The Anti-Defamation League

Were the Spies "Journalists"? The ADL Snoops/From Counterpunch

THE ADL SPYING CASE IS OVER, BUT THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES

Winning wasn't easy, but fight after is harder

Machinations of the Anti-Defamation League by Paul N. McCloskey, Jr.

An Act of Censorship: American Library Association
Becomes Another Israeli Occupied Territory By Jeffrey Blankfort

       Were the Spies "Journalists"?

       The ADL Snoops

The organization's main "fact-finder" was doubling as a spy for the white South African government while his buddy, a San Francisco cop who had tutored El Salvadoran death squads on the finer aspects of torture, was providing its officials with personal information on the organization's putative enemies when the story broke in San Francisco in December, 1992. The organization was the Anti-Defamation League.

The ADL claims to be the nation's leading defender against prejudice and bigotry but in this instance its targets were members of the African National Congress and its supporters, and apparently everyone, Arab and non-Arab, who had the temerity to criticize Israel. This included some who drove to Arab community events where the ADL's "fact-finder," Roy Bullock, and the cop, Tom Gerard, took turns writing down their license plate numbers, which Gerard turned into addresses thanks to his access to California motor vehicle records.

Their spying efforts proved to be part of a much larger intelligence gathering operation that targeted some 12,000 individuals and more than 600 left-of-center organizations in northern California.

After the first flurry of publicity, the ADL's spin doctors successfully kept the story from receiving the national coverage that the situation warranted. But the story hasn't gone away.

Last November the California Court of Appeals handed down a decision that paves the way for a major test later this year of the ADL's penchant for spying on its enemies. It was the most significant episode in a slow-moving class-action case filed in 1993 by 19 pro-Palestinian and anti-apartheid activists who claim to be victims of the ADL's snooping operations.

The plaintiffs say they were illegally spied on by Bullock, then considered the ADL's top "fact-finder" by his now deceased chief, Irwin Suall, and that such spying constituted an invasion of privacy under the provisions of the California Constitution.

The ADL's defense, accepted by the court in 1994, is that the Jewish defense organization is, collectively, a "journalist" and, therefore, can legally engage in information-gathering activities regardless of the source. At question was access by the plaintiffs to information contained in 10 boxes of files seized by the San Francisco police from the ADL's San Francisco office in April, 1993, and placed under court seal where the ADL has fought fiercely to keep them. In the years since then, efforts by the court to settle the case have foundered on the ADL's refusal to allow potentially embarrassing depositions taken by plaintiffs' lawyer ex-Congressman Paul (Pete) McCloskey of Bullock, ADL officials and police officers to be be made public and its files opened. The plaintiffs have been unwilling to compromise on either of these issues.

Then, in September, 1997, Judge Alex Saldamondo ruled that McCloskey's clients were entitled to see what the ADL had on them in its files. Two plaintiffs, Jeffrey Blankfort and Steve Zeltzer, co-founders of the Labor Committee on the Middle East, who had "outed" Bullock as an ADL spy after he infiltrated their group in 1987, received an extract of their files from the DA's office the day before they were ordered sealed. Both contain illegally obtained information, much of which, say Blankfort and Zeltzer, is erroneous.

When ADL's appeal of that decision was rejected by Court of Appeals Judge Anthony Kline, the ADL persuaded the State Supreme Court to return the case to the full court for a hearing. On November 15, 1998, the court reaffirmed ADL's status as a journalist and acknowledged its right to maintain files and obtain information on all but two of the remaining plaintiffs on the basis that they are "limited-purpose public figures", which it defined as having been publicly engaged and identified in activities around a particular issue, in this instance opposition to Israeli occupation and/or South African apartheid. There is no protection, said the court, for obtaining information illegally on non-public figures.

The court made an important qualification, however, ruling that for "limited purpose" figures, the journalist's shield only applies if the information obtained is to be used for journalistic purposes. It does not protect the ADL from charges that it passed information about the plaintiffs to "foreign governments (in this instance, Israel or South Africa) or to others", which is what the plaintiffs claim the ADL has done.

Although the Court of Appeals vacated Judge Saldamando's decision, it did state that representatives of the plaintiffs had the right to request a review of ADL's files to discover possible constitutional violations, each of which would be worth $2500. While this may seem a small sum, there are hundreds of Arab-Americans and anti-apartheid activists whose names appear in the ADL's files who potentially could collect if the ADL loses in court or is forced to settle the case.

The origins of the story are murky. What the press reported was that the SFPD acted on a tip from the FBI, which was supposedly concerned about files on the Nation of Islam that were stolen from its local office, and arrested Gerard, who allegedly had done the pilfering. In Gerard's computer they found files on more than 7,000 individuals, many of them Arab-Americans, as well as information on hundreds of left-to-liberal organizations filed by Gerard as "pinko". In his locker, they found a black executioner's hood, a number of photos of dark-skinned men bound and blindfolded, CIA manuals, a secret document on interrogation techniques, stamped "secret" and referring to El Salvador, and numerous passports and IDs in a variety of names, all with his picture.

This splendid fellow began meeting with Richard Hirschhaut, chief of the ADL's San Francisco office in 1986, during which, according to a "confidential" Hirschhaut memo to the aforementioned ADL chief "fact-finder" Suall, he provided "a significant amount of information" on "the activities of specific Arab organizations and individuals in the Bay Area". That memo hasn't been made public but what was reported created a nightmare for the ADL when it turned out that Gerard had been exchanging non-public, personal information from government files with Bullock, a paid informant for the ADL since 1954 and whose own computerized "pinko" files on leftish and liberal folks, when seized by the police, proved to be a third again as large as Gerard's. According to police, his computer contained the names of nearly 12,000 individuals, 77 Arab-American organizations, 29 anti-apartheid organizations, and more than 600 "pinko" groups which included such revolutionary outfits as the NAACP, Asian Law Caucus and SANE/FREEZE, as well as 20 Bay area labor unions including the SF Labor Council. There were in addition, files on 612 right-wing organizations and 27 skinhead groups.

According to SF police inspector Ron Roth, 75 percent of their contents was non-public information illegally obtained from government agencies.

After indicating that the ADL would be charged with violating the California's Business and Profession's code, SF District Attorney Arlo Smith did an extraordinary thing. He made available to the public, merely for the copying costs, some 700 pages of documents incriminating the ADL in a nation-wide intelligence gathering operation run out of New York by Suall. One of the significant parts of that report was Bullock's admission that he was paid by a South African intelligence agent to spy on anti-apartheid activists (which he was already doing for the ADL.) He had reported on a visit to California by the ANC's Chris Hani, ten days before the man expected by many to succeed Nelson Mandela, returned home to be brutally murdered.

The ADL attempted to portray Bullock as a free-lance investigator, but no one was convinced, because since 1954 Bullock had been paid through a cutout, an ADL lawyer in Beverly Hills. After his exposure, Bullock was put directly on the ADL's payroll. ADL's position on the ANC was identical to that of the South African government - they considered it to be a "terrorist", "communist" organization. At the time, Israel was furnishing arms to maintain the apartheid regime in power.

In1994, Smith announced that he would not prosecute either the ADL or Bullock since it would be "expensive and time-consuming both to the SFDA and the defendants," a curious judgement considering the overwhelming evidence in his possession.

In its settlement with the city, the ADL, admitted no wrongdoing, agreed to restrain their operatives from seeking non-public data on ADL's enemies from government agencies and, putting a happy face on the story, promised to create a $25,000 Hate Crimes Fund and another $25,000 for a public school course.

Another class-action case filed by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and other spied-upon groups such as CISPES, the Bay Area Anti-Apartheid Network and the National Lawyers Guild, was settled in 1996, also under conditions favorable to the ADL, but without the approval of some of the suing groups.

In that instance, again without admitting wrongdoing or opening its files, the ADL agreed: to remove questionably obtained information from its files; that it would not seek non-public information on individuals from government employees and would pay $25,000 to a fund to improve relations among Jews, blacks and other minorities. A similar deal was offered to McCloskey's plaintiffs but they turned it down since it would let the ADL off the hook and allow its secrets to be kept intact.

Both sides will be back in Judge Saldamando's court in March to hear a new discovery motion from McCloskey and probably to set a trial date, something the ADL has been trying to avoid, given the embarrassment that would inevitably ensue, whatever the outcome. Its latest ploy has been to ask the judge for a summary judgement, in other words, dismissal of the case, something he is unlikely to do.

The deaths of veteran journalists Colin Edwards and George Green reduced the number of plaintiffs by two and subsequently four others, whose political activities were relatively limited, were dropped from the case. McCloskey, himself a victim of ADL attacks and whose wife Helen is one of the plaintiffs, is pursuing the case pro bono. Typically he is faced in court by four or five lawyers for the ADL. 

Contributions for the plaintiffs may be sent to Paul N. McCloskey, Jr. Atty., 333 Bradford St., Redwood City, CA 94063 (For more information see: http://www.adlwatch.org or e-mail at melblcome@igc.com .) CP

[Copyright © 2002 CounterPunch.com]

Reproduced gratefully from:  CounterPunch

February 25, 2002

THE ADL SPYING CASE IS OVER, 
BUT THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES

 http://www.counterpunch.org/adlspying2.html 

by JEFFREY BLANKFORT, ANNE POIRIER and STEVE ZELTZER Plaintiffs in the ADL Spying Case

In 1993, the District Attorney of San Francisco released 700 pages of documents implicating the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organization that claims to be a defender of civil rights, in a vast spying operation directed against American citizens who were opposed to Israel's policies in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza and to the apartheid policies of the government of South Africa and passing on information to both governments.

Under great political pressure, [Arlo] Smith later dropped the charges. One wonders what would have happened had an Arab-American or Muslim organization been caught spying with the names of 10,000 people and 600 organizations in their files.

Not only were critics of Israel under ADL's surveillance, including thousands of Arab-Americans, but labor organizations such as the San Francisco Labor Council, ILWU Local 10 and the Oakland Educational Association, and civil rights groups such as the NAACP, Irish Northern Aid, International Indian Treaty Council and the Asian Law Caucus were also found in the "pinko" files of ADL's undercover operative, Roy Bullock.

Moreover, Bullock, who had worked, off the books, for the ADL for more than 25 years, admitted that he had been reporting on the activities of black South African exiles and American anti-apartheid activists for South African intelligence.

Bullock, pretending to be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, came to the founding meeting of the Labor Committee of the Middle East in 1987 at the home of plaintiff Steve Zeltzer, having met Zeltzer at meetings of the Free Moses Mayekiso Defense Committee, a South African labor solidarity committee in which he also infiltrated under false pretenses.

Having been responsible for exposing Bullock as an ADL agent to the media, we joined together with other Bay Area activists in filing a suit against the ADL for violation of our privacy rights as provided in California law.

Almost a decade later the suit has been settled with a significant cash payment by the ADL and, we wish to emphasize, without our signing any agreement for confidentiality which the ADL had previously demanded. Our efforts to expose the organization's work in defending the policies of the Israeli government and stifling its opponents will continue, using new information gained in the pursuance of the suit.

The ADL spent millions of dollars preventing this case from coming to trial through costly appeals and exploiting the judicial process but, at the end, it had to give up.

During the course of the suit we learned that:

Bullock, the ADL's top "fact finder" had sold confidential information to a South African intelligence agent in San Francisco for $15,000.

Ten days before he was assassinated in South Africa, Chris Hani, the man who would have succeeded Nelson Mandela as the country's President, was trailed by Bullock on a trip through California who reported on it to the South African government.

ADL agent Roy Bullock was discovered to have a floor plan of murdered Los Angeles Arab-American leader Alex Odeh and a key to his office.

The ADL supplied confidential information to foreign governments that it obtained from police and federal agencies in the U.S.

Having infiltrated the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC - http://www.adc.org), the ADL's "fact finder" performed a COINTEL-type operation at the convention of the Holocaust-denying Journal of Historical Review when he put ADC's literature on convention tables as a way of smearing the committee for "working with anti- Semites."

The ADL has organized to silence and eliminate all critical voices of Israel from academia and the media and has targeted professors, particularly those who are African-American, and who are critical of Israel.

That at least 51% of the activities of its San Francisco office were devoted to defending Israel.

The ADL provided secret files to police agencies when these police agencies were prevented by law from collecting the files themselves.

Many questions must still be answered about the activities of the ADL and it's non-profit status as an "education organization". The settlement offered by the ADL is recognition on its part that it could not afford to go to a trial in front of a jury and face the likelihood that more of its dirty secrets would be revealed.

We call on all people to make sure that these practices on the part of the ADL are not allowed to continue and that the double standard that presently dominates this country on issues dealing with Israel be eliminated.

Finally, we wish to thank our attorney, former Congressman Pete McCloskey, himself a victim of the ADL and the Israel Lobby, for his years of work on our behalf and his steadfast commitment to the pursuit of justice.

Jeffrey Blankfort can be reached at: jab@tucradio.org

For more information on this case read CounterPunch's story, The ADL Snoops - Were the Spies "Journalists"?

[Copyright © 2002 CounterPunch.com]

CounterPunch
3220 N Street, NW, Suite 346
Washington, DC 20007 USA
Telephone: 1-800-840-3683
E-Mail: counterpunch@counterpunch.com
CP Website: http://www.CounterPunch.com
About CP: http://www.counterpunch.org/aboutus.html
CounterPunch is a project of the Institute for the Advancement of
Journalistic Clarity.


PRO-ISRAEL ADL ILLEGALLY SPIED ON AMERICAN CITIZENS
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/InfoTimes/message/1280
- The ADL Spying Case is Over, But the Struggle Continues
http://www.counterpunch.org/adlspying2.html
- Were the Spies "Journalists"?
http://www.counterpunch.org/adlspies.html
- How Americans are Blackmailed by Israel
http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20020224202106987
- American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)
http://www.adc.org
- Office of the San Francisco District Attorney Mr. Terence Hallinan
http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/da
- Office of the San Francisco City Attorney Mr. Dennis J. Herrera
http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/cityattorney

http://www.examiner.com/news/default.jsp?story=n.adl.0402w 

Winning wasn't easy, but fight after is harder

This is the last of a two-part series on the hidden workings of the Anti-Defamation League and how three Bay Area activists were able to uncover a spy operation that reached into the San Francisco Police Department. Today: Acerbic battle leaves sour taste.

By Dan Evans Of The Examiner Staff

After nearly a decade of fighting the Anti-Defamation League in court, attorney Pete McCloskey is as bitter as a man who consumed a gallon of vinegar.

The former Republican congressman from San Mateo, who recently won a settlement from the civil rights group for three Bay Area residents, is still tending to emotional wounds he endured from the ADL simply for defending his clients' rights.

"They come after anyone that disagrees with them," he said of the organization's tactics to paint him as an anti-Semite.

The decorated retired Marine, who represented his San Mateo County district in the House of Representatives from 1967 to 1983, is anything but an ideologue. He was one of the few Republicans who opposed the Vietnam War and fought with President Nixon on numerous occasions.

While he vehemently denies any ties to anti-Semitic or neo-Nazis groups, some of the avenues he chose to express his views have not helped his case.

Anti-Semitic newspaper

While in Congress, McCloskey granted an interview in 1982 with the anti-Semitic newspaper Spotlight. And in May 2000, he gave a speech at a conference of the Institute of Historical Review, a Holocaust revisionist group.

McCloskey spoke to the Spotlight because, he believes, one should speak to people they disagree with as much as people they agree with. The newspaper was the publication of the now-defunct Liberty Lobby.

Though he acknowledged the newspaper's subscribers were primarily right-wingers and racists, ascribing him similar views are ridiculous, he said.

"Not a year didn't go by during the years I was in Congress that the Spotlight didn't blast me as being a liberal Republican," he said.

In the Oct. 11, 1982 edition of the paper, McCloskey said Republicans were far better politically positioned than Democrats to push for a Palestinian state because GOP candidates were not as beholden to Jewish money to get elected.

"The battle will be for public opinion in the United States, whether the Congress will be willing to back Reagan and stand up to the Jewish lobby in this country," he said.

However, he also stated in the interview that he disagreed with 90 percent of the group's views, and suggested that peace in the Middle East would only be realized when the United States gave equal merit to both Arab and Israeli viewpoints.

Disagreement

As for his connection to the Institute of Historical Review, McCloskey said he respected the group's determination to question historical records. He said he strongly disagreed with the group's view on the Holocaust, but supported its right to say it.

In a letter last year to the group's president, Mark Weber, McCloskey spoke of his visits to death camps and his conviction that "there was a deliberate policy of extermination of Jews, Poles, gypsies and homosexuals by the Nazi leadership."

McCloskey also suggested Weber's group give up its views about the Holocaust, and instead focus on what he called the ADL's distortions of truth, one of them being its claim McCloskey was a Holocaust denier.

"It was like when Bush went down to Bob Jones University, and his political opponents tried to identify him with Bob Jones," he said, referring to the conservative South Carolina school that, until recently, prohibited interracial dating. "It's ridiculous."

"The primary view of the ADL is that Jews should not be stereotyped or guilty by association," he continued. "Yet you see them trying to discredit people by virtue of their association."

One of his clients, Steve Zeltzer, acknowledged he wasn't entirely comfortable with McCloskey going to the Institute of Historical Review convention. Still, he said, he supports the right of free speech, even if he strongly disagrees with the content.

"I wouldn't have done it, and I was opposed to him going," Zeltzer said. "I wouldn't attend one of their conferences. They have a right to say what they want to say, but I don't support their positions."

Another client, Anne Poirier, said she had not heard about her attorney's attendance at the conference and so couldn't comment on it.

"One thing I know for sure, though, is he's not an anti-Semite," said the Berkeley resident. "I'll go mano-a-mano with anybody that says so."

 E-mail Dan Evans at devans@sfexaminer.com

Machinations of the Anti-Defamation League

You might wonder why a man would leave northern California and come to southern California in the middle of a lovely weekend. I came because I respect the thesis of this organization -- the thesis being that there should be a reexamination of whatever governments say or politicians say or political entities say. I was in politics for fifteen years, and I think you should start with the assumption: never trust a politician.

In 1964 I was on active duty in the Marine Corps over at Camp Pendleton, a few miles from here. I was then leading a Marine Corps Reserve officer class studying counter-insurgency. It was during that time that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was enacted by Congress [August 7, 1964], and you may remember that the Secretary of State [Dean Rusk] and the Secretary of Defense [Robert McNamara] came before Congress and said that [North Vietnamese] torpedo boats had attacked two U.S. destroyers, the Maddox and the Turner Joy. The Congress voted nearly unanimously to authorize the President to go to war in Vietnam, one of the most tragic mistakes that we ever made. The two men I fought under in Korea, General MacArthur and General Ridgeway, both said: Never again fight a land war on the Asian continent; it is not a place for Americans. Nevertheless we went to war, and a great American, Senator William Fulbright, said it is the responsibility of the politician to lead in the reexamination both of policy and in historical fact, which is exactly the thesis of this organization. Because if you're going to make policy decisions, you need to know what the facts are.

You may remember when Lyndon Johnson announced [March 31, 1968] that he would not run for a second term as president. For some years he had told everyone in the Congress that we were doing the right thing in Vietnam: that we had to bring the coonskin home because we couldn't afford to be, as President Nixon put it, a "pitiful, helpless giant." We had to win that war, he said, and for a long time he was convinced, based on his daily briefings, that we were winning the war.

One of my friends from Stanford law school, and my debate partner in the moot court debates there in 1950, was John Ehrlichman. Years later, when he went to prison in 1975, I asked John what had caused a fine, honest lawyer to become a corrupt servant to President Nixon and to lie to the Congress. And I asked him why Henry Kissinger had been making the foreign policy of the United States, rather than the Secretary of State, William Rogers, who by law was entrusted with that responsibility. And he told me: "Pete, it's this way. Every morning at seven o'clock Richard Nixon gets his briefing of events around the world. There were briefings from State, Defense, and the CIA, but we couldn't trust any of those three agencies because the warfare amongst them was greater than their desire to tell the truth to the President of the United States. Therefore, Kissinger became the censor of those three reports. He took and collated the State, Defense and CIA reports, so that the President got a single briefing from Henry Kissinger. Well, Kissinger's policies being what they were, you can imagine what that could do to the policy of the United States."

Free speech and civil courage

Earlier here today I listened to speeches about the courage of men in France, Britain, Germany, and New Zealand who have spoken out against the commonly accepted concept of what occurred during the Second World War in the so-called Holocaust. And I wanted to tell you a story that every American ought to know, because we do have free speech in this country, and a judicial system with the right to jury trial. Whatever you may think of the ability of given judges, or the ability of given members of the press, the independent judiciary and press have saved us from the kind of things that have been described here today in Germany or Britain or Canada.

I remember that one time, during a visit to New Zealand, a radio talk show host there commented that, based on statistics, four percent of the one hundred men in New Zealand's Parliament would be homosexual, which meant that four members of Parliament could be homosexual. Well, they hauled this talk show host up in front of a parliamentary committee and threatened to lock him up and throw away the key for contempt of Parliament. He whined and whimpered, and said, "I didn't mean to say four members of the parliament are homosexual, but that's just the statistics, and if they are a representative sample of the population, four would be homosexual." With his apology and humbling, they let him go. Within six months, three members of the New Zealand Parliament admitted they were homosexual.

But it's different in America. How many of you know the story of John Peter Zenger? If you reexamine history, and go back to 1733-1735 in New York, the royal governor of this British colony was a man named William Cosby. And a very brave editor, John Peter Zenger -- maybe the David McCalden or the Mark Weber of his time -- came out and said in his paper that "Cosby is corrupt. He's taking money from the royal treasury. The government is corrupt, and the governor is corrupt." He was hauled up for trial [on a charge of seditious libel]. In keeping with English common law, he had a right to a jury trial, and the chief justice in the case instructed the jury, twelve men tried and true: "You must find John Peter Zenger guilty because he has criticized the government. It is important and essential to the preservation of government that people have a good opinion of it. Therefore, you must find him guilty." [Zenger's lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, argued that because what Zenger had written was true, he should be acquitted.] Well, the jury took about twenty minutes to acquit Zenger. As a result, when we later adopted our Bill of Rights [1791], we put into it two essential rights: the right of free speech and free press, and the right of trial by jury. And that has generally protected people in this country in expressing whatever dissenting views they cared to express -- from everything except the scorn of their peers in the same field.

I may not agree with you about everything I've heard today, or what you might feel, but your right to say what you believe and to research things that are alleged as true, and to try to disprove them, is perhaps the most important part of our democracy.

That's what we're up against now with the Anti-Defamation League, and I think ultimately we're going to win. When you think about those rights -- which they don't have in Canada or Britain or New Zealand or France or Germany, where people can go to jail for expressing unpopular thoughts -- thank God we're Americans.

Reactive repression

Let me go back now to the ADL -- after all, this speech is entitled "Machinations of the ADL" -- and let me tell you a little about my experiences. I'm a fourth generation Californian. My father and both grandfathers were lawyers here in southern California. I grew up in a little town called San Marino, a classic all-white suburb. The last I heard there were 9,000 voters, 8,700 of them Republicans. There were no blacks in San Marino, and there were no Jews. They kept Jews out of San Marino by asking, "What's the maiden name of your mother?" The real estate people had a conspiracy. As with blacks, Jews in your neighborhood were supposed to make property values drop.

My father was a member of a law firm called Horwitz & McCloskey, which was on Spring Street in downtown Los Angeles when that was the city's legal center. I remember once when I was a boy, he said, "Son, we Irish need the Jews. We have half of the good traits of mankind and half of the bad ones, and the Jews are exactly the opposite. They've got the good traits where we're weak, and they have the weak traits where we're strong." I've always remembered that.

Anyway, in 1960 I was the president of the Palo Alto Bar Association. The next year I was elected president of the California Conference of Barristers. (That's all lawyers in the state under 36 years of age.) That year Proposition 13, which some of you may remember, came up for a vote in California. Very simply it read: "A person shall have the right to sell or rent his home to whomever he chooses." Sounds good. What that means in practice, however, is that a person is free to discriminate against anybody that he doesn't like because of race or some other reason. The state Bar convention had never taken a position on political initiatives, but that year we felt that because we were constitutional lawyers, and because this initiative was clearly unconstitutional, the Bar ought to speak out.

Three of us addressed the conference, arguing that the Bar Association should take a position on this matter of constitutional interest. We got a lawyer in his late seventies named Herman Selvin -- a tax lawyer with a famous Jewish firm in Los Angeles called Loeb & Loeb -- to make the concluding speech. At the end of his marvelous, very persuasive speech, he said, "We lawyers have shown we've got great minds, and we've got great hearts. Now let's show we have some guts." And the Bar Convention, 3,000 people, voted two-to-one to take a position against Proposition 13. But it proved useless, because the people of California voted two-to-one to pass Proposition 13, although later our Supreme Court held it to be unconstitutional.

Well, after he had given his speech at the convention, we took Herman Selvin out for a beer, and we complimented him, as young lawyers will an elderly sage. He told us that anti-Semitism was alive and well. A friend of his, he went on, had invited him to the posh Montecito Country Club in Santa Barbara, but when they got to the door, there was a man in a tuxedo who looked down a list and then said: "Selvin. We don't take Jews here." Now that was in 1963! In my own lifetime, this state has had a long record of anti-Semitism.

And what do people do when they're discriminated against? They form networks. By June 1967, when the Six Day War occurred, the Jewish communities in America had built up a large network of mutual support in the synagogues and the Jewish community centers. At that time there were thirty-three major Jewish organizations. One of them was the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, which became the most militant voice for Israel. To be a good Jew meant that you had to support Israel. It was as if "Israel über Alles," or "Israel above all," became the watchword of the ADL.

Stifling debate

They built up an intelligence organization to learn about their enemies. There were people like Roy Bullock, who masqueraded as a kind of rotund antique dealer, at first in the East, and then in the Midwest, before he moved to Los Angeles and then to San Francisco. He would pass himself off as a sympathizer with whatever group the ADL deemed to be hostile to Israel. By the 1980s the ADL's main purpose was no longer to try to stop anti-Semitism and bigotry, but instead to discredit any voice that was hostile to the policies of Israel -- and not only to discredit people who spoke out against Israel, but to deny them a forum.

Now, I've always been willing to debate. I once debated Meir Kahane in front of two thousand Jews in San Francisco. I've debated Irv Rubin of the Jewish Defense League. But no ADL leader will debate me on the subject of Israel. If a public television station, for example, wants to organize a debate on the Middle East, they'll first call the ADL to find someone to speak for the Jewish community. Then they'll call for someone on the other side -- for example someone from the Council for the National Interest, a group I founded some years ago with [former Illinois Congressman] Paul Findley. But when they call the ADL back to ask, "Will you debate Congressman McCloskey or Senator Percy or Senator Adlai Stevenson?," the answer is always "No, no." If there is a skilled speaker on the other side, they refuse to debate. The ADL does not want the facts to come out. They want to suppress any facts that are critical of Israel. You must understand that that's their goal. Above all else, they want to preserve the "special relationship" between Israel and the United States; preserve a good public opinion of Israel on the part of the American people, so that the money keeps coming; defeat any political figure, such as Paul Findley or Chuck Percy or even Ed Zschau, who was defeated mainly by Jewish money in his bid for the Senate here in California.

The ADL's purpose is to discredit and to deny a forum to anybody who might jeopardize the Israel-U.S. relationship. So of course the IHR is a major bull's-eye target. Now, given the extensive intelligence organization they've built up, I am almost certain that someone in this room is reporting to the ADL. Roy Bullock, for example, would go to the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and say "I'm in sympathy. Let me pass out your literature." But this was only a masquerade.

My wife was once working in San Francisco on behalf of something called Proposition W, which called for cutting aid to Israel by the amount of money they were putting into the settlements on the West Bank and Gaza. So of course she got listed; she became targeted because she was taking a view hostile to Israel. I got a call from a police captain, who said: "Mr. McCloskey, in the records of the San Francisco ADL is a note that when your wife crossed from Jordan into Israel in 1987, she was involved in an altercation at the Allenby Bridge." Well, I was with her at the time, along with Jim Abourezk, the Arab-American senator from South Dakota. We had visited Jordan, and my wife wanted to go across and see Jerusalem and Jericho. All in all there were five young women, in their 20s and early 30s, who were crossing the bridge. The Jewish border guard stopped them. My wife, with a name like McCloskey, or Smith or Jones: No problem. But one of the girls was named Aziz, that is, she had an Arab name. She had married a young Arab-American. All five were American citizens. The Israeli border guard turned to the one named Aziz and said, "Take off your clothes." It was a humiliating, demeaning experience. My wife was offended, and she spoke up about her feelings. But to find that turning up six years later in the office of the San Francisco Anti-Defamation League meant that information was going from Israel to the United States, as well as from the U.S. to Israel. Victor Ostrovsky, a former Israeli Mossad case worker, has written [in his book, By Way of Deception] about the cooperation of American Jews with the Israeli government.

The ADL would ingratiate itself with police departments so that they could get information about anti-Semitic or anti-Israel activity. Roy Bullock, the ADL spy, would come to a meeting like this one, and after sitting down, would go out to the parking lot and take down the license plate numbers of all the cars parked there. And then he would take the numbers to Tom Gerard at the San Francisco Police Department and ask: "Would you get me the names of these people?" And back would come the names and the addresses of the people who owned the cars parked at the meeting, along with a notation that these people are "anti-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian," or that they're Vietnam war "peaceniks." And that information would be passed on the ADL office in Los Angeles or New York or Washington, DC. Even Portland, Oregon, might get it. The 31 ADL offices, in major U.S. cities, as well as in Israel, were in constant communication with each other. The ADL compiled detailed dossiers, so that if one wanted to find out if such and such a person was anti-Israel, or had ever said anything that was anti-Israel, the ADL was able to quickly respond with a "No" or a "Yes," which would condemn you.

Marked man

Until 1980, when I first spoke out against Israel, I had been known as a relative friend of Israel. On issues like Vietnam or a woman's right of choice, things of that kind, I shared views with most Jews. But once I took a position that was deemed hostile to the state of Israel, including opposition to Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon and its use of cluster bombs, I was a marked man.

Let me tell you what happened when, after 15 years in the House, I came back to California in 1982 to run for the U.S. Senate. Here's an example: My finance chairman in southern California was a savings and loan company executive. He was a very loyal man. He'd known my father, and he wanted to help me. He thought I'd make a good senator. In 1982, you may remember, there was a savings and loan crisis. Three of his biggest Jewish depositors came to him and said, "Mr. X, we see you're the chairman of McCloskey's finance committee. You get off that committee, or we will withdraw our deposits."

In the 1982 primary election race I lost the Republican party nomination for the U.S. Senate to Pete Wilson. He went up to the San Fernando Valley and made a promise to the Jewish leaders of that powerful Jewish area that if elected to the Senate he would favor Israel's annexation of the West Bank and Gaza. That story was reported, but then absolutely hushed up. You've never heard the story since. The Jewish community has the power to suppress, either by advertising or control of the media, news reports that are hostile to Israel, and they have the ability to discredit anyone who speaks out. And that's their purpose.

I'm going to give you a couple of examples of what they've done to friends or clients of mine to achieve their goal of protecting the good public image of Israel. In 1983 two young women, Carol Al Shahib and Audrey Shabbas, who were wives of Arab professors at San Jose State University and the University of California, had organized a small educational program to educate people about Arab culture and Muslim culture. They put on seminars and taught people about Middle East history. They quickly came under the eye of the ADL as threats to Israel because they had spoken about justice for Palestinians. When a Saudi Arabian art exhibit came to San Jose, they signed a contract with the San Jose Museum of Art to host the exhibit. This foundation was run by twenty-one of the community's leading citizens. The chairman happened to be Jewish. Carol and Audrey also scheduled two speakers, one of them a lady from Texas who had spoken on behalf of Palestinian rights.

One of the foundation's board members thought he recognized the name of the speaker, and he called the local ADL representative, William Brinner, a famous professor at the University of California (Berkeley). And Brinner said, "Those people are anti-Israel." The two women had invested about $5,000 to put on this four-day exhibition, and had sent out letters to all the local school teachers. Called up in front of the board, they were told that the speakers were controversial, and that the exhibition would have to be cancelled. These two women would perhaps have made maybe $15,000 from the seminar, probably paying half or two-thirds of that amount in expenses. So the ADL effectively ended their ability to earn a living by teaching people about the Arab world.

Liberty Denial

My second story begins during the Six Day War in June 1967. An American navy ship called the USS Liberty was sailing off the coast of Egypt and Gaza, well outside the three-mile limit. It was a radio antenna ship. You can call it a spy ship. It had a crew of 294 seamen and officers commanded by Captain William McGonagle. In the early morning of June 8, 1967, the ship was flying a big American flag. A fellow named Jim Ennes, who was a lieutenant and officer of the deck, had run up an American flag so big you could see it for miles. They were under surveillance by flights of Israeli jets, not once but twice. But in the early afternoon, Israeli jet fighters roared in and strafed and machine-gunned the ship, knocking out all of the antennas. Israel torpedo boats came out and launched a torpedo into the Liberty.

Nearly everyone on deck was killed or wounded. Out of a crew of 294, there were 34 killed and 171 wounded, the greatest number of casualties on a U.S. naval ship since Okinawa. The ship started to go down, and they put out life boats. Israeli torpedo boats directed machine-gun fire at the life boats. Obviously they intended that there be no survivors.

Captain McGonagle was able to save the Liberty, which limped back to Malta. The dead were buried. McGonagle took care of the wounded. The Navy gave instructions that the crew was to be separated. No one crew member was to go to the same base, but instead the Navy spread them over ships and stations all around the United States. The Liberty crew was awarded a presidential unit citation, but they were never told about it. Captain McGonagle was later given the Congressional Medal of Honor for saving the ship, but he's the only Congressional Medal of Honor winner in history to be given it at the Washington Navy Yard and not at a ceremony at the White House.

Israel claimed that it had all been a terrible mistake, and that their pilots hadn't really seen the American flag. Well, since then individuals have come forward to say "I was in the headquarters on that day. I was a naval reserve officer. Yeah, they knew it was the USS Liberty. They had a big American flag on it. They bombed it, strafed it, deliberately."

The story was suppressed for years. Finally, Jim Ennes wrote a book about it, Assault on the Liberty, but copies of it began disappearing from libraries. Clearly, there was an effort afoot to silence Jim Ennes's story about the Israeli attack.

Enemies of the Library

There's a small town up in Wisconsin called Grafton, a town of about 10,000 people north of Milwaukee. Two old gentlemen who lived there, Ted and Ben Grob, ran a machine tool shop, which was the most successful business in Grafton. Back during the Depression, when people in Grafton were in trouble, the Grobs could be counted on to help out. They were good people. They were quiet people. They were German.

In 1993 the town's leading citizens decided to build a new library. They called in a professional consultant, who told them "You need two and half million dollars. Okay, first you've got to raise the initial quarter of a million. One-tenth of it. You should raise it from one person, who will start it off so that people have hope that they'll get the full two and half million. And so the first gift has got to be $250,000, and then ideally you'll get five gifts of $50,000, and then you go out publicly and put up a big thermometer on the town square. As you get closer and closer to your goal, the thermometer goes up and people get inspired, and finally you put it over the top." And the good people of Grafton asked, "Well, how do we get that first $250,000?" And the pro says, "Well, it's simple. You agree to name the library after whoever gives you the $250,000."

So the Grob brothers gave the first $250,000, and soon they raised the entire two and a half million. And shortly before the ground-breaking ceremony, the town's leading citizens went to the Grob brothers to ask them how they'd like the library named. Well, these two brothers had been reading the Spotlight, which had picked up the story of the USS Liberty. (The Spotlight used to pillory me regularly. Editorially it was no friend of mine.) And so the Grob brothers replied that they wanted to name it the "USS Liberty Memorial Library."

Well, all hell broke loose. The ADL went right up the wall. They got editorials in the Milwaukee Journal and the Chicago papers. By God, it was said, to name a library in memory of a U.S. ship that had been strafed and torpedoed by the Israelis would increase anti-Semitism. The ADL got about a third of the teachers at the Grafton high school to oppose naming the library after the USS Liberty. They got the high school valedictorian, a young 17-year-old, to speak in his graduating class address against naming the library after the USS Liberty. And all of this was sponsored and pushed by the ADL because of an incredible fear that merely raising the issue of the USS Liberty would increase public opinion against Israel. And that's what you're up against.

I don't know whether you're right or wrong about the Holocaust, but anytime a historian takes a position against Israel, that brings down their wrath and concentrated numbers and economic power.

Historical Correctness

Let me tell you another story about a friend of mine named Norman Davies, a man acknowledged around the world as a leading historian on Eastern Europe. He's one of the few historians who can write readable books. One of them is Europe: A History, which was a best-seller. You don't often find history books that are best-sellers. Well, I had just gotten out of Congress, and had returned to the practice of law in Palo Alto. (It was a country town when I had left, and now it's a kind of headquarters of Silicon Valley.)

I had been invited to be a guest professor at Stanford, to teach a course on political science. And I was hired in spite of a fierce campaign against me by the Jewish campus group, Hillel, and by the ADL. Well, Norman Davies was scheduled to be named to a prestigious chair at the history department. Stanford has a procedure whereby the department votes on whether or not to approve the appointment. To be appointed a professor at Stanford you have to be at the top of your field. Some twenty-five consultants, called outside referees, were asked about Davies, and all of them agreed that he was among the top one or two who might be considered for this professorship.

Some ten days before the matter came to a vote -- it was in December 1983, I think -- a history professor at Stanford who was also a member of the ADL contacted the ADL office in San Francisco, and the word then went out to all of the Jewish members of the faculty: "Have you read what Davies wrote about the Jews in Poland" [in his book God's Playground: A History of Poland]? Well, you can't write a book about Poland without dealing with the Jews, who were a large and important part of the population. In his book Davies had dared to suggest that not all Poles were anti-Semitic. And that ran counter to the view of history held by the Israelis and the Jewish community in the United States; that the Poles were anti-Semitic and they all discriminated against the Jews. Lucy Dawidowicz [Jewish historian] wrote that Davies was, in effect, a revisionist, and that his view of the history of Europe was detrimental to the Jewish community around the world. I've talked to a lot of Poles over the years, and I've known some who didn't like Jews and I've found some that helped Jews. In occupied Poland during the Second World War the Poles who helped Jews were shot by the Nazis if they were caught.

In any event, what Davies wrote was deemed by the ADL to be hostile to Israel because of the simple suggestion that not all Poles were anti-Semitic. But we took them on in a lawsuit, which we lost on appeal. In that case we had a famous psychiatrist examine what Davies had written. Of 52 references he found 26 that one could infer were favorable to the Poles, and 26 critical, and 26 favorable to the Jews, and 26 critical. But that wasn't enough for the ADL. They circulated a notice to the thirteen history professors who were Jewish, "Be there for the vote." Now, not all of the thirty-eight history professors came to vote. And when the vote was held, it was thirteen to twelve to deny the chair to Norman Davies. The Jews were happy. The ADL was happy. They had denied a forum for a voice of reason, for a voice that spoke out for a different view of history.

The ADL once got caught up in a funny deal. My wife was holding a seminar on the Middle East at Mills College. Roy Bullock was there on behalf of the ADL to check on anyone who was speaking against Israel. And if anyone did speak in favor of the Palestinians or against Israel, the name and the license plate number went on his list. The information was passed around so that dossiers compiled on each person were sent to ADL offices across the United States, available only to the ADL.

Spying for South Africa

But if you'll remember, back in the late 1980s, Israel had an ally, a fellow pariah in the international community named South Africa. And South Africa was not adhering to the United Nations' resolution on Namibia, which they were supposed to give up. And Israel was similarly defying United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 [of 1967] and 338 [of 1973], which required that, along with an Israeli state, there also be a Palestinian state. But Israel didn't want to give up the occupied territories. It was in violation of these resolutions. There's pretty good evidence that Israeli nuclear weapons were tested by the South Africans.

Bullock and the ADL started looking at groups that were against apartheid in South Africa. Now, there were a lot of nice American ladies who thought it was time to end apartheid in South Africa, including many in the San Francisco Bay area and Los Angeles. Well, Bullock started going to their meetings. And suddenly the ADL was developing intelligence not only about people who were hostile to Israel, but people who were hostile to the Smuts-Botha apartheid government in South Africa. Soon South African intelligence people came out to see Bullock and Gerard, and over lunch they said: "We'll pay you money if you can get us information about the people in the United States who are against apartheid in South Africa." So Bullock and Gerard collected, I think, $16,000. They sent twenty-seven reports to the South African intelligence agency about Americans who opposed South Africa's apartheid government. The thinking was, if they're against South Africa, they must be against Israel, and if they're against the Jewish state, they're against Jews. Anyway, that's the new definition of anti-Semitism given by Nathan Perlmutter of the ADL [and by ADL officials Arnold Foster and Benjamin Epstein in their book, The New Anti-Semitism].

Well, at about that time, the FBI got word that South Africans were trying to pirate technology from Silicon Valley. After a while the FBI caught Bullock collecting information, put him under surveillance, and then they called him in and interrogated him. And Bullock said, "Yeah, absolutely, I'm helping the ADL. Of course. We've been looking at the anti-apartheid people." And so the FBI went to the San Francisco police, who were -- well, they're like cops in a lot of places. They're not bright. They're Irish. Or Italian. So these Irish cops didn't know that the Jews were so powerful in San Francisco, and that they funded nearly every Democratic party candidate from the governorship down to the Congress. And that's how the San Francisco police learned that their officer Gerard was illegally obtaining information from the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Post Office, and from others, and funneling it -- not only to the Israeli consulate or to Jewish organizations -- but also selling it to South African intelligence.

And what did the Irish cops do next? They got search warrants to go into the ADL offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Well, they ran into a funny thing. It turned out that, for some years, the Israelis or the ADL had been funding ten or twelve police officers. They'd given them two weeks in Israel, all expenses paid -- take them over there, buy them drinks, and everything else that went with it, a two-week stay! A visit to a foreign country. Why? Because they wanted to ingratiate themselves with police departments to get information from them about people who were hostile to Israel. And in return the Jewish groups would tell the police the identity of anyone who desecrated a synagogue. This connection between the Israeli Mossad and the ADL and the police went up even to the level of the FBI. The head of the FBI would be invited to dinners, where he would urge everyone to cooperate with the ADL, saying "They're really a fine group, against bigotry and anti-Semitism."

So the ADL helped build up an organization that was able to destroy the careers of people, whether they were in politics or even somebody like Audrey Shabbas who was trying to educate schoolteachers, or Norman Davies, the history professor who was denied a prestigious chair, because of their expressed views on Israel and Jewish history. That kind of power does exist in this country. Luckily the pendulum swings back and forth. Now it swings one way to excess, as I believe, in favor of Israel and the Jewish community. But sooner or later it will swing back.

The important thing is never to accept what somebody says is history, whether it was ten years ago, or thirty or fifty years ago. Because those who first try to write that history are people who want to give a message that is consistent with their political views. And if you've suffered two thousand years of anti-Semitism, you can justify practically anything to preserve a Jewish state.

Cluster bombs on Lebanon

I'll close with a humorous incident I hope you'll enjoy. I was outraged when the Israelis invaded Lebanon. The 1954 Arms Control Act requires that if a country to which the U.S. gives arms uses those arms to invade a foreign country, we must by law cut off arms assistance to that country. When Turkey invaded Cyprus [in 1974] we cut off aid to Turkey, a NATO ally.

When the Israelis invaded Lebanon [June 1982], they used U.S.-supplied cluster bombs. It's a terrible, devastating weapon. It drops out of a plane to about a thousand feet. Then, a big napalm-type canister blows apart, and maybe two hundred bombs float out and scatter over twenty-five acres. They're timed to go off every five minutes. The first group goes off on contact, the next five minutes later, and so forth. And even after the planes are gone, these things are lying around on the ground. Troops know enough to stay away from, but little kids don't, and they pick them up and get their hands blown off.

After the 1973 war we gave Israel cluster bombs on the basis of an agreement, according to which they could use them only if they were invaded by the armies of more than one country. In other words, Israel could use these weapons only if it was invaded by two countries. Also, they could never use them in cities, or in partisan warfare, against irregular units. That is, they could never use them in civilian areas, and only against regular troops.

Well, a journalist named Nick Thimmesch, who later [1985] died rather mysteriously, reported that Israel was using cluster bombs. He came to my office in Washington and gave me some cluster bomb fragments. And I said publicly that Israel is using cluster bombs. The Israeli government immediately denied it, but in this world somebody always leaks, and the State Department guys knew that Israel was using cluster bombs in violation of the treaty. And even though the Israeli lobby could make things difficult for the State Department guys, it couldn't get them out of their jobs. So State Department people kept telling me, "You're right, McCloskey. Keep saying it." So I made speeches about Israel's illegal use of cluster bombs. Finally the Israelis admitted that they had been lying, and that they had been using cluster bombs in Lebanon in violation of the treaty.

Well, there was enough concern in the Congress that six of us went over to the Middle East in 1982. In Syria we met with President Assad, and in Jordan we met with King Hussein. And went to Lebanon where we met with Christian Maronites, with Shi'ites, and with the Druze. In Beirut we had to stay at the American embassy residence because they'd blown up the embassy itself. And we met with Yasser Arafat in his bunker in West Beirut. I remember meeting with Bashir Gemayel, the Maronite Christian leader who was elected president of the country and later killed. That was in July, when Israeli planes were bombing West Beirut. I asked him, "How can you run for president when West Beirut and one-sixth of your country is being attacked by the Israelis?" And he replied, "That's not my problem," because for the Maronite Christians, the Muslims and most of the country weren't really their problem. That was a few weeks before the Sabra and Shatilla massacres [Sept. 1982], when the Israelis unleashed the Christian militiamen into those Palestinian refugee camps to kill women and children.

Censorship, Israeli style

After we had met with those various Arab leaders, we went on to Israel and Egypt. In Jerusalem we were put up at the King David Hotel, the same hotel that Israel's prime minister, Menachem Begin, and his group, the Irgun, had blown up [July 22, 1946] when they were fighting the British for control of the country.

From an Israeli television studio I was interviewed by Tom Brokaw in New York for NBC national television. I'll never forget what happened. He asked what we had found, and about our talks with Assad, Hussein and Arafat. You know, you just get five-minute sound bites. I was asked what I thought of Begin. And I said that he's the same guy who, back in 1947, had hanged British soldiers. He was terrorist. Even most Jews thought of him as a terrorist. Some called him a Jewish Hitler, I believe. And I was asked what I thought of Ariel Sharon [who was then Israel's defense minister]. "Well, he's a butcher," I said. "He's a mean guy." I was asked about Yitzhak Shamir. I said something similar about him.

And then Brokaw asked me what I thought about Yasser Arafat. "Well," I said, "I think he's a man of peace." At that point, the Israeli military censor cut off the interview and the link to NBC in the United States. As I was walking out of the studio, I heard the guy who ran the show arguing with the military censor, a major general or brigadier general. The producer was saying, "You can't shut off an American speaking to an American audience!," and the general was saying, "We don't care what he says about our leaders. We probably agree with him. But nobody can say on Israeli television that Yasser Arafat is not a terrorist." And that, of course, was the ADL position at the time. You might remember that Paul Findley lost his seat in Congress because he had met with Arafat, and that Andrew Young was dropped as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations because he had met with PLO officials.

So, you've got this incredibly powerful organization. When you think how many people from the ADL have been appointed to the Clinton Administration, it's enough to make you a Republican. And it's true, incidentally, that the Democrats are far more beholden to the Israeli lobby than Republicans. Republicans tend to get their money from big business, and that's sometimes corrupt. But in this state, if you're a Democrat you can't get elected without the support of Jewish money. That power has, I think, reached its zenith.

Dispassion and truth

I hope you'll keep examining history. I would caution you against one thing I've heard a bit of today. A historian should be dispassionate. I use that word deliberately. Do not let the conduct of your enemies cause you to become less than dispassionate in your historical views. I hate to hear the word "propaganda." I've heard it ever since I've been a young man, calling the enemy story "propaganda." It's unseemly, in my judgment, to say that one point of view is propaganda.

The great American Constitution was probably enacted because of an 82-year-old American named Ben Franklin. On the last day of the constitutional convention, after laboring four and a half months in a sealed room in Philadelphia, they came out with a constitution. When people say you're too old to be in the Congress, you just remind them of Franklin's speech. He was 82 when he got up and said: "Gentleman, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, even on matters that I was once certain of, because when I receive fuller information, or new arguments, I found that I was often wrong in the opinions that I originally formed."

A historian, ideally, should be like a juror in California. Every juror, before being sworn in, has to advise the court that he will wait to hear all the evidence on both sides of an issue before reaching a judgment of guilt or innocence, or liability or non-liability. That should also hold true in a special way for the historian, I think. Some of those who viciously oppose you may be tools of the Israeli state, but the historian's words ultimately receive the credit of the community. Think of the first persons who spoke out against the Vietnam war. Most people in my district thought I was a Communist. I got away with it because I had been a Marine in Korea, and they couldn't really say that a Marine was not patriotic. But if some college professors said they were against the war, I remember colleagues in the Congress calling them traitors.

The great source of inquiry ought to be the college campus. The minds of students should be formed by instructors who present both sides of issues. When I was a freshman at Stanford, the rednecks and right-wingers in southern California wanted to get rid of an economics professor there because he was a Communist.

A man who is still revered in the Marine Corps, Smedley Butler [1881-1940], fought for thirty years in every important campaign -- Cuba, Santo Domingo, Haiti, Nicaragua. After he retired [in 1931], he was asked about his career. He said:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers ... I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street ... I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

If you had suggested, at the time, that Marines were dying in Nicaragua or Haiti for the United Fruit Company or other big American corporations, public opinion about U.S. intervention in Latin America might have been the same as it was later about Vietnam.

When people finally learn the truth, they turn against those who have been lying to them. And I think that if the movement of which you people are the cutting edge can retain dispassion in the face of outrages, setbacks and humiliations, the truth can ultimately prevail.

You are doing something worse than criticizing the government of the United States; you're threatening the security of the state of Israel. And the Jewish community is dedicated to preserve that state, and to destroy those who speak against it. Good luck!

About the author

Paul N. "Pete" McCloskey, Jr., was born and raised in California. During Korean War service with the Marine Corps, he earned the Navy Cross, the Silver Star and two Purple Hearts. From 1967 to 1983 he served as a U.S. congressman. He was co-chairman of the First Earth Day, 1970. He was an early opponent of American involvement in the Vietnam War, and the first Republican in Congress to call for the impeachment of President Nixon. In 1972 he was an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican party presidential nomination. For more about McCloskey's contentious relationship with the Jewish-Zionist lobby, see Paul Findley's book, They Dare to Speak Out. This essay is adapted from McCloskey's address at the 13th IHR Conference, May 28, 2000.

Reproduced gratefully from: The Journal for Historical Review (http://www.ihr.org)

www.whatreallyhappened.com 

An Act of Censorship: 
American Library Association Becomes Another Israeli Occupied Territory 

By Jeffrey Blankfort

NEW ORLEANS-The embattled Anti-Defamation League's National Director, Abraham Foxman, is "going to war - and he's going to enlist American Jews as his foot soldiers," wrote the No. California Jewish Bulletin's Garth Wolkoff this past May, and he wasn't joking. The first battle took place in this picturesque Gulf Coast port city at the end of June and the ADL and its allies emerged victorious. The occasion was the annual membership meeting of the American Library Association and answering the call to the colors were hundreds of Jewish librarians who descended on New Orleans for a dual purpose: to overturn a resolution criticizing Israeli censorship that had been approved at last year's convention and to demonstrate to their fellow librarians that judging Israel was not only not the business of the ALA, but also was not without career-threatening risks. And they succeeded, overwhelmingly. No, the colors they rallied to weren't visible, but then they didn't have to be.

For a little under a year, 363 days to be exact, the American Library Association had stood alone as the only major American institution that had publicly and unequivocally condemned Israeli human rights violations and specifically, acts of censorship directed against Palestinian journalists, universities, and libraries.

Headquartered in Chicago, the ALA, with 56,000 members is the oldest and largest library association in the world, and according to its outgoing president, Marilyn Miller, "it has engaged in issues of human rights and intellectual freedom around the world since its establishment in 1876." In past years it has criticized censorship in Chile, South Africa, the Soviet Union, and, according to Miller "was one of the first and strongest voices to defend Salman Rushdie." Taking on Israel, however, is another matter.

Largely as a culmination of a nine-year effort on the part of Chicago Public Library Research Librarian David Williams, (MELB 4/1 and 4/2) and the International Human Rights Task Force that he took over as chair in 1990, the ALA had passed two resolutions at its July 1, 1992 meeting in San Francisco. The first condemning Israeli censorship and human rights violations and the second, protested the threatened expulsion of Palestinian librarian Omar Al-Safi and may have been a factor in having the order withdrawn. (MELB 4/1).

The main resolution referred to the "special relationship" enjoyed by Israel with the United States, "as the recipient of the largest amounts of annual U.S. aid per capita, and declared "the U.S. a party to these censorship practices and other violations of human rights."

To bolster the impressive documentation he presented substantiating Israel's censorship policies, Williams arranged for Israeli journalist, Michal Schwartz, an editor of Challenge magazine and herself a victim of her country's censorship, to address the convention. An Israeli brought by the opposition was unable to offer credible rebuttal and both resolutions passed by large margins. Copies of the resolutions were sent to the U.S. government, to Israel and to the PLO.

Obviously the matter would not end there. The ADL believes, perhaps correctly, that neither it or Israel can afford a single defeat in its hasbara, the Israeli word for public relations. If the ALA was able to get away with criticizing Israel, who knows who might do it next? The counterattack against the resolution and the character assassination of Williams began virtually the next day and continued up to and after the vote in New Orleans.

In a statement following the rejection of the resolution, Williams pointed out the implications of the entire issue: "The significance of ALA's breaking with the public taboo on criticizing Israel was taken very seriously by the Anti-Defamation League and other Israel lobby groups whose role is to censor, intimidate, and otherwise stifle public criticism of Israel in the United States. It is precisely because of the importance of U.S. aid that they could not afford to let Israel be criticized in such fashion by a mainstream professional organization."

It became clear to Williams that reversal of the censorship resolution had become an ALA priority, as it increasingly came under the influence of what he described as the "highly-organized and well-financed [pro-Israel] political lobby." Quickly taking charge was the ADL's Foxman who, according to the Chicago Jewish Star (June 11-24), held several meetings with ALA leaders "to clarify Israel's position and to put the claims against Israel into context."

"The longer these resolutions remain on the books as ALA policy, the more legitimacy they gain among librarians and educators," wrote Foxman in a letter to Peggy Sullivan, ALA's Executive Director.

This was not the first time the ADL had gone up against Williams. In 1989, it challenged a bibliography he had prepared on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that Chicago's chief librarian and a number of Middle East scholars had considered balanced, and through a "full court" mobilization of the area's Jewish community, would have got away with censoring both the list and Williams, had not their plans been exposed in a local newspaper column. But as the Village Voice's Robert Friedman points out ( July 27) "this is not just a cautionary tale about one librarian's battle against book burning in the occupied territories.

"It is part of a larger story about the most powerful Jewish organization in America, and its attempt to determine what should be read in our nation's schools, what should be read in our nation's libraries, and what should publicly be discussed at public forums.

"Through its 31 offices across the country, the ADL monitors school curricula, library acquisition lists, and public conferences and symposiums, working behind the scenes to stifle intellectual freedom."

The ADL, of course, would not have to go it alone, since its policy of defending "Israel, right or wrong," is the guiding principle of all the major Jewish organizations. So it was to be expected that the 1000-member Association of Jewish Libraries would weigh in with a letter protesting the resolutions. "Members of AJL have been outraged by the actions taken by ALA, AJL President Ralph Simon told the Jewish Star (June 11-24). That was just once response. (By the time of the convention, the largest Jewish womens' organization, Hadassah, would play the most visible role, with the ADL content to stay in the shadows due, most likely, to the fear that publicity about its spy network would inhibit it effectiveness.)

Sometime after the San Francisco convention, an ALA attorney, commenting on the resolution, implied it was close to being "seditious" and in American Libraries (March '93), ALA Councilor Charles Bunge referred to the "embarrassing situation" caused by the Council's passage of the resolution. It was also apparent, from American Libraries' Midwinter report, that "although the resolution could not be rescinded, the Council would have done so if it had not "already been widely distributed." As an alternative step, the Council referred the resolution to the ALA's International Resolutions Committee for "study and recommendations."

At its Midwinter meeting in Denver, the wheels that were to crush the resolution were picking up speed. With the cooperation of the ALA leadership, mass-produced letters and materials were distributed denouncing the anti-censorship efforts as a front for the "terroristic" and "fascist" PLO (as well as Hamas) and suggesting, as Williams pointed out in a task force "Urgent Action Alert," that "anyone who challenged Israel's repressive policies was an antisemite and part of a plot to destroy Jews."

Williams reported that functionaries of the ADL and other pro- Israel lobby groups were very much in attendance at conference sessions, and that "the ADL representatives arranged with the ALA Executive Office to have the customary guest registration fee waived, were outfitted with membership instead of guest convention badges," and directed to the business meeting of the Social Responsibilities Round Table (SRRT) International Human Rights Task Force Meeting.

"There," wrote Williams, "they copied down the names and institutional affiliations of everyone present." In one instance, an ADL operative grabbed a task force member who was engaged in conversation, and whirled him around, saying he wanted to see the name on his badge. The tangible intimidation, says Williams, was only beginning:

"With the active complicity of the ALA leadership, pressure was brought to bear on librarians at all levels of the Association to go along with revoking the resolution. Wilfully distorting the facts and context of Israel's repressive practices, the organizers of this campaign also engaged in the most vicious personal vilification of me repeatedly equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism."

Typical of this attack was a passage in a letter sent two weeks before the convention to ALA President-Elect Hardy Franklin by Ellen Zyroff Ph.D, the Principal Librarian of the San Diego County Library, and distributed to ALA members by the ALA Council.

"This man is wild-eyed and dangerous," wrote Zyroff. "I do not know where his hate comes from, but it is palpable. I do not know who paid the fare for the speaker who flew from Tel Aviv University, an institution known for activists against the state of Israel, or for that of the other out-of-town-speakers (referring to a 1991 forum in Atlanta) . (emphasis added).

Marty Goldberg, head librarian at Penn State and co-chair of the Jewish Librarians Committee (JLC), a subgroup of the ALA, told the Jewish Star, that Williams "uses this as a platform for his political agenda. We should condemn the resolutions and get the ALA out of the business of singling out one people, one nation, one religion. This has no place in the ALA. There are issues of far more importance than censorship in Israel." For Goldberg, the ADL and the Jewish librarians, a "far more important issue" was protecting Israel.

At the convention, Goldberg sent out a letter to JLC members, suggesting they stay away from a Sunday night forum, sponsored by Williams' task force, preceding the vote on the resolution, because of "the danger of physical violence." ((At the Midwinter conference, Williams relinquished his chair of the International Human Rights Task Force and was authorized by the SRRT to initiate a new Task Force on Israeli Censorship and Palestinian Libraries.)

Goldberg's warning was ironic, since last year, a panel arranged by Williams featuring Michal Schwartz and Khader Hamide, one of the Palestinians fighting deportation in Los Angeles, was repeatedly disrupted, first by noisy pro-Israel activists and then by a false fire alarm.

This year's forum, entitled "Israeli Censorship: Here and There," drew an audience of about 120, and proceeded without interruption with members from the audience who supported Israel receiving ample time to respond to the speakers: Williams, Jay Murphy, former editor of Red Bass magazine, and myself.

Williams informed the audience that the ADL's Foxman had once again been invited, and for the third time had declined. In a letter to Williams he had written that "We have consistently refused to participate in your events because of the blatant anti-Israel agenda " Moreover, he didn't believe "that the activities of the Anti-Defamation League are an appropriate subject for your roundtable discussion."

In another clearly centralized attempt to sabotage the forum, a 450 word "anonymous letter" was sent to and published in Jewish newspapers across the country signed alternately by "Concerned Jewish Taxpayer," "Jewish Taxpayer," "Anonymous Librarian" and "a librarian whose job would be jeopardized by identification," (the latter being a classic example of the victimizer pretending to be the victim).

The thrust of the letter was to infer that "since public libraries are funded chiefly by local tax dollars," Jewish taxpayers ought to know about the forum and its title. In a thinly concealed threat in the next to last paragraph, the "writer" warns that "If public opinion causes enough institutions and individuals to stop sending in their hefty membership dues (often paid for with public funds) perhaps the ALA will reconsider its priorities."

Foxman and the ADL didn't need to debate, nor did Goldberg need to attend the forum to state their case. The "fix" was already in. Goldberg, speaking at a meeting of the Jewish Librarians group the day before had all but admitted as much. Acknowledging that he was usually a pessimist, he told his listeners that they "shouldn't worry" about Monday night's vote. "The ALA Council," he repeated several times, "wants out of this situation."

The meeting of the Jewish Librarians next morning was attended by the Village Voice's Friedman, which caused Goldberg to declare the proceedings "off the record," a ludicrous request at what was advertised to be - and what has been ALA policy at all its events since 1971 - a public meeting.

At the meeting, ALA trustee from New Orleans, Helen Kuhlman, who preceded her remarks with the same "this is off the record," caveat described how on the Thursday evening preceding the convention, she had hosted a reception for the ALA Council, the ADL and Hadassah, and that they had nothing to worry about. What exactly was going to happen she didn't say, but it was clear that the long arm of Israeli censorship was about to be extended to embrace the New Orleans Convention Center.

The Jewish Librarians later heard from a Young Republican stockbroker type named Aaron Albert, who said he had worked with CAMERA, a pro-Israel propaganda agency, as well as AIPAC, but evidently had been brought to the convention by Hadassah. Albert brought with him a flyer, published by the women's group which was to be distributed to ALA members the night of the vote.

The flyer carried a bold 48-point headline, "Let's stop fighting yesterday's wars." It suggested that "a new era has dawned" since the resolutions were drafted, and that the charges of censorship against Israel were "outdated and nuanced.; [and] grossly incompatible with the scholarly pursuits of the ALA." The failed "peace" talks in Washington became the cover for the coverup: "With the peace process between Israel and its Arab neighbors now well underway; this is not the time for divisive, counter- productive resolutions, etc."

Whether the flyer was actually needed or provided just a convenient cover is debatable. Within an hour and a half of the Jewish Librarians meeting, the first bomb landed. The ALA Council, without any previous indication that the subject was to be on its agenda, revoked the 1992 resolution. Moreover, the Council approved guidelines for the future that will, in effect, allow them to overturn votes of the membership. At that meeting, according to the report published in American Libraries (July/Aug. '93), Pres. Miller noted that "The mail has been intense," and that criticism has included the condemnation in the Jewish press of the annual conference program on Israeli censorship. She was referring to the "anonymous" letter published in a number of Jewish papers mentioned earlier.

Nancy John, chair of the International Relations Committee informed the Council that the Israeli censorship was the only item on its agenda. At an earlier Executive Board meeting, citing the "countless hours" the issue had consumed, suggested that in the future, "refer these things to us; we know a little something about international relations" (Amer. Lib., ibid.). Now, ALA parliamentarian Edwin Bliss was asked to present the options available to the Council for dealing with a resolution it had passed, acted on, and now regretted.

"An organization has a right to change its mind," he said, accord to the American Libraries report. Sticking by the opinion rendered at the Midwinter conference that it was impossible to "rescind" something that had been distributed around the word, he suggested the term "revoke." And thus, Councilor Bernard Margolis so moved, the Council voted, and by a "safe margin" the resolution was interred. "By all accounts," noted American Libraries, "it is the first time in in its history that the ALA has taken such an action."

Prior to the vote, Pres. Miller announced that a special "fact-finding" Task Force made up of three former ALA presidents had been appointed to "review" charges that Williams engaged in "censorship, personal harassment and suppression of freedom of expression."

Moreover, Williams was requested to appear before the ALA Executive Board the following day, preceding the full membership meeting, to answer criticisms that had been made against him.

Also on the carpet was SRRT chair Stephen Stilwell who was questioned by the chair, Pres. Miller regarding the SRRT's control over Williams' task force; the use of the ALA's name by the task force; whether or not it received outside funding (clearly implying a PLO connection) and why Israel was being singled out all of which he calmly fielded in defending the work of the task force and the resolution.

Miller acknowledged to Stillwell that the Council had received "a huge stack of letters," and that "we all have been receiving these letters and we're all under pressure."

Cesar Cabellero, head of Extension Services for El Paso Community College, was the only member of the largely silent 13- person board to speak up in the defense of the resolution. "All our members have an inherent right to take stands on social issues. I don't think he should be questioned. SRRT has the right to take positions. I think this organization has a right to single out countries for violations of international freedom. Some of our members are so sensitive they can't separate principles from politics." There would be few such voices heard for the rest of the convention.

Williams was up next and took his seat at the foot of the long table. After he asked for and received permission to make a statement Miller repeated her criticisms about using the ALA's name and her "concern that we continue to pound on one country." "If you go to such extraordinary lengths to prevent Israel from being singled out, " Williams replied, "you become an extension of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the U.S."

When asked,"How do you verify your facts?", Williams cited the Committee for Article 19 (the human rights convention against censorship), the Fund for Free Expression and the work of Israeli sociologist and demographer, Meron Benvenisti and noted that the ALA's International Resolutions Committee "did conclude, that the documentation was, in the main, very accurate."

Having failed to refute Williams' arguments, the Council shifted to another tack - how he conducted the work of his task force - and would not let go of it. It would be used on the floor of the convention, and afterward not only to undermine the resolution but to isolate Williams and effectively terminate his task force.

"We have no problems with what you do," he was told, in seeming contradiction to everything that had just taken place. "it's just sometimes how you do it."

It was clear, that night, as we were passing out flyers - Williams' facts competing with Hadassah's fiction - that something was afoot. Jewish librarians in extraordinary numbers began arriving for the meeting, most of whom, apparently, were not regular participants in ALA meetings. (Since ALA is not a union, its conventions are not delegated. Every member has a vote if she or he can get there).

When the issue of reaffirmation of the Israeli censorship resolution came to the floor - it was now certainly necessary since the Council had revoked the previous one - the atmosphere was so intimidating that a resolution condemning Egypt, which the SRRT was also going to present never got to the floor. SRRT Chair Stillwell arose to defend the resolution, citing its consistency with other actions by the Council such as its resolution opposing the Gulf War. He pointed out that no one had "disputed the truth of the allegations" in the Israeli censorship resolution; rather the Council had succumbed to outside pressure in deciding to revoke it.

His fellow SRRT member Sanford Berman called on the membership to show its disapproval of the Council's revocation action and reaffirm the resolution, but the votes just weren't there. Speaker after speaker got up to defend Israel, to denounce the resolution, to question the ALA's wisdom in taking positions on international issues - something that never seems to be a problem until it comes to Israel - and, in the atmosphere of triumphant intolerance that inundated every corner of the room - to all but ask for Williams head on a platter, calling for a special investigation of his activities and the end of the Task Force on Israeli Censorship. He certainly had pushed their button. Under those conditions, other librarians, some of them Jewish, who had supported the resolutions were clearly afraid to speak.

This time there was no progressive Israeli voice to shame the flag-wavers with the truth.

Following an overwhelming vote to cut-off debate, the resolution came to the floor. The relative handful still having the courage to swim against the tide, and who rose when the "aye" vote was called, was no match for the hundreds of Jewish librarians (and their intimidated colleagues) who loudly stood up to declare the ALA another occupied Israeli territory.

"The vote was so lopsided it was ridiculous,"said ALA trustee Kuhlman. "What happened at ALA has been put to rest in a very definitive way" (No. Cal. Jewish Bulletin, July 16) The following day, the SRRT "got the message." By a 9-4-1 vote, it stripped David of his task force chair, with the stipulation that until a replacement was found, every piece of correspondence or literature he wished to circulate, had to be approved by the SRRT chair. Goliath had won this round.

The Jewish Librarian's Goldberg told the Washington Jewish Week's (July 8) Sam Skolnik, that one of his committee's goals was to take international political issues off the ALA's front burner and put more apparent concerns up front. "Libraries in this country have tremendous problems," he said. [The ALA] shouldn't be involved in these complicated issues. Let's stay out of it."

Williams has other ideas and the last word.

"Although we were overpowered in New Orleans, this may well turn out to be a Pyhrric victory for the Israel lobby. In the course of this long struggle, thousands of librarians were made aware of Israeli human rights abuses, and the ALA officially criticized them - causing great embarrassment for defenders of Israel in the U.S.

"The subsequent spectacle of the ALA leadership going down on its knees before the Israel lobby to exempt Israel from criticism will not go unnoticed by all those who sincerely believe in the consistent application of human rights principles. This issue will continue to haunt the ALA and the Israel lobby, until the time comes when America is fed-up with supporting an apartheid state in the Middle East."

* * *

In the weeks following the convention, the special task force appointed to investigate Williams was canceled after (one would like to think) the ALA comprehended the Kafkaesque nature of the project and the sad contribution the ALA had already made to the history of censorship.

[END]

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:

"He who destroys a good book kills reason itself."

(John Milton)

The mundi club has just posted terra firm no.24: The
Zionists Rise to World Domination™ which can be found
at
http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf24a_f.html
This contains the following 
1. A Short History of Zionist Occupied Palestine
http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf24b_f.html#Short

2. Zionist Propaganda
http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf24c_f.html#00

3. The Zionists April 2002 Invasion of Palestine
http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf24d_f.html#00

4. The Global Zionist Conspiracy for World
Domination
http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf24e_f.html#00

5. The Increasing Evidence of Zionists World
Domination.
http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf24f_f.html#00

6. Addenda.
http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf24i_f.html#00

It was mcbush's  capitulation to ariel bin sharon over
ariel bin sharon's invasion of the foreign country
called palestine that confirmed suspicions about
zionist dominance of the american government. When
mcbush applauded the zionists invasion of palestine
as being the second phase of the wart, he was
basically confessing that the zionists had co-opted
themselves onto the war against terrorism. It is now
transparent that the zionists invasion of washington
has been just as successful as their invasion of
palestine.
The normal reaction to sharon's humiliation of mcbush
was voiced by a female rabbi friend of a guardian
journalist, jonathan steele, The Israeli  prime
minister's humiliating refusal to heed the White
House's call last month for an immediate halt to
Israel's West Bank incursions should have prompted a
debate on whether Bush or Sharon makes US foreign
policy, she argued.

john lynch

=====
Carbonomics is a global Carbon audit of the Earth's Carbon spiral which can
be used to determine countries' Carbon status. It can also be used to
formulate a global Carbon budget to stabilize the Earth's climate. The
Earth's Carbon spiral is used to develop a geocentric philosophy and politics
- thus putting the Earth First!
www.geocities.com/carbonomics/index.html  

The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century
Intellectual and Political Movements By Kevin MacDonald Preface to the First Paperback Edition

Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965:
A Historical Review Kevin MacDonald Department of Psychology California State University-Long Beach Long Beach, CA

Machinations of the Anti-Defamation League by Paul N. McCloskey, Jr. He served from 1967 to 1983 as a U.S. congressman

ADL Urges Western Leaders To Denounce 'Big Lie' About 9-11 / But Gee ADL, if the shoe fits wear it!

Weber: U.S. Government Puts Israel before American Nation

STRANGER THAN FICTION- AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF 9-11 AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM

A Conversation with Professor Norman Finkelstein - How to Lose Friends and Alienate People By Don Atapattu   

`FOR FEAR OF THE JEWS' By Joseph Sobran

Book Review Memoir by Veteran ADL Official Provides Revelations Square One, by Arnold Forster

Witch Hunt In Boston - Fred Leuchter Speaks

An Act of Censorship: American Library Association Becomes Another Israeli Occupied Territory By Jeffrey Blankfort

Abe Foxman: Disgrace to my Religion

The ADL Pushes "Tolerance"? Why I'm Leaving after 25 Years  By Carl Pearlston

Rabbi calls ADL leader Foxman the Jews' 'worst enemy'

Spy vs Spite

The Anti-Defamation League: Censors of the Universe by INAYET NAHVI (a Muslim)

"WHEN ISRAEL'S MOSSAD SET OUT TO BREAK ME, IT FOUND ITS HELPERS HERE AT HOME,"  by Victor Ostrovsky

JEWISH GROUP TOOK RICH'S 100G BEFORE PUSHING PARDON

Jewish Group Wants Files Withheld

A quotation that defines the "Anti-Defamation League"

AMERICA'S PROBLEM / America's problem is ISRAEL and ZIONISM

After 19 years, The Truth at Last? By Robert Fisk The Independent

JDL Chairman Arrested in Bomb Plot  Wednesday December 12 2:05 PM ET  By RAUL MORA, Associated Press Writer

Of Anti-Semites and Anti-Termites Surprise, Surprise! Palestinians (and Arabs) are Semites Too

THE JEWISH PLOT against Radio Islam

U.S. deports dozens of young Israelis 3/5/02

Mark Weber Speaks on Jewish Power at IHR Meeting in Arlington
At a special Institute for Historical Review meeting in Arlington, Virginia, on Saturday, March 2, 2002,

The Israel lobby  April 2002 Prospect magazine (UK)

Winning wasn't easy, but fight after is harder

Return to the Dark Ages - Extensive Article On The Censorship and Persecution Of 'Holocaust Revisionists'

Revised: September 23, 2008 .   Communication:   discoverer73(at symbol)hotmail.com     Go to Home Page     Go to Index of All Articles Pages       
Read the Disclaimer
Last modified: September 23, 2008  Copyright © 1999 - 2008  All rights reserved. [Gnostic Liberation Front].   www.gnosticliberationfront.com