Toronto, Ontario

‑‑- Upon resuming on Monday, May 25, 1998

    at 10:15 a.m.

RESUMED:  FREDERICK SCHWEITZER

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good morning everyone.

         With respect to the matters that were argued last day, I have asked the Clerk to hand out copies of the Reasons for Judgment of the Tribunal which I will summarize as follows.

         MR. FREIMAN:  Mr. Chairman, should the witness be present during these Reasons?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I don't see any reason why he cannot be present.

         It is the finding of this Tribunal that truth is not an issue before us.  Parliament has spoken.  The use of telephone messages for purposes prohibited by section 13 of the Act cannot be justified by asserting that such messages are truthful.  The sole issue is whether such communications are likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.

         Accordingly, cross-examination directed to the issue of truthfulness of such statements or the calling of evidence in that regard will not be permitted.

         We will continue the cross-examination of Professor Schweitzer.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I have some questions arising out of that.

         First of all, having not received this ruling until just this moment, it will require some consideration of our cross-examination.  For some reason or other you did not address the issue that I raised in my submissions on the last occasion as to whether the facts of the exposure might be based on something other than the identity of the person based on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Christie, allow me to interrupt you.  I think, in fairness, the copy of the Reasons should be given to you for examination.  I think the issues you have raised are addressed in the Reasons.  Rather than take time to read them, I thought we would hand them out.  Perhaps we should recess to allow you reasonable time to examine the Reasons.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  It may take the rest of the day to consider them.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am not sure that that is the case.  We will recess for 15 minutes.

‑‑- Short Recess at 10:20 a.m.

‑‑- Upon resuming at 10:43 a.m.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Christie, please.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  In the time I have had to consider your Reasons, it is clear that you have not addressed the central issue that I raised of this witness' own testimony.  You ignored that completely for some reason.

         The witness' own testimony was, as you well know, that truth was a factor in the determination of antisemitism.  You mentioned not a word about that. 

         Consequently, I don't know that you have necessarily precluded the issue from being raised with this witness on the issue of what is or is not antisemitism.  If you wish to make that ruling now, it would help to clarify my position with regard to further cross-examination.  I would like to have you do that, if you would.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Freiman, please.

         MR. FREIMAN:  Professor Schweitzer was asked about whether antisemitism ‑‑

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Professor Schweitzer should not be told in his presence what he is supposed to have said.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Would the witness step outside, please.

‑‑- Witness Withdraws

         MR. FREIMAN:  Professor Schweitzer was asked whether antisemitism was true, and he said that, no, it wasn't true.  Mr. Christie then spent the next 20 minutes trying to move to the other side.  In other words, since antisemitism is false, is it possible that something that is true could be antisemitic?  Over the course of the next 20 minutes they debated it, and in the final analysis Professor Schweitzer did say that, if it is antisemitic, it is not true.

         He then went on later to explain that antisemitism, historically, always has a grain of truth and is built on truth.  Therefore, the whole concept of truth is problematic.

         Whatever one makes of it, at the highest it addresses Professor Schweitzer's academic definition of what is antisemitism.  It is not the standard in section 13(1) of the Act.  Section 13(1) of the Act does not require a demonstration of truth.  Therefore, there is no relevance to the determination of truth, and you did deal exactly with the issue.

         The fact that in Professor Schweitzer's view, as in the view of any right-thinking individual, it is inconceivable to link the concept of antisemitism and, in fact, statements likely to arouse hatred and contempt with ultimate truth is irrelevant.  Therefore, there is no room for questions tending to establish the truth of the antisemitic statements, and they don't help you at all.  At most, they ask the question in terms of Professor Schweitzer's own higher standard, which is a different standard from that in the Act.

         In fact, all Professor Schweitzer said was that he does not accept that antisemitism is true.  That is not the same thing as saying that, if it is true, it is not antisemitic.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Mr. Freiman should not, unless he has the transcript, give you the evidence, unless he is testifying.  Since he claims to have the ability to do so, I should have the right to reply and tell you that our notes indicate that at one point he said, "To tell the truth could never be antisemitism."  He was asked if truth can ever be antisemitic, and he said that truth is truth and he thinks not, that Jews have no fear of the truth.

         Those were statements he made.  We tried to get the transcript.  It is clear that those statements relate to his evidence.  Whether my learned friend likes them or not, they are his witness' evidence.  That evidence is relevant to determine whether the statements are or are not antisemitic.

         The witness was not called to give evidence as to whether they were likely to expose Jews to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact of their identity.  That was not his reason for testifying.  If the reason for testifying was to identify antisemitism, lethal or otherwise, then what he says about that is the evidence, not what my friend says about it or what he would like to say about it. 

         The right to cross-examine should at least relate to the evidence as it stands and as it was stated by the witness, not as the Commission would like to use it.  That is not the criterion of cross-examination.  If the evidence was relevant at all, then the test of antisemitism that he established and the exclusion of the truth from that category should be open to consideration and questioned by the opposing side.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I don't propose to reopen the whole issue that was fully argued last day.  The Tribunal has made its ruling, and I am going to have the witness recalled and ask you to continue your cross-examination.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  As I indicated to the Clerk, in view of your ruling which was given to us this morning, we have to consider the relationship of our questions in the future to these rulings.  This will take some time because we had developed a course of cross-examination.  I need the day to consider your ruling.  I need your ruling on that, and I need the time to consider it.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  The ruling of the Tribunal is that the cross-examination will continue now.

         The prospect of what would happen at this point was open to all counsel, and there was one of two alternatives.  Either your argument, Mr. Christie, could have been acceded to by the Tribunal or refused.  There were only two alternatives in that regard.  You might have expected that this ruling would go either in your favour or against you. 

         It has gone against you, and I think you should proceed with your cross-examination.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Mr. Fromm has advised me that he won't be able to be here tomorrow, for other reasons.  He asked if it would be possible for him to ask certain questions, and I have no objection.  It will give me a chance to clear my position.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Let me be clear that the Tribunal wishes this matter to proceed with all deliberate speed.  We are celebrating, if that is the proper term, the first anniversary of the commencement of this Hearing.  I think there is a reasonable expectation that we can complete the evidence perhaps before the end of June.  If we have to sit longer hours, then we will do that, too.

         I am going to recall the witness and ask Mr. Christie to continue his cross-examination.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Are you ruling that Mr. Fromm may not cross-examine?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I didn't say that he may not cross-examine.  He would have to be here and available to do so.  Perhaps he would like to speak to that himself.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I am certainly willing to allow him to take his position this morning, and I think he should have that right.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I don't think that is fair to either the witness or the proceeding.  Mr. Fromm, do you have anything to say?

         MR. FROMM:  Mr. Chairman, I have an unavoidable conflict tomorrow and would appreciate being able to ask a few questions of the witness, if I may, today.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  How much time do you anticipate you might need?

         MR. FROMM:  I would think about half an hour.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  We will try to accommodate that today.  In the meantime, Mr. Christie will continue.

         Call the witness, please.

‑‑- Witness returns to the stand

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You remain under oath, Professor Schweitzer.

         THE WITNESS:  I understand, sir.

CROSS-EXAMINATION, Continued

         MR. CHRISTIE:

         Q.   When you assess the subject of antisemitism, do you consider truth as part of the social context?

         A.   I don't understand the question.

         MR. FREIMAN:  Maybe the witness could be excused.

‑‑- Witness Withdraws

         MR. FREIMAN:  We have a ruling.  Mr. Christie has attempted to extend that ruling to an objection relating to a response that Professor Schweitzer gave.  That was rejected.  The very first question out of Mr. Christie's mouth re-introduces exactly the same question for the patent reason of attempting somehow to get back at that issue of truth so that he can continue to do that which the Panel has said he cannot do.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Where are you going with this, Mr. Christie?

         MR. CHRISTIE:  In your seven-page ruling, on page 6 you say:  "Rather it is the social context in which the message is delivered or heard which will determine the effect the communication will have on the listener."  So I asked the witness whether truth is part of the social context in his assessment of antisemitism, to determine whether the truth plays any role in the social context.

         I hear the authority on social context, but I am not sure about your authority on how he assesses antisemitism.  If it is your judgment that social context is relevant, then why would it not be relevant to ask him if truth is part of the social context in his view as an expert on antisemitism? 

         We might like to exclude truth from the entire proceedings, it would seem from the objection and from your position taken.  Surely, if the witness is under oath to tell the truth, it would seem relevant to ask him whether he considers truth part of the social context.

         MEMBER DEVINS:  Mr. Christie, I wonder if you can assist us with your argument in terms of the rest of the ruling which goes on to talk about truth or absolute truth ultimately not being what is important in terms of subjective interpretation, but rather by virtue of the tone, the context and the medium, not the truth per se.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  If you are telling this party that truth has no part in the assessment of social context, just say so.  You are asking me to tell you what effect your ruling has; I am asking you to tell me.

         MEMBER DEVINS:  I am asking you to assist us with your argument so that we can fully understand.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I told you.  If you can't understand the argument, then I can do no better.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You can sit down now.  Mr. Freiman, please.

         MR. FREIMAN:  Among other things, Professor Schweitzer didn't testify as to social context.  It is not his role to testify to that.  The Tribunal's ruling says that that is a matter for the Tribunal to assess, based on its own perception and based perhaps on the evidence of a semanticist such as Professor Prideaux who has testified on this.

         Professor Schweitzer is not an expert on semantics and is not an expert on social context.  All Mr. Christie is doing is asking the same question as the Tribunal has said he can't ask, namely, the import of truth for this witness so that he can get into the truth of all the antisemitic statements on the Zundelsite.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  My learned friend should not attempt to assume what I have intended to do.  I asked him a specific question.  There is no intention to get into the truth of all these supposedly antisemitic statements on the Zundelsite, but the issue of social context is very much a live issue.  If the issue of social context is a live issue, whether it is relevant to tone or to pitch or to frequency of modulation or whether it is relevant to a variety of other subjective aspects, it might have a part to play in the social context, which I find it difficult to believe that you could have resolved already. 

         That you could have decided that truth has no place in the social context would seem to me somewhat prejudicial, even though you take the position that all the subjective elements that you have told us in your Reasons are the basis for assessment of whether a statement constitutes exposure to hatred or contempt.  Surely you cannot have already decided that truth has no part in social context.  After all, if the truth is told in a nice, pleasant tone and then we can assess the issue of tone, whether it incites calumny or vilification could be determined on the basis of whether the statement is factual or not.

         You seem to imply by your question, and my friend Mr. Freiman strongly urges you by his argument, to regard the determination of whether or not the offence is committed is an entirely subjective one.  Affronts to dignity, if that is to be the criterion, surely must have some relationship to truth, even in our society where truth seems to play less and less a part. 

         If social context is relevant, as you have ruled it is, then why would you think, in advance of hearing the evidence and before any opportunity to argue has ever happened, that social context excludes any consideration of truth?  I haven't heard you to rule that, and your question seems to imply that.

         I would really appreciate that ruling so that we could at least have a court decide whether that is accurate or not.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Do other counsel have any submissions?  Mr. Kurz, please.

         MR. KURZ:  Very briefly, Mr. Chair.

         This is Mr. Christie's second attempt to, in effect, get the Tribunal to overrule its own written decision.  The term "social context" is not Professor Schweitzer's term.  As Mr. Freiman said, Professor Schweitzer is not an expert on social context.  Social context is a term that you used in your ruling, and it has nothing to do with his evidence and it is improper to ask him that question.

         The first line of attack was to get through the back door by using Professor Schweitzer's comments about truth, and you have ruled on that.  Now there is an attempt to get through another back door in terms of the social context.  That should be rejected, in my respectful submission.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I would like to reply to that.  In your ruling you said that it is not the truth or falsity, per se, that will evoke the emotion but, rather, how it is understood by the recipient.  The words "per se" imply that, although it is not so per se, it could still be true ‑‑ and I hope you haven't decided that truth or falsity have no effect on social context, that, although it might not per se evoke such an emotion, it might.

         You go on to say:  "The statements ultimately have no consequence if the objective interpretation by virtue of tone, social context and medium is one which arouses unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification."

         If one of the elements in the determination of the subjective interpretation is social context as well as tone and medium, then surely you must accept the proposition that truth may be a factor in the determination of the whole social context.  If we are to have any access to debate upon matters of race, religion or ethnic origin or any discussions about them which might arouse strong emotions, then the issue of truth should be a factor in the determination of the whole social context.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  We will recess for five minutes.

‑‑- Short Recess at 11:00 a.m.

‑‑- Upon resuming at 11:09 a.m.

         MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE:  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the audience, I spoke to other people, and they cannot hear what is being said.  We came here under the assumption that this is a public hearing.  What good is it if the public cannot hear what is being said?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Can you move your chairs up closer?  Anyone who is having difficulty hearing, please stand up.

         All I can suggest is that you move your chairs up closer around this side of the room and see if that doesn't help.  Then we will ask counsel to speak a little more loudly.  This is definitely a public hearing, and we want everyone to be aware of what is happening.

         Mr. Christie, our ruling, I think, is clear.  In any event, that is the basis under which you will conduct your cross-examination from here.  The line of questioning which you propose to follow is in defiance of that ruling, so I am asking that you continue on another line.

         Please bring the witness in.

‑‑- Witness returns to the stand  

         MR. CHRISTIE:

         Q.   I would like to ask you about some historical writings that I would like your view on as to whether they are reliable and careful and whether you regard them as writings of a historical nature upon which a competent historian would rely.

         Are you familiar Arthur Koestler's book "The Thirteenth Tribe"?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Do you regard him as a reliable, authoritative source?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Why not?

         A.   He is not a historian.  That is a subject of medieval history, and he doesn't know the languages involved.  I don't remember precisely, but he tends toward racist conclusions.  I remember particularly a sort of cartoon which shows a Jewish nose and something of that sort.  A much better book is D.M. Dunlop.

         Q.   Arthur Koestler is a racist and not familiar with the languages?  Is that your position?

         A.   There are some elements in that book that give me some misgivings.  It is some time since I read it.

         Q.   Is he a Jewish author?

         A.   I don't particularly know.  I don't judge works of history by whether they are or not. He may be; he may not.

         Q.   What are the languages in question that you say, as a mediaeval historian, he would have to be familiar with?

         A.   You have to know the Latin.  You need to know the Ural-Altaian languages or the particular branch of the Ural-Altaian language that these people belong to.  It is comparable to Magyar?

         Q.   What people are we talking about?

         A.   The Huzzars.

         Q.   Are you familiar with those languages?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   So, in order to be a credible historian on that subject, you have to be familiar with those languages and you are not.

         A.   I can judge that book in the context of my understanding of mediaeval Jewish history and mediaeval history.  I would not review such a book in the American Historical Review because I would not be competent.  I would have to be a specialist in the area and know the primary and secondary sources and, of course, know the languages. and I do not know that.

         Q.   So to assess whether Arthur Koestler was a competent historian in this area, you would have to know those things which you do not know.

         A.   No, I don't say that.  Reading that book makes me skeptical as to the conclusions that he reaches.

         Q.   You have read the book?

         A.   I said I read it.  I said I read it some time ago, probably 10 or 12 years ago.

         Q.   Do you know anything about Arthur Koestler?

         A.   "Darkness of Noon" which I read as an undergraduate.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I hesitate to rise, but this is such a waste of time.  The only purpose for the accreditation was to determine whether the witness considered Mr. Koestler to be a reliable historian, and the answer was "no."  Mr. Christie has to take that answer and proceed.  To now debate about Mr. Koestler's qualifications gets us nowhere except to waste more time.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  To test the credibility of this witness' opinion, one should be entitled to ask questions as to the basis of them, and that is what I have done.

         MR. FREIMAN:  He is not giving opinion evidence about Dr. Koestler.  The analogy is that we could ask Professor Schweitzer any question at all under the sun and then to embark on a poignant cross-examination on the basis of that. 

         This is not part of his testimony.  The only purpose for asking the question was to see whether Professor Schweitzer has knowledge and credibility so that further questions could be asked based on texts.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  This line comes to an end rather quickly once the witness says either, "I don't know the work" or "I know the work, but I don't accept it as authoritative." 

         I suppose, Mr. Christie, you have a limited right of cross-examination on whether he should know the author and his opinion as to whether he is a credible writer.  I will allow you to continue, with that caution, along that line.

         MR. CHRISTIE:

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book "The Third Reich and the Palestine Question" by Francis R. Nicosia, published by the University of Texas Press in 1985?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with that writer?

         A.   No, I am not.  What is the name?

         A.   Francis R. Nicosia.

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "The American Jews: Portrait of a Split Personality" by James Yaffe, published by Random House in 1968?

         A.   I know of the book.  I have never had it in hand.  I have never read it.  I couldn't offer any judgment on it.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book called "West German Reparations to Israel" by Nicholas Balabkins, published by Rutgers University Press in 1971?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "A Certain People:  American Jews and Their Lives Today" by Charles E. Silberman, published by Summit Books in 1985?

         A.   No, I am not.  I know that name vaguely, Charles Silberman.

         Q.   Is he a historian?

         A.   No.  If he is the one I know, he is at Lehigh University and he is in Jewish Studies, though not history; perhaps literature; perhaps theology or theological thought, religious thought.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "Our Man in Damascus: Elie Cohn"? by Eli Ben-Hanan?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   You have never read that book?

         A.   No, I have not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "By Way of Deception" by Claire Hoy & Victor Ostrovsky?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book "An Empire of Their Own" by Neal Gabler, published by Crown Publishers?

         A.   No. I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the word called "Esau's Tears" by Albert S. Lindemann, published by Cambridge University Press in 1997?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with who Albert S. Lindemann is?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book "An Eye for an Eye" by John Sack, published by a division of Harper Collins in 1993?

         A.   I know of the book because of citations in bibliographies and so forth, but that is all.

         Q.   You are not familiar with it?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book called "The Fatal Embrace" by Benjamin Ginsberg, published by University of Chicago Press in 1993?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book called "The Rise and fall of the Jewish Gangster in America" by Albert Fried, published by Holt Rinehart Winston in 1980?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with a book called "A Nation on Trial" by Norman G. Finkelstein and Ruth Bettina Birn, published in 1998?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "The Grandees:  American's Sephardic Elite" by Stephen Birmingham, published by Harper and Row Publishers Inc. in 1971?

         A.   No.  I know his book called "Our Crowd," but I don't know that one.  That is an older work, and I read that 12 or 15 years ago.

         Q.   Is he is a historian of American Jewry?

         A.   Not really.  He is a journalist.  I would put him in a category with Tom Segev rather than a professional historian.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "Greek & Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Volume One: From Herodotus to Plutarch" by Menahem Stern?

         A.   Yes, I have used that as a reference book.

         Q.   Your history of antisemitism, you indicated, began with the story of Little St. Hugh of Lincoln and the Crusades.  Do you acknowledge that authors from Herodotus to Plutarch had comments similar in tone and nature in respect of Jews and Judaism?

         A.   In what specific way?

         Q.   I could get into specifics, but I am asking a general question.  If you are familiar with the work, I take it that you are familiar with the fact that this study of the ancient writers on the subject of Jews and Judaism deals with the remarks made by the ancient writers in Greek and Roman texts from Herodotus to Plutarch.  Is that correct?

         A.   Yes, I am familiar with that.  I have used it as a reference book.  I have never read it through.

         Q.   You say you don't know whether it refers to remarks similar to what you have attributed to the Christian Church in the Middle Ages from the ancient writers?

         A.   Yes.  I know that in Roman antiquity, Christians were accused of ritual cannibalism, probably ‑‑

         Q.   My question relates to Jews and Judaism.

         A.   But that is the origin of that accusation that was later applied to Jews. 

         Q.   Later it was applied to Jews?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   This is before Christian time, sir.  I am not suggesting, and I don't think you are suggesting that the writers from Herodotus to Plutarch are necessarily talking about Christians.

         A.   I deny, however, that the accusations that are made in pre-Christian time about Jews, with the area of ritual murder, is what you come upon with Little St. Hugh of Lincoln.  They are not the same.

         Q.   They are not the same.  Is there an accusation of ritual murder in ancient time, prior to Christian time?

         A.   In a vague way.  It is something that would be picked up by later writers and used ‑‑ I would say "misused" ‑‑ to support the accusation.

         Q.   You want specific references in regard to that.  Is that your position?

         A.   No, I have indicated my perspective.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the writer, Michael Bar-Zohar?

         A.   Say the name again, please.

         Q.   Michael Bar-Zohar.

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with a work called "Israel's Sacred Terrorism" by Livia Rokach?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World" by Peter Schafer, Ranon Katzoff and Shaye J.D. Cohen?

         A.   No.

         Q.   You are not familiar with that?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work of Martin Gilbert, "The Jews of Hope"?

         A.   I know some of the works of Martin Gilbert, but not that one.

         Q.   Do you regard Martin Gilbert as a credible, reliable historian?

         A.   Very much so.

         Q.   Do you consider his work to be credible and reliable?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "The Jewish Dilemma" by Elmer Berger?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "Jewish Identity and the JDL" by Janet L. Dolgin, published by Princeton University Press in 1977?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "Jews and Money:  The Myths and the Reality" by Gerald Krefetz, published in 1982?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "Jewish Power - Inside the American Jewish Establishment" by Johnathan Jeremy Goldberg, published by Addison Wesley in 1996?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work by Judith Ramsey Ehrlich and Barry J. Rehfield, "The New Crowd" published by Harper Collins in 1989?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "The New Israelis" by Yossi Melman, published by Birch Lane Press?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work by David Halberstam, published by Alfred A. Knopff in 1975,  "The Powers That Be"?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   You said you were familiar with the work by Stephen Birmingham called "The Rest of Us".

         A.   No, "Our Crowd."

         Q.   You are not familiar with the work called "The Rest of Us?"

         A.   No.

         Q.   With regard to the subject of Jews and historical antisemitism, are you familiar with the work of Kevin MacDonald from the University of California, published in 1998 by Praeger Publishers, called "Separation and Its Discontents?"

         A.   No.  1998 is a brand new book.

         Q.   Have you read his earlier work called "People Who Shall Grow Apart?" in 1995?

         A.   No, I have not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work by Jean Bauer called "The Self-Chosen: 'Our Crowd' is Dead - Long Live Our Crowd" published by Arbor House Publishing Co. in 1982?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "Every Spy a Prince" by Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman, published by Houghton Mifflin Co. in 1990?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with a work "Special Tasks" by Pavel Sudoplatov and Anatoli Sudoplatov, published by Little, Brown & Company in 1994.

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with Volume 2 of Menahem Stern's "Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism from Tacitus to Simplicius?

         A.   Yes, I have also used it as a reference book.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the study of Jewish influence in American politics called the "The Lobby:  Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy by Edward Tivnan, published by Simon and Schuster in 1987?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with a work called "They Dare to Speak Out" by Paul Findley, published by Lawrence Hill & Co. in 1981?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "They Must Go" by Rabbi Meir Kahane, published by Grosset & Dunlap in 1981?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "The Transfer Agreement" by Edwin Black, published by Macmillan & Co. in 1984?

         A.   I am not sure.  There is a book on the Transfer Agreement that I have used.  I have just dipped into it.  I couldn't speak fairly about its work.

         Q.   So, historically, you are not sure whether it is a credible book or not?

         A.   No.  Who is the publisher?

         Q.   Macmillan Publishing Co., 866 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y., 1984.

         A.   That is my publisher also, so I assume it is a reputable house that publishes reputable books.

         Q.   Are you prepared to credit it as being a reliable and authoritative historical source?

         A.   Yes, at first broach, certainly.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book "The Fateful Triangle:  The United States, Israel & the Palestinians" by Noam Chomsky, published in 1983?

         A.   No.

         Q.   You have never read it?

         A.   No.

         Q.   You have never read it?

         A.   No, I have not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "The Warburgs:  The Story of a Family" by David Farrer, published by Stein and Day in 1994?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with a book called "You Gentiles" by Rabbi Maurice Samuel, publisher unknown?  Are you familiar with that work?

         A.   No.  I know some of the works of Maurice Samuel, but he was no rabbi.  I know it is a common enough name, but this Rabbi Maurice Samuel and the work you mention, no, I do not know.

         Q.   Are you familiar with Alfred Lilienthal?

         A.   Yes, I know the name.

         Q.   Is he a historian?

         A.   No.  He is a government official, to my knowledge.

         Q.   A government official.  Are you familiar with his work "The Zionist Connection - What Price Peace?" published by Dodd, Mead & Co. in New York in 1978?

         A.   I have had it in hand.  It is in our library at Manhattan, but that is the extent of it.

         Q.   Have you read it?

         A.   No, I have not.

         Q.   Has your reading in this subject been very extensive in terms of contrary points of view?

         MR. FREIMAN:  Perhaps Mr. Christie would like to specify what "this subject" is.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  His subject, as I understood his answer ‑‑

         MR. FREIMAN:  "This subject." 

         MR. CHRISTIE:  This subject, yes.  The subject of antisemitism.  I hope that is not too confusing.

         Q.   Do we understand each other?

         A.   What is the question you are asking?

         Q.   Are you familiar with contrary points of view on the subject of antisemitism?

         A.   Yes, I would think so.

         Q.   How much have you read that suggests that antisemitism is a weapon used to silence critics of Israel and Judaism?  How much have you read in that field?

         A.   I have read it in the Zundelsite material and I have read it in some of the material that you gave out last time from Mr. Shahak.

         Q.   And Segev's book, "The Seventh Million?"

         A.   Segev, yes.  However, Segev is ‑‑ there are a lot of points of view.  It is a fairly balanced book, although on the whole I think one of his principal purposes is to argue that the Holocaust has been exploited politically in Israel by Israeli governments, the Begin government in particular.  But he gives a lot of material on the other side, so that one emerges, even with Tom Segev, with a balanced view.  I think, on the whole, he is hopeful about the resolution of this, that the Holocaust will be understood in Israel and taught in Israel the way other subjects in history are, as a point of general history and approached by the same methods of historians, and that it will be not used by the politicians as a political weapon, that there will be less and less scope for that.

         Q.   Have you read any other books that raise those questions and suggest that the Holocaust was exploited than you were shown here?

         A.   Yes, I have a read a book by Dina Porat who is a younger Israeli historian, a much better historian than Tom Segev.  I made the distinction last time to the Panel that I would acknowledge Tom Segev as reliable, but not authoritative.  When Tom Segev quotes something, I am quite sure it is correct.  It is what he does with the quotations.

         When Dina Porat uses some of the same quotations, her interpretations I find more authoritative.

         Also a work by Dahlia Ofir who has written extensively on the historiography of the Holocaust in Israel.  Again, one gets a balanced picture.  The prospect, in her view, is that the Israeli understanding of the Holocaust will undergo a normalization and will not be susceptible to political use and misuse by politicians and parties in their rhetoric and in their policymaking, whether of the left or the right.

         Q.   Is it true to say that Nahum Goldmann was an important person who promoted and established the State of Israel?

         A.   Yes, I would think so.

         Q.   Do you consider him an authoritative source at all?

         A.   In the sense of an autobiography or some account of that kind which would be not so much a historical monograph but a personal account reflecting his role, his experience, his views, and so forth, but not an authoritative work.

         Q.   So it would be accurate if it was autobiographical?

         A.   I would approach it with the confidence that it is reliable.  My skepticism would not be laid aside.

         Q.   Would you agree with Segev's opinion that Goldmann was a tireless dissembler, exploiting his image as one of the Elders of Zion sometimes to the point of making threats and bordering on extortion?

         A.   That seems like hyperbole to me.  I would have to see what Tom Segev precisely is talking about.  That Goldmann had an ego I am sure.

         Q.   If you need to see what Tom Segev is talking about, let's deal with that.

         MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE:  Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the witness could speak into the microphone so that we can understand what he is saying.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I wonder whether the audience could be reminded that their role is to sit here and to listen, not to attempt to put on a show.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  If they can't listen, I think they should tell us.  This is supposedly a public hearing.  If they want to hear, they can hear.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Witness, would you try to raise your voice a bit and speak closer to the microphone.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I also suggest that, if members of the audience have a problem, the proper way of dealing with it is to talk to the Clerk, and she can take care of that as a logistical matter, rather than interrupting the procedure and addressing the Chairman.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I don't agree.  I think, with all due respect, if they waited to talk to the Clerk, they might not hear very much until the next break.  I would like to suggest that, if this is in theory and practice an open, public hearing, if they can't hear, they should say so.  They shouldn't be afraid to do anything like that.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Continue with your questions, please, and will the witness and you, Mr. Christie, as well raise your voice a bit, please.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Certainly.

         Q.   At page 229, going over to 230 ‑‑ you wanted to know the context in which he said this.  In the bottom paragraph:*

"The reparations and compensation agreements ‑‑"

Have you found that, sir?

         A.   Yes, I have it.

         Q.   "‑‑ with Germany were largely the fruit

of Goldmann's ability to impress Konrad Adenauer.  The German chancellor respected him, used him, suspected him ‑‑ and feared him as well.  He seems to have believed that Goldmann had as much influence on the American government and on American public opinion as he pretended to have.  Adenauer's memoirs, written fifteen years after the fact, mention their first meeting.  Adenauer said that Goldmann had brought with him Israel's ambassador to London, but had introduced him under an assumed name to conceal Israel's willingness to speak with him directly.  He was incorrect: the man who accompanied Goldmann was Noah Baru of the World Jewish Congress, who had helped correct the draft of Adenauer's declaration to the Bundestag.  The fact that, after so many years and after the innumerable meetings he had since held with Goldmann, the German chancellor still believed that the Jewish leader had tried to mislead him says something about the relations between them. The fact that, after so many years and after the innumerable meetings he had since held with Goldmann, the German Chancellor still believed that the Jewish leader had tried to mislead him said something about the relations between them.

  In another context,  Adenauer noted in his memoirs that he knew better than to underestimate the ability of 'Jewish banking circles' to bring his country harm.  Goldmann, a tireless dissembler, exploited his image as one of 'the elders of Zion,' sometimes to the point of making threats bordering on extortion.  A file in his archives contains information on the Nazi backgrounds of key members of Adenauer's government.  Some in Bonn believed that Goldmann had the power to destroy them unless they could ensure his silence about their pasts.  He was much helped by Hans Globke, one of the chancellor's close advisers and formerly a high official in the Nazi interior ministry, where he had been an expert on the Nuremberg laws."

         In that context, do you agree that Goldmann was a tireless dissembler and exploited his image as one of the Elders of Zion sometimes to the point of making threats bordering on extortion?

         MR. FREIMAN:  Before the witness answers, may he be excused?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.

‑‑- Witness Withdraws

         MR. FREIMAN:  To be fair to Mr. Christie, I guess he should be given the opportunity to indicate why this is anything but an attempt to get around the Tribunal's ruling.  This passage was, first of all, already cited last time.  The witness was questioned on it.  The purpose of the questioning at the time appeared to me to be improper ‑‑ that is, to be tending toward establishing the theoretical truth of the matters complained about on the Zundelsite.  We let it pass until, shortly after this one, Mr. Christie went one step farther.

         Now he is coming back to it, and I can't see any reason whatsoever that this would be relevant other than to try to establish the underlying truth of certain statements on the Zundelsite.  If I am wrong, I will be glad to reconsider it, but it seems clear that that is where we are going.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Earle, please.

         MR. EARLE:  I just want to note, Mr. Chair

‑‑ and Mr. Freiman has already made the point ‑‑ that, according to my notes, the exact question was asked on May 15.  I believe this is the second time now that that passage has been read into the record.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  The objection to which the ruling gave an answer, the interim decision of today, was in relation to a question as to the truth or falsity of contents of the material analyzed by the witness.  It was not directed to the question of whether historically the opinion of this author on the nature of antisemitism can be tested with other sources which he regards as credible and reliable, which tends to show that such remarks are not antisemitic.

         We are not, as far as I know, told that truth is totally irrelevant for testing the credibility of the witness or that other historical sources that point to the same aspects of historical writing are necessarily of no value.  He could accept the truth of the statement or he could say that it is acceptable historical opinion.  If he does and then he says it is not antisemitic, then it goes to the weight of his opinion that similar statements or similar opinions are antisemitic if expressed by Mr. Zundel or expressed by someone alleged to be Mr. Zundel.

         I suppose what it amounts to is that it is difficult to take the view ‑‑ at least, we don't take the view ‑‑ that your ruling necessarily excludes all historical analysis that contradicts the witness on the issues that he has expressed.  It should not be taken either that it is irrelevant that other historians take views that might be supportive of the opinions expressed on the Zundelsite.  It is not to prove their truth, but to prove that in the social context of our time, with the historical knowledge of which we are now possessed, these opinions are not considered to be antisemitic. 

         We have not got to the point of deciding if that opinion is antisemitic; we have not been allowed to ask that question.  I did ask him if he considers that statement true.

         If he considers that statement true in the historical sense or reliable or accurate, it may be of value to determine whether or not it relates to the other evidence in the case, but that is a matter of argument.

         If it is your intention to banish the question of truth from these entire proceedings by extending your ruling farther and farther so that we may not ask any questions on the effect of truth in matters of history, then I would question how we are entitled to cross-examine this witness at all.  He makes all sorts of broad assertions about history.  He tells you what the truth in history is but, if we bring up evidence of other historians that he even regards as credible, who do not agree with him, we are not allowed to put that to him?  This becomes ridiculous.

         In my submission, my learned friends' objections are, as they have been so many times before, basically obstruction by objection so that we do not get to the point that we are allowed to pursue cross-examination and we cannot explore the relevant issues that should be explored on how credible this historian is and whether other historians have points of view that differ from his. 

         We are not, after all, required to believe that this is the only historian in the world who has any elements of credibility to his opinion.  I would like the opportunity to pursue that question with this witness.

         Thank you very much.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Reply.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I will try to make myself heard without making myself obnoxious.

         MR. FREIMAN:  That won't be easy.

         MR. FREIMAN:  Nothing in Professor Schweitzer's evidence goes to Nahum Goldmann's views.  Nothing goes to Konrad Adenauer's views of Nahum Goldmann.  Nothing goes to the identity of people who were with Nahum Goldmann and Konrad Adenauer while they spoke with each other.  Nothing in his testimony relates to any of the subject matters upon which Mr. Christie is attempting to cross-examine.

         If you listen carefully to what he is saying, he tries carefully not to say it overtly.  What he wants to do is to establish the truth of these propositions and then to juxtapose them with what is stated on the Zundelsite.  On the Zundelsite there is lots of stuff about Nahum Goldmann; there is lots of stuff about dissemblers; there is lots of stuff about Jews being exploited.

         It is totally within the scope of your ruling, and Mr. Christie doesn't have a chance to get up four times and talk.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  If a new issue is raised and an objection is raised in a different way, why shouldn't I be able to ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Are you asking leave to make different submissions?

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I heard a different form of objection from the first time, and I would like the opportunity to reply to it.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  What part do you want to reply to?

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Whether this has anything to do with the case.  History has to do with the case.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  It seems to me that there has been full argument on this matter.  Please sit down.

         This witness has been called as an expert in antisemitism.  He has given his opinion with respect to various motifs related to antisemitism.  An appropriate line of questioning of this witness is in relation to those opinions.  For example, the proposition and the statement put to the witness can form the basis of cross-examining this witness on the basis of whether he believes the statement to be antisemitic or not, and not beyond that in relation to issues that have a bearing on the truth or falsity of a historical fact.

         Recall the witness.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I also note that that very question was asked of this witness.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I am not clear on the ruling.  Do you mean I can't ask a question ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You can cross-examine the witness as to whether it is antisemitic or not.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  But I can't ask him whether it is true or not, in his view.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  No.

‑‑- Witness returns to the stand

         MR. CHRISTIE:

         Q.   Having read it in context, do you consider this statement that Goldmann, a tireless dissembler, exploited his image as one of the Elders of Zion sometimes to the point of making threats bordering on extortion ‑‑ is that antisemitic?

         A.   Ho, I wouldn't think so.  He is saying that Goldmann is wily.  He is using the diplomat's arts to attain his aims.

         Q.   Why isn't it antisemitic to call Goldmann a tireless dissembler?

         A.   Because he is not attacking Goldmann because he is a Jew; he is attacking Goldmann because he does things that don't measure up to ordinary standards of human behaviour.  I don't think I can put any other construction on that.  He is using whatever comes to hand in these negotiations.

         Q.   The reference to the Elders of Zion, I thought you made very clear, was a reference to a very antisemitic tract.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Do you take the view, then, that to use antisemitism or the fear of Semites arising out of The Protocols of Zion and manipulatively  using it to extract concessions is not antisemitic?

         A.   I don't know why the "elders of Zion" appears there in quotation marks.  It is not clear that Goldmann said, "I am one of the Elders of Zion.  Beware!" and so forth.  That doesn't come across at all.

         Whose use of this phrase?  Is this a quotation from Goldmann or is it Tom Segev's interlineation?  You really can't tell.

         Q.   It is clear that Segev is saying that Goldmann was a tireless dissembler ‑‑ which is what?  A liar?

         A.   Prevaricator, manipulator.

         Q.   What is the difference between a liar and a prevaricator?  In simple English, it's liar, isn't it?

         A.   Dissembler is a  nicer word.

         Q.   Does it mean the same thing as liar?

         A.   Essentially.

         Q.   "Exploited his image as one of the elders of Zion."  Surely that is a reference to the famous antisemitic tract, isn't it?

         A.   Yes, it is, but I don't know what the significance of that phrase being there is.  Goldmann, as far as I know, can be humorous:  "Watch out, Mr. Chancellor.  I am one of the elders of Zion."  I don't know what that means.  It could mean anything or nothing.

         Q.   The next part of the sentence tells you what it means, that he exploited it to the point of making threats bordering on extortion.  In the context, sir, it says that a file in his archives contains information on the Nazi backgrounds of key members of Adenauer's government.  "His archives" are Goldmann's archives.  Right?

         A.   Correct.

         Q.   It is quite clear, isn't it, from the context that what Goldmann was doing was exploiting the image of the omnipotent Jewish elder of Zion to make threats bordering on extortion by reference to the Nazi backgrounds of key members of Adenauer's government with the fear in their minds that, if they were revealed, they would be brought down?

         A.   I don't say that that is so clear as you make it out to be.

         Q.   It's not?

         A.   No.  "Elders of Zion" can mean, as I say, anything.  The fact was that there were men with a brown past, as the phrase was, in Adenauer's government.  He tried to be as broad and inclusive as he could.  That was a political liability.  It is not only that Goldmann used that kind of ploy against his cabinet, but the opposition of Willie Brandt exploited such things.

         Q.   What I am interested in asking you is:  Is it antisemitic to point out that this tactic of personal blackmail was used to extract concessions from the Bonn government?

         A.   I don't call that antisemitism because Goldmann is not being attacked by Segev as a Jew because he is a Jew and that he behaves this way because he is a Jew.

         Q.   Would he be able to use the exploitation of the term "elders of Zion" if it wasn't referring to him as a Jew?

         A.   Yes, obviously Goldmann is a Jew.  I don't think you have to have that phrase to establish that.

         Q.   I am not trying to establish that he is or isn't Jewish.  I am suggesting to you, sir, that by the use of the term "elders of Zion," he is using the same antisemitic fear to impress and extort money from Germany.

         A.   I would not call it extortion.  These are the Wiedergutmachen negotiations.

         Q.   What would you call it if someone says, "You do this and give us this money, or we reveal your brown past?"  What do you call that?

         A.   I call that attacking, wily.

         Q.   Wily attacking.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   That is like nasty polemic when it came to referring to Jesus Christ burning in human excrement.  That was nasty polemic, in your words, wasn't it?

         A.   Do you want to pursue that?

         Q.   No, I just want to confirm that that is the language you used before.

         A.   Here they could get at Chancellor Adenauer's government.  Those who were going to burn Jesus in oil couldn't get at him.  He was sitting at the right hand of God the Father.

         Q.   He wasn't burning in oil.

         A.   Whatever the terminology was.

         Q.   You don't remember?

         A.   No, I don't remember.  I would say that this footnote 9 has to be pursued to establish how the phrase "the elders of Zion" gets in there and what it means.

         Q.   I see.  So you think footnote would be of assistance.  We will check that.

         A.   If Tom Segev is a historian worth his salt, it should.

         Q.   Do you have the book with you?

         A.   I do.

         Q.   Then you tell us what footnote 9 says and tell me how it changes the meaning of what I put to you.

         A.   Mr. Christie, you try to put words in my mouth.  Please don't do that.

         Q.   I have a right to ask you questions even here.

         A.   Yes, ask all the questions you wish.

         Q.   How does it change the meaning of what I put to you?

         A.   Will you let me finish?

         The footnote is useful.  The citation is to NGA, Z-6 1998.  So we have to look into his list of abbreviations.  That is the Nahum Goldmann archives.

         Q.   It just quotes the source.  Right?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Does that change the meaning ‑‑

         A.   In order to answer your question in the way a historian deals with these issues, I have to go to NGA, Z-6 and look over the passages that are the basis for Segev's presentation in that paragraph.

         Q.   Are you now saying that you don't trust him to be honest, accurate and forthright in the way he presents ‑‑

         A.   I am not saying that at all.

         Q.   Can I finish my question?  Are you now saying that you cannot trust Tom Segev to be accurate, honest and reliable in the way he presents the Goldmann archives?

         A.   No, I don't say that.  There are shadings and nuances of which historians are immensely conscious, so I want to find out what the shadings and nuances of inference and implication are by going to the source.

         Q.   But as to shadings, nuances, tone, pitch, none of the remarks of Mr. Segev you view as antisemitic.

         A.   No, I wouldn't think so.  Again, I can only state that he is attacking Goldmann here.  By the time this was written, Goldmann, of course, was dead.  Is he mounting an antisemitic attack on Goldmann?  I would hardly think so.  He is depicting this man as wily, shrewd, pulling all the stops, and having, I wouldn't say justified but explicable in the circumstances, a willingness to play the game by other than a precise application of the rules.

         Q.   Further it says:

"Goldmann and his team also mobilized officials in Israel, the leaders of Jewish organizations in the United States, and the American media."

Is it antisemitic to say that?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Primarily, I suppose, there is nothing wrong with being able to do that, I take it?

         A.   No.  He is an American citizen.  He can play lobbyist and so on like anyone else, as many other American citizens do, Jewish and non-Jewish.

         Q.   He was a citizen of many countries, wasn't he?

         A.   I don't precisely know.

         Q.   He goes on to quote Abba Eban.  He was the foreign minister of Israel, was he not?

         A.   Correct.

         Q.   "Ambassador Abba Eban asked ... Dean

Acheson to put pressure on Germany.  'An unsatisfactory answer from Bonn would be one of the darkest events in the annals of human morals,' Eban said, getting carried away.  Acheson spoke with Adenauer.  Some American Jewish leaders spoke with President Truman.  The American high commissioner in Germany, John J. McCloy, also intervened.  At one point, Gen. Julius Klein, head of the Jewish War veterans organization in the United states, was sent to Adenauer."

         Does that seem to imply the international organized efforts of a group of people?

         A.   Yes, like any other group of people.  I don't see anything exceptional or unusual about this, or questionable.

         Q.   Mobilizing the American media, the President of the United States, the Secretary of State of the United States ‑‑ nothing unusual about that, in your view?

         A.   No.  That is done all the time.

         Q.   "Klein told Adenauer that, if the talks

were not resumed, he would campaign for shelving the 'Germany Agreements,' which were meant to return Germany to the community of nations and clear the way for membership in NATO.  Klein dropped the name of influential senator Robert A. Taft, who was known as a friend of Israel.  'Adenauer was impressed by Klein's brutal position and promised to do everything to renew the negotiations,' Maurice Fischer reported from Paris.  'Klein advises that we behave stubbornly and

roughly ‑‑"

I am going to end it there.  You have the book, if you wish to pursue it further in relation to this question.

         Would you not think that this book implies an international Jewish organization to achieve goals?

         A.   Organization ‑‑ this is ad hoc.  This is not a single organization that is acting in the manner of the Elders of Zion, presumably.  This is whipped together as they go along.  They think, "Ah, this one is a likely spokesman and influential and we can use him or her at this stage," and so forth.  They go along ad hoc, improvising and putting their team together.

         Q.   It's ad hoc, is it?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Who was Nahum Goldmann?  Was he head of the World Jewish Congress?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   So it wasn't ad hoc as far as he was concerned.  He was the head of the largest Jewish organization in the world, wasn't he?

         A.   Yes, but that is not the only entity that is involved here.

         Q.   Isn't it?  Would you take issue with what Segev says, that "Goldmann and his team also mobilized officials in Israel, the leaders of Jewish organizations in the United States and the American media?"  His team wasn't ad hoc, was it?

         A.   No.  What are these other Jewish organizations?  The Jewish War Veterans are not members of the WJC and so forth.

         Q.   They have no connections with them?

         A.   I don't know.  It wouldn't matter if they did.  They are autonomous organizations and they put their heads together to co-operate in carrying out or seeking aims of common concern and interest.

         Q.   In relation to terrorism, do you recognize that the State of Israel has engaged in terrorism?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  How is that relevant?

                                    Toronto, Ontario

‑‑- Upon resuming on Monday, May 25, 1998

    at 10:15 a.m.

RESUMED:  FREDERICK SCHWEITZER

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good morning everyone.

         With respect to the matters that were argued last day, I have asked the Clerk to hand out copies of the Reasons for Judgment of the Tribunal which I will summarize as follows.

         MR. FREIMAN:  Mr. Chairman, should the witness be present during these Reasons?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I don't see any reason why he cannot be present.

         It is the finding of this Tribunal that truth is not an issue before us.  Parliament has spoken.  The use of telephone messages for purposes prohibited by section 13 of the Act cannot be justified by asserting that such messages are truthful.  The sole issue is whether such communications are likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.

         Accordingly, cross-examination directed to the issue of truthfulness of such statements or the calling of evidence in that regard will not be permitted.

         We will continue the cross-examination of Professor Schweitzer.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I have some questions arising out of that.

         First of all, having not received this ruling until just this moment, it will require some consideration of our cross-examination.  For some reason or other you did not address the issue that I raised in my submissions on the last occasion as to whether the facts of the exposure might be based on something other than the identity of the person based on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Christie, allow me to interrupt you.  I think, in fairness, the copy of the Reasons should be given to you for examination.  I think the issues you have raised are addressed in the Reasons.  Rather than take time to read them, I thought we would hand them out.  Perhaps we should recess to allow you reasonable time to examine the Reasons.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  It may take the rest of the day to consider them.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am not sure that that is the case.  We will recess for 15 minutes.

‑‑- Short Recess at 10:20 a.m.

‑‑- Upon resuming at 10:43 a.m.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Christie, please.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  In the time I have had to consider your Reasons, it is clear that you have not addressed the central issue that I raised of this witness' own testimony.  You ignored that completely for some reason.

         The witness' own testimony was, as you well know, that truth was a factor in the determination of antisemitism.  You mentioned not a word about that. 

         Consequently, I don't know that you have necessarily precluded the issue from being raised with this witness on the issue of what is or is not antisemitism.  If you wish to make that ruling now, it would help to clarify my position with regard to further cross-examination.  I would like to have you do that, if you would.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Freiman, please.

         MR. FREIMAN:  Professor Schweitzer was asked about whether antisemitism ‑‑

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Professor Schweitzer should not be told in his presence what he is supposed to have said.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Would the witness step outside, please.

‑‑- Witness Withdraws

         MR. FREIMAN:  Professor Schweitzer was asked whether antisemitism was true, and he said that, no, it wasn't true.  Mr. Christie then spent the next 20 minutes trying to move to the other side.  In other words, since antisemitism is false, is it possible that something that is true could be antisemitic?  Over the course of the next 20 minutes they debated it, and in the final analysis Professor Schweitzer did say that, if it is antisemitic, it is not true.

         He then went on later to explain that antisemitism, historically, always has a grain of truth and is built on truth.  Therefore, the whole concept of truth is problematic.

         Whatever one makes of it, at the highest it addresses Professor Schweitzer's academic definition of what is antisemitism.  It is not the standard in section 13(1) of the Act.  Section 13(1) of the Act does not require a demonstration of truth.  Therefore, there is no relevance to the determination of truth, and you did deal exactly with the issue.

         The fact that in Professor Schweitzer's view, as in the view of any right-thinking individual, it is inconceivable to link the concept of antisemitism and, in fact, statements likely to arouse hatred and contempt with ultimate truth is irrelevant.  Therefore, there is no room for questions tending to establish the truth of the antisemitic statements, and they don't help you at all.  At most, they ask the question in terms of Professor Schweitzer's own higher standard, which is a different standard from that in the Act.

         In fact, all Professor Schweitzer said was that he does not accept that antisemitism is true.  That is not the same thing as saying that, if it is true, it is not antisemitic.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Mr. Freiman should not, unless he has the transcript, give you the evidence, unless he is testifying.  Since he claims to have the ability to do so, I should have the right to reply and tell you that our notes indicate that at one point he said, "To tell the truth could never be antisemitism."  He was asked if truth can ever be antisemitic, and he said that truth is truth and he thinks not, that Jews have no fear of the truth.

         Those were statements he made.  We tried to get the transcript.  It is clear that those statements relate to his evidence.  Whether my learned friend likes them or not, they are his witness' evidence.  That evidence is relevant to determine whether the statements are or are not antisemitic.

         The witness was not called to give evidence as to whether they were likely to expose Jews to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact of their identity.  That was not his reason for testifying.  If the reason for testifying was to identify antisemitism, lethal or otherwise, then what he says about that is the evidence, not what my friend says about it or what he would like to say about it. 

         The right to cross-examine should at least relate to the evidence as it stands and as it was stated by the witness, not as the Commission would like to use it.  That is not the criterion of cross-examination.  If the evidence was relevant at all, then the test of antisemitism that he established and the exclusion of the truth from that category should be open to consideration and questioned by the opposing side.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I don't propose to reopen the whole issue that was fully argued last day.  The Tribunal has made its ruling, and I am going to have the witness recalled and ask you to continue your cross-examination.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  As I indicated to the Clerk, in view of your ruling which was given to us this morning, we have to consider the relationship of our questions in the future to these rulings.  This will take some time because we had developed a course of cross-examination.  I need the day to consider your ruling.  I need your ruling on that, and I need the time to consider it.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  The ruling of the Tribunal is that the cross-examination will continue now.

         The prospect of what would happen at this point was open to all counsel, and there was one of two alternatives.  Either your argument, Mr. Christie, could have been acceded to by the Tribunal or refused.  There were only two alternatives in that regard.  You might have expected that this ruling would go either in your favour or against you. 

         It has gone against you, and I think you should proceed with your cross-examination.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Mr. Fromm has advised me that he won't be able to be here tomorrow, for other reasons.  He asked if it would be possible for him to ask certain questions, and I have no objection.  It will give me a chance to clear my position.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Let me be clear that the Tribunal wishes this matter to proceed with all deliberate speed.  We are celebrating, if that is the proper term, the first anniversary of the commencement of this Hearing.  I think there is a reasonable expectation that we can complete the evidence perhaps before the end of June.  If we have to sit longer hours, then we will do that, too.

         I am going to recall the witness and ask Mr. Christie to continue his cross-examination.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Are you ruling that Mr. Fromm may not cross-examine?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I didn't say that he may not cross-examine.  He would have to be here and available to do so.  Perhaps he would like to speak to that himself.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I am certainly willing to allow him to take his position this morning, and I think he should have that right.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I don't think that is fair to either the witness or the proceeding.  Mr. Fromm, do you have anything to say?

         MR. FROMM:  Mr. Chairman, I have an unavoidable conflict tomorrow and would appreciate being able to ask a few questions of the witness, if I may, today.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  How much time do you anticipate you might need?

         MR. FROMM:  I would think about half an hour.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  We will try to accommodate that today.  In the meantime, Mr. Christie will continue.

         Call the witness, please.

‑‑- Witness returns to the stand

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You remain under oath, Professor Schweitzer.

         THE WITNESS:  I understand, sir.

CROSS-EXAMINATION, Continued

         MR. CHRISTIE:

         Q.   When you assess the subject of antisemitism, do you consider truth as part of the social context?

         A.   I don't understand the question.

         MR. FREIMAN:  Maybe the witness could be excused.

‑‑- Witness Withdraws

         MR. FREIMAN:  We have a ruling.  Mr. Christie has attempted to extend that ruling to an objection relating to a response that Professor Schweitzer gave.  That was rejected.  The very first question out of Mr. Christie's mouth re-introduces exactly the same question for the patent reason of attempting somehow to get back at that issue of truth so that he can continue to do that which the Panel has said he cannot do.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Where are you going with this, Mr. Christie?

         MR. CHRISTIE:  In your seven-page ruling, on page 6 you say:  "Rather it is the social context in which the message is delivered or heard which will determine the effect the communication will have on the listener."  So I asked the witness whether truth is part of the social context in his assessment of antisemitism, to determine whether the truth plays any role in the social context.

         I hear the authority on social context, but I am not sure about your authority on how he assesses antisemitism.  If it is your judgment that social context is relevant, then why would it not be relevant to ask him if truth is part of the social context in his view as an expert on antisemitism? 

         We might like to exclude truth from the entire proceedings, it would seem from the objection and from your position taken.  Surely, if the witness is under oath to tell the truth, it would seem relevant to ask him whether he considers truth part of the social context.

         MEMBER DEVINS:  Mr. Christie, I wonder if you can assist us with your argument in terms of the rest of the ruling which goes on to talk about truth or absolute truth ultimately not being what is important in terms of subjective interpretation, but rather by virtue of the tone, the context and the medium, not the truth per se.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  If you are telling this party that truth has no part in the assessment of social context, just say so.  You are asking me to tell you what effect your ruling has; I am asking you to tell me.

         MEMBER DEVINS:  I am asking you to assist us with your argument so that we can fully understand.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I told you.  If you can't understand the argument, then I can do no better.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You can sit down now.  Mr. Freiman, please.

         MR. FREIMAN:  Among other things, Professor Schweitzer didn't testify as to social context.  It is not his role to testify to that.  The Tribunal's ruling says that that is a matter for the Tribunal to assess, based on its own perception and based perhaps on the evidence of a semanticist such as Professor Prideaux who has testified on this.

         Professor Schweitzer is not an expert on semantics and is not an expert on social context.  All Mr. Christie is doing is asking the same question as the Tribunal has said he can't ask, namely, the import of truth for this witness so that he can get into the truth of all the antisemitic statements on the Zundelsite.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  My learned friend should not attempt to assume what I have intended to do.  I asked him a specific question.  There is no intention to get into the truth of all these supposedly antisemitic statements on the Zundelsite, but the issue of social context is very much a live issue.  If the issue of social context is a live issue, whether it is relevant to tone or to pitch or to frequency of modulation or whether it is relevant to a variety of other subjective aspects, it might have a part to play in the social context, which I find it difficult to believe that you could have resolved already. 

         That you could have decided that truth has no place in the social context would seem to me somewhat prejudicial, even though you take the position that all the subjective elements that you have told us in your Reasons are the basis for assessment of whether a statement constitutes exposure to hatred or contempt.  Surely you cannot have already decided that truth has no part in social context.  After all, if the truth is told in a nice, pleasant tone and then we can assess the issue of tone, whether it incites calumny or vilification could be determined on the basis of whether the statement is factual or not.

         You seem to imply by your question, and my friend Mr. Freiman strongly urges you by his argument, to regard the determination of whether or not the offence is committed is an entirely subjective one.  Affronts to dignity, if that is to be the criterion, surely must have some relationship to truth, even in our society where truth seems to play less and less a part. 

         If social context is relevant, as you have ruled it is, then why would you think, in advance of hearing the evidence and before any opportunity to argue has ever happened, that social context excludes any consideration of truth?  I haven't heard you to rule that, and your question seems to imply that.

         I would really appreciate that ruling so that we could at least have a court decide whether that is accurate or not.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Do other counsel have any submissions?  Mr. Kurz, please.

         MR. KURZ:  Very briefly, Mr. Chair.

         This is Mr. Christie's second attempt to, in effect, get the Tribunal to overrule its own written decision.  The term "social context" is not Professor Schweitzer's term.  As Mr. Freiman said, Professor Schweitzer is not an expert on social context.  Social context is a term that you used in your ruling, and it has nothing to do with his evidence and it is improper to ask him that question.

         The first line of attack was to get through the back door by using Professor Schweitzer's comments about truth, and you have ruled on that.  Now there is an attempt to get through another back door in terms of the social context.  That should be rejected, in my respectful submission.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I would like to reply to that.  In your ruling you said that it is not the truth or falsity, per se, that will evoke the emotion but, rather, how it is understood by the recipient.  The words "per se" imply that, although it is not so per se, it could still be true ‑‑ and I hope you haven't decided that truth or falsity have no effect on social context, that, although it might not per se evoke such an emotion, it might.

         You go on to say:  "The statements ultimately have no consequence if the objective interpretation by virtue of tone, social context and medium is one which arouses unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification."

         If one of the elements in the determination of the subjective interpretation is social context as well as tone and medium, then surely you must accept the proposition that truth may be a factor in the determination of the whole social context.  If we are to have any access to debate upon matters of race, religion or ethnic origin or any discussions about them which might arouse strong emotions, then the issue of truth should be a factor in the determination of the whole social context.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  We will recess for five minutes.

‑‑- Short Recess at 11:00 a.m.

‑‑- Upon resuming at 11:09 a.m.

         MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE:  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the audience, I spoke to other people, and they cannot hear what is being said.  We came here under the assumption that this is a public hearing.  What good is it if the public cannot hear what is being said?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Can you move your chairs up closer?  Anyone who is having difficulty hearing, please stand up.

         All I can suggest is that you move your chairs up closer around this side of the room and see if that doesn't help.  Then we will ask counsel to speak a little more loudly.  This is definitely a public hearing, and we want everyone to be aware of what is happening.

         Mr. Christie, our ruling, I think, is clear.  In any event, that is the basis under which you will conduct your cross-examination from here.  The line of questioning which you propose to follow is in defiance of that ruling, so I am asking that you continue on another line.

         Please bring the witness in.

‑‑- Witness returns to the stand  

         MR. CHRISTIE:

         Q.   I would like to ask you about some historical writings that I would like your view on as to whether they are reliable and careful and whether you regard them as writings of a historical nature upon which a competent historian would rely.

         Are you familiar Arthur Koestler's book "The Thirteenth Tribe"?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Do you regard him as a reliable, authoritative source?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Why not?

         A.   He is not a historian.  That is a subject of medieval history, and he doesn't know the languages involved.  I don't remember precisely, but he tends toward racist conclusions.  I remember particularly a sort of cartoon which shows a Jewish nose and something of that sort.  A much better book is D.M. Dunlop.

         Q.   Arthur Koestler is a racist and not familiar with the languages?  Is that your position?

         A.   There are some elements in that book that give me some misgivings.  It is some time since I read it.

         Q.   Is he a Jewish author?

         A.   I don't particularly know.  I don't judge works of history by whether they are or not. He may be; he may not.

         Q.   What are the languages in question that you say, as a mediaeval historian, he would have to be familiar with?

         A.   You have to know the Latin.  You need to know the Ural-Altaian languages or the particular branch of the Ural-Altaian language that these people belong to.  It is comparable to Magyar?

         Q.   What people are we talking about?

         A.   The Huzzars.

         Q.   Are you familiar with those languages?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   So, in order to be a credible historian on that subject, you have to be familiar with those languages and you are not.

         A.   I can judge that book in the context of my understanding of mediaeval Jewish history and mediaeval history.  I would not review such a book in the American Historical Review because I would not be competent.  I would have to be a specialist in the area and know the primary and secondary sources and, of course, know the languages. and I do not know that.

         Q.   So to assess whether Arthur Koestler was a competent historian in this area, you would have to know those things which you do not know.

         A.   No, I don't say that.  Reading that book makes me skeptical as to the conclusions that he reaches.

         Q.   You have read the book?

         A.   I said I read it.  I said I read it some time ago, probably 10 or 12 years ago.

         Q.   Do you know anything about Arthur Koestler?

         A.   "Darkness of Noon" which I read as an undergraduate.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I hesitate to rise, but this is such a waste of time.  The only purpose for the accreditation was to determine whether the witness considered Mr. Koestler to be a reliable historian, and the answer was "no."  Mr. Christie has to take that answer and proceed.  To now debate about Mr. Koestler's qualifications gets us nowhere except to waste more time.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  To test the credibility of this witness' opinion, one should be entitled to ask questions as to the basis of them, and that is what I have done.

         MR. FREIMAN:  He is not giving opinion evidence about Dr. Koestler.  The analogy is that we could ask Professor Schweitzer any question at all under the sun and then to embark on a poignant cross-examination on the basis of that. 

         This is not part of his testimony.  The only purpose for asking the question was to see whether Professor Schweitzer has knowledge and credibility so that further questions could be asked based on texts.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  This line comes to an end rather quickly once the witness says either, "I don't know the work" or "I know the work, but I don't accept it as authoritative." 

         I suppose, Mr. Christie, you have a limited right of cross-examination on whether he should know the author and his opinion as to whether he is a credible writer.  I will allow you to continue, with that caution, along that line.

         MR. CHRISTIE:

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book "The Third Reich and the Palestine Question" by Francis R. Nicosia, published by the University of Texas Press in 1985?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with that writer?

         A.   No, I am not.  What is the name?

         A.   Francis R. Nicosia.

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "The American Jews: Portrait of a Split Personality" by James Yaffe, published by Random House in 1968?

         A.   I know of the book.  I have never had it in hand.  I have never read it.  I couldn't offer any judgment on it.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book called "West German Reparations to Israel" by Nicholas Balabkins, published by Rutgers University Press in 1971?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "A Certain People:  American Jews and Their Lives Today" by Charles E. Silberman, published by Summit Books in 1985?

         A.   No, I am not.  I know that name vaguely, Charles Silberman.

         Q.   Is he a historian?

         A.   No.  If he is the one I know, he is at Lehigh University and he is in Jewish Studies, though not history; perhaps literature; perhaps theology or theological thought, religious thought.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "Our Man in Damascus: Elie Cohn"? by Eli Ben-Hanan?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   You have never read that book?

         A.   No, I have not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "By Way of Deception" by Claire Hoy & Victor Ostrovsky?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book "An Empire of Their Own" by Neal Gabler, published by Crown Publishers?

         A.   No. I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the word called "Esau's Tears" by Albert S. Lindemann, published by Cambridge University Press in 1997?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with who Albert S. Lindemann is?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book "An Eye for an Eye" by John Sack, published by a division of Harper Collins in 1993?

         A.   I know of the book because of citations in bibliographies and so forth, but that is all.

         Q.   You are not familiar with it?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book called "The Fatal Embrace" by Benjamin Ginsberg, published by University of Chicago Press in 1993?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book called "The Rise and fall of the Jewish Gangster in America" by Albert Fried, published by Holt Rinehart Winston in 1980?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with a book called "A Nation on Trial" by Norman G. Finkelstein and Ruth Bettina Birn, published in 1998?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "The Grandees:  American's Sephardic Elite" by Stephen Birmingham, published by Harper and Row Publishers Inc. in 1971?

         A.   No.  I know his book called "Our Crowd," but I don't know that one.  That is an older work, and I read that 12 or 15 years ago.

         Q.   Is he is a historian of American Jewry?

         A.   Not really.  He is a journalist.  I would put him in a category with Tom Segev rather than a professional historian.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "Greek & Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Volume One: From Herodotus to Plutarch" by Menahem Stern?

         A.   Yes, I have used that as a reference book.

         Q.   Your history of antisemitism, you indicated, began with the story of Little St. Hugh of Lincoln and the Crusades.  Do you acknowledge that authors from Herodotus to Plutarch had comments similar in tone and nature in respect of Jews and Judaism?

         A.   In what specific way?

         Q.   I could get into specifics, but I am asking a general question.  If you are familiar with the work, I take it that you are familiar with the fact that this study of the ancient writers on the subject of Jews and Judaism deals with the remarks made by the ancient writers in Greek and Roman texts from Herodotus to Plutarch.  Is that correct?

         A.   Yes, I am familiar with that.  I have used it as a reference book.  I have never read it through.

         Q.   You say you don't know whether it refers to remarks similar to what you have attributed to the Christian Church in the Middle Ages from the ancient writers?

         A.   Yes.  I know that in Roman antiquity, Christians were accused of ritual cannibalism, probably ‑‑

         Q.   My question relates to Jews and Judaism.

         A.   But that is the origin of that accusation that was later applied to Jews. 

         Q.   Later it was applied to Jews?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   This is before Christian time, sir.  I am not suggesting, and I don't think you are suggesting that the writers from Herodotus to Plutarch are necessarily talking about Christians.

         A.   I deny, however, that the accusations that are made in pre-Christian time about Jews, with the area of ritual murder, is what you come upon with Little St. Hugh of Lincoln.  They are not the same.

         Q.   They are not the same.  Is there an accusation of ritual murder in ancient time, prior to Christian time?

         A.   In a vague way.  It is something that would be picked up by later writers and used ‑‑ I would say "misused" ‑‑ to support the accusation.

         Q.   You want specific references in regard to that.  Is that your position?

         A.   No, I have indicated my perspective.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the writer, Michael Bar-Zohar?

         A.   Say the name again, please.

         Q.   Michael Bar-Zohar.

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with a work called "Israel's Sacred Terrorism" by Livia Rokach?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World" by Peter Schafer, Ranon Katzoff and Shaye J.D. Cohen?

         A.   No.

         Q.   You are not familiar with that?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work of Martin Gilbert, "The Jews of Hope"?

         A.   I know some of the works of Martin Gilbert, but not that one.

         Q.   Do you regard Martin Gilbert as a credible, reliable historian?

         A.   Very much so.

         Q.   Do you consider his work to be credible and reliable?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "The Jewish Dilemma" by Elmer Berger?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "Jewish Identity and the JDL" by Janet L. Dolgin, published by Princeton University Press in 1977?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "Jews and Money:  The Myths and the Reality" by Gerald Krefetz, published in 1982?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "Jewish Power - Inside the American Jewish Establishment" by Johnathan Jeremy Goldberg, published by Addison Wesley in 1996?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work by Judith Ramsey Ehrlich and Barry J. Rehfield, "The New Crowd" published by Harper Collins in 1989?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "The New Israelis" by Yossi Melman, published by Birch Lane Press?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work by David Halberstam, published by Alfred A. Knopff in 1975,  "The Powers That Be"?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   You said you were familiar with the work by Stephen Birmingham called "The Rest of Us".

         A.   No, "Our Crowd."

         Q.   You are not familiar with the work called "The Rest of Us?"

         A.   No.

         Q.   With regard to the subject of Jews and historical antisemitism, are you familiar with the work of Kevin MacDonald from the University of California, published in 1998 by Praeger Publishers, called "Separation and Its Discontents?"

         A.   No.  1998 is a brand new book.

         Q.   Have you read his earlier work called "People Who Shall Grow Apart?" in 1995?

         A.   No, I have not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work by Jean Bauer called "The Self-Chosen: 'Our Crowd' is Dead - Long Live Our Crowd" published by Arbor House Publishing Co. in 1982?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "Every Spy a Prince" by Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman, published by Houghton Mifflin Co. in 1990?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with a work "Special Tasks" by Pavel Sudoplatov and Anatoli Sudoplatov, published by Little, Brown & Company in 1994.

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with Volume 2 of Menahem Stern's "Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism from Tacitus to Simplicius?

         A.   Yes, I have also used it as a reference book.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the study of Jewish influence in American politics called the "The Lobby:  Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy by Edward Tivnan, published by Simon and Schuster in 1987?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with a work called "They Dare to Speak Out" by Paul Findley, published by Lawrence Hill & Co. in 1981?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "They Must Go" by Rabbi Meir Kahane, published by Grosset & Dunlap in 1981?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "The Transfer Agreement" by Edwin Black, published by Macmillan & Co. in 1984?

         A.   I am not sure.  There is a book on the Transfer Agreement that I have used.  I have just dipped into it.  I couldn't speak fairly about its work.

         Q.   So, historically, you are not sure whether it is a credible book or not?

         A.   No.  Who is the publisher?

         Q.   Macmillan Publishing Co., 866 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y., 1984.

         A.   That is my publisher also, so I assume it is a reputable house that publishes reputable books.

         Q.   Are you prepared to credit it as being a reliable and authoritative historical source?

         A.   Yes, at first broach, certainly.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book "The Fateful Triangle:  The United States, Israel & the Palestinians" by Noam Chomsky, published in 1983?

         A.   No.

         Q.   You have never read it?

         A.   No.

         Q.   You have never read it?

         A.   No, I have not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "The Warburgs:  The Story of a Family" by David Farrer, published by Stein and Day in 1994?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with a book called "You Gentiles" by Rabbi Maurice Samuel, publisher unknown?  Are you familiar with that work?

         A.   No.  I know some of the works of Maurice Samuel, but he was no rabbi.  I know it is a common enough name, but this Rabbi Maurice Samuel and the work you mention, no, I do not know.

         Q.   Are you familiar with Alfred Lilienthal?

         A.   Yes, I know the name.

         Q.   Is he a historian?

         A.   No.  He is a government official, to my knowledge.

         Q.   A government official.  Are you familiar with his work "The Zionist Connection - What Price Peace?" published by Dodd, Mead & Co. in New York in 1978?

         A.   I have had it in hand.  It is in our library at Manhattan, but that is the extent of it.

         Q.   Have you read it?

         A.   No, I have not.

         Q.   Has your reading in this subject been very extensive in terms of contrary points of view?

         MR. FREIMAN:  Perhaps Mr. Christie would like to specify what "this subject" is.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  His subject, as I understood his answer ‑‑

         MR. FREIMAN:  "This subject." 

         MR. CHRISTIE:  This subject, yes.  The subject of antisemitism.  I hope that is not too confusing.

         Q.   Do we understand each other?

         A.   What is the question you are asking?

         Q.   Are you familiar with contrary points of view on the subject of antisemitism?

         A.   Yes, I would think so.

         Q.   How much have you read that suggests that antisemitism is a weapon used to silence critics of Israel and Judaism?  How much have you read in that field?

         A.   I have read it in the Zundelsite material and I have read it in some of the material that you gave out last time from Mr. Shahak.

         Q.   And Segev's book, "The Seventh Million?"

         A.   Segev, yes.  However, Segev is ‑‑ there are a lot of points of view.  It is a fairly balanced book, although on the whole I think one of his principal purposes is to argue that the Holocaust has been exploited politically in Israel by Israeli governments, the Begin government in particular.  But he gives a lot of material on the other side, so that one emerges, even with Tom Segev, with a balanced view.  I think, on the whole, he is hopeful about the resolution of this, that the Holocaust will be understood in Israel and taught in Israel the way other subjects in history are, as a point of general history and approached by the same methods of historians, and that it will be not used by the politicians as a political weapon, that there will be less and less scope for that.

         Q.   Have you read any other books that raise those questions and suggest that the Holocaust was exploited than you were shown here?

         A.   Yes, I have a read a book by Dina Porat who is a younger Israeli historian, a much better historian than Tom Segev.  I made the distinction last time to the Panel that I would acknowledge Tom Segev as reliable, but not authoritative.  When Tom Segev quotes something, I am quite sure it is correct.  It is what he does with the quotations.

         When Dina Porat uses some of the same quotations, her interpretations I find more authoritative.

         Also a work by Dahlia Ofir who has written extensively on the historiography of the Holocaust in Israel.  Again, one gets a balanced picture.  The prospect, in her view, is that the Israeli understanding of the Holocaust will undergo a normalization and will not be susceptible to political use and misuse by politicians and parties in their rhetoric and in their policymaking, whether of the left or the right.

         Q.   Is it true to say that Nahum Goldmann was an important person who promoted and established the State of Israel?

         A.   Yes, I would think so.

         Q.   Do you consider him an authoritative source at all?

         A.   In the sense of an autobiography or some account of that kind which would be not so much a historical monograph but a personal account reflecting his role, his experience, his views, and so forth, but not an authoritative work.

         Q.   So it would be accurate if it was autobiographical?

         A.   I would approach it with the confidence that it is reliable.  My skepticism would not be laid aside.

         Q.   Would you agree with Segev's opinion that Goldmann was a tireless dissembler, exploiting his image as one of the Elders of Zion sometimes to the point of making threats and bordering on extortion?

         A.   That seems like hyperbole to me.  I would have to see what Tom Segev precisely is talking about.  That Goldmann had an ego I am sure.

         Q.   If you need to see what Tom Segev is talking about, let's deal with that.

         MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE:  Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the witness could speak into the microphone so that we can understand what he is saying.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I wonder whether the audience could be reminded that their role is to sit here and to listen, not to attempt to put on a show.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  If they can't listen, I think they should tell us.  This is supposedly a public hearing.  If they want to hear, they can hear.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Witness, would you try to raise your voice a bit and speak closer to the microphone.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I also suggest that, if members of the audience have a problem, the proper way of dealing with it is to talk to the Clerk, and she can take care of that as a logistical matter, rather than interrupting the procedure and addressing the Chairman.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I don't agree.  I think, with all due respect, if they waited to talk to the Clerk, they might not hear very much until the next break.  I would like to suggest that, if this is in theory and practice an open, public hearing, if they can't hear, they should say so.  They shouldn't be afraid to do anything like that.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Continue with your questions, please, and will the witness and you, Mr. Christie, as well raise your voice a bit, please.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Certainly.

         Q.   At page 229, going over to 230 ‑‑ you wanted to know the context in which he said this.  In the bottom paragraph:*

"The reparations and compensation agreements ‑‑"

Have you found that, sir?

         A.   Yes, I have it.

         Q.   "‑‑ with Germany were largely the fruit

of Goldmann's ability to impress Konrad Adenauer.  The German chancellor respected him, used him, suspected him ‑‑ and feared him as well.  He seems to have believed that Goldmann had as much influence on the American government and on American public opinion as he pretended to have.  Adenauer's memoirs, written fifteen years after the fact, mention their first meeting.  Adenauer said that Goldmann had brought with him Israel's ambassador to London, but had introduced him under an assumed name to conceal Israel's willingness to speak with him directly.  He was incorrect: the man who accompanied Goldmann was Noah Baru of the World Jewish Congress, who had helped correct the draft of Adenauer's declaration to the Bundestag.  The fact that, after so many years and after the innumerable meetings he had since held with Goldmann, the German chancellor still believed that the Jewish leader had tried to mislead him says something about the relations between them. The fact that, after so many years and after the innumerable meetings he had since held with Goldmann, the German Chancellor still believed that the Jewish leader had tried to mislead him said something about the relations between them.

  In another context,  Adenauer noted in his memoirs that he knew better than to underestimate the ability of 'Jewish banking circles' to bring his country harm.  Goldmann, a tireless dissembler, exploited his image as one of 'the elders of Zion,' sometimes to the point of making threats bordering on extortion.  A file in his archives contains information on the Nazi backgrounds of key members of Adenauer's government.  Some in Bonn believed that Goldmann had the power to destroy them unless they could ensure his silence about their pasts.  He was much helped by Hans Globke, one of the chancellor's close advisers and formerly a high official in the Nazi interior ministry, where he had been an expert on the Nuremberg laws."

         In that context, do you agree that Goldmann was a tireless dissembler and exploited his image as one of the Elders of Zion sometimes to the point of making threats bordering on extortion?

         MR. FREIMAN:  Before the witness answers, may he be excused?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.

‑‑- Witness Withdraws

         MR. FREIMAN:  To be fair to Mr. Christie, I guess he should be given the opportunity to indicate why this is anything but an attempt to get around the Tribunal's ruling.  This passage was, first of all, already cited last time.  The witness was questioned on it.  The purpose of the questioning at the time appeared to me to be improper ‑‑ that is, to be tending toward establishing the theoretical truth of the matters complained about on the Zundelsite.  We let it pass until, shortly after this one, Mr. Christie went one step farther.

         Now he is coming back to it, and I can't see any reason whatsoever that this would be relevant other than to try to establish the underlying truth of certain statements on the Zundelsite.  If I am wrong, I will be glad to reconsider it, but it seems clear that that is where we are going.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Earle, please.

         MR. EARLE:  I just want to note, Mr. Chair

‑‑ and Mr. Freiman has already made the point ‑‑ that, according to my notes, the exact question was asked on May 15.  I believe this is the second time now that that passage has been read into the record.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  The objection to which the ruling gave an answer, the interim decision of today, was in relation to a question as to the truth or falsity of contents of the material analyzed by the witness.  It was not directed to the question of whether historically the opinion of this author on the nature of antisemitism can be tested with other sources which he regards as credible and reliable, which tends to show that such remarks are not antisemitic.

         We are not, as far as I know, told that truth is totally irrelevant for testing the credibility of the witness or that other historical sources that point to the same aspects of historical writing are necessarily of no value.  He could accept the truth of the statement or he could say that it is acceptable historical opinion.  If he does and then he says it is not antisemitic, then it goes to the weight of his opinion that similar statements or similar opinions are antisemitic if expressed by Mr. Zundel or expressed by someone alleged to be Mr. Zundel.

         I suppose what it amounts to is that it is difficult to take the view ‑‑ at least, we don't take the view ‑‑ that your ruling necessarily excludes all historical analysis that contradicts the witness on the issues that he has expressed.  It should not be taken either that it is irrelevant that other historians take views that might be supportive of the opinions expressed on the Zundelsite.  It is not to prove their truth, but to prove that in the social context of our time, with the historical knowledge of which we are now possessed, these opinions are not considered to be antisemitic. 

         We have not got to the point of deciding if that opinion is antisemitic; we have not been allowed to ask that question.  I did ask him if he considers that statement true.

         If he considers that statement true in the historical sense or reliable or accurate, it may be of value to determine whether or not it relates to the other evidence in the case, but that is a matter of argument.

         If it is your intention to banish the question of truth from these entire proceedings by extending your ruling farther and farther so that we may not ask any questions on the effect of truth in matters of history, then I would question how we are entitled to cross-examine this witness at all.  He makes all sorts of broad assertions about history.  He tells you what the truth in history is but, if we bring up evidence of other historians that he even regards as credible, who do not agree with him, we are not allowed to put that to him?  This becomes ridiculous.

         In my submission, my learned friends' objections are, as they have been so many times before, basically obstruction by objection so that we do not get to the point that we are allowed to pursue cross-examination and we cannot explore the relevant issues that should be explored on how credible this historian is and whether other historians have points of view that differ from his. 

         We are not, after all, required to believe that this is the only historian in the world who has any elements of credibility to his opinion.  I would like the opportunity to pursue that question with this witness.

         Thank you very much.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Reply.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I will try to make myself heard without making myself obnoxious.

         MR. FREIMAN:  That won't be easy.

         MR. FREIMAN:  Nothing in Professor Schweitzer's evidence goes to Nahum Goldmann's views.  Nothing goes to Konrad Adenauer's views of Nahum Goldmann.  Nothing goes to the identity of people who were with Nahum Goldmann and Konrad Adenauer while they spoke with each other.  Nothing in his testimony relates to any of the subject matters upon which Mr. Christie is attempting to cross-examine.

         If you listen carefully to what he is saying, he tries carefully not to say it overtly.  What he wants to do is to establish the truth of these propositions and then to juxtapose them with what is stated on the Zundelsite.  On the Zundelsite there is lots of stuff about Nahum Goldmann; there is lots of stuff about dissemblers; there is lots of stuff about Jews being exploited.

         It is totally within the scope of your ruling, and Mr. Christie doesn't have a chance to get up four times and talk.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  If a new issue is raised and an objection is raised in a different way, why shouldn't I be able to ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Are you asking leave to make different submissions?

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I heard a different form of objection from the first time, and I would like the opportunity to reply to it.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  What part do you want to reply to?

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Whether this has anything to do with the case.  History has to do with the case.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  It seems to me that there has been full argument on this matter.  Please sit down.

         This witness has been called as an expert in antisemitism.  He has given his opinion with respect to various motifs related to antisemitism.  An appropriate line of questioning of this witness is in relation to those opinions.  For example, the proposition and the statement put to the witness can form the basis of cross-examining this witness on the basis of whether he believes the statement to be antisemitic or not, and not beyond that in relation to issues that have a bearing on the truth or falsity of a historical fact.

         Recall the witness.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I also note that that very question was asked of this witness.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I am not clear on the ruling.  Do you mean I can't ask a question ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You can cross-examine the witness as to whether it is antisemitic or not.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  But I can't ask him whether it is true or not, in his view.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  No.

‑‑- Witness returns to the stand

         MR. CHRISTIE:

         Q.   Having read it in context, do you consider this statement that Goldmann, a tireless dissembler, exploited his image as one of the Elders of Zion sometimes to the point of making threats bordering on extortion ‑‑ is that antisemitic?

         A.   Ho, I wouldn't think so.  He is saying that Goldmann is wily.  He is using the diplomat's arts to attain his aims.

         Q.   Why isn't it antisemitic to call Goldmann a tireless dissembler?

         A.   Because he is not attacking Goldmann because he is a Jew; he is attacking Goldmann because he does things that don't measure up to ordinary standards of human behaviour.  I don't think I can put any other construction on that.  He is using whatever comes to hand in these negotiations.

         Q.   The reference to the Elders of Zion, I thought you made very clear, was a reference to a very antisemitic tract.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Do you take the view, then, that to use antisemitism or the fear of Semites arising out of The Protocols of Zion and manipulatively  using it to extract concessions is not antisemitic?

         A.   I don't know why the "elders of Zion" appears there in quotation marks.  It is not clear that Goldmann said, "I am one of the Elders of Zion.  Beware!" and so forth.  That doesn't come across at all.

         Whose use of this phrase?  Is this a quotation from Goldmann or is it Tom Segev's interlineation?  You really can't tell.

         Q.   It is clear that Segev is saying that Goldmann was a tireless dissembler ‑‑ which is what?  A liar?

         A.   Prevaricator, manipulator.

         Q.   What is the difference between a liar and a prevaricator?  In simple English, it's liar, isn't it?

         A.   Dissembler is a  nicer word.

         Q.   Does it mean the same thing as liar?

         A.   Essentially.

         Q.   "Exploited his image as one of the elders of Zion."  Surely that is a reference to the famous antisemitic tract, isn't it?

         A.   Yes, it is, but I don't know what the significance of that phrase being there is.  Goldmann, as far as I know, can be humorous:  "Watch out, Mr. Chancellor.  I am one of the elders of Zion."  I don't know what that means.  It could mean anything or nothing.

         Q.   The next part of the sentence tells you what it means, that he exploited it to the point of making threats bordering on extortion.  In the context, sir, it says that a file in his archives contains information on the Nazi backgrounds of key members of Adenauer's government.  "His archives" are Goldmann's archives.  Right?

         A.   Correct.

         Q.   It is quite clear, isn't it, from the context that what Goldmann was doing was exploiting the image of the omnipotent Jewish elder of Zion to make threats bordering on extortion by reference to the Nazi backgrounds of key members of Adenauer's government with the fear in their minds that, if they were revealed, they would be brought down?

         A.   I don't say that that is so clear as you make it out to be.

         Q.   It's not?

         A.   No.  "Elders of Zion" can mean, as I say, anything.  The fact was that there were men with a brown past, as the phrase was, in Adenauer's government.  He tried to be as broad and inclusive as he could.  That was a political liability.  It is not only that Goldmann used that kind of ploy against his cabinet, but the opposition of Willie Brandt exploited such things.

         Q.   What I am interested in asking you is:  Is it antisemitic to point out that this tactic of personal blackmail was used to extract concessions from the Bonn government?

         A.   I don't call that antisemitism because Goldmann is not being attacked by Segev as a Jew because he is a Jew and that he behaves this way because he is a Jew.

         Q.   Would he be able to use the exploitation of the term "elders of Zion" if it wasn't referring to him as a Jew?

         A.   Yes, obviously Goldmann is a Jew.  I don't think you have to have that phrase to establish that.

         Q.   I am not trying to establish that he is or isn't Jewish.  I am suggesting to you, sir, that by the use of the term "elders of Zion," he is using the same antisemitic fear to impress and extort money from Germany.

         A.   I would not call it extortion.  These are the Wiedergutmachen negotiations.

         Q.   What would you call it if someone says, "You do this and give us this money, or we reveal your brown past?"  What do you call that?

         A.   I call that attacking, wily.

         Q.   Wily attacking.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   That is like nasty polemic when it came to referring to Jesus Christ burning in human excrement.  That was nasty polemic, in your words, wasn't it?

         A.   Do you want to pursue that?

         Q.   No, I just want to confirm that that is the language you used before.

         A.   Here they could get at Chancellor Adenauer's government.  Those who were going to burn Jesus in oil couldn't get at him.  He was sitting at the right hand of God the Father.

         Q.   He wasn't burning in oil.

         A.   Whatever the terminology was.

         Q.   You don't remember?

         A.   No, I don't remember.  I would say that this footnote 9 has to be pursued to establish how the phrase "the elders of Zion" gets in there and what it means.

         Q.   I see.  So you think footnote would be of assistance.  We will check that.

         A.   If Tom Segev is a historian worth his salt, it should.

         Q.   Do you have the book with you?

         A.   I do.

         Q.   Then you tell us what footnote 9 says and tell me how it changes the meaning of what I put to you.

         A.   Mr. Christie, you try to put words in my mouth.  Please don't do that.

         Q.   I have a right to ask you questions even here.

         A.   Yes, ask all the questions you wish.

         Q.   How does it change the meaning of what I put to you?

         A.   Will you let me finish?

         The footnote is useful.  The citation is to NGA, Z-6 1998.  So we have to look into his list of abbreviations.  That is the Nahum Goldmann archives.

         Q.   It just quotes the source.  Right?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Does that change the meaning ‑‑

         A.   In order to answer your question in the way a historian deals with these issues, I have to go to NGA, Z-6 and look over the passages that are the basis for Segev's presentation in that paragraph.

         Q.   Are you now saying that you don't trust him to be honest, accurate and forthright in the way he presents ‑‑

         A.   I am not saying that at all.

         Q.   Can I finish my question?  Are you now saying that you cannot trust Tom Segev to be accurate, honest and reliable in the way he presents the Goldmann archives?

         A.   No, I don't say that.  There are shadings and nuances of which historians are immensely conscious, so I want to find out what the shadings and nuances of inference and implication are by going to the source.

         Q.   But as to shadings, nuances, tone, pitch, none of the remarks of Mr. Segev you view as antisemitic.

         A.   No, I wouldn't think so.  Again, I can only state that he is attacking Goldmann here.  By the time this was written, Goldmann, of course, was dead.  Is he mounting an antisemitic attack on Goldmann?  I would hardly think so.  He is depicting this man as wily, shrewd, pulling all the stops, and having, I wouldn't say justified but explicable in the circumstances, a willingness to play the game by other than a precise application of the rules.

         Q.   Further it says:

"Goldmann and his team also mobilized officials in Israel, the leaders of Jewish organizations in the United States, and the American media."

Is it antisemitic to say that?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Primarily, I suppose, there is nothing wrong with being able to do that, I take it?

         A.   No.  He is an American citizen.  He can play lobbyist and so on like anyone else, as many other American citizens do, Jewish and non-Jewish.

         Q.   He was a citizen of many countries, wasn't he?

         A.   I don't precisely know.

         Q.   He goes on to quote Abba Eban.  He was the foreign minister of Israel, was he not?

         A.   Correct.

         Q.   "Ambassador Abba Eban asked ... Dean

Acheson to put pressure on Germany.  'An unsatisfactory answer from Bonn would be one of the darkest events in the annals of human morals,' Eban said, getting carried away.  Acheson spoke with Adenauer.  Some American Jewish leaders spoke with President Truman.  The American high commissioner in Germany, John J. McCloy, also intervened.  At one point, Gen. Julius Klein, head of the Jewish War veterans organization in the United states, was sent to Adenauer."

         Does that seem to imply the international organized efforts of a group of people?

         A.   Yes, like any other group of people.  I don't see anything exceptional or unusual about this, or questionable.

         Q.   Mobilizing the American media, the President of the United States, the Secretary of State of the United States ‑‑ nothing unusual about that, in your view?

         A.   No.  That is done all the time.

         Q.   "Klein told Adenauer that, if the talks

were not resumed, he would campaign for shelving the 'Germany Agreements,' which were meant to return Germany to the community of nations and clear the way for membership in NATO.  Klein dropped the name of influential senator Robert A. Taft, who was known as a friend of Israel.  'Adenauer was impressed by Klein's brutal position and promised to do everything to renew the negotiations,' Maurice Fischer reported from Paris.  'Klein advises that we behave stubbornly and

roughly ‑‑"

I am going to end it there.  You have the book, if you wish to pursue it further in relation to this question.

         Would you not think that this book implies an international Jewish organization to achieve goals?

         A.   Organization ‑‑ this is ad hoc.  This is not a single organization that is acting in the manner of the Elders of Zion, presumably.  This is whipped together as they go along.  They think, "Ah, this one is a likely spokesman and influential and we can use him or her at this stage," and so forth.  They go along ad hoc, improvising and putting their team together.

         Q.   It's ad hoc, is it?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Who was Nahum Goldmann?  Was he head of the World Jewish Congress?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   So it wasn't ad hoc as far as he was concerned.  He was the head of the largest Jewish organization in the world, wasn't he?

         A.   Yes, but that is not the only entity that is involved here.

         Q.   Isn't it?  Would you take issue with what Segev says, that "Goldmann and his team also mobilized officials in Israel, the leaders of Jewish organizations in the United States and the American media?"  His team wasn't ad hoc, was it?

         A.   No.  What are these other Jewish organizations?  The Jewish War Veterans are not members of the WJC and so forth.

         Q.   They have no connections with them?

         A.   I don't know.  It wouldn't matter if they did.  They are autonomous organizations and they put their heads together to co-operate in carrying out or seeking aims of common concern and interest.

         Q.   In relation to terrorism, do you recognize that the State of Israel has engaged in terrorism?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  How is that relevant?