Lawyering is easy? Decidedly not!
It's all too far fetched and fanciful and full of puffery!
" Justice Branson said law was easy
- a matter of going to the Law Library,
read up the matter, then defend yourself in court!"
- think of David Irving trying to defend himself in 2000 against a team of professional lawyers!
A personal reflection on a window of opportunity – 18 June 2006
A letter to Germar Rudolf – political prisoner, Stammheim Prison, Germany
The following explains why I have been silent for a while, snowed under with work of a slightly different kind than to that which I have been doing in the past.
A Window of Opportunity, according to conventional wisdom, is one that needs to be opened and acted upon. Indeed!
The window of opportunity called LIFE comes only once. Human ingenuity has presented possibilities that may suggest otherwise. For example, the invention of the video recording mechanism would lead us to believe that it is analogous to LIFE, in that we can watch the past in ‘real time’, then pause, rewind, fast-forward – stop! Life is not like that because it is characterised by the factor we call TIME – marked by physical reality as represented in the inexorable process of birth – growth – fruition – death.
With this stark reality - a mystery – as a fact of life it does not surprise that human ingenuity has attempted to ‘set the record straight’, something it has been grappling with since time immemorial.
Various mental-abstract systems – world views – have attempted to come to terms with this mystery, and the most successful thought systems have been philosophical and religious systems that managed to offer a comforting moral value system to questing and hurting humanity subjected to the battle of the wills.
The contextual system from which I emerged has been the post World-War-Two world-view that saw the unconditional surrender of one of the Axis-powers, Germany, to the victorious Allies – note ‘all lies’ – whereby a particular person, Adolf Hitler – the ‘dictator’ – allegedly led his nation into an unimaginable catastrophe.
Add to that the unsubstantiated allegation that Germany had a policy of systematically exterminating six million European Jews in homicidal gas chambers, then any German, and anyone of German descent, faced a massive defamatory allegation, a blood libel – Germans are inherently evil and they perpetrated a unique evil act in human history – on the JEWS.
A normal enquiry would soon reveal that all this material emerged from war-time propaganda, and that subsequent allegations of such nature were not founded on factual information.
In fact, when an investigation is made in an objective manner on the material available of the subject matter, then the conclusion is convincing. Anyone who asserts that Germans systematically exterminated European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers in particular at Auschwitz, is either ignorant of the facts or is a liar!
Professors Arthur Butz, Robert Faurisson, Willis Carto, Germar Rudolf, Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, Hans Günter Kögel, Ernst Zündel, Günter Deckert, Manfred Roeder, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Ahmid Rami, Siegfried Verbeke, Mohammed Hegazi, Paul Grubach, are but a few individuals who openly and courageously state that the gassing story is a LIE.
This dialectic thought pattern is truth-revealing. From this premise flow consequences right into our world view as represented in our various political systems – in our case the western world’s value system marked by the concepts of freedom and democracy.
In Australia interest groups push the ‘Holocaust’ into the community, thereby establishing a dogma valuable only to a small minority –Jews.
When Jeremy Jones, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, took me to the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission – HREOC – because Adelaide Institute’s Internet website allegedly contained material ‘offensive to Australia’s Jews, in particular to the many Australian ‘Holocaust’ survivors, I seriously challenged this allegation. However, Commissioner Kath McEvoy, dismissed all my hard work in a flash by declaring it irrelevant. By doing this she implied TRUTH IS NO DEFENCE – and so we entered the old and wearying mindset of the witch-trials and Inquisition where a pre-determined verdict had already been formulated quite independent of any evidence submitted in defence of any allegations made against an accused.
Matters developed and degenerated as the legal action progressed to the Federal Court of Australia. Here, I protested at my inability of obtaining legal representation at this fact-finding stage of the proceedings, maintaining that any self-representative is a fool. I had the parallel case in Germany where a Jewish lawyer was assigned to my re-trial case, who reminded the judge that at the factual stage of the defence he would refuse to participate because it would make him liable to a charge – this being the effect of Section 130 of Germany’s Penal Code where no absolute privilege attaches to any mounted defence.
I advised Justice Branson that I failed to win any representation on my behalf – and that I could not go on. She advised that on account of my tertiary qualifications I should be able to defend myself, and she advised I go to a law library and read up matters, then prepare my own case – Google Jones v Toben FCA .
Branson implied law is easy, that law can be learned by rote rather than be developed and grown into, it being a process of thinking and developing a world view, in our case, the Common Law world view.
Three years later, at the end of 2005 I decided to take up this challenge thrown out to me by Justice Branson, especially in view of the fact that in 2003 she granted Jeremy Jones a summary judgment against me because I refused to defend myself, and because I had failed in my appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court in having her removed from the case for perceived bias. Justice Branson decided the Jones v Töben case in the FCA  without my going through any kind of legal procedure, for example, exchange of documents, interrogatories, etc.
A summary judgment is usually made in lower courts, in Magistrate Courts where, for example, traffic offences are handled as summary offences. The only pleading of any consequence will be for mitigating circumstances – why, for example, someone was speeding or ran a red light.
So I applied to read Law at The University of Adelaide, and in January 2006 I received advice that I had been accepted. Unfortunately I missed some lectures and tutorials because I had to lecture in Iran at the various Mashhad universities on the ‘Holocaust’ and on international law.
On my return from Iran I slipped into my law undergraduate tutorials, seminars and lectures without a problem, though my late arrival was duly noted by two ladies with a little consternation that ‘Töben’ had finally arrived. The academic gossip within the Law Faculty was set – an enlightening experience for me.
The last time I had sat for an examination – AS A TEACHER I HAD BEEN SETTING THE EXAMINATIONS FOR STUDENTS – was my four papers for the Private Pilots Licence in 1979, which I passed with flying colours – and now after 27 years I had to front up three times at the Adelaide Showgrounds for my Law of Contract, Law of Torts, and Introduction to Australian Law examination – the first two of three hours and the second of three and a half hours duration.
Here I was, at 62, wondering whether I was still sane, attempting to match myself with the virile and hedonistic minds that had not as yet been burdened by the vicissitudes of life, to date having been mere puffery of the capitalist, exploitative and hedonistic value system that the US president Bush so aptly described as consisting of ‘freedom and democracy and against terrorism’.
My immediate time prior to the three examinations I spent visiting Peter Hartung of Australia Free Press, whose perceptive clarity brought sanity into my feverish mind, reminding me of the Australian Aboriginal wisdom of communal values, of living within a value system that shuns the predatory exploitative system of consumerism, of living ‘beyond your means’ hire-purchase enslavement.
Peter learned this by having been in the furniture trade for many years. Now Furniture is an Adelaide concept, something I learned when a while ago I waited for my connecting flight at Sydney Airport where in the Qantas lounge I met a woman who had nothing but praise for Adelaide’s Now Furniture. She said it was a few years ago that she had made her decisive purchases at Now Furniture, and I advise her that it was the owner who had taken me to Adelaide Airport!
Unfortunately because of Australia’s Liberal-National Party coalition policies – almost exclusively controlled by Jewish interests as witnessed by Prime Minister Howard’s visit to the USA to receive the Jewish B’nai-B’rith honours, as did the previous Australian Prime Minister, Bob Hawke – the economic ‘level playing field’ fraud has had a devastating national effect. Local industries are buckling under the Chinese cheap-labour imperative. Skills that once made Australia autark, have disappeared because cheap imports killed the local furniture market. Adelaide was once the leading centre in furniture making. Now most Australians will buy that which is cheaper - and damned be the national interest. So much for our enslavement to the international finance and its accompanying salvation – hedonism.
This was evident within the University of Adelaide academic community, with some notable exceptions that need to remain anonymous because publicising their names would merely add pressure on their already stressful existence as dissenting minds. Interestingly, when I claimed special privilege on account of my ‘fuddy-duddy’ seniors’ status, there was little sympathy for my attempt at special pleadings.
Still names have to be named – and I pay my respects to lecturer Richard Bullen whose job it was to introduce first year students to the Law of Contract, not an easy task, especially because current students seem so disconnected from logic and imbued with feminist ideology. Why he has not been given the incentive of a professorship is beyond me because his flair of intellectualism invigorates and challenges students to work hard, nor does his gay lifestyle threaten the feminists! The fact that he is also a Wagnerian, among other things, endears me to him! He clarified matters for me, in stark contrast to the law tutor who could not justify why factual legal procedures do not accord with theoretical pronouncements as expounded in the doctrine of estoppel. A perceptive professor of law would easily resolve such matters.
Further, when you have a law tutor grading a student’s attendance performance as a four out of ten, then in a seminar making comments that the appointment of the South Australian Public Prosecutor was “an idiotic decision” – because Wendy Abrahams – Jewish - should have got it, then one wonders what intellectual objectivity justifies such tutorial employment. Such subjectivity is outright honesty but it needs to be qualified within an intellectual structure that helps innocent and willing students rigorously to contextualise the affair. When the State Premier is openly defamed by some flippant personal comment, then students will wonder how such subjectivity will translate into that person’s marking scheme.
The answer as to why such aberrations occurred, of course, is the policy of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS attempting to save its misconceived world view by presenting students with legal principles that are misconceived, hedonistic, hostile and hate-imbued thought structures.
When you have a University of Adelaide law lecturer become a Commissioner for the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, HREOC, then is conferred an honour by the University of Mannheim, while the person she found guilty under Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act is languishing in Mannheim Prison – me – then you wonder how objective she will be when confronted with my term’s work. Google the name Kath McEvoy and read the first item that pops up! – or http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Germany/mcevoy.htm
Luckily there is an avenue of escape in that the Rev Dr Paul Babie took over the marking of my assignments, awarding one a credit and another a fail. This Christian man of the traditional school, as well, is no threat to the feminists who are currently ruling the roost at Adelaide University. I hasten to add how at the 1998 Writers Week a guardian of the university advised me that the University’s guardians simply did not find the calibre of applicants for Chancellor and Vice Chancellor to turn the ship around and head it into actual thrusting academic endeavours. According to a recent survey the University of Adelaide is ranked as the second lowest of Australia’s 30+ universities, something I find hard to believe.
Interestingly, in the Introduction to Australian Law examination that asked students to focus on the two legal systems operating in the western world – Common Law and Civil Law – and comment on how any perceived differences impact on Human Rights in Australia, I was able to mention the Revisionists who have run foul of the law in both systems. I indicated how both systems have excised matters ‘Holocaust’ and matters ‘Jews’, something the champion of freedom and democracy, the USA, has done on a grand scale by enacting and establishing a special State Department’s Office of Global Anti-Semitism. Through this office the UN Charter of Human Rights has been eliminated, especially intellectual freedom, the stuff that made western nations great by enabling and developing pure brain power.
Within the last two weeks before examination I did something I have not done before – snap at friends in an inconsiderate way, and all because of the selfish act of securing my environment in such a way that would maximise examination revision. I think for once I actually began to feel stressed about facing examinations.
Law is not easy, and its conceptual framework requires intellectual application if one wishes to understand it. I did apply myself towards end of term and things began to come together as a whole, but it was not enough for a pass, and this saddens me because there will be a need for lawyers to defend the growing victims of Australia’s 2006 Anti-Terrorism Law. Imagine, we imbue our students with the concept of freedom and democracy, then when such imbued individuals begin to think autonomously, they’ll realize the fraud of it all as they hit the establishment brick wall. Any criticism of Australia’s parliamentary decisions will be labelled ‘seditious’, and for them it will spell the end of the process of Natural Justice and of democracy.
This proved to me that Justice Branson was misguided when she stated that an understanding of the legal process could be obtained by merely going to a law library, as she suggested I do when I advised her that I could not find a single lawyer in Australia who was prepared to defend me in the Federal Court.
The actual skill of lawyering needs to develop and mature, and David Irving proved that only a fool is his own advocate. Irving did not differentiate between factual and legal argument, and he failed to realize that factual material was irrelevant in his case. The allegation against him was that he was a ‘Holocaust’ denier and an ‘antisemite’, and factually he had been consorting with such individuals. Someone informed me that Irving’s mistake was consorting with Germany’s ‘Neo-Nazis’ during the 1970s and 1980s. I advised this was not a mistake but rather his lying about this contact – and this in effect broke Irving’s neck. He lied about having consorted with all sorts of people. He attempted to distance himself from the Australian League of Rights, though this organization managed to sponsor two of his trips through Australia during the 1980s and publish his first volume of Churchill’s War. That’s how the consequences of being a legend in your own mind pan out in reality.
I recall when during the late 1990s I prepared my own appeal in Melbourne’s Supreme Court, I could not find anyone within the Melbourne legal profession who would help me develop the legal argument. Melbourne’s legal fraternity – lawyers make up a cartel-monopoly – refused to assist and justified by pointing out I had a good win in the County Court, and that the further action would raise for me the establishment brick wall, which legally is not penetrable.
To that point I had in the background retired former Victorian Supreme Court Chief Justice Sir Edward Barber helping me in my endeavours. His claim to fame had come when he helped Tasmanian academic Prof Orr’s widow receive some entitlements from the University of Tasmania that had pursued her late husband for ‘immoral conduct’.
When I finally conducted my own appeal – and won – in the Victorian Supreme Court in 1989, I won not because I represented myself but because Sydney QC, Clive Evatt drew up my Notice of Appeal. I clearly recall flying to Sydney and literally visiting him in Sydney within an hour’s notice.
His welcome was astounding in its irreverence to the legal system in Victoria: “The judge said that? That c…, he should have found that…; that bloody c…, he definitely should have found that…”.
When I presented my appeal in Banco One of the Supreme Court, I was almost overawed with the visual prospects of addressing three gentlemen peering down at me from on high. At the time it seemed to me that I had to look up to the judges who were sitting on their bench about ten feet above me. My throat constricted and I gasped for air. I had prepared about 100 pages of submission and when I began the judges all interrupted, making it difficult to rely on the written word before me.
When Justice Murphy, in an act of empathetic understanding, or simply for expediency’s sake to get the matter over and done with, asked me: “Mr Toben, what do you want?” I replied: “I want my job back!”
Unfortunately a common law of the 1860s enables an employer to determine whom he employs, and so I was not put back in teaching. But it was music to my ears when upon a brief adjournment of 15 minutes or so the judges returned and it was announced that “appeal allowed” – and financial adjustments ordered to the initial judgment from the lower court. I did not care about the money, though that helped pay the amount needed to meet the 14-day property settlement my ex-wife demanded or my home would have to be sold.
For me Semester One Law has now been completed and I have gained various insights in how our legal system works. Were I a politician, I would make basic law a compulsory subject in the final year of secondary schooling. I say this because traditional subjects such as English Expression used to teach critical thinking skills and elementary logic. This was discontinued because such English course imbued students with firm moral and intellectual values, something that the social engineers of the late 1960s hated to see developed within an individual. It would merely highlight the shallowness of education that was coming their way during the next three decades that saw our traditional western society destroyed with the catch-cry: ‘value-free and egalitarian education is needed. The way was paved towards the new One World Order where Jews, again, have a special privileged position, as they did after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia where the concept ‘antisemitism’ was criminalized, and anyone thus labelled was shot.
Now, emanating from the USA on the catch-cry of ‘freedom and democracy and against terrorism’, we have the same pattern of intellectual suppression emerging as that implemented at the beginning of the Bolshevik rule of terror in the Soviet Union. The Reverend Ted Pike, following below, makes this quite clear in his perceptive analysis of White House politics.
Germar, you are still the powerhouse that broke the back of this One World movement, and how the historical issues raised by the ‘Holocaust’ needed to be clarified. Your many volumes on this ‘Holocaust’ topic are used all over the world, meaning that the intellectual task has been done – you did it!
Now, as you said many times to me, it’s back to work.
In France the repression exerted against doubters of the “Holocaust” is intensifying considerably. In the spring of 2004 Georges Theil, 65, a retired telecoms executive, distributed a few dozen copies of his 115-page samizdat book entitled A Case of Insubmission - on becoming a revisionist, in which he relates the intellectual journey of a man who set about seeking to understand the 20th century, and then tells how that quest led him to believe no longer in the “Nazi gas chambers”, hence no longer in the “6 million”. For that “crime” he has recently been found guilty on appeal in the town of Limoges and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment without remission, a fine of €30,000 (or 38,000 US dollars), and ordered to pay about €10,000 ($12,500) in damages.
But it doesn’t end there! After being approached by a journalist in Lyon in October 2004 for a one-to-one talk that was recorded and broadcast the next day on the local television station TV8-MontBlanc, a conversation in which he was questioned on the contents of the incriminated book, and particularly on the passage where, after Robert Faurisson, Fred Leuchter and Germar Rudolf, he deals with the radical impossibility of the operation, even the very existence in the places referred to (Auschwitz I and Birkenau – Krema II) of slaughterhouses for humans using hydrogen cyanide gas, Georges Theil was prosecuted once again. On May 17, 2006 he was convicted on appeal to another six months’ imprisonment without remission and a fine of €10,000, and ordered to pay €40,000 in damages and to cover the cost (about €8,000) of having the judgment published in two newspapers.
For these two cases only, the financial burden amounts to €98,000, or $123,000, not including lawyer’s fees and other expenses…
Georges Theil’s situation does not enable him to cope with this alone: it is therefore important to help him; such courage as his is not found very often.
You may contact him by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org
or by letter at
P.O. Box 50-38,
F-38037 Grenoble cedex 2, France.
The book A Case of Insubmission will soon be available in English.
The story about the newly appointed US government official to fight "anti-Semitism," Greg Rickmann, follows this email. This story was circulated by the IHR's Internet news letter.
There is no doubt in my mind that this is the guy that I went to John Carroll University with. Although we never were in each other's classes, we knew of each other, because he was an aggressive Zionist and I was openly critical of Jewish political power and Zionism. In fact, I vaguely remember that someone wanted to set up a debate between him and I--but this is an old, vague memory.
If my memory serves me correctly, he angered quite a few professors in the history department because he was instrumental in bringing Simon Wiesenthal to the University to speak. I distinctly recall that he was disliked by quite a few students and professors because of his overly aggressive demeanor. I vaguely recall that he had some trouble with one professor over the John Demjanjuk case.
Here is the story of Greg Rickmann.
Uncle Sam against anti-Semitism
By Shmuel Rosner
Tuesday morning was a special one for the U.S. State Department's first envoy for monitoring and combating anti-Semitism. Gregg Rickman had only been in the job for a few days, and was already being called on to carry out an important task. If the State Department spokesman was asked during a news briefing about the latest comments by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Rickman was asked, how should the spokesman reply? Rickman came up with the main points of a statement for journalists - a first, modest contribution to this important battle.
The appointment as special envoy was spurred by two key objectives, and Rickman will return to them over and over, as though memorizing the Talmud: monitoring and combating. More than six decades after the Holocaust, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said during Rickman's swearing-in ceremony last Monday, anti-Semitism is not just a historical fact, but a current event.
"Anti-Semitic hate crimes are on the rise still at home and abroad," she said. Then she used the words typical of such events: decisive action, deep commitment. Rickman stood with his family, a little excited. After all, there has never been a special envoy like him.
Rickman is not quite sure what he plans to do, saying in an interview that he wasn't trying to hide the fact that there are a lot of things he still doesn't know. He noted the difficulties of being first: There's no one he can go to in an effort to find out what his predecessor did in the job, or what ought to be changed, or how his predecessor dealt with this or that issue. It's Rickman who will be the one to chart the path, for as long as he and the three or four assistants he will hire shortly remain part of the administration.
Rickman said he has full support from Rice and hopes that backing will help him make the position a substantive one. Nonetheless, Rice did not initiate the position, and many State Department officials think there was no reason for the job to be created in the first place. It's superfluous and artificial, they say - and even worse, "political."
It was Congress that created the position of anti-Semitism special envoy about two years ago, through the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. Democratic Congressman Tom Lantos from California and Republican Senator George Voinovich from Ohio were instrumental in passing the legislation, despite the resolute opposition of the State Department.
State Department officials cited many explanations for their opposition to the creation of the envoy position. Who needs more bureaucracy, they asked - and anyway, the officials responsible for the various departments are already dealing with anti-Semitism and taking a stance on it without a problem. And of course, they wanted to know why this specific issue and not any other. The firm response was, in effect, "because that's what Congress wants" - meaning that's what the public wants. After two years of foot- dragging, the post was finally created.
Voinovich, who attended the swearing-in ceremony, won special mention from Rice for the role he played. Rickman is wary of the bureaucratic minefield and knows that not everyone agrees with his appointment. Nonetheless, as he said with a smile, here he is, the anti-Semitism envoy. And of course, he does have support, and is sure he will be able to win cooperation.
Rickman is 42, and has spent his career on Capitol Hill, where he worked on a commission on Holocaust assets and Swiss banks, and another commission investigating the "oil for food" affair involving the United Nations. He has also headed the small but increasingly influential Republican Jewish Coalition lobby.
Rickman knows how the administration works, how legislators work and how to navigate the corridors of power in Washington. He will now attempt to use this knowledge for the very important goal of fighting anti-Semitism. Within the State Department he will try to convince some and remind others that the war on anti-Semitism is on the agenda in relation to ties with other countries, that it's an issue the United States is interested in and bothered by. That it's an issue worthy of being included on the pro and con list in comprehensive deals with key nations. Outside the State Department, in contacts with foreign officials, Rickman will be able to have an influence only if his message is backed by action, by systemic decisiveness.
Although Rickman has only just taken office, notices of anti-Semitic incidents are already piling up on his desk: baton-wielding mischief-makers in Paris, more outrageous comments from Iran, an assault on a rabbi in Poland. Rickman said no one can argue that anti-Semitism has been on the rise; the numbers prove it.
Nonetheless, questions remain about the severity of the problem. Has it reached a critical stage? It's a tough question. History has taught us that "anti-Semitism left unchecked results in disaster," as Rickman said in his speech at the swearing-in ceremony. On the other hand, anti-Semitism is an amorphous concept whose precise definition is up for dispute, he said, adding that despite the ambiguity, people know it when they see it.
A few months ago the State Department, for the first time, published a report on anti-Semitic incidents around the world. Rickman sees this as an accomplishment in its own right, proof that things are happening. But for all that, the practical test is tough and confusing. Are the comments coming from Iran anti-Semitic? Yes, said Rickman; Holocaust denial is anti-Semitic, and so are claims of an international Jewish conspiracy.
And what about the British academic boycott of Israel: Is that anti-Semitic, or anti-Zionist? Rickman knows that distinguishing between the two, if at all possible, is one of the most complicated problems he will have to face. Rickman wouldn't pick sides, saying he has not yet studied the issue in depth. But there's no doubt he will have to study the issue so he can figure out whether such incidents fall under his purview.
The 2005 State Department report noted anti-Semitic incidents in many countries, but critics found several difficulties, such as unlimited understanding for anti-Semitism from the Saudi rulers. Saudi Arabia was mentioned in a much shorter section than the ones about other countries, in which anti-Semitism is a marginal phenomenon. Rickman thinks it doesn't matter how many words were written about each country, and said there's a need to keep pushing, not to give up. His first objective is education, in which he said the Saudis have expressed an interest. Of course, it will be easier in countries in which the government cooperates, and more complicated when the government is the source of the problem. Iran comes up yet again. I don't have all the answers, Rickman said.
Israel is clearly the biggest obstacle. Where does the line fall between hatred of Jews and political opposition to, or even hatred of, Israel? Rickman knows that in Israeli eyes, the difference is minimal. Everyone is particularly sensitive when they are the ones being criticized, Rickman said, adding that some people consider anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism to be the same thing. He will need to come up with criteria to determine what is permissible and what is forbidden, what is anti-Semitic and what is just political when it comes to Israel.
Rickman is himself a Jewish supporter of Israel, and he realizes he will be scrutinized carefully. People will think all sorts of things, he said, but he doesn't know yet where the line will be drawn. Then he smiles and adds that a hypothetical debate is a wonderful thing.
But Rickman has a mission to accomplish. Abe Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, who has spent a long time fighting anti-Semitism, said determining the line between anti-Semitic incidents and anti-Israel ones is one of the practical tests facing the new State Department envoy. It remains to be seen how much Rickman will be able to expand the definition of his task, how much the State Department will let him spread his wings and get involved in sensitive topics, express an opinion, take a seat among the decision-makers and policymakers.
Rickman has already passed his first test - on Tuesday - with a smile. Here a serious issue like Iran is on the agenda and he was called on to contribute. They're not ignoring him. Nonetheless, it hasn't been 100 days yet - it's barely been 100 hours; he doesn't have an office yet, or a team of workers and he certainly doesn't have work guidelines. It's a position in the making, and with that comes excitement, worry and open questions. Rickman suggested Haaretz return in two or three years to see what he has accomplished. Altogether, he is an entertaining paradox: an official who combats anti-Semitism, yet radiates optimism.
Jewish Activist Now Heads State Department's Office of Global Anti-Semitism
By Rev. Ted Pike
Vowing to combat global anti-Semitism by every means at his disposal,veteran Jewish activist Gregg Rickman was recently sworn in by Condoleezza Rice as head of the State Department's office of global anti-Semitism. Jewish activists view Rickman's appointment as a victory against a U.S. State Department which had protested establishment of yet another Jewish special interest agency. Several years ago the State Department claimed it already adequately monitored global human rights abuses and promoted Holocaust remembrance. Yet Jewish lobbyists persuaded Congress 18 months ago to create a special federal agency dedicated solely to silencing "virulent criticism" of Israel and matters Jewish or questioning the six million figure of alleged Holocaust victims.
UNITING SYNAGOGUE WITH STATE DEPARTMENT
Rickman's appointment, as a veteran protagonist of all things Jewish, makes it clear that the office of global anti-Semitism will not be bipartisan. Rather, as I have warned since its inception, it is merely a front for ADL/B'nai B'rith's anti-Christian hate laws agenda – a foundation upon which to federalize and internationalize persecution of Christians.
Are you still unfamiliar with this new thought crimes bureaucracy in our midst? Are you aware of its many perverse definitions of anti-Semitism? Here is the article I published last summer on this subject. It answers many questions yet poses many more concerning the "Office to Monitor and Control Anti-Semitism," mandated as H.R. 4230 by Congress.
THE REAL MOTIVE BEHIND THE "DEPARTMENT OF GLOBAL ANTI-SEMITISM"
By Rev. Ted Pike
On October 16, 2004 President Bush signed into law the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. It establishes a special department within the U.S. State Department to monitor global anti-Semitism, reporting annually to Congress.
This is more "Hate Crimes" legislation, orchestrated by the international Jewish religious, educational, and fraternal organization, B'nai B'rith, and its Anti-Defamation League. The new "Department of Global Anti-Semitism" is designed to make critics of Israel not only into "anti-Semites" but ultimately into "domestic terrorists."
But first, what is anti-Semitism? Simple: It is the racist belief that Jews, because of heredity, are evil, greedy, corrupting, subversive, degenerate, etc. Hitler believed this. So do the KKK and certain "Christian identity" and white supremacist groups.
Such dehumanization of Jews is evil, un-Christian, un-American.
On the other hand, if the actions of individual Jews, Jewish institutions, Jewish religious or secular leaders, or the nation Israel have been evil, then vehement criticism is not anti-Semitic. It is courageous and laudable. Certainly, the Biblical prophets, including Christ, engaged in vitriolic criticism of the sinful nation Israel and its false leaders. No one considers them anti-Semitic.
TWISTED DEFINITIONS OF "ANTI-SEMITISM"
However, in its "Report on Global Anti-Semitism" and "Global Anti-Semitism Report," the U.S. State Department ignores the above perspectives. Here is a list of beliefs or activities the U.S. government now considers anti-Semitic:
1. Any assertion "that the Jewish community controls government, the media, international business and the financial world" is anti-Semitic.
2. "Strong anti-Israel sentiment" is anti-Semitic.
3. "Virulent criticism" of Israel's leaders, past or present, is anti-Semitic. According to the State Department, anti-Semitism occurs when a swastika is portrayed in a cartoon decrying the behavior of a past or present Zionist leader. Thus, a cartoon that includes a swastika to criticize Ariel Sharon's brutal 2002 invasion of the West Bank, raining "hell-fire" missiles on hapless Palestinian men, women and children, is anti-Semitic. Similarly, when the word "Zionazi" is used to describe Sharon's saturation bombing in Lebanon in 1982 (killing 17,500 innocent refugees), it is also "anti-Semitic."
4. Criticism of the Jewish religion or its religious leaders or literature (especially the Talmud and Kabbalah) is anti-Semitic.
5. Criticism of the U.S. government and Congress for being under undue influence by the Jewish-Zionist community (including AIPAC) is anti-Semitic.
6. Criticism of the Jewish-Zionist community for promoting globalism (the "New World Order") is anti-Semitic.
7. Blaming Jewish leaders and their followers for inciting the Roman crucifixion of Christ is anti-Semitic.
8. Diminishing the "six million" figure of Holocaust victims is anti-Semitic.
9. Calling Israel a "racist" state is anti-Semitic.
10. Asserting that there exists a "Zionist Conspiracy" is anti-Semitic.
11. Claiming that Jews and their leaders created the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia is anti-Semitic.
12. Making "derogatory statements about Jewish persons" is anti-Semitic.
13. Denying spiritually disobedient Jews the biblical right to re-occupy Palestine is anti-Semitic.
14. Alleging that Mossad was behind the 9/11 attack is anti-Semitic.
ANTI-SEMITISM IS A "HATE CRIME"
In the Global Anti-Semitism Report, State Department spokespersons Ambassador Edward O'Donnell and the head of the office of global anti-Semitism, Ambassador Michael B. Kozak, defend the State Department's definitions. O'Donnell's statement that he wants to "end all anti-Semitism and other hate crimes" reveals that he considers anti-Semitism a hate crime. Presumably, he would like such a "crime" to be punished.
These State Department reports repeatedly equate "strong, anti-Israel sentiment" and criticism of matters Jewish with "hate." They give no recognition to the possibility that such criticism might be sincerely motivated not by hate but by moral indignation or even love for the Jewish people.
The Report on Global Anti-Semitism repeatedly calls for passage, both nationally and internationally, of "hate crime" legislation. These laws, the brainchild of B'nai B'rith/ADL, also have as their ultimate goal making it a "hate crime" to criticize Jews, matters Jewish, or the state of Israel.
The Report on Global Anti-Semitism reeks with B'nai B'rith/ADL logic, phraseology, and evidence of their incredible worldwide organizational and statistic-gathering capacities. It contains thirty-three pages of minute documentation of "anti-Semitic incidents" in fifty-eight countries of the world, documentation which only B'nai B'rith/ADL, with its offices in more than fifty countries, could compile or even be that vitally interested in. Without a doubt, as with hate laws, this Global Anti-Semitism Review Act is their creation.
CRITICISM-FREE ZONE FOR JEWS
Thus, the Department of Anti-Semitism, applauded and advised by B'nai B'rith/ADL, is working to create a worldwide "criticism-free zone" for Jews in the "New World Order" that is coming. This report ignores whether criticisms of matters Jewish are true. What must be defended are the sensitivities of the Jewish people! Consequently, relating such unflattering realities as the anti-Christian, anti-Gentile contents of the Talmud and Kabbalah, Jewish origins of bolshevism, Jewish dominance of Hollywood and the media, Jewish control of Congress through AIPAC, Zionist atrocities and abrasiveness in the Middle East is anti-Semitic. It is "hate." It does not matter that such facts can be easily and extensively documented, often from impeccable Jewish sources such as the Encyclopedia Judaica.
All such anti-Semitism, this report says, is a "scourge," an "intolerable burden," which "for an increasingly interdependent world…must be ended."
On the other hand, according to the U.S. State Department, there does exist some possibility that "objective criticism" of Israel and its leaders can be tolerated - that is, just as long as such criticism does not "cross the line" and become "strong anti-Israel sentiment" and "virulent." Such criticism should not "demonize" Jews, Jewish religious or political leaders, or the state of Israel.
However, what may be considered "virulence" or "demonization" by Zionists may be seen as nothing more than salty truth-telling by critics of Israel. Hypocritically, the State Department itself is not above "demonizing" strong critics of Israel in the most "virulent" terms as a "plague" and "scourge" on mankind!
TURNING "ANTI-SEMITISM" INTO "DOMESTIC TERRORISM"
The State Department's twisted definition of anti-Semitism provides exponential opportunities to persecute Bible-believing Christians, anti-war activists, Moslems, as well as publishers and broadcasters in the years ahead. In fact, by turning "strong" criticism of the American/Zionist coalition into "anti-Semitism and other hate crimes," the State Department opens the door to eventual characterization of those who criticize Israel as not only anti-Semites but also as "domestic terrorists."
Here's how it can be done:
Today, those who raise funds in America to support America's and Israel's terrorist enemies are arrested as "domestic terrorists." But what if articulate Americans provided something else, potentially even more valuable to Israel's enemies: "strong criticism" of Israel? Such could weaken Israel morally in the sight of the world, giving justification to the claims of her terrorist enemies. Should they also be punished?
As the Second World War was beginning in 1939, Charles Lindberg was publicly critical of international Jews for inveigling America into a war to destroy Hitler. Lindberg believed that Hitler should be allowed to do what he wanted to do most, move east and destroy "Jewish Communism" in Russia.
In 1944, 30 Americans, who agreed with Lindberg, were arrested for the crime of "sedition," weakening America's resolve in the fight against fascism. Later investigation under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that the ADL, attempting to equate criticism of international Jews with Nazism, had entirely created the FBI case.
Records revealed that the ADL was "only warming up" by pursuing sedition convictions against 30 innocent Americans. Their ultimate ambition was to imprison prominent critics of evil Jewish leadership, especially Charles Lindberg. Fortunately, ADL's attempt to transform 30 critics of international Jews into "Nazis" failed when the judge died and the case was dissolved.
Today, America and Israel are allies in the "war on terror." Tomorrow, especially if the war on terror intensifies and America and Israel cooperate even more closely, criticism of America's ally in the war on terrorism may be construed as "aiding and abetting the enemy." Such "strong criticism" or anti-Semitism may be seen as not only weakening Israel, but America itself.
Turning millions of Americans into anti-Semites for criticizing Israel is thus a transition toward ADL's ultimate goal: making such persons "enemies of the war on terror," i.e., "domestic terrorists." They then can be prosecuted under Homeland Security laws.
CANADA: ALREADY MAKING "ANTI-SEMITES" INTO "DOMESTIC TERRORISTS"
In Canada, we are seeing exactly this happen. Ernst Zundel is a Holocaust revisionist who doubts that a full six million Jews were deliberately murdered by the Nazis, largely by gassing. He asserts that untold numbers of Jews in German internment camps, especially in the last years of the war, died not in gas chambers, but as a result of massive, well-documented typhus epidemics, which also killed countless Poles, Gypsies, Russians, etc. Yet in Canada, thanks to ADL/B'nai B'rith, it is a "hate crime" to lesson to any degree the six million figure of Holocaust dead, or that most of them died in gas chambers. Such diminishment is anti-Semitism, a "hate crime" punishable by harsh fines and imprisonment. Several years ago Zundel was deported from his home in Tennessee back to Canada to spend more than two years in solitary confinement in a Canadian prison. He was then deported back to his native Germany where he remains in prison.
Under what charge have Canadian authorities been holding him? You guessed it. He is a "terrorist threat!"
So it will be for millions of Americans tomorrow if ADL/B'nai B'rith have their way and the Department of Anti-Semitism's twisted definitions of anti-Semitism are allowed to stand.
The Department of Global Anti-Semitism is informing the world who the "domestic terrorists" of tomorrow will be. They are you and I.
WHAT CAN WE DO?
We can do plenty!
Call our members of Congress toll-free at 1-877-762-8762
Call the U.S. State Department comment line at 1-202-647-4000
Demand that all funding and authority for the development of the Department of Anti-Semitism be rescinded.
Demand that Congressional hearings be held to re-formulate a workable, balanced definition of "anti-Semitism" - one that protects Bible-believing Christians, critics of Israel, and Moslems from persecution as "anti-Semites."
Also, call into talk shows, especially large, syndicated ones.
Since the threat of hate laws is "taboo" on most large shows, do not tell the talk show operator that you want to comment on that subject. If the topic of the day is even remotely related to the issue of free speech, terrorism, the Mid-East, etc., begin with those topics but quickly move the discussion to the threat of hate laws. Describe how free speech is lost in Canada; how eleven Christians were arrested under Pennsylvania's hate law; how the "Department of Anti-semitism" would make many Americans into anti-semites.
Talk show hosts: For an interview with Rev. Ted Pike on the "Department of Anti-Semitism," call 503-631-3808.
For many articles on "hate crimes" legislation and B'nai B'rith's role in creating it, visit
For a gripping 80-minute video documentary by Ted Pike, "Hate Laws: Making Criminals of Christians," at $24.90 postpaid, call 503-631-3808, order online, or write National Prayer Network, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR 97015, USA. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/66672.htm
SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much. Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here to swear in Dr. Gregg Rickman as our Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism. I'm delighted also to welcome Gregg's family, his wife Sonia and their children Ira and Sam and Rachel who I met earlier in the anteroom and a special greeting to Gregg's parents Charlotte and Richard Rickman. Greg is going to serve as our first Anti-Semitism Special Envoy and this is a position that was created by the Global Anti Semitism Review Act which is a position that will now be housed in our Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.
I want to recognize the seminal role of Congress in creating this position, especially Senator Voinovich. Thank you so much for joining us here and for your steady and consistent commitment to these important issues. I also want to thank Representatives Smith and Lantos who were unable to join us, but were instrumental in this legislation and also Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz who has joined us today.
President Bush has said that defending freedom also means disrupting the evil of anti-Semitism. Today ethnic and religious differences are still viewed by some as a license to kill. And we are reminded of the sad history of humankind when prejudice and hatred turn violent against those who are simply different.
More than six decades after the Holocaust, anti-Semitism is not just an historical fact, however. It is a current event. Anti-Semitic hate crimes are on the rise still at home and abroad. And governments must take decisive action against the perpetrators of those crimes and new generations have to be inoculated against the dangerous bigotry that is instilled often through education in intolerance. That education in intolerance must be replaced by education in tolerance.
Gregg brings deep personal commitment to this mission. His father-in-law was a Holocaust survivor. And as a child, he heard his grandfather recount the horrors of the pogrom in Ukraine that took the lives of his very own family members. Gregg brings extensive professional experience on the Hill, working on Holocaust restitution and anti-Semitism issues. And he also served as the Director of Congressional Affairs for the Republican Jewish Coalition.
President Bush has pledged that America will always stand for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. Defending human dignity means defeating anti-Semitism. Gregg, you have no stronger supporters of this mission than President Bush and me. The men and women of the State Department will also be your strong supporters in this important mission. I'm delighted that you have taken it on. I know you will perform it well with commitment and dedication and now I'm pleased to administer the Oath of Office.
(The Oath of Office was administered.) (Applause.)
MR. RICKMAN: Thank you, Madame Secretary. I want to thank the President and you for this great honor and appointing me to serve in this important new position. I am honored to be assuming this position in the month that President Bush has declared for the first time to be Jewish American Heritage month. It must be clear to all that there is no place in the world for this most ancient form of prejudice and bigotry. I want you to know that I will do all that I can to make it clear that in order for freedom and democracy to prevail, anti-Semitism in all its forms must be prevented.
One important way is through education aimed at instilling democratic values, including tolerance for those of all religions. If we have learned any lessons from the past, it is that anti-Semitism left unchecked results in disaster. I was taught this much by my grandfather who fled the pogroms and revolution in the Russian Empire in 1919. He arrived in the United States a few years later an orphan and a stranger in a foreign land. Yet it was this country that gave him a safe haven. It is because of this fact that I have always felt the need to give something back to my country in gratitude. And it is this dedication that I bring to this position.
I want to thank Senator Voinovich and Representative Wasserman Schultz for attending today, State Department officials, members of the community and friends who are all here with us today. And of course I want to thank my wife Sonia and our three children as well as my parents, Charlotte and Richard, for all of their love and support.
Also, I've always admired the talented men and women who serve in the State Department and I look forward to joining them now. Again, Madame Secretary, thank you for the honor to serve you, the Administration and our great nation in this cause. Thank you. (Applause.)
Appointment of monitor adds teeth to the fight against anti-Semitism
By Ron Kampeas
May 22, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 17 (JTA) — The U.S. State Department just added a set of teeth to its fledgling office monitoring anti-Semitism.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday named Gregg Rickman, a dogged investigator who has tracked the Swiss banks' role in the Holocaust, as the first special envoy for monitoring and combating anti-Semitism around the world.
Jewish leaders unanimously agreed that the appointment would push the office monitoring anti-Semitism, in existence barely 18 months, to the department's front burner.
"It creates a strong point person that will be able to coordinate all the different parts of our government that deal with anti-Semitism," said Mark Levin, executive director of NCSJ, a group that advocates for Jews in the former Soviet Union and that lobbied for the position. "Without continued U.S. leadership, I'm not sure how much attention will be paid by our friends in Europe and elsewhere to anti-Semitism."
Congressional legislation sponsored by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) created the office in late 2004 over the objection of State Department mandarins, who said it would just create an extra layer of bureaucracy and was unnecessary because the issue already was being addressed in the department's human rights monitoring.
The legislation was created amid the most recent intifada, when anti-Semitism intensified in Europe and the Middle East.
So far the office, under the direction of Edward O'Donnell, special envoy for Holocaust issues, has produced just one report, in January 2005. Insiders said O'Donnell already was overworked in his capacity encouraging the rightful distribution of Holocaust assets, and the office sorely needed its own "boss."
Rickman's principal qualification for the job is his stint as a director on the Senate Banking Committee in the mid-1990s under the chairmanship of former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (R-N.Y.), when it uncovered Swiss banks' role in hiding Nazi loot and keeping Jewish survivors from accessing their pre-Holocaust accounts. Rickman, who is Jewish, wrote an account of the investigation called "Swiss Banks and Jewish Souls."
"Gregg Rickman, working with Sen. D'Amato, is almost single-handedly the one who uncovered the corruption and the immorality of the Swiss banks," said William Daroff, vice president for public policy of the United Jewish Communities, the umbrella body of North American Jewish federations, and director of its Washington office.
Shai Franklin, executive director of the World Jewish Congress' American section, said Rickman understood all sides of the system.
"He's very familiar with how Capitol Hill works and he knows the Jewish community and he knows the Europeans, having opened up a lot of the channels in the Swiss gold issue," he said.
Together with NCSJ, Daroff led the effort for legislation creating the anti-Semitism office when he was congressional liaison for the Republican Jewish Coalition.
Rickman, who also was staff director for former Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.), succeeded Daroff at the RJC in 2004. The group reveled in the appointment of one of its own.
"It is very exciting to have an RJC alum serving in such an important position," said Matt Brooks, the group's executive director.
Rickman, 42, recently returned to the Hill, where he has directed the U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee investigating the "oil for food" scandal implicating U.N. officials and others in receiving kickbacks from Saddam Hussein during the years Iraq was under sanction.
That kind of doggedness will serve him well in his new capacity, according to representatives of groups that liaise between Washington and small, vulnerable Jewish communities overseas.
"Putting someone in there who has the know-how and connections to do the job right at least gives the issue a fair shot," said Rabbi Levi Shemtov, who directs the Chabad-Lubavitch office in Washington.
Some Jewish groups had advocated for a scholar and someone with a less partisan background, but Rickman was the better choice, said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League.
"You don't need a scholar, you need a pragmatic civil servant who will be there, be articulate and be a liaison," he said.
Rickman's appointment will go a long way toward reassuring Jewish groups who were angered by the Bush administration's initial resistance to the Lantos-Voinovich legislation.
"We're very appreciative of the president and Secretary Rice making this appointment," said Nathan Diament, who directs the Orthodox Union's Washington office. "It's consistent with the work they've done to combat anti-Semitism throughout the Bush administration."
Rickman, who will be sworn in Monday, will not simply monitor anti-Semitism; he will inject the issue into every bilateral or multilateral arrangement where it's applicable. Rickman declined to talk to reporters before his position became official.
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, cited as an example efforts to get the 55-member Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to encourage member nations to counter anti-Semitism.
"At a time when we're trying to get some governments to act through the OSCE, it'll be a full-time job," Hoenlein said. "We'll have someone who will privately and publicly express our concerns."
Daroff said Rickman's assignment will be twofold: dealing with official anti-Semitism and encouraging nations to combat anti-Semitism in their societies.
"This post empowers foreign policy and diplomacy," he said. "He can have a tremendous impact on combating anti-Semitism."
7,400 millionaires living in Israel
According to World Wealth Report 2005, number of Israeli millionaires per capita is twice world average. Israel's nine richest: Shari Arison, Stef Wertheimer, Ofer family, Haim Saban, Lev Leviev, Yitzhak Tshuva, Benny Steinmetz, Morris Kahn, Judith and Jacob Richter, Eli Shimoni.
Roughly 7,400 people living in Israel have liquid assets worth over USD 1 million, among them 84 multimillionaires have fortunes worth over USD 30 million, according to the Merrill Lynch/Capgemini World Wealth Report 2005.
The number of Israeli millionaires grew by 12 percent and the number of multimillionaires leapt a whopping 20 percent since last year. The total liquid assets of Israel's wealthy class grew by 25 percent to sum USD 30 billion.
The number of Israeli millionaires per capita was twice the world average. Uri Goldfarb, vice president of Merrill Lynch Israel for private banking, said that the increase in the number of multimillionaires (20 percent) was significantly higher than the world growth rate of 8.5 percent.
The wealth report reveals that in 2005, three Israelis joined the list of the top 500 richest people in the world ? lifting the number of Israelis gracing the list to nine.
Nine richest Israelis in the world
• Shari Arison (holder of controlling interest of Bank Hapoalim): USD 5 billion
• Stef Wertheimer and his familty (Iscar owners): USD 3.5 billion
• Ofer family (Israel Corporation and Bank Mizrahi): USD 3 billion
• Haim Saban (Bezeq owner, made fortune in communications and entertainment): USD 2.8 billion
• Lev Leviev (holder of controlling interest of Africa Israel): USD 2.6 billion
• Yitzhak Tshuva (holder of controlling interest of Delek group): USD 2 billion
• Benny Steinmetz (real estate and diamonds): USD 1.5 billion
• Morris Kahn (founder of Amdocs and Golden Pages): USD 1 billion
• Judith and Jacob Richter (Medinol founders): USD 1 billion
By next year, Stef and Eitan Wertheimer are expected to overtake Arison and reach first place as Israel's richest people. Their fortune after selling Iscar is estimated at over USD 7 billion. In addition businessmen defined as "oligarchs" and Arnon Milchan, who were included in Forbes' list of the world's wealthiest, were left off the current tally because they were not considered Israelis or because their wealth was not in available assets.
The report only considers millionaires whose fortune includes over USD 1 million in available assets, not considering money invested in fixed properties (such as real estate). The report also reveals that very few of Israel's wealthiest dropped off the list since last year.
According to the report, the total fortune of all the world's millionaires equaled USD 33.3 trillion in 2005? an increase of 8.5 percent compared to 2004.
In 2005 the number of millionaires in the world grew by 6.5 percent to USD 8.7 million, and the number of multimillionaires grew by 10.2 percent to reach 85,400.
IDF issues international law handbook for combat officers
Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz, 21/06/2006 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/729298.html
Officers and commanders in combat units are to receive a handbook on international law and war crimes written by the Israel Defense Forces in order to instill in ground forces the importance of observing international conventions. The handbook, whose distribution was launched this week, spells out the weaponry permitted in various combat situations, defines legal and illegal targets, and explains how to distinguish between enemy combatants and non-combatants.
The handbook, compiled by the School of Military Law and the Military Advocate General, intends to knock down some "accepted myths." For example, the book says that soldiers are permitted to fire at paratroopers while they are still in the air and use phosphorus shells and 5.56 mm. bullets. In addition, the book explains that cluster bombs and flachette shells have not been prohibited by international law.
In the chapter on war crimes and the International Criminal Court, it states that: "In 1998, Israel signed the Rome Convention, but in 2003, the Israeli government decided not to ratify it. The State of Israel does not commit war crimes and benefits from legal consultation. If an Israeli soldier commits a crime that is defined in the Rome Convention, Israel itself shall bring that soldier to judgment."
In the article entitled, "Outlook for International Criminal Court Operations," it says that "applications regarding Israeli activities have been rejected out of hand by the court prosecutor due to a lack of authority. It is currently too early to say whether the court will have authority."
The commander of the IDF School of Military Law, Lt. Colonel Baruch Mani, said: "Since the chapter on the International Criminal Court is an important chapter on the laws of war, commanders in the army should be familiar with this entity and with the term, 'war crime'."
"The IDF's policy is not to aim at civilians," Mani continued. "This does not not mean that there are not tragic cases in which civilians are hurt, but this is not by intention, in contrast to terror organizations, which deliberately try to hurt civilians.
"When there are civilian casualties, these are tragic situations, but international law also says that sometimes there is a possibility that a military operation intended to be carried out against a military target where there is a chance that civilians will be hurt does not negate military justification for the operation," Mani said. "If the extent of the damage is disproportionate, then the offensive is prohibited. But if the balance between the target and the possible damage is proportionate, then the possibility that there may be minimal damage to civilians does not necessarily rule out the legitimacy of the target."
It so happens that as I was looking through the rich and valuable store of materials on the Adelaide Institute website I came across a message from Horst Mahler posted there in which I found a troubling passage.
First let me say that Horst Mahler's tireless efforts in defense of Ernst Zündel in the highly repressive climate of Zionist-dominated Germany are a vital component in the battle against Jewish supremacism. My comments are no way directed against him and his important work.
Second, the gist of Horst Mahler's message was a presentation of the views of Johann Gottlieb Fichte in 1793 on the Jewish question. Fichte's remarks are unfortunately little remembered today though their significance is, if anything, of greater importance to day than it was 200 years ago, since we now live in a time of unprecedented world-wide Jewish power. So it is a great service for Mr. Mahler to bring them to the attention of readers once again.
But within Horst Mahler’s message there was also this paragraph which I found highly troubling:
"Concerning the Jews and their offspring, who had obtained Reich citizenship status, a modification of the Fichte-Plan could be enacted: After the clearly anticipated demise of the state-like structure Israel (I estimate in about five years) it may be possible to reach an agreement with the Islamic nation, to enable under strict supervision the return of Jews scattered around the world to the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Euphrates. That is what Jews over thousands of years had hoped for."
German people including Fichte were able to come to the conclusion that the Jewish population of Germany was an alien body that could not be assimilated in German territorial space. In view of that, one would think that it would be even clearer that Arabs would find Jewish colonists in Palestine to be an alien body whose presence in any form would be and remains unacceptable.
Millions of Jewish colonists, quite literally foreigners, brutally colonized Palestine under the armed protection of British colonialism. The Jewish colony remains there today by virtue of its special relationship with the world superpower, the USA, and its own daily bloody repression of the native Arab population in Palestine and surrounding Arab regions.
I know I need not recount for the Adelaide Institute the fact that the Zionist colonial-settler state has committed violent acts of aggression against Arab states as far from Palestine as Tunisia and Iraq, over and above its occupation of territory in five Arab regions and its dispossession of the people of Palestine altogether.
There is, therefore, no chance whatsoever that the Arab and Islamic people would "agree to enable the 'return' of the Jews" to the area between the Mediterranean and the Euphrates River.
There are actually several reasons for this.
To begin with, as I suggested above, the experience of the Zionist colonial entity has been far more than enough to ensure the universal rejection of Jewish settlers or even a Jewish prison colony on Arab soil.
Second, the Arab Nation is struggling to exercise its right to self-determination and a nation can only exercise self-determination on its own soil. That land is therefore intimately bound up with the nation and its history and identity. The Arab Nation is not going to hand over control of any of its territory, least of all some of its very heartland, to alien colonists.
There has been quite a lot of partition of Arab land by all sorts of foreign imperial powers throughout the years. To suggest that the Arabs might partition their own territory after winning it back is not only wrongheaded, but downright insulting.
Time after time in history it has proven very easy for western colonialists to presume to will away the territory of other peoples. That, indeed, was how the Zionist enterprise got its start. It is therefore disturbing that Mr. Mahler would give so little thought to the sacrifice of millions of Arab martyrs who have died resisting the Zionists and imperialists and that he would effectively ignore the Arab right to self-determination and almost casually envisage such an outrage as the voluntary acceptance of a Zionist colony on Arab land.
Why do we find the Zionist assumption that the Arabs can be shoved aside now repeated not by a Zionist but by one of our friends and allies in opposition to the Zionist Jews?
At the very least the Adelaide Institute owes it to their readers to explain that Mr. Mahler's suggestion is certainly not acceptable to the Arab and Muslim peoples - a fact that one would think had been made abundantly clear in the last century of uninterrupted Arab-Islamic struggle against Jewish colonialism.
Furthermore, I would like to object to the fact that Mahler refers to the "return" (Rückkehr) of the Jews to the Arab East. The Jews living in Palestine today are invaders. They are not "returning" to "their land" but invading Arab land that does not in any way, shape, or form belong to them and never has, since it is well known that those Jews who lived there in antiquity were themselves invaders and colonizers.
Pretending that the Jews "belong" in Palestine and that therefore Palestine "belongs" to the Jews is one of the basic features of Zionist propaganda and it seems that Mr. Mahler has himself been influenced by this propaganda, probably quite unconsciously.
We feel it is important, however, to point out such problems in the hopes that this will serve to bring the features of our common struggle into yet sharper focus.
With best regards,
Muhammad Abu Nasr on behalf of the FAV editorial board.
1. Good news - again - but for how much longer? The control freak hucksters will be un-pleased and anti-happy and stirrrrrr the hatred pot some more... and Europe laughs at Germany's pathetic subservience to things Jewish - tomorrow, the world will laugh at them as well!
2. Note how the President’s Dr title is never used by western media outlets when they refer to the Iranian President - and his academic title is a substantial one - a Dr of Engineering - not just philosophy. The comment about 'wiping Israel off the map' is, of course, also a misquote by those who are experts in smearing jobs because they themselves have lost the plot and thereby reveal to the world their moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
Ahmadinejad calls for Holocaust inquiry
June 16, 2006. 9:00pm
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says an independent investigation needs to be held into the Holocaust.
Mr Ahmadinejad has previously called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and insisted the Holocaust was a myth used to justify the country's creation.
"A historical event that has the influence and many lasting political equations of the world needs to be investigated and researched by impartial and independent groups," he said, during a visit to Shanghai.
"If it is true, then this question should not be solved in Palestine."
Mr Ahmadinejad says the "problem was not the Jews" but the "Zionists, which have hidden behind Judaism", referring to supporters for the state of Israel.
Israel's memorial to the estimated six million Jews killed in World War Two, the Yad Vashem insitute, has denounced Mr Ahmadinejad for making anti-Semitic comments.
"Recent trends in Iran represent a clear feature of current anti-Semitism - the ties between Islamic radicals and Holocaust deniers," a spokeswoman said. The Iranian President has been attending the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), a regional security grouping.
No grand opening for Hitler shrine
By Courtney Flynn and Dan Gibbard
Chicago Tribune staff reporters,
June 15, 2006
SUGAR CREEK, Wis. -- A retired farmer in southeast Wisconsin has built a memorial to Adolf Hitler, hoping to spread his admiration for perhaps the world's most notorious man.
But on Thursday, Ted Junker, 87, agreed not to hold a grand opening as planned June 25 after authorities asked him to cancel the event.
Junker said he would still allow visitors into the shrine-a white concrete structure built into the side of a hill, reachable down a narrow dirt path that is nearly a mile from the nearest road.
"On your property, you can invite anybody on you want," Junker said. A door to the memorial was propped open with cinder blocks Thursday, and members of the news media who stopped by were invited to see it.
Michael Cotter, deputy corporation counsel for Walworth County, said Junker agreed Thursday to sign a restraining order stating that the memorial would not be open to the public unless he obtained the appropriate permits.
But Cotter conceded that authorities could not legally keep all visitors away from Junker's home.
"If a person came up to the house, knocked on the door and asked to see the shrine, it would not be against the law," Cotter said. "But if the neighbors notice 50 people a day are driving down the driveway to see this Hitler shrine, then we would have to take some enforcement action."
In any case, the shrine, which has framed pictures of Hitler and plaques that contend the Holocaust never happened, has prompted outrage from neighbors and Jewish leaders.
"I don't think there's anyone around here who supports him," said Pete Ruby, an employee at a nearby machine shop. "To me it's a mockery."
The regional office of the Anti-Defamation League characterized the memorial as "the sickening work of an unrepentant anti-Semite and Holocaust denier."
"Our concern is that this could very easily become a place of pilgrimage," said Adam Schupack, associate director for the league's Chicago office. "The average person who sees what Mr. Junker is doing would be horrified. However, neo-Nazis and white supremacists still glorify Hitler and his works, and they see Mr. Junker in a far different light. ... They look up to the [Nazi Waffen] SS, they see them as the elite of the Nazi party."
Junker said he served in the Waffen SS during World War II and believes Hitler was the greatest man who ever lived. He said he was born in Romania and went to Germany in 1940 and joined the SS. He moved to Chicago in 1955 and later bought a farm near Millard, Wis.
He initially planned to build a much larger Hitler facility. In 2001 Junker applied to build a multistory building with a 300-seat assembly hall, a dining hall and a radio station, Cotter said. Although that proposal was denied, Junker was allowed in 2002 to build a storage shed, which has evolved into the memorial, he said.
"I want understanding of the truth that Hitler didn't start the war," Junker said Thursday at his home. "The Holocaust is the biggest lie in the history of mankind. It never happened."
But many take issue with those beliefs.
A man who lives just down the street from Junker was shocked to learn about the memorial and called it "sick."
"It's kind of surprising that one of my neighbors would want to hold a shrine to Hitler," said Jerold Gaches, 24. "It's wrong, just wrong. What good did he do?" Schupack said Junker is unusual because most people with a Nazi past try to hide it rather than boast.
Junker, who said he spent $200,000 to build the memorial, said he is not bothered by people who disagree with him and his main goal is to promote understanding.
Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor and expert on the 1st Amendment, said a private Hitler display is protected by the Constitution and there isn't much a community can do to muzzle someone with provocative views.
"They could put up a big sign saying, 'We disapprove of this; don't go there,'" Volokh said. "[But] people are free to express their views."
Zoning laws can be used to stop a public memorial, he said, but only if they are applied evenhandedly.
"They can't selectively enforce it" because a community doesn't like what someone is saying, he said.
Numerous countries in Europe, including Germany and Austria, make it a crime to deny the Holocaust.
"We are unusual in the West in protecting pretty much all ideas, even those that are deemed offensive and reprehensible," but that's a good thing, Volokh said.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
David Irving should not be censored, says Singer
[in German Blumenthal = flower valley]
HOLOCAUST-DENIER David Irving should not be censored, despite his absurd views, philosopher and ethicist Professor Peter Singer told a 1000-strong audience at the Sydney Writers’ Festival.
Of the three panellists at the event addressing the issue “What makes a civil society”, it was the Melbourne-born Jewish philosopher and writer -described by the New Yorker as one of the most influential philosophers alive - who captured the imagination of the audience at Sydney Town Hall last Sunday, stressing that freedom is the hallmark of any civil society.
“Freedom of speech and expression are crucial elements of a civil society,” Professor Singer said.
He said that Irving’s recent imprisonment in Austria and the cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed could not be judged separately because in both cases, no matter the absurdity of the views espoused, Irving and the cartoonists have the right to freedom of speech.
On Irving, he said: “This is an issue with much personal significance as three of my four grandparents were killed by the Nazis.”
Professor Singer added that when he was to take up a position at Princeton University, where he still teaches bioethics, Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes threatened to withdraw his financial support for the university due to Professor Singer’s support for euthanasia and abortion.
“Fortunately the dean remained unmoved and said that he felt privileged to defend freedom of speech in such a way,” he said.
In defending the virtues of liberty, Professor Singer, whose 1975 book Animal Liberation is credited with launching an entire movement, said that the state should intervene only when one inflicts harm to others.
In issues of assisted suicide, Professor Singer said the state had no right to intervene. “Although the state’s paternalistic attitude in forcing people to wear seat belts has saved countless lives,” he conceded.
Singer concluded that in a civil society we have a global responsibility and must look after our fellow human beings, and the environment. “One, if not five, dollars of every hundred dollars we have should go to charity,” Professor Singer said. The other panellists were feminist author Naomi Wolf and University of NSW law professor Martin Krygier.
Antisemite’s legacy lives on, say leaders
JUNE 15, 2006
ERIC Butler may be gone, but his legacy lives on in Australia, Jewish leaders said this week following the death of the notorious antisemite.
Butler, the founder of the far-right Australian League of Rights, died in Melbourne last week, aged 90.
Federal member for Melbourne Ports Michael Danby said that while Butler’s death ends a lifelong “career” of antisemitism, his work lives on through Lyndon LaRouche, “a wealthier, more influential and much more dangerous bigot”, who runs the similarly far-right, but anti-monarchist Citizens’ Electoral Council.
Butler’s career goes back to the 1930s when the League of Rights “was the leading extreme-right organisation in Australia, promoting a strange mix of monarchism, rural populism, racism and antisemitism”, Danby said.
B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission executive officer Manny Waks said Australian Jewry “will certainly not be mourning the death of this unrepentant antisemite”.
Mark Aarons, an expert on Nazis in Australia, said Butler was a “leading fascist, a racist of the highest order, most especially he was an antisemite”.
Dr Rodney Gouttman, a senior ADC policy analyst and researcher of right-wing groups in Australia, said: “For the Australian Jewish community particularly, his death will not be lamented, but surely welcomed.”
In the early years of World War II, Butler produced two pamphlets, “The war behind the war” and “The enemy within”, which warned of the “demonic powers” of the Jew. In 1946, he published his “seminal” work, The International Jew: The Truth About the Protocols of Zion.
Butler and his associates later infiltrated the Country Party (now the National Party) and courted several politicians from both sides of politics with their antisemitic propaganda.
David Thompson took over as the league’s leader in 1992, with Butler remaining its national patron. In the late 1990s, Butler accused One Nation leader Pauline Hanson of stealing some of his ideas.
Jewish leaders suspend call to dump ALP candidate
Melissa Singer, JUNE 15, 2006
JEWISH leaders have temporarily suspended calls for the Victorian ALP to dump a candidate who has reportedly glorified suicide bombers, provided he distances himself from views his party claims are not his own.
In a private meeting with top-level advisers of Premier Steve Bracks this week, Jewish Community Council of Victoria president Anton Block called on Syrian-born trucking magnate Khalil Eideh to denounce statements in a 2002 letter that reportedly praises “Arab heroes and martyrs” and pledged allegiance to Syrian President Bashir Assad.
Eideh has reportedly agreed to meet with Block and other Jewish leaders to explain his position when he returns from overseas.
Also at Tuesday’s meeting were Executive Council of Australian Jewry president Grahame Leonard and B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission chairman Dr Paul Gardner.
Block said the trio were satisfied that the premier is “trying to find a way ... to alleviate the concerns that we have”, with a detailed statement from Eideh condemning the views in the letter a condition of the meeting.
“The question is what level of reflection of his views [the statements in the letter] represent,” Block said. “Subject to being satisfied that those aren’t his views, then I have no issue [with his candidacy].”
Leonard said Bracks’ chief of staff, Tim Pallas, assured the group that the statements were part of a form letter carrying 500 signatories and were not personally penned by Eideh.
“It’s not unusual in the Arab world to use such flowery language, but that doesn’t excuse it,” Leonard said.
To date, Eideh, who is running for a safe seat in the Western Metropolitan Region in the Victorian Upper House, has only issued a statement pledging to “continue to work towards a tolerant and diverse society that embraces and celebrates cultural differences. I would never assist a regime that supports or promotes terror,” said Eideh, who has lived in Australia for 36 years.
A 'Holocaust' believer's lament - needs to scapegoat because of a failure of moral and intellectual courage to develop a worthy world view
From: John Zube
Wednesday, 14 June 2006
Who did ever doubt that in most modern wars as well many wrongs are committed by both sides???
The very nature of territorial governments is wrong and when they engage in mass slaughter then more wrongs are to be expected from these "warfare States".
I had long thought that a simple list of all known Jewish victims would be an aid to counter-act the holocaust deniers.
While going through a large stack of clippings in search of some info that I mislaid, I came across a story in THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD of 23. 11. 04, which pointed out that at least a list of 3 million murdered Jews was compiled, still VERY incomplete, and accessible under www.yadvashem.org
You would simply have to prove that many of those listed there as murdered did, in fact, survive somewhere and lived for many years afterwards quite happily.
One of quite a few ideas that I had - only to find later, that were already realized by some others!
If you are still able and willing to learn anything on the subject - here is your chance.
For me the fact that my Godfather's wife and her grandmother were the only ones of a Jewish family in Germany, with 32 members, who survived the Holocaust - the events that you continue to deny - was good enough for me. I do not need further statistics.
I also know that my mother sheltered, at the risk of her life, some Jewish "illegals", i.e. people living underground.
Another eye-witness, one of my bosses at the LVA Berlin, lived near Treblinka and saw the crowded trains arriving, the empty ones leaving and the heavy smoke produced by burning the bodies. But then he was one of those who are actually able to put two and two together. That was rare among the Nazis.
E.g.: They arrested e.g. Ulrich von Beckerath for his publication of three monetary freedom books in Switzerland. But they let him go, because they thought that his anti-etatist writings on money were simply too absurd to be taken serious.
Well, the forerunner of your hero, Hitler, was also very close to illiterate. He read even less worthwhile books than Hitler did and bragged about it: After school Hindenburg read only 4 books!
His Mein Kampf is to about one third just filled with antisemitic ravings and lies that he soaked up in largely antisemitic Vienna, just like the poor whites in the US South imagined themselves to be very superior to blacks, simply because they were not black. Over-compensation of an inferiority complex.
What kind of "judgment" can one expect from such people? Something like selecting Hitler as Reichs-Chancellor!
That Hindenburg did and by it he committed treason against Germany. It was the beginning of the End for "Great Germany", which he damaged almost as much as did the 30-year war did.
I know many other truths and facts that are still denied by the majority even of anarchists and libertarians, who imagine themselves to be the most enlightened people in the world. Especially when it comes to full monetary freedom and full exterritorialist voluntarism and its organizations.
But I also know that the "Brett vor'm Kopf" of your German Nazi associates is very very thick.
We had only one Nazi in my family, the younger brother of my mother, who joined this movement in his youth, at 19, when his critical faculty was certainly not yet developed. After the war it still took him 7 years to finally see the light.
But, as your example and that of your associates demonstrates, some are VERY SLOW learners, even slower than my uncle Erich was and regarding them I give up hope altogether.
As G. C. Lichtenberg once said: Many people imagine that their brain is their most noble organ. But throw any kind of rubbish into your stomach and it will tend to heave it out again. But when you throw any kind of rubbish into a human brain or a computer - then it might retain it for the rest of its life.
It is not intelligence that most people lack but lack of JUDGEMENT.
There were quite a few intelligent Nazis, too, good enough to pass academic examination.
But, when it came to "social sciences", just like the majority of academics in that sphere, they mostly fell for popular myths, errors and prejudices.
Compare: GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. In schools as well as in universities - and in most books in the social "sciences".
Fredrick Töben responds
Thursday, 15 June 2006
John, let me briefly respond to your email below:
1. I like your, perhaps unintended, implied suggestion: - time wasting is an art form designed by deceivers then fed to the gullible who would not dare to admit to themselves that they have been deceived for month, years, decades.
2. There are only two types of individuals when it comes to the 'Holocaust' - those ignorant of the facts, and liars.
3. You are a classic case of the former, and I don't know if you are willing to remedy that by informing yourself through mental effort - for some a painful activity.
4. For example, the premise on which your current comments are based is unsound, factually and theoretically. You are swimming with an argument that is not factually founded, and so because your premise is faulty-false-deceptive, the material below is not making a worthy contribution to the stock of knowledge that exists on this topic.
5. In your item below, the penultimate and final paragraphs sum up your own state of mind almost perfectly. I thus give you credit for having at least self-reflected a little and given us, albeit unintentionally, a description of your state of mind for all to see - a partial representation of your confused, shallow, unimaginative and narcissistic infantile world view.
6. Point of expression: you read fewer books, not less books.
Top | Home
©-free 2006 Adelaide Institute