Newsletter No 377

                                                                               ISSN 1440-9828
                                                                            April 2008
                                                                   No 378

The Chosen Extradition Treaty Between the

Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Israel

By David Brockschmidt

On 15 March 2008 the Melbourne Age informs its readers that an extradition treaty between Australia and Israel exists, “…but Israel does not extradite its citizens”.

So, my question to our Foreign Minister: Please explain how this so-called extradition treaty works between Australia and Israel, if only one side, in this case Australia, is willing to extradite one or more of its citizens, should the State of Israel requests that? This is assuming that such an extradition request would not violate Australian and international law

But in the case where Australia would demand one or more of its citizens living in Israel to be extradited to Australia – and we can assume they are all Jewish and hold dual citizenship – then the Australian demand for extradition is denied with a simple explanation that such a request would violate the laws of the State of Israel because as a matter of principle the State of Israel does not extradite any of its citizens to any country in the world, regardless what they are wanted for, regardless what crime has been committed.

My second question to the Foreign Minister is: What type of extradition treaty is this? Is this a joke or the Monty Python version of an extradition treaty? This makes the state of Israel look like a rogue outcast country within the international community and a haven for Jewish criminals from all over the world.

Such extradition treaty arrangements of course perverts Theodor Herzel’s idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and the later foundation of the State of Israel, to become a refuge for persecuted Jews from all over the world. I don’t think Herzl wanted to include Jewish criminals in his ideal.

I will highlight just one example out of thousands to illustrate my point. I am referring to the alleged mass murderer Solomon Morel who murdered, partly with his own hands, in Polish Secret Service uniform after the end of WWII innocent Polish and German civilians, men, women and children. This took place in an ex-German concentration camp in Poland, which the Polish Bolsheviks took over, as detailed in John Sack’s book: An Eye for an Eye. John Sack was a Polish Jew living in the USA writing for various publications. Sack also attended Adelaide Institute’s 1998 Revisionist Symposium. His research activated the Polish prosecutor General in Warsaw to have Morel put on trial in Poland for crimes committed against the Polish people. Morel fled to Israel and the Israeli authorities informed the Polish prosecutor that 1. Israel does not extradite its citizens; 2. The accusations against Morel for murder had expired, and 3. The State of Israel refused to put Morel on trial in Israel for his alleged crimes committed in Poland.

This Solomon Morel case, and now the current one involving Malka Leifer, below, shows clearly that western society is morally and intellectually bankrupt because the laws of the State of Israel regarding extraditions of their citizens to countries where they are wanted and Israel’s refusal to hand them over clearly illustrates the Orwellian maxim: Some are more equal than others. I personally always believed that the so-called privilege of being a ‘chosen people’ is a curse, but in this case and in many other circumstances it works well for them.

Bye-bye Democracy, Talmudistan rules supreme – here come the Noahide Laws. On that, let’s be a little predictive here: If Australia demands the extradition of one of its citizens of Palestinian-Muslim descent, who also holds Israeli citizenship, would the state of Israel also refuse to extradite any of its Muslim or Christian citizens, for example Mordechai Vanunu? Or does the refusal to extradite its citizens apply only to Israelis of Jewish faith?

Alternately, will Australia oblige Israel with an extradition of so-called ‘Holocaust deniers’, if Israel makes such a request even if it violates Australian law?

Jewish school 'devastated'

By Beck Eleven, March 14, 2008

Grüß Gott! Mein Name ist Dirk Zimmermann, ich bin 36 Jahre, bin glücklich verheiratet, habe 2 entzückende Kinder, einen Beruf der mir sehr viel Spaß macht. Und trotzdem habe ich mich selbst angezeigt.

Nein, ich habe nicht Steuern in Millionenhöhe hinterzogen. Und auch kein Raub oder Mord begangen.

Ich habe mich damit, daß ich Kopien eines in Deutschland verbotenen Buches an 3 mir unbekannte Personen des lokalen öffentlichen Lebens verschickt habe, strafbar gemacht.

Der Straftatbestand heißt „Volksverhetzung“. Mit dem Volksverhetzungsparagraphen wird eine bestimmte Meinung zu einem bestimmten Thema der jüngeren Geschichte unter Strafe gestellt. Es handelt sich also um ein Meinungsverbrechen.

Das bestimmte Thema ist der „Holocaust“, die industrielle Massenvernichtung der europäischen Juden in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus.

Das von mir in die Öffentlichkeit gebrachte Buch heißt: „Vorlesungen über den Holocaust –Strittige Fragen im Kreuzverhör“.

Der Autor des Buches ist Germar Rudolf, der seit März 2007 eine Haftstrafe wegen der Veröffentlichung desselben absitzt.

In seinem Werk verfolgt der Dipl. Chemiker Germar Rudolf, die These, daß es keinen vorsätzlichen Völkermord, also keine industrielle Massenvernichtung an Juden vor und in den Zeiten des zweiten Weltkrieges gab.

Die Einziehung seines Werkes wurde deshalb von deutschen Behörden angeordnet. Welche Wahrheit benötigt den Schutz von Strafgesetzen? Aber weiter:

Sylvia Stolz, die Anwältin von Germar Rudolf, wurde ebenfalls wegen „Volksverhetzung“ angeklagt, verurteilt und am 14.1.2008 gleich nach der Urteilsverkündung, sie wurde zu dreieinhalb Jahren Haft verurteilt, wurde sie abgeführt und eingekerkert.

Wenn jetzt auch Anwälte in Ausübung ihrer Berufstätigkeit vor Gericht gezerrt und eingesperrt werden, dann muss sich nun endlich gegen diese willkürlichen Maßnahmen ein Widerstand erheben.

Der Zeitpunkt meiner Selbstanzeige ist daher bewusst gewählt. Es war der Tag des Prozeßauftaktes gegen Sylvia Stolz.

Ich erkläre hier noch einmal, daß ich mich nach den Gesetzen der BRD strafbar gemacht habe. Ich bin auch ein frei denkender Meinungsverbrecher. Ich nehme die Konsequenzen bewußt in Kauf.

Natürlich weiß ich nicht wie der Staat aufgrund dieser Selbstanzeige gegen mich vorgehen wird. Und auch ich ziehe lieber die Annehmlichkeiten des Alltags vor und bringe mich und vor allem meine Familie nur sehr ungern in Gefahr.

Allerdings habe ich das Recht selber zu denken und Fragen zu stellen. Dieses Recht ist unveräußerlich, unantastbar. Das Hinterfragen und Beleuchten von Sachverhalten ist die zwingende Vorraussetzung um gewisse Zweifel auszuräumen und damit in freier Entscheidung selber zur Wahrheit zu gelangen.

Der Holocaust ist mir nicht gewiß, ich glaube nicht, ich zweifle. Wenn öffentliches Zweifeln bestraft wird, dann zweifle ich!

Translated by Prof James Damon

Hello, my name is Dirk Zimmermann. I am 36 years old and happily married. I have two delightful children and a profession that I enjoy very much.

Despite all this, I have filed a criminal complaint against myself.

No, I did not evade millions of Euros in taxes and no, I did not rob or murder anyone.

I deliberately inculpated myself by sending through the German mails three copies of a scientific book about chemical analysis – a book that is officially verboten or taboo in Germany!

Furthermore I compounded my criminal transgression by sending the books to strangers. This criminal transgression is called “Incitement of the Masses.”

In the section of the German Criminal Code that deals with “Incitement,” a certain opinion concerning a certain subject that has to do with contemporary history is strictly outlawed. It is a crime of political opinion. That “certain subject” is “Holocaust,” the alleged industrial genocide of European Jewry during the period of National Socialism.

The book that I distributed through the book is called “Lectures on the Holocaust” and the author of this book is the diploma chemist Germar Rudolf, who has been sitting in German prisons since March 2007 for publishing the book.

In this book Germar Rudolf develops the thesis that there was no methodical genocide, that is, no industrial scale murders of Jews during the Second World War. For this reason, German officialdom ordered the recall and destruction of the work.
I ask: what kind of “truth” has to be enforced by criminal legislation?

Furthermore:
Sylvia Stolz, Germar Rudolf’s defense attorney, was also charged and convicted of “Incitement of the Masses.”
On 14th January 2008, immediately upon pronouncement of the verdict, she was sentenced to three and a half years and immediately thrown in prison.
Since even defense attorneys are now being charged and imprisoned for practicing their profession in Germany, it is absolutely necessary that we citizens of Germany show resistance to such tyranny.
Therefore I chose the date of my civil disobedience carefully. It is the day that the trial of Sylvia Stolz began.
Once again, I openly declare that I have violated the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Furthermore I am a freethinking thought-criminal. I knowingly accept the consequences of my act.

Of course I cannot know how the State will proceed against me on account of my civil disobedience. I too would prefer the pleasantries of everyday life, and I greatly regret having to expose myself and especially my family to danger.

More important is the right of the individual German to think and ask questions, however.

This right is inviolable and irrevocable.

Asking questions and examining empirical evidence are the indispensible prerequisites for dispelling doubts and freely determining the Truth.

I am not convinced of the authenticity of “Holocaust.”
I cannot accept such a thing on faith. If it is against the law to harbor doubts, then I must be punished!

___________________________________________________

'Wolf woman' invents Holocaust survival tale. By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels, 1 March 2008

Misha Defonseca

Mrs Defonseca's book became a runaway bestseller

A woman's best-selling account of how she lost her parents to the Holocaust and survived by living with wolves in the forests of Europe has been exposed as a fabrication.

"Surviving with Wolves", first published 11 years ago, has been translated into 18 languages and was recently turned into a film.

But in a statement issued by her lawyers, Misha Defonseca, who was born Monique De Wael, confessed that while her parents, members of Belgium's resistance, were killed by the Nazis her family was not Jewish and most of the events of the book were made up. "Ever since I can remember, I felt Jewish," she said. "There are times when I find it difficult to differentiate between reality and my inner world. The story in the book is mine. It is not the actual reality - it was my reality, my way of surviving."

"At first, I did not want to publish it, but then I was convinced. I ask for forgiveness for all those who feel betrayed but I ask them to put themselves in the place of a small girl of four years old who has lost everything and who has to survive."

In her book, Mrs Defonseca describes being taken in by the DeWael family as a young girl. "She was given a new name, a new home, and forced into a new religion," claims publicity for her book. Knowing only that her parents had "gone East", the young Misha sets out to find them equipped only with a tiny compass. After crossing Belgium, Germany and Poland alone on foot, close to starvation in a vast forest, she was adopted by a family of wolves. Mrs Defonseca's book became a runaway bestseller after its publication in Italy and France and has made her a millionaire.

But suspicions were aroused in Belgium's Jewish community and some of her old school friends from the Anderlecht district of Brussels recognised her. They insisted that she was born and raised a Catholic by the De Wael family and lived with her grandfather after her parents were deported.

"She belonged to a very good family and lived in the most beautiful house on the street," one former friend told La Meuse newspaper. "Monique was always 'special'. She wanted to be the 'star' where ever she went."

Despite growing evidence in recent weeks of inconsistencies in her story, including a birth certificate showing she was not Jewish, Mrs Donfonseca insisted she was telling the truth until she released her statement.

At the film's premiere in France last month she even turned up with a little compass, "my most precious talisman", which she said had helped her find her way on her journey east through the forests of occupied Europe. Vera Belmont, the director of the French film "Survivre avec les Loups" has taken the revelations well. Her spokeswoman said: "The movie is a fiction from the book. No matter if it's true or not - she believes it is, anyway - she just thinks it's a beautiful story." Jane Daniel, the publisher Mrs Defonseca claims persuaded her to write the book, is less forgiving after being sued by the author in a breach of contract case for £11 million. She now intends to challenge the judgment on the grounds that Mrs Defonseca's original contract had warranted the truth of the story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/29/wwolf129.xml

*******************

Writer Says Holocaust 'Memoir' Not True

By CONSTANT BRAND, Associated Press Writer

A Belgian writer has admitted that she made up her best-selling "memoir" depicting how, as a Jewish child, she lived with a pack of wolves in the woods during the Holocaust, her lawyers said Friday.

Misha Defonseca's book, "Misha: A Memoire of the Holocaust Years," was translated into 18 languages and made into a feature film in France.

Her two Brussels-based lawyers, siblings Nathalie and Marc Uyttendaele, said the author acknowledged her story was not autobiographical and that she did not trek 1,900 miles as a child across Europe with a pack of wolves in search of her deported parents during World War II.

"I ask forgiveness to all who felt betrayed," Defonseca said, according to a written statement the lawyers gave to The Associated Press.

Defonseca, 71, now lives in Dudley, Mass. Her husband, Maurice, told The Boston Globe on Thursday that she would not comment.

Defonseca wrote in her book that Nazis seized her parents when she was a child, forcing her to wander the forests and villages of Europe alone for four years. She claimed she found herself trapped in the Warsaw ghetto, killed a Nazi soldier in self-defense and was adopted by a pack of wolves that protected her.

In the statement, Defonseca acknowledged the story she wrote was a fantasy and that she never fled her home in Brussels during the war to find her parents.

Defonseca says her real name is Monique De Wael and that her parents were arrested and killed by Nazis as Belgian resistance fighters, the statement said.

"This story is mine. It is not actually reality, but my reality, my way of surviving," the statement said.

"I ask forgiveness to all who felt betrayed. I beg you to put yourself in my place, of a 4-year-old girl who was very lost," the statement said.

The statement said her parents were arrested when she was 4 and she was taken care of by her grandfather and uncle. She said she was poorly treated by her adopted family, called a "daughter of a traitor" because of her parents' role in the resistance, which she said led her to "feel Jewish."

She said there were moments when she "found it difficult to differentiate between what was real and what was part of my imagination."

Nathalie Uyttendaele said she and her brother contacted the author last weekend to show her material discovered by Belgian daily Le Soir, which questioned her story.

"We gave her this information and it was very difficult. She was confronted with a reality that is different from what she has been living for 70 years," Nathalie Uyttendaele said.

Pressure on the author to defend the accuracy of her book had grown in recent weeks.

"I'm not an expert on relations between humans and wolves but I am a specialist of the persecution of Jews and they (Defonseca's family) can't be found in the archives," Belgian historian Maxime Steinberg told RTL television. "The De Wael family is not Jewish nor were they registered as Jewish."

Defonseca had been asked to write the book by U.S. publisher Jane Daniel in the 1990s, after Daniel heard the writer tell the story in a Massachusetts synagogue.

Daniel and Defonseca fell out over profits received from the best-selling book, which led to a lawsuit. In 2005, a Boston court ordered Daniel to pay Defonseca and her ghost writer Vera Lee $22.5 million.

Lee, of Newton, Mass., said she was shocked to hear Defonseca made up the story.

"She always maintained that this was truth as she recalled it, and I trusted that that was the case," Lee said.

Defonseca's lawyers said Daniel has not yet paid the court-ordered sum.

Daniel said Friday she would try to get the judgment overturned. She said she could not fully research Defonseca's story before it was published because the woman claimed she did not know her parents' names, her birthday or where she was born.

"There was nothing to go on to research," she said.

Associated Press writer Melissa Trujillo in Boston contributed to this report.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/entertainment/2004250941_apholocaustbookhoax.html?syndication=rss

At 11.58am on Wednesday one half of the Australian Parliament "celebrated" the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel. More than a third of that one-half was absent, whatever their reasons. A number of MPs deliberately excluded themselves. Labor's Kevin Rudd, as the host, did not. He spoke for eight minutes. "Celebrate" was the word Rudd used to begin his remarks. "Congratulations" was the word he used to end them. The Liberals' Brendan Nelson spoke for seven minutes in supporting the Prime Minister. He concluded: "Shabat shalom forever."

Nobody else spoke. The whole affair, carefully orchestrated, carefully bi-partisan, lasted just 15 minutes. The press gallery was almost empty.

So, too, were the two public galleries. About 100 invited guests, each wearing a security pass, filled the first three rows of the Speaker's gallery upstairs and spilled into the fourth. These were the people who, after Rudd's seven-part, 191-word motion had been "put and passed" without a vote, applauded enthusiastically. The only other person who spoke - or attempted to - was a middle-aged woman.

She got to her feet, in the seats behind the VIP guests, and held up a T-shirt, exclaiming, "What about UN resolution 242?", as Rudd had begun speaking. Two attendants moved in quickly. Taking her by the arm, they escorted the woman outside, without fuss. Unlike what is still happening in Israel's military occupation, after 41 years, of the Palestinian people of the West Bank and its siege of the Gaza strip, it was a very civilised eviction.

On this day, in the Australian Parliament, normal legislative business resumed at 12.13pm. The VIP guests upstairs in the Speaker's gallery filed out. Most of the MPs downstairs drifted away to their offices. At 4pm the Israeli ambassador hosted a reception in the Parliament's second-floor Mural Hall for invited guests only. Rudd and Nelson reappeared, as suitably Uriah Heepish as their midday speeches had been.

That night, back on the floor of the House of Representatives, the woman MP who took Tim Fischer's southern NSW seat off the Nationals in 2001 and, in two elections, turned it into safe Liberal territory, did an extremely courageous thing.

Her name is Sussan Penelope Ley.

She is the daughter of a British colonial police officer who served in British-mandated Palestine in the 1930s, before the United Nations ceded half of it to become a Jewish state in May 1948. Born in Nigeria in 1961, Ley spent most of the first 13 years of her life in what was then the Trucial States, later the United Arab Emirates. Her family migrated to Australia in 1974. She has lived here ever since, working as an air traffic controller, a commercial pilot, a shearer's cook, a farmer, and a senior taxation department official. She has a bunch of degrees, three children and is now a member of the Nelson shadow ministry.

What Sussan Ley did in Parliament on Wednesday night was speak for the Palestinian people. She was the only MP who did. In fact, the only MHR of the House's 150, apart from the two leaders, to even raise the issue.

When Rudd and Nelson had spoken at midday I counted 53 Government MPs present, including six ministers, and 39 Coalition MPs. When Ley got the call 7½ hours later, at 7.38pm, to speak on the adjournment, there were five people in the public gallery, four Labor MPs and two Coalition MPs in the chamber, and one journalist in the press gallery. She was the fourth-last speaker before Parliament shut down for the day, after 11 hours, and she was allowed five minutes.

Here is an edited version of what she said:

"Today the Parliament passed a motion honouring Israel's 60 years. My purpose tonight is not to diminish Israel's achievements but to note the interests and legitimate aspirations of the people of Palestine.

"Israel has many friends in this country and in this Parliament. The Palestinians, by comparison, have few. Theirs is not a popular cause. But it is one I support, in part out of knowledge that the victors of World War II, including Australia, wrote a 'homeland' cheque to cover the sins of the holocaust and centuries of anti-Semitism in Europe, but it was the Palestinians who had to cash it.

"Israel has much to celebrate after 60 years. It has built a modern, accomplished and intelligent society, one whose scientific and technological expertise offers a great deal to the world. It has a robust democracy, a free press, a secular state with freedom of faith, and an unfettered opposition, regrettably rare in the Middle East. If there were peace between Israelis and Palestinians, one can only imagine the achievements of these two cultures today.

"Israel's 40-year occupation of the Palestinian territories, its continued expansion of [illegal Israeli] settlements [on Palestinian land] and its refusal to allow the return of expelled refugees have caused deep resentment in the Arab world. Palestinian corruption in government and failure to abandon violence against civilians as a political tool have meant Israel does not feel secure behind secure borders. Sixty years have seen a great deal of bloodshed - Arab, Israeli and others, including 34 US soldiers killed by Israeli forces on the USS Liberty during the 1967 war. I do not find it helpful to engage in a forensic apportionment of blame; each side has legitimate grievances.

"The current blockade of Gaza, confiscation of Palestinian land, and the expansion of settlements must be mentioned in the context of today's motion. Gaza is besieged, contained and on the brink of starvation. Rockets are fired into Israel every day, and Israel has a right to self-defence, but the crushing economic embargo feeds fury and resentment both in Gaza and the West Bank. [A total] 2679 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli [military] forces in the Gaza Strip since September 2000, [while] an Israeli human rights organisation reported 1259 of those were not participating in hostilities when they were killed, and 567 were minors …

"We ought not be naive or simplistic about the challenge faced by the Israelis in moving towards peace with a [popularly elected] counterpart, in Hamas, that is funded and supported by a foreign power [Syria] and which retains an explicit commitment to [terrorism] as a political instrument. But may I remind the House of the example of the Northern Ireland peace process [which succeeded] after a more than 40-year struggle.

"There are signs the Israeli people are developing a renewed hunger for peace. A recent Tel Aviv University poll indicates 64 per cent of Israelis believe the [Israeli] Government must hold direct talks with the Hamas government in Gaza towards a ceasefire. Military occupation, blockades and hostility against civilians in the name of security will result in [more] violence and terror. We must think what we can do [for] ordinary Israelis and Palestinians to give them some faith in the peace process …

"We are the leaders of our generation. We are accountable for results. If the principal protagonists and the rest of the world community hand Palestine on to the next generation as a twisted mess of grievance, hatred and retribution, then we have failed. The last two generations of leaders have failed to produce peace. Let us renew our efforts."

Unlike earlier in the day, nobody applauded - though I wished I could have. Many Australians, too, had they been present, surely would have wanted to acknowledge such a speech of such honesty and sensibility, about the Israelis as much as it was about the Palestinians. Ley put the grovelling Rudd and Nelson to shame.

The truth is there is no real debate in this country about the travesty of what is happening in the Middle East, and there are those in the community who, with their money and influence, do all they can to ensure no such open debate occurs, either in the national Parliament, in the media or anywhere else.

[-emphasis added – AI]

So why was the Rudd Government, in its first four months of office, doing what no Australian government or parliament had done, to acknowledge any of the decades of Israeli statehood since the Six-Day War in 1967 saw the Israeli military occupy the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza and ignore 40 years of mutual violence and barbarity as well as 40 years of United Nations resolutions, to withdraw?

The Howard government did not "honour" Israel's 50th anniversary in 1998, nor the Hawke government the 40th anniversary in 1988, nor the Fraser government the 30th anniversary in 1978. Why the 60th in 2008 the instant a Labor Government comes to power?

When the Labor caucus met on Tuesday, as it does every week the Parliament sits, Sydney's Julia Irwin asked Rudd this very question.

Why? Irwin never takes a backward step in her defence of Palestinian rights, but all she got from Rudd this time was waffle. He did not explicitly respond as to why 60 might be different from earlier decades when the Parliament had done nothing and neither had earlier governments. And no Labor MP supported Irwin in pushing it.

She was a lone voice in the Labor caucus as Sussan Ley was in the Parliament. How's that for political ticker?

Leaders vie to ladle on the gush

When our Prime Minister spoke in the Parliament this week before a select audience of 100 VIP guests, including the Israeli ambassador, he was speaking to a 191-word proposal he had drafted, in consultation with a range of people, which read:

"That the House [of Representatives]

"(1) celebrate and commend the achievements of the state of Israel in the 60 years since its inception;

"(2) remember with pride and honour the important role which Australia played in the establishment of the state of Israel as both a member state of the United Nations and as an influential voice in the introduction of Resolution 181 which facilitated Israel's statehood [in 1948], and as the country which proudly became the first to cast a vote in support of Israel's creation;

"(3) acknowledge the unique relationship which exists between Australia and Israel, a bond highlighted by our commitment to the rights and liberty of our citizens and encouragement of cultural diversity;

"(4) commend the state of Israel's commitment to democracy, the rule of law and pluralism;

"(5) reiterate Australia's commitment to Israel's right to exist and our ongoing support to the peaceful establishment of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue;

"(6) reiterate Australia's commitment to the pursuit of peace and stability throughout the Middle East; and

"(7) on this, the 60th anniversary of independence of the state of Israel, pledge our friendship, commitment and enduring support to the people of Israel as we celebrate this important occasion together."

Make of this splendid piece of mutual back scratching what you will, but know that the supposed virtue of Australia "proudly" becoming "the first to cast a vote in support of Israel's creation" at the United Nations in 1948 is sophistry. We were the first for no other reason than, in voting by alphabetical order, Australia was the first country to vote.

Some excerpts from the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in support of the bipartisan motion make the point that when politicians seek to trowel on the gush, Australia loses nothing now that Rudd and Nelson have replaced Howard and Beazley.

Rudd: "… The 60 years since the establishment of Israel have been full of challenges and full of trials. Similarly, the process for the emergence of a Palestinian state has come along a tortuous path. There has been too much bloodshed. But over those 60 years there has also been cause for hope.

"We think today of prime minister Menachem Begin standing with Jimmy Carter and Egypt's Anwar Sadat at the White House on March 26, 1979 at the signing of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty that followed the Camp David accords. Prime minister Begin used both the Hebrew and Arabic words for peace when he urged: 'No more war, no more bloodshed, no more bereavement. Peace unto you. Shalom, salaam, forever.' "

Nelson: "In a region of the world that is characterised more by theocracies and autocracies, the state of Israel is the custodian of the most fragile yet powerful of human emotions, and that is hopeful belief in the freedom of man, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. There are many things for which Israel stands and which characterise the modern state of Israel, but included among them is the celebration of knowledge for its own sake and knowledge as the driver of economic development and emancipation from human poverty…

"Israel, like all democracies, is far from perfect, but it is, in every sense of the word, on the front line of the struggle for the things that we hold dear, not only as Australians and free people but as human beings. And it is far too frequently on the front line of the struggle against all the things repugnant to universal human ideals …

"Israel is home to many things that are spiritual, but it is home in the end to the human spirit of resilience, of confidence, of determination and of respect for one another, irrespective of political, religious or other affiliations … No Australian who believes in the dignity of man, in freedom and in democratic principles should ever, through neglectful indifference, allow Israel to be a stranger. To do so would be to diminish ourselves and our own true security …"

How can you top that lot?

Alan Ramsey: Don't mention the war as Israel lauded

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/dontmentionthewarasisraellauded/2008/03/07/1204780063505.html

1. The legal problem in Australia is to weave the MATTERS OF FACT into the MATTERS OF LAW that have become separated because the matter under consideration is a breach of a court order, which has little to do with MATTERS OF FACT – a most difficult task because since the Zündel 1988 Toronto trial, Holocaust believers, such as Alan Dershowitz, have insisted that MATTERS OF FACT not be canvassed in court and that so-called Holocaust-Shoah survivors should not appear as WITNESSES in court. Through rigorous examination and cross examination, Doug Christie/ Ernst Zündel and their legal team had demolished any MATTERS OF FACT credibility flowing from such witnesses.

2. The German trials of Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zündel revealed how evidence going towards the factuality of the matter was totally irrelevant and ignored by the judges. Germar was even permitted to state in court everything he wanted to say about the topic, which he did, quoting extensively from his own works – and still he was found GUILTY. Ernst’s defence relied on a challenge to the constitutionality/legality of the proceedings. Both trials pushed the matter forward by forcing judges, who attempted to avoid MATTERS OF FACT that were still aired in court, to make absurd statements in their judgments. Germar’s Lectures book was also put on the banned INDEX. Horst Mahler’s aim was to push the legal argument to its absurd conclusion, and Sylvia Stolz’s physical performance in court illustrated this so well. The world media took notice of what was happening in the Mannheim courts. In France it is a simple matter: don’t contest the outcome of the International Military Tribunal, Nürnberg, findings: Prof Robert Faurisson, Georges Theil, Golnisch, et al, fall into this category. The French Revolutionary (Jewish) tinged conceptual framework – liberty, fraternity, equality – would hate to imprison dissenting minds.

Germany is so stupid – but dialectically sharp - that it does not realize that its democracy claim is negated by what it is doing to its dissenting minds. Hence the importance of Kant’s Categorical Imperative within the Hegelian dialectic framework. It was Karl Popper who demolished then language philosophers such as Wittgenstein who claimed all our problems would disappear if we only correctly analysed our language use – moral problems remain, Popper contended, much to Wittgenstein’s disgust!

3. The Iranian December 2006 open media Holocaust Conference furthered awareness of the Holocaust-Shoah dogma’s global grip, with particular focus and reference to what the Jews are doing to the Palestinian people. It has had its effect, and this is illustrated by the recent comment of - that Palestinians can expect a ‘Holocaust’ if they continue to resist Israeli terrorism.

4. In Australia the legal problem would not be solved if the Adelaide Institute website were NOW transferred overseas, though it is most likely that some censorship consequences will result when the legal battle is over. The aim is to lift the matter into the political sphere, to prove that Jews/Zionists have for years pressured individual Australians to comply with their world view. We have examples of such and will present this to the court.

5. Comments made by Wolfram Graetz are not helpful.: “I have recommended TWICE many months ago to Frederick Toeben to HOST HIS MATERIAL IN IRAN. But he remained RIGGID and . . . Some people seek the PUNISHMENT for PUBLICITY !!! It's all a DIS-HONEST HOAX !!!!!!!!!”.

But remember, Wolfram has had a personal visit to God and thus is blessed a thousandfold with wisdom that I do not possess. He also pulls out the Nazi-fascist card to support his belief system, something I would not do, just as I would not blanket condemn any group of individuals, as stated in my maxim about Jewry: Don’t blame the Jews, blame those that bend to their pressure! Zionist Barry Chamish does come up with some insightful material – and, I must admit, Wolfram too, does sometimes – when he’s smoking the right stuff, I suppose – produce flashes of insight.

6. That a German version of Carlo Mattogno’s Auschwitz: The First Gassing, has just appeared – thanks to Tony Hancock! – enabled me to write a brief review and also incorporate that in my submissions to court.

Annexure 3 – Fredrick Töben’s brief review of Carlo Mattogno’s December 2007 book, Auschwitz: Die Erste Vergasung. Gerüchte und Wirklichkeit –translated from the original Italian 1992 edition – Auschwitz: La Prima gasazione - by Henry Gardner with Günter Deckert. ISBN: 979-0-9557 162-1-8. Castle Hill Publishers, PO Box 118, GB-Hastings TN34 3 ZQ, United Kingdom. www.ety.com/HRP. Distribution Australia/Asia: Peace Books, PO Box 3300, Norwood – 5067, Australia.

Renowned Italian Revisionist, Carlo Mattogno, is the world’s expert on the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. His detailed analysis of physical and documentary evidence enables him to answer with a definitive ‘NO!’ anyone who asserts gassings occurred at Auschwitz. His detailed knowledge enables him, literally, to state what size of screws were used on doors, etc.

Mattogno’s 1992 published results have been re-published and updated in a German edition by Castle Hill Publishers in Great Britain where, unlike in Germany, such publishing venture is still legal.

FORM – The 146-page paperback contains notes on primary sources, a detailed bibliography but no index. A number of typographical errors could have been avoided by closer proof-reading, especially by eliminating the number of wrongly hyphenated words. Also, it would have helped the German reader to visualize Mattogno’s argument had the photo appendix of the 2005 English edition been included. A reference in the Introduction states Mattogno is reflecting on 12 years since the Italian edition was published, but that should have been 15 years, which is corrected at the end of Mattogno’s Introduction dated ‘Rome, July 2007’.

CONTENT - In the first sentence of the Introduction the author states that although new material facts have emerged since the publishing of the 1992 Italian version there is no need to revise the conclusions then made. Mattogno also comments on the fact that mainstream historians have totally neglected the genesis of the gassing story:

‘The consequences of this strange inactivity on the part of official historiography is that the bibliography on this topic is, as yet, practically non-existent. Up until 1992, only a single article had been dedicated to this subject…’.

Mattogno then comments on how Jean Claude Pressac in 1993 arbitrarily changes the commencement dates and the duration of the gassings:

‘Here, I must point out another error of J-C Pressac, which will deliver the coup de grace to his explanation: it is not true that block 11 was unheated in December 1941. In fact, a heating device had been installed in this building by the end of May 1941.’

In the 1995 five-volume anthology, Auschwitz 1940-1945. Fundamental problems of the history of the camp, the director of the Auschwitz Museum, Dr Franciszek Piper, in his article ‘Gas chambers and crematoria’, he devotes four pages to the first gassings.

The publication of the 1995 Auschwitz Death Books did not contribute anything to the first gassing genesis.

According to Mattogno the first gassings are treated with incredible superficiality by Robert Jan van Pelt in his The Case for Auschwitz. Evidence from the Irving Trial. Indiana University Press, 2002.

The main source of information about the first gassing is still Danuta Czech’s 1959 published German edition, Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau.

The second edition, published in 1989, adds new details that often contradict what appeared in the 1959 edition, and are based on the material produced by Polish investigative Judge Jan Sehn in 1946.

In magnificent academic style, and to the annoyance to the Holocaust-Shoah believers, Carlo Mattogno demolishes any argument about homicidal gassings at Auschwitz. The Chapter headings give an overview how it is done:

An English edition of Mattogno’s book has been available since September 2005: Auschwitz: The First gassing. Rumour and Reality. Volume 20 in the HOLOCAUST Handbooks Series – ISBN: 1-59148-025-6, and Volume 5 in the Auschwitz Studies Set – ISBN: 1-59148-012-4.

If we add to the above considerations the fact that in 1996 Robert-Jan van Pelt admitted in his Auschwitz: From 1270 to the Present, there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz Stammlager, then add to that Fritjof Meyer’s documented claim of 2002 that there were no gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau, but that such gassings occurred in outlying farmhouses, then it is evidently irrational to believe in the Auschwitz homicidal gassing story.

Also, there ought to be open research where Revisionists, such as Carlo Mattogno, are free to conduct their research instead of being legally persecuted.

Please view of the following to see where I am going, especially the Affidavits’ Annexures – click on then – please, if links don’t work, advise.

Blinkers off for the other side of story

Leaders vie to ladle on the gush