Arts Council reprimands Jewish Book Week for Renouf ban
Prof David Cesarani chairs a discussion of Rudolf Kasztner at London's Jewish Book Week with (left) Kasztner's daughter Zsuzsi and (right) Prof Ladislaus Lob, author of a new book about Kasztner.
Chairing a discussion on the controversial Hungarian Zionist Rudolf Kasztner at London's Jewish Book Week on February 27th, Prof. David Cesarani remarked that the history of the 'Holocaust' as it affected Hungary's Jewish community is "shot through with ambiguity".
This ambiguity emerged not only in the content of the debate, but in the conduct of its organisers. The chairman of Jewish Book Week, Gail Sandler, kindly ensured our entry to the meeting despite our last minute arrival. But at the end of the event, Lady Renouf was approached by an official of the Community Security Trust, who said "Michèle, we let you in this time, but we have spoken to the organisers and you are not welcome at any more of these events." Surprised that the CST even knew who she was, and even more surprised to be banned given that she had not said a word during the meeting, Lady Renouf asked to be given some reason for her exclusion.
She was told that Jewish Book Week was a private event and that the organisers had the right to ban anyone they wished; the CST official said he would put the reasons in writing, adding the sinister threat: "we know the address to write to." This extraordinary proscription would seem to contradict JBW's own mission statement: Jewish Book Week is a multifaceted international festival unallied to any religious or political denomination.
More importantly it raises serious questions about JBW's Arts Council sponsorship, since the Arts Council of England is keen to stress its commitment to a positive celebration of diversity and the artistic and creative opportunities it offers, and aims to dismantle social or institutional barriers that prevent people from participating in and enjoying the arts - with particular reference of course to issues around race, ethnicity and faith.
Since there were no problems during the meeting, and Lady Renouf had not intervened in the debate or caused any conceivable offence to anyone on the platform or in the audience, it seems odd that the Arts Council funded Jewish Book Week seems determined to erect political/ethnic/religious barriers rather than dismantle them!
After his attention was drawn to Jewish Book Week's inappropriate conduct the Chief Executive of the Arts Council, Alan Davey, wrote to the organisers to reprimand them for their discriminatory behaviour, stressing that "an event that is open to the public must allow access to all audience members regardless of their political views."
In other words the Jewish Book Week and the Community Security Trust may wish to exclude their political opponents from such events, but if they wish to continue receiving public funds they do not have the right to do so.
Perhaps the CST was worried about any report we might publish about the content of the debate, which as one might guess from its title - Rehabilitating Kasztner - was in its way a form of Holocaust revisionism. While some revisionists are imprisoned, others are given a platform at Jewish Book Week...
German courts continue to imprison lawyers and scholars for daring to challenge the legally protected "manifest obviousness" of the approved version of 'Holocaust' history. Yet Prof. Cesarani opened the JBW debate by saying that there was "nothing clear cut" about the history of Hungarian Jewry in 1944-45 - swiftly adding "except of course the fate of the 430,000 deported to Auschwitz".
Kasztner's story begins with the German occupation of Hungary on March 19th 1944. Cesarani and his fellow academic Ladislaus Lob (author of the new book Dealing with Satan, Rezso’s Kasztner’s Daring Rescue Mission) agreed that this occupation aimed first to prevent Hungary's potential defection to the Allies, and second to exploit the country's resources fully in a last ditch effort to avert defeat.
Part of this objective was, in Cesarani's words, to "get their hands on Jewish labour", and he pointed out that the deportation of Hungarian Jews was made possible in the first place by an agreement between Adolf Hitler, Joachim Ribbentrop and Hungarian regent Admiral Horthy to deliver 100,000 workers to Germany.
This prompted a naive interruption from Kasztner's daughter Zsuzsi, who objected that as far as she knew Eichmann had deported and killed 450,000 Hungarian Jews - so how did labour come into the equation?!?
An embarrassed Cesarani had to point out that there was a "bizarre core of rationality" to the deportations, and that on his own estimate around 20% of the Jewish deportees were selected for various forms of work.
The main ambiguity concerns the Jewish - and more specifically the Zionist - reactions to these deportations. Prof. Lob recalled that he and his family were detained with other Jews at a brick factory in April 1944. A modern reader might well ask: did Jews believe that they were heading to the now notorious alleged industrial murder showers in the 'gas chambers'? And if so, why did they not resist or flee, knowing that they had nothing to lose?
Far from resisting or fleeing, the leaders of a Zionist "relief and rescue committee" in Hungary, Rudolf Kasztner and Joel Brand, persistently negotiated and cooperated with the German occupiers, the same demonic oppressors who we are now told were engaged in the systematic homicidal extermination of European Jewry by mass gassing.
Brand - described by Prof. Lob as a "smuggler and black marketeer" - was sent as a German emissary to Istanbul to begin some sort of negotiation with the Allies. Prof. Lob stated that the precise objective of Brand's mission is still a mystery. Did Heinrich Himmler see that the war was lost and hope to improve his personal reputation, or was there some attempt even at this late stage to drive a wedge between the Western Allies and Stalin's Russia?
Prof. Lob might benefit from David Irving's research into the Joel Brand mission, some of which is available online here. (Irving's incarceration in Austria during 2006 resulted from his visit to that country to lecture on Brand and Kasztner.)
Soon after his arrival in May 1944 Brand was detained by suspicious anti-Zionists among the British authorities. One of the British officials most hostile to Brand was Lord Moyne, the British Minister in Cairo, who was assassinated by Jewish terrorists a few weeks later. Moyne's allies had leaked details of the Brand mission, which included a German proposal to release a million Jews in return for trucks and pharmaceuticals, to the BBC, which described the proposals as "humanitarian blackmail", and The Times, which described this as one of the "most loathsome" stories of the entire war.
Rudolf Kasztner (right, with his brothers) was only interested in 'rescuing' those Jews useful to the Zionist project
Brand's removal left Kasztner as the effective leader of the relief and rescue committee, known by its Hebrew title Va'ada and he negotiated the release of around 1,700 of his fellow Hungarian Zionists. Prof Lob revealed that about 150 rich Jews paid the entire cost of $1,000 per head.
Zsuzsi Kasztner told the meeting that only about 2% of Hungarian Jews supported the Zionists, so it is not surprising that many historians - some of them Jews - have concluded that her father was only interested in rescuing Zionists, and that the short term interests of the Nazis and the long term interests of the Zionists effectively ran in parallel during 1944.
Needless to say, this is a controversial topic and one which the speakers only touched on indirectly. They admitted that Kasztner and the Va'ada sent teenage Zionist activists around Hungary to rally support among exactly the type of dynamic young Jews who would be needed to build a new Jewish state in Palestine. As later became clear to British forces
trying to defend Palestine from waves of illegal Jewish immigration, the Zionists were mainly interested in transporting Jews of child bearing age who could populate and defend the new Israel.
With German cooperation, the 1,700 Jews on the Kasztner train were effectively rescued twice, first from Hungary and then from Bergen-Belsen, which at first was regarded as a transit camp for privileged Jews, until amid the chaos of the war's final months overcrowding and chaotic administration led to a typhus epidemic. Kasztner's Zionists had left Bergen-Belsen by then, in two trainloads to neutral Switzerland in August and November 1944.
Adolf Eichmann, in a 1960 interview with Life magazine, clearly recognised the common interest between Nazism and Zionism, though he could not have foreseen its tragic long term consequences:
This Dr Kasztner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold lawyer and a fanatical Zionist... We negotiated entirely as equals. People forget that. We were political opponents trying to arrive at a settlement and we trusted each other perfectly. With his great polish and reserve, he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself. As a matter of fact, there was a strong similarity between attitudes in the SS and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic Zionist leaders, who were fighting what might be their last battle. As I told Kasztner: 'We too are idealists, and we too had to sacrifice our own blood before we came to power.' I believe that Kasztner would have sacrificed a thousand or a hundred thousand... to achieve his goal.
Rudolf Vrba - the ultimate ambiguous witness
Rudolf Vrba, an Auschwitz witness who is usually treated with reverance by orthodox historians, consistently argued that Kasztner had betrayed the vast majority of Hungary's Jews:
It is my contention that a small group of informed people, by their silence, deprived others of the possibility or privilege of making their own decisions in the face of mortal danger.
At the JBW meeting Prof. Lob implied that Vrba was not a witness to be relied on, a suggestion that in another context would earn him a jail sentence in Germany, Austria or several other European countries (even though Vrba once admitted in the Canadian trial of Ernst Zündel that his Auschwitz memoirs contained "poetic license".)
By contrast two anti-Zionist British academics, Hilary and Steven Rose, wrote in the Guardian following Vrba's death:
Rudi's mission, once he had escaped from Auschwitz, was to warn the surviving Jewish community of Budapest of the impending deportations, but he had not anticipated the collusion between sections of the Zionist leadership and the Nazis, especially their senior Budapest administrator, Adolph Eichmann, which ensured that nothing was to disturb the orderly deportation of some 400,000 of the Jewish population, while sparing many of the leaders, notably Rudolph Kastner, who survived to emigrate to the nascent Israeli state. The details of these secret dealings were published in Israel by Malkhiel Gruenevald, and in 1954-55 Kastner sued Gruenevald for libel. He lost, although the judgment was reversed on appeal. Vrba's accounts of his experiences, as in the Eichmann trial of 1961, were vital to exposing this collaborationist network.
So, as he told us, when he escaped from Prague for Israel, and found some of the same Zionist leaders in positions of power who had helped betray the Jews of Budapest, he left for England, and later for the tranquillity of Vancouver.
Most shocking to Kasztner's fellow Jews, in the immediate post-war years and perhaps still today, was his close working relationship - even friendship - with Eichmann's associate, SS officer Kurt Becher, who was appointed by Himmler during the final months of the war as Special Reich Commissioner for all concentration camps.
Jim Allen, author of the banned play Perdition
Kasztner later testified to save Becher from a prison sentence. During the mid-1950s controversy erupted in Israel when Kasztner unsuccessfully sued one of his critics. He was especially embarrassed when he attempted to deny having testified on Becher's behalf. Judge Benjamin Halevi rejected Kasztner's case in damning terms:
The Nazi’s patronage of Kastner, and their agreement to let him save six hundred prominent Jews, were part of the plan to exterminate the Jews. Kastner was given a chance to add a few more to that number. The bait attracted him. The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed to him greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as a great personal success and a success for Zionism. It was a success that would also justify his conduct - his political negotiation with Nazis and the Nazi patronage of his committee. When Kastner received this present from the Nazis, Kastner sold his soul to the German Satan...
On March 3rd 1957 Kasztner was shot dead by a militant Jewish group outside his Tel Aviv home. Jewish author Ben Hecht later wrote:
Some blamed right-wing fanatics and others believed that Israeli intelligence had Kastner killed for fear of what he might reveal about contacts between the Nazis and the Israeli government during the time of the Holocaust.
(Hecht's 1961 book about the Kasztner affair, Perfidy, was for many years difficult to obtain, but the complete text can now be downloaded here.)
Senior SS officer Kurt Becher
Ze'ev Eckstein, Kasztner's assassin, turned out to have been a paid informant for Shin Bet, the Israeli security service. The murder gang served remarkably light prison sentences and were all released by 1963. There has been speculation ever since that Kasztner had to be dead before the Israeli state could proceed with its kidnapping, trial and execution of Adolf Eichmann, a seminal event in the creation of the modern Holocaustianity myth.
Unsurprisingly the whole Kasztner affair is regarded as a continuing discredit to Zionism, so much so that the Daily Telegraph's reviewer incorrectly though understandbly assumed that Kasztner rather than Eichmann was the 'Satan' referred to in the title of Prof. Lob's new book Dealing With Satan - as though a Zionist Satan had done a deal with Eichmann! Though Cesarani, Lob and Zsuzsi Kastner did touch on several issues traditionally regarded as unmentionable, some aspects of the Zionist omerta remained inviolate. They agreed not to comment on the controversy over three Jewish parachutists who arrived in Hungary in 1944 as part of a British initiative to establish a guerrilla resistance force, but were cold shouldered by Kasztner and handed over to the Germans. Cesarani seemed happy to allow a consensus that in failing to alert his fellow Jews Kasztner had merely "tried not to communicate panic" - an odd objective one might think if he were aware that they were being lined up for mass gassing.
In particular, Cesarani studiously avoided any reference to Jim Allen's play Perdition, or the work of Jewish historian Lenni Brenner. Perdition was a fictionalisation of some aspects of the Kasztner libel trial, which attempted for the first time to draw the attention of a British audience to the disgraceful origins of Zionism and hinted at the unmentionable truth - that the very term Holocaust effectively refers to the sacrifice of non-Zionist Jews to ensure the fulfilment of the Zionist project and an everlasting alibi for the actions of the Zionist state.
This was especially dishonest given that Cesarani himself was central to the campaign against the play, which led to its virtual suppression. He wrote a report for the Royal Court damning it as anti-semitic, which led to the theatre pulling out of a proposed production.
Twenty years later, when the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign presented performances of the banned play, Lenni Brenner (author of Zionism in the Age of the Dictators) challenged Cesarani to:
debate the factual merits of Perdition and the larger question of Zionist/Nazi relations.
Unsurprisingly, Cesarani failed to reply and no such debate took place.
The broader issues raised by the Kasztner affair remain unexplored, principally - did Zionists exploit Nazi policy towards to Jews as part of their project to colonise Palestine, and did German willingness to cooperate with Zionists indicate that the objective of Hitler's policy all along was not the mass murder of Europe's Jews but their resettlement, whether in Madagascar, Palestine or remote regions of Russia?
These are of course the questions which cannot be asked by Europe's embattled revisionists. Judging from the reactions of the Community Security Trust during London's Jewish Book Week, to risk the mere potential of such inquiry is unwelcome even in those parts of Europe which (so far) remain free from anti-revisionist laws.
British taxpayers are left wondering why the Arts Council of England should be using their funds to sponsor Jewish Book Week, whose organisers have singled out for persecution a blameless member of the audience attending a public event?
Jewish Book Week proudly proclaims its Arts Council sponsorship - is this appropriate if the event is to vet its audience on political grounds
UPDATE - 29/2/08:
After being confronted by the Community Security Trust at the Jewish Book Week discussion of Rudolf Kasztner, Lady Renouf was targeted by a press photographer, whose focus had also been evident during the meeting, yet the following week's Jewish Chronicle (February 29th) avoids all mention of the incident. In fact the JC's report on Jewish Book Week cuts out all mention of the Kasztner event.
No doubt this is partly because the JC's readership does not like to be reminded of the Kasztner controversy, but the paper may also have considered that boasting about political vetting of the audience at Jewish Book Week might undermine the impact of one of their other stories that week.
Under the headline Muslim academic calls for book-fair boycott the JC singled out Professor Tariq Ramadan, senior research fellow at St Antony's College, Oxford, for his criticism of the Turin and Paris book fairs, which made Israel "guest of honour" in recognition of its 60th anniversary.
Prof. Ramadan said:
...All women and men of conscience ...should boycott the Turin Book Fair (as well as the Foire du Livre de Paris) when the guest of honour is a country that refuses to respect the rights and the dignity of peoples.
He went on to explain that his boycott call is not an attempt to prevent Israeli authors from attending or expressing themselves. It does not refuse to engage them in debate.
Yet this entirely rational position, and Prof. Ramadan's acknowledged status as a scholar who has consistently called for dialogue between Muslims and Jews, did not spare him the wrath of the Zionist lobby. Ronnie Fraser, director of Academic Friends of Israel, said:
If you boycott events, you don't have dialogue.
To which one could reply - if you exclude people from book fairs whose views you don't like, you have neither dialogue nor a right to public funding. At least the JC recognised the inherent inconsistency of the Zionist lobby's position in this respect, and refrained from boasting about the JBW/CST edict. Yet one small irony remained. Directly below the Tariq Ramadan story, the paper carried an advertisement soliciting funds for the Community Security Trust!
The treatment of Prof. Tariq Ramadan by the Zionist lobby and its allies is a textbook case of the method of demonising Israel's critics through allegations of "anti-semitism" and collusion with "terrorism". Prof. Ramadan was listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 "innovators ...who shape our world". He was appointed as an adviser to the British government. Yet he is banned from entering the United States under the "Patriot Act" and has been condemned by the Socialist Mayor of Paris for "anti-semitism".
As Prof. Ramadan wrote in the Washington Post in 2006:
My experience reveals how U.S. authorities seek to suppress dissenting voices and -- by excluding people such as me from their country -- manipulate political debate in America. Unfortunately, the U.S. government's paranoia has evolved far beyond a fear of particular individuals and taken on a much more insidious form: the fear of ideas.
This fear of ideas is evident worldwide wherever modern Zionism and its allies are found, from the U.S. State Department to the Jewish Book Week to the Mannheim District Court. Americans and Europeans should be asking themselves - what lies behind this fear of ideas? What have our political and academic leaders got to hide from those scholars or publishers who aim to focus the spotlight of free research onto what even Prof. Cesarani regards as the ambiguities of 20th century history?
On Monday March 3rd the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, David Cameron, was the guest of honour at the annual dinner of the Community Security Trust (CST), whose officials intervened to ban Lady Renouf from Jewish Book Week a few days earlier.
The CST is a registered charity, set up in 1994. According to its own website: CST represents the Jewish community on a wide range of Police, governmental and policy-making bodies dealing with security and antisemitism. Indeed, the Police and government praise CST as a model of how a minority community should protect itself.
A 2006 Daily Telegraph article singing the praises of the CST verged on parody:
...what if the danger is real? What if the foiling of what was to be 16/8, our 9/11, becomes routine and we have to dodge terror every day? How will we rouse ourselves, or cope?
By looking for inspiration, says the Government, to a group right under our noses: to a perfectly coordinated security force 3,000-strong but almost invisible and ever-ready, like comic-book super-heroes, who work night and day to protect their people: the Community Security Trust.
The CST is a task force committed to protecting the Jewish community in Britain; it's a charity, manned by volunteers trained in street-fighting and surveillance, and according to the Met and the Home Office, it's a role-model, in these uneasy times, for all Britain's communities.
The intervention of the CST to enforce a political line at a book fair, by banning someone who could not be argued by even the most paranoid to represent a security threat, must raise questions about the organisation's charitable status.
Especially as this is not the first tme that the CST has made a blatantly political intervention well beyond its supposed security remit. In 2004 following the election of Jewish BNP councillor Patricia Richardson, the CST's Michael Whine told the website Something Jewish:
It's a matter of great regret that a member of the Jewish community has aligned herself with the BNP, which retains its anti-semitic and Holocaust ideology, only just below the surface these day.
Why Israel Booted Norman Finkelstein. By Steven Plaut Wednesday, June 25, 2008
We’ve grown used to it: whenever anyone in the media takes note of the antics of Norman Finkelstein, a flood of disinformation is bound to follow. The recent arrest of Finkelstein in Israel was no exception. The facts are simple. Finkelstein attempted to enter Israel several weeks ago for the purpose of traveling to the West Bank. Israel is used to foreign troublemakers, such as the stooges of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), who come to Israel to engage in hooliganism and support Islamofascist terrorism.
But Israel usually does not prevent them from entering the country (a highly naive and short-sighted policy). In any case, Finkelstein was – somewhat uncharacteristically for Israel – detained upon arrival, kept under watch for a few hours, and eventually deported to Amsterdam.
This of course served as a siren call for all the anti-Israel moonbats inside and outside Israel to protest this “suppression of academic freedom of an academic critic of Israel.” Leftist websites and the liberal media were immediately filled with reports of how “Professor Finkelstein” was kicked out of Israel for having anti-Israel opinions. Finkelstein’s own website screamed his martyrdom in lurid terms. The Israeli far left itself got into the fray.
As is usual whenever Finkelstein is involved, the facts all got lost along the way. First of all, Finkelstein is no “professor” and never was an academic in any meaningful sense of the word. He is a crackpot with links to Holocaust denier groups all over the world who has attempted to build a career by churning out masses of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel diatribes.
I am an academic critic of Israel (from the right); Finkelstein is merely a vulgar Beer Hall buffoon.
Regarded as a Holocaust denier by, among others, the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Finkelstein was fired last year by DePaul University in Chicago because he had no academic publications or achievements to speak of; he has yet to publish his first academic paper.
Contrary to the whining of his boosters that at he fell victim to “outside interference” in his promotion proceedings at DePaul, most of the outside interference there was actually in his favor, coming from the sewers of the anti-Israel lobby.
Second, Finkelstein was not denied entry into Israel because he holds anti-Israel opinions. Anti-Israel leftists come in and out of Israel all the time, and some of Israel’s own tenured traitors are even more extremist and anti-Israel than Finkelstein himself.
Finkelstein was denied entry into Israel, as is clear from the accounts in the Israeli media, because he has spent the past few years serving as an all-but-official spokesperson for the Hizbullah terror group and was suspected of wanting to enter Israel for purposes of espionage and activities on behalf of terrorism.
Third, entry into Israel is not some sort of universal entitlement that anyone anywhere on earth can claim for himself without limit. According to the official Israeli statement as reported in Haaretz, Israeli intelligence said Finkelstein “is not permitted to enter Israel because of suspicions involving hostile elements in Lebanon” and because he “did not give a full accounting to interrogators with regard to these suspicions.”
Finkelstein was kept under wraps by Israeli security at the airport for a few hours after landing before being deported. It sounds like his toughest moment was when the free cola he was served was not quite ice cold.
While in Israeli captivity he refused to answer questions such as what he was planning to do while in the country and who was paying for his trip. He was also asked what he currently lives on, and my personal guess is that this is what caused him to lose his famous temper, as his lack of gainful employment since being fired by DePaul seems to be a sore point with him. Moments after arriving in Amsterdam, Finkelstein sent out the following message to his fans (spelling, syntax and typos uncorrected):
Before rumors report my premature death, I was kept in a holding cell for 24 hours and then deported to Amsterdam. It wasn’t a Belgian bed and breakfast but it wasn’t Auschwitz either (although after six hours of abusive treatement I did call them “[expletive] Jewish Nazis,” not taken well). It seems that to see Musa and his family again, I’ll have to wait until the end of the occupation. I have been been banned for “at least 10 years.” Another incentive to work towards ending the occupation.
Israel’s far left, at least as batty as America’s far left, chirped in its outrage at Finkelstein being prevented from entering Israel. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel took the lead, quickly dispatching once of its leaders, a lawyer named Michael Sfard, to serve as attorney for Finkelstein while he was being held at the airport. Sfard was quoted in the media as saying, “A country that starts to fear what its harshest critics write about it is a country that is already behaving in a manner reminiscent of the darkest days of the communist regime.”
Strange, but Winston Churchill never invited Lord Haw Haw to Britain to lecture in the middle of World War II, nor did FDR invite Tokyo Rose to throw out the first pitch at the 1943 World Series.
Steven Plaut, a frequent contributor to The Jewish Press, is a professor at Haifa University. His book “The Scout” is available at Amazon.com. He can be contacted email@example.com
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: US Military Commanders Stopped President Bush from Attacking Iran
June 11, 2008 Clip No. 1800
Following are excerpts from an interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on IRINN - the Iranian News Channel - on June 11, 2008:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: As you know, in the past 30 years – especially in the days of President Bush, but also under other U.S. presidents – they have really wanted to strike at Iran. This is especially true with regard to this man, who planned the attacks and went to Afghanistan and from there to Iraq, and who has declared that his third target is Iran. From the outset, his primary target was Iran. He planned to occupy eastern and western Iran, and then to strike at the Iranian people. I have accurate information that this cowardly man wants to strike at the Iranian people. Last year, he arrived in [the region] in order to encourage his military commanders to create some fuss or to fire some "cap gun" somewhere in Iran. We got accurate intelligence that he began to argue with his military commanders. First, he [demanded] a missile attack, and then a bombing, but they said it was impossible. So he kept lowering his demands until he said to them: "At least send four airplanes to break the sound barrier over some Iranian city, so I can tell the Zionists that I struck a blow at Iran." His commanders answered: "Impossible. You are not familiar with the might of the Iranian people." These commanders described such a frightening atmosphere that he hurried to leave Baghdad for Australia. He was running away. During his two-day visit to Australia, he could not express himself properly. [...]
I would like to convey a message to him through you: "Your days have come to an end. With God's grace, you will not be able to harm even one centimeter of Iran's sacred land." [...]
The Iranian people will not allow the enemies the pleasure of having their satanic smile of happiness.
IAEA Director-General Dr. Muhammad ElBaradei
Iran Can Produce Enough Enriched Uranium for a Nuclear Bomb in Six Months to a Year
June 20, 2008 Clip No. 1797
Following are excerpts from an interview with IAEA Director-General Dr. Muhammad ElBaradei, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on June 20, 2008.
Muhammad ElBaradei: If Iran wants to turn to the production of nuclear weapons, it must leave the NPT, expel the IAEA inspectors, and then it would need at least... Considering the number of centrifuges and the quantity of uranium Iran has...
Interviewer: How much time would it need?
Muhammad ElBaradei: It would need at least six months to one year. Therefore, Iran will not be able to reach the point where we would wake up one morning to an Iran with a nuclear weapon.
Interviewer: Excuse me, I would like to clarify this for our viewers. If Iran decides today to expel the IAEA from the country, it will need six months...
Muhammad ElBaradei: Or one year, at least...
Interviewer:... to produce [nuclear] weapons?
Muhammad ElBaradei: It would need this period to produce a weapon, and to obtain highly-enriched uranium in sufficient quantities for a single nuclear weapon. [...]
In my view, a military strike would be the worst thing possible. It would turn the Middle East into a ball of fire.
Interviewer: It would be worse than sanctions?
Muhammad ElBaradei: Much worse, because a military strike would mean, first and foremost, that even if Iran does not produce nuclear weapons today, it would implement a so-called "crash course," or an accelerated plan to produce a nuclear weapon, with the agreement and blessing of all the Iranians – even the Iranians living in the West. [...]
Interviewer: Dr. ElBaradei, what do the Iranian officials tell you when you confront them about the need for more transparency?
Muhammad ElBaradei: They say there will be more transparency, but at the end of the day, I'd rather wait to see this transparency. [...]
I always think of resigning in the event of a military strike.
Interviewer: You will resign in the event that...
Muhammad ElBaradei: If military force is used, I would conclude that there is no mechanism left for me to defend.
Interviewer: This is a threat directed at the Americans – if you strike, I will resign.
Muhammad ElBaradei: I am not doing this for material profit. If I was working in the private sector, I would... I am doing this out of the conviction that I am defending shared values. If we deviate from these shared values...
Interviewer: So there is no justification for an attack...
Muhammad ElBaradei: The day I believe that the international system has begun to collapse is the day I will resign. [...]
Interviewer: If the world reaches a consensus that there is no solution but to attack Iran, would you still resign? What if Europe, America, and the entire West agree that the only resolution is a military one?
Muhammad ElBaradei: I don't think that what we are seeing today in Iran poses a clear, imminent, and immediate danger.
Interviewer: But in a year or two, it could become...
Muhammad ElBaradei: If this happens, it will be a different story, but if a military strike is launched against Iran now, in my opinion, I will have no choice but to...
Interviewer: So there is no justification for a strike against Iran today.
Muhammad ElBaradei: None whatsoever. There will be no point for me to continue doing my work if military force is used at present.
Is the tide turning in Germany against the Ugliness that is the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah?
Amy Aremia, AAREMIA@nc.rr.com, 29 June 2008
Is it because the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and all the other Jewish groups pushing their "anti-Semitism," have spent a constant battle to promote their Holocaust by using a war of words to completely brainwash the world with false and misleading propaganda pounded over and over for these 60 years? The minds of the German people, and other nations, have been given that feeling of guilt which as served the injustice of the 'rule of law' enforced by the courts. This has only given the Jewish organizations more power to extract Billions of dollars from Germany and other nations who allegedly persecuted the Jews for centuries.
Because they have disobeyed their God so many times, he finally dispersed them from their "promised Land" to wander the world. Instead of assimilating into the countries which took them in, they, instead, infiltrated their religions to divide, and then to destroy. They have taken over the financial intuitions and major industries of the country they occupy to flaunt over them their control .
Until the world begins to understand that they are the root cause responsible for making the world problems so complex, and mixed, that no country will be able to solve the great uncertainty until they gain back their wisdom which has been destroyed, and then gain the courage needed to reach out to do what is just and right in order to return to a peace-loving world. Hatred, and the desire for vengeance that has been instilled, offers no solution, but only serves their purpose.
If we wish to choose the correct path, the energy spent on the animosity held by certain groups who will have to search for ways to readjust and fight the real source of evil to which they must open their eyes. The human values, in the way we think of them, we must express, and stand together to overcome those whose value the rest of the human race is to be their slaves, a fact which is difficult for most humans to understand.
Wiesel testifies over hotel confrontation
The Associated Press, 07/07/2008 11:21:51 AM PDT
SAN FRANCISCO—Holocaust scholar and survivor Elie Wiesel testified Monday that he feared he was being kidnapped when a New Jersey man allegedly yanked him off a San Francisco hotel elevator.
Wiesel's testimony came after opening statements in the trial of 24-year-old Eric Hunt, who is accused of accosting the Nobel Laureate in February 2007. The 79-year-old managed to escape uninjured. Hunt has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to charges of attempted kidnapping, elder abuse, false imprisonment, battery, stalking and hate crimes.
Wiesel testified in San Francisco Superior Court that he called for help for several minutes before Hunt walked away. Hunt's attorney has described his client as mentally ill and not anti-Semitic. Wiesel is set to take the stand again Tuesday. He is the author of "Night," a memoir chronicling his experiences in Nazi death camps.
Berlin's beheaded Hitler wax model to go back on display
BERLIN (AFP) — The new Madame Tussauds museum in Berlin said Monday a wax figure of Adolf Hitler would go back on display once it has been repaired after a visitor ripped off its head on opening day. The statue will return to its place in the museum's history section "as soon as possible" a spokeswoman for Madame Tussaud's told AFP amid a fresh debate about whether it is appropriate to display the Nazi leader's likeness.
"Adolf Hitler represents a defining moment in German history that cannot be denied," she said, adding that the display had been done "with sensitivity and respect" for people's feelings.
On Saturday, minutes after the museum opened, a former policeman brushed past security and broke off the head of the statue showing a forlorn-looking Fuehrer, seated behind a desk in surroundings depicting his bunker. The 41-year-old Berliner was arrested and faces charges of causing criminal damage and bodily harm.
The museum announced earlier Monday that it planned to salvage the 200,000-euro (313,000-dollar) waxwork, but denied it would be sent to London, home of the first Madame Tussauds, for repairs. It deliberated for most of the day about displaying it again. Madame Tussauds has been widely accused of poor taste and publicity-seeking for featuring Hitler in the new museum situated a stone's throw from where he committed suicide in April 1945.
The line-up of historical figures also includes Albert Einstein, statesman Otto von Bismarck and former chancellor Helmut Kohl, who is considering legal steps because he is unhappy with his likeness. Berlin's state secretary for culture, Andre Schmitz, told Monday's edition of the Berliner Zeitung that showing a Hitler statue smacked of "bad taste". By contrast, few have condemned the vandalism. The former policeman, identified only as Frank L., told the press he came up with the idea over drinks with friends, who dared him to go ahead, but now regretted it.
"I did not do it for money, nor for fame, though I suppose I will now be famous for a while," he told the online edition of Die Welt newspaper. "Yesterday I said I felt good, but today I am already feeling bad about what I did."
Museum employee Stephan Koch, who tried to stop the man as he lurched at the statue, told the Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily he had repeatedly shouted "No more war! Then he simply ripped off the head. It looked dreadful," Koch said, adding that once the head rolled on the floor, the man calmed down.
"One could see that he was proud of what he had done."
The attack has generated massive coverage and commentary in the German press, with the left-leaning Tageszeitung joking that it was proof that Germans had left behind the nation's Nazi past. The centre-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung said the attack was not surprising in a city that cultivated a tradition of civil disobedience, adding that many quietly applauded it. It quoted a policeman in the capital as saying: "From a humanistic point of view, the attack was a success."
Ironically Madame Tussauds had decided to place the waxwork behind a table to prevent visitors to the museum on Berlin's historic avenue Unter den Linden from damaging it or posing for photographs with it. A Hitler waxwork in the Madame Tussauds museum in London was long protected by glass after visitors began spitting at it in the 1930s.
"When the King of Israel sets upon his sacred head the crown offered him by Europe he will become patriarch of the world." Protocols of the learned elders of Zion, 15, 30.
So, we must assume that EUROPE is their ultimate goal, Germany in the centre of Europe, and as I suspect going as far as assuming a Germanic appearance and identity. As said before, the Jews are the only people on Earth cultivating a more blond and blue-eyed appearance. All others are encouraged into race-mixing. At present they are hoodwinking the nations that they are Semites, the people of the Bible. Soon they might usurp the German identity. Greetings from Dagmar firstname.lastname@example.org 7 July 2008.
Top | Home
©-free 2008 Adelaide Institute