policies relating to the growth of terrorism are also confused and >contradictory; however, the precise enemy and its location are not known >by anyone. Until the enemy is defined and understood, it cannot be >accurately targeted or vanquished. > > The terrorist enemy is no more an entity than the "mob" or some >international criminal gang. It certainly is not a country, nor is it the >Afghan people. The Taliban is obviously a strong sympathizer with bin >Laden and his henchmen, but how much more so than the government of Saudi >Arabia or even Pakistan? Probably not much. > > Ulterior motives have always played a part in the foreign policy of >almost every nation throughout history. Economic gain and geographic >expansion, or even just the desires for more political power, too often >drive the militarism of all nations. Unfortunately, in recent years, we >have not been exempt. If expansionism, economic interests, desire for >hegemony, and influential allies affect our policies and they, in turn, >incite mob attacks against us, they obviously cannot be ignored. The >target will be illusive and ever enlarging, rather than vanquished. > > We do know a lot about the terrorists who spilled the blood of nearly >4,000 innocent civilians. There were 19 of them, 15 from Saudi Arabia, >and they have paid a high price. They're all dead. So those most >responsible for the attack have been permanently taken care of. If one >encounters a single suicide bomber who takes his own life along with >others without the help of anyone else, no further punishment is possible. >The only question that can be raised under that circumstance is why did it >happen and how can we change the conditions that drove an individual to >perform such a heinous act. > > The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington are not quite so simple, >but they are similar. These attacks required funding, planning and >inspiration from others. But the total number of people directly involved >had to be relatively small in order to have kept the plans thoroughly >concealed. Twenty accomplices, or even a hundred could have done it. But >there's no way thousands of people knew and participated in the planning >and carrying out of this attack. > >Moral support expressed by those who find our policies offensive is a >different matter and difficult to discover. Those who enjoyed seeing the >U.S. hit are too numerous to count and impossible to identify. To target >and wage war against all of them is like declaring war against an idea or >sin. > > The predominant nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian. Yet for >political and economic reasons, even with the lack of cooperation from the >Saudi government, we have ignored that country in placing blame. The >Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war. The Taliban, of course, >is closely tied to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and >the Saudis. Even the United States was a supporter of the Taliban's rise >to power, and as recently as August of 2001, we talked oil pipeline >politics with them. > > The recent French publication of "bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth" >revealed our most recent effort to secure control over Caspian Sea oil in >collaboration with the Taliban. According to the two authors, the >economic conditions demanded by the U.S. were turned down and led to U.S. >military threats against the Taliban. > > It has been known for years that Unocal, a U.S. company, has been >anxious to build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan, but it has not >been possible due to the weak Afghan central government. We should not be >surprised now that many contend that the plan for the UN to "nation build" >in Afghanistan is a logical and important consequence of this desire. The >crisis has merely given those interested in this project an excuse to >replace the government of Afghanistan. Since we don't even know if bin >Laden is in Afghanistan, and since other countries are equally supportive >of him, our concentration on this Taliban "target" remains suspect by >many. > > Former FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned in July over duplicitous >dealings with the Taliban and our oil interests. O'Neill then took a job >as head of the World Trade Center security and ironically was killed in >the 9-11 attack. The charges made by these authors in their recent >publication deserve close scrutiny and congressional oversight >investigation - and not just for the historical record. > > To understand world sentiment on this subject, one might note a comment >in "The Hindu", India's national newspaper - not necessarily to agree with >the paper's sentiment, but to help us better understand what is being >thought about us around the world in contrast to the spin put on the war >by our five major TV news networks. > > This quote comes from an article written by Sitaram Yechury on October >13, 2001: > >"The world today is being asked to side with the U.S. in a fight against >global terrorism. This is only a cover. The world is being asked today, >in reality, to side with the U.S. as it seeks to strengthen its economic >hegemony. This is neither acceptable nor will it be allowed. We must >forge together to state that we are neither with the terrorists nor with >the United States." > > The need to define our target is ever so necessary if we're going to >avoid letting this war get out of control. > > It's important to note that in the same article, the author quoted >Michael Klare, an expert on Caspian Sea oil reserves, from an interview on >Radio Free Europe: > >"We (the U.S.) view oil as a security consideration and we have to protect >it by any means necessary, regardless of other considerations, other >values." > >This, of course, was a clearly stated position of our administration in >1990 as our country was being prepared to fight the Persian Gulf War. >Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction only became the issue >later on. > > For various reasons, the enemy with whom we're now at war remains vague >and illusive. Those who commit violent terrorist acts should be targeted >with a rifle or hemlock - not with vague declarations, with some claiming >we must root out terrorism in as many as 60 countries. If we're not >precise in identifying our enemy, it's sure going to be hard to keep our >eye on the target. Without this identification, the war will spread and >be needlessly prolonged. > > Why is this definition so crucial? Because without it, the special >interests and the ill-advised will clamor for all kinds of expansive >militarism. Planning to expand and fight a never-ending war in 60 >countries against worldwide terrorist conflicts with the notion that, at >most, only a few hundred ever knew of the plans to attack the World Trade >Center and the Pentagon. The pervasive and indefinable enemy - terrorism >- cannot be conquered with weapons and UN nation building - only a more >sensible pro-American foreign policy will accomplish this. This must >occur if we are to avoid a cataclysmic expansion of the current >hostilities. > > It was said that our efforts were to be directed toward the terrorists >responsible for the attacks, and overthrowing and instituting new >governments were not to be part of the agenda. Already we have clearly >taken our eyes off that target and diverted it toward building a >pro-Western, UN-sanctioned government in Afghanistan. But if bin Laden >can hit us in New York and DC, what should one expect to happen once the >US/UN establishes a new government in Afghanistan with occupying troops? >It seems that would be an easy target for the likes of al Qaeda. > > Since we don't know in which cave or even in which country bin Laden is >hiding, we hear the clamor of many for us to overthrow our next villain - >Saddam Hussein - guilty or not. On the short list of countries to be >attacked are North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and the Sudan, just for >starters. But this jingoistic talk is foolhardy and dangerous. The war >against terrorism cannot be won in this manner. > > The drumbeat for attacking Baghdad grows louder every day, with Paul >Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, and Bill Bennett leading the >charge. In a recent interview, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul >Wolfowitz, made it clear: "We are going to continue pursuing the entire al >Qaeda network which is in 60 countries, not just Afghanistan." >Fortunately, President Bush and Colin Powell so far have resisted the >pressure to expand the war into other countries. Let us hope and pray >that they do not yield to the clamor of the special interests that want us >to take on Iraq. > > The argument that we need to do so because Hussein is producing weapons >of mass destruction is the reddest of all herrings. I sincerely doubt >that he has developed significant weapons of mass destruction. However, >if that is the argument, we should plan to attack all those countries that >have similar weapons or plans to build them - countries like China, North >Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and India. Iraq has been uncooperative with the >UN World Order and remains independent of western control of its oil >reserves, unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is why she has been bombed >steadily for 11 years by the U.S. and Britain. My guess is that in the >not-too-distant future, so-called proof will be provided that Saddam >Hussein was somehow partially responsible for the attack in the United >States, and it will be irresistible then for the U.S. to retaliate >against him. This will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke >even greater hatred toward the United States, and it's all so unnecessary. > > It's just so hard for many Americans to understand how we inadvertently >provoke the Arab/Muslim people, and I'm not talking about the likes of bin >Laden and his al Qaeda gang. I'm talking about the Arab/Muslim masses. > > In 1996, after five years of sanctions against Iraq and persistent >bombings, CBS reporter Lesley Stahl asked our Ambassador to the United >Nations, Madeline Albright, a simple question: "We have heard that a half >million children have died (as a consequence of our policy against Iraq). >Is the price worth it?" Albright's response was "We think the price is >worth it." Although this interview won an Emmy award, it was rarely shown >in the U.S. but widely circulated in the Middle East. Some still wonder >why America is despised in this region of the world! > > Former President George W. Bush has been criticized for not marching on >to Baghdad at the end of the Persian Gulf War. He gave then, and stands >by his explanation today, a superb answer of why it was ill-advised to >attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power - there were strategic and >tactical, as well as humanitarian, arguments against it. But the >important and clinching argument against annihilating Baghdad was >political. The coalition, in no uncertain terms, let it be known they >wanted no part of it. Besides, the UN only authorized the removal of >Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The UN has never sanctioned the continued >U.S. and British bombing of Iraq - a source of much hatred directed >toward the United States. > > But placing of U.S. troops on what is seen as Muslim holy land in Saudi >Arabia seems to have done exactly what the former President was trying to >avoid - the breakup of the coalition. The coalition has hung together by >a thread, but internal dissention among the secular and religious >Arab/Muslim nations within individual countries has intensified. Even >today, the current crisis threatens the overthrow of every puppet >pro-western Arab leader from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. > > Many of the same advisors from the first Bush presidency are now urging >the current President to finish off Hussein. However, every reason given >11 years ago for not leveling Baghdad still holds true today - if not more >so. > > It has been argued that we needed to maintain a presence in Saudi Arabia >after the Persian Gulf War to protect the Saudi government from Iraqi >attack. Others argued that it was only a cynical excuse to justify >keeping troops to protect what our officials declared were "our" oil >supplies. Some have even suggested that our expanded presence in Saudi >Arabia was prompted by a need to keep King Fahd in power and to thwart any >effort by Saudi fundamentalists to overthrow his regime. > > Expanding the war by taking on Iraq at this time may well please some >allies, but it will lead to unbelievable chaos in the region and >throughout the world. It will incite even more anti-American sentiment >and expose us to even greater dangers. It could prove to be an >unmitigated disaster. Iran and Russia will not be pleased with this move. > > It is not our job to remove Saddam Hussein - that is the job of the Iraqi >people. It is not our job to remove the Taliban - that is the business of >the Afghan people. It is not our job to insist that the next government >in Afghanistan include women, no matter how good an idea it is. If this >really is an issue, why don't we insist that our friends in Saudi Arabia >and Kuwait do the same thing, as well as impose our will on them? Talk >about hypocrisy! The mere thought that we fight wars for affirmative >action in a country 6,000 miles from home, with no cultural similarities, >should insult us all. Of course it does distract us from the issue of an >oil pipeline through northern Afghanistan. We need to keep our eye on the >target and not be so easily distracted. > > Assume for a minute that bin Laden is not in Afghanistan. Would any of >our military efforts in that region be justified? Since none of it would >be related to American security, it would be difficult to justify. > > Assume for a minute that bin Laden is as ill as I believe he is with >serious renal disease, would he not do everything conceivable for his >cause by provoking us into expanding the war and alienating as many >Muslims as possible? > > Remember, to bin Laden, martyrdom is a noble calling, and he just may be >more powerful in death than he is in life. An American invasion of Iraq >would please bin Laden, because it would rally his troops against any >moderate Arab leader who appears to be supporting the United States. It >would prove his point that America is up to no good, that oil and Arab >infidels are the source of all the Muslims' problems. > > We have recently been reminded of Admiral Yamamoto's quote after the >bombing of Pearl Harbor in expressing his fear that the event "Awakened a >sleeping giant." Most everyone agrees with the prophetic wisdom of that >comment. But I question the accuracy of drawing an analogy between the >Pearl Harbor event and the World Trade Center attack. We are hardly the >same nation we were in 1941. Today, we're anything but a sleeping giant. >There's no contest for our status as the world's only economic, political >and military super power. A "sleeping giant" would not have troops in 141 >countries throughout the world and be engaged in every conceivable >conflict with 250,000 troops stationed abroad. > > The fear I have is that our policies, along with those of Britain, the >UN, and NATO since World War II, inspired and have now awakened a >long-forgotten sleeping giant - Islamic fundamentalism. > > Let's hope for all our sakes that Iraq is not made the target in this >complex war. > >[to be continued] > >===== > >Tomorrow: Part II > >===== > >Thought for the Day: > >"A Constitution is a terrible thing to waste." > >(Letter to the Zundelsite) > > > > > > From irimland@zundelsite.org Tue Dec 4 17:25:30 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:25:30 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/4/2001 - "Keep your eye on the target" - Part III Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 4, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Once again I had very serious server problems yesterday and, possibly, the day before. I don't know if this was technical or sabotage. At any rate, I lost a lot of e-mail that was, apparently, returned to the senders, and Part I of my 3-part Ron Paul series, "Keep your eye on the target" did not get out. I am resending it, along with today's conclusion below. [START] The executive order that has gotten the most attention by those who are concerned that our response to 9-11 is overreaching and dangerous to our liberties is the one authorizing military justice, in secret. Nazi war criminals were tried in public, but plans now are laid to carry out the trials and punishment, including possibly the death penalty, outside the eyes and ears of the legislative and judicial branches of government and the American public. Since such a process threatens national security and the Constitution, it cannot be used as a justification for their protection. Some have claimed this military tribunal has been in the planning stages for five years. If so, what would have been its justification? The argument that FDR did it and therefore it must be OK is a rather weak justification. Roosevelt was hardly one that went by the rule book - the Constitution. But the situation then was quite different from today. There was a declared war by Congress against a precise enemy, the Germans, who sent eight saboteurs into our country. Convictions were unanimous, not 2/3 of the panel, and appeals were permitted. That's not what's being offered today. Furthermore, the previous military tribunals expired when the war ended. Since this war will go on indefinitely, so too will the courts. The real outrage is that such a usurpation of power can be accomplished with the stroke of a pen. It may be that we have come to that stage in our history when an executive order is "the law of the land," but it's not "kinda cool," as one member of the previous administration bragged. It's a process that is unacceptable, even in this professed time of crisis. There are well-documented histories of secret military tribunals. Up until now, the United States has consistently condemned them. The fact that a two-thirds majority can sentence a person to death in secrecy in the United States is scary. With no appeals available, and no defense attorneys of choice being permitted, fairness should compel us to reject such a system outright. Those who favor these trials claim they are necessary to halt terrorism in its tracks. We are told that only terrorists will be brought before these tribunals. This means that the so-called suspects must be tried and convicted before they are assigned to this type of "trial" without due process. They will be deemed guilty by hearsay, in contrast to the traditional American system of justice where all are innocent until proven guilty. This turns the justice system on its head. One cannot be reassured by believing these courts will only apply to foreigners who are terrorists. Sloppiness in convicting criminals is a slippery slope. We should not forget that the Davidians at Waco were "convicted" and demonized and slaughtered outside our judicial system, and they were, for the most part, American citizens. Randy Weaver's family fared no better. It has been said that the best way for us to spread our message of freedom, justice and prosperity throughout the world is through example and persuasion, not through force of arms. We have drifted a long way from that concept. Military courts will be another bad example for the world. We were outraged in 1996 when Lori Berenson, an American citizen, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to life by a Peruvian military court. Instead of setting an example, now we are following the lead of a Peruvian dictator. The ongoing debate regarding the use of torture in rounding up the criminals involved in the 9-11 attacks is too casual. This can hardly represent progress in the cause of liberty and justice. Once government becomes more secretive, it is more likely this tool will be abused. Hopefully the Congress will not endorse or turn a blind eye to this barbaric proposal. For every proposal made to circumvent the justice system, it's intended that we visualize that these infractions of the law and the Constitution will apply only to terrorists and never involve innocent U.S. citizens. This is impossible, because someone has to determine exactly who to bring before the tribunal, and that involves all of us. That is too much arbitrary power for anyone to be given in a representative government and is more characteristic of a totalitarian government. Many throughout the world, especially those in Muslim countries, will be convinced by the secretive process that the real reason for military courts is that the U.S. lacks sufficient evidence to convict in an open court. Should we be fighting so strenuously the war against terrorism and carelessly sacrifice our traditions of American justice? If we do, the war will be for naught and we will lose, even if we win. Congress has a profound responsibility in all of this and should never concede this power to a President or an Attorney General. Congressional oversight powers must be used to their fullest to curtail this unconstitutional assumption of power. The planned use of military personnel to patrol our streets and airports is another challenge of great importance that should not go uncontested. For years, many in Washington have advocated a national approach to all policing activity. This current crisis has given them a tremendous boost. Believe me, this is no panacea and is a dangerous move. The Constitution never intended that the federal government assume this power. This concept was codified in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act prohibits the military from carrying out law-enforcement duties such as searching or arresting people in the United States, the argument being that the military is only used for this type of purpose in a police state. Interestingly, it was the violation of these principles that prompted the Texas Revolution against Mexico. The military under the Mexican Constitution at that time was prohibited from enforcing civil laws, and when Santa Anna ignored this prohibition, the revolution broke out. We should not so readily concede the principle that has been fought for on more than one occasion in this country. The threats to liberty seem endless. It seems we have forgotten to target the enemy. Instead we have inadvertently targeted the rights of American citizens. The crisis has offered a good opportunity for those who have argued all along for bigger government. For instance, the military draft is the ultimate insult to those who love personal liberty. The Pentagon, even with the ongoing crisis, has argued against the reinstatement of the draft. Yet the clamor for its reinstatement grows louder daily by those who wanted a return to the draft all along. I see the draft as the ultimate abuse of liberty. Morally it cannot be distinguished from slavery. All the arguments for drafting 18-year old men and women and sending them off to foreign wars are couched in terms of noble service to the country and benefits to the draftees. The need-for-discipline argument is the most common reason given, after the call for service in an effort to make the world safe for democracy. There can be no worse substitute for the lack of parental guidance of teenagers than the federal government's domineering control, forcing them to fight an enemy they don't even know in a country they can't even identity. Now it's argued that since the federal government has taken over the entire job of homeland security, all kinds of jobs can be found for the draftees to serve the state, even for those who are conscientious objectors. The proponents of the draft call it "mandatory service." Slavery, too, was mandatory, but few believed it was a service. They claim that every 18-year old owes at least two years of his life to his country. Let's hope the American people don't fall for this "need to serve" argument. The Congress should refuse to even consider such a proposal. Better yet, what we need to do is abolish the Selective Service altogether. However, if we get to the point of returning to the draft, I have a proposal. Every news commentator, every Hollywood star, every newspaper editorialist, and every Member of Congress under the age of 65 who has never served in the military and who demands that the draft be reinstated, should be drafted first - the 18-year olds last. Since the Pentagon says they don't need draftees, these new recruits can be the first to march to the orders of the general in charge of homeland security. For those less robust individuals, they can do the hospital and cooking chores for the rest of the newly formed domestic army. After all, someone middle aged owes a lot more to his country than an 18-year old. I'm certain that this provision would mute the loud demands for the return of the military draft. I see good reason for American citizens to be concerned- not only about another terrorist attack, but for their own personal freedoms as the Congress deals with the crisis. Personal freedom is the element of the human condition that has made America great and unique and something we all cherish. Even those who are more willing to sacrifice a little freedom for security do it with the firm conviction that they are acting in the best interest of freedom and justice. However, good intentions can never suffice for sound judgment in the defense of liberty. I do not challenge the dedication and sincerity of those who disagree with the freedom philosophy and confidently promote government solutions for all our ills. I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas. Henry Grady Weaver, author of a classic book on freedom, "The Mainspring of Human Progress", years ago warned us that good intentions in politics are not good enough and actually are dangerous to the cause. Weaver stated: "Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own. The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional do-gooders, who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others- with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means." This message is one we should all ponder. ===== Source: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr112901.htm ===== Thought for the Day: (Sent to the Zundelsite) with to"Remember, the Ark was built by amateurs; the Titanic by professionals." (Sent to the Zundelsite) From irimland@zundelsite.org Thu Dec 6 02:47:22 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 18:47:22 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/5/2001 - "Christmas Madness" Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 5, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: This one brought tears to my eyes. Please know that both parts of this essay were written by MacKenzie Paine: [START] MacKenzie's Truth Seeking Missile Circling the Globe in Defense of Truth, Justice & Freedom December 4, 2001 FIRE TWENTY-THREE! Christmas Madness MacKenzie Paine Throughout my entire lifetime the Christmas season has been my favorite time of year. It's always been filled with joyous reunions, counting our blessings and celebrating our Christian faith. I've always loved hand making special gifts to give to friends and loved ones, and always abhorred the teeming malls. My mother and I would bake loaf after loaf of special Christmas bread that we would then deliver to friends on Christmas Eve. Whenever we could get more than three people together around the piano, our house would ring with song and merriment. Christmas has always been, for me, a time of love, of sharing, and of celebrating our faith in the goodness of all. Perhaps I'm too much of a romantic. Maybe if I'd been more of a realist I would not be experiencing the sadness and disappointment that I feel this Christmas. Still, I cannot completely snuff the flicker of hope that one day we will again be able to celebrate Christmas joyously, with purity of mind and heart. Today I am saddened because I have just learned that, for speaking out for the powerless and against their persecutors, in the eyes of my government I am a potential terrorist. I am saddened because the birthplace of Jesus Christ is under siege, and that His followers who live there today will be unable to share their joyous reunions with Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land, as their forbears have done for centuries. I am saddened because no matter the perfection of the handiwork, no gift to my friends in Palestine can ease their burden or set them free. Finally, I am saddened because my dear country, for which many of my ancestors fought and many died, has lost its former greatness. Forgive me my glumness, but this season I cannot look at a Christmas tree without thinking of the hundreds of thousands of fruit and olive trees that have been uprooted and destroyed in Palestine. The Christmas lights don't seem to shine so brightly this year -- could it be the mist of my tears? For more than a year now we have struggled so, together with friends from around the world, for a just peace in the Holy Land, and yet the brave Palestinians are no closer to ending their half-century of oppression than they were when we started. My tears, my sadness, are those of a possible terrorist suspect. When a law abiding, Roman Catholic mother of two who has never wielded anything more dangerous than a pen can be classified as a domestic terrorist for her thoughts and beliefs, the death knell sounds for freedom. To argue against war and in favor of peace is now suspect. Standing up in defense of the greatest human document in history, our American Constitution, is now potentially a criminal act. To arm oneself with the truth is now more dangerous to one's privacy and freedom than to take up arms in conformance with the Second Amendment. And our leaders, who swore an oath to God to uphold our Constitution, are the ones trampling it into the bloody ruins of the World Trade Center. I am speaking of the misnamed Patriot Act and its new definitions and prescriptions. It would seem that our freedoms, proclaimed, won, and defended by our patriot forebears, terrify those in power. Freedom to debate, to disagree, and even to worship strikes terror in the minds of a powerful few, so that now these freedoms, once guaranteed to all Americans, are being curtailed even as you read these lines. It looks as if the The Bully has won another round. In public places Nativity scenes remain taboo, and our children and grandchildren continue to be denied the simple but profound joy of Christmas pageants in their schools. Separation of state and church is mandatory, so long as it's the Christian church. Jewish propaganda, under the guise of =1CHolocaust education, =1D continues meanwhile, unabated. As I write, helicopter gun ships blast away at the remnant of the much partitioned, long abused land and people of Palestine. Children are gunned down daily by murderous =1Callies =1D armed by taxes on our labor. For Palestinians are terrorists, while their murderous oppressors are =1Csecurity forces. =1D So say our president and our senators and editorialists and newscasters. Forgive me my terroristic impudence, but when that ancient Palestinian firebrand, Jesus Christ, said, =1CBlessed ar= e those who hunger and thirst for justice, =1D do you think that He meant Bus= h and Sharon, or their victims in Palestine? Yes, I am sad and frustrated. But as I write this I recall something Ingrid Rimland wrote to me when I first dedicated my pen to helping expose The Bully. She wrote, =1CWelcome to the struggle. =1D I replied, =1CGlad= to be here! =1D The words of a na=EFve young recruit if there ever were any. Over the past year I've been called every foul name possible by an angry Bully, and each time I've felt a surge of strength. I've also received the most wonderful letters, and discovered far more decent, loving, compassionate human beings than I have senseless, angry bullies. And as I think about the gracious, generous of spirit, forgiving friends whom I have been blessed with in the Holy Land, my heart swells. This is a struggle that has been going on for thousands of years. Others in centuries past have managed to turn the tide for periods of time. Perhaps that is why it is such an important part of the Christmas tradition always to pray for peace on earth to men of good will. I believe that God helps those who help themselves, so we shall continue the struggle. Frustration will be followed by patience, sadness by maturity, and tears by resolve. Together we Americans can restore our great nation to the City on the Hill, with all of the promise for peace, freedom, and prosperity that our Founding Fathers bequeathed us. Together we can keep working for justice and peace in the Holy Land. Though words seem powerless against tanks and gun ships, against the mighty tyranny that menaces our liberties, if we speak the truth, relentlessly, with conviction and with courage, we can silence the guns and regain our freedoms. For real peace comes only with justice, and justice comes only through truth. Dear friends, I hesitate to wish you a "Merry Christmas" =1D as the words ring hollow. Instead, I hope and pray for all of you to enjoy a meaningful and joyous Christmas, followed by a most prosperous and productive New Year. We are in the middle of some big changes, which those of you whose snail mail addresses I have will know about shortly. We are, indeed, taking this struggle to the next level. But it means moving my family (including my father, handicapped brother, the boys, our Golden Retriever and my 24 year old parrot!) 2,200 miles. The potential is very exciting, and by spring I shouldn't need to ask anymore for any financial help. But if you can help with this move, I assure you it will be put to the best possible use. To those who helped keep the phone line on, my thank you's are in the mail. To any who can help now, you will be helping several in the movement. I hesitate to say more in email. And if you can't help, God bless you still for being here! Contributions can still be made payable to Ralph Pinque R-06, P.O. Box 439016, San Diego, CA. 92143. I wish you all a joyous Christmas and hope to be back online in time for New Year's Eve. Meanwhile, this Bully Buster has to finish packing for a long move! We're going home! Once again, I love you all and wish you all of the best! MacKenzie [END] =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D From irimland@zundelsite.org Fri Dec 7 01:21:36 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:21:36 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/6/2001 - "On the eve of Pearl Harbor Day" Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 6, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: These days, Revisionists can be found in the most prestigious places - and aren't there lessons to be learned about opinion manipulation? Read on: [START] Pentagon Still Scapegoats Pearl Harbor Fall Guys By Robert B. Stinnett 12-6-1 As we remember the roughly 2,400 persons killed in the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor -- the worst one-day loss of American lives prior to Sept. 11th of this year -- recently declassified U.S. military documents authored more than 60 years ago compel us to revisit some troubling questions. At issue is American knowledge of Japanese military plans to attack Hawaii prior to Dec. 7, 1941. The first question is whether President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his top military chieftains provoked Japan into an "overt act of war." The second question is whether Japan's military plans were obtained in advance by the U.S. but concealed from the Hawaiian military commanders, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short. Both Kimmel and Short were relieved of their commands, blamed for failing to ward off the attack, and demoted in rank after the Japanese raid. The latter question was answered in the affirmative last year on October 30, 2000, when President Bill Clinton signed a defense appropriations bill containing congressional findings that both Kimmel and Short were denied crucial military intelligence. However, despite the numerous pardons he issued shortly before leaving office, President Clinton deferred to the Pentagon's long-standing policy against posthumously restoring the commanders to their 1941 ranks. Nonetheless, the congressional findings should be widely seen as an exoneration of years of blame assigned to Kimmel and Short. But the other important question remains, looming ever larger in the inevitable comparisons made between Dec. 7, 1941 and Sept. 11th: Does the blame for the Pearl Harbor disaster revert to President Roosevelt? Before Walt Disney Studios released the movie "Pearl Harbor" earlier this year, the film's producer, Jerry Bruckheimer, commented on claims of FDR's foreknowledge by saying "That's all b___s___." Yet Roosevelt believed that provoking Japan into an attack was the only option he had to overcome the powerful America First non-interventionist movement. Though Germany had conquered most of Europe, and her U-Boats were sinking American ships in the Atlantic Ocean, Americans wanted nothing to do with "Europe's War." However, Germany made a strategic error. She, along with her Axis partner, Italy, signed the mutual assistance treaty with Japan, the Tripartite Pact, on September 27, 1940. Ten days later, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum, a U.S. Naval officer in the Office of Naval Intelligence, saw an opportunity to counter the U.S. anti-war movement by provoking Japan into a state of war with the U.S., and triggering the mutual assistance provisions of the Tripartite Pact. Memorialized in a secret memo dated October 7, 1940, McCollum's proposal called for eight provocations aimed at Japan. President Roosevelt acted swiftly, and throughout 1941, implemented the remaining seven provocations. The island nation's militarists used the provocations to seize control of Japan and organize their military forces for war against the U.S., Great Britain, and the Netherlands. During the next 11 months, the White House followed the Japanese war plans through the intercepted and decoded diplomatic and military communications intelligence. At least 1,000 Japanese radio messages per day were intercepted by monitoring stations operated by the U.S. and her Allies, and the message contents were summarized for the White House. The intercept summaries from Station CAST on Corregidor Island were current -- contrary to the assertions of some who claim that the messages were not decoded and translated until years later -- and they were clear: Pearl Harbor would be attacked on December 7, 1941, by Japanese forces advancing through the Central and North Pacific Oceans. As I explained to a policy forum audience at The Independent Institute in Oakland, California -- which was telecast nationwide by C-SPAN on July 4th last year -- my research shows that not only were Kimmel and Short cut off from the Japanese communications intelligence pipeline, so were the American people. The coverup lasted for nearly 59 years. ___ *Robert B. Stinnett is Media Fellow at The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. and the author of Day of Deceit: the truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (Free Press). http://www.independent.org/tii/news/011203Stinnett.html ( Source: The Rense webpage at http://www.rense.com/general17/scape.htm ) ===== Thought for the Day: "Many things happen between the cup and the lip." (Robert Burton) From irimland@zundelsite.org Fri Dec 7 18:13:33 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:13:33 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/7/2001 - "Churchill's Unsettled Legacy" Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 7, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Once more, a book review of note: CHURCHILL'S UNSETTLED LEGACY - A review of David Irving's Churchill's War, Vol. 2., reviewed by Mark Weber ( weber@ihr.org ) : [START] It has been 14 years since the publication of the first volume of David Irving's three-part biography of Britain's legendary wartime leader. This second volume, subtitled "Triumph in Adversity," traces Winston Churchill's career from June 1941 through July 1943, the pivotal period when, after calamitous setbacks, the tide of war turned decisively in favor of the Allies. With this handsome, meticulously referenced and generously illustrated work (including many color photographs), Britain's best-known and most controversial historian once again displays his extraordinary knack for extracting information from overlooked diaries and suppressed records, and his gift for turning mountains of data into well-crafted prose. This measured, masterful examination of Britain's towering twentieth-century premier is Irving at his best. It is difficult to avoid being impressed, even dazzled, by Churchill's colorful personality, in comparison with which most political leaders of the past 50 years seem pale midgets. From the pages of this book emerges a vivid portrait of an often exasperating and sometimes callous man of quick wit, myriad prejudices, puckish humor, arresting eloquence, and enormous energy. As with Irving's other biographical works, this book's strength is also its weakness. While it is packed with day-to-day and even hour-to-hour detail, Irving sometimes, and perhaps unavoidably, neglects context and the "larger picture." He sheds new light on Churchill's relations with major and minor figures of the fragile Allied wartime coalition World War II, including, for example, his deep, abiding loathing of "Free French" leader Charles De Gaulle. Irving traces Churchill's wartime hypocrisy and treachery -- most tragically toward the Poles, on whose behalf Britain had declared war against Germany in 1939. Excessive space is devoted to speculation about the July 1943 death of Wladyslaw Sikorski, prime minister of Poland's London-based government in exile. Irving musters evidence to suggest that Sikorski's death in a freakish airplane crash at Gibraltar was not an accident, as officially announced, but instead may have been secretly arranged by British authorities, perhaps on Churchill's order. As Irving notes, Churchill and other British officials received reports -- from Jewish agencies, from intercepted and decrypted secret German dispatches, and from other sources -- of killings of Jews in the lands under Axis rule. / 1 And yet, in his own six-volume history of the great conflict, The Second World War, some 4,448 pages altogether, he made only passing references to wartime Germany's harshly anti-Jewish policies (what is now called "the Holocaust"), and no mention whatsoever of "gas chambers" or "gassing." / 2 Adding significantly to the work of such skeptical historians as John Charmley (notably in his 1993 work, Churchill: The End of Glory), Irving delivers here another powerful blow to Churchill's well-manicured image as the heroic figure who "saved" Britain and "Western civilization." Churchill, writes Irving in the introduction, "won the war in spite of himself... Britain, in short, surrendered her own empire to defeat a chimera conjured up by Winston Churchill, a putative danger from Nazi Germany -- a threat which never existed except when Churchill needed to call upon it. He sacrificed the substance to defeat the myth." During our own cynical era, when the reputations of once-towering figures are routinely debunked and discredited, Winston Churchill is still held in high regard. Churchill, says British-American writer Christopher Hitchens, has become a "totem" of the Establishment. "His titanic standing depends principally on a set of rotundly defiant speeches made in the years 1940 and 1941, when he staked everything on resistance to Hitler," writes Hitchens. "...For innumerable readers and reviewers on both sides of the Atlantic (Arthur Schlesinger prominent among them) the iconic status of Churchill is an indispensable fact of life. If it can be shown that he was a vain old fool, then their world would turn upside down." / 3 In the view of the influential Jewish writer Charles Krauthammer -- a Washington Post columnist (and fervent apologist for Israel) -- Churchill is "the only possible" individual to be regarded as "Person of the Century." Krauthammer explains: "Take away Churchill in 1940... and Britain would have settled with Hitler -- or worse. Nazism would have prevailed. Hitler would have achieved what no other tyrant, not even Napoleon, had ever achieved: mastery of Europe. Civilization would have descended into darkness." / 4 Henry Kissinger has called Churchill "the quintessential hero." / 5 Contributing not insignificantly to the durability of his reputation was Churchill's lifelong philo-Semitism. Throughout his career, as Irving makes clear in both the first and second volumes of his trilogy, Churchill was an ardent booster of Jewish and Zionist interests. / 6 He believed Jews to be "the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world." In the words of British historian Andrew Roberts, Churchill "felt an instinctive affinity for their genius as well as a historian's=92 respect for their trials, and he supported Jewish aspirations wherever they did not clash with those of the Empire. He may have inherited this philo-semitism from his father, but he certainly gave it a new lustre in his own life." / 7 The well-entrenched idealization of Churchill is part and parcel of a drastically misleading view of World War II that Americans have been fed for decades. One common deceit is to give the impression that Hitler sought war against Britain and France, and that Germany aggressively attacked those two countries. Routinely suppressed is the key fact that Hitler strenuously sought to avoid conflict with Britain and France, and that it was those two countries that declared war against Germany. As Irving points out: "Britain was the one country of which Hitler consistently spoke favourably. From 1918 to the day of his suicide in 1945 he avowed that his one ambition had been to work in unison, even in grand alliance, with the British empire. There is nothing to be found in the archives to contradict our view that he meant it." Churchill's enduringly stellar image is all the more remarkable considering that his views on a range of issues were, by today's standards, hopelessly backward and politically incorrect. He was, for example, a strong and seemingly sincere supporter of the British empire. / 8 In November 1942, for instance, he declared: "Let me, however, make this clear, in case there should be any mistake about it in any quarter; we mean to hold our own. I have not become the King's first minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire." / 9 Along with most Britons (and Americans) of his era, he was also an unabashed racist. Blacks he dismissed as "niggers" and "blackamoors." Arabs were "worthless," Chinese were "chinks" or "pigtails," and dark races were "baboons" or "Hottentots." Indians, in his view, were "the beastliest people in the world, next to the Germans." / 10 Churchill not only favored white supremacy in Britain, and disparaged racial mixing, but, as Irving points out, wanted English-speaking whites -- whom he was not ashamed to proclaim as a superior breed -- to rule the entire world. "We are superior!," he exclaimed during a White House luncheon, to which vice president Henry Wallace responded sarcastically: "So you believe in the pure Anglo-Saxon race. Anglo-Saxondom =FCber alles!" / 11 Given such views= , it is not surprising, as Irving records, that Churchill and other high-ranking officials were distressed over the impact on British society caused by the wartime arrival of thousands of Black US servicemen. / 12 Similar sentiments voiced by Irving earned censure during his well-publicized lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt. / 13 To Judge Charles Gray's castigation of him as a "racist," for example, Irving retorted: "My own feelings about race are precisely the same as 95 percent of the people of my generation... If the British soldiers on the beaches of Normandy in 1944 could look forward to the end of the century and see what England has become, they would not have bothered to advance another 40 yards up the beach." / 14 Although Churchill's harshly anti-Hitler rhetoric is well known, as late as 1937, in his book Great Contemporaries, he was extolling the German leader's "patriotic ardor and love of country." The story of Hitler's struggle, Churchill went on, "cannot be read without admiration for the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force which enabled him to challenge, defy, conciliate, or overcome, all the authorities or resistances which barred his path." / 15 In another publication from that same year Churchill wrote: "One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations." / 16 Churchill is often praised for his outspoken criticism of his government's policy in 1938 and early 1939 of "appeasement" of Hitler and Third Reich Germany. In parliament his eloquent voice was nearly the only one raised against Neville Chamberlain (whom he would succeed as prime minister in May 1940) for his short-lived effort to accommodate Hitler's demands for self-determination for ethnic Germans living in what was then Czechoslovakia, and, by extension, accepting German hegemony in central and eastern Europe. But when Churchill himself held power as prime minister, he carried out a policy of appeasement far surpassing that of his predecessor. The foreign leader whom Churchill (and Franklin Roosevelt) appeased was not Hitler, though, but rather the Soviet premier Stalin -- a dictator who, by any measure, was a far more ruthless ruler then Hitler, and whose victims, by all accounts, vastly outnumber those of the German leader. Churchill not only cynically sanctioned Stalin's brutal hegemony over central and eastern Europe, helping him dispose of the fates of many millions of people against their will, he also collaborated with the Soviet ruler on issues of military strategy. Although Churchill spoke out against the Soviet Union before and after the war, during the war years he spoke cordially of the Soviet dictator. On several occasions he praised Stalin, repeatedly calling him his "friend." / 17 Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the great Russian writer who was a prisoner in Stalin's "Gulag" camps, has commented: "In their own countries, Roosevelt and Churchill are honored as embodiments of statesmanlike wisdom. To us, in our Russian prison conversations, their consistent shortsightedness and stupidity stood out as astonishingly obvious..." / 18 In Churchill's first address as prime minister -- the famous "blood, toil, tears, and sweat" speech of May 13, 1940 -- he proclaimed his goal in the war: "You ask, What is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is Victory -- victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror; victory, however long and hard the road may be." Did those who thrilled to such defiant rhetoric fully grasp what this meant? Were they really willing to support victory "at all costs"? As it turned out, the cost was very high indeed. During the war Churchill made clear his simple aim in the great conflict: "I have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby. If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." / 19 In keeping with that aim, Churchill refused even to consider Hitler's repeated offers of peace, thereby condemning the people of Britain, and Europe, to years of horrific warfare. In the early 1950s, historian Francis Neilson produced a stern portrait of the British leader, The Churchill Legend, which remains worth reading despite the passage of years: / 20 >> Churchill had but one aim; only one desire. In The Grand Alliance he states, "I have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby." It is his life that is to be satisfied. England? Europe? Are they merely the arenas that provide the accessories of the conflict? His life is to be "simplified" by throwing the world into chaos again. His purpose is the destruction of one man; and the last chance to maintain the culture of a thousand years must be abandoned because a politician's life is to be "simplified." << Alan Clark -- historian and one-time British defence minister -- more recently handed down a similarly harsh verdict of Churchill's war policy: / 21 >> There were several occasions when a rational leader could have got, first reasonable, then excellent, terms from Germany... The war went on far too long, and when Britain emerged the country was bust. Nothing remained of assets overseas. Without immense and punitive borrowings from the US we would have starved. The old social order had gone forever. The empire was terminally damaged. The Commonwealth countries had seen their trust betrayed and their soldiers wasted... << "Victory at all cost" also meant accepting the Allied "United Nations" principles of egalitarianism and liberal democracy, which laid the groundwork for the dismantling of empire and for a massive influx of former imperial subjects, ushering in drastic changes in every area of life in Britain (and the rest of Europe) in recent decades. In 1945, at the end of the terrible five-and-a-half-year conflict, Britain did not "win" -- it merely emerged on the victorious side, together with the two great powers that really did "win" the war: Soviet Russia and the United States. British writer Peter Millar echoed this assessment a few years ago: / 22 >> ...The accepted view that his [Churchill's] "bulldog breed" stubbornness led Britain through its "finest hour" to a glorious victory is sadly superficial. ...In no sense, other than the moral one, can Britain be said to have won. She merely survived. Britain went to war ostensibly to honour an alliance with Poland. Yet the war ended with Poland redesigned at a dictator's whim, albeit Stalin's rather than Hitler's, and occupied, albeit by Russians rather than Germans. In reality Britain went to war to maintain the balance of power. But the European continent in 1945 was dominated by a single overbearing power hostile to everything Britain stood for. Britain, hopelessly in hock to the United States, had neither the power nor the face to hold on to her empire. ... The "evil genius bent on world conquest" that most Americans believe Hitler to have been, is a myth. The evil genius had more precise aims in eastern Europe. A Britain that would have withdrawn from the fray and from all influence in Europe to concentrate on her far-flung empire would have suited him admirably. << It is to his credit that Churchill acknowledged, on at least one or two occasions, the tragedy of his own life's work. During a dinner with close associates in early 1945 -- as his private secretary confided to his diary -- a "rather depressed" Churchill was "saying that Chamberlain had trusted Hitler as he was now trusting Stalin (though he thought in different circumstances)..." / 23 Three years after the end of the war, Churchill wrote: "The human tragedy reaches it climax in the fact that after all the exertions and sacrifices of hundreds of millions of people and of victories of the Righteous Cause, we have still not found Peace or Security, and that we lie in the grip of even worse perils than those we have surmounted." / 24 Later, reflecting wistfully on his legacy as wartime leader, Churchill mused: "Historians are apt to judge war ministers less by the victories achieved under their direction than by the political results which flowed from them. Judged by that standard, I am not sure that I shall be held to have done very well." / 25 No man did more to bring about that "human tragedy" than Churchill himself, who had devoted so much energy and effort to crafting the wartime alliance that so greatly aided Stalin and the Soviet Union, the source of the "worst perils." And, as David Irving painstakingly lays out in this outstanding, unsparing work, no man among the Allied wartime leaders better deserves to be judged by the results that flowed from his victories than Britain's legendary wartime premier. --------------------- Notes 1. D. Irving, Churchill=92s War, vol. II, pp. 546-548. 2. Robert Faurisson, "The Detail," The Journal of Historical Review, March-April 1998, p. 19. Similarly, neither Dwight Eisenhower nor Charles De Gaulle made any mention of Nazi gas chambers in his memoir of the war. 3. C. Hitchens, "Whose History Is It?," Vanity Fair, Dec. 1993, p. 110. 4. C. Krauthammer, "Einstein was wrong choice," Washington Post column, as it appeared in The Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, Calif.), Jan. 2, 2000. 5. Quoted by Ralph Raico, "Rethinking Churchill," in John V. Denson, The Costs of War: America's Pyrrhic Victories (Transaction, 1997), p. 255. Source cited: H. Kissinger, "With Faint Praise," New York Times Book Review, July 16, 1995, p. 7. 6. For example, Churchill wrote to Roosevelt in August 1942: "I am strongly wedded to the Zionist policy, of which I am one of the authors." =46.L. Loewenheim, and others, eds., Roosevelt and Churchill: Their Secret Wartime Correspondence (New York: 1975), p. 234. 7. Andrew Roberts, "Winston Replied That He Didn't Like Blackamoors," The Spectator, April 9, 1994, p. 11. 8. D. Irving, Churchill's War, vol. I (1987), p. 437. 9. Francis Neilson, The Churchill Legend (1954), p. 432; Quoted in part in D. Irving, vol. II, p. 624. (Nov. 10, 1942) 10. A. Roberts, "Winston Replied...," The Spectator, April 9, 1994, pp. 10-11; D. Irving, Churchill's War, vol. II, p. 624. 11. D. Irving, Churchill=92s War, vol. II, p. 789. 12. D. Irving, Churchill's War, vol. II, pp. 560-563. 13. See M. Weber, "After the Irving-Lipstadt Trial: New Dangers and Challenges," The Journal of Historical Review, March-April 2000, pp. 2, 6. 14. M. Weber, "After the Irving-Lipstadt Trial," The Journal of Historical Review, March-April 2000, p. 6. Incidentally, by any objective measure of the term, Deborah Lipstadt herself deserves to be considered a "racist." As undisputed evidence presented during the trial established, she publicly opposes Jews marrying non-Jews, and supports Jewish supremacist rule in Israel-Palestine. 15. W. Churchill, Great Contemporaries (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1937), p. 232. Quoted in: Francis Neilson, The Churchill Legend (Appleton, Wisc.: C. C. Nelson, 1954), pp. 374-375. 16. W. Churchill, Step by Step (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1939), pp. 143-144. Quoted in: Francis Neilson, The Churchill Legend (1954), pp. 373-374, 444. 17. Examples or citations can be found in: Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill: Road to Victory, vol. VII (Boston: 1986), pp. 1031, 1035, 1066, 1173-1174, 1186, 1194, 1229, 1320. During the Feb. 1945 Yalta conference, for example, Churchill declared: "It is no exaggeration or compliment of a florid kind when I say that we regard Marshal Stalin's life as most precious to the hopes and hearts of all of us... I walk through this world with greater courage and hope when I find myself in a relation of friendship and intimacy with this great man, whose fame has gone out not only over all Russia but the world." (p. 1194). In 1943 in Iran, at the conclusion of the 1943 Tehran conference, Roosevelt, Stalin, Winston Churchill, issued a joint statement that concluded: "We leave here friends in fact, in spirit, and in purpose." Declaration of Dec. 1, 1943. Charles A. Beard and Mary R. Beard, A Basic History of the United States (New York: Doubleday, Doran, 1944), p. 530. 18. A. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, vol. 1-2 (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), p. 259n. 19. W. Churchill, The Grand Alliance, p. 370. Quoted in: Francis Neilson, The Churchill Legend (1954), pp. 411, 444. 20. Francis Neilson, The Churchill Legend (1954), p. 444. 21. Alan Clark, "A reputation ripe for revision," The Times (London), Jan. 2, 1993. 22. P. Millar, "Millar's Europe: Question over glory days," The European (London), Jan. 7-10. 1993. 23. Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill: Road to Victory, vol. VII (Boston: 1986), p. 1232. (Feb. 23, 1945.) 24. W. Churchill, The Gathering Storm (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1948), pp. iv-v (Preface) 25. R. Boothy, Recollections of a Rebel (London: 1978), pp. 1830-184. Quoted in: R. Raico, "Rethinking Churchill," in J. V. Denson, The Costs of War (1997), p. 291. [END] =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Source: The Journal of Historical Review - July-August 2001 - pp. 43-47 Institute for Historical Review -- http://www.ihr.org/index.html Churchill=92s War: Triumph in Adversity (Vol. II), by David Irving. London: =46ocal Point, 2001. Hardcover. Dust jacket. 1060 pages. Photographs. Appendices. Source references. Index. (Available from the IHR for $50, plus shipping.) Churchill=92s War: Triumph in Adversity (Vol. II), by David Irving. London: =46ocal Point, 2001. Hardcover. Dust jacket. 1060 pages. Photographs. Appendices. Source references. Index. (Available from the IHR for $50, plus shipping.) Reply-To: weber@ihr.org =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D From irimland@zundelsite.org Sun Dec 9 03:47:00 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 19:47:00 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/8/2001 - "So why did Zinni turn to mush?" Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 8, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Today I want to juxtapose two articles. The first one - selected quotes only - was found on the Ha'aretz website, dated yesterday. The second one is a report filed by Phil Reeves in Gaza, reporting for the Independent. The content in each speaks for itself. [START] Haaretz December 7, 2001 Bush-tailed, but still bright-eyed The Americans have come out squarely on Israel's side, but Arafat seems determined to persist. Security officials predict a long, bloody struggle ahead. By Amos Harel Quote: After months of sitting on the fence, the Bush administration has chosen sides. No longer is it trying to play the impartial mediator, a la former president Bill Clinton. Senior Israeli security officials could hardly believe the series of public appearances this week by people from the White House and the State Department. For a moment there, President George W. Bush sounded like he was outflanking Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on the right. Quote: National Infrastructure Minister Avigdor Lieberman wouldn't have phrased it any differently. Bush spoke in terms of "we" (the U.S. and Israel) and of a common, almost holy, war on terror. Quote: Bush's words were backed up by actions. Since mid-week, the U.S. has been putting relentless pressure on the PA Chairman. The special envoy to the region, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, daily demanded a detailed report from the Palestinians: Who was arrested? Where is he being held? On what charges? And why doesn't the list of arrests overlap more closely with the list of names submitted by Israel? Officials from army intelligence and the Shin Bet noted with satisfaction that Zinni, clearly shocked by his visit to the site of the Jerusalem suicide bombing, had completely lost patience with Arafat's web of lies. Quote: President Bush added a move of his own: The announcement of the freezing of Hamas assets in the U.S. is important, says an Israeli security official, but even more important is the way in which it was done. When the president himself comes out of the White House and makes a speech about Hamas, which seeks to destroy Israel, the U.S. is practically declaring war on 30 percent of the Palestinian people. [END] This is followed by an article that shows the consequences of the "green light" the Israelis claim they have received. [START] UN chief accuses Israel of terrorising Palestinians War on terrorism By Phil Reeves in Gaza City 08 December 2001 The United Nations Human Rights Commissioner, Mary Robinson, called on Israel to stop bombing the West Bank and Gaza Strip, saying that they were "terrorising and terrifying the civilian population". Her remarks, which came amid an intense Israeli publicity campaign to convince the world that it is conducting a "war on terror" akin to President George Bush's, were coupled with a call for Israel to allow international monitors into the area. She spoke on the same day that Israel, bolstered by reassurances from the United States and Britain that it is entitled to "defend itself", sent F-16 warplanes to drop two large bombs in a Gaza Strip police compound, surrounded by residential buildings and close to a medical clinic. The force of the explosions was enough to blow apart two empty four-storey buildings, sending lumps of glass and concrete flying hundreds of yards, injuring 20 nearby residents and traumatising many more. The bombs were separated by about 15 minutes, so that anyone who ventured into the area in search of victims would have been at risk from the second blast. The same tactic was used by Hamas suicide bombers one week ago in Jerusalem, whose attacks - provoked by the assassination of a Hamas leader - prompted Israel to lash back with two days of aerial assaults, suspended until yesterday because of bad weather. Twenty minutes after the suicide bombers detonated themselves - massacring 10 others, aged between 14 and 20 - a car bomb went off close by, when the emergency services had arrived in force, but luckily failed to kill anyone. Yesterday's bombardment was not the same as the suicide bombing attacks on randomly selected civilians, designed to slaughter as many people as possible. Israeli commanders knew the compound was empty. But there was nothing to suggest that the bombardment had much to do with self-defence. The Israeli armed forces said that the target was a factory producing mortars, and came after eight mortar firings on Jewish settlements - illegally built in Gaza by Israel - within 24 hours. But the compound has been bombed heavily before, so it was a highly unlikely site for a bomb-making centre. There was no evidence of mortar-making equipment in the detritus, spread over hundreds of square metres. If it was an attack on Yasser Arafat's security forces, it was curiously illogical. The same policemen now under intense pressure from Israel, the United States and others to arrest scores of Islamic militants will be even less inclined to do so. A day earlier, they battled with an angry crowd, killing one youth, when they sought to place the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, under house arrest. But the bombing was also clearly about sowing terror. Those who witnessed the bombs - including The Independent, whose hotel was less than half a mile away - heard two enormous crashes. The entire city must have heard the sudden roar of jet engines, followed by a mighty crash, and a giant plume of dust, visible even against the night sky. The sinister noise of unseen combat helicopters could be heard out over the Mediterranean. The children of Gaza who heard the crashes - not for the first time in this battered city - will have another permanent mental bruise, and another reason to hate. The police who heard it, knowing that their main headquarters are now almost completely flattened, will have another reason to fudge Mr Arafat's orders. And Mr Arafat will have another reason to say one thing to Western diplomats and another to his people. Once again, Israel's military conduct raised questions about Ariel Sharon's ultimate goal. The debate on this issue took a new twist yesterday when Bulent Ecevit, the Prime Minister of Turkey, Israel's closest regional ally, revealed that Mr Sharon had told him Israel wanted to "be rid of" Mr Arafat. "During my telephone conversation the other day with Prime Minister Sharon, it became very clear that Israel was inclined towards war," he said. "In fact, Mr Sharon openly expressed their desire to be rid of Mr Arafat." This is an ambition now shared by Mr Sharon's electorate. In a Gallup poll, more than half those surveyed supported the toppling of Mr Arafat and seven out of 10 backed what was described as "massive military retaliation". None of this bodes well for the wildly mishandled attempts to use diplomacy to solve this crisis. The bombings came a day after Egypt had sent its Foreign Minister to meet Mr Sharon. Despite everything, a joint security meeting, brokered by the US envoy Anthony Zinni, went ahead - but with no hope of achieving much. [END] ===== Thought for the Day: "Let him not boast who puts his armor on As he who puts it off - the battle done." (Longfellow) From irimland@zundelsite.org Sun Dec 9 22:12:23 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 14:12:23 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/9/2001 - "Robert Fisk nearly killed..." Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 9, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: MID-EAST REALITIES - better known as MER - has been back on the Internet in a rather limited, truncated way after what many consider a mysterious black-out of their service, never fully explained, to my knowledge. In the past, MER has provided timely, valuable information, breaking news, and commentary sympathetic to the Palestinian people - and, in their quest for freedom and justice, critical of the Israeli government. Many on the Right as well as leading Arab writers mistrust MER's motives, since the organization is headed by one Mark Bruzonsky - who has not, incidentally, always been in sympathy with things said on the Zundelsite. But all in all, I have found MER to be very useful. The daily missives sent out via e-mail showed a keen understanding of the Middle East problems and complexities. I missed MER when it was off the air and was relieved when it was back in cyberspace. After all, it takes real guts to speak out forcefully in opposition to the Israelis' (man)handling of the Palestinians and policies of repression by the Israeli government - and go, even in spirit, where angels fear to tread. Within our lapdog media, that is a rare, rare trait. One who goes physically, not just in spirit, where angels fear to tread, risking freedom, life and limb is Robert Fisk, a UK Independent journalist who I consider to be incorruptible and even-handed. If a respected, well-known journalist reports what Fisk reports about a military front in times of intense warfare, there is always the danger of "being rubbed out" - sometimes by "friendly fire". Whether the incident below was engineered or not - who is to say? Some of us wonder quietly. At any rate, this morning I received the following from MER: [START] http://www.MiddleEast.Org ROBERT FISK NEARLY KILLED... SAVED BY MUSLIM RELIGIOUS LEADER Robert Fisk is one of the world's preeminent experts about the Middle East and world affairs. He is the longest serving Western correspondent in the region. He is also an extraordinarily courageous person who always conducts himself with great determination, fortitude, and professionalism. For many years now Fisk has provided tremendous insight to people throughout the world by going where few others have dared and by writing as few others are able. He has been both the eyes and the conscience for so many. Yesterday Robert Fisk was nearly beaten to death in Pakistan by Afghan refugees who have suffered terribly at the hands of so many for so long, including of course the U.S. and Great Britain -- the very people Fisk has so thoughtfully tried to tell to the world. True to his deep convictions and profound awareness, Fisk said after his beating: "They had every reason to be angry... If I had been them, I would have attacked me. ...There was a real reason why they should hate Westerners so much." ===== BBC NEWS - Sunday, 9 December, 2001 UK journalist beaten, nearly killed, by Afghan mob A British journalist is recovering after being beaten and pelted with stones by Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Veteran foreign correspondent Robert Fisk, 55, who writes for The Independent newspaper, was set upon after his car broke down as he drove near the border city of Quetta. Mr Fisk, who suffered facial, hand and head injuries, said: "It was a very frightening experience and I am in a lot of pain but I am glad to be alive. "I'm going to bear the scars for the rest of my life - sadly I broke down in the wrong place at the wrong time." The Middle East correspondent was attacked when his car overheated and broke down close to a village housing refugees from Afghanistan. He got out of the vehicle and was attempting to push it to the side of the road when a group of 40 to 50 people gathered. "At first they were reasonably friendly but then a little kid threw a stone at me. More stones followed and then I find myself being punched and beaten in the face. "My glasses were smashed and my spare glasses were ripped away from me. I was covered in blood and couldn't see anything. I was obviously frightened." Mr Fisk said he fought back and began lashing out at the mob, whose numbers had now swelled to about 100. He knocked a couple of his attackers to the ground but was then rescued by a Muslim religious leader, who forced the mob back and guided him to a police wagon. "Without his intervention I would now be dead," he said. 'I can understand' But Mr Fisk said he could understand the refugees' anger, as many had relatives who had been killed by the US bombing of Afghan city Kandahar last week. "It doesn't excuse them for beating me up so badly but there was a real reason why they should hate Westerners so much. "I don't want this to be seen as a Muslim mob attacking a Westerner for no reason. They had every reason to be angry - I've been an outspoken critic of the US actions myself. If I had been them, I would have attacked me." Mr Fisk is not the first UK journalist to be injured since the US-led action in Afghanistan began. Last month ITV news correspondent Andrea Catherwood sustained minor injuries in a Taleban suicide attack near the Afghan city of Kunduz, which killed three people and seriously wounded a Northern Alliance commander. Eight killed BBC reporter William Reeve escaped unhurt when a bomb landed in the building next to his Kabul office. And eight journalists have been killed - the latest a Swedish TV cameraman shot dead in a believed robbery attempt on his home. Two French and one German reporter were killed in northern Afghanistan in a Taleban ambush on an opposition convoy. An Australian, Afghan, Italian and Spanish press group were shot dead in an ambush on the road to Jalalabad. ===== In 1995 Mark Bruzonsky had a lengthy two-hour exclusive interview with Robert Fisk which then became a series of four MERTV programs, 117-120. These are among the limited MERTV programs available to be watched at this time at http://www.mertv.org>MERTV.Org. [END] ===== Thought for the Day: "Nothing can come out of the artist that is not in the man." (H.L. Mencken) From irimland@zundelsite.org Tue Dec 11 21:50:41 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:50:41 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/10/2001 - "114 countries reprimand Israel" Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 10, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Am I the only one who sees that the Israel/America duo stands ever more apart and isolated from the rest of the world - for all the world to see? Take note and ponder: [START] Israel condemned by 114 countries |By Fiona Fleck in Geneva (Filed: 06/12/2001) MORE than 100 signatories of the Geneva Convention gathered in Switzerland yesterday to reprimand Israel for "indiscriminate and disproportionate violence" against Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories. The 114 states - including Britain and the rest of the European Union - issued a joint declaration urging Israel to abide by international laws enshrined in the 1949 accord seeking to protect civilians in wartime or under military occupation. It was the first such declaration by signatory states since the Convention was signed in 1949, as a similar session was adjourned after 17 minutes in July 1999. Israel and its close allies, the United States and Australia - which are also signatories of the Convention - boycotted the session. The declaration expressed deep concern about a "deterioration of the humanitarian situation" in Palestinian areas, condemned Jewish settlements there as "illegal" and urged Israel to refrain from "grave breaches" such as "unlawful deportation", "wilful killing" and "tor- ture". Yaakov Levy, the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, criticised the declaration as "one-sided". He said it contained "unsubstantiated allegations" and should have condemned acts of terrorism against Israel. [END- (I apologize for the incomplete reference - some virus (?) swallowed it before my very eyes!) ===== Thought for the Day: "Nature never deceives us; it is always we who deceive ourselves." (Jean Jacques Rousseau) From irimland@zundelsite.org Tue Dec 11 21:54:39 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:54:39 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/11/2001 - "As if we didn't know..." Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 11, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Today a brief book review by yet another Goldie discarding the liberal cause= : [START] CBS insider exposes media distortion In 1996, veteran CBS News reporter and producer Bernie Goldberg committed the unpardonable sin of publicly mentioning the issue of liberal bias in the media. For that he became persona non grata at CBS. In his new book, "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News," Goldberg tells how friends and colleagues turned on him, from junior CBS reporters all the way to Dan Rather. But much more than that, he exposes a bias so uniform and overwhelming that it permeates every "news" story we hear and read -- and so entrenched and deep rooted that the networks themselves don=92t even recognize it. Goldberg thought of himself as a typical liberal television news reporter. It was only when a friend called to his attention a particular news story on his own network unduly ridiculing a Republican presidential candidate did he realize the depth of the bias within the national news media. Goldberg wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal calling the offending reporter and his own employer to task. The resulting outcry from reporters and anchors on all three networks -- including cold shoulders from co-workers -- help to confirm his suspicions that bias in the national news media is indeed real. Goldberg goes beyond the circumstances of his brave op-ed and resulting ouster as member of the establishment news media in good standing. He presents the cold, hard truth about the entire news media and backs it up with cold, hard facts. Goldberg shows: * how media bias has twisted the facts of some of the biggest stories of the last two decades; * the facts that prove that conservatives and liberals in politics are treated radically different by the news media; * how the news is knowingly "manufactured," why certain key facts are omitted from some news stories if they make a case or a cause seem less compelling; * that the news media feels free to heap criticism on just about anyone or anything but is absolutely intolerant of any criticism of its own work; a behind-the-cameras tour to witness scenes of jaw-dropping arrogance and "spin-cycle" journalism. "Bias" has already climbed to the best-seller lists -- even before the book was officially released. You've heard him on Rush Limbaugh and seen him interviewed on Fox. Now you can read this explosive book for yourself. http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=3D328 [END] =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Thought for the Day: "Where none admire, 'tis useless to excel; Where none are beaux, 'tis vain to be a belle." From irimland@zundelsite.org Thu Dec 13 03:37:41 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 19:37:41 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/12/2001 - ***JEWISH MILITANTS ARRESTED IN BOMB PLOT*** Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 12. 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: I want to preface the IHR press release below by pointing out that it was Irv Rubin and three other JDL hoodlums who showed up a few days after the Zundel-Haus arson in Toronto in 1995 - supposedly "to take pictures"! Apparently they assumed that no one was in the burned-out shell, and they started climbing the fence. They ran when they realized they were being observed. Ernst and his body guards started chasing them, followed by a Toronto police car. In no time at all, the JDL hoodlums were apprehended - however, to no one's great surprise, they were immediately let go. The story below made our day: [START] "News from the Institute for Historical Review, Wednesday, December 12, 2001": JEWISH MILITANTS ARRESTED IN BOMB PLOT Irv Rubin and the JDL Have Long Terrorist Record Two members of the Jewish Defense League, a militant Zionist group with a long record of terrorist activities, have been arrested on suspicion that they were preparing to blow up a Los Angeles mosque and the office of an Arab-American congressman, federal authorities said today. Irv Rubin, 56, chairman of the Jewish Defense League, and Earl Krugel, 59, another JDL activist, were jailed this morning at the federal Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles. The two were arrested Tuesday night after "explosive powder," the last component of a bomb, was delivered to Krugel's residence, a federal prosecutor said. Other bomb components were seized at Krugel's home. The two are believed to have been preparing to attack the King Fahd Mosque in Los Angeles and the office of US Representative Darrell Issa (R.-Calif.), a grandson of Lebanese immigrants. In 1985 the FBI identified the JDL as "the second most active terrorist group in the United States," linking it to 37 terrorist attacks carried out from 1977 to 1984. (Orange County Register, Nov. 19, 1985). Another federal agency, the Department of Energy, similarly characterized the JDL in a 1986 report: "For more than a decade, the Jewish Defense League (JDL) has been one of the most active terrorist groups in the United States." In 1987 the FBI announced that Jewish extremist groups had carried out 24 terrorist acts from 1981 through 1986, 17 of which were the work of the JDL. The Institute for Historical Review, a leading non-conformist history research and publishing center based in southern California, was a target of systematic JDL violence and harassment during the early 1980s. The attacks included a drive-by shooting, three firebombings, vandalization of IHR employee-owned vehicles, 22 slashings of tires of employee automobiles, demonstrations outside the IHR office, and numerous telephone threats. This campaign culminated in a devastating arson attack on the Institute's offices and warehouse in Torrance in the early morning hours of July 4, 1984. Damage was estimated at $400,000. Two days later, JDL leader Rubin showed up at the site of the gutted IHR offices publicly to praise the fire-bombing. The JDL, he declared, "wholeheartedly applauds the recent devastation of the offices of the Institute for Historical Review." Denying any personal responsibility himself, Rubin said that the arson had been carried out by a former JDL activist named Larry Winston (Joel Cohen). No one was ever arrested in connection with this crime. In February 1989, JDL intimidation forced the cancellation at two hotel sites in southern California of a three-day IHR conference. The meeting was successfully held at a makeshift alternate site, in spite of further harassment by a handful of JDL thugs led by Rubin. The IHR trusts that Rubin and Krugel will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, especially during this time of heightened awareness of the dangers of terrorism. Further information about Rubin and the JDL can be found in "The Zionist Terror Network," a detailed IHR report that is posted on the IHR web site: http://www.ihr.org/books/ztn.html ----------------------------------------------- Institute for Historical Review P. O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659 Tel. 949 - 631 1490 Fax: 949 - 631 0981 E-mail: ihr@ihr.org Web site: http://www.ihr.org [END] ===== Thought for the Day: The Rubin story - and an even bigger story pertaining to a Jewish spy ring, can be found # 1 and 2 on the wildly popular Jeff Rense website at www.rense.com (You have to scroll down a bit...) And once you are there, be sure to ponder this one: http://www.rense.com/general17/flag.htm From irimland@zundelsite.org Fri Dec 14 02:56:56 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:56:56 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/13/2001 - "The Death of the West" Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 13, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: I don't usually promote WorldNetDaily because I know it is a website that talks out of both sides of its mouth - pretending to be unctuously Christian while pitching a subtle - and sometimes not-so-subtle - pro-Zionist line, at the expense of the beleaguered Palestinians. However, I like Pat Buchanan who is one of their columnists - and his new book gives me a chance to plug it in a ZGram. I haven't read it yet, but I surely intend to because Mr. Buchanan is such a superb stylist with a vocabulary that can make a writer green with envy. Moreover, he speaks to an issue that is now on just about everybody's mind: What is going to happen to our European-background children in this mix-and-match society? I promise you will be enriching your mind by reading this book. I recommend it - sight unseen: [START] Pat Buchanan's latest book, "The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilizations," is now available at WorldNetDaily's online store. WND is discounting the price and offering autographed and personalized copies -- another exclusive from WND. Pat's premise? "The West is dying. Collapsing birth rates in Europe and the U.S., coupled with population explosions in Asia, Africa and Latin America, are set to cause cataclysmic shifts in world power, as unchecked immigration swamps and polarizes every Western society and nation." Drawing on U.N. population projections, recent U.S. Census figures and expert policy studies, Buchanan takes a cold, hard look at the decay of Europe and America and the decline of Western culture. What "The Death of the West" foretells is astonishing: Not a single European country has a birth rate that will enable it to survive in its present form through this century. By 2050, only one-tenth of the world=92s population will be Europeans and it will be the oldest tent= h on earth, with a median age of 50. Russia, already in a terminal population crisis, will, by 2050, be driven out of the Central Asia by Islamic invaders, and lose huge slices of Siberia and her Far East to a China 15 times as populous. There are 30 million foreign born in the U.S. and between nine and 11 million illegal aliens, as many illegals as there are people in Massachussets, Rhode Island and Connecticut combined. America is losing the cultural war. Militant paganism is crowding the old faiths. Separatism is triumphing over integration. The melting pot has become a salad bowl. And the impact upon American society, politics, and culture will be devastating. In an even-handed, thoughtful tone, Buchanan documents the sea of changes that have already begun to take place in our society. "The Death of the West" is a timely, provocative book that asks a question that troubles millions: Is the America we grew up in gone forever? Get this first edition now at a bargain price -- or, better yet, get it autographed and personalized by Pat. http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=3D332 [END] =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Thought for the Day: The body politic, like the human body, begins to die from its birth, and bears in itself the causes of its own destruction. Rousseau From irimland@zundelsite.org Fri Dec 14 22:11:16 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:11:16 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/14/2001 - "The State of Mind" (Excerpt) Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 14, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Israel Shamir is one of the truly discerning analysts of what is going on in Israel and Palestine. Like many Russian-born Jews, however, he stumbles over English grammar, particularly articles. He puts them where they don't belong and leaves them out where they are necessary. I have taken the liberty of deleting and inserting a few. I trust he will forgive me. Here is an excerpt from a larger essay - his latest literary feat: [START] THE STATE OF MIND By Israel Shamir I...took [the] train homewards, to Jaffa. The train carried a few Africans, probably illegal immigrants judging by their shy looks. A Romanian building team was gulping beer and burping loudly. They were imported from their impoverished East European land to build the houses for immigrants, as the Jews do not want to be employed in construction in Israel as well as in California. A Jewish Israeli lawyer in black yarmulke leafed papers in his semi-opened briefcase. A blond and armed Israeli soldier talked Ukrainian with its fricative h's to his corpulent girlfriend. He extolled his own heroic fight against [the} multitude of Arab terrorists under her admiring eyes. A group of Moroccans discussed the closure of Acre steel plant and their slim chances to find another work. The crisis is deepening, one of them said, it is as bad as in 1966. The train rode through Haifa, and I thought of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Americans, Jews and Christian Zionists, who lobby, pray, support and pay - no, not for the Jewish state built on the ruins of Palestine. It would be bad enough; but reality is worse. I thought of millions of Palestinians, rotting in refugee camps and jails, dispossessed, expelled - not by the monster of evil occupation and land grabbing, but by something worse - by a ghost. The Jewish state is a virtual state that quickly loses all remaining connection to reality. This ghost of a state kills people and collects money in America; it continues some nefarious existence, like the legal term, "estate of the deceased". Its fields are worked by imported guest workers, guarded by imported Russians and Ethiopians, explained by Israeli professors teaching forever in American universities and by brave generals on the lookout for a big shake. The unemployment grows daily, vital services are on strike; the tourist industry collapsed, hotels are boarded up and other branches of national economy are close to collapse. Israelis buy flats in Florida and Prague, while houses in Israel could not be sold. Sharon's desire to punish Palestinians was similar to punishing one's own left hand: Palestinians and Israelis are intertwined and integrated, and this separation kills the economy of both. From far away America, Israel looks like a giant, nuclear state, great friend of the United States, a Jewish state that is a source of pride for American Jews. A visitor leaves our shores with a strong feeling of our identity and prosperity. Only we, permanent residents, know that it is a cardboard sham. Israel is collapsing, as its active citizens emigrate in despair, while generals complete the destruction of the country. A cruel fate befalls the native Palestinians: a ghost kills them, a spiritless body walking in Zombie-like trance the corridors of the Congress and the deserts of [the]Middle East. For the sake of this spectre, important American Jews squeeze every penny from their employees and countrymen, cut down on pensions to old and assistance for children, reduce the health and education budget, dry up help to Africa and Latin America, build improbable coalitions with notorious racists of Pat Robertson's kind, demand destruction of Iraq, bless [the] bombing of Afghani refugees, keep Afro-Americans in their ghettos, undermine their host society, making enemies to themselves and to America. These deeds are vile enough, but they are useless as well. [The] Zionist experiment practically collapsed. It can run for many years to come on [a] life-supporting machine, as a brain-dead vegetable. It can kill people, maybe even start [a] world war. It cannot become alive. The Jewish state of Israel is a state of mind; it is but a projection of the American Jewish mind. Worries and problems it articulates are American Jewish problems. For Israeli "Jews", there is no need of segregation, of war, of subjugation of natives. We eat no bagels with lox, speak no Yiddish, read no Saul Bellow or Sholom Aleichem, and avoid synagogues. We prefer Arab food and Greek music. My neighbourhood has seven pork butchers to a kosher one. Forty per cent of Tel Aviv weddings are done outside [the] Jewish framework: young Israelis prefer to go to Cyprus to get married, just to avoid contact with Rabbis. Tel Aviv is the gays' capital of [the] Middle East, though according to Jewish law, gays should be exterminated. If American Jews would not bribe Israelis on a large scale, we would just forget about the Diaspora and dissolve into the hospitable Middle East. If they continue to bankroll us, we shall oblige them with a small show of Jewishness. We are master-sellers of illusion, and as long as there are buyers, we shall provide. In 1946, a group of dedicated men from all over the world came to Palestine under the aegis of the UN. They were sent to prepare the ground for [the] partition of the land. Among other places, they came to the southernmost kibbutz Revivim in the arid Negev, and came across a wonderful flowerbed with roses, anemones, and violets in front of the kibbutz office. In their report, the members of the delegation expressed their amazement and stated, "Jews make the desert bloom, let them have Negev". As they left, the kibbutz youngsters went out and pulled the flowers out of [the] sand: they [had] bought fresh flowers [the] same morning on the Jaffa market and [had] planted them as props for the duration of the visit. This small outlay transferred Negev with its two hundred thousand Palestinians to the Jewish state. [The] Majority of them were expelled across the newly drawn border, to the camps of Gaza or Jordan. It was cruel and useless: even now, fifty years later, Negev south of Beersheba has [a] smaller population than in 1948. In order to populate depopulated lands, Mossad broke and terrorised [the] Jewish communities of North Africa. The Jews were brought in, sprayed with DDT lice-killer and placed into refugee camps that soon became towns of Netivot, Dimona, Yerucham. They are still there, in the towns of unemployment and misery, drawing social benefits and probably disliking Ashkenazi Jews as much as anybody could. Not in vain, they write "Ashkenazim to Auschwitz" on the walls of their towns. A few weeks before the Intifadah, Israeli establishment imprisoned [a] hugely popular leader of Oriental Jews, Rabbi Arie Deri. Tens of thousands of Moroccans gathered at the gates of the jail demanding his release. Intifada saved the skins of Ashkenazi Jews from the civil war, but not forever. Thus the conjuring tricks of Revivim, conquest of Negev, expulsion of Palestinians, destruction of Moroccan Jewish community succeeded separately and failed altogether. Zionist leaders dreamed to make Palestine as Jewish as England is English. They failed. Palestine is Jewish as Jamaica is English. The land of Palestine is being ruined now, in front of our eyes. Its beautiful old villages are bombed to oblivion; churches are emptied of their flock; olives are uprooted. Such ruin did not befall the land since the Assyrian invasion 2700 years ago. Nothing could comfort us in [the] face of this great destruction, and certainly [the] people connected to it - whether Israeli killers or their American Jewish supporters - will be damned forever. Still, a wry irony of history will remain as a footnote in the books of [the] future: the Jewish leadership committed these crimes in vain, and received no profit out of it. Even if the last Palestinian would be crucified on the hill of Golgotha, even that would not bring to life the virtual Jewish state of Israel. ===== Israel Shamir is an Israeli writer and journalist living in Jaffa. His other articles could be found on his site, www.israelshamir.com This article can be freely transmitted and published in electronic media; hard copy publications must ask for permission at Shamir@israelshamir.com If you do not wish to receive his articles, reply with the subject line "remove", if you would like to join this list, write with a subject line "subscribe". [END] ===== Thought for the Day: "A split screen will catch all the action." (Letter to the Zundelsite) From irimland@zundelsite.org Sun Dec 16 02:20:36 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 18:20:36 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/15/2001 - "America's Israel" Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 15, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: A ZGram reader sent me the following with a suggestion: "I found this article on COUNTERPUNCH.ORG May I suggest that we each send it to news publications in our own areas." [START] America's Israel By C.G. Estabrook The proper way to begin to understand the "Israeli-Palestinian problem" is to recognize that Israel is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the United States government. Criticism of its racist and oppressive policies towards non-Jews and of its brutal and illegal occupation of Palestine is necessarily criticism of the policies of American governments, Republican as well as Democrat, that have made these things possible. During the Cold War, it was fashionable to sneer at the Cuban economy as "unviable" because it depended on money from the Soviet Union, principally in exchange for Cuba's sugar crop (owing to the long-standing US embargo); but every year for a generation Israel has received much more money per capita from the United States than Cuba received from the USSR in its best year. The present Israeli economy is of course unviable -- it survives as a military outpost of the US, armed to the teeth to prevent the emergence in the Middle East of any domestic radicalism that would threaten US control of the world's greatest geopolitical prize, Mideast oil. To control world energy resources is to control the world economy, as the US has done for generations -- and intends to continue to do. Israel is vital to its plans, and therefore successive US governments have been willing to put up with Israel's enormities in regard to the Palestinian people. But it has been pointed out that our principal client is a racist state in the legal -- and not just psychological -- sense of the term. A legally racist state is one in which privileges for a certain group defined by descent -- and disabilities for those not so descended -- are enshrined in law and governmental practice: disregarding anything thought or done, you belong to the privileged group if your parent(s) did, and if not, not. That was the case in South Africa from 1948 to 1991 and in many southern states in the US for the first half of the 20th century. Those states ceased to be legally racist when those laws were abolished, although psychological racism remained. Israel of course is racist in a legal sense in that one group defined by descent, Jews, are privileged. (It is not of course a matter of religion, the majority of Jews in Israel not being religious.) Indeed, Israel is a uniquely racist state, in that all states, democratic and dictatorial, are taken to be the states of their inhabitants -- but not Israel: it is by law the state of one group defined by descent, the "Jewish people world-wide." It is as if a radical faction of the Irish Republican Army should come to power in Ireland and declare Ireland the state of the "Irish people world-wide," so that an Irishman in South Boston (or Urbana) had more rights in Dublin than an Englishman (or a Jew) whose family had been there for generations. (There is not to my knowledge any such faction in the IRA.) It is surprising in the extreme to see self-styled "supporters of Israel" write rabid letters to editors in this country whenever the state of Israel or any of its government's policies are criticized. If they really loved Israel and its people, as they profess, you'd think they would want to encourage a situation in which the citizens of Israel could live in peace with their neighbors and prosper in an open, democratic society that was not the economic dependence of another state. Instead, they support Israel's expanding moral corruption as a militarized colony, its prime ministers including men inspired by a nazi ideology (in the Jabotinsky tradition) and guilty of war crimes. Beleaguered and hated by the people surrounding it (and many in it) and armed with illegal nuclear weapons, Israel threatens the world with massive destruction. The Air Force officer in charge of nuclear strategy for the last US administration, Gen. Lee Butler, said, "It is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East, one nation has armed itself, ostensibly, with stockpiles of nuclear weapons, perhaps numbering in the hundreds, and that inspires other nations to do so." What could Israel do to cease being a pariah state, if its Washington masters permitted it? First of all, it could end the occupation of Palestinian territory, declared illegal by the UN Security Council thirty-four years ago, and not just pretend to do so by maintaining the proposed Palestinian statelet as a set of Indian reservations, controlled by the Israeli military. It could withdraw the settlements that cover the map of the West Bank and Gaza like a rash, settlements illegal under the Forth Geneva Convention (1949). It could establish the rights of non-Jewish citizens within Israel and come to an agreement on a "law of return" for Palestinians and their families driven out of Israel fifty years ago. (The existing Law of Return applies only to Jews, whose forbears may have left the area in the time of the Roman Emperor Titus, or before.) And it could move towards agreements on disarmament and economic cooperation with its neighbors, with the goal of an economically self-sufficient region, not dependent on US handouts. (Israel, followed distantly by Egypt, is by far the largest recipient of US aid.) The route to peace in the Middle East begins and ends in Washington. ===== CP Carl Estabrook teaches at the University of Illinois and is the host of News From Neptune, a weekly radio show on politics and the media. He writes a regular column for CounterPunch ===== [END] ===== Thought for the Day: From irimland@zundelsite.org Mon Dec 17 02:30:24 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 18:30:24 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/16/2001 - "Big Brother Magnified!" Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 16, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: I watched Part II and Part IV of the stunning Carl Cameron Report on Israeli's capacity to spy on American citizens by controlling access to just about every large telephone company on earth. It mentions Amdocs, an Israeli company, that has its tentacles right in your living room and kitchen. Somewhere on the Internet there is a transcript of that explosive Special. It is worth hunting down, believe me! If Americans values their privacy, here is an issue - if ever there was one - that ought to cause the "Six Million Irate Telephone Users March" on Washington! If this won't rouse the couch potatoes, nothing will! Here are the companies that are affected, as listed prominently on the Rense Web Page, www.rense.com [START] All World Phone Call Records And Billing Done In Israel? See First Story All US Phone Call Records And Billing Done In Israel - Part 2 >From Afrikom 12-16-1 Your report "All US Phone Call Records And Billing Done In Israel" it is more like "All World Phone Call Records And Billing Done In Israel"... Below are just some of the companies dealing with Amdocs. This is the link to the Amdocs customer page: http://www.amdocs.com/customers.asp Could this be part of Echelon? Argentine http://stlouis.bcentral.com/stlouis/stories/2001/09/24/daily18.html Austria http://www.amdocs.com/customers/mobilkom.asp Brazil http://www.amdocs.com/show_news.asp?news_id=30 Britain http://www.amdocs.com/show_news.asp?news_id=5 Canada http://www.amdocs.com/hotnews.asp?news_id=238 Czech http://www.amdocs.com/customers/Czech_Telecom.asp Telecom Eireann http://www.amdocs.com/show_news.asp?news_id=177 Germany http://www.amdocs.com/show_news.asp?news_id=207 Ireland http://stlouis.bcentral.com/stlouis/stories/2001/02/26/daily10.html Japan http://www.amdocs.com/customers/jt.asp Puerto Rico http://www.amdocs.com/show_news.asp?news_id=96 South Africa http://www.amdocs.com/show_news.asp?news_id=55 Switzerland 1&2 http://www.amdocs.com/show_news.asp?news_id=221 http://www.amdocs.com/show_news.asp?news_id=188 Turkey http://www.amdocs.com/hotnews.asp?news_id=274 AT&T http://www.amdocs.com/news.asp?news_id=211 BellSouth http://www.amdocs.com/show_news.asp?news_id=10 MCI http://www.amdocs.com/show_news.asp?news_id=137 Nextel http://www.amdocs.com/hotnews.asp?news_id=280 SBC http://stlouis.bcentral.com/stlouis/stories/1999/04/26/story7.html Sprint http://www.amdocs.com/show_news.asp?news_id=213 Verizon http://www.amdocs.com/hotnews.asp?news_id=272 VoiceStream http://www.amdocs.com/show_news.asp?news_id=73 Vodafone http://www.amdocs.com/hotnews.asp?news_id=246 BT Global Mobile Portal http://www.amdocs.com/show_news.asp?news_id=208 Ericsson, Cisco, Nokia and Telcordia Technologies http://www.amdocs.com/show_news.asp?news_id=184 Leading Mobile Operators Announce Implementation of Amdocs Open Apis http://industry.java.sun.com/javanews/stories/story2/0,1072,37707,00.html SUN MICROSYSTEMS AND AMDOCS SIGN GLOBAL ALLIANCE RESELLER AGREEMENT http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/1999-09/sunflash.990927.3.html Netscape SuiteSpot Hosting Edition Partners http://home.netscape.com/hosting/v3.5/partnerships.html ===== Thought for the Day: "Not all are free who scorn their chains." (Lessing) From irimland@zundelsite.org Tue Dec 18 01:07:48 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:07:48 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/17/2001 - "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People" Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 17, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Professor Norman Finkelstein, who has taken a verbal bulldozer to the shameless Holocaust Industry with his fiery book by like name, recently did an interview sent to me from someone who found it on www.counterpunch.com Unfortunately, the website has exprienced server problems, so I cannot give you the URL. I checked the Finkelstein website in a cursory fashion and did not find it posted there yet - but in the meantime, enjoy! And visit www.normanfinkelstein.com for more! The paperback version has just come out! Not one of us, the Holocaust Industry Hucksers will duly note, has ever used language as pungent as Finkelstein does! He has already lost his job and suffered other fallout - but he is still hanging on for dear life with white knuckles to the Steven Spielberg version of the Holocaust. What will it take to dislodge him - and get him to be as courageous and honest as he otherwise seems to be? A penny for your thoughts. Here is a recent interview that's brought to you in two parts: [START] A Conversation with Professor Norman Finkelstein How to Lose Friends and Alienate People By Don Atapattu Professor Norman Finkelstein is one of a dying breed of American mavericks that relentlessly defies any attempt at easy categorization. He is the son of Holocaust survivors but an unremitting critic of Holocaust reparation claims; a Jew but is a life-long anti Zionist; and though very much a Leftist, he is often praised by far Right revisionists of the Third Reich, such as Hitler-admiring historian David Irving. He initially made his name by revealing Joan Peter's massively successful From Time Immemorial (a book heavily promoted by the Israeli lobby, that claimed there were no native Arabs before Zionist immigration into Palestine), as a colossal fraud, and for 10 years he was a Professor of Political Science at New York University. However, he is best known as the author of four books, the most recent being The Holocaust Industry, which has catapulted him into the spotlight, due to its contention that American Jewry have ruthlessly exploited the Nazi holocaust for political and financial gain. Often lambasted for his intemperate approach, Finkelstein is unlikely to win popularity contests in America for the language he employs, as much as his arguments. Like his close friend and mentor Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein is not one to mince his words. In his eyes the mainstream Jewish organisations are 'hucksters', 'gangsters' and 'crooks'; Elie Wiesel (celebrity Holocaust survivor) is the 'resident clown' for the Holocaust 'circus'; reparations claims against Germany for Nazi era slave laborers are 'blackmail'; and he infamously dismissed Professor Goldhagen's critically acclaimed Holocaust bestseller 'Hitler's Willing Executioners' as the 'pornography of violence'. Small wonder then that he has few friends amongst the American Jewish establishment, with Elian Steinberg (World Jewish Congress Executive Secretary) stating on TV that 'Finkelstein is full of shit', and the literary editor of the pro Israeli New Republic describing him as 'poison - something you would find under a rock'. In its initial hardback edition, The Holocaust Industry was a tremendous success in many nations (selling 130 000 copies in a few weeks on its publication in Germany), but in America its sales were limited to a paltry 12000. This relative failure stateside is attributed at least in part by Finkelstein to a fatwah by the Jewish establishment--he notes indignantly that the New York Times book review was much more hostile toward The Holocaust Industry than it was even to Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'. Now the revised paperback edition has just been released many of these same periodicals are uncharacteristically silent, perhaps thinking they can kill it more effectively through lack of exposure rather than outright aggression. The following is an interview conducted with Norman Finkelstein on 15 October 2001, on the eve of the paperback's publication. Q: It is generally considered that growing up Jewish and growing up Zionist are mutually inextricable. What made you break this link? Finkelstein: First of all, I don't agree that Zionism and growing up in a Jewish household are inextricably linked. It is fair to say that growing up Jewish and having a consciousness about Israel are inextricably linked. As a Jew I felt that I bore a certain amount of responsibility for the policies of Israel because Israel claimed to speak in the name of the Jewish people, and therefore they were using the history and suffering of the Jewish people as a means to justify its policies. However, my family were not Zionists, and therefore I see no special connection between the two. Q: You stated in a BBC interview that your radical politics have exacted 'a substantial personal cost' to yourself. Have you found yourself alienated from mainstream Jewish life? Finkelstein: I wouldn't say that alienation has been the price because I have managed to find a crowd of people who share my values in my life, which has been quite satisfying to me. I'd say that without wanting to pose a martyr, that I've paid a professional price for my views. Most recently I taught at Hunter College, City University of New York, and every semester I was the highest rated professor in my department on student evaluations, I had also published in the last five years, four books and I would say that in every reckoning I had proven myself to be worthy as a professor. Nonetheless, I was always the lowest paid by far, I had the heaviest teaching load, and this past May after 10 years faithful service at slave wages, I was let go and forced--at the ripe old age of 49--to relocate to Chicago to find temporary work. Q: How have Jewish academics and Middle East specialists reacted to the arguments that you have expanded upon in your books? Finkelstein: The reviews of my first book (Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict), were given the content of the book remarkably favorable. I was quite surprised by the positive reception of the first book. Generally speaking, I don't have much contact with the mainstream. I don't publish in mainstream journals, and have never been asked to publish in them. It is also true that my name comes up quite a lot in articles in mainstream publications; my writings on a variety of subjects are quite frequently cited. Q: While researching your second book (The Rise and Fall of Palestine: The Intifadah Years), you lived with Palestinian families in the Occupied Territories. How do you regard this time in retrospect? Finkelstein: First of all, it's not looking back, I still go fairly frequently, I was there in June and I stay in close touch with the families of whom I write in the book. When I first went it was a moral test of the values that are meaningful to me, and I wanted to see if I could bridge the chasm between a Jew and a Palestinian based upon our common humanity and our shared commitment to justice and decency. To that extent I would say that it was a satisfying experience, because I think that we developed close and meaningful relationships. Q: Were conditions in the territories as bad as you had anticipated? Finkelstein: I would say that the situation there is horrible. Whenever I go I almost literally count the minutes before I leave. I can't stand it there because you feel that you are watching people endure a living death. For no justifiable reason people are suffering and they're wasting away a life. It's very hard to bear, because it is impossible to rationalise to oneself why you should have a meaningful and satisfying life, and these people have to endure a meaningless and horrifying life. It is impossible to rationalise, unless you consider yourself a superior human being and deserve better, than maybe it would be a tolerable situation. When you recognise your common humanity and realise that for reasons for nothing to do with anything these people have ever done that they should have to suffer this way.. it's really hard. Q: Did you ever experience any hostility because of your background (as an American Jew)? Finkelstein: Quite the contrary. The first couple of years, I was treated like royalty and people were gracious and wonderful, by the third year no one could care less that I was Jewish. It was not even a topic of discussion. Even this summer I spent time in Gaza, where the people knew I was Jewish, and they didn't care. It's not an issue; the issue is whether you are for or against the occupation. Q: 'Image and Reality of the Israel Palestine Conflict' is a radical reinterpretation of Israeli-Arab history, turning on its head the standard Western notion of Israel being the constant victim of Arab aggression. How have historians reacted to the arguments contained within it? Finkelstein: As I said earlier it does get frequently cited. The chapter on Joan Peters--the hoax about Palestine being empty on the eve of Jewish colonization--is considered a standard text, everybody cites it. The chapter on Benny Morris and the Palestinian refugee question (in which Finkelstein dismisses Morris' claims that there was no overall plan by the Zionists to expel the Arabs from Palestine), is considered the definitive critique on the Morris book, and nowadays most scholarship agrees that I'm closer to the truth than Morris. The last chapters on the `67 and `73 wars...they're pretty much ignored. Q: Regarding your most recent work, The Holocaust Industry, can you explain who the Holocaust Industry (according to your interpretation) are and what their goals might be? The Holocaust Industry, is as I conceive in the book, is institutions, organisations and individuals who have put to use Jewish suffering for political and financial gain. Throughout the little book, I am not at all shy of naming names, so large numbers of organisations and individuals are cited for their activities in the exploitation of the Nazi holocaust. It is hard to say the main ones, but the mainstream Jewish organisations and individuals such as Elie Wiesel, they feature prominently in the book. Q: Do you believe the 'Holocaust Industry' were responsible for the poor sales of the book in the US in comparison with its spectacular success elsewhere? Finkelstein: First of all, I do name names and a lot of these individuals and organisations have a huge vested interest in the Nazi holocaust. It's a political weapon, but it's also plainly a financial weapon, and it's unsurprising that the book would die an early death in the United States. Given those facts, it would be shocking were it otherwise. Q: Do you believe these people were involved in your dismissal from New York University? Finkelstein: I think it works much more subtly in our system. Sometimes phone calls are made, no doubt about it, but I think things work through a crystallising of a consensus--in the sense of 'this guy is more trouble than he is worth, and so it is time to let him go'. I think this is what happened at Hunter College, that yes I had an excellent teaching record, yes I had an excellent publication record, but it's also true that 'a lot of people are complaining about him and we do get all these phone calls and there are faculty members who are very uncomfortable with him because he is just not professional' and so on and so forth. Finally, a consensus crystallises that it is time to let him go. Q: A spokesman for the World Jewish Congress suggested that you should be grateful to organisations such as themselves, for the compensation that your parents received. Is there not some truth in that were it not for the awareness raising campaigns of these bodies, Holocaust survivors would not have been compensated at all? Q: These organisations frankly, bring to mind an insight of my late mother, that it is no accident that Jews invented the word "chutzpah". They steal, and I do use the word with intent, 95% of the monies earmarked for victims of Nazi persecution, and then throw you a few crumbs while telling you to be grateful. It is very hard to sink much lower than to turn the colossal suffering of the Jewish people during World War Two into an extortion racket. I really think that not even Julius Streicher (leading anti Semitic publisher in 1930's Germany) were he editing Der Stuermer today, could have conjured up the image of Jews huckstering their dead, but that's exactly what this gang of wretched crooks have done. They have disgraced the memory of the Jewish people's suffering on the one hand by turning it into an extortion racket. If there were any doubt left, I would point to the recent London Times article headlined 'Swiss Holocaust cash revealed to be a myth', that is all the claims against the Swiss banks were a fantastic concoction of the Holocaust hustlers. But then after turning Jewish suffering into an extortion racket.to then deny the actual victims these monies extorted..it is very difficult to imagine sinking any lower on a moral level than that. If they were all put behind bars, it wouldn't be yet, in my opinion, be a just punishment. Q: Many of the same adjectives crop up in the hostile reviews of The Holocaust Industry, such as 'bitter', 'angry', 'shrill', and 'polemical'. Do you think this is because you are breaking a hereto untouchable taboo? Finkelstein: Only one of the many reviews I have read, made the comment that the book was very funny, and I think that there is a certain amount of humour in the book. I didn't note personally any intimation of a rant or shrillness. You find humour there and irony there, but I should point out that the book went through several editors who were quite exacting and wherever it did go over the top, they pulled me back. I think a lot of reviews stem from the fact that most people (including myself), tend to defer to authority, and the first reviews the word that was constantly used was 'rant' and before you knew it everyone began to pick up on that, and so that became the drum beat theme of the negative reviews. Therefore, I don't think it is so much that I broke a taboo; I think the initial negative reviews set a tone for what followed. Q: One extraordinary fact that I learned in your book was that former President Reagan, and his UN ambassador Jean KirkPatrick, received the Simon Wiesenthal Center humanitarian of the year award (for their staunch support of Israel) despite providing political, financial and military support to extreme Right terrorist groups in Central America. Do you agree that it is an incredible perversion of history that the racism and violence of the Nazi holocaust, is now used to justify turning a blind eye to racism and violence? Finkelstein: Well that is what you would expect from the Simon Wiesenthal Center. This is really a gang of heartless and immoral crooks, whose hallmark is that they will do anything for a dollar. As I point out in the book, the guy who runs their headquarters in Los Angeles, runs it as a family business, and in the mid 1990's they were collectively raking in $525 000 a year. Q: Do you think The Holocaust Industry would have been published were you not the Jewish son of Holocaust survivors? Finkelstein: (Laughs) No, I have no doubt about that. First of all, it just got barely published as the son of Holocaust survivors. If I weren't, there would be no chance at all. I would have been buried alive. Just the other day I was speaking to someone who I cannot name for this interview, who met with a high government official in Germany who we both know. My friend asked him about the questions raised in my book concerning the number of surviving slave labourers, and whether the German government knew that the numbers had been grossly inflated to justify the extortion of huge amounts of money. His response was that 'of course we knew what he was saying was true', but a decision was made early on to go on with the blackmail because 'we were afraid of a huge anti Semitic reaction being unleashed in Germany', and the attitude was Germany was rich enough to pay the ransom. But, if you go to Germany and try to say the things that I did, the so called 'Left' become absolutely hysterical as they have this huge vested interest in being professional anti anti-Semites and semophiles. It's this huge identity that they have carved out for themselves, and when I go out there and say that of course be anti Nazis but a lot of what is being done in the name of anti anti-Semitism, is in fact a gross falsification of history .and unless exposed will do huge damage to the Jewish people, these people go berserk. It is one of the peculiarities of this whole industry, in that it has created an alignment between the Left in Germany and the Right-wing Jewish establishment in the US. They sing the praises of people like Israel Singer (disgraced executive V.P. of the World Jewish Congress), a complete and total hoodlum - something that crawled out of the sewer - and they sing the praises of him! You would think he was Demetrios the way they talk about him. Q: Another matter that puts you at odds with the Jewish establishment, is your rejection of the uniqueness of Jewish persecution compared to the suffering of other peoples. What is the position of groups like the World Jewish Congress on financial reparations for the Indo-Chinese, Black slavery, the slaughter of the American Indians etc? Finkelstein: They don't say anything, well I shouldn't say they don't say anything - during the US Congressional hearings on the Holocaust compensation, Maxine Waters (US Congresswoman) raised the issue with the special US envoy on Holocaust compensation, and of course he responded in exactly the way you would expect--he said you can't compare and it is not the same thing, and that is the standard view of these organisations. Nothing compares to the Jews. Everything that the Jews endure, everything that the Jews achieve, is special, because we're the 'chosen people', so don't compare us with garbage like the Tasmanian savages (the entire indigenous population of Tasmania were exterminated under British colonial rule), or don't compare us with the Gypsies. I mean God forbid those uncivilised savages be compared with us. You have to understand that the great tragedy of the Second World War, was not that Jews per se were killed, but such a cultured people were killed--if you kill uncultured people, who cares? [END] Tomorrow: Conclusion ===== Thought for the Day: "Sharon is the last bullet in the Israeli rifle. If Sharon is defeated, the rapid countdown [to the end] of Israel will begin, because that country was established through historical coercion and will find its end as the U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia did." (The Palestine Liberation Organization's political director, Farouq Al-Qaddumi - as posted on WorldNetDaily today) From irimland@zundelsite.org Tue Dec 18 22:08:58 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:08:58 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/18/2001 - "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People" - Part II Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 18, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Continuing now with the Finkelstein interview by Don Atapattu as posted on www.counterpunch.com Q: What is your position on the comparison between Israel and the Occupied Territories and South Africa under apartheid (as raised during the recent UN convention on racism in Durban)? Finkelstein: I don't think the comparison with South Africa is exactly precise for a number of reasons. Israel proper - pre June `67 Israel, is a fairly lively democracy, Palestinian Arabs do enjoy rights of citizenship (as) second class citizens, it is probably similar to the situation to Blacks in the American South before the civil rights movement. The difference is that in the US South, Blacks did not have the right to vote, but that question is due to numbers, where American Blacks were the majority in several states in the South and that is why they were disenfranchised, whereas Israel's unstated official policy is that they will tolerate a minority of approximately 15%, so long as the Arabs remain around this percentage its OK to give them the right to vote because it won't affect the Jewish majority. In addition to the second-class citizenship of the Israeli Arabs, there is also the occupation in the West Bank and Gaza, and that too is not really comparable to South Africa because I think it is much worse. Q: Dr David Rabeeya (Iraqi born American rabbi), talks of a caste system in Israeli society, where the Arabs are clearly at the bottom, but also the non-European Jews are considered to be of lesser value. He claims that the wholesale importation of Russian Jews was to ensure the demographic majority of secular European Jews over their Sephardic countrymen for generations to come. Finkelstein: There is some truth to that, because a large percentage of the so-called 'Russian Jews' are not Jewish. In recent years, it has been more than 50%, and the reason why is because the Israeli establishment likes the blue eyed, blonde haired Aryan types as a racial group. The Russians look right even if they are not Jewish, and they preserve the Ashkenazi elite's dominance. Q: You argue in The Holocaust Industry that if it were no longer in America's interest to support Israel, the Jewish elites would quickly forget about the Jewish state. Is this really tenably considering the huge emotional attachment American Jewry has to Israel? Finkelstein: Generations of Americans Jews have not been brought up on Zionism. Before 1967, Israel barely figured at all in American Jewish life, as anyone who goes back and reads the publications of the US Jews before then will tell you. Even nowadays people are not Zionist by conviction, they are Zionist because it is useful for their political and more recently financial self-interest. The guiding light is what serves their self-interest, not ideological commitment. Q: Raul Hilberg (leading Holocaust academic) says that he hopes you will expand on your work in The Holocaust Industry. Are you currently working on anything? Finkelstein: No. I suffered the blow of losing my job so I have to make ends meet to survive. Q: Did you not receive a substantial sum from the spectacular success of The Holocaust Industry in Germany and elsewhere? Finkelstein: No, that is science fiction. You don't receive substantial sums. I received a $5000 advance for the book, and in total I have received about $50 000. You are not going to get rich out of this...I mean $50 000 is the average annual salary in the United States, I have never made more than $22,000 in a year, so it is about two years salary. OK, I am not a kid anymore, but I expect to be living more than two more years. Q: I noticed that the publication of the paperback of The Holocaust Industry has been delayed in the UK Finkelstein: (Interrupts) No, no it's been published but I don't expect it to get any kind of publicity. It's not a bad paperback. There is a lot of new material in it. Q: You dismiss entirely Professor Daniel Goldhagen's argument that the German public were collectively responsibility for the crimes of the Nazis, yet you seem to hold the Jewish people collectively responsible for the policies of Israel. Is this not a case of double standards? Finkelstein: Collective responsibility is not a term that is devoid of any meaning, whether or not it's true depends on the circumstances. In the case of Germany you were dealing with a fascist, terrorist state in which the population had relatively speaking no say in the making of policy and no say in the crimes committed. In other circumstances depending on which a collectivity influences policy and shapes criminal actions, it does bear a responsibility, so you have to examine each individual case for how much collective responsibility is applicable. Q: Following the tragedy on September 11, left-wing writer Christopher Hitchens, criticised people like yourself and Noam Chomsky for their 'masochistic' response to the 'Islamic fascism' practised by Bin Laden and his followers. What do you think an appropriate response would be to the destruction of the World Trade Center? Finkelstein: (Incredulously) Well, my views are so conventional it is hard to understand why Christopher Hitchens would point to me at all, and frankly what Noam Chomsky had to say on the topic was interesting in its insights, but his general view was utterly banal. You have to look to the social and political roots of what happened, because if we were just dealing with a bunch of lunatics on the loose, then the whole question would be just a psychiatric and security question. We would bring [it] to psychiatrists to explain what is the source of this lunacy, and we would rely on our security services to correct the problem. But plainly, no one really believes this is strictly a psychiatric or a policing problem, because there has been massive social and political commentary trying to explain it. The moment you have massive social and political commentary trying to explain a phenomenon, then you know we are no longer dealing with a strictly psychiatric question. When there were the Jim Jones mass suicides there was no such commentary, as everyone knew they are a socially and politically marginal cult, but nobody in their right mind would say the Bin Laden phenomenon is something marginal. Everyone understands that this is rooted in a deeper problem. The next question is what are the sources of the problem? If you are a mainstream conservative the usual answer is that the fundamental source of the problem can be located in the Arab--Islamic world loathing of modernity, freedom and all the virtues of enlightenment and capitalist industry that the US stands for. If you are off the mainstream, or on the Left end of the political system, you say the main source of the problem is US foreign policy in the Middle East which has evoked hatred among Arab-Islamic society because of US crimes in Iraq, the US backed Israel crimes against the Palestinians, and so forth. (Angrily) My point is that everyone, from whatever end of the political spectrum, tries to locate the Bin Laden phenomenon in some deeper social and political current, so for Mr. Hitchens to come along and say that to explain (the attacks) is a form of rationalisation--this is sheer idiocy! There is literally not a single person, apart from Mr. Hitchens who tries to explain it in a deeper social and political current, we may disagree on what this current is, but we all realise that this is not Jim Jones, or the Branch Dravidians. Q: What do you think of America's moral authority to spearhead a crusade against terrorism? Finkelstein: If you understand terrorism to mean the targeting of civilian populations in order to achieve political goals, then plainly the US qualifies as the main terrorist government in the world today, if only because of the sheer force it has at its disposal. I am not claiming that another government were it to be in the position of the US would act better, but given the predominant material and political weight of the US today, means that they are going to be the main terrorist state in the World today, and I think that's true. Q: I think I can safely assume that you are not a supporter of George Bush, so did you vote for Ralph Nader or Al Gore in the last election? Finkelstein: I voted for Nader, and I have no doubts at all that it was the right thing to do because the Nader candidacy was extremely energising and a terrific phenomenon in American life, and I hope he continues. Q: What do you think of the prospects for the Green Party to become a genuine Third Force in US Politics? Finkelstein: I think we are now heading for very dismal time. It seems like Bush is launching a perpetual war. We endured the nightmare of the destruction of Iraq, but at least that had a beginning and an end. This current 'war' does not seem to have an end, and I think it is even conceivable that it going to endure the remainder of my lifetime and in this political climate it is very speculative to make any meaningful predictions for the future. Q: How democratic is America given the enormous financial and media powers with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo? Finkelstein: There are contradictory tendencies in American society. There's a huge range of activities that one can engage in that mark it as a quite free society. It's also true to say that the powers that be have so much control over how people think that there are fewer and fewer people make use of the rights and information available to them. So I think that both are true. The amount of control exercised by the ruling elites over the decisions, choices, lifestyles, and so forth of American society mean that many of the rights and information that is available are not accessed. I can say what I want - the worst that is going to happen to me is that I lose my job. I am not going to get shot or put in a psychiatric hospital...though it is also true to say that if a movement developed which actually tried to use on a mass level the rights available, I suspect there would be substantial repression. If you attended Nader's rallies and speeches as I did, he was delivering a very hard-hitting critique of US capitalism, I mean it is as tough as you can really get and he was able to pull it off. No one prevented him from holding his mass rallies. They prevented him from appearing on TV, they excluded him from appearing on the (presidential candidates) debate, but he was able to organise in constituencies around the country. If it ever became a bigger phenomenon, what would have happened? I don't know. Q: The Pro Israeli lobby has had spectacular success in getting its version of events picked up by the media, with even the openly anti Arab / pro Israel polemic 'Exodus' on the US school curriculum. Noam Chomsky has even criticised liberal publications such as the New Republic for being openly racist toward Arabs, and Rana Kabbani has said that hating Arabs (and Muslims in particular) is the last acceptable form of racism, would you agree? Finkelstein: I think that they are openly racist in that they say things about Arabs that would not be permitted about other ethnic groups. These people are not pro-Israel, but Israel serves an interest to the US ruling elites and by that fact it serves a useful interest to American Jewish organisations. The moment that Israel ceases to be an interest, Israel will no longer be a concern of these organisations. Q: You said in your second book that one small Palestinian boy asked you if it was true that Americans believed all Palestinians to be animals, and you didn't answer - not having the heart to tell him it was. Yet you also said that Arabs should reach out to America to try and build a counter consensus to Hollywood demonisations. Is this really plausible given the perceptions in American of Arabs and Muslims? Finkelstein: Nowadays nothing is possible with the events of September 11, a lot of hard work over many years to try to build a counter consensus disappeared in the rubble of the World Trade Center. I am utterly pessimistic about the prospects now, but I did not think it was impossible (before). Israel was suffering quite a number of major public relations disasters, beginning with the Lebanon War, the first Intifadah, and then the second Intifadah. As much as the mainstream media tries to depict the reality in a manner that suits US-Israeli interests, enough of the truth was coming through that Israel was suffering a public relations disaster. There were some prospects, how significant the prospects were we don't know, because not enough effort was made in trying to exploit those prospects, but after September 11 I don't think there is much hope. Q: I get the impression that you think that the West was in some way responsible for the tragedy of September 11. Finkelstein: Lets put it this way: The so-called West, and really we're talking about the United States, and to a lesser extent its pathetic puppy dog in England, have a real problem on their hands. Regrettably, it's payback time for the Americans and they have a problem because all the other enemies since the end of World War Two that they pretended to contend with .. were basically fabricated enemies. The Soviet Union was a conservative bureaucracy by the end of World War Two, which apart from the sphere of influence it carved out--mostly for defensive reasons--was plainly in retrospect a stabilising force in international affairs. Then the enemies that the US conjured up as the Soviet Union fell into decline beginning in the early 1980`s - enemies like Libya, Iraq, narco-terrorists and so forth - these were basically enemies created by the United States to--among other things--justify repressive policies around the world, and to inflate its military budget. Now they do have a problem on their hands, and its going to exact a cost from Americans. The American elites can talk about honour and creativity until the cows come home, but it's not going to be like the Iraq shooting fish in a barrel situation, like they did when they destroyed Iraq in 1991. Frankly, part of me says - even though everything since September 11 has been a nightmare--'you know what, we deserve the problem on our hands because some things Bin Laden says are true'. One of the things he said on that last tape was that 'until we live in security, you're not going to live in security', and there is a certain amount of rightness in that. Why should Americans go on with their lives as normal, worrying about calories and hair loss, while other people are worrying about where they are going to get their next piece of bread? Why should we go on merrily with our lives while so much of the world is suffering, and suffering incidentally not with us merely as bystanders, but with us as the indirect and direct perpetrators. So that I think that you can summon up all the heroic and self-aggrandizing rhetoric you want, but there is a problem facing all of us now, and maybe it's about time that the United States starts having to confront the same sort of problems that much of humanity has had to confront on a daily basis for God knows how long. Don Atapattu lives in Manchester, England. (Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein1.html) ===== Thought for the Day" "My grandparents, my aunts and uncles died in the WWII. But I swear by their memory, if I thought that guilt feelings over the Holocaust cult caused the death of a single Palestinian child, I would turn the Holocaust memorial into a public urinaire." (Israel Shamir) From irimland@zundelsite.org Thu Dec 20 01:01:19 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 17:01:19 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/19/2001 - ***Major computer problems at the Zundelsite!*** Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 19, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: I seem to have MAJOR, MAJOR computer problems which may or may not be connected to the Internet and/or my server. I am trying to get this message out letting you know that I will try to stay on-line, but with the holidays coming up, I may not be able to fix it since technicians may not be on call. Therefore, if I am off-line for a few days, don't worry. Nothing has happened to me personally, but being the techno-dummy that I am, I simply am helpless with this. Just in case I am not back on time, I wish you all a MERRY CHRISTMAS - and may all your Christmasses be white! Ingrid From irimland@zundelsite.org Fri Dec 21 01:53:24 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 17:53:24 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12. 20, 2001 - "U.S. Police and Intelligence Hit by Spy Network" Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 20, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: I am still struggling with my computer problems. Will try to get this one through - a follow-up on a recent ZGram about the massive Israeli spying in America. [START] NewsMax.com U.S. Police and Intelligence Hit by Spy Network Charles R. Smith Wednesday, Dec. 19, 2001 Spies Tap Police and Government Phones In the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, the FBI has stumbled on the largest espionage ring ever discovered inside the United States. The U.S. Justice Department is now holding nearly 100 Israeli citizens with direct ties to foreign military, criminal and intelligence services. The spy ring reportedly includes employees of two Israeli-owned companies that currently perform almost all the official wiretaps for U.S. local, state and federal law enforcement. The U.S. law enforcement wiretaps, authorized by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), appear to have been breached by organized crime units working inside Israel and the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad. Both Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller were warned on Oct. 18 in a hand-delivered letter from local, state and federal law enforcement officials. The warning stated, "Law enforcement's current electronic surveillance capabilities are less effective today than they were at the time CALEA was enacted." The spy ring enabled criminals to use reverse wiretaps against U.S. intelligence and law enforcement operations. The illegal monitoring may have resulted in the deaths of several informants and reportedly spoiled planned anti-drug raids on crime syndicates. Global Spy and Crime Network The penetration of the U.S. wiretap system has led to a giant spy hunt across the globe by American intelligence agencies. U.S. intelligence officials now suspect the spy ring shared and sold information to other nations. "Why do you think Putin so nonchalantly and with such great fanfare announced the shutdown of the Lourdes listening post in Cuba?" noted Douglas Brown, president of Multilingual Data Solutions Inc. and program director at the Nathan Hale Institute. "Besides the PR benefit right before his visit here, the Russians don't need it anymore. They've scraped together a cheaper, more effective monitoring system. Is the Israeli company an element of that system? I don't know," stated Brown. "With all the whining and crying about Echelon and Carnivore, critics, domestic and foreign, of U.S. electronic eavesdropping vastly overestimate our abilities to process and disseminate the stuff," noted Brown. "The critics also underestimated the incompetence and total ineptness of the people running our intelligence and law enforcement services during the Clinton-Gore years. One guy uses his home computer for storing top secret documents; another high-tech guru guy can't figure out how to save and retrieve his e-mail, and the guy in charge of everything is having phone sex over an open line with one of his employees," said Brown. "On the other hand, the Europeans, including the Russians, have been much more focused on the nuts and bolts of practical systems to process the information they scoop up. The stories linking German intelligence and the L&H scandal got very little play here but were widely noted in the European software community," said Brown. "Except for a few Germans and an occasional Pole, nobody can match the Russians in designing and developing algorithms. We may have some of the world's greatest programmers, but the Russians and Europeans do a better job of matching up linguists and area experts with their programmers," noted Brown. The discovery of a major spy ring inside the United States is straining the already tense relations with Israel. Although, Israel denied any involvement with the penetration of the U.S. wiretap system, the CIA and FBI are investigating the direct government ties to the former Israeli military and intelligence officials now being held by the Justice Department. Israeli Company Provides U.S. Wiretaps One company reported to be under investigation is Comverse Infosys, a subsidiary of an Israeli-run private telecommunications firm. Comverse provides almost all the wiretapping equipment and software for U.S. law enforcement. Custom computers and software made by Comverse are tied into the U.S. phone network in order to intercept, record and store wiretapped calls, and at the same time transmit them to investigators. The penetration of Comverse reportedly allowed criminals to wiretap law enforcement communications in reverse and foil authorized wiretaps with advance warning. One major drug bust operation planned by the Los Angeles police was foiled by what now appear to be reverse wiretaps placed on law enforcement phones by the criminal spy ring. Flawed laws Led to Compromise Several U.S. privacy and security advocates contend the fault actually lies in the CALEA legislation passed by Congress that allowed the spy ring to operate so effectively. Lisa Dean, vice president for technology policy at Free Congress Foundation, delivered a scathing critique of the breach of the U.S. law enforcement wiretap system. "We are exercising our 'I told you so' rights on this," said Dean. "From the beginning, both the political right and left warned Congress and the FBI that they were making a huge mistake by implementing CALEA. That it would jeopardize the security of private communications, whether it's between a mother and her son or between government officials. The statement just issued by law enforcement agencies has confirmed our worst fears," concluded Dean. "How many more 9/11s do we have to suffer?" asked Brad Jansen, deputy director for technology policy at the Free Congress Foundation. "The CALEA form of massive surveillance is a poor substitute for real law enforcement and intelligence work. It is an after-the-fact method of crime fighting. It is not designed to prevent crime. Massive wiretapping does not equal security. Instead, we have elected to jeopardize our national security in exchange for poor law enforcement," said Jansen. "For example, FINCEN monitoring of all money transactions did not detect al-Qaeda, nor did it find Mohamed Atta before he boarded his last flight. It was an ATM receipt left in his rental car that led the FBI to the bin Laden bank accounts," noted Jansen. U.S. National Security Compromised "The CALEA approach is the same approach law enforcement has been pushing for a number of years. It's the same approach that was used to push Carnivore, Magic Lantern, FINCEN and even the failed Clipper project. This approach leads to a compromise in national security and in personal security for the American public," said Jansen. "In addition, there is always government abuse of these kinds of systems," stated Jansen. "Law enforcement on all levels does a very poor job in policing itself. We need to hold our police and government officials to the highest standards." "This also hurts the U.S. economy when the whole world knows that our communication systems are not secure. We cannot compete with inferior products when other countries are exporting secure software and hardware. New Zealand, India and Chili already offer security products that actually provide real security," stated Jansen. "The current mentality of law enforcement is what failed to protect us from 9/11. CALEA wiretaps will not protect us from terror attacks in the future. The system does not provide better intelligence information. It actually leads to less security and more crime. We get the worst of both worlds," concluded Jansen. -- [END] Thought for the Day: If Israel were Serbia, Tel Aviv would be rubble. -- The Iron Webmaster, 695 From irimland@zundelsite.org Fri Dec 21 16:51:43 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 08:51:43 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/21/2001 - "Buchanan: The Abolution of Christmas" Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 21, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: As you can see, I am still barely hanging on in cyberspace - every five minutes or so, I experience a crash - but for as long as I can, here I am! Christmas is almost here, and right after Christmas, I'll go hunt for a computer specialist who knows how to handle this gadget with its quirks and temper tantrums. So let me try once more: Even though my family, with the exception of my grandmother, was anything but religious, I have nothing but fond and tender memories of Christmas, and I resent it bitterly how commercialized and meaningless our Christmas has become. One of my private campaigns has to do with making Christmas relevant to our values and our culture again. Therefore, I could relate to this Pat Buchanan article and want to share it with my readers, partly to alert them to his new book, titled "Death of the West", due next month and already available on the Internet. [START] The abolition of Christmas By Patrick J. Buchanan [START] When I was a boy, Kensington was a village half an hour north of Chevy Chase Circle where, inside an ice-cold armory, Catholic kids practiced basketball. Montgomery County was a bedroom suburb of D.C. Nothing beyond existed, except for the Rockville drive-in. This fall, both precincts became world-famous as citadels of wacko liberalism. The Montgomery County Council voted to fine homeowners $500 who let cigarette smoke escape into neighbors' houses. And the Kensington council voted to purge Santa from its 30-year-old tradition of lighting a pine tree in front of town hall. Why did the Kensington Taliban expel St. Nick? Says the mayor: "Because two families felt that they would be uncomfortable with Santa Claus being a part of the event." Ebeneezer Scrooge felt the same way. Now this may not be in the Christmas spirit, but it needs to be said - as writer Tom Piatak says it so well in Chronicles. The spirit that seeks to purge Santa, and has already purged Christ from Christmas, is not a spirit of tolerance, but a spirit of "hatred, resentment and envy." And why should a tiny few who resent Christmas prevail in America over the great joyous majority who love it? Multiculturalists say Christmas celebrations cause "non-Christians to feel 'left out.' I am skeptical, but even if the multiculturalists are right," says Piatak, "how much should we worry about those who feel left out. ... We cannot forever shield non-Christians from the reality that they are a minority in America, and suppressing the observances of the majority seems a high price to pay to allow overly sensitive souls to live in comfortable delusion." Moreover, he adds, "Christmas in America was never marked by pogroms or expressions of hatred, but by countless acts of charity and kindness. ... The public celebration of Christmas was capable of being enjoyed by non-Christians as well as Christians, and almost everyone did enjoy at least some of it. I know of non-Christians who enjoy Christmas specials, Christmas movies, Christmas music." Under true tolerance, schoolchildren whose parents do not wish for them to take part in Christmas carols, pageants or plays would be exempt, but all non-Christians would be invited to join in. But, as multiculturalists know, the result of free choice would be the almost-universal celebration of Christmas in public. And this they cannot abide, for their agenda is to purge from public life the Christian faith that gave birth to Western civilization. For they believe Western civilization was a blight upon mankind. As that great multiculturalist Jesse Jackson put it, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Civ has got to go!" "Europe is the faith, the faith is Europe," asserted the Catholic writer Hillaire Belloc. Piatak echoes Belloc. Christmas "has been the principal holiday of the world's most creative civilization for over a millennium. It has inspired a profusion of art, architecture, literature and music; a love of Christmas can lead to a deeper love of our whole civilization. Giotto never painted a Kwanzaa scene, Bach did not write a Hannukah oratorio, and Dickens did not pen 'A Ramadan Carol.' And no one comparable to them did, either." Indeed, the birth of Christ has inspired more great paintings, music and sculpture than any event in history. "Ultimately," writes Piatak, "we should be free to celebrate Christmas publicly and joyously, because it is a great holiday, and because it is our holiday and one of the crowning glories of Western culture that gave birth to America and sustains us still." But why, then, are we not free to do so? Why may we not celebrate, as we did for 200 years, the birth of our Savior, the day God became man to open up for us the gates of heaven and bring mankind the hope of eternal salvation? Answer: Because our Constitution has been hijacked by bigots in black robes, who perverted it to de-Christianize America. And we let them get away with it. Second, because Christians have become an intimidated lot, who will permit themselves to be pushed around and even permit their Savior to go uncelebrated for fear of being called insensitive. But if we do not proclaim the Son of God, will He proclaim us before the Father in heaven? If Jesus was truly God, and the first Christmas was the day he was born of the Virgin Mary, and He came into the world for our salvation, what does it say about us that we would permit a handful of unhappy people to deny us the right to celebrate His birth in our pubic squares? But, nevertheless, "God rest ye merry gentlemen, let nothing ye dismay" - not even the ACLU on this coming Christmas Day. [end] "The Death of the West", Buchanan's latest book, is an eye-opening expos=E9 of how immigration invasions are endangering America. Both autographed and unautographed copies are now available at WorldNetDaily's online store. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party=EDs candidate in 2000. Now a commentator an= d columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national televison shows, and is the author of six books. His current position is chairman of The American Cause. His newest book, "Death of the West," will be published in January. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D (Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3D25788>http://www.= worldn etdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3D25788) =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Thought for the Day: "LONDON (December 20) - The diplomatic career of French Ambassador to Britain Daniel Bernard was said to be in jeopardy yesterday, after he was quoted as having referred to Israel as "that shitty little country" which threatens world peace." (Source: First paragraph in one of yesterday's Associated Press articles) From irimland@zundelsite.org Sat Dec 22 20:44:47 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 12:44:47 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/22/2001 - "Follow-up on the spying scandal" Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 22, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: I consider the 4-Part Carl Cameron Report - carried prime time by Fox News starting December 12, 2001 - on the topic of US telephone spying capabilities by two Israeli telecommuncation firms to be one of the most significant developments during the post-9/11 weeks. As several writers have since pointed out, even though the Internet was on fire about these reports, they have been pointedly ignored by mainstram media. It's been a classic black-out situation - not surprising to those of us who have seen mainstream media brutally manipulated to protect Israeli interests before. Here, for the record, is one more excerpt summary of what transpired, written by Charles R. Smith, titled "FBI Discovers Biggest Spy Operation In US History - Scores Israelis Held", dated December 20, 2001: [START] In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attack, the FBI has stumbled on the largest espionage ring ever discovered inside the United States. The U.S. Justice Department is now holding nearly 100 Israeli citizens with direct ties to foreign military, criminal and intelligence services. The spy ring reportedly includes employees of two Israeli-owned companies that currently perform almost all the official wiretaps for U.S. local, state and federal law enforcement. The U.S. law enforcement wiretaps, authorized by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), appear to have been breached by organized crime units working inside Israel and the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad. Both Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller were warned on Oct. 18 in a hand-delivered letter from local, state and federal law enforcement officials. The warning stated, "Law enforcement's current electronic surveillance capabilities are less effective today than they were at the time CALEA was enacted." The spy ring enabled criminals to use reverse wiretaps against U.S. intelligence and law enforcement operations. The illegal monitoring may have resulted in the deaths of several informants and reportedly spoiled planned anti-drug raids on crime syndicates. Global Spy and Crime Network The penetration of the U.S. wiretap system has led to a giant spy hunt across the globe by American intelligence agencies. U.S. intelligence officials now suspect the spy ring shared and sold information to other nations. [END of excerpt. The full report can be read at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/18/224826.shtml ) In several brilliant articles, Justin Raimondo of www.antiwar.com did much to alert Internet readers to the significance of this phone spying scandal involving the Israelis. Pay attention to this website where these articles are posted: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html (Archived columns are on the right!) It seems that, in response to his columns, Raimondo received a number of letters from ultra-right wing circles alerting him to the significance of a widely operating conspiracy protecting Israel interests. No doubt due to his youthfully benevolent outlook regarding America's favorite minority, Raimondo dismissed these warnings rather contemptuously as follows: [START] It's funny, but when I wrote my first column on this subject, I got a whole bunch of nutball letters from anti-Semitic cranks who told me that "the Jews" would never let me get away with it, and that I am now a "marked man." This story, wrote one correspondent, "will go nowhere," because "the Jews" control the media, blah blah blah. I laughed, reading these perfervid notes, most of them WRITTEN IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, wondering at the infinite capacity of people to fit reality into ideological categories rather than the other way 'round. After all, the mere fact that the story was broadcast on Fox News, a major media organization, appears to contradict the self-evidently absurd thesis that the "Elders of Zion," sitting in a control room somewhere, determine what news we're allowed to read. (...) I can only hope, for Mr. Cameron's sake, that what amounts to "career suicide" in law enforcement doesn't hold true at Fox News. Israel certainly has many vocal and very active supporters, who are quick to make their opinions known. But it is false to posit a "Jewish-controlled" media, no matter what the ethnicity or political persuasion of editors, owners, or whatever: these media companies are beholden to their shareholders, and to the market. Reporting the news is an intensely competitive business: there is no way to enforce an embargo on certain information, not in this day and age. There is no "Jewish conspiracy" - only the machinations of a particular foreign government and its uncritical supporters in this country, who span the ethnic and religious as well as the political spectrum. (excerpted from http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j121701.html ) [END] Now Justin Raimondo is learning some of the ropes that "anti-semitic cranks" have long known - and feared. Dated today, we read a rather chastined Justin Raimondo in "Now You See It, Now You Don't: A Note to My Readers": [START} For the past week or so, I have been writing about the ominous implications of Carl Cameron's four-part Fox News expos* of Israeli intelligence operations in the US. My most recent column on the subject was posted today (December 21). Cameron's reports are, of course, key to understanding the context of these columns: without them, there is no way to understand either the context or the content of what I have written. We provided links to these reports in the column, and fully expected the links to remain valid, as Fox usually keeps its stories up for a month or so. But not this time! The news that Fox had pulled the Cameron reports from its website was, to me, quite surprising. Now, it could be a technical glitch, a mistake, or whatever: after all, one assumes the Fox News people want visitors to their website, and the more the merrier - right? Israel's amen corner in the US is vocal, well-organized, and not averse to censorship when it advances their agenda, and so outside pressure on Fox News to pull the series cannot be ruled out. As disturbing as it is to contemplate, it seems that censorship is indeed a strong possibility in this case - that is, Fox News is engaging in self-censorship, for reasons of its own. Our readers may wish to ask questions for themselves, or protest. They can do so by writing foxnewsonline@foxnews.com or special@foxnews.com. Meanwhile, we have redirected those links to the posted articles at FreeRepublic.com - and all I can say at this juncture is "Thank God for Free Republic!" - a place where the journalistic record is untouched and uncensored. "Carl Cameron Reports - Some U.S. investigators believe that Israel is spying in and on the U.S. and may have known things they didn't tell us before September 11" * Part 1 - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/589762/posts * Part 2 - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/590068/posts * Part 3 - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/590668/posts * Part 4 - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/592499/posts (Excerpted from http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j122201special.html ) [END] Raimondo's distress at having been confronted with the Hidden Hand is echoed by another letter by Michael Rivero, posted on rense.com, titled "Fox News Pulls Its Four-Part Israeli US Phone Spying Series", http://www.rense.com/general18/spypull.htm, also dated today: [START] Fox News just yanked the four part story about the phone spying scandal. This has become absurd. Here the FBI has just uncovered the largest spy ring ever discovered in our country, and the government that owns and operates that spy network is able to tell Fox News NOT to report the story? Will someone explain to me what is going on when the nation that owns the largest spy ring ever discovered inside the United States is, even AFTER that spy ring is discovered and arrested, able to tell Fox News what stories they can and cannot run? We need to get this to as many people as possible. Clearly, the Mossad has a huge network of people able to call and complain to Fox News to remove the story. We must muster an even greater number of people to call Fox News and DEMAND the full and complete story be put back on the web site and on the air. Please email everyone on your activist list and post the news about this most egregious censorship, about Fox caving in on this story, to every public forum you can. Have everyone on your activist list call Fox News to demand the return of the story, then phone ten of their activist friends and have THEM phone Fox News. [END] A few concluding comments: Michael Rivero, distressed though he may be by what he sees happening, has only a rudimentary picture as to how things are done in America for Israel to get its way. You can bet your life that there was nothing as blatant and crude as a call from a Mossad case officer intimidating the leading lights at Fox News "to cease and desist in their Israel bashing". That's not the way things work! The reporter, the producer, the telephone operators, the managers all the way up to the CEO at Fox will be privately buttonholed by people they know, even like - "friends" with whom they play golf together or with whom they often socialize in lodges. In very nice but insistent tones they will be reminded how damaging this story is to inter-ethnic cooperation, how it could hurt American-Israeli relations, how it might impact on their career, maybe even their own personal friendships and image in their community etc. They will be reminded that only "Nazis" or "anti-Semites" would stoop that low to even hint that Israel could be at fault! And chances are that Auschwitz will be mentioned. And don't forget - the Race Card will be played to the hilt. By contrast, the lower echelon staff will be overwhelmed by phone calls, e-mails, threats of all kinds - incessantly! - until the secretaries are in tears and somebody decides to sacrifice journalistic principles, even the national interest just to get relief and a chance to get back to normalcy. That's how the Lobby's goals are achieved - being able to count on an informal but tightly knit organizational network that knows how to use subtle and, if needed, not-so-subtle psychological pressure until once more Israel is "covered" in the news the way Israel expects to be "covered" - to borrow one of Sobran's punchent lines. ===== Thought for the Day: "The hair goes with the hide." (Henry Acard Wallace) From irimland@zundelsite.org Sun Dec 23 19:26:13 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:26:13 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/23/2001 - "Raimondo: The Secret War" Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 23, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: This one is a brand new essay by Justin Raimondo, a young man who was the first, to my knowledge, who alerted the intellectual Internet community to the significance of the Four-Part Carl Cameron/Fox Report about the Israeli involvement in a vast spy ring on American soil, the likes of which this country has never yet experienced. Justin Raimondo has impressive credentials. He is the author of "Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement" (with an Introduction by Patrick J. Buchanan), (1993), and "Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against US Intervention in the Balkans" (1996). He is an Adjunct Scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, in Auburn, Alabama, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Libertarian Studies, and writes frequently for "Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture". He is the author of "An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard". Justin Raimondo is a prolific writer. He has on his website a number of columns shortly before and since 9/11 that are a treat to read - and that show how this young man's eyes are slowly being opened to a danger that is not new to Revisionists, men and women who have delved into the roots of previous wars and who have found the same dark forces operating here as there and now as then. Here is the latest Raimondo summary: [START] December 21, 2001 THE SECRET WAR Pre-9/11, we fought a covert war on American soil - against Israel You really have to hand it to the Israelis: they are nothing if not blatant. Their response to Fox News reporter Carl Cameron's devastating expos* of Israel's massive spy operation in the US can hardly be repeated with a straight face. Mark Regev, a spokesman at the Israeli embassy in Washington is quoted by the Jerusalem Post as saying: "The report on Fox News contains no quoted source, it has in no way demonstrated anything more than anonymous innuendo, and should be regarded accordingly. Israel does not spy on the United States of America." Gee, Mark, does the name Jonathan Pollard ring a bell? SUICIDAL TENDENCIES Naturally, the law enforcement sources who utilized Cameron's investigation to voice their concerns didn't dare allow their names to be used: as Cameron related in his report, any question regarding the possibility of Israeli spying in the US is "career suicide" for those who dare raise it. Question: is it also career suicide for journalists to raise it? I have seen a few news items reporting on the Cameron expos*, but, given the implications and scope of what we're talking about here, the answer is, apparently, yes. For Cameron and Fox News are not merely saying that the Israelis have been conducting a "sprawling" spy operation in the US, involving the massive penetration of our communications systems and government agencies. As Cameron so diplomatically put it in the first segment of his four-part investigation: "There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it." A GUILTY SILENCE In other words: Israel's passive complicity made the worst terrorist attack in American history possible. One would think that the sheer enormity of such a charge would provoke a storm of outrage from Israel's many defenders in the media: the columnists, the think-tankers, the publicists who dote on Ariel Sharon's every word. But, no: instead, there is an ominous, one might almost say a guilty silence. THANKS BE TO GOOGLE! It's frightening, really, when you think about it. Here, after all, is a reporter's dream: a heretofore-undiscovered angle on the biggest story of our time. Yet no one will touch it. Why? It couldn't be because you'd need an army of researchers: you don't. All that's necessary is internet access, and, of course, the miracle of Google: anyone can go to google.com and type in the appropriate words and phrases, such as "Israelis detained," or, better yet, "Israeli art students" along with the word "detained." Go ahead: do it, and see what happens=C9. ARTISTIC ASPIRATIONS Okay, so you did it and came up with a whole slew of news stories, published mostly in local newspapers, telling different variations on a single, very bizarre story: In locations as diverse as Dallas, Saint Louis, Kansas, Atlanta, New York, and Findley, Ohio, groups of young people describing themselves as Israeli art students suddenly descended on federal office buildings and no less than 36 Department of Defense facilities. They seemed particularly active in the state of Texas: in Dallas, one "student" was found wandering the halls of a federal facility with a floor plan in his hands. Say, what? Starting in the third week of January, reports began to pour in to the National Counterintelligence Center (NCC) about "suspicious visitors to federal facilities." The NCC's bimonthly report for March 2001 states: "In the past six weeks, employees in federal office buildings located throughout the United States have reported suspicious activities connected with individuals representing themselves as foreign students selling or delivering artwork. Employees have observed both males and females attempting to bypass facility security and enter federal buildings." INVASION OF THE 'ART STUDENTS' The NCC described these people -- supposedly working for an outfit known as "Universal Art, Inc." -- as "aggressive" in attempting to gain access to federal facilities, and reported that two had been arrested for having counterfeit work visas and green cards. Then this stunner: "These individuals have also gone to the private residences of senior federal officials under the guise of selling art." Now wait just a friggin' minute, dude =D0 stop right there! OMINOUS PORTENTS Okay, so we're talking about some nine months before The Day, and mysterious "art students" are following high government officials home =D0 that is, when they aren't trying to break in to Defense Department facilities, staking out DEA offices, and hanging around the federal prosecutor's office in Dallas. We've already had numerous terrorist scares, at this point: remember the New Year's hysteria, and there were all those frantic warnings by various "anti-terrorist" commissions and study groups. The NCC report posits the existence of two groups of "art students": "One group has an apparently legitimate money-making goal while the second, perhaps a non-Israeli group, may have ties to a Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalist group." So, this was the first ominous sign of the terrorist onslaught to come =D0 or was it? The NCC's speculation that these "art students" were Bin Laden's boys turns out not to have been correct. They were Israelis, alright, except for a few Latin Americans. Not only did they carry forged immigration papers, in some cases, but also at least one we know about failed a polygraph test when he denied spying for Israel. CELLMATES AT LAST With some 140 picked up before 9/11, and some 60-plus afterward, we have no idea how many of these "art students" were sent back to Israel to pursue their "studies." All we know is that those let go were kept for months, and others =D0 according to Fox News, those identified as Israeli agents =D0 are still in custody, perhaps sharing a nice cozy cell with detainees from Arab countries. I'm sure they have a lot to talk about=C9. HOW ODD The Arab detainees, as we have seen, have been the subjects of a national controversy between civil libertarians and the Bush administration. We have John Ashcroft denouncing those who would spread the "false fear" of a police state as "aiding the terrorists," while on the other hand Arab-Americans and the ACLU are rallying opposition to the round-up. But when it comes to the Israeli detainees, there is no controversy, virtually no mention of it in the national media, no nothing. Jewish groups are not rallying to the defense of these poor defenseless "art students," held without bail and without lawyers, for the most part, in very uncomfortable and worrisome circumstances. Doesn't anybody find this odd? SUCKER PUNCH What's significant about this story is, first, that it amounts to the biggest spy operation in the US since the days of the Cold War, and, secondly, that it provides some context for understanding the mystery of 9/11. To most of us, that horrific event was a bolt out of the blue, with no prelude, no precedent, and no way to anticipate that the best days of our lives could turn into the worst. But the view from inside the US Government must have looked a whole lot different, i.e. far more threatening. Yet the threat seemed to be coming, not from Bin Laden, but =D0 incredibly =D0 from the Israelis, who, not content with having gained access to our phone system and federal wiretaps, were penetrating American military and government targets. Law enforcement authorities were in the midst of a massive crackdown on the Israelis, when, suddenly, they were hit =D0 from the other direction. IN THE DARK We are being kept in the dark about so many things, these days, but this, it seems, is too important to be kept secret for long. If we are going to be asked to give up our liberties, our peace of mind, and even our lives in an apparently eternal "war on terrorism," then Americans at least have a right to know who their enemies are. Yes, we know the evil Bin Laden is responsible for the murder of 3000 innocent people =D0 but we still don't know how they managed to pull off such a well-organized and spectacular display of murderous skill, unassisted by any state sponsor. A CAROLINA COVEN Much has been said =D0 but nothing proved =D0 about the alleged role of Ira= q in all this. But to anyone who has seen or read through parts one, two, three and four of the Fox News investigative report, it seems clear that the most active state intelligence agency in the US prior to the twin towers attack was not the Iraqis, but the Mossad. Carl Cameron informs us that a North Carolina Israeli spy coven is suspected of renting an apartment in California "to spy on a group of Arabs who the United States is also investigating for links to terrorism." What were they doing =D0 and, most importantly, what did they know about the planning and execution of the 9/11 atrocity? DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION In the months preceding 9/11, a secret war was being waged on American soil, a silent struggle from coast to coast =D0 not an undercover battle between us and Muslim terrorists, but one pitting US law enforcement agencies against one of our closest allies. Make of that what you will. For until the US government comes clean, and Congress investigates, we'll never even have a chance to start asking the right questions. (Source: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html) [END] =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Thought for the Day: "Yet still we hug the dear deceit." (Nathaniel Cotton) From irimland@zundelsite.org Mon Dec 24 21:04:37 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:04:37 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/24/2001 - "Christmas Eve 2001" Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 24, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: In German tradition Christmas Eve is much more important than Christmas Day - in fact, it used to be that the tree was only lit when darkness fell and not 8 weeks before, as is the custom here in America. I stick to my German tradition. There are still some last touches to be put beneath our Christmas tree, and therefore, my readers will forgive me that today I'll "double up" and run a segment from my private monthly letter that goes to my regular supporters: [START] Look what I found just this morning on one of the alternative websites - a summary of recent attacks on tradition, courtesy of the Washington Times. A sorry list indeed: Humbug! Schools Censor Christmas! The intolerant communistic thought police who run America's government schools are censoring Christmas at an even more alarming rate than usual this year. Consider the following: * The county school board in Covington, Ga., censored the word "Christmas" from the school calendar after the fanatically anti-religious group that calls itself American Civil Liberties Union threatened to sue, sue, sue. * Two middle-school students in Rochester, Minn., were punished for - the horror, the horror - wearing red and green scarves in a Christmas skit and for concluding, "We hope you all have a merry Christmas." * New York City's notoriously rotten government schools have banned Nativity scenes but allow the display of the Jewish menorah and the Muslim star and crescent. * The school superintendent in Silverton, Ore., demonstrated anti-religious bigotry by allowing secular decorations but forcing students remove all religious holiday decorations from their lockers. * An educrat in Frederick County, Md., banned employees from handing out Christmas cards in the school because cards with a Christian message (but not a non-Christian message!) supposedly "may not be a legally protected right on a public school campus." * A fourth-grader in Ephrata, Pa., was kept from handing out religious Christmas cards to classmates. The P.C. patrol told two ninth-graders in Plymouth, Mass., that they could not make Christmas cards saying "Merry Christmas" or depicting a Nativity scene. * A principal in Plymouth, Ill., warned a teacher not to read a book about Christmas to her second-grade pupils - even though the book was in the school's library. (What will the leftist American Library Association have to say about this one?) * Rutherford Institute, a Charlottesville, Va., organization that provides legal representation in cases involving religious discrimination, cited these examples among at least 50 complaints it has received so far this Christmas season. "We're getting besieged," Rutherford President John Whitehead says in today's Washington Times. And educrats continue to wonder why parents clamor for school choice and turn to home schooling and private schools. Don't Tread on Us!" The second item that I found was written by Phil Brennan, titled appropriately: "Don't Tread on Us!" I quote it in part: Those who trod on us in recent weeks have discovered that those words still apply, with a vengeance. But Black Tuesday and its aftermath have affected the national mood in another way. The tremendous outpouring of good old American patriotism has destroyed the alleged justification the nation's liberals and their staunch allies in the media and academia have used to inflict the loathsome doctrines of political correctness and America-is-always-wrong on the people of this nation. Just look at those in this country who are now blaming America for Black Tuesday and you'll see they are the same people behind political correctness, Marxist ideology and just about every other movement to debase our institutions and curtail our freedoms in the name of collectivism and a Big Brother state. I heard a story the other day that I can't authenticate but which made a powerful point. Here it is as related to me by my cousin Bill, a retired Air Force officer and as fierce a patriot as you can find anywhere: "They walked in tandem, each of the 93 students filing into the already crowded auditorium. With rich maroon gowns flowing and the traditional caps, they looked almost as grown up as they felt. Dads swallowed hard behind broad smiles, and moms freely brushed away tears. "This class would not pray during the commencement - not by choice but because of a recent court ruling prohibiting it. The principal and several students were careful to stay within the guidelines allowed by the ruling. "They gave inspirational and challenging speeches, but no one mentioned divine guidance and no one asked for blessings on the graduates or their families. "The speeches were nice, but they were routine ... until the final speech received a standing ovation. A solitary student walked proudly to the microphone. He stood still and silent for just a moment, and then he delivered his speech: an astounding sneeze! "The rest of the students rose immediately to their feet, and in unison they said, "GOD BLESS YOU." [END] The message for my readers is: Don't sacrifice tradition. Once done, you'll never get it back! I wish you all a very merry Christmas - and may you not be lonely, all by yourself, tonight! Ingrid P.S. There won't be a ZGram tomorrow because it is Family Time. From irimland@zundelsite.org Thu Dec 27 04:03:36 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 20:03:36 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/26/2001 - "Anti-Semitism English Style?" Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 26, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Here is a Wall Street Journal article that speaks for itself. As you read it, please remember that the writer is Jewish and writes from the Jewish point of view. [START] December 24, 2001 International Commentary British Polite Society Has Found a Not-So-New Target By Melanie Phillips, a columnist with the Daily Mail in London. SINCE the war against terror started, polite British society has found an enemy to target. It's neither the Taliban nor al Qaeda, however -- it's the state of Israel and Jews in general. That's because a common belief has suddenly emerged in Britain that the Middle East is the cause of world terror and that Israel is to blame for the impasse there. This leads to anti-Zionism, which is consequently used as a thin disguise for anti-Semitism. People now make remarks that would have been inconceivable just a few months previously. In an article in the Spectator magazine, the writer Petronella Wyatt recounted that she had been asked recently whether she thought there was an international Jewish conspiracy. She also reported on a member of the House of Lords of impeccable liberal credentials saying, "Well, the Jews have been asking for it and now, thank God, we can say what we think at last." These are not isolated incidents. I came up against the phenomenon when I was a panel member on the BBC's flagship current affairs program Question Time. On the panel with me was the writer Will Self, the Labour backbencher Diane Abbott, the Tory politician Ken Clarke and the Liberal Democrat MP Ed Davey. 'Terrorism on Both Sides' An Israeli member of the audience asked why the Americans could go halfway round the world to root out terror when the Israelis were condemned for doing the same in their own back yard. The other panel members seemed to subscribe to precisely that double standard. Mr. Davey said Yasser Arafat couldn't be expected to deal with the terrorists in his midst. Ms. Abbott implied that Israel was inflicting emotionally incontinent brutality and vengeance on the Palestinians. And Ken Clarke deplored the "terrorism on both sides" (he later remembered that there was a distinction between terrorism and the reaction to it). The audience was clearly hostile to Israel and America. One man said the Palestinians were the victims of Israeli injustice. Another said Mr. Sharon was a war criminal. A woman said that if terrorism was the indiscriminate bombing of innocent people, we need look no further than what George W. Bush was doing in Afghanistan, to great applause. I took a very different line. Yes, I said, there definitely was a double standard; I wondered why people were sympathetic when Israelis died but not sympathetic when they tried to prevent themselves from dying. I added that the Palestinian Authority was a sponsor of terror and incited violence daily against Israelis and Jews across the world. As I spoke, I was aware of a low hissing from the audience. I looked at their faces and saw disbelief and hostility. I glanced at the woman who had made the George Bush point; her face was contorted with what can only be described as hatred. Then Will Self asked the question that had clearly formed in his mind after he read through a selection of my articles on the train from London to Bristol, where the show was being taped, as he told me later he had. Where, he demanded, did my own loyalties lie? If Britain declared war on Israel, whose side would I be on? I could scarcely believe what I had heard. Will Self (who claimed to be Jewish himself) was seeking to make the wider world aware of two things: first, that I was a Jew, and second, that therefore my views on Israel could be disregarded since Jews had double loyalties. I replied that British Jews were immensely patriotic. It was also inconceivable that Britain should attack Israel since Israel was a salient of democracy in the Middle East. But if the inconceivable were ever to happen, this would represent such a turning against Jews that some of us British Jews might feel we had no alternative but to live in Israel. That of course was entirely different from being a traitor to one's own country. When I said, however, that Israel was a democracy, there was an astonishing reaction from the audience. They laughed. That incredulous laugh was more shocking even than Will Self's attack. It revealed that however many Israeli teenagers are blown to smithereens by suicide bombers, the British have seen the pictures of Israel's tanks demolishing Palestinian houses and above all seen the pictures of those Palestinian children being killed by Israeli soldiers, and they have formed the view that Israel is a tyranny and the Jews are the real terrorists. The program discussion lurched from bad to worse. From the audience came the considered view that Israel was the source of terror in the Middle East, that what it was doing was as bad as what was done to it, and that it was responsible for ethnic cleansing. Just a show? I believe that the visceral hostility towards Israel and Jews displayed by both the panel and the audience are indicative now of much mainstream British opinion. Indeed, the British government appears to believe that if only the United States would put pressure on Israel, there would be peace in the Middle East. Such opinions are marked by such blatant double standards and an inverted sense of right and wrong that one has to ask the reason for such perversity. Why is Israel portrayed as murderous when it is clearly attempting -- however misguidedly -- to defend itself against terror? Why do these upstanding British citizens omit to mention that the Palestinian Authority daily pumps out through its mass media Nazi-style anti-Jewish libels and incitements to murder and martyrdom? There are several likely explanations. The British instinctively side with the underdog. At home, they resent the fact that the Jews punch well above their numerical weight by being overrepresented in the professions. In Israel, they see the Jews, with the might of America behind them, pulverizing Palestinians armed only with stones. Self-Loathing Then there is the fact that the establishment, that is, Labour MPs, the liberal broadsheet newspapers and in particular the BBC -- are also dominated by the thinking of the New Left, the Marxist revisionism that that replaced the class struggle by the culture war. The New Left is characterized by an abiding hatred of Israel, America and a self-loathing about Western values. The result is that the British intellectual classes are an all-too willing conduit for anti-Jewish and anti-Israel poison and propaganda. In the face of all this, British Jews are astonishingly silent, probably because they are hardly less horrified by the scenes of Palestinian misery that unfold daily across their TV screens. But one does not have to be a fan of Ariel Sharon to see that criticisms of Israeli tactics are almost beside the point. For Israel's very existence is threatened. The Palestine Authority makes it abundantly clear in all it says for internal consumption that it regards the whole of "Palestine" as occupied and will be satisfied with nothing less than the destruction of the Jewish state. Israel has never troubled to make its case effectively to a world which it assumes will always be hostile or indifferent. But it never foresaw that Palestinian terror--whose purpose was to provoke a counter-reaction that would turn the world against Israel and destroy the Jewish state's very soul -- would be financed by the Western world. But this is what has happened. The West, especially in Europe, has fallen for the propaganda of victim culture. The EU, of which Britain is a member, is the largest supplier of funds to the PA. The result is that the British, far from making common cause against global terror, have succumbed to the very prejudices that lie behind it. [END] ===== Source: http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB1009141696142194720.htm ===== Thought for the Day: "Sired by a hurricane, damned by an earthquake." (Mark Twain in "The Child of Calamity") From irimland@zundelsite.org Fri Dec 28 02:22:08 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 18:22:08 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/27/2001 - "Stop American Billions For Israeli Bombs" Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 27, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Look what I found on the Rense web page! It seems that serious grass roots activism against the lavish funding of Israel is finally beginning. I only wish it were spearheaded by Germans or Austrians or Swiss or Dutch or even Russians living in America or being American citizens. Why is our own crowd so maddeningly timid? Has anybody ever died from being called some unflattering names? No matter! "Stop American Billions For Israeli Bombs", written by one Alisa Solomon, originated at VillageVoice.com, dated 12-26-01: [START] There weren't any surprises in the foreign-aid bill Congress passed last week, least of all in the appropriation the U.S. handed Israel: more than 17 percent of the entire foreign-aid expenditure, $2.7 billion. That's on top of the $2.5 billion in military support from the defense budget, forgiven loans, and special grants the tiny state rakes in each year. Up to 80 percent of this aid never leaves the U.S., because it's earmarked for arms purchases that must be made here. As usual, there wasn't any significant debate, and to be sure, nobody seriously suggested America's largesse be linked to Israel's compliance with human rights accords, UN resolutions, or international law. The prevailing view-as the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC puts it-is that "U.S. aid to Israel enhances American national security interests by strengthening our only democratic ally in an unstable and vital region of the world." Nonetheless, in the 15 months since the outbreak of the Al Aqsa Intifada, scores of groups around the country have come out against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem-some pressing for a two-state solution, others emphasizing the Palestinian right of return. Now the question of U.S. aid is at the cutting edge of this activism. Campaigns from Berkeley to Boston are connecting demands for peace and justice in the region to Congress's underwriting of the occupation and Israel's use of F-16s, Apache helicopters, and other American-made weapons against Palestinian neighborhoods and refugee camps. SUSTAIN (Stop U.S. Tax-Funded Aid to Israel Now) has point people in a dozen cities around the country organizing teach-ins and letter campaigns. The San Francisco group A Jewish Voice for Peace is, among other things, conducting a petition drive, asserting that "as Americans, we do not want our foreign aid dollars used to deprive Palestinians of justice and human rights. As Jews, although we support a democratic Israel, we must criticize its security policies that have the effect of making it less safe, not more." And on campuses like the universities of California, Michigan, and Illinois, a movement modeled on the anti-apartheid activities of the 1980s is beginning to call for divestment of university funds from companies with strong ties to Israel. Even if none of these groups actually expects Uncle Sam to cancel Israel's allowance anytime soon, they understand how effectively American aid can function as a focal point for the most important step in any movement for Israeli-Palestinian peace: basic public education. "People don't understand that there's still an occupation," says Chicago-based writer and analyst Ali Abunimah. "Even so, they are paying for it." Between corporate media's presentation of foreign policy from the State Department's point of view and a pro-Israeli PR machine that treats the conflict as if the parties were both powerful nations, a common perception persists of Israel as a besieged little democracy under constant attack from preternatural Jew haters. But even with the horrific suicide bombings-a series of bloody attacks claimed more than 30 Israeli lives in the last month alone-Israel remains the powerful partner, controlling the lives of 3 million disenfranchised and dispossessed people and responsible for killing more than 800 Palestinian civilians since the hostilities boiled over last year. Nothing is likely to shift in the conflict without significant pressure from the U.S., so cracking public perception here is key. "Like Cuba," explains Hussein Ibish, of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, "Israel is as much a domestic as a foreign issue, especially given the incredible power of the Christian right and Jewish pro-Israel lobbies as well as the major defense contractor lobbies. To get through to people in ways that can counteract those lobbies," Ibish adds, "you need to describe the reality of occupation precisely. You can't substitute a slogan for the details; it's just not helpful. In the U.S., the most important activism is discursive." The divestment movement growing on dozens of campuses-and Jewish organization efforts to discount it-provides an example in miniature of the way different narratives of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict compete in the U.S. Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of California, Berkeley, have used street theater to drive their campaign, once setting up a mock checkpoint at a campus gate, for example. According to SJP member Snehal Shingavi, the group has already collected 5000 student signatures on a divestment petition, specifically targeting, among others, General Electric, which produces propulsion systems for Apache helicopters and F-16s and in which UC invests hundreds of millions of dollars. Currently SJP is planning a national student conference for mid February; they expect several hundred students from all over the country. If UC regents have so far shrugged off SJP demands, major Zionist organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League have expressed some alarm, creating resource kits for Jewish students so they can rebut anti-occupation claims. True, the rhetoric can get overheated (it's not all that rare for somebody to charge Israel with "genocide" at campus rallies). Still, progressive Jewish students find themselves equally turned off by the one-sided bromides proffered at the local Hillel. "I don't agree with the Israel-is-always-right attitude I get from Jewish groups on campus because I think the occupation is absolutely wrong and must end," says an Ann Arbor student who requested anonymity. "But I can't join a demonstration with banners that say 'Zionism Equals Racism' because I don't buy into that, either. It's also too knee-jerk and simplistic." For longtime activists, recognizing how much discursive ground has been lost in recent years is profoundly demoralizing. "I feel like we've taken so many steps backwards," said Melanie Kaye/Kantrowitz after a meeting last Sunday in which she and half a dozen other Jewish feminists, all anti-occupation veterans of 10 to 20 years, planned a midtown vigil in solidarity with a Jerusalem rally organized by Israel's Women in Black for December 28. "True, some things are better. It used to be you couldn't even say 'Palestine,' " Kaye/Kantrowitz explained. "But now we have to correct the almost universally held but completely wrong idea that Israel offered peace and the Palestinians answered with violence." A little more than a decade ago, as the first intifada brought the occupation into American living rooms with TV coverage of Israel's bone-crushing response to a mostly nonviolent popular uprising, at least some of the public understood who was the occupier and what that meant, and a movement to link aid to human rights compliance began to take shape. The taboo on questioning Israel's foreign-aid entitlement was even broken on the floor of Congress in 1990, when Wisconsin Democrat David Obey suggested future budgets reduce aid to Israel by the amount that country spends to build or expand settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Two months later, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, setting off the Persian Gulf War and foreclosing any statements-much less actions-that might have made America's Middle East ally fear abandonment. Soon after, Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat signed the Oslo accords at the White House, heartening all who hadn't bothered to actually read the agreement or look at a map with the hallucination that the occupation was ending and peace was at hand. Congressional criticism, as well as grassroots activism, faded away. But the occupation did not. And despite Representative Obey's suggestion-and worse, despite the Oslo agreement-Israel rapidly expanded settlements, doubling their population in the years since the accords were signed. Palestinians' lives got worse: Israel continued to demolish homes; Jewish-only bypass roads connecting settlements to Israel increasingly chopped up the West Bank, dividing Palestinian communities into disconnected Bantustans; Israel retained control of water and other resources and continued to confiscate Palestinian land. And it certainly didn't help that corrupt officials in Arafat's Palestinian Authority pocketed funds meant for economic development. So when the Al Aqsa Intifada erupted, it was easy enough to sell the Israeli version of what had gone wrong: the Palestinians simply didn't want peace. "We had done a good job during the first intifada of showing the occupation," says Phyllis Bennis, a fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies who specializes in the Middle East. "But our mistake was in not continuing to talk about human rights violations as an ongoing reality of a repressive, spirit-killing, military occupation. It seemed as though if guns weren't being fired, then things must have been fine. But you don't have to fire a gun to control someone, you only have to have it. That's why if you hold up a store by aiming a gun at the cashier, you've committed armed robbery, even if you never pulled the trigger. Israel was still holding the gun, but we had stopped pointing at it." Now that the guns are blazing again and the wider war rages nearby, threatening to expand ever more explosively, Israel-Palestine activists feel both that their efforts are more urgent and more inadequate. Despite last week's declaration of a ceasefire by Hamas, nobody expects a miracle. Though "not an optimist in the short run," Ali Abunimah remains convinced that "a broad-based movement against the occupation and in favor of a just peace, based on equality and ending domination," can succeed. "People forget that there was a strong business lobby in this country for South Africa during apartheid and that American policy was turned around entirely due to public pressure," he says. "There are precedents." [END] ===== Thought for the Day: "They know the jig is up if the coverage ever becomes fair." (Letter to the Zundelsite) From irimland@zundelsite.org Fri Dec 28 21:29:10 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 13:29:10 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/28/2001 - "STRANGE SYMBIOSIS - ISRAEL & ANTI-SEMITISM" Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 28, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: A few words from the Zundelsite prefacing yet another exceptional Justin Raimondo article that will undoubtedly feed the mounting paranoia of the Enemies of Freedom - the Trojan Horse within our gates. Justin Raimondo - a young, brash, outspoken intellectual - has laid it on the line in this and other articles. The small, embattled Revisionist community welcomes articles like this - it seems that finally the graduates of some of our Ivy League colleges are coming off the fence - almost! - and are joining the battle for America's values and freedoms if not (yet) the revisionist struggle. Their analyses brings with it the freshness of innocence. Undoubtedly they will have their baptism of fire, just as Revisionists did, when the political hatchet men of the old, worn-out order of yesterday will go after them with their dirt files, bugged telephones, threats to employers, friends, wives, girlfriends - the inexhaustible arsenal of all the dirty tricks for which the enemy is known. (http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html - particularly Dr. Robert Faurisson: http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/terror1.html ) Some of these young men and women might well become similar casualties in the battle for America's and the world's freedom. Remember Patrick Henry's exhortation to his contemporary American Freedom =46ighters - "Give me liberty or give me death!"? Time will tell if such a slogan of the Old America has meaning still in our days. =0BJustin Raimondo is an Adjunct Scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. He writes frequently for "Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture." He is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Libertarian Studies, a non-profit organization sporting an interesting website - . Its mission statement reads in part: [START] Our dedication to libertarian principles... is reflected on this site, and we make no bones about it. While openly acknowledging that we have an agenda, the editors take seriously our purely journalistic mission, which is to get past the media filters and make the truth about America's foreign policy as widely known as possible. Citing a wide variety of sources without fear or favor, and presenting our own views in the regular columns of various contributors, we clearly differentiate between fact and opinion, and let our readers know which is which. Here is Raimondo's latest: [START] December 28, 2001 STRANGE SYMBIOSIS - ISRAEL & ANTI-SEMITISM That 'sh*tty little country' is dangerous - to its allies, and to Jews everywhere As Israel prepares to expel its Arab helots from Palestine, its "amen corner" worldwide is also on the march, excoriating anyone who looks cross-eyed at Ariel Sharon as an "anti-Semite." The latest front in this campaign is England, where Barbara Amiel, wife of media magnate Conrad Black, went on a rampage in the Telegraph, claiming that, at a recent dinner party, the French ambassador referred to Israel as "that sh*tty little country," and wondered why the world had to be dragged to the edge of World War III on account of it. On the basis of evidence gleaned at ritzy cocktail parties, says Ms. Amiel, the world is experiencing a revival of anti-Semitism, which is now "respectable" again. OSAMA ON MTV? Oh, please! Does she really expect us to believe that Osama's infamous videos denouncing the "Jews and Crusaders" are the "in" thing with the hip cognoscenti? Lay off the crack pipe, lady, and get real: anti-Semitism is less respectable than pedophilia. After all, hordes of people aren't buying The Protocols of the Elder of Zion the way they're snatching up those Abercrombie & Fitch catalogs, now are they? Amiel's essay is just one breathtaking inversion of reality after another. Getta load-a this: "For the past 25 years, I've watched sad-faced Israeli activists trudge around Western capitals with heavy hearts beating under ill-fitting suits. They carry folders of transcripts and videotapes to document the misrepresentations in the press and the moral hypocrisy of the world towards Israel. They want to win the war of ideas on its merits. Their attention to detail in translating the hate literature of the Middle East and the hate-filled speeches of its leaders is commendable." FOLLOW THE MONEY One can only wonder what "Western capitals" she means: surely not Washington, D.C. Everyone acknowledges that the Israel lobby is among the most powerful in the Imperial City. How else have they managed to get their hands on a grand total of $90 billion-plus in American military and economic aid since Israel's inception? A STRANGE IRONY Aside from US exporters, Israel is the single largest beneficiary of our "foreign aid" program: US tax dollars paid for a booby-trap bomb planted near an Arab elementary school, which blasted a group of Palestinian children - children! - to bits. American tax dollars also pay for Israeli "settlements" inhabited by violent, fanatical fundamentalists intent on provoking war no matter what. This image of sad bedraggled little underdogs making their rounds, desperately fighting an uphill battle against overwhelming odds, is nothing but a bad joke - either that, or it is meant to be ironic. I SHOULD BE SO POWERLESS If the Israeli lobby is so powerless, then why this American largesse? We not only arm Israel, but we also prop up their sh*tty little socialist economy with constant infusions of cash. Whatever those Israeli "activists" are carrying around in their folders, whatever is on those videotapes, it must be some pretty powerful stuff. Given the Fox News revelations about the extent of Israeli spying in the US, I don't even want to hazard a guess as to what's in them. THE ONEIDA PURGE They want to "win the war of ideas on its merits"? Tell that to Jean Ryan, former managing editor of the Oneida (NY) Daily Dispatch, and city editor Dale Seth (a 15-year veteran of the paper), who were both fired when a delegation of Israel Firsters approached the editor and then the owner demanding the paper retract an allegedly "anti-Semitic" post-9/11 editorial written by Seth. Seth's crime was to recall the terrorist origins of the Jewish state - as if no one had ever heard of the Irgun and the Stern Gang, both of which waged war on the Arab civilian population - and without which the state of Israel would never have come into existence. He also made the true but politically incorrect observation that the whole region is rife with religious fanaticism, and Israel is no exception to the rule: "The United States, through its close association with Israel since its inception, has now been dragged kicking and screaming right into the middle of that centuries-old Middle Eastern conflict. From that position, it would behoove that party in the middle to consider the hearts of the warring parties. Neither can be simply beat into submission." UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER A local attorney, Randy Schaal, demanded a meeting with Ryan to protest the editorial: Ryan refused to meet with him, pointing out that that if the staff met with everyone who disagreed with an editorial, they would never get a paper out. She told him to write a letter to the editor, which he did. But Schaal also contacted local politicians, as well as the Anti-Defamation League, and it wasn't long before pressure was brought to bear on the paper's management, which then ordered its editors to come up with a "clarification." This was published alongside Schaal's letter, a letter from Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), and a missive from the mayor of Oneida. Still, Schaal and his fellow Ameners weren't satisfied. They went to the President of the Journal Register Co., and demanded a retraction and an apology: it was unconditional surrender, or nothing. GROVELING TOWARD BETHLEHEM After a series of meetings with various self-appointed representatives of the Jewish community, the owners of the Daily Dispatch caved and published a groveling mea culpa: "We understand many felt [the editorial] expressed anti-Semitic sentiments," it said. "We will not further offend our readers by attempting in any way to justify what was written; we can only assure readers that The Dispatch is not anti-Semitic and that we acknowledge the editorial should not have been published." So much for the Israeli lobby winning the war of ideas on the "merits" of their case. Clearly, another strategy is at work here: not debating their opponents but silencing them. ODE TO BRUTE FORCE The rest of Amiel's essay is really a kind of paean to the efficacy of brute force. While those poor bedraggled Israeli "activists" may have been fighting an uphill battle, according to Amiel, in the post-9/11 era the tide seems to be turning, and she can hardly keep herself from gloating that now the Arabs are really going to get it: "Powerful as the truth may be, it needs a nudge from 16,000lb daisy cutter bombs once in a while. The Arab/Muslim world's intransigence comes into sharper focus when we see the Americans liberate Afghanistan from the Taliban in six weeks and a cornered Arafat unable to go to the bathroom without the risk of being blown into the next world." PSYCHOPATHIA SEXUALIS Here is the kind of Zionist who clearly enjoys the brutality and indignity of the Israeli occupation. Such people now feel free to publicly exhibit and even flaunt their perversity, which seems like something straight out of Kraft-Ebbing. What else can one call Amiel's odd interest in controlling Arafat's bowel movements other than a sh*tty little perversion? THE TERRORISTIC IMPERATIVE "Nothing succeeds like powerful bombs," exults this war goddess, "as bin Laden explained in his latest video release. 'When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse,' he said." How natural for her to approvingly cite bin Laden on the terroristic imperative: but then that is what tribal warfare is all about, no matter which side one fights on. CHOO-CHOO Yes, it is force, not reason or negotiation, that is decisive, avers Ms. Amiel, who gleefully predicts that "All those people badmouthing the Jews and Israel will quieten down." Or else be quieted down, involuntarily, like Jean Ryan, Dale Seth, and now perhaps Carl Cameron, of Fox News. "You are looking," Amiel continues, "at the tail end of the train but the engine has already turned a corner and is going in the opposite direction" - and anyone who shows up at one of those ritzy parties she's always attending had better get on board, or else. AMIEL'S JIHAD No one would think to label denunciations of, say, Robert Mugabe, as the equivalent of anti-black racism: but we are expected to just accept that virtually all criticism of Israel and Ariel Sharon is due to "anti-Semitism." Amiel's blatantly dishonest and self-serving jihad is naturally bound to cause resentment among all thinking people - an emotion that could, easily, turn into genuine anti-Semitism. But that, I believe, is the point: anti-Semitism serves the interests of the most extreme wing of the Zionist movement, and always has. 100 YEARS AFTER DREYFUSS Founded as it is on the permanence of Jewish victimology, and the idea that anti-Semitism is inevitable, Zionism thrives when Jewish persecution grows. It is a natural tendency of Zionist propaganda to exaggerate hostility to Jews. The founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, was confirmed in his opinion that it was "futile" to combat anti-Semitism when the infamous Dreyfuss case was at the center of a storm of controversy. Today, however, with the rapid decline and marginalization of anti-Semitism everywhere but in the Middle East, the pressing need for a Jewish state requires more justification. WHY A JEWISH STATE? Anti-Semitism in the West, as "hate crime" statistics and other research has shown in recent years, is practically nonexistent. This good news was hailed by Jewish organizations in the US when it was first announced, but the extreme Zionists were no doubt made uneasy. For if anti-Jewish prejudice is distinctly beyond the pale, at least in the civilized world, i.e., the West, then what do we need a Jewish state for? This is a question many Jews, when faced with an appeal to emigrate to Israel, must ask themselves, and, at least up until Ms. Amiel's outburst, the Zionists have had no good answer. Now they appear to have solved the problem by simply redefining "anti-Semitism" to mean any criticism of Israel's expansionist policies and its current radical right-wing government. THE OLD ANTI-SEMITISM Anti-Semitism used to mean legal and cultural proscriptions directed against Jews. In medieval Europe, Jews were forced into ghettos, in Nazi Germany they were branded with the yellow star and exterminated, and, in America and Europe, it used to be that some establishments, both high and low, would not do business with Jews. Certain hotels and men's clubs would not admit them, and anti-Semitism was especially rife in the universities where an unofficial Jewish quota kept their numbers and influence limited. This is real anti-Semitism, and, today, it is not only illegal but socially and politically unacceptable: anyone deemed an anti-Semite in this, the original sense, is in effect a pariah, and rightly so. THE NEW ANTI-SEMITISM This, however, has nothing to do with the French ambassador's purported "hate crime." To begin with, in describing Israel as "a sh*tty little country," Ambassador Bernard is at least half right in that it is little. That, after all, has been the chief complaint of the more extreme Zionists, who dream of a Greater Israel and claim such a small sliver of a country is militarily indefensible. As for being "sh*tty," perhaps the ambassador was referring to the attitude of Israel's leaders, and, again, who can contest this? Wasn't it Ariel Sharon who compared the President of the United States to Neville Chamberlain, and declared that he would not let the US sell out Israel like Chamberlain sold out Czechoslovakia? Isn't it the Israelis who are openly wielding a nuclear stick, threatening the whole region with annihilation if anyone dares stand in Sharon's way? Wasn't it the Israelis Carl Cameron was talking about on Fox News last week when he said that a certain foreign intelligence agency had been watching the hijackers or their associates closely - and may have failed to tip off the US to their plans? THE RIGHT WORD I think Ambassador Bernard has chosen just the right word: sh*tty. This is not an ethnic slur, but an entirely accurate description of Israeli government policy. The New Anti-Semitism, however, as unveiled by Ms. Amiel, would forbid the public expression of such obvious truths, because it has nothing, really, to do with dislike of Jews or Jewishness per se. The way Ms. Amiel means it, the charge of anti-Semitism is a smokescreen that conceals a campaign to delegitimize all critics of Israel, and rule them out of order. NO MORE SCOOPS? Speaking of the Israeli spy operation uncovered by Fox News: when Carl Cameron turned over that rock, what wriggled out wasn't pretty, and it didn't take long for the drumbeat to start: has Fox News gone "anti-Semitic"? A JTA story on the response of some Jewish organizations and the Israeli government reiterates their contention that the story is "totally baseless," and notes that "virtually no other American media organization has run a piece on the Fox allegations - a sign that the story lacks merit, Jewish leaders say." Oh, really? This defines the idea of a "scoop" out of existence, and reduces journalists to a pack of conformists, ruled not by a desire to discover and report the truth but by a primitive herd instinct. If not for the scoop, we would never have known about Watergate, Cointelpro, Monica-gate, or any other news stories that erode blind faith in government and the wisdom of our glorious leaders. FIXING FOX The JTA piece slyly raises the subtle suggestion of anti-Semitism when the author avers that "American Jewish and Israeli officials are baffled about what might have led Fox or Cameron to pursue so controversial a story on the basis of evidence they regard as so flimsy," especially because Fox has been seen by Jewish groups as "fair in its reportage on Israel." The clear implication being that the problem is Cameron, not Fox. Ominously, the article also reports that "American Jewish leaders and Israeli officials said they are holding conversations with Fox News representatives." Will Cameron meet the same fate as Dale Seth and Jean Ryan? DOWN THE MEMORY HOLE A Fox News spokesman is quoted as saying, "We stand by the story" - but apparently not enough to keep it on their website. As I reported the other day, all four parts of the Cameron piece were summarily pulled from the =46ox News website: visitors to the previous url get a smiling picture of Carl Cameron and the Orwellian message: "This story no longer exists." Indeed. RETURN OF THE THOUGHT POLICE This, of course, is what Israel's amen corner in the US and Great Britain would ultimately like to see: they want to make it a "hate crime" to criticize Israel, even as that evil dwarf Sharon drives us to the brink of World War III. In Tony Blair's Britain they've gone to great lengths to outlaw and prosecute "hate speech," and are now going after the anti-Muslim neo-Nazi British National Party with new proposals extending "anti-racist" defamation laws to include religion. But there is nothing to prevent this kind of left-wing political correctness from being used against critics of Israel, and the Israeli lobby, so that the dinner party conversation Babs Amiel so avidly denounces could be grounds for legal prosecution. For the new definition of "anti-Semitism," if it is to be properly enforced, requires a political police, and this is really the role Amiel and her fellow Israel Firsters in the US are ideally suited for: police spies. SINCE WHEN? If, like Congressman Darrel Issa (R-CA), Carl Cameron escapes a Jewish Defense League bombing, such as the one that was thwarted the other day, will his career survive this controversy? I certainly hope so, but the removal of the story from the Fox News website - and now this news of "conversations" taking place between Fox News, unnamed American Jewish leaders, and the Israeli government - does not bode well for his future in journalism. By the way, since when does an American media outlet engage in "discussions" or negotiations regarding the content of its news coverage with any government, let alone a foreign one? DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKERS Cameron's debunkers claim that the use of anonymous sources automatically discredits Cameron's work. So Woodward and Bernstein were wrong to have relied on "Deep Throat"? I don't think so. Such a standard would eliminate 95 percent of the journalism done today: there would be no "leaks" of embarrassing information by government whistleblowers, and government officials would tell us what they think we need to know, while reporters record their words verbatim. That's not journalism, however: it's taking dictation. BEYOND BETRAYAL Cameron's story came straight from the lips of law enforcement officials who clearly have inside knowledge of the direction the 9/11 investigation is taking. These investigators are convinced that Israeli intelligence had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and Cameron's reports demonstrated that they certainly had the means to acquire it. Israeli penetration of the phone system -- and even supposedly "secure" phone lines in the White House, the Department of Defense, and the Justice Department, as well as local law enforcement -- has long been suspected: Cameron showed how it operates through Israeli hi-tech companies which are practically arms of the Israeli government. But even this kind of penetration would hardly come as a surprise to anyone, really: the Mossad is well-known for its boldness, and the history of Israeli spying in the US is notorious. But the core of Cameron's story goes waaay beyond that. While "there is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks," Cameron avers, "Investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are 'tie-ins.' But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, 'evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.'" YOU WANT THE TRUTH? You're not allowed to know the truth about 9/11 - why, that's classified information, sir! Now this is bound to arouse a certain amount of resentment, just like Ms. Amiel's smear campaign. But that's the idea, you see. If anti-Semitism is not a problem, then that is a problem for the Zionist project, and so the idea is to provoke it, create it where it never before existed. One way to do that is to redefine "anti-Semitism" in such broad terms that it could include practically anybody but Norman Podhoretz. THE COLLABORATORS Another method is to evoke anti-Semitic sentiments and reactions by means of a deliberate provocation. Remember that the notorious "Stern gang," the Zionist equivalent of Hamas, collaborated with the Nazis on the grounds that they shared a common goal: the expulsion of the Jews from Europe. They thought this strategy would encourage emigration to Palestine and help establish the state of Israel. Chaim Weizmann, put in charge of selecting which German Jews would emigrate to Palestine - and later to become Israel's first president - made the argument that, in choosing between establishing a Jewish state and rescuing the Jews from the Nazis, the Zionist project had to come first. His intellectual and political heirs are entirely capable of justifying and executing the same tactics. FUELING THE FIRE The possible firing of Carl Cameron, and/or the spiking of his story, would certainly give real anti-Semites plenty of ammunition to repeat the tired old canard that the media is "controlled by the Jews." But that is precisely what the nuttier Zionists want. They know that time is not on their side: Israel is demographically doomed if more Jews don't emigrate, and here is where the symbiotic relationship between anti-Semitism and Zionist extremism comes into play. A BAD STRATEGY At its current rate, the Arab birthrate will overwhelm the Jewish state sooner rather than later, just on the strength of sheer numbers. By objectively encouraging anti-Semitism, and building it up into this looming mass movement, Zionist ideologues can appeal to their own people to come "home." What other hope do they have of holding off the rising demographic tide? Apart from whatever moral qualms one may have with this tactic, just in practical terms the great mistake of such a strategy is that it may succeed all too well - and that would be a tragedy. Regardless of her intent, Ms. Amiel's complaint of anti-Semitism could easily turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. A NOTE I want to apologize for the rather intimidating length of this column, but I think the subject is important enough to merit using up so much bandwidth. This should answer, then, all those fervent letter-writers, including supporters of Israel who accuse me of anti-Semitism, and also those anti-Semites who berate me for ridiculing their psychopathology. [END] Herewith a brief Zundelsite comment: That last paragraph of this otherwise exceptional article is troubling. Is it just a rhetorical device? A habitual genuflection in the direction of the enemy? Or is it simply that this young cyber warrior, the modern prototype of freedom fighters of another era, still clings to some of the old, comfortable clich=E9s that surrounded him in college? If so, there is much yet to learn. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Justin Raimondo has penned "Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement" (with an Introduction by Patrick J. Buchanan), (1993), and "Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against U.S. Intervention in the Balkans" (1996). His latest is "An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard" - forthcoming from Prometheus Books. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Thought for the Day: "Nothing has threatened the survival of 'Western values' as much as the triumph of the West." (George Monbiot in The Guardian, December 18, 2001) From irimland@zundelsite.org Sun Dec 30 00:03:29 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 16:03:29 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/29/2001 - "Israel Stabs America In Back - Sells AWACS To Red China" Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 29, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: Bob Djurdjevic is the President of Truth in Media - http://www.truthinmedia.org/ THE most heavily visited website during the NATO -Balkan War. As I remember it, at the height of that war his website received as many as 11 million hits in one month! Bob is a Serbian-born, American political commentator and computer genius who has traveled the world many times. Because of my own server problems, I had lost touch with Bob for a while - when I received the article below, I was very glad to see that he is still blasting away! Here is a Truth in Media Original titled "Israel Stabs America In Back - Sells AWACS To Red China" dated 12-28-2001 [START] WASHINGTON - William Safire, a New York Times columnist, is not exactly known for his "red-white-and-blue" patriotic Americanism. He is much more notorious for rarely passing up an opportunity to point out that many of the world's "statesmen" are only a phone away when Safire calls. But his Dec. 23 OpEd column, "Israel's Shame," comes as close to being patriotic as any of his pieces we have seen over the years. Even if he restates in it his self-importance again ("Prime Minister Ehud Barak has been ducking me on this" - see http://www.nytimes.com ). Anyway, what Safire said was hardly extraordinary. It only comes across as such in a dumbed-down America, scared witless of, and robbed blind by, the New World Order's stooges. Only in such states "of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" (Orwell). Only in our (un)free press does it sound like a "big deal" when a "liberal" media columnist calls a spade a spade. Safire claimed, for example, that it was wrong for Israel to sell its "advanced AWACS battle-management system called the Phalcon" to Red China (for about $250 million, according to a Nov. 11 New York Times story). And that it was shameful for Israel to roll out the red carpet for the "Butcher of Beijing," Li Peng, the man responsible for the Tiananmen Square June 1989 massacre. Of course, it was wrong. And shameful. Especially considering the more than one hundred billion dollars which the U.S. taxpayers have sent to Israel, a country smaller than the state of New Jersey. The latest U.S. budget, for example, which was approved in November following a lengthy battle between Bill Clinton and Congress, earmarked more than $4 billion for Israel, according to a Nov. 21 Ha'aretz report. Israel will receive $1.92 billion in military aid from us, $1.2 billion for implementing the Wye accord, and $900,000 in civilian aid. Compare the $1.2 billion payoff Israel is to get "for implementing the Wye accord" with the rewards the Bosnian Serbs, for example, received for implementing the Dayton accord. They got foreign governor-dictators, and free air transportation to United Nations' Tribunal jail at the Hague. The lucky ones, that is; the Serbs who didn't get shot in the back by the NATO "peacekeepers," such as Simo Drljaca (see "International Justice Progresses from Kidnapping to Murder" ). All told, 26 percent of all U.S. foreign aid will go to Israel, the Ha'aretz reported, the highest amount for any country. Which means that almost 10 percent of the Israeli government revenues comes from the American taxpayers. But that aspect of Israel's betrayal - biting the hand that feeds it - has somehow escaped Safire's attention. Guess the "liberal" U.S. media can only handle so many of the truth morsels at a time. Nor did the Times columnist wonder why we are still paying all this money to Israel more than 10 years after the Cold War has ended, and Israel's role as "our" ace against the Soviet influence in the Middle East had ceased. In short, for Israel to stab us in the back after all that aid it had received from America was indeed a reprehensible act. Unfortunately, its betrayal is only exceeded by what the Clinton and Bush administrations themselves have done in appeasing the Red Chinese (see "Who Lost China?"). Financial issues aside, Safire, to his credit, does not mince words on the Israel's shame. Only he does it for the sake of the Taiwanese and Israeli Jews, not for our sake American taxpayers or soldiers who may suffer the consequences of Israel's AWACS sale to China: "If the freedom of an island with 22 million souls (Taiwan) is of no concern to Israel, the world will care even less about 6 million Jews getting pushed into the sea. Israeli survival has one dependable guarantor, and the powerful U.S.-Israel alliance is nothing without its moral dimension." Actually, the "6 million Jews" to which Safire refers above (i.e., an approximation of Israel's population), is an exaggeration. According to the CIA 1999 Factbook, about 80% of Israel's 5.4 million citizens (not "6 million"!) are actually Jewish. And only 21% of the Israeli Jews were born in Israel. But, what's a million here, a million there when someone of Safire's stature is trying to make a point. Safire was right, however, to argue, echoing the Pentagon's concerns, that Israel's military cooperation with China "flies directly in the face of United States security interests. When China last threatened Taiwan, President Clinton was forced to put two U.S. aircraft carriers into the strait. When that happens again, American forces will be directly threatened by Chinese air, naval and missile forces emboldened by Israel's Phalcon battle management." Which is why Americans who no longer wish to be the doormats and bankrollers of the criminal, anti-Christian, New World Order should "just say no" to such travesties. And "just say yes" to candidates, such as Pat Buchanan, who want to help us to win our country back. Presidents like that may see to it that ALL war criminals, including the NWO leaders, get free transportation - to our own, not United Nations', jails. And that any American "allies" who act against the U.S. interests are punished, rather than rewarded, for their treachery. [END] Zundelsite Comment: With so many changes happening - such as the panicky flight of Jews getting the hell out of Argentina in the wake of the economy collapse - even staunch "pro-Israeli flak" mouth pieces like Safire are realizing which side their bread is buttered on and are discovering some patriotic stirrings for the USA, a country that has been kinder and more generous and tolerant to their native-born Jews than any other country in the world. That someone like Safire would take a few pot shots at Israel is remarkable criticism from quarters - criticism we haven't seen all that often before! Stand by! There's surely more to come! ===== Thought for the Day: "Neo-conservatives are just rabbis without yarmulkes." (Michael Hoffman II) From irimland@zundelsite.org Mon Dec 31 05:00:38 2001 From: irimland@zundelsite.org (irimland@zundelsite.org) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 21:00:38 -0800 Subject: ZGram - 12/30/2001 - "An overdue Revisionist Update" Message-ID: Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny December 30, 2001 Good Morning from the Zundelsite: While we in North America and Europe are still largely preoccupied with the events and aftermath of 9-11, in other parts of the world revisionism keeps fermenting, especially in the Moslem world and Russia. There, students and faculty members at various universities, along with journalists, intellectuals and political think tanks, are dealing with revisionist topics in an ever more relevant manner. Professor Norman Finkelstein, who recently lost his job at Hunter College for offending the world's Holocaust orthodoxy with his strident booklet, "The Holocaust Industry" - a huge bestselling hit in Europe! - was recently invited to address students and faculty members at Beirut University about the political exploitation of the "Holocaust". Now you must know that Finkelstein - while speaking sharply and very much to the point regarding the Holocaust Extortion Racket - is still a bit squeamish when it comes to the "gassing" topic, the staple of decades of painstaking Revisionist Holocaust Debunking. Therefore, Professor Finkelstein apparently misspoke himself a bit, according to some of our more eagle-eyed Revisionist compatriots - and called us, collectively, "crackpots". Oy vey! A tempest in a revisionist teapot resulted! The outcome was this: With the help of Dr. Faurisson of France, Dr. Ibrahim Alloush, an American-trained and educated Palestinian, responded to Finkelstein's slur with a spirited lecture of his own, described below in detail. We can be sure that the Yammering Agony Aunties are viewing the Alloush counterblast with alarm. The Wiesenthalers and the ADL/Foxman crowd must be going ballistic once again in their Tolerance Caves! Revisionists the world over salute Dr. Ibrahim Alloush for his initiative and courage. How does that proverb go that states that "...a thousand might be hacking at the branches who won't achieve as much as the one who puts the axe to the tap root"? Here is the Alloush write-up, prefaced by a Revisionist cyber scout from Canada: "Professor Faurisson is right when he says two specters threaten Zionist might: The so-called 'sacred terrorism' of the Muslim martyr who enacts his suicide bombing in an Israeli civilian setting, and the unblinking scholars who introduce Revisionist scholarship to a receptive Muslim and Arab world." >From Lebanon, on December 20, Dr. Alloush's e-mail on his lecture: Please feel free to distribute this post widely =============================================== Dear Friends, Under the sponsorship of Al Saha Cultural Club in Beirut and Samah Idris of Al Adab Bi-monthly Magazine, a lecture took place on Thursday, December 20, 2001, at 7 PM in Beirut, Lebanon, to tackle the issue of the "Holocaust" and to provide a counter view to Finkelstein's approach to the subject, in the aftermath of the latter's recent visit to Beirut. The lecture was delivered by Ibrahim Alloush and it dealt with the following topics: 1) what the "Holocaust" and the myth of the gas chambers is. The "Holocaust" has three pillars: a) the argument that there was a Nazi policy to exterminate Jews in WWII. In fact, the Nazi policy was to deport Jews from Germany, an objective shared with the Zionist movement. b) the argument that five or six million Jews died as a result of this Nazi policy. In fact, many Jews died in WWII in concentration camps, but so did many others who are non-Jews. These deaths occurred as a result of starvation and disease. c) the argument that the Jews who died in WWII were exterminated in gas chambers. In fact, [homicidal] gas chambers never existed, and no one was able to prove their existence. Revisionist historians on the other hand have done a lot of work proving that there was no such thing as [homicidal] gas chambers. The response was their persecution, not their refutation. 2) what the political uses of the "Holocaust" are. The arguments above lead to the conclusions that: a) the Jews need a safe haven, or a homeland of their own, from which they can be safe from the 'anti-Semitism' of this world. This leads to the moral necessity of "Israel's" existence. b) the uniqueness of the "Holocaust" in human history, which leads to the justification of Zionist policies and violations of international law, provides the pretext that the uniqueness of Jewish suffering should allow them some leeway with international law and double standards. c) the world is morally responsible for the "Holocaust" and needs to compensate for that by paying money and giving unlimited support to the Zionist movement. 3) why we cannot separate the "Holocaust" from its political uses. Each element of the "Holocaust" above has a specific political application. Accepting the "Holocaust" while rejecting its political applications is like accepting the tree while rejecting its fruit. For example, Finkelstein had to deny the uniqueness of the "Holocaust" in human history to be able to reject Zionist policies, practices, and double standards. But because he did not reject the other aspects of the "Holocaust", like the gas chambers and the alleged policy of Nazi extermination of Jews in WWII, he did not reject Zionist settlement in Palestine, or the concept of a safe haven. Technically, that is equivalent to saying that one accepts "Israel" but not its practices. But is it possible for "Israel" to exist without its practices?! 4) what is lacking in Finkelstein's approach and why tackling one element only of the "Holocaust" myth is not enough. Finkelstein is allowed a luxury gentiles (non-Jews) are not. He can criticize certain aspects of the "Holocaust" without being accused of 'anti-semitism'. The U.S. government did not interfere to prevent him from speaking in Beirut like it did in the case of Revisionist Historians. Logically, Finkelstein's approach is faulty. The argument of the uniqueness of the "Holocaust" is derived from the three elements mentioned above. Indeed, if there had been a Nazi extermination policy against Jews that killed millions of them in gas chambers, that would have been unprecedented in human history, and thus unique. So Finkelstein rejects the uniqueness argument, the exaggeration of the figures of alleged "Holocaust" victims, and SOME of the political uses of the "Holocaust". But the uniqueness argument derives from the three elements of the "Holocaust", and one cannot reject the uniqueness argument without rejecting the other three elements. Definitely, Finkelstein has condemned revisionist historians as cranks and crackpots. Hence, he has rejected the mere discussion of the other elements of the "Holocaust". He has taken steps towards rejecting certain political uses of the "Holocaust", and has gotten in trouble for tackling such a taboo subject, but not on sound basis. His is a reformist criticism of the "Holocaust" at best, which leaves the basis of the myth untouched. 5) why the U.S. government and ruling elites in the West need the "Holocaust" to justify their colonial policies in the Arab World. In fact, the "Holocaust" is necessary not only for the Zionist movement, but Western governments and ruling elites as well. These elites need the "Holocaust" to justify their neo-colonial policies and their unlimited support for "Israel" before their peoples. In that sense, the "Holocaust" is a political weapon in the hands of imperialism, not just the Zionist movement. In this context, the works of Arthur Butz, Germar Rudolf, and others were pointed out. In fact, on the subject of the gas chambers, whole paragraphs were read out in Arabic from the section dealing with that topic in Dr. Faurisson's paper that was to be presented in the cancelled Beirut conference. The issue of why Finkelstein was allowed to speak in Beirut whereas Faurisson and other revisionists were not was also brought up. Finally, the standing challenge from Dr. Faurisson to prove that any of his conclusions were incorrect was delivered to the audience. Following the lecture there was extensive debate as some members of the audience seemed to have imbibed totally some of the myths of the "Holocaust" from Dr. Finkelstein during his trip to Beirut. Some of the audience was concerned that Finkelstein was being attacked unjustly by the lecturer as he was fired from his job, subjected to attacks from the Zionist lobby, and was almost prevented from speaking at the American University of Beirut [eventually he was allowed to speak, but not in a public lecture, but only to students and faculty]. Furthermore, many pointed out that the fact that they listened to Finkelstein doesn't mean that they agree with everything he says. However, that doesn't mean we have to accuse him of objectively serving the interests of the Zionist camp by supporting the myth of the "Holocaust" as the lecturer claimed, according to some members in the audience. Most of the audience, in fact, kept an open mind on the issue of the gas chambers [that is, they seemed to accept the position of revisionist historians on the matter], but remained sympathetic to Finkelstein [since Arab activists generally have a soft spot for anyone who is targeted by the Zionist lobby, even if they are not one hundred percent]. Finally, some of them insisted that they were told by Finkelstein that he does NOT know if the gas chambers are real or not, but that he focuses on the political uses of the "Holocaust" only. Some suggested a debate between Finkelstein and lecturer, to which lecturer responded that he would gladly do it but that it would be better to prove his case (about the double standard applied to revisionists but not others) if there was a debate as well IN BEIRUT between Finkelstein and one well-known revisionist from Europe or North America like Robert Faurisson or Mark Weber. The lecturer added that it would be interesting to see if Finkelstein is willing to discuss the matter with revisionists in the open, since they have displayed a great willingness to have the results of their research debated publicly . [END] ===== Thought for the Day: "The humblest citizen of all the land, when clad in the armour of righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of Error." (William Jennings Bryan)