View Single Post
Old September 22nd, 2005 #9
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Default #1 ADL Thread

I found an interesting article today. It appears to be written by a Jew who was slandered by ADL. If anybody knows more about this story, chime in. However, I want the citizens of Kirksville to know that ADL is not merely "fighting bigotry," by defaming Whites-- it also defames Jews. Odd, isnt it? ADL is not really a civil rights organization fighting hate groups, it is ITSELF A HATE GROUP.

http://www.webshells.com/adlwatch/news31.htm

Quote:
The Anti-Defamation League's National Director
is crazy like a Foxman

by Lenni Brenner

ABRAHAM FOXMAN, the ADL's National Director, is well and
truly crazy, and for two reasons: 1) He libeled me and 2) he thinks
he can get away with it.

The saying is that one good turn deserves another. Since
Foxman and the ADL have spread malicious nonsense about me, I will
tell the exact truth about them, putting their dishonesty about my
ideas within the context of the ADL's unending history of
right-wing stupidity and dishonor.

In October 1993, Foxman gave a speech at a Paris conference on
xenophobia. Later he adapted it as an article, "Holocaust Denial:
The Growing Danger," published in an ADL magazine, Dimensions: A
Journal of Holocaust Studies, vol. 8, number 1, released in the
Spring of 1994. There we find the following remarks:

"Another aspect of Holocaust 'revisionist' thinking can be
found on the radical left. A writer named Lenni Brenner maintains
that Zionists, in effect, were in league with the Nazis. He asserts
that there was a close link between elements of the Zionist
movement and the Nazi party, that Zionists were willing to foster
and exploit anti-Semitism in Europe to bring about a Zionist state,
and that they had proposed an alliance with Nazi Germany."

"Brenner's thesis, with its coupling of Zionists with Nazis,
serves as a propaganda tool to undermine Israel: as such, it has
found favor with the American radical left, and with the press of
the former Soviet Union. The erstwhile Soviet daily Izvestia wrote
of his work: 'During the World War, Brenner points out, Zionism
showed its real meaning: for the sake of its ambitions, it
sacrificed the blood of millions of Jews.' Brenner has also won
approval on the other end of the spectrum, the neo-fascist right:
His books have been promoted by the Institute for Historical
Review." [1]

Has Foxman even read me on Zionism's role during the Nazi
era? His speech and article unmistakably relied on "Hitler's
Apologists: The Anti-Semitic Propaganda of Holocaust Revisionism,"
prepared by Marc Caplan of the Research and Evaluation Department
of the ADL, in 1993. Here we find the original, slightly longer,
but no more honest, version of Foxman's libel, labeled "A
Revisionist Echo on the Left." Foxman's two paragraphs on me are
virtually the same as Caplan's first two paragraphs. Caplan added
that

"In 1987 this point of view surfaced in England, when a
stridently anti-Zionist play, 'Perdition,' by Jim Allen, was
scheduled for production at London's prestigious Royal Court
Theater. The play generated intense public controversy and,
finally, it did not open. The writer acknowledged Brenner's work as
a source in writing his play, which portrayed a wartime Zionist
leader who allegedly collaborated with the Nazis to save his family
and other Zionists while deserting the rest of the community. Allen
said he was seeking to mount 'the most lethal attack on Zionism
ever written.'" [2]

I've written four books and about 100 articles. Jim Allen is
a prize-winning British playwright. I defy the ADL to point to one
word in either of our writings that supports even a particle of the
Holocaust revisionists' depravity.

In the February 18, 1985 New Republic, Eric Breindel, now an
editor of the New York Post, reported that my first book, Zionism
in the Age of the Dictators,

"has been applauded, and made available by the Institute for
Historical Review, a pseudo-scientific flat-earth society which
endeavors to prove that the Holocaust was a hoax." [3]

Not having seen anything on the book by the Institute, I wrote
them and received a letter from Tom Marcellus of the IHR. They had
'promoted' the book on two occasions. They sent me a booklist:

"397. ZIONISM IN THE AGE OF THE DICTATORS: A REAPPRAISAL by
Lenni Brenner. An astounding, bombshell expose of the active
collaboration between Nazis and Zionists, by a courageous
anti-Zionist Jew who spent years piecing together the story.
Details the close links between the 'Zionist Revisionism' movement
(to which both the young Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir
belonged) and the Jewish question experts of the Nazi Party,
Brenner's charge, overwhelmingly documented: that Zionism and its
leaders from the beginning were prepared to go to any lengths to
achieve their goal of a state in Palestine -- lengths that included
fostering and exploiting anti-Semitism in Europe, and proposing an
alliance with Germany at the zenith of that nation's power. This
book has certain surviving WWII-era Zionists quaking in their boots
-- including the present Prime Minister of Israel!" [4]

The IHR's letter went on:

We also promoted it in an IHR Newsletter of a couple of years
ago, but the remaining copies of that issue and the records
concerning it were all lost in an arson that completely destroyed
our business address and inventory on 4 July last. [5]

I replied to Marcellus in a letter, on April 11, 1985. I
quoted from it in my third book, Jews In America Today, published
in 1986:

"The depravity of the Institute is clearly expressed in a box,
'The Holocaust,' in the same booklet: 'A catch-all term to identify
the alleged extermination of European Jewry which insists on the
following presumptions: 1) The Nazis executed a deliberate plan to
destroy (not resettle) European Jewry, (2) Six million or more Jews
perished as a result, and (3) A majority of these were killed by
poison gas (Zyklon B) in gas chambers designed for the purpose of
taking human life en masse. This is the orthodox or Establishment
view. A subscriber to this view could be called an
EXTERMINATIONIST: whereas one who endeavors to show that one or
more of the above presumptions is not factual is a REVISIONIST.'"

"All of the above is bullshit. I share not one iota of your
mad ideology. I am your implacable opponent. I do not believe you
have any right to exist.... and I support any and all attempts, by
any and all, Zionist or anti-Zionist, to bust up your institute and
your meetings. [6]

I had sent a letter to the New Republic, in response to
Breindel, but Martin Peretz's strange journal wouldn't run it.
Fortunately Alex Cockburn defended me in June 29, 1985 Nation.
Breindel replied, in the August 1, 1985 Nation. Cockburn retorted
that

"Breindel is fond of saying that the Institute... applauds and
disseminates Brenner's work, though he denies that he is thus
trying to saddle Brenner with the Institute's views. But of course
that is what Breindel has been trying to do.... The Institute lists
Brenner's book as it does books by such diverse people as A.P.J.
Taylor, former Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett and New
Republic contributors Ronald Radosh and Allen Weinstein. [7]

Caplan and Foxman may have read of this in the New Republic
and The Nation. But at any rate Caplan certainly was aware of my
opinion of the IHR when he wrote Hitler's Apologists. He had
attacked me in a previous ADL pamphlet, "Jew-Hatred As History. An
Analysis of the Nation of Islam's and The Secret Relationship
Between Blacks and Jews." In that screed he had quoted -- out of
context, of course -- from Jews In America Today. So he certainly
read of the entire IHR episode, as I devoted six pages to it.

It is in order for me to dismiss the Institute's praise of
Zionism in the Age of the Dictators by saying that this is of no
more importance the fact that roaches like gourmet cooking just as
much as you do. But readers are entitled to know why these nutsies
liked it. Basically, they minimize the Holocaust: ŒAw right, so
Hitler didn't exactly like Jews. And he rounded them up, as
enemies, and some of them died of disease. And besides, what about
Roosevelt rounding up the Japanese Americans on the West Coast? And
look at Stalin's Katyn massacre, and Churchill's horrific bombing
of Dresden, and the A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Here the
Yids are, yelling about Hitler, while the Allied leaders were
monsters, just like Hitler. Damned if it isn't true that everyone
has skeletons in their closet. Why go on dumping on po' ol' Adolf?'
Given this loony psychology, their catalogue is full of books on
Allied crimes, no less crimes for being emphasized by these
crazies. In the same way, my exposure of real Zionist activities
during the Nazi era became additional 'proof' that Hitler was no
worse than the rest of the wicked world.

As I don't waste my time reading such crackpots, I have no
idea if they still even mention my book. Certainly they are insane
if they went on praising me, or my book, after I told them that I
hailed anyone who burns their headquarters. As the ADL monitors
their publications, it is reasonable to think that the ADL would
have mentioned this in their attacks on me.

Caplan's paragraph re Jim Allen's Perdition is disingenuous in
its omissions. Allen is a prize-winning British TV playwright.
Perdition was based on a chapter in Zionism in the Age of the
Dictators, dealing with the role of Rezs-Kasztner, a Zionist leader
in Nazi-occupied Hungary in 1944. The play was driven out of the
Royal Court Theatre by a Zionist campaign, but their methods
alienated public opinion. David Cesarani, now an editor of Patterns
of Prejudice, published by the London Jewish establishment's
Institute of Jewish Affairs, admitted this in the July 3, 1987
Jewish Chronicle:

"Was it worth all the fuss? Had the play gone on, it would
have been seen by around 2,000 people. It might have attracted some
bad reviews and then disappeared.... In the event.... Personal
representations coincided with the threat of a mass protest outside
the theatre, the combined effect of which made it seem as if
pressure was being applied.... This was (theatre director) Stafford
Clark's autonomous decision, but the clamour made it appear
disastrously as if he had been bullied into censoring the play....
It is certainly difficult to know how to respond...without
resorting to heavy-handed methods. [8]

In fact Perdition was produced, first in print, then as a
reading at the Edinburgh Festival in 1987 and then in London in
May, 1988. It received massive media attention, including favorable
reviews. Stuart Hood reflected on the print version in the July 10,
1987 Guardian:

"There are certain themes from the history of the Second World
War which are subject to taboos.... (T)he Holocaust has come to
play an important ideological role. It has been in this sense
appropriated by the state of Israel and the Zionist movement. It
has thus become a shield against criticism of the policies and
actions of that state and of Zionism itself...... Allen was a bold
man to write Perdition.... Although he develops his argument with
understanding of the terrible dilemmas of the main persons
involved, his criticism of the role of Zionist ideology, then and
now, has led to his being accused of anti-Semitism, of which his
whole political past is a denial.... By refusing to stage a play
which honestly and compassionately examines a terrible moment in
human history, the Royal Court was guilty of failure of nerve, of
civil courage. By giving way to powerful lobbying it has reinforced
an indefensible political taboo." [9]
There is more to this story. The Jewish Chronicle for November
27, 1992 was forced to run an article which announced that

"The collapse of a libel action has allowed the controversial
anti-Zionist play 'Perdition' to be published in full for the first
time.... Pluto Press, omitted several pages from the original text
because of a libel action which was brought by Nathan Dror, a
senior figure in the Israeli Labour Federation, who headed the
Jewish rescue committee in Switzerland during the war. He brought
the action... for references to a letter quoted in 'Perdition,'
allegedly written by Mr. Dror during the Second World War, which
claimed Jewish deaths would help justify the foundation of a Jewish
state. The action, heard in the High Court in London, collapsed due
to lack of evidence." [10]

Dror's letter will be quoted below, in its proper
chronological place. I had quoted it in my book, which appeared in
Britain and America, in 1983. Dror didn't sue me. But when Allen
quoted the same letter, he was sued. Because of Britain's
reactionary libel laws, the publisher was compelled to print
Allen's play with a blank space where the letter was cited because
the libel case was before the courts. I had an accompanying essay
in that printing of the play, and had the unique experience for an
American writer, of having it in effect censored, with similar
blank spaces where I also quoted the letter.. II - Zionism and the
Nazis: The documentary record

By now two things should be clear to open-minded readers: l)
My ideas regarding Zionism's role during the Holocaust have nothing
in common with Holocaust revisionists, who deny that the Holocaust
happened, and 2) the Zionist movement has used both libel and a
spurious libel suit in its attempt to keep the facts from the
public. But at this point readers are better informed as to what I
didn't say than what I do say re Zionism's Holocaust role.
Naturally I refer them to Zionism in the Age of the Dictators,
which is obtainable in bookstores and libraries. But for now I will
describe some of the low points of their activities, using a small
part of the documentation included in my book.

The Nazis came to power in January, 1933. On June 21 the
Zionistische Vereinigung fur Deutschland (the Zionist Federation of
Germany) sent a memorandum to the Nazi Party. The document first
saw the light of day in 1961, when it was printed in Israel, but in
German. The Nazis were asked, very politely:

"(M)ay we therefore be permitted to present our views, which,
in our opinion, makes possible a solution in keeping with the
principles of the new German State of National Awakening and which
at the same time might signify for Jews a new ordering of the
conditions of their existence..."

"(A)n answer to the Jewish question truly satisfying to the
national state can be brought about only with the collaboration of
the Jewish movement that aims at a social, cultural, and moral
renewal of Jewry...a rebirth of national life, such as is occurring
in German life through adhesion to Christian and national values,
must also take place in the Jewish national group. For the Jew,
too, origin, religion, community of fate and group consciousness
must be of decisive significance in the shaping of his life...."

"On the foundation of the new state, which has established the
principle of race, we wish so to fit our community into the total
structure so that for us too, in the sphere assigned to us,
fruitful activity for the Fatherland is possible... Our
acknowledgment of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and
sincere relationship to the German people and its national and
racial realities. Precisely because we do not wish to falsify these
fundamentals, because we, too, are against mixed marriage and for
the maintaining of the purity of the Jewish group... (R)ootedness
in one's own spirituality protects the Jew from becoming the
rootless critic of the national foundation of German essence. The
national distancing which the state desires would thus be brought
about easily as the result of an organic development... We believe
in the possibility of an honest relationship of loyalty between a
group-conscious Jewry and the German state..."

"For its practical aims, Zionism hopes to be able to win the
collaboration even of a government fundamentally hostile to Jews,
because in dealing with the Jewish question no sentimentalities are
involved but a real problem whose solution interests all peoples,
and at the present moment especially the German people."

"The realization of Zionism could only be hurt by resentment
of Jews abroad against the German development. Boycott propaganda
-- such as is currently being carried on against Germany in many
ways -- is in essence un-Zionist, because Zionism wants not to do
battle but to convince and to build... Our observations, presented
herewith, rest on the conviction that, in solving the Jewish
problem according to its own lights, the German Government will
have full understanding for a candid and clear Jewish posture that
harmonizes with the interests of the state." [11]

I admit to being the Shakespeare of our times, but I didn't
make that up. Indeed the Lenni Brenner of the Elizabethean age
didn't have the imagination to concoct anything as grotesque as
this memorandum. It is found, complete, in A Holocaust Reader,
edited by the late Lucy Dawidowicz. But let's not stop here. Let's
look at some more Zionist wonderfulness.

The Nazis used the World Zionist Organization to break the
efforts of those Jews who were trying to boycott German goods.
German Jews could put money into a Berlin bank. It was then used to
buy export goods which were sold in Palestine. When the emigres
arrived there, they would receive payment for the goods that had
been sold. German Jews were attracted to this scheme because it was
the least painful way of getting their wealth out of the country.
However, with the Nazis determining the rules, they naturally got
worse with time. By 1938 users of the "Transfer Agreement" were
losing 30% and even 50% of their money. But this was still three
times, and eventually five times better than the losses endured by
Jews whose money went to other destinations.

The WZO naturally wanted better terms. Accordingly, in 1937,
the Haganah, the military arm of the Labor Zionists, who dominated
the Jewish Agency, the WZO's headquarters in Palestine, obtained
Berlin's permission to negotiate directly with the
Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the Security Service of the SS. A Haganah
agent, Feival Polkes, arrived in Germany on February 26, 1937 and
Adolf Eichmann was assigned to negotiate with him. Their
conversations were recorded in a report by Eichmann's superior,
Franz-Albert Six. It was found in SS files captured by the
Americans at the end of WWII. David Yisraeli, a well-known Israeli
scholar, reprinted it, in German, in his PhD thesis, The Palestine
Problem in German Politics 1889-1945:

....[edited for length]