Archive for November, 2010

U.S. to store another $400 million worth of military equipment in Israel

Posted in ZOGs on November 29, 2010 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

Haaretz (Israel); November 11, 2010

The US government is to move an additional $400 million worth of military equipment to emergency storage in Israel over the next two years. The equipment, which includes so-called smart bombs, will stand at Israel’s disposal in an emergency.

The US Congress approved the hike last month, which will bring the value of American military equipment stockpiled in Israel to $1.2 billion by 2012.

The story was first reported this week by Defense News magazine’s reporter in Israel, Barbara Opall-Rome.

The US stores equipment in Israel by virtue of a special clause in US foreign aid law governing war reserves stockpiles for [so-called] allies. According to the clause, the equipment can be utilized by American forces throughout the world, and also, in an emergency, by the military in the country where the equipment is stored.

The clause was originally intended to allow South Korea use of American equipment in case of a surprise attack by North Korea.

The type of equipment stockpiled in Israel is determined through dialogue between the Israel Defense Forces and the US Army’s European Command. The issue was raised in discussions last week during the visit by the IDF’s logistics and technology chief, Maj. Gen. Dan Biton, at the Pentagon in Washington.

The agreement between the two armed forces also includes conditions under which the IDF may use the equipment. It is believed that a great deal of the equipment will include precision weapons launched from the air.

IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi said this week that in Israel‘s future wars, much more precise weaponry will be needed to strike urban targets from the air without injuring civilians.

During Operation Cast Lead [which killed more than 1500 Palestinians, the vast majority of whom were civilians — 800], 81 percent of the missiles and bombs launched from the air on and by IDF artillery were of the precision type.

Use of the American equipment is allowed with permission of the American administration; Israel used such US weaponry during the Second Lebanon War.

The first time equipment was stockpiled in Israel was in 1990, when a ceiling of $100 million in value was set, which was raised to $300 million during the first Gulf War and later raised to $400 million. It was doubled in 2007 after the Second Lebanon War, and, as noted, will reach $1.2 billion by 2012.

It is assumed in Israel that the US administration asked Congress to increase the value of US emergency equipment to signal its continued commitment to Israel’s security. It is also believed the increase is meant to as an indication to Israel that it will not need to mount a surprise attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and that it can take risks for peace.

Israel is also expected to be allowed more involvement in selecting the types of equipment and weapons to be stored here and greater freedom to use it in an emergency. The equipment is stored in special bases for emergency supplies that are under American supervision.

Ben-Gurion International Airport and a base in Nevatim are expected to stockpile US equipment arriving by air during both war and peacetime.

The agreement on the additional stockpiling is part of the very significant upgrading in security relations between Israel and the United States, which also involved an increased number of joint exercises with the United States, during which joint command over complex operations were also drilled.

The upgrading of relations in the security realm also involved the special allocation of $500 million to finance the purchase of an Iron Dome battery, and the signing two months ago of an agreement to supply the IAF with the first squadron of the future F-35 fighter aircraft.

The above article can be found here: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-to-store-another-400m-worth-of-emergency-military-equipment-in-israel-1.324046


Also see ‘Obama offers Israel free stealth fighters, UNSC vetoes, Jordan Valley for 90-day settlement freeze’ here: http://800pg.co.cc/geeklog//article.php?story=20101127013253495

Also see ‘Jewish congressmen want convicted spy’s release added to long list of US gifts to Israel’ here: http://800pg.co.cc/geeklog//article.php?story=20101127170248775

Also see ‘EU steps up research funding for Zionist murder machine’ here: http://800pg.co.cc/geeklog//article.php?story=20100628141626701

Obama offers Israel free stealth fighters, UNSC vetoes, Jordan Valley for 90-day settlement freeze

Posted in ZioBama on November 27, 2010 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

‘Obama’s embarrassing gift to Israel’

Foreign Policy; November 15, 2010

A legendary story from our early history has it that Thomas Jefferson so hated John Jay that he ordered Pierre L’Enfant — the civil engineer who designed our capital city — to excise any reference to Jay (including “J Street”) from his plans. The story is apocryphal, but the history behind it isn’t. For Jefferson, Jay was an arch-appeaser: his 1795 treaty with Britain provided concessions to a nation we had defeated in our revolution.

Jefferson wasn’t the only one who hated the treaty. While Jay’s agreement was ratified by the Congress, he was burned in effigy by New York and Philadelphia mobs and the treaty so stained his reputation that he was never considered for the presidency. Jefferson didn’t make the same mistake. When the Pasha of Barbary demanded ransom for US ships he had seized, Jefferson sent a US naval squadron to punish him. The resulting victory is now celebrated with a half-verse in the Marine Corps hymn (which celebrates the triumph on “the shores of Tripoli”) and a knock-out political slogan that energized a nation: “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.”

If only Jefferson could see us now. This weekend, the Obama administration promised to turn over $3 billion in stealth fighters to Israel (supplementing the 20 F-35s it will buy with the $2.75 billion in “grants” it gets from Washington) and veto any UN resolution that questions Israel’s legitimacy — all in exchange for Israel’s pledge to extend a ten-month partial settlement moratorium for another 90 days.

This is a bad idea. And it’s dangerous. There are differences, of course, between the events of the last 24 hours and the crisis that Jefferson faced in 1804. Then, we protested that we were “paying tribute,” now we are “providing incentives.” Then too, Israel is not making any “demands,” they are simply (in Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s words) “insisting.” Oh — and let’s not forget — the pirates of Barbary were America’s “enemy.” That’s a lot different than now; Israel is our “friend.”

 

This administration’s decision would be shocking were it not so predictable. Back on October 20, State Department spokesman Andrew Shapiro reassured the press that a $60 billion US arms transfer to Saudi Arabia would go forward because “Israel does not object…” Shapiro’s statement passed with nary an eye blink in L’Enfant’s city, where Israel‘s approval is apparently required for America to do anything in the Middle East.

But Shapiro’s tone-deafness is hardly limited to dime-a-dozen spokespersons. In the wake of General Petreaus’ controversial March testimony that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “foments anti-American sentiment” (stop the presses), Hillary Clinton went out of her way to reassure Israelis that “we are committed to Israel’s security,” a soothing word-for-word mantra repeated by Barack Obama (July 6), Joe Biden (November 7) and any old American official behind a microphone (P.J. Crowley, August 4). The administration doesn’t get it: the question is not whether we are committed to Israel’s security, but whether they’re committed to ours.

The tone-deafness evidenced by Andrew Shapiro is now an all-consuming part of public policy, extending to every part of the American government — and beyond. When Elena Kagan testified during her confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, she cited Israel jurist Aharon Barak as her model, because he was the “John Marshall of the State of Israel.” Kagan might well be a brilliant justice, but I would have thought she would cite Marshall as her model.

Reminded that Barak was a judicial activist (and therefore not necessarily acceptable for some committee members), Kagan gave a ready explanation: “Israel means a lot to me,” she explained. Enough said.

When David Petreaus was criticized by Israel advocates for his March testimony, he backtracked, asking neo-conservative Max Boot (in an email he carelessly sent to a blogger) whether it would help “if folks know that I hosted Elie Wiesel and his wife at our quarters last Sun night?”

Petreaus is our nation’s most influential military officer since Eisenhower. Guess what? He’s afraid of Israel’s lobby. And when Angela Merkel addressed the US Congress in November of 2009, she didn’t talk about American security, but Israeli security. “Security for the state of Israel is, for me, non-negotiable,” she said. “Whoever threatens Israel also threatens us.”

Even senior aides to the otherwise pro-Israel Congress were puzzled. “Maybe she thought she was talking to the Knesset,” one of them said. Finally, Republican Eric Cantor recently told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the new Republican majority would serve as “a check on the administration” in any dispute with Israel — a statement so astonishing that one pro-Israel journalist viewed it as not only unprecedented, but “extraordinary.”

None of this has been lost on the administration, which is apparently intent on proving to Cantor (and the new Republican majority) that it’s as committed to Israel as they are. Or more. On October 25, Dennis Ross, the White House point person on the Middle East, told a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that not only is America committed “to Israel’s security”, but that the US commitment “has also been demonstrated in our work to defeat efforts in international organizations to single out or delegitimize Israel.”

This is new, but undoubtedly welcome to Israel’s supporters: the US will not only defend Israel, it will silence its critics. The Ross pledge was ostensibly made to bar a UN move for Palestinian statehood which, under the agreement, would be vetoed by the US.

But the administration’s new promise has far reaching consequences. It pledges US opposition to Israeli compliance with international agreements on nuclear weapons (explicitly mentioned by Ross), the criticisms issued by Judge Goldstone in his report of Operation Cast Lead against Gaza, and any UN action condemning Israel for its May boarding of a ship on which 19-year-old Furkan Dogan, an American citizen, was killed. That investigation, which the US insisted be “prompt, impartial, credible and transparent,” is now (at America’s urging) in the hands of an investigation run by the Israelis.

The Ross message to AIPAC was repeated by Vice President Biden during a meeting of the Jewish Federations of North America in New Orleans, just two weeks later. The Biden speech included the administration’s mantra — “we are absolutely, unequivocally committed to Israel’s security” — and then focused on the administration’s new effort to fight any questioning of Israel’s actions, extending to the international community the view now required of every American: that Israel not only be defended, but viewed as above criticism.

Biden bragged about his role in defending Israeli actions during the flotilla episode in his New Orleans speech. “That’s why, at the direction of President Obama…I spent hour after hour in the aftermath of the flotilla incident, trying to put it in its proper focus and ensure that Israel had its right to conduct its own independent investigation.”

Breathtaking: people weren’t opposed to Israel’s right to “conduct its own independent investigation” (who cares?), they simply believed that any Israeli inquiry would be a Moscow show trial in reverse: instead of being automatically condemned, the accused would be automatically acquitted. The message to American citizens is clear: if a Muslim kills you it’s because he’s a terrorist, if an Israeli kills you, it’s because you’re a terrorist.

The Obama Administration’s newest promise to Israel is abject, embarrassing and gutless. Our country — our president — is rewarding a foreign leader who openly boasts that America “is something that can easily be moved,” who urges a waiting game with the US because he knows that Israel’s friends in the Congress will defy a president who opposes him, who tells his cabinet that he will outfox Barack Obama.

We are paying Israel to do something that is in their own interests — and very much not in ours. That’s extortion. The Obama Administration has this dangerously wrong. F-35s? This is not a defensive weapon. The jet is the most advanced air system in the world, with a round-trip capability that puts Tehran in range of Tel Aviv. The message, intended or not, will be heard by Iran: we’re not interested in allowing Israel to defend itself, we’re interested in having it attack others.

The administration has not made Israel stronger, they’ve made America more vulnerable. We are purposely escalating the regional sprint to acquire weapons that will eventually, and inevitably, kill American soldiers. We have lost our way. It is not Israel’s legitimacy that needs defending, but ours.

This is not the first time this has happened. During his second administration, George Washington faced a similar test and finally, if reluctantly, agreed to pay ransom to the Barbary extortionists. He had little choice: the US had no navy and little international leverage. Then Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson opposed paying of the tribute, but acceded to Washington decision.

It was a terrible mistake: in 1795, the US paid $1 million in cash and turned over valuable naval stores to keep the peace in North Africa. It didn’t work. The Pashas of Barbary demanded more. George Washington, the father of our country, was a very great man. But in this one case he was wrong; and Thomas Jefferson was right: “Paying tribute,” he said, “will merely invite more demands.”

The above article can be found here: http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/15/not_one_cent_for_tribute_obamas_embarrassing_gift_to_israel


‘Obama has made Netanyahu an offer he can’t refuse’

Haaretz (Israel); November 15, 2010 The list of defense-related and other gifts the US administration is willing to offer to Israel in exchange for three months of construction freeze in the settlements raises suspicions that someone has gone mad.

An additional extension of the freeze, which he has previously rejected out of hand, may spell a political and ideological headache for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — but the offer by US President Barack Obama is very enticing. The addition of 20 F-35s to the package discussed two months ago tips the balance very clearly. From Israel’s point of view, it is an offer that cannot be refused.

Since Obama entered the White House two years ago, he has not given the impression — at least in terms of foreign relations — of being a particularly tough negotiator. Nonetheless, this time the administration appears to have gone overboard, even though in Washington they know full well that the freeze is a highly symbolic gesture, which the settlers have already managed to avoid in the past.

This, of course, raises suspicions that there are much broader and substantive issues at hand, and not merely a few housing units in Samaria or Gush Etzion. Not only may there be a genuine Israeli willingness to move forward in a substantive way in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, but perhaps some sort of deal on the Iranian question is afoot.

Could it be — and this is only conjecture — that Obama is trying to persuade Israel to commit to desisting from any independent action against the nuclear installations of Iran, in exchange for a substantial future reinforcement of the Israel Air Force?

The F-35 deal signed last month was controversial in both defense establishment and political circles. The debate did not stem from the quality of the stealth aircraft, but from the price tag accompanying it: Generals and minister believed that when the price per unit is more than $130 million, there are better ways to make use of the US military aid package.

But, according to the prime minister, the US is now generously offering to double the number of aircraft without the funding for them being taken from the future military aid package.

This is an enormous gift, which nearly makes the debate on the need for the F-35 redundant. According to reports, there will also be significant benefits elsewhere in the gift list for Israel.

In spite a great deal of bad mouthing about him, the US president has proven no less committed to Israel’s security than his predecessor. To date the security package has included emergency stores that are available to the Israel Defense Forces, a $205-million grant to purchase Iron Dome systems, and a significant stepping-up of joint missile defense training programs. The list of items to come, at least on paper, is impressive.

“The Americans have put forth an excellent proposal. It will be a big mistake not to take it,” a senior defense source told Haaretz last night, adding that “the prime minister has made impressive gains. If we do not implement this deal, we will suffer in terms of defense.”

Obama is essentially spotlighting a debate that has been going on since the settlements began — namely, whether they contribute to or undermine Israel’s security. The US president is now asking: What benefits Israeli security more — a few more trailers on some hilltops or doubling the number of advanced fighters in its inventory?

The above article can be found here: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/mess-report-obama-has-made-netanyahu-an-offer-he-can-t-refuse-1.324687


‘Israel mulls F-35s for peace-talks offer’

Aviation Week (US); November 22, 2010

Besides an additional 20 Lockheed Martin F-35s, at a cost of around $3 billion, if Israel makes more movement for peace with Palestinians, the US also has pledged to provide Israel with more technologies and capabilities to counter threats from Iran and to veto any anti-Israeli resolution in the UN or the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Further, the US has proposed signing a new defense treaty with Israel if a peace accord with the Palestinians can be achieved.

Western defense sources tell Aviation Week that the offer was initially presented to Israel in September, at the time when the previous 10-month moratorium on settlements was about to expire, but was rejected by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The offer was renewed by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a seven-hour meeting with Netanyahu in New York on Nov. 11.

It is assumed that Clinton demanded, in addition to the moratorium, that Israel will accept the US guidelines for the negotiations with the Palestinians and will remove some of the objections that have stalled the peace process so far.

As part of its efforts to revitalize stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, the US government is widely reported to be suggesting it may provide Tel Aviv 20 additional F-35s if it halts new building construction in the West Bank.

Palestinians cite the construction efforts as the main barrier to resuming negotiations.

While the US State Department has refused to comment on the matter this week, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak confirmed that such an offer was made by the US. “In the past, we wanted to procure 40 F-35s, but due to budget constraints we could only afford 20,” he said. “Now the US is offering to give us the additional 20 in exchange for a 90-day freeze on settlements.”

But apparently Netanyahu has asked to receive the US offer in a presidential letter that he would put before the Israeli cabinet, a move that stirred opposition from his own party and other coalition partners. “Twenty fighters are much more important in the long term than the current political friction between Netanyahu and his party members,” says Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, frequently a political rival to Netanyahu.

Without commenting directly on the US offer, Israel air force commander, Maj. Gen. Ido Nachoshtan, notes that “the F-35s will provide us a significant strategic capability. They have a key role in the building of Israel’s air force in the face of a developing arena.”

In October, Israel signed a $2.75 billion contract to buy a first squadron of 20 F-35As, to be financed through US foreign military aid funds. The aircraft are due to be delivered in 2015-17.

“The US offer to provide additional fighters for free is an offer we cannot refuse,” a senior defense source told Aviation Week. However, if Israel will accept the offer, the new fighters will be delivered only by the end of the decade, and will be irrelevant to any imminent conflict with Iran.

As of mid-November, the US presidential letter of commitment had yet to be received in Israel.

The above article can be found here: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2010/11/19/awx_11_19_2010_p0-270734.xml&channel=defense

 


‘Washington rolls over’

Al-Ahram Weekly (Egypt); November 25, 2010

The [Zionist-run] Palestinian Authority (PA) reacted indignantly but helplessly to the reported package of incentives the Obama administration has offered Israel in exchange for agreeing to “freeze” settlement construction in the West Bank for 90 days.

PA officials said the incentives would embolden Israel even further and make any real progress in the peace process less likely.

“With these huge amounts of weapons, with these comprehensive diplomatic guarantees, why would Israel even think of giving concessions or make peace?” asked Ghassan Al-Khatib, head of the Government Information Office in Ramallah.

Another Palestinian official said the incentives amounted to “a total surrender of American political will to Israel”.

According to written assurances, Israel would receive far-reaching offers and guarantees that no other US administration agreed to cede to Israel. This includes offering Israel 20 F-35 fighters, Israel’s control of the entire Jordan Valley for an unspecific period of time after a final border is established, and a guarantee that the US will veto any anti-Israeli resolution at the UN Security Council.

The incentives deal, which has not been finalized, is still vague with regards to freezing settlement building in East Jerusalem. Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, insisted that Jerusalem was not included in the deal. “Jerusalem is not a settlement, and Israel won’t stop building in the capital,” Netanyahu has said.

However, diplomatic sources in Ramallah have pointed out that Israel might agree to take some “symbolic measures” in East Jerusalem to persuade the Palestinians to rejoin the talks.

Meanwhile, Israel is trying to take advantage of the incentives by insisting on the inclusion of a clause that would make the US refrain from asking Israel, once again, to initiate another settlement freeze, regardless of the situation on the ground.

The effective bribe being offered to Israel has raised eyebrows, even among Israel’s most rightwing political currents, who deemed the move “a golden deal that Israel can’t reject,” and that “such a deal must never be missed.”

Some Israeli leaders affiliated with Netanyahu’s Likud Party were quoted as saying that Israel should accept the deal and at the same time stick to its settlement policy in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The inference was that Israel could always circumvent any promises given to the Americans vis-à-vis a settlement freeze, and that in any case the Obama administration is in no position to pressure Israel given its “insecure domestic standing” especially in light of the outcome of the recent midterm congressional elections.

The main reason for Israel’s embrace of the incentives deal is the inclusion of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (FSJ). Considered the best in US military technology, the FSJ is part of a joint multinational acquisition program for the US Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps as well as eight international partners.

By allowing Israel to acquire these state-of-the-art fighters, Israel effectively joins the US and the other eight countries as members of a Western alliance working together on the largest military aircraft procurement ever made.

According to one American strategic analyst, Israel is not just receiving a gift of 20 F-35s, it is also becoming part of a procurement program designed to run through 2026 and possibly longer. According to the Global Security report, the F-35 fleet “may well stay in service until 2060 or longer”.

It is not clear what prompted the Obama administration to offer Israel the package of incentives in return for so little and with such uncertainty.

Some say the package is partially intended to benefit the US military industrial complex; others suggest that the Obama administration has been effectively demoralized, having seen Israeli leaders circumvent, outmaneuver and beat the administration on its own turf. Still others interpret the unprecedented offering by citing growing desperation in Washington for any diplomatic achievement that would warrant and justify the Nobel Peace Prize Obama won last year, especially in light of his most modest achievements and many failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is little doubt that Israel will be able to score a double hit in its current standoff with Washington: get the package of incentives and also have its way in the West Bank. Israel would receive the best and utmost America military technology in return for strategically insignificant promises that Israel won’t likely keep.

Underscoring its ill-will towards a just and dignified peace with neighboring Arab states, the Israeli Knesset this week passed a bill that obliges the government not to agree to withdraw from the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem without the approval of an absolute majority in the Knesset followed by a referendum in which a majority of the people would have to support any withdrawal.

Israel annexed both East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in violation of international law in 1967. Israel has also built extensive Jewish colonies in both areas, which makes it difficult to return to the status quo ante before the occupation in 1967.

Another Israeli provocation has been the approval by the Israeli government for changing the timeless features of Al-Aqsa Mosque’s Buraq Wall, known to Jews as the Western Wall or Wailing Wall. The scheme appears aimed at erasing Islamic history at the site, ruled as wholly Islamic by the League of Nations during the British Mandate era.

The Israeli government allocated a budget of $25 million to expand and develop the site as well as fund archaeological excavations. The Israeli plan would be the most extensive alteration of the features of Haram Al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary) since 1967.

Meanwhile, the PA, weak and helpless, is considering appealing to the United Nations General Assembly for recognition of a Palestinian state in light of Israel’s unilateral steps in the occupied territories and also US unwillingness — or inability — to force Israel to end its occupation of Arab land.

PA leader Mahmoud Abbas met this week in Cairo with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The two are believed to have agreed that the Palestinians would go the UN as a last resort, if current US efforts fail.

However, even receiving a positive resolution from the UN General Assembly would not radically alter the situation on the ground, as without the intercession of the UN Security Council there would be no means available of enforcing the consensus of the General Assembly which for decades has supported, in majority, the rights of the Palestinians.

The circle is squared when the US includes in its incentive package to continue wielding its Security Council veto in Israel’s favor.

The above article can be found here: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2010/1024/re4.htm


US Dept. of State daily press briefing

November 15, 2010

QUESTION: Just regarding US assurances of Israel’s security, the proposal that you guys have made to Israel reportedly includes 20 F-35s.  And I know you’re going to say, “We’re not going to comment on the details,” but I’m —

STATE DEPT. SPOKESMAN PHILIP CROWLEY: I’m not going to comment on the details.  (Laughter)

QUESTION: I want to finish so you’ll understand why I think you should.  The agreement is for 20 planes.  Israel has already committed to buying 20 of these planes from Lockheed at a cost of $7 billion.  So my question is:  If — is this the same 20 planes and, if so, what kind of incentive is that?  I mean, they’ve already committed to buying.  If it’s not, are you actually spending $7 billion to get them to extend the talks, extend freeze — the freeze for 90 days?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m —

QUESTION: Because that’s the way it looks.

MR. CROWLEY: Again, I’m not going to comment on details.  Our policy with regard to Israel’s security is well known. We are —

QUESTION: But $7 billion?

MR. CROWLEY: We are — look, we are committed to maintaining Israel’s qualitative edge in the region and– but beyond that, I’m not going to comment.

QUESTION: That was actually my question as well.  (Inaudible)

QUESTION: Well, wait a second.

MR. CROWLEY: All right, hold —

QUESTION: Let’s stay — staying on the planes.  Is this something that they would have to buy or are you going to give them these?

MR. CROWLEY: Again, I’m not going to comment on any specific discussions.  I would just always caution that any time you have reports about specific things, some details may be right, some details may be wrong.

QUESTION: All right.  Well, let’s — then let’s just ask this:  Can you — can this Administration afford to give Israel another $3 billion worth of military equipment?

MR. CROWLEY: Again, we are committed to support Israel —

QUESTION: Well, regardless of whether you’re committed to preserving their qualitative military edge, can you —

MR. CROWLEY: Again, I — you’re —

QUESTION: Can this Administration, which is broke, afford —

MR. CROWLEY: — leaping —

QUESTION: — afford another $3 billion?

MR. CROWLEY: You’re leaping to a conclusion — to conclusions that I’m not prepared to address here.

QUESTION: But Israeli officials have told reporters over there this.  Are they misleading the reporters?

MR. CROWLEY: Again, I’m just not going to get into any details of ideas that may or may not be under discussion between the United States and Israel.

The above excerpt can be found here: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/11/150914.htm


 

Also see ‘Zionist state to build another 1300 Jewish-only housing units in occupied W. Bank’ here: http://800pg.co.cc/geeklog//article.php?story=20101113221900526

Also see ‘Zionist-run PA (along with Arab League and OIC) keeps UN Goldstone Report, flotilla probe in bureaucratic limbo’ here: http://800pg.co.cc/geeklog//article.php?story=20101102133320707

Also see ‘Jewish general to pilot evangelical-friendly air force (2008)’ here: http://800pg.co.cc/geeklog//article.php?story=20101006022753162

Also see ‘While Washington plays peacemaker, US Treasury supports illegal Israeli settlement drive’ here: http://800pg.co.cc/geeklog//article.php?story=20100809143242274

Jewish congressmen want convicted spy’s release added to long list of US gifts to Israel

Posted in ZOGs on November 27, 2010 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

‘Weiner, colleagues urge clemency for Jonathan Pollard’

Yeshiva World News; November 18, 2010

Today, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Queens and Brooklyn) and 39 of his colleagues announced they are sending a letter to US President [and Zionist front-man] Barack Obama urging him to pardon Jonathan Pollard, who received a disproportionately severe sentence when he was convicted of spying for Israel, one of the United States’ closest allies [sic].

“We write to urge you to use your constitutional power to extend clemency to Jonathan Pollard, thereby releasing him from prison after the time he has already served,” the letter reads. “We believe that there has been a great disparity from the standpoint of justice between the amount of time Mr. Pollard has served and the time that has been served — or not served at all — by many others who were found guilty of similar activity on behalf of nations that, like Israel, are not adversarial to us.”

[Not adversarial? How, then, does one describe a country that murdered more than 3000 innocent Americans on September 11, 2001 and then blamed the crime on its guiltless enemies? — 800]

In 1985, Pollard was charged with passing classified information to the Israeli government. He cooperated with investigators, admitted his wrongdoing, and was sentenced to life in prison. No one who has ever pleaded guilty to a similar crime — one count of spying for an ally — has ever been sentenced to a life term. He has now served more than 25 years in federal prison.

Weiner has been a longtime advocate for awarding Pollard clemency.  In 2005, he urged Attorney General Gonzalez to release crucial information in the Jonathan Pollard case to Pollard’s attorneys.

During the sentencing phase of Pollard’s trial, the government submitted a memo to the court which was later referenced by the judge as justification for his stiff sentence. Despite the fact that they have the necessary security clearance, the government has never allowed Pollard’s lawyers to review the memo. This has severely hamstrung Pollard’s attorneys’ efforts to win him clemency.

The letter concludes with Weiner and his colleagues writing that “we see clemency for Mr. Pollard as an act of compassion justified by the way others have been treated by our justice system; as an act that will do nothing whatsoever to lessen our defenses against espionage; and a step that far from hurting the national security, could advance it by the impact it would have within Israel. We urge you to use the clemency power in this case.”

Full text of letter:

November 18, 2010

President Barack Obama
The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,

We write to urge you to use your constitutional power to extend clemency to Jonathan Pollard, thereby releasing him from prison after the time he has already served. Mr. Pollard committed serious crimes and he has expressed remorse.  Such an exercise of the clemency power would not in any way imply doubt about his guilt, nor cast any aspersions on the process by which he was convicted.  Those who have such views are of course entitled to continue to have them, but the clemency grant has nothing to do with that.

We believe that there has been a great disparity from the standpoint of justice between the amount of time Mr. Pollard has served and the time that has been served — or not served at all — by many others who were found guilty of similar activity on behalf of nations that, like Israel, are not adversarial to us. It is indisputable in our view that the nearly twenty-five years that Mr. Pollard has served stands as a sufficient time from the standpoint of either punishment or deterrence.

In summary, we see clemency for Mr. Pollard as an act of compassion justified by the way others have been treated by our justice system.  We urge you to use the clemency power in this case.

Sincerely,

Barney Frank                                                   Bill Pascrell, Jr.
Member of Congress                                       Member of Congress

Edolphus Towns                                              Anthony Weiner
Member of Congress                                       Member of Congress

Henry A.  Waxman                                          Gary L. Ackerman
Member of Congress                                       Member of Congress

Gregory W. Meeks                                           Maurice D. Hinchey
Member of Congress                                       Member of Congress

Michael E. McMahon                                       Janice D. Schakowsky
Member of Congress                                       Member of Congress

John W. Olver                                                    Eliot L. Engel
Member of Congress                                       Member of Congress

Theodore E. Deutsch                                       Robert A. Brady.
Member of Congress                                       Member of Congress

Donald M. Payne                                             Shelley Berkley
Member of Congress                                       Member of Congress

Jerrold Nadler                                                  Carolyn B. Maloney
Member of Congress                                       Member of Congress

Steven R. Rothman                                         Ron Klein
Member of Congress                                       Member of Congress

Raúl M. Grijalva                                                 Steve Kagen
Member of Congress                                       Member of Congress

Carolyn McCarthy                                           Chaka Fattah
Member of Congress                                       Member of Congress

John Lewis                                                        Frank Pallone, Jr.
Member of Congress                                       Member of Congress

Charles B. Rangel                                            Robert C. “Bobby” Scott
Member of Congress                                       Member of Congress

Laura Richardson                                            James A. Himes
Member of Congress                                       Member of Congress

Brad Sherman                                                  Patrick J. Kennedy
Member of Congress                                       Member of Congress

Bennie G. Thompson                                       John J. Hall
Member of Congress                                       Member of Congress

Sheila Jackson Lee                                         Eleanor Holmes Norton
Member of Congress                                       Member of Congress

Robert E. Andrews                                           Niki Tsongas
Member of Congress                                       Member of Congress

Danny Davis
Member of Congress

The above article can be found here: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/General+News/75900/Weiner,-Colleagues-Urge-Clemency-For-Jonathan-Pollard.html


 


‘Congressional letter urges Obama to release Pollard’

Jewish Telegraphic Agency; November 19, 2010

A congressional letter to President Obama urging clemency for Jonathan Pollard garnered 39 signatures, all Democrats.

In comments at a press conference late Thursday, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said he initiated the letter, written in coordination with a broad array of Jewish groups, mostly out of humanitarian concerns for the convicted Israeli spy, imprisoned 25 years, but also as a spur in the peace process.

“My own hope is that if the president were to do this it would contribute to the political climate within the democracy of Israel to enhance the peace process,” he said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has in the past said that releasing Pollard would help secure support for concessions in peace talks with the Palestinians.

The letter’s emphasis is on what it says is the disproportionate length of Pollard’s sentence.

“We believe that there has been a great disparity from the standpoint of justice between the amount of time Mr. Pollard has served and the time that has been served — or not served at all — by many others who were found guilty of similar activity on behalf of nations that, like Israel, are not adversarial to us,” it says. “It is indisputable in our view that the nearly twenty-five years that Mr. Pollard has served stands as a sufficient time from the standpoint of either punishment or deterrence.”

It also emphasizes that Pollard is guilty. “Such an exercise of the clemency power would not in any way imply doubt about his guilt, nor cast any aspersions on the process by which he was convicted,” it says.

Frank said he tried hard to solicit Republican signatories, but was turned down even by the most sympathetic GOP lawmakers for fear of political blowback from the Republican base.

“The current nature of the Republican party is that this is not the thing to do,” he said.

Frank did not elaborate but Jewish officials speaking off the record confirmed his efforts and said that national security sensibilities among some Republican officials have hindered efforts to garner support.

David Nyer, a grassroots Jewish activist who helped organize the effort, said the letter had the support of Gary Bauer, a Christian evangelist leader and onetime vier for the Republican presidential candidacy.

Among the Jewish groups backing the effort were the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, National Council of Young Israel, B’nai B’rith International, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the Zionist Organization of America, Agudath Israel of America and the Rabbinic Council of America.

Also supporting the effort were several Reagan administration officials who were at the center of Pollard’s prosecution.

The above article can be found here: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=195988


 


‘PM asks for Pollard’s release as part of freeze deal’

Jerusalem Post (Israel); November 21, 2010

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has asked the US to release Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard as part of a series of gestures made to Israel in an effort to restart peace talks with the Palestinians, sources with knowledge of the talks told The Jerusalem Post over the weekend.

Sunday is the 25th anniversary of Pollard’s arrest at the gates of the Israeli Embassy in Washington. He is serving a life sentence in prison in Butner, North Carolina, for passing classified information to an ally [sic], a charge that normally carries a sentence of no more than 10 years.

When Army Radio first reported last month that Pollard’s name had been raised in talks with senior American officials about restarting the settlement freeze, Israeli officials denied that his fate was on the bargaining table. But sources confirmed that Netanyahu and American officials had discussed whether Pollard’s release could persuade Israeli ministers to accept another moratorium.

The sources said American officials had sought to determine whether Pollard’s release could result in Netanyahu agreeing to renew the freeze, and if so, by how much. The sources said such discussions had occurred recently, but they did not know whether Pollard’s fate had been raised in a seven-and-a-half-hour meeting between Netanyahu and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on November 11, in which the prime minister agreed to seek approval in the security cabinet for a three-month freeze in return for a series of gestures that reportedly do not include releasing Pollard.

The Post quoted sources last month who said that “no minister in Netanyahu’s government would oppose a two-month extension of the settlement freeze in return for Pollard’s freedom.”

Netanyahu faced criticism for refusing to take along a letter from 109 MKs asking US President Barack Obama to grant Pollard clemency when he met with Vice President Joe Biden in New Orleans on November 8. But the source said Netanyahu had been active behind the scenes recently in seeking Pollard’s release.

Justice For Jonathan Pollard and the Committee to Bring Jonathan Pollard Home have unequivocally called for his release, “as a matter of simple justice, not as part of any deal that would weaken Israel or endanger other Jews in any way.”

Nevertheless, the organizations called it shocking that Israel would even consider making a major gesture to the Americans at this time without first pulling Pollard out of harm’s way.

“Israel’s continuing failure to demonstrate the most minimal responsibility for the fate of her agent is shocking, particularly in light of all of the latest revelations of government malfeasance by both the US and Israel toward Pollard for the last 25 years,” the organizations said in a statement.

“If there is any American ‘incentive’ to release Pollard as a gesture to Israel — and a matter of simple justice — it is particularly at a time when the US is negotiating with Israel for what it wants. Now is the time to secure Pollard’s release, before any gestures are considered by Israel. Our position remains, now more than ever: Pollard must be freed as a matter of simple justice — and he must be freed now.”

In the weeks ahead of Sunday’s 25th anniversary, notable American and Israeli officials who were involved with Pollard’s arrest have pushed for his release. The officials include Pollard’s former handler, Rafi Eitan, and Lawrence Korb, who was undersecretary of state under Caspar Weinberger at the time of Pollard’s arrest.

The latest to join the list was Supreme Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein, who was an attaché in Washington and the most senior official at the Israeli Embassy on the day Pollard was arrested. In a speech at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem on November 15, Rubinstein said he heard about the arrest only after it happened.

“I hope and believe that the government of Israel will continue to act to free Jonathan Pollard,” he said. “Many mistakes have been made. But there is no way to go back and undo the past. The time has come, for both moral and humane reasons, to free Jonathan Pollard.

“Twenty-five years is a heavy price. It is my hope that the United States, as an enlightened country, will release him.”

On November 18, Congressmen Barney Frank, Bill Pascrell Jr., Anthony Weiner and Steven Rothman, along with representatives of major US Jewish organizations, held a press conference to call for Obama to grant Pollard clemency.

At the press conference, they released a letter to Obama, signed by 39 Democratic members of Congress, asking him to act on the Pollard issue.

“We believe that there has been a great disparity from the standpoint of justice between the amount of time Mr. Pollard has served and the time that has been served — or not served at all — by many others who were found guilty of similar activity on behalf of nations that, like Israel, are not adversarial to us,” the letter says.

“It is indisputable in our view that the nearly 25 years that Mr. Pollard has served stands as a sufficient time from the standpoint of either punishment or deterrence.”

The signatories stress that were Pollard released now, it would “not in any way imply doubt about his guilt, nor cast any aspersions on the process by which he was convicted.”

They called clemency for Pollard after his 25-year sentence an “act of compassion.”

The release of Pollard, a former US Navy intelligence analyst who is serving a life sentence for passing classified material to Israel, was recently floated as a possible bargaining chip for the US in its quest to convince Netanyahu to extend a settlement freeze that the Palestinians are demanding as a condition to restart stalled peace talks.

Additionally, Pollard’s lawyer has recently filed a clemency request with the White House after revelations suggesting government malfeasance in the case surfaced.

The congressmen who signed on to the letter to Obama did not cite these developments in making their appeal.

“The fact that Mr. Pollard’s sentence has been unduly harsh compared to sentences of other individuals convicted of similar crimes is wrong,” Rothman said. “The crime he committed was very serious, but the time that he has served, 25 years, has fully met the needs of punishment and deterrence. Also, Mr. Pollard has long expressed remorse for his actions.”

The above article can be found here: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=196093&R=R4



‘Timing, lobbying advance new push for Jonathan Pollard’

Jewish Telegraphic Agency; November 22, 2010

WASHINGTON — A combination of timing, diplomatic considerations and, above all, good old-fashioned nudging has culminated in the biggest push in years to free Jonathan Pollard.

Insiders associated with the push, which resulted last week in a congressional letter to President Obama asking for clemency for the American Jew convicted in 1987 of spying for Israel, say the main factor was one man: David Nyer, an Orthodox activist from Monsey, N.Y.

Nyer, working under the auspices of the National Council of Young Israel and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, repeatedly called dozens of congressional offices and pressed Jewish groups asking for a leader to take on the case of Pollard, the former US Navy analyst who has spent 25 years in prison as part of a life sentence — the longest sentence for spying for an ally.

Congressional staffers described Nyer as “relentless,” and he eventually struck gold: Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who chairs the US House of Representatives Banking Committee, agreed to sign on. That prompted a total of 39 signatures — all from Democrats — to the letter sent to Obama.

Getting Frank was a coup, one congressional insider said, not only because he has a leadership position, but because his pronounced liberalism in other arenas adds credibility to an effort that has been identified in recent years with the Israeli and pro-Israel right.

Frank took up the cause because he long has believed that Pollard’s life sentence was disproportionate to the crime, his spokesman said.

“It is something he feels strongly about,” Harry Gural told JTA.

Launching the initiative at a Capitol Hill news conference Nov. 18, Frank listed two factors that made the matter timely: Pollard’s 25 years in prison as of Sunday and the parlous state of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

“The justification of this is the humanitarian one and the notion that the American justice system should be a fair one,” Frank said. “We believe that clemency after 25 years for the offenses of Jonathan Pollard would do that.

“My own hope is that if the president would do this, it would contribute to the political climate within the democracy of Israel and would enhance the peace process.”

Frank alluded to Obama’s low popularity in Israel where, fairly or not, the president has been saddled with a reputation as cool to Israeli interests.

“There are clearly people in Israel who are concerned about the nature of the American-Israeli relationship,” Frank said. “An affirmation of that relationship would go forward” to alleviating such concern.

Frank was joined at the news conference by Reps. Steve Rothman and and Bill Pascrell, both of New Jersey, and Anthony Weiner of New York. Pascrell met with Pollard in 1998 at Butner, the federal facility in North Carolina where he is imprisoned. Another initiator of the letter was Rep. Edolphus Towns of New York.

The letter’s emphasis is on what it says is the disproportionate length of Pollard’s sentence.

“We believe that there has been a great disparity from the standpoint of justice between the amount of time Mr. Pollard has served and the time that has been served — or not served at all — by many others who were found guilty of similar activity on behalf of nations that, like Israel, are not adversarial to us,” the letter says. “It is indisputable in our view that the nearly twenty-five years that Mr. Pollard has served stands as a sufficient time from the standpoint of either punishment or deterrence.”

It also emphasizes that Pollard is guilty.

“Such an exercise of the clemency power would not in any way imply doubt about his guilt, nor cast any aspersions on the process by which he was convicted,” the letter says.

The absence of Republicans on the letter was striking.

Frank said he had reached out to Republicans and had delayed sending the letter until after the elections in order not to make it a political issue. Speaking on background, Jewish organizational officials — some of them allied with the most conservative groups — confirmed that was the case. Pro-Israel figures in some cases called the Republicans and said not signing would stain otherwise spotless pro-Israel records, but it didn’t help.

Two congressional Republicans known to have been on Nyer’s call list did not return calls from JTA seeking comment.

Nyer said he had secured the endorsement of conservative figures known for their closeness to the party, including Gary Bauer, the president of American Values, and John Hagee, the founder of Christians United for Israel. Hagee had reached out to Republicans, Nyer said, but to no avail.

Among the Jewish groups backing the effort were the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the National Council of Young Israel, B’nai B’rith International, the Religious Action Center of the Reform movement, the Zionist Organization of America, Agudath Israel of America and the Rabbinical Council of America. Other mainstream groups stayed out — a signal of how sensitive the matter of a Jew spying for Israel remains.

One official at a pro-Israel organization said the multitude of groups backing the initiative shows how much the American Jewish community has moved on from the anxieties that beset its reactions to the revelations in 1985 that Israel had run a spy in Washington. Now, the official said, Pollard’s proponents are more vocal and more numerous.

Pollard’s backers in Israel are aware of the change and are encouraging activists like Nyer to mount an active offense.

Nyer, at Frank’s news conference, sounded nonplussed by his own achievement.

“I came across scores of ordinary Americans in the country, as well as prominent figures, who have joined the calls for Jonathan’s release,” he said.

Beyond the congressional letter, the 25th anniversary of Pollard’s incarceration has spawned a number of Op-Eds calling for Pollard’s release, including one in The Washington Post over the weekend by his father, Morris Pollard.

Rabbi David Saperstein, who directs the Religious Action Center, said Frank weighted the matter properly: The justice of the matter was key, but the timing of the peace process helped.

“It is always the right time to do the just thing in the face of the disproportionate sentence,” Saperstein said. “If it has an ancillary benefit, if this is the way to move the process along, I’m all in favor of it — but it should be done on its own merits.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has favored such a release since he first proposed it during his first term, at the Wye River negotiations in 1998. President Clinton reportedly was ready to agree but was rebuffed by top intelligence officials. The CIA director at the time, George Tenet, said he would quit if Clinton agreed, and the president backed down.

Netanyahu is again prime minister, and negotiations again are fraught. Netanyahu is negotiating with the White House over concessions for freezing settlement building as a means to draw Palestinians back to direct talks.

Meanwhile, the reasons for the US intelligence community’s strong stance against Pollard remain unknown. [This statement is ludicrous. For the many reasons for the US intelligence community’s strong stance against Pollard, whose spying activities caused incalculable damage to US national security, see below — 800]

“Anyone who knows isn’t talking, and anyone who is talking doesn’t know,” Weiner said.

But two figures involved in the prosecution now have come forward to say Pollard has served enough time.

Lawrence Korb, an assistant secretary of defense in 1987, said in a letter that his boss, the late Caspar Weinberger, had a “visceral dislike for Israel” and that played a role in his pressing the judge to ignore the plea bargain Pollard had worked out with prosecutors.

The other Reagan administration official recommending clemency is Abraham Sofaer, who helped investigate the breadth of the secrets Pollard stole for the Israelis.

The above article can be found here: http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/11/22/2741854/pollard-push-the-result-of-timing-and-a-good-ole-noodge


 


‘Wake up, America!’ (The treachery of Jonathan Pollard)

anti-war.com; September 30, 2010

By Philip Giraldi

Let us suppose for a moment that an individual enjoying the full confidence and trust of the United States government was given access to the most secret information possessed by the US military, to include how it would react to an attack by an aggressor armed with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Let us further suppose that that individual violated his trust in the most egregious and vile fashion, offering to sell the information to anyone, but eventually settling on a nation ostensibly friendly to the US but not in any way a formal ally.

The individual then proceeded to deliver defense secrets literally by the carload, not only information that might plausibly have been construed as relevant to the buyer’s own security, but also strategic defense information that could conceivably have led to the deaths of millions of American citizens. That information was then bartered and re-sold to an enemy who was in a position to use it to devastate the United States, together with sources and methods information on intelligence operations that in short order led to the deaths of many American citizens and also foreigners who had been cooperating with the United States.

Let us further suppose that the individual who stole the secrets was eventually caught because the sheer volume of what he was stealing was detected in spite of the indolence and incompetence of his superiors and he was convicted and imprisoned for life. In the damage assessment made after the arrest, it was determined that the espionage had been the most devastating ever experienced by the United States of America, both in volume and in the sensitivity of the information that had been betrayed.

Fast forward a few years.  The country that paid the man to steal the secrets becomes a major beneficiary of US assistance and uses the money to set up a lobbying organization that effectively manages key players in the federal government and the media, making it virtually invulnerable to any criticism.  Pumped up by hubris, that country seeks on several occasions to obtain the freedom of its spy, claiming inaccurately that he was only taking information used for purely defensive purposes.

Fast forward a few more years and legislators in the US Congress known to be advocates of the foreign country that bought the secrets join in, calling for the release of the convicted spy. The media, also compromised and in the pockets of the foreign lobby, obligingly does not report the tale of American legislators who have apparently sold out.

I am, of course, referring to Jonathan Pollard and his friends in Israel and the United States. Pollard did more damage to the United States than any spy in history. And it was genuine damage, not just a mass of documents that had been routinely classified.  Pollard’s Israeli handler, aided by someone in the White House who has up until now evaded arrest, was able to ask for specific classified documents by name and number.

The Soviets obtained US war plans, passed to them by the Israelis in exchange for money and free emigration of Russian Jews without any regard for the damage it was doing to the United States. The KGB was able to use the mass of information to reconstruct US intelligence operations directed against it and a number of Americans and US agents paid with their lives.

Pollard also revealed to the Israelis and Soviets the technical and human source capabilities that US intelligence did and did not have, which is the most critical information of all as it underlies all information collection efforts. Compounding the problem, the United States has never actually been able to accurately ascertain all of the damage done by Pollard because the Israeli government has refused to cooperate in the investigation and has not returned the documents that were stolen.

And make no mistake, Pollard did it for money. He has since wrapped himself in the Israeli flag and promoted himself as an observant Jew to justify his crime and to obtain his freedom. He is reported to be a very popular person in Israel, an Israeli citizen by act of parliament, and there is a square in Jerusalem that has been renamed “Freedom for Jonathan Pollard Square.”

There is also an active “Justice for Jonathan Pollard” movement in the United States supported by the heavyweight Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Never before has there been such a transformation, with a despicable lowlife spy who sold out his country for money turned into a hero.

Pollard is just one symptom of the asymmetrical relationship that makes many mutter “wag the dog” whenever the subject of Israel comes up. If ever a foreign country has stuck its thumb in the eye of Uncle Sam, it is Israel in its willingness to take the United States for a ride while always demanding still more. And when it demands more it is invariably given more, with US politicians and mainstream media ever willing to genuflect and do what is right for the kleptocracy in charge in Tel Aviv.

The latest criminal outrage is a quartet of congressmen who are calling on the Obama Administration to free Pollard to “advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.” Well, first of all, everyone knows that the talks are kabuki, designed to accomplish absolutely nothing while advancing the standing of Obama prior to the US congressional elections in November.

Israel continues its creeping annexation of the West Bank aided and abetted by Washington, which will do nothing substantive to stop the illegal and immoral activity. Abbas presumably is being bought off to stay silent while the play unfolds and Hamas, which should be sitting at the table, has been excluded.

That means that the congressmen in question, who actually took an oath to uphold the US Constitution, know that they are doing nothing but throwing yet another bone to Israel. The congressmen are Barney Frank of Massachusetts, Edolphus Towns of New York, Anthony Weiner also of New York, and Bill Pascrell of New Jersey.

Mark their names well.  Franks and Weiner are presumably acting due to tribal solidarity, but Pascrell and Towns are the straight men in the routine, brought along to make the Free Pollard movement appear to be less than a complete ethnically based sell out.

It is time for the American people to rise up and throw these bums out. Putting them in jail for malfeasance and corruption would be even better. I would like to see a panel of USS Liberty survivors and widows and orphans of the dead intelligence officers question Franks, Weiner, Pascrell, and Towns about their plan to free Pollard.

Better still, I would like to see some US veterans groups and their publications develop a backbone and take up the cause, finally saying that enough is enough since it is our soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have paid the price in their blood for the Israeli connection.  And then there is the intelligence communityIts leading lobby, Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO), has long ignored Israeli espionage and prefers to regularly express concern about “Islamofascism.”

Look in your own backyard folks — it is the Israelis who are skinning us alive, not the Muslims, and Pollard is the poster child of what exactly is being done to us. He is sometimes cited as proof that spies for Israel are caught and punished, but the truth is that he is the only one who has done hard time in jail and only because of the enormity of his crime while all the others have somehow slipped through our criminal justice system.

Franks, Weiner, Pascrell, and Towns are only the latest in a long line of collaborator politicians who should sometimes sit back and ponder where their loyalty actually lies. If they persist in their Pollard campaign, they should be regarded as not fit to sit in the congress of the United States. And that goes for anyone else who decides to lobby on behalf of Pollard.

An opportunity is coming in November to remove the snakes from Congress.  Let’s organize to get rid of Franks, Weiner, Pascrell, and Towns. To be sure they will be replaced by others who are probably just as attached to Israel or fearful of its lobby as they are, but the time will inevitably come when allegiance to a foreign nation that is a strategic liability for the United States will become unseemly. May that day come soon.

The above article can be found here: http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2010/09/29/wake-up-america/


 

 

Also see ‘Obama offers Israel free stealth fighters, UNSC vetoes, Jordan Valley for 90-day settlement freeze’ here: http://800pg.co.cc/geeklog//article.php?story=20101127013253495

Also see ‘Israel-firsters sweep US mid-terms; GOP majority will serve as check on Obama, republican leader tells Netanyahu’ here: http://800pg.co.cc/geeklog//article.php?story=20101118171349469

Also see ‘Zionist state to build another 1300 Jewish-only housing units in occupied W. Bank’ here: http://800pg.co.cc/geeklog//article.php?story=20101113221900526

Also see ‘Zionist agents in Congress, Senate preempt Freeman intel appointment’ here: http://800pg.co.cc/geeklog//article.php?story=20090317155244275

Also see ‘AIPAC spies set to walk (a dream scenario for the defense)’ here: http://800pg.co.cc/geeklog//article.php?story=20090305031253821

 

 

 

Forty-Six Important Unanswered Questions Regarding the Nazi Gas Chambers

Posted in Etc. on November 21, 2010 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

By David Cole

FOREWORDProfessor Deborah Lipstadt, author of Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, is the leading voice on college campuses and in the media arguing against intellectual freedom with regard to the holocaust controversy. She is passionate — well, obsessive — about not wanting to exchange views with revisionists.
“[A]t times,” she writes, “I have felt compelled to prove something I knew to be true. I had constantly to avoid being inadvertently sucked into a debate that is no debate and an argument that is no argument.” She adds that revisionism is “totally irrational . . . not responsive to logic” and that “evidence plays no role” in revisionist research.

I’m going to go out on a limb here. I know that Deborah Lipstadt and hundreds of other trained scholars with access to the relevant archives in Europe and the old Soviet Union have studied the Nazi gas chambers for half a century and know everything there is to know about them. Despite this universally accepted fact, I am presenting here a few questions about the notorious homicidal gassing chambers that are being raised by a young scholar named David Cole.

David Cole traveled to Europe twice to make on-site inspections of the still extant “gas chambers.” The lady who financed each of these little expeditions wanted me to go with Cole to direct the project. I thought that would be a nifty idea. I’d never been to Europe and here was my chance. But Cole kept telling me he could handle it on his own. After awhile I got the message. He didn’t want me to go. In the end, each time he went alone, or rather he and a camera woman. I think he was right. He didn’t need direction from me. He handled his responsibilities very well on his own.

When you read David Cole’s 46 unanswered questions about the Nazi gas chambers you may feel yourself hard-pressed — despite what Deborah Lipstadt would have you believe — to find them totally irrational, not responsive to logic, or that evidence plays no role in their design. Of course, you are probably not the towering intellectual that Deborah Lipstadt is, so if you find a few or perhaps more than a few of the 46 questions disturbing in their logic and rationality, precisely because they are based on the physical evidence commonly used to identify the “gas chambers,” why not ring up Professor Lipstadt at Emory University and ask her for the correct answers to these interesting puzzles?

Then pass her answers on to me. I’ll run them by David Cole and see what he has to say about them. Maybe we’ll be able to post Lipstadt’s criticisms of the 46 Questions here, along with David’s response to her criticisms. In the academy they call this process peer review. Ms. Lipstadt would probably point out to you that David Cole is not part of the “academy.” Let’s not call it peer review then. Let’s just call it talking it over. Tell her you have 46 questions about the German gassing chambers and you would like to talk them over with her.

Bradley R. Smith
9 October 1995

The Zyklon-B Issue

AT THE FORMER concentration camps of Auschwitz and Auschwitz-Birkenau, we find the following scenario: The buildings which used to serve as the camp delousing facilities still have extremely high traces of the gas Zyklon B, which was used in these buildings to disinfest clothing, mattresses, etc. Also, there is heavy blue staining on the walls both inside the delousing chambers, INSIDE the hallways between the delousing chambers, and OUTSIDE the building, on the EXTERIOR WALLS of the delousing facilities. However, the interiors of the Krema 1 gas chamber (Auschwitz Main Camp) and the Krema 2 and 3 gas chambers (Auschwitz-Birkenau), where hundreds of thousands if not millions of people are said to have been gassed, show only minute traces of Zyklon B and no blue staining.

Also, the Auschwitz camp barracks and offices, which were fumigated with the Zyklon B from time to time, show similarly minute traces of the gas, and no blue staining.

(1) What explanation can there be for the low levels of traces, and absence of blue staining, in the homicidal gas chambers?

(2) If one suggests that the Zyklon traces in the homicidal gas chambers have been “weathered away”, how can one explain the traces and staining on the OUTSIDE of the delousing complexes…traces which have NOT been weathered away after fifty years?

(3) It has been suggested that the amount of Zyklon B needed to kill people, even cumulative millions of people, would not leave traces as strong as the amount needed to kill lice in the delousing chambers. But when we factor in the Zyklon B traces still existing in the camp barracks and offices, we see that infrequent gassings will still leave SOME traces. Thus, we have the traces in the camp offices and barracks, which reveal what levels of traces would remain, fifty years after the fact, in rooms which were gassed infrequently.

Then we have the delousing chambers, which reveal what levels of traces would remain, fifty years after the fact, in rooms which were gassed frequently. Can it not be expected that the levels of traces in the homicidal gas chambers, while perhaps not being as high as those in the delousing rooms, would AT LEAST be substantially higher than the traces in the buildings which were only fumigated infrequently? Yet the traces in Kremas 1, 2 and 3 are not markedly higher than the office and barracks traces. Does this not suggest that the traces which DO exist in Kremas 1, 2 and 3 come from the same fumigation routine that all the other buildings went through?

(4) Once one has fashioned an explanation for the minute traces and no blue staining in Kremas 1, 2 and 3 at Auschwitz, how does one THEN explain the HIGH levels of Zyklon B traces and DEEP, FLOOR-TO-CEILING blue staining in three of the four Majdanek gas chambers? Far fewer people are said to have been killed at Majdanek than at Auschwitz. The four Majdanek gas chambers would never have had to handle the workload of Kremas 1,2 and 3. Yet whereas Kremas 1,2 and 3 have only minute traces and no blue staining, three of the four Majdanek gas chambers have heavy traces and deep blue staining. How could gassing a GREATER amount of people (at Auschwitz) leave minute traces and no blue staining, yet gassing a much SMALLER amount (at Majdanek) leave heavy traces and deep blue staining?

(5) The gas chambers at the Majdanek camp not only have heavy Zyklon B blue stains on the INSIDE, but also on the OUTSIDE walls, as well. What could account for this? The delousing facilities at Birkenau have heavy blue staining on their outside walls, staining which is said to come from the mattresses which were propped up against the outside walls and beaten after delousing (to rid them of Zyklon B residue). Do the heavy blue stains on the outside walls of the Majdanek gas chambers therefore suggest that these rooms were used as delousing facilities? Isn’t the building which contains the gas chambers labeled the “Bath and Disinfection” complex? If, as with Auschwitz, it is said that gassing people wouldn’t leave blue stains on the INSIDE walls of a homicidal gas chamber, how then, at Majdanek, could gassing people leave heavy blue stains not only on the INSIDE walls but also on the OUTSIDE ones as well?

(6) To sum up the Zyklon B issue, we can take an overview of the Nazi gas chambers and their respective states RE Zyklon B traces:

Krema 1 (Auschwitz Main Camp): Minute traces, no blue staining

Krema 2 (Auschwitz-Birkenau): Minute traces, no blue staining

Krema 3 (Auschwitz-Birkenau): Minute traces, no blue staining.

Majdanek gas chambers 1, 3 and 4: Heavy traces, heavy blue staining (on inside and outside walls).

Dachau gas chamber: No traces, no blue staining.

Mauthausen gas chamber: No traces, no blue staining.

The revisionist explanation for the above is:

Kremas 1, 2 and 3 were not used as gas chambers; — the only Zyklon B they saw was from the routine camp fumigations.

Majdanek rooms 1, 3 and 4 were delousing rooms, like the ones at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

The Dachau gas chamber was a shower.

The Mauthausen gas chamber was a shower

What theory can be offered which explains the wildly divergent states of the gas chambers re Zyklon B traces, while still supporting the concept of mass homicidal gassings at these camps?

 

Unanswered Questions Regarding the Physical Evidence at the Auschwitz-Birkenau Concentration Camp (Poland)

(7) Why was the area between Kremas 2 and 3, the area where thousands of people were marched daily to their deaths, left completely unfenced? The ditches which run the length of the camp perimeter would make a person invisible both to ground fire AND fire from the guard tower. Why would the Nazis risk an attempted escape, especially considering the fact that many inmates were gassed after they had been in the camp for a while, and knew what their fate would be if marched into either of those buildings? Doesn’t the Auschwitz State Museum claim that the inmates would often “riot” as they were being marched toward Kremas 2 and 3?

(8) Why were Kremas 2 and 3 not hidden in any way from the view of the inmates? Isn’t it claimed at the Auschwitz State Museum that gassings were stopped at Krema 1 (Auschwitz Main Camp) and moved to Birkenau because the inmates were starting to get an idea of the homicidal purpose of Krema 1? Why then were Kremas 2 and 3 put in plain sight of all sectors of the Birkenau camp, with no camouflage of any kind? Wouldn’t this just create hundreds of thousands of “eyewitnesses”, with everyone in the camp becoming well aware of the exterminations (and with many of these inmates later transferred to other camps in other parts of Europe to “spread the word” about the gassing program)? How could this profit the Nazis?

(9) It is claimed that there were four holes on the roofs of Kremas 2 and 3, which served as Zyklon B induction holes. The best piece of evidence that these holes ever existed is found in the U.S. aerial photos taken of Auschwitz during the war. Is there any discrepancy between the size of these holes as depicted in the U.S. aerial photos, and the size of the holes as depicted on the model of the Krema 2 gas chamber (on display at the Auschwitz State Museum and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum), the size as theorized by Jean-Claude Pressac in his book “Auschwitz; Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers”, the size as depicted in the movie “Triumph of the Spirit” (which recreated a gassing at Krema 2), and the size as described over the decades by eyewitnesses? Indeed, can it be said that the holes as depicted in the aerial photos are ridiculously large…larger than what would have been needed for pouring in a can of Zyklon B gas?

(10) Why are the four holes not present today in the roof slab of Krema 2? The roof slab, though collapsed, is intact and both the top and underside of the roof are still visible. There are two crudely chiseled holes at opposite ends of the roof slab (one is more like a huge crack than a hole), but the other two holes are non existent, and the underside of the roof, with the two-by-fours lining the ceiling still visible, shows no sign of two holes having ever been present. There are also no traces of the two holes on the top of the roof. How can the absence of the two holes, and any traces of the two holes, be explained?

(11) What circumstances would produce the Krema 2 roof slab as we now see it, with two holes visible and the other two non-existent? If the Nazis attempted to erase the traces of the roof holes, why did they stop after two? Why would they expend much effort to erase all traces of two of the roof holes, then not make any effort to erase the two which survived the demolition?

(12) Could the still existing roof holes have been added after the liberation, by the Soviets or Poles? Doesn’t Pressac admit that these two holes don’t correspond with the positions of the holes in the aerial photos (Pressac says that this might be because the roof “shifted” during demolition, but even if the roof “shifted”, that wouldn’t account for why these holes, which were supposed to run in a straight line down the middle of the roof, have changed their positions, and are no longer in a straight line down the middle of the intact roof slab)? These holes are in incredibly bad condition; their edges are consistently rough, with not an inch of smoothness left. And they are no longer circular. They look like someone took a jack-hammer and roughly hammered through the roof slab. It is explained by Auschwitz State Museum officials that the demolition of the roof is what accounts for the awful condition of the holes (that is, they USED to be round and smooth until the demolition).
But if one observes the wreckage of the “undressing room” roof slab, which was similarly destroyed and is now in even worse shape than the gas chamber roof slab, one sees the remains of the undressing room front ventilation hole, which is still round and smooth even after the demolition and fifty years of laying around as rubble. Why did the undressing room roof hole survive intact, while the two still existing gas chamber roof holes emerged from the demolition without even the slightest trace that they had once been round and smooth? If we consider that the two still existing gas chamber roof holes don’t correspond with their supposed position on the roof, can we theorize that MAYBE these two holes were chiseled in after the liberation? It is now admitted by the Auschwitz State Museum that the Soviets, after liberation, drilled four “Zyklon B induction holes” in the roof of Krema 1 (Auschwitz Main Camp). One needn’t assume bad faith on the part of the Soviets (they might have honestly believed that they were “restoring” the roof to the state in which it had once been), but this act clearly establishes that the Soviets DID in fact drill post-liberation “Zyklon B induction holes” in roofs that, at that time, had none. Is it possible that this accounts for the two sloppy “Zyklon B induction holes” in the roof slab of the Krema 2?

(13) It is said that the Nazis destroyed Kremas 2 and 3 in order to hide the proofs of their gas chambers. But what “proof” of gassings would have been provided by Krema 2 if Krema 2 had not been dynamited? There are no heavy Zyklon B traces or blue stains on the walls, and great care was obviously taken to remove even the slightest trace of two of the Zyklon B induction holes. The Krema 2 gas chamber would have resembled an ordinary morgue. Was the destruction of Krema 2 an attempt to hide the evidence of a gas chamber, or simply the destruction of a cremation facility in the face of the advancing Soviets? Were cremation facilities at other camps, camps that were never claimed to have gas chambers, also destroyed?

(14) If one is to believe that four Zyklon B induction holes were at one time in the roof slab of Krema 2, it must be assumed that the Nazis went through great pains to meticulously hide any traces of at least two of those holes. Yet we are told that when the Soviets, after liberation, “reopened” the Zyklon B induction holes in the Krema 1 gas chamber state (at the time of liberation, it was being used as an air-raid shelter), they know exactly where to “reopen” the four holes because the traces where these holes had been were STILL VISIBLE. The idea that the Zyklon B induction hole traces were still visible is supported by the Auschwitz State Museum officials, and by author Jean-Claude Pressac. Why didn’t the Nazis attempt to “cover-up” THOSE holes, especially keeping in mind that the Krema 1 gas chamber had been abandoned as a gas chamber AT LEAST a year before liberation, giving the Nazis more than enough time to erase the traces.
The Nazis were apparently able to do an incredibly good job of erasing the hole traces in the Krema 2 roof, even though time was short (the Nazis knew the Soviets were advancing, and they were busy making preparations to abandon the camp), yet we are told that they did NOT attempt to likewise cover up the hole traces in the Krema 1 roof slab, even though they had at least a year to do so. Why would the Nazis do such a fastidiously good job of hiding the existence of Zyklon B induction holes in a roof that they were then going to dynamite (Krema 2), yet allow the hole traces to remain in a roof that was left intact for the advancing Soviets (Krema 1)? Isn’t that backwards?

 

Unanswered Questions Regarding the Physical Evidence at the Mauthausen Concentration Camp (Austria)

(15) The gas chamber at concentration camp Mauthausen (in Austria) has no locks on the doors, and no holes or fittings where locks may once have been. The doors can be opened from inside or outside. How could human beings have been gassed in this room?

(16) The peepholes in the two Mauthausen gas chamber doors have no hemispherical metal grid covering the glass, as would have been necessary to prevent the victims from knocking out the glass and causing a gas leak. There are no holes or fittings where a grid might once have been. Doesn’t Pressac write extensively about the need for such hemispherical grids? Doesn’t Pressac recount survivor testimony regarding the need for such grids during a homicidal gassing? With no grid, what stopped the inmates from knocking out the glass, using either their hands or the ample shower piping in the chamber?

(17) Why are there no Zyklon B traces, or blue stains, in this chamber?

(18) The hole in the ceiling of this chamber, through which the Zyklon B crystals were supposedly poured, is small enough to be blocked by the inmates hands, and the ceiling is low enough for them to block the hole. How could the Zyklon B be effectively poured in?

(19) There is a large drain in the floor of this room. There are no holes or fittings where a cover for this drain might have been attached. What would stop the victims from brushing the Zyklon B crystals down this drain?

(20) Unlike the Dachau “fake shower room”, which indeed has fake shower heads (which were directly screwed into the concrete to a maze of water pipes which run the length of the ceiling AND across the walls. Doesn’t this room resemble a real shower room? How do we know it wasn’t?

(21) What would have been the wisdom of construction a fake shower room with such a maze of pipes running across the ceiling and walls? Wouldn’t the victims have torn these fixtures down? Doesn’t Pressac write about how the victims in the Auschwitz gas chambers would destroy the electrical fixtures and anything else in the chamber? Wouldn’t the pipes serve as perfect weapons with which to smash a hole through the unguarded peepholes (not to mention the doors have no locks)? And if the prisoners didn’t wish to block the Zyklon B induction hole with their hands, the showers heads would’ve fit inside the hole nicely. Why wasn’t the “fake shower heads screwed directly into the ceiling” method (a la Dachau) employed here?

(22) Considering the absence of Zyklon B traces, locks on the doors, peephole covers, and a viable means of pouring in the Zyklon B, and factoring in the floor drain and the water pipes and genuine shower heads in this room, why can’t we assume this was a genuine shower room?

 

Unanswered Questions Regarding the Physical Evidence at the Dachau Concentration Camp (Germany)

(23) The method of Zyklon B induction for the Dachau gas chamber is claimed to be via two chutes carved through one of the walls, through which the Zyklon B would be poured. What would have stopped the victims from putting their backs against the mouths of these chutes, thus preventing the crystals from entering the room?

(24) If the crystals WERE able to enter the room, the two chutes are located just above two large drains in the floor. There are no holes or fittings where covers for these drains might have been. What would stop the crystals from falling down the drains?

(25) There is a mystery room (not open to the public but visible through several windows) adjoining the gas chamber room. This room appears to have water and steam pipes which appear to lead into the gas chamber. Was the gas chamber room actually a shower? What is the purpose of this “mystery room”? What can be gained by ignoring this room which, it stands to reason, must have had SOME purpose?

(26) It is often said that the Nazis tried to hide the evidence of their extermination program by speaking in code, and rarely speaking of the exterminations on the record. It is similarly held that, as it became clear that they were losing the war, the Nazis tried to destroy the proofs of their crimes (the destruction of the four Birkenau Kremas is said to have been part of this “cover-up”). How, then, does one explain the Dachau gas chamber? The obviously false shower heads are incontrovertible proof of the homicidal purpose of this room. It is impossible not explain away the fake shower heads/a homicidal gas chamber. Yet we are to believe that this gas chamber was NEVER USED. And we are also supposed to believe that the room in its present state is exactly as the U.S. Army found it when the camp was liberated. Now, the details of the liberation of Dachau are well known: Dachau was not taken in some surprise attack. The guards at Dachau knew that the Americans were on their way. Therefore, we are asked to believe that the Nazis, KNOWING the camp would be surrendered, left the gas chamber room (which was not even being USED as a gas chamber) in a state which unashamedly points to its homicidal purpose. Why were the fake shower heads not removed? *

Why was there no attempt at a “cover-up,” like at Auschwitz? Unlike the Auschwitz gas chambers, THIS one was not even in use! What good was an unused room which only served to scream to the world “the Nazis are gassing the Jews”? Why would the Nazis, who were NOT using the “gas chamber” to kill people, leave it in this blatantly homicidal state, especially as the Americans drew closer? Keep in mind that, with the fake shower heads, this room was also impossible to us as a SHOWER. Therefore, this room served NO PURPOSE: it wasn’t used as a gas chamber, and couldn’t be used as a shower. We are asked to accept that the Nazis kept a large, USELESS room in one of the more important buildings in the Dachau camp (the “gas chamber” is located in the building which houses the Zyklon B clothing fumigation cubicles) and that this room remained UNUSED for years but was never stripped of the fake shower heads which pointed irrefutably to the Nazi’s murderous intentions.

Surely, understanding the great pains the Nazis took to keep their gassing/extermination plans a secret, and the great pains they supposedly took at OTHER camps to “hide their crimes” once the Allies were advancing (i.e. the destruction of Kremas 2 through 5 at Auschwitz), we can expect that they would have performed the very simple task of removing the fake shower heads (and perhaps plastering over the marks where the shower heads had been). Why didn’t the Nazis do this?

* There might be a simple answer to the Dachau shower head issue. The height of the ceiling in the “Dachau gas chamber” is presently 7.6 feet. However, in Document L-159, No. 47 of the 79th Congress, 1st Session (Exhibit NO. USA-222; IMT, XXXVII, p. 621), which details the U.S. Army’s investigation of the Dachau camp after liberation, the ceiling of this room is measured at 10 feet high. The fake shower heads which exist today embedded in the 7.6 foot high ceiling are made of sheet metal. Document No. 47 describes the 10 foot high ceiling as having “brass fixtures”, which might very well have been genuine shower heads and pipes but which, in any event, are long absent from the ceiling of this room. Basically, sometime between the liberation of Dachau, and the media blitz regarding the “Dachau gas chamber”, a 10 foot high ceiling with bass fixtures became a 7.6 foot high ceiling with cone-shaped sheet metal fake shower heads. How? I think we can take a guess!
Remember that the record of the U.S. Army (and the U.S. government, for that matter) is not very good when it comes to being honest about Dachau. If we are to assume that the Army created a fraudulent “gas chamber”, it helps to understand that there is already proof that the Army was less than honest when presenting Dachau to the world. Most notable in this respect is the photographic sleight-of-hand which is still employed today (especially at the Weisenthal Center’s high-tech “Museum of Tolerance” here in L.A.) where a photo of a door to one of the Dachau ZYKLON B FUMIGATION CUBICLES, complete with poisonous gas warning, skull and crossbones, and gassing schedule, is shown (often with a soldier standing in front) along with the caption that this is the door to the Dachau “HOMICIDAL” gas chamber (thus giving the impression that Zyklon B gas was used in the alleged homicidal gas chamber). This is pure fraud, and not the kind of fraud that the Army could have perpetrated “by accident”. In pictures released by the Army, the doors to the small fumigation cubicles were portrayed as the doors to the alleged homicidal gas chamber…and this is something that doesn’t happen by accident. For people like my mother and her family, Jews living in the U.S. during the forties, it’s the Dachau gas chamber propaganda that they most clearly remember as their first exposure to the concept of homicidal gas chambers.

 

Unanswered Questions Regarding the Physical Evidence at the Majdanek Concentration Camp (Poland)

(27) Gas chamber 1 has two doors, both of which open INTO the gas chamber room. How can a homicidal gas chamber have two doors which open IN? Wouldn’t the bodies be pressed up against the doors, as described numerous times by eyewitnesses?

(28) The main door into the gas chamber 1 has no locks. It can be opened from either the inside or the outside. There are no holes or fittings where a lock might have been. What stopped the inmates from opening this door?

(29) Gas chamber 1 has a plate glass window in it. There are no holes or fittings around the window where bars or any other kind of cover might once have been. Since the plaster around the window is covered with blue stains, we know that it is the plaster that existed during the time Zyklon B gas was used in this room. If there WERE bars or any other type of cover attached to this window, why are there no traces? What would have stopped the inmates from trying to climb out the window, or breaking the window and causing a gas leak?

(30) There is a room INSIDE gas chamber 1. Why would there be a separate room INSIDE a gas chamber? Doesn’t this room indicate that gas chamber 1 was used for something OTHER than killing people?

(31) Gas chambers 2 and 3 are designed backwards. Chamber 2 has a Zyklon B induction hole in the ceiling, but no Zyklon B traces or blue stains. Chamber 3 has heavy, floor-to-ceiling Zyklon B traces and blue stains, but no Zyklon B induction hole. And, like the roof of Krema 2 at Auschwitz, the ceiling shows no sign of a hole having ever been there. Why would chamber 2 have a Zyklon B induction hole and no traces, and chamber 3 plenty of traces but no hole?

(32) The ceilings in chambers 2 and 4 are low enough so that the Zyklon B induction holes could have been blocked by the victims. What would have stopped the inmates from blocking the holes?

(33) The doors to chambers 2,3 and 4 are built to latch from the outside AND the inside. The latches can be opened from either side. Does this suggest that the rooms were used for something other than killing people?

(34) Getting back to the issue of hemispherical grids covering the peepholes, it is said that the point of these grids was to prevent the inmates from breaking the glass of the peepholes and causing a gas leak. Yet the hemispherical grids attached to the peepholes on the doors of chambers 2, 3 and 4 are attached on the OUTSIDE of the doors. These grids wouldn’t prevent someone INSIDE the room from breaking the glass…but they WOULD prevent someone OUTSIDE the room from doing so. Why are the grids not on the inside? Does this contradict with the statements by Pressac and the eyewitnesses regarding the need for grids in a homicidal gas chamber?

(35) The Majdanek camp is built on a hill. At the top of the hill is the camp crematorium. At the opposite end of the camp, at the bottom of the hill, is the “Bath and Disinfection” complex, which houses the gas chambers. From the Nazi’s point of view, what was the wisdom in putting the gas chambers at the opposite end of the camp from the ovens, and at the bottom of the hill (after each gassing, the dead bodies would have to have been dragged up the hill, the length of the entire camp, to the ovens)?

(36) As the Nazis were preparing to abandon the Majdanek camp, they destroyed the crematorium building. Why were the gas chambers not similarly destroyed? Why would the Nazis leave their weapons of mass murder intact for the world to see? How hard would it have been for the Nazis to destroy the gas chambers, just like they did the crematorium building? At least, shouldn’t the Nazis have filled in the Zyklon B induction holes, which serve as direct proofs of homicidal gassings? Either way, the destruction of the crematorium is clear proof that the Nazis had both the time and the ability to demolish buildings in the camp if they wanted to. Why were the gas chambers not demolished?

(37) In his book Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, Jean-Claude Pressac publishes a photo of the Majdanek gas chambers, with the caption “Photograph taken at the Majdanek concentration camp in June 1979, showing one of the disinfestation gas chambers thought to be a homicidal gas chamber.” On page 555, he also has this to say about the Majdanek gas chambers: “I am sorry to say, and I am not the only one in the West, that the Majdanek homicidal and/or delousing gas chambers are still waiting for a true historian, which is mildly upsetting in view of the fact that the camp fell into the hands of the Russians intact in 1944.” Do these comments suggest that the gas chambers at Majdanek may in fact have been disinfestation gas chambers? At least, don’t these comments suggest that there has not yet been a thorough investigation into the purpose of these rooms? **

(38) To sum up the Majdanek gas chamber issue: If we take Pressac’s comments and then factor in the doors that don’t lock, the doors that open INTO the gas chamber, the doors with latches that can be manipulated from both the outside AND the inside, the window in gas chamber 1, the room inside gas chamber 1, the lack of any Zyklon B induction hole in gas chamber 3, the lack of any Zyklon B traces in gas chamber 2 (which DOES have a “Zyklon B induction hole”), the heavy blue stains on the OUTSIDE of the building, and the location of the building, at the bottom of a hill, at the opposite end of the camp from the crematorium, is it reasonable to suggest that these rooms were delousing chambers?
** In what can only be considered an unfortunate example of how major disputes between Holocaust historians are shielded from the public, the same room Pressac describes in his book as a “disinfestation gas chamber” is featured in the book “The World Must Know,” the official book of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C., written by Museum director Dr. Michael Berenbaum. In that book, Berenbaum describes the room as a HOMICIDAL gas chamber and, what’s more, a CASTING of this room was made for display AT THE MUSEUM, as PROOF of the homicidal gas chambers! Thus, in both Berenbaum’s book AND in the Museum itself, the ONLY material proof given of homicidal gassings is THIS ROOM, a room Pressac staunchly believes to be a disinfestation gas chamber (in fact, in his Auschwitz book, Pressac actually RIDICULES those who say that this Majdanek room is proof of homicidal gassings, and criticizes everyone from the man who prosecuted Faurisson in France to the Majdanek State Museum personnel for perpetuating a fraud).
But does anyone give a damn that the general public, all the millions, might be receiving fraudulent information? Some might suggest that disputes such as these should be kept private so as not to shake the public’s confidence in Holocaust history, or in the Holocaust historians. But don’t you think we have a RESPONSIBILITY not to knowingly feed the public falsehoods or unproven claims disguised as unquestioned facts? Don’t you think we have a responsibility to be honest about our research? If not, what makes us any different from the “historians” of the Soviet Union, or Hitler’s Germany, who knowingly tailored their research to produce a politically expedient conclusion? When the ends begin justifying the means, watch integrity go flying out the window.
As bad as the public misinformation about Majdanek is, the Stalin-esque purging of Pressac’s “Auschwitz; Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers” from the official record is worse. This master-work of historiography, once loudly heralded in the press (see enclosed clippings), is NOW nowhere to be found when references to Pressac are made. A recent article in “Publishers Weekly,” detailing a forthcoming U.S. Holocaust Museum book containing 29 original essays from Holocaust scholars including Berenbaum and Pressac, not only neglects to mention Pressac’s gas chamber book, but seems to suggest that Pressac’s conversion from revisionist to gas chamber believer came only recently, as he was researching his just-published “slim volume” about the Auschwitz crematorium. The entire period of the 1980’s, which Pressac spent researching his gas chamber book after his “conversion”, is omitted.
Yet scholars around the world continue to use Pressac’s gas chamber book (if they’re lucky enough to have one of the few copies), mainly because, even if one disagrees with Pressac’s conclusions, his book is STILL the best (and the only) single source for the blueprints, construction slips, alteration plans, and inter-office communiques regarding the Auschwitz “gas chambers”. Neither side in this debate agrees entirely with Pressac…but for the gas chamber supporters, his book is an embarrassment because it IS so thorough. It is the most thorough work yet produced about the gas chambers, yet Pressac cannot find that elusive objective proof of gassings. So now, apparently, the historians have just decided to pretend the book doesn’t exist. I’ve always referred to the Pressac gas chamber book as the most popular book that never existed!

 

Four Unanswered Questions About Stutthof

When preparing the original 38 questions, I didn’t bother with the tiny Stutthof “gas chamber” because so few people take it seriously anymore. Stutthof was the camp where the Nazis supposedly made the “human soap.”. When the soap story was dropped, so was much of the testimony about the Stutthof “gas chamber.” However, recently an NBC prime-time news show, “The Crusaders,” decided to revive this rarely mentioned “homicidal gas chamber,” producing a segment about Stutthof that played up the existence of an intact gas chamber at the camp. This segment of “The Crusaders” has now been adopted as part of California’s public school Holocaust-education curriculum. Therefore, I thought a brief overview of, and a few questions about, the Stutthof “gas chamber” were in order

Brief Overview: The Stutthof concentration camp, located 35 km east of Gdansk, was designed for Polish civilians and designated as a “civilian internees camp.” The Stutthof “gas chamber,” a relatively small building (8 meters long, 3 meters wide, and 2.30 meters high) located next door to the camp crematorium (which was destroyed as the Nazis abandoned the camp, and has been rebuilt by the Poles) has walls soaked both inside and out with the tell-tale blue staining that comes from repeated Zyklon B usage. There is a stove and chimney outside, for heating the interior. Inside, a long clay heating conduit runs the length of one wall. This building was clearly a delousing gas chamber. The Zyklon granules would be placed on the heating conduit, and the stove would be fired up. The conduit would become hot, and the granules would release their gas. The two doors would then be opened for natural ventilation. This is an “old style” German Zyklon B delousing chamber, built before the more modern chambers, like the ones at Dachau, were designed (the newer, more energy efficient chambers came equipped with Zyklon evaporators, which would heat the granules on a kind of hot plate, and blow the gas onto the clothes, mattresses, etc. This was more energy efficient because it was a waste of fuel to heat an ENTIRE ROOM when it was only the ZYKLON GRANULES that needed to be warmed up. These Zyklon evaporators remain at Dachau today, in the delousing chambers of “Barrack X.”).
The “evidence” of homicidal usage of the Stutthof gas chamber is a “Zyklon B induction hole” in the roof. We are told that the Zyklon would be poured in through the this hole on the heads of the unsuspecting victims. The roof of this chamber is accessible only via ladder.
Let’s pause to read what Pressac has to say about Stutthof:

“It is not known when this gas chamber FOR DELOUSING PRISONERS’ EFFECTS (emphasis his) was installed. Its dimensions are close to the standard dimensions of those erected by BOOS or DEGESCH…From 22nd June to the beginning of November 1944, it was used as a HOMICIDAL gas chamber for groups of about 100 people, Zyklon B being poured in through a small opening of 15 cm diameter in the roof, a system apparently introduced on the advice of SS Lieutenant Colonel Rudolf Hoess, former commandant of Auschwitz-Birkenau and at that time head of Department D1 of the WVHA-SS (SS Economic Administration Head Office). While the history of this gas chamber is known from TESTIMONIES reported by Father Krzysztof Dunin-Wasowicz, there has been no scientific examination of the “murder weapon” since 1945, which means that we do not know how the chamber functioned as a delousing installation and are unable to provide material proof of its criminal use.

(Pressac cont.) The number of victims is estimated at one or two thousand. The visit (to Stutthof) did not greatly impress us.” (Pressac; “Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers” pages 539-540)

The Stutthof Museum personnel agree with Pressac’s claim that this was FIRST AND FOREMOST a delousing chamber, used as such for years, only LATER “converted”into a homicidal one.

Now, let’s ask some questions, picking up from where we left off in the “38 Questions”

(39) The Stutthof “gas chamber” has a large floor drain right in the middle of the room, DIRECTLY BELOW the “Zyklon B induction hole.” Any granules dropped through this hole would automatically go right down the drain. What’s more, the floor of this room is DEPRESSED in the middle, where the drain is, so that any water or, in this case, Zyklon granules, would automatically roll into the drain. what would stop the Zyklon granules from going down the drain, since they were being poured into the room directly over this drain? And, if a few granules missed the drain, wouldn’t they simply roll, or couldn’t the inmates brush them, down the drain?

(40) The roof of this room is low enough so that a tall person could reach up and block the “Zyklon B induction hole.” However, the thoughtful Nazis, by installing the heating conduit that runs the length of on wall, have made it possible for ANYONE, of whatever height, to stand on this conduit and block the hole. What would stop the inmates from blocking the “Zyklon B induction hole,” especially since they would be EXPECTING foul play (this room was the official Stutthof delousing chamber, known as such by all the inmates. No Stutthof inmate would expect to be given a “shower” in this room, and indeed the Stutthof Museum makes no claims about such a deception (neither do the eyewitnesses)?

(41) Why was this building – a clear “proof” of Nazi crimes, what with its ” Zyklon B induction hole,” – not DESTROYED as the Nazis evacuated the camp? Amazingly, the crematorium RIGHT NEXT DOOR was blown up, and, in fact, one side of the gas chamber building was actually HIT by shrapnel from the exploding crematorium. Yet the gas chamber was allowed to remain intact, even though, as reported by the Stutthof survivor interviewed on the “Crusaders” TV show, at the end of the war the Nazis were ordered to KILL EVERY INMATE at Stutthof, in order to erase any evidence of the gassings (by killing all the eyewitnesses). For some unknown reason, this order was never carried out, and the Stutthof inmates were evacuated west.
Why would the Nazis BLOW UP the crematorium, yet leave the “homicidal” gas chamber standing? Why would the Nazis decide to KILL EVERY INMATE in order to “cover up” their crimes, yet leave the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of those crimes standing? Why wouldn’t the Nazis AT LEAST cover up the “Zyklon B induction hole,” which would serve as CLEAR AND INDISPUTABLE PROOF of homicidal usage (unless we dare to imagine that this hole was put in by the Soviets/Poles, as they ADMIT doing at the building the Nazis abandoned knowing it was soon to fall into Soviet hands. Considering the great pains that the Nazis went through to “cover up” the gassings elsewhere, how hard would it have been to dynamite THIS building along with the crematorium just a few yards away?

(42) Since personal testimony is all we have to go on regarding the homicidal usage of this chamber, and since much of this testimony also mentions the “human soap” – which has long been officially debunked – what evidence do we have that the testimony about the Stutthof homicidal gas chamber is any more reliable than the testimony about the human soap?

I could add one more question (but I won’t), something about the fact that the Stutthof gas chamber is located in full view of all the inmates, inmates who were NOT destined for extermination, and not, to a great extent, Jewish. Strangely, the secrecy-obsessed Nazis also seemed obsessed with conducting their homicidal gassings in the most open, noticeable places possible…especially at the non-“extermination” camps (at Mauthausen, another non-extermination camp, the “gas chamber” is right in the middle of the inmate barracks), thus hoping, I suppose, to create tens or hundreds of thousands of “eyewitnesses” to something the Nazis would not even discuss privately in coded transmissions. Go figure.

The following four questions are based on personal meetings I had during my last trip to Europe in October of 1994. In Lublin, Poland, I met with Tomasz Kranz, Curator of the Majdanek State Museum. I spoke at length with Mr. Kranz, who has been Curator for ten years, in his office on the Majdanek concentration camp site, Two weeks later, in a suburb outside Paris, I met with Jean-Claude Pressac, the celebrated Holocaust author who has become perhaps the man most recognized with defending the gas chamber theory. I met with Mr. Pressac in his office, and got to spend roughly six hours discussing gas chambers, Holocaust history, the demands of publishing in the mainstream, and much more.

For the purpose of this list of questions, I have chosen four simple ones based on these meetings.

(43) Majdanek Curator Tomasz Kranz had to admit, after I raised the same questions I’ve raised in this list, that the biggest Majdanek “gas chamber,” chamber #1, was not intended or used homicidally. Big revelation. With the doors, window, and everything else that precludes homicidal usage, this is a conclusion even a five year old child would come to. Although Kranz could offer no evidence for homicidal usage in the other three chambers, chamber #1 was the only one he was willing to completely jettison as a homicidal room. Pressac went further. He is only willing to even CONSIDER homicidal gassings in chamber #3. Of course, he has no evidence. What’s more, he admits that the Soviets laid down fake “gas piping” in chamber #3 to give the room the appearance of a homicidal gas chamber. This is certainly in keeping with Soviet precedent regarding the mishandling and faking of important historical evidence. Pressac could offer no REAL evidence for gassings in this room. But my question is: Why does Curator Tomasz Kranz continue to allow this room to be represented to tourists and the world as a homicidal gas chamber, when he privately acknowledges it never was? If there is agreement that this room was never homicidally used, why continue to promote it as a death chamber? If the Majdanek Curator and Europe’s most well known Holocaust author express such uncertainty about homicidal usage of this and the other rooms, why are people like me who ask basic questions like these labeled as anti-Semitic irrational cranks? If, as Pressac believes, rooms 1,2 and 4 were not homicidal gas chambers, what evidence is there that anyone was killed in room 3?

(44) At Auschwitz Birkenau, the rooms in Kremas 4 and 5 that are supposed to have been used as homicidal gas chambers all had drains in the floor that led right into the camp sewage system. These floor drains can still be seen today. Since, in these “gas chambers,” it is said that the Zyklon pellets were dumped in loose, what stopped the pellets from going down the drain or being kicked or brushed down by the victims? Pressac was aware of this problem. He has tried to prove that the Zyklon pellets would present no problem. He has tried to prove that the Zyklon pellets would present no danger in the camp sewer, since the water would (in his opinion; this is a debatable point) “neutralize” the poison so it wouldn’t present a danger when going through Birkenau’s large sewage treatment plants. But Pressac misses the point; the question of just how harmful the Zyklon would be in the sewer is SECONDARY to the point that if the Zyklon is IN the sewer that means it’s NOT in the gas chamber doing the job the Nazis intended! If the victims can dump the Zyklon into the sewer, that means they themselves won’t be gassed. How could these rooms have functioned as homicidal gas chambers?

(45) There is a large square manhole in the floor of the Krema 1 “gas chamber” at the Auschwitz Main Camp. The manhole has a concrete cover with a metal handle. It is possible for anybody of normal or even below-normal strength to lift off the lid, and the manhole is large enough for anyone of any size to climb down. What would stop the victims from climbing down the manhole to either escape the gas chamber via the sewer OR at least escape the gas? And even if escape wasn’t possible, what would stop the victims from kicking or brushing the Zyklon B pellets down the manhole and closing the cover? There is something I should mention here, since several times I’ve talked about the possibility of the victims brushing the pellets down floor drains of in this, the worst case yet, a manhole. Zyklon B can kill a human being quite effectively when its gas is INHALED. It kills through the lungs. It doesn’t kill through the skin (unless it is in contact with the skin for a very long period of time and in a very high concentration). Therefore, the pellets could easily be handled by victims in a gas chamber without posing any threat to the victims via absorption through the skin. In fact, a Zyklon mixture was frequently brushed directly onto people’s arms and legs during disinfestation procedures at Auschwitz, and Zyklon was also used in a liquid solution to bathe people in for delousing. As for the Zyklon pellets giving off their gas, it should be remembered that Zyklon B begins giving off gas when warmed. The hotter it is, the quicker the evaporation.

Yet Kremas 1 ( and 2 and 3) were not only UNHEATED but partially or completely UNDERGROUND! All three rooms were used or designed as morgues; they were MEANT to be cold all the time. It has never been explained just how the Zyklon was heated, especially in the freezing winter months. The best that the other side can do is say that the body temperatures of the victims warmed the rooms. But that would take time, and the “confession” of Auschwitz Commandant Höss speaks of a very swift process – herd ’em in, drop down the gas, ventilate the room. No time mentioned to let the victims warm up the room. Zyklon pellets dropped down into a cold room, landing on the cold floor, would not only give off gas slowly, but would be safe to brush down a drain or manhole. What would stop the inmates from doing this? (For the record, there is a floor drain in the Krema 1 “gas chamber” AS WELL as a manhole…but with a manhole of that size, the drain becomes almost irrelevant!)

In 1992 I ran my manhole question past Dr. Franciszek Piper, Senior Curator of the Auschwitz State Museum, and he had no answer. When I ran it by Pressac, he thought I was trying to put one over on him; he didn’t believe there WAS a manhole in Krema 1! I was floored that he had never seen it. We argued about this for some time until I had to go through his files and find a picture of Krema 1 and POINT OUT the damn manhole. Now HE was floored. “Over the last ten years I’ve been to Krema 1 more times than I can possibly count,” he said (in French, of course), ” and I’ve never noticed the manhole!”

“The next time you go, Jean-Claude,” I responded, “you should look down!” “Ah, that is the problem David,” he said. “You look down while I look up.” Well, for the record, I look up too. My aim is to notice things, to take these gas chambers seriously; to walk into these rooms and ask three questions:

“How is this gas chamber supposed to have worked?” “What would have happened if it worked that way?,” “What evidence is there that it did?”

The mainstream historians gloss over the difficult questions. They have nothing to gain by challenging their own beliefs. As a result, all too often they don’t pay attention to the crucial details of their own stories. They come up with their conclusion first, and then they only pay attention to the evidence that supports that conclusion. They don’t look at ALL the evidence.

As a result, the mainstream Holocaust historians have only had to explain the problems and discrepancies in their story (like the absence of Zyklon B traces) after revisionists have pointed out these problems. Mainstream Holocaust historians have never tried to explain problems with the gas chamber story willingly; they’ve always had to be prodded into doing so. (This, by the way, is not a situation unique to Holocaust history. The value of a society where dissent is allowed to exist is that often times it is the existence of two or more opposing sides to an issue that prompts and encourages the search for the truth; each side critiques the other side mercilessly and, therefore, the public is made aware of possible flaws in ALL sides. If a school of thought is insulated from criticism, as Holocaust history is in all the countries where questioning the gas chambers in an illegal and punishable offense, that school of thought can remain unchecked for errors).

As for the manhole, apparently the other side has not yet been able to rationalize its presence in as supposedly homicidal gas chamber. I welcome their attempts. Maybe there’s something I’M missing. It doesn’t matter to me if one proceeds with the hypothesis that there were homicidal gas chambers, or with the hypothesis that there weren’t. As long as we search in good faith for the facts. The only crime is to wish away the difficult questions, pretending they don’t exist and slandering the people who do nothing more than ask them.

(46) Another thing I learned from Pressac is that he believes that the Krema 1 “gas chamber” had THREE “Zyklon B induction holes,” running in a straight line in the ceiling. But the Auschwitz State Museum believes that there were FOUR holes, running in two lines of two holes. When the Poles and Soviets put holes in the Krema 1 roof after liberation, this is the version they installed; four holes in two lines. This is the version that can be seen today in Krema 1. But Pressac says they’re wrong; it was THREE holes in a straight line. Who’s right? Were there three holes or four? And how do we know that there were ever ANY holes? There are no holes present in any of the aerial photos, and there were no holes when the Soviets liberated the camp.

The important question is; HOW can such a debate (three holes or four?) among major Holocaust scholars exist in the first place? It is only because hard evidence for gassings at Auschwitz is so lacking that something like this can still be an issue fifty years later. Whatever the evidence for gassings at Krema 1, it is apparently not good ENOUGH evidence to provide a description of the gas chamber that all scholars can agree on. Now, it would be one thing if we had tons of SUPPLEMENTARY evidence (i.e. Zyklon B traces in the walls that were heavier than all the other rooms, evidence of people entering the building en masse and never coming out, a special ventilation system and heating equipment, or German coded transmissions or documents talking about gassings, etc.); then we could at least say “Well, we know there were gassings, we’re just not sure about the design of the gas chamber.” But there is no supplementary evidence. We have no description of the Krema 1 murder weapon, but we ALSO have no evidence of any murders in Krema 1. Even the best prosecutor in the world would be hard pressed to get a conviction were this case to be tried in any standard American court.

All that we have are testimonies. And just a few. Yet Pressac spends much of his gas chamber book demolishing these testimonies as false. We have the testimony of camp Commandant Hoess, the man who SHOULD have been able to provide us with the best description of the Krema 1 gas chamber, but Pressac, Hilberg, Lipstadt, Chris Browning, and most other Holocaust scholars dismiss his account as unreliable, fabricated, or just plain false. So what’s left? Pressac searches in vain for ANY hard evidence to reproduce in his chapter on Kremas 1, and ends up with nothing. As a result, this chapter is perhaps the most awkward in Pressac’s book. Pressac begins the chapter by affirming his belief in homicidal gassings in this room, but then goes on to offer no evidence, and what’s more he doubts the credibility of the testimonies, which are the only evidence he offers. One is left saying “Jean-Claude Pressac believes in Homicidal gassings in Krema 1…I’m just not sure why.”

What I try to do is look at the evidence that calls gassings into question (the manhole, the floor drain, the lack of Zyklon B traces, the absence of documentary evidence, the lack of evidence in the aerial photos, the lack of ventilation, the fact that the room is extremely cold, etc. etc.) and weigh that against any evidence FOR gassings (a few testimonies which the experts themselves doubt). You can see how a debate over the design of this “gas chamber” can still be raging among mainstream historians; it is because of the lack of evidence.

And it is therefore legitimate to ask, “If you don’t know whether there were three or four holes, how do you know that there were ANY holes?”

The above article can be found here: Forty-Six Important Unanswered Questions Regarding the Nazi Gas Chambers

CAN OF WORMS: AIPAC mired in pornography, prostitution, depositions reveal

Posted in Etc. on November 20, 2010 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

‘AIPAC gets down and dirty in pushback vs. defamation suit’

The Jewish Daily Forward; November 16, 2010

WASHINGTON, DC The espionage case against two senior officials of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington was dropped last year. But it has not been forgotten, and it’s now threatening to draw the lobby into new depths of mudslinging.

Papers filed in the civil lawsuit of former lobbyist Steve Rosen against his previous employers at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee include mutual accusations of using pornographic material at the lobby headquarters, among other allegations. The papers, based on depositions taken from Rosen and from AIPAC principals, dig into the private lives of the involved parties. They also reveal in detail the close ties AIPAC officials held with Israeli diplomats based in Washington.

After reading this stuff, you feel like you need to wash your hands,” one pro-Israel activist said after skimming through the 260-page document, which is laced with graphic descriptions and invasive personal details.

At issue is Rosen’s $20 million defamation lawsuit against his previous employers at AIPAC, who fired him and his colleague Keith Weissman in 2005 — several months after both had been indicted under a rarely used espionage statute because they allegedly received and passed on classified information. AIPAC, in a move that could be seen as meant to embarrass Rosen, revealed in its court filings extensive parts of the depositions, many of them dealing directly with Rosen’s personal life.

In an interview with the Forward after the court documents had been made public, Rosen said he was not deterred, and promised that when he files his own motion in December, the information in it will put AIPAC in the hot seat. “Any embarrassment I suffered as a result of what they filed will be insignificant compared to the embarrassment they’ll suffer after we file our motion,” Rosen said.

Rosen’s civil lawsuit seeks compensation and damages from AIPAC and from its outside public relations adviser, Patrick Dorton, for defamation. Rosen said he suffered severe damage to his reputation when Dorton issued a statement on AIPAC’s behalf announcing that he and Weissman were fired because their actions did not comport with AIPAC standards. This statement was initially understood as being related to the allegations of Rosen receiving classified information and communicating it to others against AIPAC’s policy. But in its motion for summary judgment, filed November 5 with the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, AIPAC cites a wider array of alleged points of misconduct that the pro-Israel lobby now says led to the decision to terminate him.

AIPAC claims that Rosen, who was director of foreign policy issues at the lobby and one of its most senior and well-known employees, had engaged in viewing pornography on AIPAC computers at the lobby’s Washington offices. Partial transcripts of the lengthy videotaped deposition of Rosen, which were made public as part of AIPAC’s motion, show Rosen admitted to surfing pornographic websites from work. But AIPAC’s lawyers insisted on more details:

Q: What type of pornography?

A: Sexual pornography.

Q: What type? Man on man, man on woman?

A: Anything. Anything that occurred to me.

Rosen also added more details than, perhaps, the attorney for AIPAC had bargained for.

“I witnessed [AIPAC executive director] Howard Kohr viewing pornographic material, [Kohr’s secretary] Annette Franzen viewing pornographic material, probably a dozen other members of the staff,” Rosen said in his deposition. He added that, according to a Nielsen survey, more than a quarter of Americans regularly view pornographic websites at their workplace.

Later in his deposition, the former lobbyist also said he had heard from directors at AIPAC about their visits to prostitutes and he claimed Kohr had routinely used “locker room language” at the AIPAC offices.

AIPAC did not seem deterred from getting dragged into a dirty debate. It also chose to include in its court filing an issue relating to Rosen’s personal life with only a vague connection to the lobby’s claim regarding Rosen’s actions being below AIPAC’s standards. AIPAC’s lawyers questioned Rosen in detail about his attempts to find male sexual companions through the online classifieds site Craigslist, an act Rosen referred to as “sexual experimentations.” This information came up in one of Rosen’s divorce cases — he has been married five times — and was supposed to remain under court seal.

The court documents also shed light on Rosen’s attempts to support himself and his family after being fired from AIPAC. The former lobbyist, as the depositions indicate, received cash gifts from several prominent Jewish philanthropists, among them some who are also major donors to AIPAC. The list includes Hollywood mogul Haim Saban, one of AIPAC’s key funders, who gave Rosen a total of $100,000; Daniel Abraham, founder of the Center for Middle East Peace, who gave Rosen, his wife and three children gifts of $5,000 to $10,000; and philanthropist Lynn Schusterman, who paid off a college loan for Rosen’s daughter. The list includes several other backers, including two described as “bundlers” who raised up to $200,000 for Rosen from other donors.

The rationale for introducing this issue is AIPAC’s claim that Rosen did not suffer any financial difficulty following his dismissal or due to Dorton’s claim in AIPAC’s public statement regarding Rosen’s supposed misconduct. Rosen believes that by supporting him these donors, many of them still active AIPAC members, demonstrated their displeasure with the manner in which the lobby treated its two former employees.

The personal and financial details that take up much of the deposition seemed to be tense at times, with flare ups between the attorneys of both sides. But the court papers also shed light on the events surrounding the FBI visit to Rosen’s home on August 27, 2004 that led to the indictment in the espionage case.

The FBI has alleged that Larry Franklin, a Pentagon analyst at the time, passed on national security information to Weissman, who in turn shared it with Rosen. The two former defendants did not know then that Franklin was cooperating with the FBI and that the information he provided them was part of a sting operation.

Rosen and Weissman learned from Franklin that Iranian forces were allegedly operating in northern Iraq and that they were plotting to kidnap Israeli operatives. They then disclosed this information to a senior Israeli diplomat, Naor Gilon, and to Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler. The depositions reveal that after being confronted by the FBI at his home, in what he described as a “very intense exchange of words” Rosen made a phone call to AIPAC’s legal counsel, who was shaken by the news and asked Rosen to come immediately to the lobby’s headquarters.

Rosen then called Rafi Barak, at the time the deputy chief of mission at Israel’s Washington embassy. Rosen convinced Barak to cancel other appointments and meet immediately at a coffee shop. He described to the Israeli diplomat the encounter he had just had with the FBI and the allegations they made about Israelis receiving classified information. “I probably made some reference to Pollard,” Rosen recalled, and Barak, according to the deposition, “got very upset too.”

AIPAC raises this episode in an attempt to prove that Rosen did not follow directly the instructions of the lobby’s lawyer to come immediately to the office. This could demonstrate how Rosen did not live up to AIPAC’s standards.

But former AIPAC staffer and now liberal columnist M.J. Rosenberg sees more to it. According to Rosenberg, if Rosen proves that his operations, including going to a foreign official to warn him about the investigation, were all part of AIPAC’s standard operating procedures, “that would mean that AIPAC is not a domestic lobbying organization at all, but something very, very different.”

In a statement released by AIPAC from Dorton, the lobbying group said, “As is demonstrated in detail in the pleadings that AIPAC has filed, this is a frivolous lawsuit with no merit. … Rosen’s claims are wildly inaccurate, are undermined by Rosen’s own admissions under oath in his deposition, and constitute a blatant attempt to detract attention from the true and relevant facts.”

The next round in this battle is expected with Rosen’s counter filing on December 2. Both sides can decide to settle the case outside the court before that, or at any phase before it reaches a jury trial.

The above article can be found here: http://www.forward.com/articles/133172/

 

‘AIPAC dirty laundry aired as former staffer sues for defamation’

Haaretz (Israel); November 17, 2010

WASHINGTON, DC — The US Jewish community has been scandalized by details of an increasingly dirty lawsuit, brought by a former AIPAC staffer who was dismissed after he was charged with attempting to spy for Israel.

Steven Rosen was sacked by the America Israel Public Affairs Committee in 2004 after he and fellow staffer Keith Weissman were charged with “mishandling classified information” and passing sensitive information to Israeli diplomats and journalists. The charges against the two, however, were dropped before the case reached a courtroom.

The FBI claimed that it had enough evidence for convictions, but all the charges were dropped nonetheless. The controversial case made headlines again in March 2009 after Rosen filed a civil suit in a Washington, DC court against his former employers for defamation.

In his suit, Rosen demanded damages of $21 million for comments by AIPAC officials, which Rosen claims they knew to be lies, while criminally disregarding the damage it would do to his reputation.

AIPAC submitted a detailed declaration in court at the beginning of November, requesting the dismissal of Rosen’s lawsuit. The document included transcripts of conversation between Rosen and his lawyer and other AIPAC senior officials, intending to prove that the organization had legitimate reasons to fire him.

The AIPAC declaration included recorded statements made by Rosen to a Washington Post reporter in which he says that he does not want to ‘run into trouble’ — a phrase that AIPAC claims proves that Rosen knew that he was doing something wrong.

Later in the conversation, Rosen expresses relief that the United States does not have a law on the books similar to the British law of ‘national secrets,’ according to which journalists can be tried for publishing classified information.

“The significance of this is that the plaintiff knew that the information he passed to the journalist was classified, otherwise there would be no need to mention the law,” the AIPAC deposition read. The organization spent $4.9 million on Rosen’s trial. The deposition mentioned that although the case never came to trial, Rosen was never exonerated.

A large part of the deposition relates to Rosen’s ‘inappropriate behavior,’ claiming that he experimented with sexual liaisons with other married men on Craig’s List and used his AIPAC office computer to surf pornographic websites.

The deposition also claimed that pornographic files were found on Rosen’s computer, a clear violation of AIPAC policy. Additionally, the deposition notes, criminal charges are not something that AIPAC expects from its employees.

For his part, Rosen sees himself as a victim and scapegoat that AIPAC knowingly put at risk with untrue accusations and by ignoring the facts. Rosen rejects AIPAC’s accusations that his actions should not be considered to be work done for the organization, claiming that they are considered to be normal behavior for the lobby.

In response to a request from Haaretz, AIPAC issued the following statement:

“As is demonstrated in detail in the pleadings that AIPAC has filed, this is a frivolous lawsuit with no merit. AIPAC has made it clear during the course of this litigation that it disagrees with Mr. Rosen’s characterization of events relevant to the litigation.

“As the pleadings demonstrate, it is AIPAC’s position that Steve Rosen’s claims are wildly inaccurate, are undermined by Rosen’s own admissions under oath in his deposition, and constitute a blatant attempt to detract attention from the true and relevant facts. We have filed a motion for summary judgment in this case with the court and look forward to resolving these matters in that venue.”

At the time of publication, Rosen had not replied to Haaretz’s request for comment.

The above article can be found here: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/aipac-dirty-laundry-aired-as-former-staffer-sues-for-defamation-1.325176

 

Also see ‘Leading neocons subpoenaed in AIPAC spy case’ here: http://800pg.co.cc/geeklog//article.php?story=20080718151425666

Also see ‘AIPAC spies set to walk (a dream scenario for the defense)’ here: http://800pg.co.cc/geeklog//article.php?story=20090305031253821

Also see ‘U.S. to drop spy case against pro-Israel lobbyists’ here: http://800pg.co.cc/geeklog//article.php?story=20090505011422352

A Jewish revisionist’s visit to Auschwitz

Posted in Etc. on November 19, 2010 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

By David Cole (October, 1992)
When I decided last September to take a well-deserved vacation, I thought, what better destination than Europe. After all, as a Revisionist I’d always felt it my duty to see the concentration camps in person. My girl-friend, though, said that she’d like to go to Europe to visit Euro-Disney, the new Disneyland theme park in France.

So I thought for a while about where to go: Auschwitz or Euro-Disney. And as I looked around, and saw the miserable state of the world and this country, the political and social malaise and depression, I realized that if I did take a vacation, I wanted to go to a place as far away from reality as possible: a fantasy land of wondrous fairy tales.

So, of course, I chose Auschwitz.

Now that I’ve gone through the Auschwitz main camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek, Mauthausen, and Dachau, I feel more secure in my position as a Revisionist that there exists no convincing evidence that Jews or anyone else were taken en masse into gas chambers and killed by the Nazis at these camps. In fact, the remains that I inspected at the camp sites seem, in many different ways, to directly contradict these claims.

I returned to the United States with more than 25 hours of video footage from the camps. At Majdanek I uncovered obvious tampering with the buildings exhibited as gas chambers. This evidence was discovered when my attractive camerawoman busted a lock and got into a room that is not open to tourists. There we were able to view several items in their original state, most notably the doors, which were clearly constructed to latch from both the outside and the inside.

The high point of my visit, though, was my interview with Dr. Franciszek Piper, Senior Curator of the Polish government’s Auschwitz State Museum. He has worked there for more than 26 years. On tape, he admits that the so-called gas chamber in Crematory Building (Krema) I, which is shown to half a million visitors a year as a genuine homicidal gas chamber, is in fact a reconstruction– even down to the holes cut into the ceiling. Piper also admits that walls were knocked down and bathroom facilities removed. He went on to tell us that the remains of the “white cottage,” supposed site of the first preliminary gassings at Birkenau, are also reconstructed. This was hardly news to me. Even a quick examination of the remains of the “white cottage” shows that the bricks are not connected in any way, but are simply laid on top of each other like children’s building blocks.

Piper has no problems with the Leuchter Report. He told me that he agrees with Leuchter’s findings regarding traces of ferro-ferric-cyanide in the walls of Crematory Buildings (Kremas) I, II and III. So what is his explanation for this lack of traces in the supposed homicidal gas chambers when, by contrast, there are significant traces in the non-homicidal delousing gas chambers? He told me that the amount of hydrogen cyanide (from Zyklon) supposedly used by the Germans to kill people — unlike the amount needed to kill lice in delousing chambers — was not enough to leave blue (ferro-ferric-cyanide) staining, or appreciable traces.

This argument has problems, though. For one thing, the supposed homicidal gas chambers at Majdanek (which in reality were non-homicidal delousing chambers) have abundant blue staining. So according to Piper’s “Holocaust logic” gassing people in Auschwitz did not leave blue stains, but gassing people at Majdanek did. Talk about a Magic Kingdom! As we spoke, I half expected to see Piper’s nose grow as long as Pinocchio’s!

The importance of Piper’s revelations is obvious. The burden of proof has now shifted decisively to the Exterminationist side. For example, Piper’s admission that the four holes in the ceiling of Crematory Building (Krema) I were put in after the war makes ludicrous the oft-repeated claim of Auschwitz tourists that “Now I’ve seen the gas chambers with my own two eyes.” Now that the often-made claims are no longer valid, can the Exterminationists produce any evidence — a photograph, document, plan, or order — showing that the supposed gas chamber there was ever used to kill people as alleged? Most likely not, but what else is new? We’ve never been asked to accept the Holocaust story on anything but faith, and for me, that’s not good enough.

On the issue of the Holocaust — and perhaps uniquely on this issue — we are told: “Close the books, there will be no more learning, no more discussion, no more questions. Not only will no questions be tolerated, but anyone who dares to ask such questions will be slandered and viciously attacked.”

Now as someone who believes that part of being human is to learn something new everyday, I respond: “How dare you tell me there will be no more learning?” The establishment that maintains the Holocaust story on life support admits that there is no direct proof of homicidal gassings. No order, no document, no pictures, only “eyewitnesses.”

And what of these eyewitnesses? The Holocaust lobby insists that this is convincing evidence. But what kind of evidence is this? In some European countries, a person who denies the gas chambers can be jailed, fined, or physically attacked. He might lose his job, his standing in the community, maybe even his life. Something similar has happened in Canada. In the United States, he might be attacked and vilified. And if he says that he comes by his knowledge from first-hand experience — in other words from helping to run the camps during the war years — then he might easily find himself deported to Israel or eastern Europe, where he might be sentenced to death or at least stripped of his US citizenship and denied due process.

In other words, we only hear of eyewitnesses from one side because witnesses from the other side have been strong-armed into silence. This is governmental coercion of the worst kind, and on a worldwide scale no less. One kind of eyewitness is encouraged, the other is warned that his words might lead to deportation, imprisonment, loss of livelihood, property, and even life. Some great victory for the Holocaust lobby: The game has been fixed!

Let people speak! If only no one else, I demand this for my own sake. I want to know what happened during World War Two, and yet how can I if those who might have firsthand knowledge are told : “Speak only the official line, or suffer the consequences.” I insist on my human right to learn.

There are those who say, “Okay, so maybe the Holocaust is a bit exaggerated, but do we really want to destabilize society by openly talking about all this, possibly encouraging hostility against Jews?” This raises an important philosophical question: Do you believe mankind to be so inherently cruel and stupid that people must be lied to in order to make them behave? If so, then the lies you tell them are only a small bandage to cover up a much greater evil: Lack of confidence in mankind’s ability to handle the truth. And if you truly believe that people cannot handle the truth, but instead need a “Big Brother” to handle it for them, then surely democracy is the most dangerous thing on earth.

Of course, I understand that people can be cruel and stupid, but I also believe in the human ability to learn, and to grow with each new piece of knowledge. Rather than censor information that we subjectively perceive to be “dangerous,” we should teach our children to think critically, to remain open-minded, and to look for truth rather than cling to emotionally appealing falsehoods.

And that is just about all we can do: teach our children and hope for the best, realizing that people cannot be programmed like robots. Eighty years of failed Communism should have taught us that. To use the power of the state to force men to be what the state defines as “good” creates a world far more hellish than the one that is supposedly being prevented. I would rather live in a world where people are free to be cruel and stupid than one in which “goodness” is enforced at gun point.

Keep in mind also that truth, objective truth, does not need threats and intimidation to prevail. We Holocaust Revisionists are often likened to those who said that the earth was flat. But just the reverse is true: It is the other side that acts like a Holy Inquisition, institutionalizing one viewpoint and punishing heretics. Remember: We only accepted that the earth is round after the debate was opened. And since then, the round-earth adherents have not needed false news law s, hate crimes laws, and libel or slander laws to protect the truthfulness of their view. Likewise, all we ask is that the Holocaust story either stand or fall according to the evidence — or lack of it.

While we Holocaust Revisionists sit on a wealth of wonderfully heretical information, can we get it out to the general public? Can we “mainstream” Holocaust Revisionism before it’s too late, that is to say, before all those who have firsthand information of what really happened die off entirely?

As a Jew, it would be wrong for me not to mention the issue of Jewish influence. Influence is a very strange thing. People spend so much time and energy to acquire it and then an equal amount of time and energy denying they have it. Jewish influence does exist. If it didn’t, why would billions of dollars be spent annually by Jewish lobbying groups? That money isn’t to pay for dance lessons for Senators and Congressmen, of course, it’s for influence. Jews must come to terms with the fact that they are not only a powerful and influential group, but have responsibilities that come with that — particularly the responsibility not to abuse power, or, more specifically, to avoid abusing people with that power.

It is a testament to the strength of Revisionist research and scholarship, and to Revisionist tenacity, that all the Jewish influence in the world has not erased this movement. Despite the best efforts of our most clever and determined adversaries, Revisionist books are still read, and the Institute for Historical Review continues to function.

But how much progress are we really making in getting our message to the public? Unfortunately, we’ve been making only tiny *censored*cat steps. I am not a patient man. Every day I fool myself into thinking that I can be patient — I can’t. I don’t want to be a guerilla fighter of the political underground for the rest of my life. The time has come, indeed has never been better, to take Revisionist scholarship to the rest of the world, and if the powers that be try to stop us, we either go around them or if necessary , we go right through them.

Two more years! That’s my new motto. In two years’ time, Holocaust Revisionism should be in the mainstream, squarely in the public eye.

I am sure that we will eventually succeed in getting out our message. Information can be suppressed for just so long. But that’s not enough for me. It’s not enough that fellow Revisionists recognize Professor Faurisson’s scholarship for the brilliant work it is. I want it to be widely recognized as such, and in his lifetime!

So let’s make a concerted effort. Mindful of the recent Jewish New Year, I hereby make a Jewish New Year’s resolution: Two more years! No more sitting in the back of the ideological bus. We’re loud, we’re proud, and best of all, we’re right!


David Cole was raised and educated in Los Angeles, where he lives and works. Because of his support for Holocaust Revisionism, he was assaulted during a meeting at the University of California at Los Angeles on January 22, 1992 by thugs of the Jewish Defense League (JDL), who hit him in the face and bloodied his nose. JDL leader Irv Rubin also tried to push him down a flight of stairs. Later the JDL would make death threats against David and his family causing him to issue a letter of “recantation.”

The above article can be found here: A Jewish Revisionist’s Visit to Auschwitz



The David Cole/JDL affair

On January 2, 1998, David Cole renounced Holocaust revisionism and all of the work that he had done for the cause of historical truth. Many people are wondering what happened. What brought on this change of heart? From all appearances it was a result of threats made against him by the Jewish Defense League (JDL).

In response to his public comments that there are serious flaws in the popularly accepted quasi-historical accounts of the Holocaust, they launched a campaign of hate against him that produced an old-fashioned signed statement of recantation. This campaign included a vicious and threatening diatribe, “Monstrous Traitor,” that offered a reward for his home address and was posted on the JDL website for some weeks or months. When Cole offered them a statement of reversal of the offending opinions, they took down the page aimed at inciting violence toward him and replaced it with the statement of acceptable thought. The JDL used terror tactics openly, and it worked.

Intolerance, threats and force are not typically a good atmosphere in which to find truth. Irrespective of this encounter with intellectual muggers, his work will stand or fall on its own merits in the long term. The film “David Cole interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper” is every bit as valid now as it was prior to the strong-arm intimidation of the man who made it.

The conclusions of David Cole’s film have been confirmed recently in Robert Jan Van Pelt and Deborah Dwork’s, “Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present.” According to Van Pelt and Dwork: “Visitors [to Auschwitz] are not told that the crematorium they see is largely a postwar reconstruction.” (p.363)

CODOH awaits Van Pelt and Dwork’s retraction, but will not be holding its breath in the meantime.


Related Articles:

“In regard to anything relating to the Middle East or Jewish subjects, the USA has many of the characteristics of a totalitarian country and many of the groups who call themselves ‘liberal’ or ‘peace camp’ or ‘radical’ are on that subject the most intolerant, the most totalitarian, the most dishonest and racist. . . . A totalitarian society not only does not tolerate a freedom of opinion, but it cultivates by all means in its power a ‘received opinion,’ which all have to parrot, not only without checking it, but often without any understanding of what it means.

“Perhaps some Americans will think that I exaggerate. But the danger of a totalitarian regime was always thought to be exaggerated before it arrived. Only afterwards, when it was too late, was it found that the society was already totalitarian in some aspects which were merely enlarged.

“There is only one sure antidote to the totalitarian danger: To fight all aspects of totalitarianism in all the parts of one’s society and to follow always the dictum of Socrates that the unexamined life is not worth living, and therefore with the utmost freedom and without fear of any blackmail to examine everything in the light of a universal concept of justice, applicable equally to all human beings.”

— Israeli historian and researcher Israel Shahak

“In forging their own brand of totalitarianism in the US, the Zionists continue to manipulate the victims of the Nazi holocaust as their chief weapon.”

— Alfred Lilienthal, Commentary

 

While this page is ostensibly about David Cole, his case really only serves as an illustration of a problem seldom discussed in public, and therefore not known to most of the public. Cole’s experience demonstrates graphically a fairly benign instance of the methods used around the world, day in and day out, to relentlessly and ruthlessly quash attempts by honest people to examine in detail a historical event of legitimate interest to a great many, if not all people in the West and Middle East. The concern about this is not mollified by the fact that many of those who engage in this program of intimidation through slander, mass propaganda and physical threats do so in sincerity, with a firm conviction that what they do has a greater good which more than justifies its wrongs. We ignore these wrongs at the risk of our legitimate rule of law and our own freedoms. The seeming dichotomy of great wars fought by opposing religions who both seek to convey the love of their God to all people, and who will slaughter millions of them to do that, is no mystery if you look at it from the zealot’s or fanatic’s perspective. The fact that others do not see the greater good at work is due to their own spiritual shortcomings he tells himself, and in the land of the heathen you do what you must to survive and keep the faith. Whatever you must.

Our position on this affliction of the fanatic is a simple one. The one universal good that outweighs all others must be a person’s right to follow any life path they choose so long as they offer no infringement on the rights of others. Our Declaration of Independence speaks of the inalienable rights we all have to our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness, which is to say the sanctity of our own bodies, freedom of movement and association, and freedom of thought. Those who seek to deprive others of any of these outside the unfortunate but necessary repressions of the State we call justice earn for themselves what they gave. The principle is that of equity at its most basic level. As you deprive others of their liberty, so shall society see that you are deprived in equal measure, because there is no justification for any individual to take away any other individual’s freedoms, even to the smallest part. That power is and must be confined to our mechanisms of government.

The right to harbor unpopular, even intolerant beliefs, and the right to express them are protected by the Constitution, which spells out the unqualified right of all Americans to unfettered freedom of speech. But intimidation aimed at silencing speech, and thus infringing on that right, be it through slander, threats or force, is not so protected. In fact, people who used those exact methods of intimidation to keep blacks from voting found themselves jailed for conspiring to deprive others of their lawful civil rights.

The basis for this was a post-Civil War law passed to address widespread abuses of that kind. That law has expanded quite liberally to include now a variegated collection of non-enumerated rights, such as going to school or working at a job, free of harassment aimed at depriving you of those opportunities. It is not necessary to argue about whether everything falling under this aegis is a legitimate “right” in order to see the illegitimacy of how it is applied, because we will look in a direction that should be a given, toward the inarguable central rights, to see how they fare in the protection game.

It is fashionable now to approve the increasing scope of civil rights law, yet some attempt to make the case that applying it to portions of the Bill of Rights is not proper or not needed. A common rationale is that differences of opinion are private matters that government should not, cannot be involved in. A valid point when only differences of opinion are present, invalid when coercion is applied to limit or deny freedom of speech or deprive someone of their livelihood (such as black-balling dissident authors in the publishing industry). Once coercion enters, the argument is without logic, for if government oversight is valid for protecting any one right then it is valid for all. Politically selected application of justice is a repugnant practice that coarsens and weakens all involved.

Yet that is exactly what is taking place in this country today. Holding generally unpopular views on a number of topical subjects can put you in a class where Justice is truly blindfolded. No one seems to see the blatant abuses committed by those who oppose those views, including vicious beatings on the steps of courthouses, arson, letter-bombs, terrorizing with threats of harm. If you happen to be pushing a topic deemed by popular opinion to be so lacking in merit that it somehow poses a danger to the citizenry, you will find little interest on the part of authorities to address these crimes or lessen their occurrence. This is nothing less than state and public sanctioned vigilantism, or terrorism, and it has no place in societies that would call themselves civilized

One of the hottest areas for this is Holocaust historical revisionism, which to a newcomer seems an oddity. (Emotions run high over history ?? That’s the class you sleep in.) Attempts to point out glaring inconsistencies in the popular and now institutionalized account bring howls of rage from those who disagree. If the initial rage isn’t enough to make someone cease and desist (which it often is), then the ante is raised and will keep on being raised to whatever level is needed to silence the target. It may start with simple slander, automatic and unfounded labels of “anti-Semite”, “denier”, “hater”, “Nazi” and more are pasted on with the often expressed intent of destroying resolve and/or career, legitimate aims because the target is deemed “unfit” to be a member of any decent society. Those who don’t give up are then marginalized by campaigns to convince the public of their evil and 100% erroneous views, their universally undesirable nature. When these aren’t effective enough, then threats of injury or death are employed, such as with David Cole. At the extreme end, people are killed, like American-Arab peace activist Sami Odeh, murdered by a letter-bomb of suspected Zionist origin.

The open existence of and tolerance shown for this despicable practice fouls our national social fabric immensely. This is a major thing we’d like to see the public become aware of and hopefully say, “You know, this seems pretty un-American to me. And even if I’m wrong about that, it sucks to allow people to hurt others because they don’t like their opinions. And I believe government should give some attention to what’s going on.” The rest of our job would then be very easy, as frightened people with much knowledge of the truth of the matter could at last speak openly. We might turn out to be right, and we might be wrong. But it would be settled quickly and we could quit hassling about it. Those who claim their feelings are so tender that this can’t be allowed would be over it before you know it, and life would go on a little more peacefully.

If getting rid of a death-threat by giving in to coercion was what it took for Cole to regain peace of mind, we understand and neither resent nor condemn, only empathize. No one should be faced with an ultimatum to choose between their beliefs and their personal safety in the United States of America. That is a despicable, and in our minds, criminal affair.

We are all forced to recite a government mandated litany affirming a nonsensical collective belief in non-existent Arab terrorists every time we board an airplane. While we docilely play these sheep-like roles in the instilment of our own “good think,” the real terrorists operate publicly and unhindered because they belong to any of a number of designated groups whose excesses one is forbidden to criticize, however legitimately or temperately.

It is disturbing to realize how very far this nation, and much of the Western world, has fallen from the fiery spirit which threw off the yokes of ancient tyrannies in the 18th and 19th centuries, ushering in the Age of Enlightenment. That light now dims because we are all too willing to take “Give me liberty or give me death!” and Newspeak convert it to, “Give me liberty at any cost except personal discomfort or civic involvement.” This is how it comes to be that good men stand and say nothing, how in fact we came to be where we are now.

But let us return to the matter at hand, David Cole’s run-in with the dark side of the strident opposition to open examination of a historical issue. Addressing the possibility that this complete reversal of belief was sincere, then we hope David Cole is successful in his new endeavors whatever they may be. Perhaps we’ll meet on opposite sides in some future debate forum. That would be a treat, because David was always a worthy opponent; quick, well informed, and with a gift for public speaking. He’ll do well in any situation, because he has enough intelligence to sort truth from pretense all by himself.

As long as the moral vigilantes and intellectual terrorists among us allow him to, that is.

— David Thomas 1/18/98

The above article can be found here: The David Cole / JDL Affair



‘David Cole forced to recant his revisionist views

 

What they do to revisionists – A page which recounts case after case of revisionists being attacked for their views.

If you question any part of the Holocaust story, they will call you a “Holocaust denier,” implying that you deny that anything happened, and thus implying that you are either dishonest or insane, or both. They will say that your revisionist arguments are “hate speech,” even though it’s all too obvious where the hate is really coming from.

And they don’t just talk. They beat revisionists up, blow up their cars, burn their homes, put them in jail, and ruin their careers. There have been numerous assassination attempts, one of which was successful: Francois Duprat was killed by a car bomb.

The Töben case — Dr. Fredrick Töben, founder of the Adelaide Institute, was found guilty of “denying the Holocaust.” However, the decision set an important precedent: The judge declared that German law has no jurisdiction over Töben’s on-line writings or publications. The verdict of “guilty” was based only on material he had physically distributed in Germany. This means, for example, that I could not be prosecuted for this web site. So far, so good. That’s a step in the right direction.

Nevertheless, the principle that “the truth of the statement is not a defense” still stands. In Germany, it is illegal to say that there was no gas chamber at Auschwitz, and someone who is charged with this “crime” cannot defend himself, since doing so would require asserting, in court, that there was no gas chamber, and the defendant could be charged again. Not only that, his lawyer could be prosecuted for making illegal statements in his defense.

As George Orwell said, the right to say that 2 + 2 = 4 is fundamental. Given that, everything else follows. We still don’t have that right.


Here is the story of David Cole, as told in nine installments of Ingrid Rimland’s column on the Zündel site: — As of 6/14/2010, the whole series can be found here. There is no guarantee that that link will remain valid.

Part 1 — Ernst Zündel writes,

I have some sad news to report. There has been another defection out of the Revisionist community. David Cole, a young Jew who in the past has done some remarkable Revisionist video recording and on-the-ground work, has crossed over and written a retraction…

David and I video-toured Auschwitz and Birkenau together, and it was an eery feeling for me at the time to have a young American Jew, half my age, explain on camera to me, the German, what he found was wrong with Auschwitz and the Holocaust mass gassing claims in that horror theme park.

David also appeared in Germany on the same platform with me and spoke with courage and conviction about the many inconsistencies of Auschwitz, while German police were present in the hall. He did not flinch or shirk the issues. Truth was Truth to him, and he defended it, regardless of the costs. (…)

I was, by then, a battle-scarred Revisionist veteran, possibly showing the first signs of battle fatigue after going flat out for years in Holocaust trial after Holocaust trial. I remember feeling possibly a little shamed but in any case re-invigorated by the dynamism of this young man.

Part 2 — Some background material: Bradley Smith promotes David Cole’s video, and draws the wrath of ADL. David appears at a revisionist conference.

Part 3 — Excerpts from a letter posted on the JDL site:

What is a David Cole? Is it a sickness? Is it a mental disease? Is Cole merely a human parasite who clings to his ardent Nazi supporters and friends who back his ideas whole-heartedly? After all, this Cole mania that the media have played on, don’t you think it’s time that we flush this rotten, sick individual down the toilet, where the rest of the waste lies? One less David Cole in the world will certainly not end Jew-hatred, but it will have removed a dangerous parasitic, disease-ridden bacteria from infecting society.

Just as we must get rid of this monster, Cole, we must also get rid of the word “revisionism” from our vocabulary. This awful word and Cole, too, must be eliminated altogether. There is no argument. There needs to be no more debates, only the elimination of the Holocaust deniers…

JDL wants to know the location of Holocaust denier David Cole, pictured above. Anyone giving us his correct address will receive a monetary reward. Contact us through e-mail immediately if you have information leading to the current location of David Cole.

Part 4 — This page is about how Jewish organizations failed to come to David Cole’s defense. To me, the most interesting thing here is the quotation at the end: Edmund Burke wrote

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Part 5 — Excerpts from David Cole’s retraction:

I would like to state for the record that there is no question in my mind that during the Holocaust of Europe’s Jews during World War II, the Nazis employed gas chambers in an attempt to commit genocide against the Jews. At camps in both Eastern and Western Europe, Jews were murdered in gas chambers which employed such poison gases as Zyklon B and carbon monoxide (in the Auschwitz camp, for example, the gas chambers used Zyklon B). The evidence for this is overwhelming and unmistakable…

I now understand that I owe it to the people I wronged to make a forceful repudication [sic] of my earlier views. I also owe a very large apology, not only to the many people I enraged, and to the family and friends I hurt, but especially to the survivors of the Holocaust, who deserve only our respect and compassion, not re-victimization.

Therefore, to all of the above people, let me offer my most humble and very, very sincere apology. I am sorry for what (I) did, and I am sorry for the hurt I caused…

Part 6 — Ernst Zündel comments,

David has not been well lately, and his mother is apparently gravely ill, which might have been contributing factors in his abject rejection [sic] and apology to the leader of the JDL, Irv Rubin. David acts and talks like one of the accused at one of Stalin’s famous “Purge Trials” in the late 1930s – self-accusatory, groveling, profusely apologizing etc. A hallmark of Stalin’s victims!

Part 7 — From the comments on the CODOH site:

The funny thing about Cole’s retraction is that
in a cosmic way it simply confirms what
revisionists have been saying all along. For over
twenty years, revisionists have said that the
German confessions, wildly inaccurate and
contradictory, were given not so much in response
to direct physical torture as from the desire to
protect themselves and above all their families
from retaliation and hardship. For Cole’s
retraction, the JDL boasts that it was the result
of their previous page, and that Cole “was afraid
for his life and the relatives he supposedly is
taking care of.” So for those who didn’t believe it
possible that the Germans involved in the
concentration camps could have been intimidated
into making abject confessions, the idea is
strikingly confirmed by Cole’s retraction, and
furthermore the JDL is waving the proof right under
your nose.

Part 8 — Excerpts from another message by Ernst Zündel:

I am not a shrink. I have only seen it happen. I am not going to guess what went on in David’s mind and soul as he groped his way towards that fateful day when he must have picked up the phone or faxed to Irv Rubin, who had tormented and stalked him, until David broke down and notarized that statement to Rubin. I do not know what transpired in the months, weeks or days before. Therefore, I cannot judge. The two documents (the JDL death threat followed by David’s recanting) speak for themselves. Any normal, streetwise, or historically knowledgeable person can, and I am sure will, draw his own conclusions.

One observation and warning I must give to people, and it is simply this: The terror unleashed against a target will not stop by the act of recantation or retraction by the victim. That is only the beginning of the process, it is definitely not the end. After the confession or retraction has been extracted or leveraged out of the victim by the tormentors, there will come at first gentle and then ever more brazen and forcefully delivered requests and demands for other information – names of friends, collaborators, mailing lists, financial information, health status of former collaborators, sexual habits, drug or alcohol habits.

By then, the “recantee” is totally isolated, totally vulnerable, totally in the hands of the people he has recanted to – he has not a real friend left in the world, for his whole former network of colleagues, friends, co-workers and emotional support and infrastructure have disappeared, severed by his own action. Recanting might be considered by the individual a “brave act” at first, but it is nothing compared to what follows like a comet’s tail after that first fateful step. (…)

I still feel empathy for David Cole and wish him well… Many letters from Revisionists around the world in response to this development have shown me that they, too, treasure the memory of a brave young Jew who stood up to his own establishment – for as long as he had the strength to do it.

Part 9 — Some final comments by Ingrid Rimland:

A major strike was needed to stop Revisionism from gaining an intellectual foothold on college campuses, even if it meant a brazen threat of “eliminating” a gifted Revisionist speaker and writer who just happened to be a Jew…

One thing is clear: The enemy has bared its teeth. The doleful Elie Wiesel smile has all but disappeared.

 

The above article can be found here: David Cole forced to recant his revisionist views

 

Also see ‘David Cole: The truth behind the gates of Auschwitz’ here: http://800poundgorilla.100webspace.net/geeklog//staticpages/index.php?page=20090401185124248

Israel-firsters sweep US mid-terms; GOP majority will ‘serve as check’ on Obama, republican leader tells Netanyahu

Posted in ZOGs on November 18, 2010 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

‘US midterms: AIPAC lauds re-election of pro-Israel stalwarts’

Haaretz (Israel); November 3, 2010

America‘s largest pro-Israel lobby group on Wednesday hailed the results of midterm elections in the US which saw staunch supporters re-elected to Congress on both sides of the party political divide.

“Many of the strongest friends and supporters of the US-Israel relationship were re-elected on Tuesday,” the group said in a statement.

These included Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Reps. John Boehner (R-OH), widely tipped to be named Republican majority leader in the lower House of Representatives, which his party seized from Democratic control.

Other pro-Israel successes cited by AIPAC included outgoing House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), as well as Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD).

“It is abundantly clear that the 112th Congress will continue America’s long tradition of staunch support for a strong, safe and secure Israel and an abiding friendship between the United States and our most reliable ally in the Middle East,” AIPAC said.

Israel‘s Washington embassy also expressed satisfaction with the results.

Support for Israel at the Congress is strong and bipartisan,” an embassy spokesman told Haaretz.

AIPAC also welcomed the election of three new Jewish members of Congress: Senator-elect Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Congressman-elect David Cicilline (D-RI), and Congresswoman-elect Nan Hayworth (R-NY).

Cicilline becomes the fourth openly gay member of Congress — and third Jewish gay member of Congress.

Some Jewish incumbents lost out, however — among them Florida Democrat Alan Grayson, who ran a controversial campaign in which he labeled his opponent, Daniel Webster, “Taliban Dan”. Another incumbent, Ron Klein lost to the republican Allen West, in Florida.

In Wisconsin, Republicans picked up two seats, ousting Jewish Democratic incumbent, Steve Kagen, who lost to Reid Ribble. Another Jewish Congressman to leave the House is John Adler of New Jersey.

The Jewish vote

According to an election day poll by J Street, another lobby group that sees itself as AIPAC’s more liberal rival, 66 percent of US Jews voted Democrat.

Only 7 percent of Jews polled identified Israel as a decisive issue, with 62 percent citing the economy and 31 percent mentioning healthcare as a major concern.

Sixty percent of US Jews approved of the way President Barack Obama is handling his job, while 53 percent approved of the way he is handling the Arab-Israeli conflict.

A decisive 83 percent of American Jews supported an active US role in resolving the conflict. Seventy-one percent supported a US policy involving “publicly stating disagreements with” Israel and the Palestinians, while 65 percent said they were prepared to see America “exert pressure” on the sides to push them toward peace.

The poll, conducted by conducted by Gerstein Agne Strategic Communications, surveyed 1000 Jewish voters across the US and 600 Jewish voters in Pennsylvania on the evening of November 2nd. A separate poll, conducted before the election from October 20-24, surveyed 400 voters in Illinois’ Ninth Congressional District.

The above article can be found here: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/u-s-midterms-aipac-lauds-re-election-of-pro-israel-stalwarts-1.322729

 

GOP will ‘check’ Obama, Cantor tells Netanyahu

WASHINGTON — The new GOP majority will “serve as a check” on the Obama administration, Republican leader Eric Cantor told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu met Wednesday night with Cantor (R-Va.), the putative US House of Representatives majority leader whose party swept midterm elections last week for the House. Their meeting was first reported on the Politico website.

Such meetings with opposition leaders are unusual, and Cantor’s office cast it as a get-together between two men with a longstanding relationship.

Nonetheless, Cantor’s statement was critical of the Obama administration, siding with Netanyahu in a number of areas where the prime minister and President Obama have differences.

The statement called on Obama to “fully and aggressively implement” Iran sanctions and to “make it absolutely clear that the US will veto any effort by the Palestinians” to declare a state unilaterally. Cantor told Netanyahu, the statement added, that “the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one-party rule in Washington.”

Although Obama has not used the full sanctions package, he has implemented Iran sanctions to a greater extent than any of his predecessors.

Cantor was deputy Republican whip from 2003 to 2007, when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, and the Bush administration considerably softened proposed Iran sanctions packages.

Obama also has made it clear that he opposes unilateral moves in the peace talks, although he has not explicitly threatened to veto Palestinian statehood should it come under consideration by the UN Security Council.

Netanyahu also met Thursday with US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has said that an announcement this week of more than 1,000 new housing units in eastern Jerusalem is “counterproductive.”

“I’m very pleased to be here and to have this opportunity to discuss with him how we’re going to move forward in the process,” Clinton said prior to the meeting.

Netanyahu also met with Vice President Joe Biden during his US visit, and with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), whom he has known since the early 1980s.

The above article can be found here: http://jta.org/news/article/2010/11/11/2741707/cantor-tells-netanyahu-gop-will-check-obama

 

‘Eric Cantor’s pledge of allegiance’

Salon.com; November 13, 2010

Soon-to-be GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor met on Wednesday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — the same day when the actual US Secretary of State met with Netanyahu — and vowed that he and his GOP colleagues would protect and defend Israeli interests against his own Government.  According to a statement proudly issued by Cantor’s own office:

“Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington,” the readout continued. “He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other.”

Leave aside the absurdity of believing that Israel needs to be protected from the extremely deferential and devoted Obama administration. So extraordinary is Cantor’s pledge that even the Jewish Telegraph Agency’s Ron Kampeas — himself a reflexive American defender of most things Israel — was astonished, and wrote:

“I can’t remember an opposition leader telling a foreign leader, in a personal meeting, that he would side, as a policy, with that leader against the president. Certainly, in statements on one specific issue or another — building in Jerusalem, or somesuch — lawmakers have taken the sides of other nations.  But to have-a-face to face and say, in general, we will take your side against the White House — that sounds to me extraordinary.

As Kampeas notes, Cantor’s office quickly disputed his understanding, but this is hardly the first time Cantor has violated supposedly sacred political conventions in order to side with Israel over his own country. Last August, Cantor led a GOP delegation to Israel and while in Jerusalem — which happens to be “foreign soil” — he condemned his own president and American policy for opposing the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Criticizing America while on Dreaded Foreign Soil is supposed to be one of the most extreme taboos in American politics:  Al Gore was bitterly denounced as a borderline-traitor for a 2006 speech in Saudi Arabia criticizing American foreign policy, and Gore at the time was merely a private citizen, not a leading political official.  But American political figures like Cantor feel free to do exactly that — criticize America on foreign soil — when it comes to Israel; recall the same thing being done by Mike Huckabee.

That’s because, in general, all the rules change — are completely reversed — when it comes to Israel.  As Cantor’s behavior demonstrates, the rules that apply to “foreign countries” are inapplicable to Israel because in mainstream American politics, Israel is not considered and therefore is not treated as a “foreign country” at all.

Many Israel devotees actually tried to expand the “no-criticizing-the US-on-foreign-soil” rule by suggesting there was something wrong with Obama’s criticism of Israel while in Indonesia; apparently, it’s fine for American officials to criticize the US while in Israel, but not for the US President to criticize Israel while on foreign soil.

And for the past two years, leading Democrats who would never dare publicly criticize Obama for anything have bitterly and publicly denounced him for the crime of opposing Israeli policy.  And, of course, there is far greater unity in the US Congress for Israeli wars than for America’s own wars [What the writer refers to as “America’s own wars” are, in actuality, Israel’s wars — 800]; that’s just a fact.

Last night on Twitter, I wrote:  “Imagine if a leading Democratic Congressman told a leader of a foreign country he’d side with them against the GOP US President” and “Imagine John Kerry, 2006, to French President Jacques Chirac: ‘I’ll safeguard French interests against President Bush’.”

In reply, The Washington Examiner’s David Freddoso wrote: “No need to imagine.  It happened in 02.”  He’s presumably referring to Rep. Jim McDermott’s trip to Iraq to oppose America’s imminent attack on that country. That’s hardly comparable — McDermott wasn’t in the leadership of his party and he was opposing that war out of allegiance to the US, not to Iraq — but even so, it created a major media backlash in which McDermott was routinely denounced as a traitor and to this day is mocked as “Baghdad Jim.”

Needless to say, Cantor’s actions will spawn nothing comparable. That’s the point.

What makes Cantor’s behavior all the more remarkable is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which the Obama administration is ostensibly attempting to resolve is, as Gen. David Petraeus himself pointed out, a direct threat to US interests and security.  But no matter; those concerns are plainly not Cantor’s priority.

One other revealing and fascinating aspect to all of this. The two co-chairmen of Obama’s Deficit Commission, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, last week unveiled a plan that would entail drastic cuts in most areas of American life, including Social Security and Medicare. Whatever else is true, American citizens are going to experience severe cut-backs in all sorts of benefits and economic security.

Meanwhile, the US continues to shovel billions of dollars every year to Israel — a country which, unlike the US, enjoys a booming economy and universal health care coverage. The Bowles/Simpson proposal would not cut any of that, but it at least calls for a reduction in the rate of growth in foreign aid, which would encompass the numerous foreign countries to which the US transfers such money, with Israel leading the list and its neighbor Egypt in second place (which buys Egyptian stability and peace with Israel).

Anticipating that the extreme austerity measures which his party is demanding might sweep up foreign aid — and therefore threaten the billions of dollars every year in American taxpayer money transferred to Israel — Cantor last month proposed that money to Israel not be classified any longer as “foreign aid” — in order to shield it from all cuts.

In other words, Cantor wants American citizens to sacrifice in the extreme, to lose all sorts of benefits and security in the name of austerity, but wants to shield Israel — with a higher standard of living — from those cuts. Put another way, Americans should give up Social Security and Medicare benefits so that they can continue to transfer billions of dollars every year to Israel, a foreign country which offers far more of a safety net to its own citizens.

But don’t you dare accuse Eric Cantor of harboring allegiance to Israel and subordinating US interests to this foreign country. That would be extremely wrong of you to insinuate.

The above article can be found here: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/13/israel/index.html

 

Cantor’s position on Israel (from Wikipedia)

Cantor is currently the only Jewish Republican in the United States Congress. He supports strong United States-Israel relations. He cosponsored legislation to cut off all US taxpayer aid to the Palestinian Authority and another bill calling for an end to taxpayer aid to the Palestinians until they stop unauthorized excavations on the Temple Mound in Jerusalem.

Responding to a claim by the US State Department that the United States provides no direct aid to the Palestinian Authority, Cantor claimed that United States sends about US$75 million in aid annually to the Palestinian Authority, which is administered by the US Agency for International Development. Cantor has also claimed that Congress approved a three-year package of US$400 million in aid for the Palestinian Authority in 2000. He has also introduced legislation to end aid to Palestinians.

In May 2008, Cantor said that the relationship America has with Israel is “a constant reminder of the greatness of America”, and following Barack Obama’s election as President in November 2008, Cantor stated that a “stronger US-Israel relationship” remains a top priority for him and that he would be “very outspoken” if Obama “did anything to undermine those ties.”

Shortly after the 2010 midterm elections, Cantor met privately with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to Cantor’s office, he “stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration” and “made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States.”

Cantor was criticized for engaging in foreign policy; one basis for the criticism was that in 2007, after Nancy Pelosi met with the President of Syria, Cantor himself had raised the possibility “that her recent diplomatic overtures ran afoul of the Logan Act, which makes it a felony for any American ‘without authority of the United States’ to communicate with a foreign government to influence that government’s behavior on any disputes with the United States.”

The above extract can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#Political_positions

 

Also see ‘Jewish US attorney general blocked moves to combat mortgage fraud in 2008’ here: http://800pg.co.cc/geeklog//article.php?story=20101022185110916

Also see ‘At Lubavitch retreat, Virginia senator reveals secret Jewish heritage’ here: http://800pg.co.cc/geeklog//article.php?story=20101012154813191

Also see ‘Jewish general to pilot evangelical-friendly air force (2008)’ here: http://800pg.co.cc/geeklog//article.php?story=20101006022753162