Translate

Dec 11, 2009

White House kitchen has to be kosher...

 

Washington Fuss Over White House Hanukkah Party

Luke Sharrett/The New York Times

"This is all one big overblown latke," Rabbi Levi Shemtov said of the fuss over the the White House's Hanukkah party.


Published: December 10, 2009

WASHINGTON — At the first Hanukkah party in the Obama White House, a Jewish student choir will sing in sweet harmony, the two young children of a soldier deployed in Iraq will light a 19th-century silver menorah from Prague and President Obama and his wife, Michelle, will greet more than 500 guests in a celebration that is expected to spill from the State Room to the East Room.

Blog

The Caucus
The Caucus

The latest on President Obama, his administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.

But to the dismay of some administration officials, the plans for next week's party — one of the hottest holiday events for the nation's Jewish elite — have been overtaken by feverish debate over the size of the guest list, the language on the invitations and what this says (or does not say) about Mr. Obama's relationship with Jews.

President George W. Bush, who began the tradition of White House Hanukkah parties, invited 600 people to his last party, administration officials say. But rumors spread wildly, first in the Israeli press and then locally, that President Bush had invited 800 people and that the Obamas were planning to invite only 400. (Administration officials say they have invited 550 people.)

The invitations have also caused some consternation because they make no mention of Hanukkah, inviting guests to "a holiday reception" on Dec. 16.

In an opinion article published by JTA, the Jewish news agency, Tevi Troy, a former Bush administration liaison to Jewish groups, warned that the Obama White House had given Jewish Americans "a number of reasons to fear that it takes its votes for granted." Mr. Troy cited as examples the administration's call for a freeze on Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the decision to honor Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland, who has been accused by some Democratic lawmakers of anti-Israel bias.

Mr. Troy said the reduced guest list created "a nagging sense that there may be a studied callousness at work here."

His commentary, published on Nov. 23, and an article a week earlier in The Jerusalem Post, touched off a flurry of news articles, blog postings and kitchen table discussions. This week, the Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot published photographs of President Bush lighting a menorah and Mr. Obama standing with Santa Claus alongside an article headlined, "Obama Downsizes Hanukkah in the White House."

Rabbi Levi Shemtov, who is overseeing the process of making the White House kitchen kosher for the party, said he was besieged with questions about the issue on a recent trip to Israel.

"I usually get asked when I came and how long I'm staying; this time, all anyone wanted to know was whether I was getting invited to the White House Hanukkah party," said Rabbi Shemtov, who heads the Washington office of the American Friends of Lubavitch, which lobbies for the Lubavitch movement.

Rabbi Shemtov, who has attended Hanukkah parties at the White House, said he raised an eyebrow when he received his invitation, but noted that the Bush administration once sent invitations out with Christmas trees on them.

"This is all one big overblown latke," the rabbi said.

"I feel that we need to save our communal kvetching in reserve for when it's more called for and really matters," he continued.

Jewish Democrats accused Republicans of using the party for political ammunition. Advisers to Mr. Obama described the focus on the guest list as disappointing.

"Hanukkah is a wonderful holiday to celebrate, but that's not the whole ballgame, by any means, in terms of outreach to the Jewish community," said Susan Sher, one of the president's two liaisons to Jewish groups.

Ms. Sher noted that Mr. Obama held the first White House seder, invited the leaders of more than a dozen Jewish organizations for a wide-ranging discussion at the White House in July, held a conference call with 900 rabbis in August and videotaped a message to Jews for the High Holy Days in the fall.

Administration officials also noted that White House records showed that Mr. Bush never had more than 584 guests at his Hanukkah parties. Most years there were fewer than 500, they said.

Josh Block, a spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby, which has disagreed with aspects of Mr. Obama's policy toward Israel, praised his outreach and said what mattered was that he would continue to hold the party.

Mr. Troy, who said he was astonished by the reaction to his article, agreed. He said the Obamas were "doing what they need to do in terms of outreach."

As for the party, he is not expecting an invitation.

"The people who are invited will have a great time," he said. "And a lot of people who didn't get in will grumble. But you won't hear any grumbling from me."


--
NOW AN AMAZON KINDLE BOOK ON YOUR PC, iPHONE OR KINDLE DEVICE

Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides By Thomas Dalton

In this remarkable, balanced book, the author skillfully reviews and compares "traditional" and "revisionist" views on the "The Holocaust."

On one side is the traditional, orthodox view -- six million Jewish casualties, gas chambers, cremation ovens, mass graves, and thousands of witnesses. On the other is the view of a small band of skeptical writers and researchers, often unfairly labeled "deniers," who contend that the public has been gravely misled about this emotion-laden chapter of history.

The author establishes that the arguments and findings of revisionist scholars are substantive, and deserve serious consideration. He points out, for example, that even the eminent Jewish Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg acknowledged that there was no budget, plan or order by Hitler for a World War II program to exterminate Europe's Jews.

This book is especially relevant right now, as "Holocaust deniers" are routinely and harshly punished for their "blasphemy," and as growing numbers of people regard the standard, Hollywoodized "Holocaust" narrative with mounting suspicion and distrust.

The author of this book, who writes under the pen name of "Thomas Dalton," is an American scholar who holds a doctoral degree from a major US university.

This is no peripheral debate between arcane views of some obscure aspect of twentieth century history. Instead, this is a clash with profound social-political implications regarding freedom of speech and press, the manipulation of public opinion, how our cultural life is shaped, and how power is wielded in our society.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_8?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=debating+the+holocaust&sprefix=DEBATING

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Ha'aretz says U.S. officials face 'pro-Israel' background check - Stephen M. Walt

 



(1) Obama defends war role while accepting peace prize
(2) Obama's Nobel 'a little early', says Dalai Lama
(3) Ha'aretz says U.S. officials face 'pro-Israel' background check - Stephen M. Walt
(4) American Jews eye Obama's 'anti-Israel' appointees
(5) Delegation of MEPs turned away from Gaza, by Israel, on 'security' grounds
(6) IDF unit to fight criticism on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter
(7) Netanyahu tying his own hands with Golan bill: binding himself with constitutional chains
(8) Mordechai Vanunu on Israel's nuclear blackmail - interview with Hesham Tillawi
(9) Mordechai Vanunu says Nazi Holocaust used as "propaganda" to blackmail the West

(1) Obama defends war role while accepting peace prize

http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/200912/2769024.htm?desktop

Radio Australia

Fri, 11 Dec 2009

The United States President Barack Obama has delivered a robust defence of war while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Norway.

At a lavish ceremony in Oslo, the President told his audience that violent conflict would not be eradicated in his lifetime.

He said war is sometimes necessary and morally justified, defended the use of American military strength.

"Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this, the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms."

The debate over the war in Afghanistan followed the Mr Obama to Norway.

He acknowledged his role wartime leader, and defended US presence in Afghanistan.

"I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict, filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other."

He reaffirmed that the US will begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in mid-2011, but says it will not be a precipitous drawdown.

(2) Obama's Nobel 'a little early', says Dalai Lama

Melbourne, December 11, 2009

Last Updated: 08:29 IST(11/12/2009)

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Obama-s-Nobel-a-little-early-says-Dalai-Lama/H1-Article1-485259.aspx

Nobel laureate the Dalai Lama called Barack Obama's controversial peace prize "a little early" as the US president used his acceptance speech to defend the war in Afghanistan.

The exiled Tibetan spiritual leader told Sky News that Obama was energetic and "very able" but admitted the peace prize, also handed out to Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, may be slightly premature.

"I think if you are realistic, it may have been a little early," he said during a visit to Australia. "But it doesn't matter, I know Obama is a very able person."

Obama was revealed as this year's winner in October, nine months into his presidency, and received the award in Oslo just days after announcing 30,000 more troops to fight the Taliban.

Thousands of protesters joined demonstrations in the Norwegian capital on Thursday, chanting, "Yes, Yes, Yes We Can, Stop the War in Afghanistan," in a parody of Obama's election campaign slogan.

(3) Ha'aretz says U.S. officials face 'pro-Israel' background check - Stephen M. Walt

From:   Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences) <sadanand@mail.ccsu.edu> Date:    12.12.2009 01:34 PM

Ha'aretz says U.S. officials face 'pro-Israel' background check

By Stephen M. Walt


December 09, 2009 Foreign Policy Dec. 02, 2009

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/04/haaretz_says_us_officials_face_pro_israel_background_check

There is an amazing story in Ha'aretz today [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1132797.html] on the "pro-Israel" litmus test that determines who is permitted to serve in the United States government. Here's the sort of lede you're not likely to read in the New York Times or Washington Post:

Every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community.

In the case of Obama's government in particular, every criticism against Israel made by a potential government appointee has become a catalyst for debate about whether appointing "another leftist" offers proof that Obama does not truly support Israel."

The story goes on to rehearse what happened to Chas Freeman (whose appointment was derailed by the Israel lobby because he voiced a few mild criticisms of Israel's behavior) and reports that  similar complaints are now being raised against the appointment of former Senator Chuck Hagel. Even more bizarrely, the Zionist Organization of America and other rightwing Jewish groups are complaining about the appointment of Hannah Rosenthal to direct the Office to Combat and Monitor Anti-Semitism. Why?

Apparently she's been involved with J Street and other "leftwing" organizations that ZOA et al deem insufficiently ardent in their support for the Jewish state, and has suggested that progressive forces need to be more vocal in advancing the peace process.

One has to feel a certain sympathy for Ms. Rosenthal, who is forced to defend her own appointment by telling an interviewer:
I love Israel. I have lived in Israel. I go back and visit every chance I can. I consider it part of my heart. And because I love it so much, I want to see it safe and secure and free and democratic and living safely."

These are fine sentiments, but isn't it odd that she has to defend her qualifications for a position in the U.S. government by saying how much she "loves" a foreign country? For an American official in her position, what matters is that she loves America, and that she believes anti-semitism is a hateful philosophy that should be opposed vigorously. Whether she loves Israel or France or Thailand or Namibia, etc., is irrelevant. (And yes, it's entirely possible to loathe anti-Semitism and not love Israel).

But the real lesson of all these episodes is the effect of this litmus test on the foreign policy community more broadly. Groups in the lobby target public servants like Freeman, Hagel, and Rosenthal because they want to make sure that no one with even a mildly independent view on Middle East affairs gets appointed. By making an example of them, they seek to discourage independent-minded people from expressing their views openly, lest doing so derail their own career prospects later on. And it works. Even if the lobby doesn't manage to block every single appointment, they can make any administration think twice about a potentially "controversial" choice and use the threat to stifle open discourse among virtually all members of the mainstream foreign policy community (and certainly anyone who aspires to public service in Washington).

The result, of course, is the U.S. Middle East policy (and U.S. foreign policy more generally) is reserved for those who are either steadfastly devoted to the "special relationship" or who have been intimidated into silence. The result? U.S. policy remains in the hands of the same set of "experts" whose policies for the past seventeen years (or more) have been a steady recipe for failure. If a few more Americans read Ha'aretz, they might start to figure this out.

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.

(4) American Jews eye Obama's 'anti-Israel' appointees

From:   Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences) <sadanand@mail.ccsu.edu> Date:    12.12.2009 01:34 PM

By Natasha Mozgovaya

Haaretz, December 4, 2009

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1132797.html

Every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community.

In the case of Obama's government in particular, every criticism against Israel made by a potential government appointee has become a catalyst for debate about whether appointing "another leftist" offers proof that Obama does not truly support Israel.

A few months ago, boisterous protests by the American Jewish community helped foil the appointment of Chaz Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council, citing his "anti-Israel leaning."

The next attempt to appoint an intelligence aide, in this case, former Republican senator Chuck Hagel, also resulted in vast criticism over his not having a pro-Israel record.

American Zionists are urging Obama to cancel Hagel's appointment because of what they call a long and problematic record of hostility toward Israel.

The president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton A. Klein, described Hagel's nomination as such: "Any American who is concerned about Iran's drive to obtain nuclear weapons, maintaining the Israeli-U.S. relationship and supporting Israel in its legitimate fight to protect her citizens from terrorism should oppose this appointment."

Republican Jews have also protested Hagel's appointment, citing an incident in 2004 when Hagel refused to sign a letter calling on then-president George Bush to speak about Iran's nuclear program at the G8 summit that year.

In August of 2006, Hagel refused to sign a letter requesting the UN declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

In a speech at the conference of self-declared "pro-peace, pro-Israel" lobby J Street, Hagel spoke about his views on the issue of Israel and the Middle East.

"The United States' support for Israel need not be - nor should it be - an either-or proposition that dictates our relationships with our Arab allies and friends. The U.S. has a long and special relationship with Israel, but it must not come at the expense of our Arab relationships," Hagel said.

The latest round of heated debate has been over the nomination of Hannah Rosenthal to head the Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism in the Obama administration.

Rosenthal, who is the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, served as a Health Department regional director under the Clinton administration, and held positions in different left-leaning Jewish organizations.

Between 2000 and 2005, Rosenthal was the head of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs; she was also the executive director of the Chicago Foundation for Women. In recent years, she has served on the advisory board of the J Street lobby.

The president of Americans for Peace Now lauded Obama's appointment of Rosenthal. Even Anti-Defamation League chairman Abraham Foxman came out in support of Rosenthal's appointment.

"This appointment signals the continued seriousness of America?s resolve to fight anti-Semitism," Foxman said in a statement.

Shortly after the announcement of Rosenthal's nomination, conservative Jewish web sites began to attack her, some of them declaring that Obama appointed an anti-Israeli to fight anti-Semitism.

Rumors brewed that she had accused Israel of systemically strengthening anti-Semitism. Bloggers argued that her appointment would cause Jews and Israelis to cast doubt on Obama and his relationship with Israel.

In one of her articles, Rosenthal criticized conservative voices in the Jewish community who she accused of taking over the discourse regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"It's a scary time, with people losing the ability to differentiate between a Jew, any Jew, and what's going on in Israel," Rosenthal said.

In an interview with the new online Jewish magazine, Tablet, Rosenthal said that she loves Israel.

"I have lived in Israel. I go back and visit every chance I can. I consider it part of my heart. And because I love it so much, I want to see it safe and secure and free and democratic and living safely," Rosenthal said

(5) Delegation of MEPs turned away from Gaza, by Israel, on 'security' grounds

From:   Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences) <sadanand@mail.ccsu.edu> Date:    12.12.2009 01:34 PM

http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/1260354160109575.html/

Delegation of MEPs turned away from Gaza

Issued : Wednesday 9 December, 2009

Statement by Proinsias De Rossa MEP
Euro Candidate for the Dublin Area

Proinsias De Rossa, President of the European Parliament's Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), and leader of an official European Parliament (EP) delegation to the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza this week, has expressed serious concern at Israel's interference in the European Parliament's democratic right to develop relations with the democratically-elected members of the PLC.

Mr De Rossa explained: "The cross-party delegation from the European Parliament was due to continue its programme with a visit to Gaza today (Wednesday), a visit which had been approved by the Israeli authorities. Israel had yesterday (Tuesday) afternoon granted final permission for all members of the delegation to travel.

"However, some three hours later, entry for all members of the delegation was rescinded 'on security grounds', without further explanation. We insist on a full explanation of the security risks claimed by Israel.

(6) IDF unit to fight criticism on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter

From:   Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences) <sadanand@mail.ccsu.edu> Date:    12.12.2009 01:34 PM

Graphic Glimpses of West Bank Struggle on YouTube

By ROBERT MACKEY, NY Times Lede

DECEMBER 9, 2009

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/graphic-glimpses-of-west-bank-struggle-on-youtube/

Israel announced plans last week to use the Web to improve its image abroad in two ways: by setting up a new unit of the Israel Defense Forces devoted to fighting criticism on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, and through what the Israeli newspaper Haaretz described as "an initiative by the Information and Diaspora Ministry to train people to represent Israel independently on the Internet."

While it is not yet clear exactly what form this government-sponsored offensive against Israel's online opponents will take, in some ways YouTube is already a key front in the battle for international public opinion about what is happening in the contested West Bank.

To take one example, last week amateur video of an Israeli settler driving his car over a prone Palestinian man — who had just been shot at a West Bank gas station after reportedly stabbing the settler's wife — was uploaded to the video-sharing site soon after it was broadcast on Israeli television.

The next day that graphic, disturbing footage, filmed at the Israeli settlement of Kiryat Arba, started to get more attention on the Web after it was featured in this English-language report from Al Jazeera that was posted on the broadcaster's YouTube channel:

Since the video starts after the stabbing attack on two settlers the Palestinian man was accused of, it is not surprising that supporters of the Israeli settlement project were unhappy to see it spread around the world via YouTube.

One day after that footage first appeared online, The Jerusalem Post reported that another graphic clip depicting an act of violence had been uploaded to YouTube. According to the Israeli newspaper, this video showed "a Palestinian female terrorist stabbing a civilian security guard at a West Bank checkpoint."

As The Post pointed out, this clip, uploaded in December, was not new:

In the video, filmed on October 25, the Palestinian, who allegedly asked to enter Israel via the Kalandiya checkpoint for medical treatment, is seen being examined by a Border Police officer. The officer finds a knife in her purse, and while he takes the purse aside, the woman pulls another blade from her trousers and stabs the civilian security guard standing by. The security guard, working for a private firm, was still recuperating from his moderate wounds on Wednesday.

The video seems to not be direct footage, but footage of a closed-circuit TV surveillance camera's output. The date "10/25/2009? appears faintly at the bottom of the screen early in the clip.

The Israeli newspaper reported that "An investigation was launched to find the source that leaked the video to YouTube." That language is not quite accurate, though, since YouTube is not a broadcaster or media organization that accepts leaks. Someone simply decided to upload this video to YouTube in the immediate aftermath of the small storm of controversy caused by the other video showing an attack on the West Bank. It is impossible to say if the video of the Palestinian attack was uploaded in response to the video of the Israeli attack. It may have been a sort of reply to the first video, or the timing may have been entirely coincidental.

What is certain is that, just as supporters of the Palestinian cause drew attention to the clip of the Israeli attack, supporters of the Israeli settlers shared and discussed and reposted the clip of the Palestinian attack.

The Israeli blogger and radio host Tamar Yonah embedded the video in a post headlined "Arab Woman Stabs Jew — Caught on video!" Ms. Yonah introduced the video this way:

A young Arab woman asks for medical treatment in Jerusalem and then stabs a Jewish security guard. [...] This is not new, where Muslim terrorists abuse Jewish good will, and then turn around and deadly and gruesome acts. They use ambulances as well to commit their dastardly deeds.

Netanyahu tying his own hands with Golan bill

(7) Netanyahu tying his own hands with Golan bill: binding himself with constitutional chains

From:   Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences) <sadanand@mail.ccsu.edu> Date:    12.12.2009 01:34 PM

Netanyahu tying his own hands with Golan bill

By Aluf Benn, Ha'aretz, Dec. 9, 2009

The "Referendum Law" that the Knesset voted to advance Wednesday would restrict the government's freedom of action in negotiations with the Palestinians, Syria and even Lebanon by making it harder to cede East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights or even Shaba Farms, whether unilaterally or by agreement.

The bill creates an onerous ratification procedure for any agreement that involves ceding sovereign Israeli territory: approval by the cabinet, by an absolute majority of 61 MKs and finally by a referendum in which voters would be asked whether they are for or against the agreement. The referendum itself would be decided by a simple majority. Only if the Knesset approved an agreement by a majority of 80 MKs - as it did the treaty with Jordan, for instance - would the referendum requirement be waived.

The bill would also eliminate the "constitutional lacuna" that currently enables unilateral withdrawals from sovereign Israeli territory. Currently, a simple majority of the Knesset could reverse the annexation of all or part of the Golan, and a 61-MK majority would be enough to alter Jerusalem's municipal boundaries. But the bill would require a referendum on any cession of territory to which Israeli law has been applied, even a unilateral one.

Thus Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who once again called Wednesday for renewed talks with the Palestinians, is binding himself with constitutional chains. In Netanyahu's view, it is important that diplomatic agreements be supported by a majority of the public, and not just the coalition's majority in the Knesset. But he is also signaling the Syrians, the Palestinians and the international community that he will have trouble passing any significant concessions - and trying to strengthen his hand in the negotiations. In addition, he is thereby pressing his negotiating partners to close a deal quickly, before the bill becomes law.

The Knesset voted to advance this bill a day after the European Union declared that Jerusalem must be the capital of two states. This is the first time a major international player has asserted that part of Jerusalem must be the Palestinian capital.

The bill would cover any territory to which Israeli law has been applied - namely, East Jerusalem and the Golan. The latter also includes Shaba Farms, which Lebanon is demanding. Thus, it would even impede a withdrawal from outlying Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem on the wrong side of the separation fence, where Israeli sovereignty is in practice rarely exercised.

However, it would not impede withdrawals from the West Bank or the village of Ghajar on the Lebanese border, as these are not under Israeli sovereignty.

The idea of a referendum on the Golan was first raised by Yitzhak Rabin in 1994, and was meant to free him from his preelection promise not to cede the Golan. Five years later, Ehud Barak promised that any agreement with the Syrians or Palestinians would be subject to a referendum. So far, however, no agreement with either has been reached, so the idea has never been put to the test.

(8) Mordechai Vanunu on Israel's nuclear blackmail - interview with Hesham Tillawi

Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 05:37:49 +0500 From: "Iskandar Sahib" <iskandar38@hotmail.com>

Below is the transcript of an eye-opening interview that took place between peace activist Mordechai Vanunu and talk show host Hesham Tillawi on the television program Current Issues.

http://currentissues.tv/VanunuTranscript.html

TILLAWI. 'Well, I do believe that we have Mordechai Vanunu with us…Mordechai, are you with us?

VANUNU. Yes.

TILLAWI. Good Morning, I know that it is 4 o'clock in the morning there in Jerusalem. Folks, Mordechai Vanunu has spent 18 years in an Israeli jail for telling Israeli nuclear secrets. He was lured to Rome by Israeli agents and kidnapped and then sent back to Israel where he spent 18 yrs in prison and 11 of those years in solitary confinement. That is true, Mordechai?

VANUNU. Yes, that is right.

TILLAWI Now, Mordechai, I have a question for you. What was it that you really felt that you must tell the world about, what was it about the Israeli nuclear program that you felt to yourself, 'you know I cannot continue like this, I cannot remain silent on this, I have got to tell the world about it.' What was it?

VANUNU Well, the most important point is that it was the same situation that we have right now, namely that these people continue to lie and to cheat the world as well as their own citizens by denying the truth, by declaring that they do not have atomic weapons while at the same time I was working there helping to produce them. At that time there were more than 200 atomic weapons, in 1986, and it was at that time that they started to produce the most horrible of all weapons, the hydrogen bomb…all of this in secret, in lying and in cheating the world and all of its citizens. So I said to myself 'It is impossible to keep these secrets. I must report about them and to try and stop it.'

TILLAWI Mordechai, there are a lot of nations that have nuclear weapons. What is it about Israel having them that makes you so nervous?

VANUNU Because Israel wants to use them, to cause genocide and holocaust on other innocent citizens. It has always been a part of Israel's secret policy. And also by having them, Israel will use them as a threat to avoid making peace with the Arab world as well as imposing her policies on those peoples. As long as she has them, she will continue on in her policies of not making peace, of occupation and of neglecting the Palestinian suffering caused by the refugee camps that have existed for more than 50 years.

TILLAWI One of the Israeli professors said a few months ago that 'we have the nuclear capability of hitting every major European city,' is that true to your knowledge?

VANUNU Yes, it is true. They can bombard any city all over the world, and not only those in Europe but also those in the United States, and by this threat what they are doing is to send a secret message to any leader and to any government that they have the ability to use them aggressively and to blackmail them, to blackmail Europe and the United States, every where, in every state around the world. It was Europe and the United States who helped them get this power, and now that Israel has it, she is coming back and saying to them 'We will not obey any orders that you give us. No international law, no international agreement, no UN resolutions,' and all because of these atomic weapons that they have. ...

TILLAWI ... What made Mordechai Vanunu betray his country and then change his religion?

VANUNU Yes, this is a very good question and very important. You are right, it is not usual to have a person come to these hard conclusions. As far as my conversion, it started at the very early age of 15 or 16. I was raised in the Jewish religion and in a Jewish family. Israel and Judaism were considered as one nation, one big family, one tribe. I began criticizing and rejecting Judaism over the point of view that these Jews are teaching injustice through their Judaism. In the same way that Jesus Christ also criticized Judaism 2,000 years ago, I was unwilling to accept what they teach, and later converted to the opposite of Judaism. The Jewish tribe teaches that there is only one Chosen people of God. They teach of their superiority, taking literally word-by-word the writings in the old bible. And I decided therefore that after 2,000 years these ideas were nonsense. There are 6 billion people around the world, and all of them are equal, all are part of the human race. There is no such thing as a super race. We should all respect and love each other, and that was the beginning of my rejecting Judaism and my accepting of Christianity, of following the teachings of Jesus Christ and of accepting humanity. I am not a religious man, I am not going to become a priest. I did all of this for my humanity and for my beliefs. So, I chose my own way and began criticizing the Jewish faith. Those who teach Judaism run the lives of those under them, telling them what they must do every hour of every day, issuing many orders about everything, from waking up in the morning to going to sleep, but at the same time they do not teach them to respect other human beings, to accept non-Jews and to believe that non-Jews are like them. They teach that only the Jews are the chosen people. So, this is Judaism, a collection of primitive traditions thousands of years old that have not changed. The world has changed in the last 2,000 years and the Jewish people need to accept and understand this change, and especially if they want a democratic country. You cannot have a state and run it as they did 2,000 years ago. They came to Palestine in the name of the Bible and in the name of their god and took this land that was promised to them thousands of years ago. In the name of this god, they took the land, expelled the people and gave them hard, cruel, barbaric lives for the last 60 years. This way of thinking, this faith cannot exist within this new age, and it was this that also led me to expose Israel's nuclear secrets.

TILLAWI Mordechai, you have been living amongst the Palestinians for a while now. What do you think, are they the terrorists that we have all been hearing about?

VANUNU I have been living amongst the Palestinians now for 15 months, but I have been following the Palestinian situation now since the 1980's. Now I am here living among them, watching them, meeting with them, eating with them, enjoying life with them and seeing how the Israelis have succeeded in portraying them all over the world as terrorists. But this is not true. They are very peaceful people and lovers of peace. ...

TILLAWI So, why are we after Iran then to open its doors to inspections, but no one is asking Israel to do the same? Why is that?

VANUNU This is a very strange situation that has been developed and accepted by the Western states since the 1960's. It goes back about 40 years. My view is that Europe and America are and have been under a long-term agenda of blackmail by the Israelis. In the first case, the Israelis constantly bring up the Holocaust and what happened to the Jews during WWII, blaming the West for it and then using this as the justification for possessing nuclear weapons as a way of preventing this from ever happening again. ...

(9) Mordechai Vanunu says Nazi Holocaust used as "propaganda" to blackmail the West

The World Today (ABC Radio, Australia)
Wednesday, 29 September , 2004
Reporter: Jonathan Lucraft

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1209662.htm
http://globalfire.tv/nj/04en/holoindustry/holopropaganda.htm

MORDECHAI VANUNU: Maybe the real fear is that my free spirit, my free belief to express my views in politics, in everything, not only nuclear secrets, I have many interesting views and I'm telling them without fear and expressing that to anyone in all the world, in all the media, and that is not good for Israel.

They don't like it, and also, the Israel Government and state have teached all the world, especially the west, Europe, United States, Australia, Canada, they teach them to fear and now to be under blackmail by Israel propaganda of Holocaust and all this propaganda.

Transcript: This is a transcript from The World Today. The program is broadcast around Australia at 12:10pm on ABC Local Radio. http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1209662.htm Mordechai Vanunu speaks

The World Today - Wednesday, 29 September , 2004 12:25:06 Reporter: Jonathan Lucraft

ELEANOR HALL: Mordechai Vanunu made headlines around the world when he blew the whistle on Israel's secret nuclear weapons program in the mid-1980s. The Israeli nuclear technician was arrested soon after in a Mossad operation, was tried in secret, convicted of treason and spent 18 years in prison, 11 of them in solitary confinement. In April this year he was released from prison, but his freedom has remained restricted, with Israeli authorities forbidding him from speaking to foreigners. Despite this, Mr Vanunu this morning gave his first interview to an Australian media outlet, speaking to the community radio station, Radio Adelaide's Jonathan Lucraft.

MORDECHAI VANUNU: The restrictions are not working and unreasonable and not according to the human rights and the democratic system and they will finish them in six months – at least the restriction not to speak to foreigners and not to travel really inter-state.

JONATHAN LUCRAFT: Are you taking a chance by talking to us?

MORDECHAI VANUNU: I'm not taking a chance, I'm making a very good calculation and according to the human rights and freedom of speech that everyone as a human being should have and I'm exercising it and I believe the Israel Government and Israel organisations are realising that what they decided is not good. They will not do anything wrong with my speaking to you either.

JONATHAN LUCRAFT: When the restrictions are lifted, what will you do then?

MORDECHAI VANUNU: If they will let me go I would leave Israel immediately, I would like to see the world, to exercise my freedom. If they will not let me go, let me speak, then I will speak much more to the media and to the people around the world and here.

JONATHAN LUCRAFT: Now, 18 years in a Mossad prison, 11 of those years in solitary confinement. How did you fight the effect of those years on your mind?

MORDECHAI VANUNU: The effect was very hard and strong, but I was firm and strong from the beginning to protect my freedom, my free will, my humanity, that was my struggle from the beginning.

The power organisation of Israel gives what they can to fight me, to cause me some harm, damages in health, mind, and they succeed little bit, but I survived and I am now free, but it was very hard, a very difficult time and I wish no one would suffer what I suffered, and then when I speak to you and try to be human being like everyone.

JONATHAN LUCRAFT: Do you feel though that those years in solitary confinement had an effect on you?

MORDECHAI VANUNU: I think no. The only effect is maybe some part of my health has been damaged. We see in the future how my health will react and how my health will survive in the next future.

JONATHAN LUCRAFT: Now, you converted from Judaism to Christianity. Did this help, or did it make it harder for your captors?

MORDECHAI VANUNU: My conversion to Christianity was in Sydney, Australia, in 1986, it was before this case. So when I find myself in prison I decided my Christianity is going to be my way to freedom, my boundary, my defence against Israel's power organisation, brainwash or psychologic warfare. So in some way, in many ways it helped me very much.

JONATHAN LUCRAFT: Do you believe that you're a traitor to Israel?

MORDECHAI VANUNU: Five million Jews are regarding me as a traitor, but six billion people around the world think me as a hero and a good man who bring the message to all the human beings that we should survive and prevent the use of nuclear weapons and to prevent the nuclear preparations and to prevent nuclear war in the future.

JONATHAN LUCRAFT: Now, any knowledge that you had of the Israeli nuclear weapons program is now, it's nearly 20 years old and it's well out of date. Why do you think the Israeli Government is still, apparently, frightened of you?

MORDECHAI VANUNU: Maybe the real fear is that my free spirit, my free belief to express my views in politics, in everything, not only nuclear secrets, I have many interesting views and I'm telling them without fear and expressing that to anyone in all the world, in all the media, and that is not good for Israel.

They don't like it, and also, the Israel Government and state have teached all the world, especially the west, Europe, United States, Australia, Canada, they teach them to fear and now to be under blackmail by Israel propaganda of Holocaust and all this propaganda.

Now come a man and speaking from inside about their crimes, their mistakes, their stupid policy of nuclear weapons and all the world's watching all this, and that is their real concern.

ELEANOR HALL: Mordechai Vanunu speaking to Radio Adelaide's Jonathan Lucraft.



Peter Myers, 381 Goodwood Rd, Childers Qld 4660, Australia ph +61 7 41262296 [in Australia: 07 41262296]
http://mailstar.net/index.html


--
NOW AN AMAZON KINDLE BOOK ON YOUR PC, iPHONE OR KINDLE DEVICE:

Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

http://www.amazon.com/DEBATING-HOLOCAUST-Thomas-Dalton-ebook/dp/B002SN9HEW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259095221&sr=1-2

Read books on your computer:

Get Kindle for PC
Mac version coming soon

http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=kcp_pc_mkt_lnd?docId=1000426311

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Why Does Elie Wiesel Favor Censorship? Because...

 


Being broke does not keep Elie from preaching bigotry.

Wiesel to Hungary: Make Holocaust denial illegal

December 10, 2009

Excerpt:

He added, "I ask you, why don't you follow the example of France and Germany and declare Holocaust denial not only indecent but illegal? In those countries, Holocaust deniers go to jail."

In recent years there have been violent attacks on Gypsies in Hungary, and the far-right, xenophobic, anti-Israel Jobbik Party has made strong electoral gains.

Wiesel was in Budapest for ceremonies marking the 20th anniversary of Chabad-Lubavitch activities in the Hungarian capital.


No doubt, Elie believes the US should follow the examples of France and Germany as well. Why not? The JTA story is at: http://jta.org/news/article/2009/12/10/ ... al-illegal

START:

A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel

By Robert Faurisson

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml

Elie Wiesel won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. He is generally accepted as a witness to the Jewish "Holocaust," and, more specifically, as a witness to the legendary Nazi extermination gas chambers. The Paris daily Le Monde emphasized at the time that Wiesel was awarded the Nobel Prize because: [1]

These last years have seen, in the name of so-called "historical revisionism," the elaboration of theses, especially in France, questioning the existence of the Nazi gas chambers and, perhaps beyond that, of the genocide of the Jews itself.

But in what respect is Elie Wiesel a witness to the alleged gas chambers? By what right does he ask us to believe in that means of extermination? In an autobiographical book that supposedly describes his experiences at Auschwitz and Buchenwald, he nowhere mentions the gas chambers. [2] He does indeed say that the Germans executed Jews, but ... by fire; by throwing them alive into flaming ditches, before the very eyes of the deportees! No less than that!

Here Wiesel the false witness had some bad luck. Forced to choose from among several Allied war propaganda lies, he chose to defend the fire lie instead of the boiling water, gassing, or electrocution lies. In 1956, when he published his testimony in Yiddish, the fire lie was still alive in certain circles. This lie is the origin of the term Holocaust. Today there is no longer a single historian who believes that Jews were burned alive. The myths of the boiling water and of electrocution have also disappeared. Only the gas remains.

The gassing lie was spread by the Americans. [3] The lie that Jews were killed by boiling water or steam (specifically at Treblinka) was spread by the Poles. [4] The electrocution lie was spread by the Soviets. [5]

The fire lie is of undetermined origin. It is in a sense as old as war propaganda or hate propaganda. In his memoir, Night, which is a version of his earlier Yiddish testimony, Wiesel reports that at Auschwitz there was one flaming ditch for the adults and another one for babies. He writes: [6]

Not far from us, flames were leaping from a ditch, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew up at the pit and delivered its load -- little children. Babies! Yes, I saw it -- saw it with my own eyes ... Those children in the flames. (Is it surprising that I could not sleep after that? Sleep has fled from my eyes.)

A little farther on there was another ditch with gigantic flames where the victims suffered "slow agony in the flames." Wiesel's column was led by the Germans to within "three steps" of the ditch, then to "two steps." "Two steps from the pit we were ordered to turn to the left and made to go into a barracks."

An exceptional witness himself, Wiesel assures us of his having met other exceptional witnesses. Regarding Babi Yar, a place in Ukraine where the Germans executed Soviet citizens, among them Jews, Wiesel wrote: [7]

Later, I learn from a witness that, for month after month, the ground never stopped trembling; and that, from time to time, geysers of blood spurted from it.

These words did not slip from their author in a moment of frenzy: first, he wrote them, then some unspecified number of times (but at least once) he had to reread them in the proofs; finally, his words were translated into various languages, as is everything this author writes.

That Wiesel personally survived, was, of course, the result of a miracle. He says that: [8]

In Buchenwald they sent 10,000 persons to their deaths each day. I was always in the last hundred near the gate. They stopped. Why?

In 1954 French scholar Germaine Tillion analyzed the "gratuitous lie" with regard to the German concentration camps. She wrote: [9]

Those persons [who gratuitously lie] are, to tell the truth, much more numerous than people generally suppose, and a subject like that of the concentration camp world -- well designed, alas, to stimulate sado-masochistic imaginings -- offered them an exceptional field of action. We have known numerous mentally damaged persons, half swindlers and half fools, who exploited an imaginary deportation; we have known others of them -- authentic deportees -- whose sick minds strove to go even beyond the monstrosities that they had seen or that people said had happened to them. There have been publishers to print some of their imaginings, and more or less official compilations to use them, but publishers and compilers are absolutely inexcusable, since the most elementary inquiry would have been enough to reveal the imposture.

Tillion lacked the courage to give examples and names. But that is usually the case. People agree that there are false gas chambers that tourists and pilgrims are encouraged to visit, but they do not tell us where. They agree that there are false "eyewitnesses," but in general they name only Martin Gray, the well-known swindler, at whose request Max Gallo, with full knowledge of what he was doing, fabricated the bestseller For Those I Loved.

Jean-François Steiner is sometimes named as well. His bestselling novel Treblinka (1966) was presented as a work of which the accuracy of every detail was guaranteed by oral or written testimony. In reality it was a fabrication attributable, at least in part, to the novelist Gilles Perrault. [10] Marek Halter, for his part, published his La Mémoire d'Abraham in 1983; as he often does on radio, he talked there about his experiences in the Warsaw ghetto. However, if we are to believe an article by Nicolas Beau that is quite favorable to Halter, [11] little Marek, about three years old, and his mother left Warsaw not in 1941 but in October of 1939, before the establishment of the ghetto there by the Germans. Halter's book is supposed to have been actually written by a ghost writer, Jean-Noël Gurgan.

Filip MĂ¼ller is the author of Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in the Gas Chambers, [12] which won the 1980 prize of the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA). This nauseous best-seller is actually the work of a German ghost writer, Helmut Freitag, who did not hesitate to engage in plagiarism. [13] The source of the plagiarism isAuschwitz: A Doctor's Eyewitness Account, another best-seller made up out of whole cloth and attributed to Miklos Nyiszli. [14]

Thus a whole series of works presented as authentic documents turns out to be merely compilations attributable to various ghost writers: Max Gallo, Gilles Perrault, Jean-Noël Gurgan (?), and Helmut Freitag, among others.

We would like to know what Germaine Tillion thinks about Elie Wiesel today. With him the lie is certainly not gratuitous. Wiesel claims to be full of love for humanity. However, he does not refrain from an appeal to hatred. In his opinion: [15]

Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate -- healthy, virile hate -- for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.

At the beginning of 1986, 83 deputies of the German Bundestag took the initiative of proposing Wiesel for the Nobel Peace Prize. This would be, they said, "a great encouragement to all who are active in the process of reconciliation." [16] That is what might be called "going from National Socialism to national masochism."

Jimmy Carter needed a historian to preside over the President's Commission on the Holocaust. As Dr. Arthur Butz said so well, he chose not a historian but a "histrion": Elie Wiesel. Even the newspaper Le Monde, in the article mentioned above, was obliged to refer to the histrionic trait that certain persons deplore in Wiesel:

Naturally, even among those who approve of the struggle of this American Jewish writer, who was discovered by the Catholic François Mauriac, some reproach him for having too much of a tendency to change the Jewish sadness into "morbidity" or to become the high priest of a "planned management of the Holocaust."

As Jewish writer Leon A. Jick has written: "The devastating barb, 'There is no business like SHOAH-business' is, sad to say, a recognizable truth." [17]

Elie Wiesel issues alarmed and inflammatory appeals against Revisionist authors. He senses that things are getting out of hand. It is going to become more and more difficult for him to maintain the mad belief that the Jews were exterminated or were subjected to a policy of extermination, especially in so-called gas chambers. Serge Klarsfeld has admitted that real proofs of the existence of the gas chambers have still not yet been published. He promises proofs. [18]

On the scholarly plane, the gas chamber myth is finished. To tell the truth, that myth breathed its last breath several years ago at the Sorbonne colloquium in Paris (June 29-July 2, 1982), at which Raymond Aron and François Furet presided. What remains is to make this news known to the general public. However, for Elie Wiesel it is of the highest importance to conceal that news. Thus all the fuss in the media, which is going to increase: the more the journalists talk, the more the historians keep quiet.

But there are historians who dare to raise their voices against the lies and the hatred. That is the case with Michel de BoĂ¼ard, wartime member of the Resistance, deportee to Mauthausen, member of the Committee for the History of the Second World War from 1945 to 1981, and a member of the Institut de France. In a poignant interview in 1986, he courageously acknowledged that in 1954 he had vouched for the existence of a gas chamber at Mauthausen where, it finally turns out, there never was one. [19]

The respect owed to the sufferings of all the victims of the Second World War, and, in particular, to the sufferings of the deportees, demands on the part of historians a return to the proven and time-honored methods of historical criticism.

Summary

Elie Wiesel passes for one of the most celebrated eyewitnesses to the alleged Holocaust. Yet in his supposedly autobiographical book Night, he makes no mention of gas chambers. He claims instead to have witnessed Jews being burned alive, a story now dismissed by all historians. Wiesel gives credence to the most absurd stories of other "eyewitnesses." He spreads fantastic tales of 10,000 persons sent to their deaths each day in Buchenwald.

When Elie Wiesel and his father, as Auschwitz prisoners, had the choice of either leaving with their retreating German "executioners," or remaining behind in the camp to await the Soviet "liberators," the two decided to leave with their German captors.

It is time, in the name of truth and out of respect for the genuine sufferings of the victims of the Second World War, that historians return to the proven methods of historical criticism, and that the testimony of the Holocaust "eyewitnesses" be subjected to rigorous scrutiny rather than unquestioning acceptance.

Notes

  1. Le Monde, October 17, 1986. Front page.
  2. There is one single allusion, extremely vague and fleeting, on pages 78-79: Wiesel, who very much likes to have conversations with God, says to Him: "But these men here, whom You have betrayed, whom You have allowed to be tortured, butchered, gassed, burned, what do they do? They pray before you!" (Night, New York, Discus/Avon Books, 1969, p. 79). In his preface to that same book, François Mauriac mentioned "the gas chamber and the crematory" (p. 8). The four crucial pages of "testimony" by Elie Wiesel are reproduced in facsimile in: Pierre Guillaume, Droit et Histoire (La Vieille Taupe, 1986), pp. 147-150. In the German-language edition of Night (Die Nacht zu begraben, Elischa [Ullstein, 1962]), on 14 occasions the word "crematory" or "crematories" has been falsely given as "Gaskammer" ("gas chamber[s]"). In January of 1945, in anticipation of a Russian takeover, the Germans were evacuating Auschwitz. Elie Wiesel, a young teenager at the time, was hospitalized in Birkenau (the "extermination camp") after surgery on an infected foot. His doctor had recommended two weeks of rest and good food but, before his foot healed, the Russian takeover became imminent. Hospital patients were considered unfit for the long trip to the camps in Germany and Elie thus could have remained at Birkenau to await the Russians. Although his father had permission to stay with him as a hospital patient or orderly, father and son talked it over and decided to move out with the Germans. (See Night, p. 93. See also D. Calder,The Sunday Sun [Toronto, Canada], May 31, 1987, p. C4.)
  3. See the US War Refugee Board Report, German Extermination Camps: Auschwitz and Birkenau (Washington, DC), November 1944.
  4. See Nuremberg document PS-3311 (USA-293). Published in the IMT "blue series," Vol. 32, pp. 153-158.
  5. See the report in Pravda, Feb. 2, 1945, p. 4, and the UP report in the Washington (DC)Daily News, Feb. 2, 1945, p. 2.
  6. Night (Avon/Discus). See esp. pp. 41, 42, 43, 44, 79, 93.
  7. Paroles d'Ă©tranger (Editions du Seuil, 1982), p. 86.
  8. "Author, Teacher, Witness," Time magazine, March 18, 1985, p. 79.
  9. "Le Système concentrationnaire allemand [1940-1944]," Revue d'histoire de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, July 1954, p. 18, n. 2.
  10. Le Journal du Dimanche, March 30, 1985, p. 5.
  11. Libération, Jan. 24, 1986, p. 19.
  12. Published by Stein and Day (New York). Paperback edition of 1984. (xii + 180 pages.) With a foreword by Yehuda Bauer of the Institute of Contemporary Jewry, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
  13. Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: un caso di plagio, Parma (Italy): 1986. See also: C. Mattogno, "Auschwitz: A Case of Plagiarism," The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1990, pp. 5-24.
  14. Paperback edition, 1961, and later, published by Fawcett Crest (New York).
  15. Legends of Our Time (chapter 12: "Appointment with Hate"), New York: Schocken Books, 1982, p. 142, or, New York: Avon, 1968, pp. 177-178.
  16. The Week in Germany (published in New York by the German government in Bonn), Jan. 31, 1986, p. 2.
  17. "The Holocaust: Its Use and Abuse Within the American Public," Yad Vashem Studies(Jerusalem), 1981, p. 316.
  18. VSD, May 29, 1986, p. 37.
  19. Ouest-France, August 2-3, 1986, p. 6.


--
NOW AN AMAZON KINDLE BOOK ON YOUR PC, iPHONE OR KINDLE DEVICE

Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides By Thomas Dalton

In this remarkable, balanced book, the author skillfully reviews and compares "traditional" and "revisionist" views on the "The Holocaust."

On one side is the traditional, orthodox view -- six million Jewish casualties, gas chambers, cremation ovens, mass graves, and thousands of witnesses. On the other is the view of a small band of skeptical writers and researchers, often unfairly labeled "deniers," who contend that the public has been gravely misled about this emotion-laden chapter of history.

The author establishes that the arguments and findings of revisionist scholars are substantive, and deserve serious consideration. He points out, for example, that even the eminent Jewish Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg acknowledged that there was no budget, plan or order by Hitler for a World War II program to exterminate Europe's Jews.

This book is especially relevant right now, as "Holocaust deniers" are routinely and harshly punished for their "blasphemy," and as growing numbers of people regard the standard, Hollywoodized "Holocaust" narrative with mounting suspicion and distrust.

The author of this book, who writes under the pen name of "Thomas Dalton," is an American scholar who holds a doctoral degree from a major US university.

This is no peripheral debate between arcane views of some obscure aspect of twentieth century history. Instead, this is a clash with profound social-political implications regarding freedom of speech and press, the manipulation of public opinion, how our cultural life is shaped, and how power is wielded in our society.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_8?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=debating+the+holocaust&sprefix=DEBATING

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com



__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Why Does Elie Wiesel Favors Censorship? Because...

 

Being broke does not keep Elie from preaching bigotry.

Wiesel to Hungary: Make Holocaust denial illegal

December 10, 2009

Excerpt:

He added, "I ask you, why don't you follow the example of France and Germany and declare Holocaust denial not only indecent but illegal? In those countries, Holocaust deniers go to jail."

In recent years there have been violent attacks on Gypsies in Hungary, and the far-right, xenophobic, anti-Israel Jobbik Party has made strong electoral gains.

Wiesel was in Budapest for ceremonies marking the 20th anniversary of Chabad-Lubavitch activities in the Hungarian capital.


No doubt, Elie believes the US should follow the examples of France and Germany as well. Why not? The JTA story is at: http://jta.org/news/article/2009/12/10/ ... al-illegal

START:

A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel

By Robert Faurisson

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml

Elie Wiesel won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. He is generally accepted as a witness to the Jewish "Holocaust," and, more specifically, as a witness to the legendary Nazi extermination gas chambers. The Paris daily Le Monde emphasized at the time that Wiesel was awarded the Nobel Prize because: [1]

These last years have seen, in the name of so-called "historical revisionism," the elaboration of theses, especially in France, questioning the existence of the Nazi gas chambers and, perhaps beyond that, of the genocide of the Jews itself.

But in what respect is Elie Wiesel a witness to the alleged gas chambers? By what right does he ask us to believe in that means of extermination? In an autobiographical book that supposedly describes his experiences at Auschwitz and Buchenwald, he nowhere mentions the gas chambers. [2] He does indeed say that the Germans executed Jews, but ... by fire; by throwing them alive into flaming ditches, before the very eyes of the deportees! No less than that!

Here Wiesel the false witness had some bad luck. Forced to choose from among several Allied war propaganda lies, he chose to defend the fire lie instead of the boiling water, gassing, or electrocution lies. In 1956, when he published his testimony in Yiddish, the fire lie was still alive in certain circles. This lie is the origin of the term Holocaust. Today there is no longer a single historian who believes that Jews were burned alive. The myths of the boiling water and of electrocution have also disappeared. Only the gas remains.

The gassing lie was spread by the Americans. [3] The lie that Jews were killed by boiling water or steam (specifically at Treblinka) was spread by the Poles. [4] The electrocution lie was spread by the Soviets. [5]

The fire lie is of undetermined origin. It is in a sense as old as war propaganda or hate propaganda. In his memoir, Night, which is a version of his earlier Yiddish testimony, Wiesel reports that at Auschwitz there was one flaming ditch for the adults and another one for babies. He writes: [6]

Not far from us, flames were leaping from a ditch, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew up at the pit and delivered its load -- little children. Babies! Yes, I saw it -- saw it with my own eyes ... Those children in the flames. (Is it surprising that I could not sleep after that? Sleep has fled from my eyes.)

A little farther on there was another ditch with gigantic flames where the victims suffered "slow agony in the flames." Wiesel's column was led by the Germans to within "three steps" of the ditch, then to "two steps." "Two steps from the pit we were ordered to turn to the left and made to go into a barracks."

An exceptional witness himself, Wiesel assures us of his having met other exceptional witnesses. Regarding Babi Yar, a place in Ukraine where the Germans executed Soviet citizens, among them Jews, Wiesel wrote: [7]

Later, I learn from a witness that, for month after month, the ground never stopped trembling; and that, from time to time, geysers of blood spurted from it.

These words did not slip from their author in a moment of frenzy: first, he wrote them, then some unspecified number of times (but at least once) he had to reread them in the proofs; finally, his words were translated into various languages, as is everything this author writes.

That Wiesel personally survived, was, of course, the result of a miracle. He says that: [8]

In Buchenwald they sent 10,000 persons to their deaths each day. I was always in the last hundred near the gate. They stopped. Why?

In 1954 French scholar Germaine Tillion analyzed the "gratuitous lie" with regard to the German concentration camps. She wrote: [9]

Those persons [who gratuitously lie] are, to tell the truth, much more numerous than people generally suppose, and a subject like that of the concentration camp world -- well designed, alas, to stimulate sado-masochistic imaginings -- offered them an exceptional field of action. We have known numerous mentally damaged persons, half swindlers and half fools, who exploited an imaginary deportation; we have known others of them -- authentic deportees -- whose sick minds strove to go even beyond the monstrosities that they had seen or that people said had happened to them. There have been publishers to print some of their imaginings, and more or less official compilations to use them, but publishers and compilers are absolutely inexcusable, since the most elementary inquiry would have been enough to reveal the imposture.

Tillion lacked the courage to give examples and names. But that is usually the case. People agree that there are false gas chambers that tourists and pilgrims are encouraged to visit, but they do not tell us where. They agree that there are false "eyewitnesses," but in general they name only Martin Gray, the well-known swindler, at whose request Max Gallo, with full knowledge of what he was doing, fabricated the bestseller For Those I Loved.

Jean-François Steiner is sometimes named as well. His bestselling novel Treblinka (1966) was presented as a work of which the accuracy of every detail was guaranteed by oral or written testimony. In reality it was a fabrication attributable, at least in part, to the novelist Gilles Perrault. [10] Marek Halter, for his part, published his La Mémoire d'Abraham in 1983; as he often does on radio, he talked there about his experiences in the Warsaw ghetto. However, if we are to believe an article by Nicolas Beau that is quite favorable to Halter, [11] little Marek, about three years old, and his mother left Warsaw not in 1941 but in October of 1939, before the establishment of the ghetto there by the Germans. Halter's book is supposed to have been actually written by a ghost writer, Jean-Noël Gurgan.

Filip MĂ¼ller is the author of Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in the Gas Chambers, [12] which won the 1980 prize of the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA). This nauseous best-seller is actually the work of a German ghost writer, Helmut Freitag, who did not hesitate to engage in plagiarism. [13] The source of the plagiarism isAuschwitz: A Doctor's Eyewitness Account, another best-seller made up out of whole cloth and attributed to Miklos Nyiszli. [14]

Thus a whole series of works presented as authentic documents turns out to be merely compilations attributable to various ghost writers: Max Gallo, Gilles Perrault, Jean-Noël Gurgan (?), and Helmut Freitag, among others.

We would like to know what Germaine Tillion thinks about Elie Wiesel today. With him the lie is certainly not gratuitous. Wiesel claims to be full of love for humanity. However, he does not refrain from an appeal to hatred. In his opinion: [15]

Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate -- healthy, virile hate -- for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.

At the beginning of 1986, 83 deputies of the German Bundestag took the initiative of proposing Wiesel for the Nobel Peace Prize. This would be, they said, "a great encouragement to all who are active in the process of reconciliation." [16] That is what might be called "going from National Socialism to national masochism."

Jimmy Carter needed a historian to preside over the President's Commission on the Holocaust. As Dr. Arthur Butz said so well, he chose not a historian but a "histrion": Elie Wiesel. Even the newspaper Le Monde, in the article mentioned above, was obliged to refer to the histrionic trait that certain persons deplore in Wiesel:

Naturally, even among those who approve of the struggle of this American Jewish writer, who was discovered by the Catholic François Mauriac, some reproach him for having too much of a tendency to change the Jewish sadness into "morbidity" or to become the high priest of a "planned management of the Holocaust."

As Jewish writer Leon A. Jick has written: "The devastating barb, 'There is no business like SHOAH-business' is, sad to say, a recognizable truth." [17]

Elie Wiesel issues alarmed and inflammatory appeals against Revisionist authors. He senses that things are getting out of hand. It is going to become more and more difficult for him to maintain the mad belief that the Jews were exterminated or were subjected to a policy of extermination, especially in so-called gas chambers. Serge Klarsfeld has admitted that real proofs of the existence of the gas chambers have still not yet been published. He promises proofs. [18]

On the scholarly plane, the gas chamber myth is finished. To tell the truth, that myth breathed its last breath several years ago at the Sorbonne colloquium in Paris (June 29-July 2, 1982), at which Raymond Aron and François Furet presided. What remains is to make this news known to the general public. However, for Elie Wiesel it is of the highest importance to conceal that news. Thus all the fuss in the media, which is going to increase: the more the journalists talk, the more the historians keep quiet.

But there are historians who dare to raise their voices against the lies and the hatred. That is the case with Michel de BoĂ¼ard, wartime member of the Resistance, deportee to Mauthausen, member of the Committee for the History of the Second World War from 1945 to 1981, and a member of the Institut de France. In a poignant interview in 1986, he courageously acknowledged that in 1954 he had vouched for the existence of a gas chamber at Mauthausen where, it finally turns out, there never was one. [19]

The respect owed to the sufferings of all the victims of the Second World War, and, in particular, to the sufferings of the deportees, demands on the part of historians a return to the proven and time-honored methods of historical criticism.

Summary

Elie Wiesel passes for one of the most celebrated eyewitnesses to the alleged Holocaust. Yet in his supposedly autobiographical book Night, he makes no mention of gas chambers. He claims instead to have witnessed Jews being burned alive, a story now dismissed by all historians. Wiesel gives credence to the most absurd stories of other "eyewitnesses." He spreads fantastic tales of 10,000 persons sent to their deaths each day in Buchenwald.

When Elie Wiesel and his father, as Auschwitz prisoners, had the choice of either leaving with their retreating German "executioners," or remaining behind in the camp to await the Soviet "liberators," the two decided to leave with their German captors.

It is time, in the name of truth and out of respect for the genuine sufferings of the victims of the Second World War, that historians return to the proven methods of historical criticism, and that the testimony of the Holocaust "eyewitnesses" be subjected to rigorous scrutiny rather than unquestioning acceptance.

Notes

  1. Le Monde, October 17, 1986. Front page.
  2. There is one single allusion, extremely vague and fleeting, on pages 78-79: Wiesel, who very much likes to have conversations with God, says to Him: "But these men here, whom You have betrayed, whom You have allowed to be tortured, butchered, gassed, burned, what do they do? They pray before you!" (Night, New York, Discus/Avon Books, 1969, p. 79). In his preface to that same book, François Mauriac mentioned "the gas chamber and the crematory" (p. 8). The four crucial pages of "testimony" by Elie Wiesel are reproduced in facsimile in: Pierre Guillaume, Droit et Histoire (La Vieille Taupe, 1986), pp. 147-150. In the German-language edition of Night (Die Nacht zu begraben, Elischa [Ullstein, 1962]), on 14 occasions the word "crematory" or "crematories" has been falsely given as "Gaskammer" ("gas chamber[s]"). In January of 1945, in anticipation of a Russian takeover, the Germans were evacuating Auschwitz. Elie Wiesel, a young teenager at the time, was hospitalized in Birkenau (the "extermination camp") after surgery on an infected foot. His doctor had recommended two weeks of rest and good food but, before his foot healed, the Russian takeover became imminent. Hospital patients were considered unfit for the long trip to the camps in Germany and Elie thus could have remained at Birkenau to await the Russians. Although his father had permission to stay with him as a hospital patient or orderly, father and son talked it over and decided to move out with the Germans. (See Night, p. 93. See also D. Calder,The Sunday Sun [Toronto, Canada], May 31, 1987, p. C4.)
  3. See the US War Refugee Board Report, German Extermination Camps: Auschwitz and Birkenau (Washington, DC), November 1944.
  4. See Nuremberg document PS-3311 (USA-293). Published in the IMT "blue series," Vol. 32, pp. 153-158.
  5. See the report in Pravda, Feb. 2, 1945, p. 4, and the UP report in the Washington (DC)Daily News, Feb. 2, 1945, p. 2.
  6. Night (Avon/Discus). See esp. pp. 41, 42, 43, 44, 79, 93.
  7. Paroles d'Ă©tranger (Editions du Seuil, 1982), p. 86.
  8. "Author, Teacher, Witness," Time magazine, March 18, 1985, p. 79.
  9. "Le Système concentrationnaire allemand [1940-1944]," Revue d'histoire de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, July 1954, p. 18, n. 2.
  10. Le Journal du Dimanche, March 30, 1985, p. 5.
  11. Libération, Jan. 24, 1986, p. 19.
  12. Published by Stein and Day (New York). Paperback edition of 1984. (xii + 180 pages.) With a foreword by Yehuda Bauer of the Institute of Contemporary Jewry, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
  13. Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: un caso di plagio, Parma (Italy): 1986. See also: C. Mattogno, "Auschwitz: A Case of Plagiarism," The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1990, pp. 5-24.
  14. Paperback edition, 1961, and later, published by Fawcett Crest (New York).
  15. Legends of Our Time (chapter 12: "Appointment with Hate"), New York: Schocken Books, 1982, p. 142, or, New York: Avon, 1968, pp. 177-178.
  16. The Week in Germany (published in New York by the German government in Bonn), Jan. 31, 1986, p. 2.
  17. "The Holocaust: Its Use and Abuse Within the American Public," Yad Vashem Studies(Jerusalem), 1981, p. 316.
  18. VSD, May 29, 1986, p. 37.
  19. Ouest-France, August 2-3, 1986, p. 6.


--
NOW AN AMAZON KINDLE BOOK ON YOUR PC, iPHONE OR KINDLE DEVICE

Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides By Thomas Dalton

In this remarkable, balanced book, the author skillfully reviews and compares "traditional" and "revisionist" views on the "The Holocaust."

On one side is the traditional, orthodox view -- six million Jewish casualties, gas chambers, cremation ovens, mass graves, and thousands of witnesses. On the other is the view of a small band of skeptical writers and researchers, often unfairly labeled "deniers," who contend that the public has been gravely misled about this emotion-laden chapter of history.

The author establishes that the arguments and findings of revisionist scholars are substantive, and deserve serious consideration. He points out, for example, that even the eminent Jewish Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg acknowledged that there was no budget, plan or order by Hitler for a World War II program to exterminate Europe's Jews.

This book is especially relevant right now, as "Holocaust deniers" are routinely and harshly punished for their "blasphemy," and as growing numbers of people regard the standard, Hollywoodized "Holocaust" narrative with mounting suspicion and distrust.

The author of this book, who writes under the pen name of "Thomas Dalton," is an American scholar who holds a doctoral degree from a major US university.

This is no peripheral debate between arcane views of some obscure aspect of twentieth century history. Instead, this is a clash with profound social-political implications regarding freedom of speech and press, the manipulation of public opinion, how our cultural life is shaped, and how power is wielded in our society.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_8?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=debating+the+holocaust&sprefix=DEBATING

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___