Friday, July 24, 2009

Massive N.J. corruption sting targets mayors, legislators, rabbis

NEWARK -- The bribes went down in diners, living rooms and parking lots. New Jersey Assemblymen took them, mayors took them, and so did dozens of others.

Orthodox rabbis, acting more like crime bosses than religious leaders, laundered millions through synagogues and yeshivas in Deal, one of the state's wealthiest towns. And a Realtor tried to sell an informant a black market kidney for $160,000.

Those were some of the allegations federal prosecutors made today in what could prove to be the biggest New Jersey scandal of them all.

The revelations came after hundreds of federal agents swept across the state, arresting public servants and religious leaders as part of a two-year investigation into corruption and international money-laundering that authorities described as unprecedented - even in a state known its scandals.

Full Star-Ledger coverage of the New Jersey corruption arrests
It was a sting operation that could have been taken from the pages of an Elmore Leonard novel: the FBI and IRS agents arrested five rabbis, two New Jersey state legislators, three mayors, political operatives, and many others, as part of a probe that spanned from Hoboken to Israel.

Other records were taken from Saint Peter's College in Jersey City and from at least one synagogue in Deal. Meanwhile, a top member of the Corzine administration unexpectedly resigned after agents arrived at his home and office with evidence boxes.

The arrests were the result of two separate investigations that used the same informant, a man who moved easily between the world of the rabbis and the world of Jersey politics. The rabbis are charged with operating money laundering network by funneling cash through yeshivas and non-profit organizations they were associated with. The politicians are accused of taking outright bribes in exchange for favors.

Mahala Gaylord/The Star-Ledger
Ralph J. Marra, Jr., acting U.S. Attorney answers questions at a press conference in Newark addressing the federal investigation of public corruption in which 44 individuals were charged today.And at the center of it all was an unnamed informant who sources and defendants later identified as Solomon Dwek - once a high-flying Monmouth County developer and son of a prominent Monmouth County rabbi who remains on bail for a 2006 bank fraud case that has never come to trial. Dwek , according to the federal complaint, secretly taped those targeted in the investigation for more than two years.

Prosecutors said the case began when the informant infiltrated an existing international money laundering network being run by a group of rabbis in New York and New Jersey. It then expanded into a public corruption case through a middleman who moved in both worlds, officials said.

Some of the bribes to elected officials were paid through political contributions, the complaint said, often through "straw" donors who wrote checks in their names or businesses to comply with campaign finance regulations.

Acting U.S. Attorney Ralph Marra Jr. said the arrests underscored the continuing pervasiveness of public corruption in New Jersey, where more than 130 public officials have been prosecuted in recent years.

"For these defendants, corruption was a way of life," Marra said. "They existed in an ethics free zone. And they exploited giant loopholes in the state's campaign contribution rules."

Among those charged included newly elected Hoboken Mayor Peter Cammarano, 32, and rabbi Saul Kassin, the 87-year-old spiritual leader of the close-knit Syrian Sephardic Jewish community in Deal and Brooklyn. Others were Secaucus Mayor Dennis Elwell, 64; Anthony Suarez, 42, the mayor of Ridgefield; Leona Beldini, 74, the Jersey City deputy mayor; Assemblymen L. Harvey Smith (D-Hudson), 60 and Daniel Van Pelt (R-Ocean), 44; rabbi Edmund Nahum, 56, of Deal; and rabbi Eliahu Ben Haim, 58, of Long Branch. In all, 44 people were charged, 29 of them from New Jersey.

The case had immediate political ramifications, particularly for Democrats in Hudson County and the administration of Gov. Jon Corzine. By the end of the day, Joe Doria Jr., the Commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs, abruptly resigned from his cabinet post after his Trenton office and his home in Bayonne were searched by the FBI.

The team of agents who arrived at Doria's 8th floor office at 9:30 a.m. left hours later with several boxes they loaded into a beige car. They declined to comment. Doria missed a meeting with mayors and others on municipal shared services and consolidations earlier today and was not seen at the office all day. He has not been charged.

Smith and Van Pelt were both asked by leadership officials to resign their committee posts.

In a hastily called press conference, a grim-faced Corzine, who is running for re-election against Republican Chris Christie, the former U.S. Attorney who launched the federal investigation more than two years ago, said he was sickened to learn of the arrests.

"Any corruption is unacceptable any time, anywhere by anybody," he said, calling the scope of the corruption outrageous.

"There's no other word that fits than outrageous," he said.

Christie called for the resignation all public officials involved in the sweeping investigation.

"If you're charged with a crime and you hold public office, you should resign. Resign immediately," Christie said, addressing the media in a barber shop at what was to have been a campaign block walk along a West New York street. He called the arrests "just another really tragic day for the people of New Jersey."

Weysan Dun, head of the FBI's Newark office, called the case unprecedented in its scope.

"The fact that we arrested a number of rabbis this morning does not make this a religiously motivated case. Nor does the fact that we arrested political figures make this a politically motivated case," he said. "This case is not about politics. It is certainly not about religion. It is about crime and corruption."

In the charging documents, the single informant is named only as a "cooperating witness." Officials would not identify him, but several sources with knowledge of the investigation separately confirmed that it was Dwek, who was indicted in May 2006 for a $50 million bank fraud.

According to court documents, Dwek was accused of depositing a bogus $25 million check at the PNC Bank in Eatontown and spending $22 million of it before he was caught. He then tried to deposit a second bogus $25 million check at a different PNC branch before he was confronted.

That case is still pending. His criminal defense attorney did not return calls to his office.

The brazenness of the intertwined schemes played out in stark language, captured by hundreds of hours of hidden surveillance tapes recorded by the FBI.

In May, for example, Cammarano sat down at a Hoboken diner, talking about a $5,000 payment with the informant, who portrayed himself as a big-spending developer willing to pay cash to grease the way for building approvals. During the meeting, Cammarano discussed the prospects of winning the June 9 runoff election.

"Right now, the Italians, the Hispanics, the seniors are locked down. Nothing can change that now... I could be, uh, indicted, and I'm still gonna win 85 to 95 percent of those populations," Cammarano declared.

When the informant told him he would pay another $5,000 cash for help with development approvals, Cammarano replied: "Beautiful," according to the criminal complaint.

Cammarano is charged with accepting $25,000 in cash bribes, including $10,000 as late as last Thursday.

At a restaurant in Staten Island, the same informant met with Smith, the Democratic Assemblyman and a three-term Jersey City councilman, and an unnamed city official, seeking help expediting an anticipated zoning change. After Smith briefly left the table, the informant, carrying a courier envelope stuffed with $5,000, asked the unnamed official, "So what are we going to do? Give it to him after?"

He replied, "Give it to me and I'll have to give it to him."

"But the guy understands I'm looking to get expedited?"

"Oh yeah," assured the official.

Smith is charged with conspiracy to commit extortion.

The same informant allegedly used his long-time connections within the large Syrian Jewish enclave in Deal and others to launder $3 million in checks between June 2007 and July of this year. Meeting with some of the community's most respected religious leaders, he laid out a scheme to exchange cash and assets he wanted to conceal in bankruptcy, by giving the money to charitable organizations headed by the rabbis, who paid it back in cash in exchange for a percentage of the "donation."

The charges note that Ben Haim, the principal rabbi of Congregation of Ohel Yaacob in Deal, would take checks ranging from tens of thousands of dollars up to $160,000 made payable to a charitable, tax-example organization associated with his synagogue, and return it in cast less a cut that was typically 10 percent.

The complaint said his source for cash was an Israeli in Israel.

Kassin, a revered figure in the Syrian Jewish community, similarly handled money exchanges, according to the complaint. In October 2007, the informant met with Kassin at his home in Brooklyn - a modest, two story brick home with a small patch of manicured grass and air conditioners in several windows - giving him a $25,000 bank check made out to one of the rabbi's charitable organizations. He said the check "is from some partnerships that I have with people where I'm not - I don't show up too much." He said he was looking to shield the money from an ongoing bankruptcy proceeding.

According to the criminal complaint, Kassin retrieved a large volume from another room and began to write out a check from his charitable organization to the informant, minus 10 percent.

Julio LaRosa, acting special agent in charge of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, said traditional money laundering was once confined to narcotics traffickers and organized crime.

"Based on the allegations contained in today's complaints, money laundering has no boundaries," he said.

The most startling of the allegations in the myriad of criminal complaints may be the attempted sale of a human kidney. Levy Izhak Rosenbaum, 58, of Brooklyn, was charged with arranging to hook up a donor for $160,000.

Surveillance tapes show the informant met with Rosenbaum in Tinton Falls last year, looking for help for a friend's fictional uncle who had kidney disease. Rosenbaum told the informant, "Let me explain to you one thing. It's illegal to buy or sell organs. So you cannot buy it. What you do is, you're giving a compensation for the time...whatever."

Rosenbaum was recorded explaining about finding a donor in Israel and stated that "there are people over there hurting," referring to people willing to sell one of their organs. "One of the reasons it's so expensive is because you have to shmear (pay various individuals for their assistance) all the time."

He said once he had brought a willing donor to this country, "it's beyond my control, but said he took care of the donor before and after surgery.

"You have to baby-sit him like a baby because he may have a language problem, maybe not," he said.

He said he would accept cash as payment

simon Wiesenthal the crook

On October 2, 1943, according to Wiesenthal, Kohlrautz warned him that the camp and its prisoners were shortly to be liquidated. The German gave him and a friend passes to visit a stationery shop in town, accompanied by a Ukrainian guard. They managed to escape out the back while the Ukrainian waited at the front.

Yet again he had seemingly cheated death in a miraculous fashion. But we only have his word for it. According to Wiesenthal, Kohlrautz was killed in the battle for Berlin in April 1945. He also told a biographer, however, that Kohlrautz was killed on the Russian front in 1944. And in an affidavit made in August 1954 about his wartime persecutions, he neglects to include the story at all. In both this document and in his testimony to the Americans in May 1945, he mentions Kohlrautz without saying the German saved his life.

From this point in Wiesenthal’s war it is impossible to establish a reliable train of events. With at least four wildly different accounts of his activities between October 1943 and the middle of 1944 — including his alleged role as a partisan officer — serious questions must be raised. Some, such as Bruno Kreisky, the former Austrian chancellor, repeatedly accused Wiesenthal in the 1970s and the 1980s of collaborating with the Gestapo. Kreisky’s claims were supported by unsubstantiated evidence from the Polish and Soviet governments. Wiesenthal took him to court and won.

Whatever the truth, by November 1944 Wiesenthal was in Gross-Rosen, a camp near Wroclaw. He told Hella Pick, his biographer, that he was forced to work barefoot in the camp quarry and soon learnt that the team of 100 prisoners assigned to the work kommando shrank by one each day. After a few days he felt sure his turn was about to come. “My executioner was behind me,” he recalled, “poised to smash my head with a rock. I turned around and the man, surprised, dropped his stone. It crushed my toe. I screamed.”

Wiesenthal’s quick reactions and yell apparently saved his life because there was some form of inspection that day — he thought it may have been by the Red Cross — and so he was stretchered away to the first-aid station. His toe was cut off without anaesthesia while two men held him still. The following day, Wiesenthal said, he was in agony. “The doctor came back and saw that I had a septic blister on the sole of my foot. So they cut it open and the gangrene spurted all over the room.”

Yet again, one of Wiesenthal’s “miracles” is open to doubt. First, the story appears in no other memoir or statement. Secondly, if the Red Cross really was inspecting Gross-Rosen that day, then the SS would have temporarily halted any executions. As it was, the Red Cross was not allowed access to concentration camps at that time. Thirdly, the medical consequences seem entirely implausible.

Soon afterwards, according to Wiesenthal’s account, he managed to walk 170 miles west to Chemnitz after Gross-Rosen was evacuated. Walking on a gangrenous foot with a recently amputated toe would have been hellish. Instead of a shoe, he had the sleeve of an old coat wrapped around his foot with some wire. For a walking stick he had a broomstick. Of the 6,000 prisoners who marched out, only 4,800 arrived in Chemnitz. With his infected foot, Wiesenthal was lucky to be among them.

From Chemnitz, the prisoners ended up at Mauthausen camp near Linz in Austria. Wiesenthal arrived there on the frozen night of February 15, 1945. In The Murderers Among Us, he tells how he and a fellow prisoner, Prince Radziwill, linked arms to make the last four miles uphill to the camp. The effort was too great and they collapsed in the snow. An SS man fired a shot that landed between them. As the two men did not get up, they were left for dead in the sub-zero temperature. When lorries arrived to collect those who had died on the march, the unconscious Wiesenthal and Radziwill were so frozen that they were thrown onto a pile of corpses. At the crematorium, however, the prisoners unloading them realised they were alive. They were given a cold shower to thaw out and Wiesenthal was taken to Block VI, the “death block” for the mortally ill.

In 1961, when Wiesenthal was interviewed for the Yad Vashem archive by the Israeli journalist Haim Maas about his war years, Wiesenthal mentioned that the infection from his foot had now turned blue-green and had spread right up to his knee. He lay in the death block for three months until the end of the war. Too weak to get out of bed, he claimed he survived — incredibly — on 200 calories a day, along with the occasional piece of bread or sausage smuggled to him by a friendly Pole.

Mauthausen was liberated on May 5, 1945. Despite weighing just 100lb, Wiesenthal struggled outside to greet the American tanks. “I don’t know how I managed to get up and walk,” he recalled. If he was able to walk, his severely infected leg must have been cured during the previous three months by either amputation or antibiotics. We know the former did not take place, and the latter was emphatically not a common treatment for ailing Jews in Nazi concentration camps. Once again, it appears as though a miracle had taken place.

The rapidity of Wiesenthal’s recovery is so astonishing that it is doubtful whether he was as ill as he claimed. Just 20 days after the liberation, he wrote to the US camp commander asking whether he could be involved in assisting the US authorities investigating war crimes. Claiming to have been in 13 concentration camps — he had in fact been in no more than six — Wiesenthal supplied a list of 91 names of those who he felt were responsible for “incalculable sufferings”.

According to most accounts, Wiesenthal asked if he could join the American war crimes investigators, but they refused, telling him he was not well enough. After he had gained some weight, he returned and was assigned to a captain with whom Wiesenthal claimed to have captured his first “scalp”, a snivelling SS guard called Schmidt. “There were many others in the weeks that followed,” Wiesenthal later wrote. “You didn’t have to go far. You almost stumbled over them.”

A curriculum vitae Wiesenthal completed after the war does not mention his work for the Americans but lists his occupation as the vice-chairman of the Jewish Central Committee for the US zone, based in Linz. Its task was to draw up lists of survivors that other survivors could consult in their hunt for relatives.

For at least a year after the war, Wiesenthal’s other task was to lobby hard for his fellow Jews; he became president of the Paris-based International Concentration Camp Organisation. He also forged contacts with the Brichah, which smuggled Jews out of Europe to Palestine.

It was not until February 1947 that he formed the organisation that would make him famous, the Jewish Historical Documentation Centre in Linz. Its aim was to collate information on the final solution with a view to securing the indictments of war criminals. Wiesenthal claimed to have started it because of an anti-Semitic remark made by an American officer, which made him realise that the allies would never hunt down the Nazis to the extent that was required.

Sadly, he was to be proved right. He and his band of 30 volunteers travelled around the displaced persons’ camps, collecting evidence on the atrocities from former concentration camp inmates. In all, Wiesenthal’s team compiled 3,289 questionnaires, which is a far more impressive feat than anything the allies achieved.

Wiesenthal died in 2005 at the age of 96 and was buried in Israel. The tributes and eulogies were many and fulsome and at the time it would have been churlish to have detracted from the many positive aspects of the role he played. He was at heart a showman and when he found a role as the world’s head Nazi hunter, he played it well. As with so many popular performances, it was impossible for the critics to tell the public that the Great Wiesenthal Show was little more than an illusion. Ultimately, it was an illusion mounted for a good cause.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009






( Heads of the Pikuach Nefesh rabbinical committee have begun collecting the signatures of rabbis in Israel on a letter to United States President Barack Obama. The letter demands that Obama cease talking about ending Jewish construction in Jerusalem and stop pressuring Israel in that direction.

In a reference to the upcoming “nine days” which culminate in Tisha B’Av, the rabbis tell Obama that “during these days, in which the Jewish people mourns the destruction of Jerusalem and marks the disgraceful memory of its destroyers, we are certain that you, Mr. Barack Obama, do not want to enter that disreputable list of those who raise their hand to strike Jerusalem and those who live in it.”
We are certain that you, Mr. Barack Obama, do not want to enter that disreputable list of those who raise their hand to strike Jerusalem and those who live in it.

The rabbis note that during his visit to the Middle East, Obama showed “impressive erudition” in the Koran. “As one who is familiar with the Koran, you surely know that the city of Jerusalem is not even mentioned in it once,” they said.

Jews pray towards one place
“The Arab and Muslim world never recognized Jerusalem as belonging to it,” the letter went on. “On the other hand, all of the world’s nations knew for thousands of years that the Jews pray towards one place only – the holy city of Jerusalem.”

The rabbis added that even putting aside the city’s enormous sanctity and importance for the Jewish people, there is no realpolitik logic behind any concession to the PA. “Since Israel began negotiations, withdrawals and concessions to the Palestinians, the entire world is witness to the justice of the Jewish Law (Halacha) which determines that any such concession will entail another round of bloodshed and deepen mistrust and dangers,” they agreed.

The rabbinical letter ends with a clear request: “If you, Mr. Obama. Wish to leave any chance at all for peace and quiet in the Middle East, take your hands off the Holy City of Jerusalem right now!”

Two hundred and fifty rabbis have signed the appeal, and efforts are being made to collect the signatures of almost every single rabbi in Israel before the letter is sent to Washington.


The vile jewish whore sticking her finger up at cindy sheehen in the picture you are looking at is convicted multi-million doller car scammer Pamala Geller and tratior.
We muslims have no love for American soldiers who invade muslim nations. when muslims have to kill soldiers they kill not for the love of it but at the same time it has to be done but when the attack is carried out and american soldiers die muslims dont laught at the familys of the dead soldiers or give them the finger.

Cindy sheehens son was killed in iraq now he knew what he was getting himself into but muslims dont say hahaha we your son was this and that and your a tratior because your against this war these vile jewish animals are amazing they dont hide their crimes against america one bit they start the war then get other americans to die in it then when the americans say this war is false and bullshit and is for the jews and dont what their sons to die the jews say their tratiors.

Geller once said that johathan pollard the Israeli jewish spy was a Hero yes you heard me right a HERO this is from a jewish rottan whore that calls everybody who is against the jewish wars in the middle east a tratior including cindy sheehen.

Oh and yes in case your wondering who is that vile looking jewish criminal in the picture with her its robert spencer another jew who called johathan pollard a hero
for spying on america and no he,s not an old german actor from the famous ww2
nazi mag Der sturmer.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Reporter feels Jewish Wild Animals hate in the Holy City

By Middle East correspondent Anne Barker

Posted Mon Jul 6, 2009 9:02am AEST
Updated Tue Jul 7, 2009 6:10am AEST

Slideshow: Photo 1 of 2

'Humiliated and degraded': ABC Middle East correspondent Anne Barker (ABC News)

Video: Jerusalem rocked by violent protest (ABC News) Audio: Israelis divided over work on the Sabbath (AM) The ABC's Middle East correspondent Anne Barker became caught in violent street protests involving ultra-Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem at the weekend. This is her graphic account of her ordeal.

As a journalist I've covered more than my share of protests. Political protests in Canberra. Unions protesting for better conditions. Angry, loud protests against governments, or against perceived abuses of human rights.

I've been at violent rallies in East Timor. I've had rocks and metal darts thrown my way. I've come up against riot police.

But I have to admit no protest - indeed no story in my career - has distressed me in the way I was distressed at a protest in Jerusalem on Saturday involving several hundred ultra-Orthodox Jews.

This particular protest has been going on for weeks.

Orthodox Jews are angry at the local council's decision to open a municipal carpark on Saturdays - or Shabbat, the day of rest for Jews.

It's a day when Jews are not supposed to do anything resembling work, which can include something as simple as flicking a switch, turning on a light or driving.

So even opening a simple carpark to accommodate the increasing number of tourists visiting Jerusalem's Old City is highly offensive to Orthodox Jews because it's seen as a desecration of the Shabbat, by encouraging people to drive.

I was aware that earlier protests had erupted into violence on previous weekends - Orthodox Jews throwing rocks at police, or setting rubbish bins alight, even throwing dirty nappies or rotting rubbish at anyone they perceive to be desecrating the Shabbat.

But I never expected their anger would be directed at me.

I was mindful I would need to dress conservatively and keep out of harm's way. But I made my mistake when I parked the car and started walking towards the protest, not fully sure which street was which.

By the time I realised I'd come up the wrong street it was too late.

I suddenly found myself in the thick of the protest - in the midst of hundreds of ultra-Orthodox Jews in their long coats and sable-fur hats.

They might be supremely religious, but their behaviour - to me - was far from charitable or benevolent.

As the protest became noisier and the crowd began yelling, I took my recorder and microphone out of my bag to record the sound.

Suddenly the crowd turned on me, screaming in my face. Dozens of angry men began spitting on me.

Spit like rain

I found myself herded against a brick wall as they kept on spitting - on my face, my hair, my clothes, my arms.

It was like rain, coming at me from all directions - hitting my recorder, my bag, my shoes, even my glasses.

Big gobs of spit landed on me like heavy raindrops. I could even smell it as it fell on my face.

Somewhere behind me - I didn't see him - a man on a stairway either kicked me in the head or knocked something heavy against me.

I wasn't even sure why the mob was angry with me. Was it because I was a journalist? Or a woman? Because I wasn't Jewish in an Orthodox area? Was I not dressed conservatively enough?

In fact, I was later told, it was because using a tape-recorder is itself a desecration of the Shabbat even though I'm not Jewish and don't observe the Sabbath.

It was lucky that I don't speak Yiddish. At least I was spared the knowledge of whatever filth they were screaming at me.

As I tried to get away I found myself up against the line of riot police blocking the crowd from going any further.


Israeli police in their flak jackets and helmets, with rifles and shields, were yelling just as loudly back at the protesting crowd.

I found them something of a reassurance against the angry, spitting mob.

I was allowed through, away from the main protest, although there were still Orthodox Jews on the other side, some of whom also yelled at me, in English, to take my recorder away.

Normally I should have stayed on the sidelines to watch the protest develop.

But when you've suffered the humiliation and degradation of being spat on so many times - and you're covered in other people's spit - it's not easy to put it to the back of your mind and get on with the job.

I left down a side street and walked the long way back to the car, struggling to hold back the tears.

Members of the Jewish Defence League arrested in Paris after attacking Bookstore

PARIS (AFP)---Four members of the Jewish Defence League, were detained on Wednesday over an attack on a Paris bookstore run by pro-Palestinian activists, judicial officials said.

Aged between 16 and 26, the youths were arrested in Paris and its suburbs and taken into custody on suspicion of trashing the store.

Masked vandals burst into the shop, armed with sticks and bottles of oil early Friday afternoon, smashing the computers and cash till, pulling books off the shelves and emptying bottles of oil on the floor.

Known for its support for the Palestinian cause, the bookstore in the northwestern 17th district of Paris has been attacked several times before.

Following the incident, the MRAP anti-racism group repeated a call for a French ban on the Jewish Defence League (JDL), which was set up by a US rabbi in 1968 to protect Jews from anti-Semitism.

France is home to Europe's largest Muslim community, estimated at five million, and its largest Jewish population with some 600,000 people.

Jewish group objects to ‘Great Famine’ case

KIEV, Ukraine (JTA) -- A Jewish group in Ukraine is objecting to a criminal case brought over the "Great Famine" committed in the 1930s.

The nation's security service is pressing the case against a list of former Soviet officials accused of committing the Holodomor, which caused the deaths of millions in Ukraine in 1932-33. Most of the names on the list were Jewish.

Ukrainian lawmaker Aleksandr Feldman, leader of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, said last week that it was "a farce" to press the case.

“All organizers of the Great Famine are dead," he said.

Last July, the Ukrainian Security Service released a list of high-ranking Soviet state and Communist Party officials -- as well as officials from NKVD, the police force of Soviet Russia -- that essentially blamed Jews and Latvians responsible for perpetrating and executing the famine because most of the names on the list were Jewish.

The Ukrainian Jewish Committee called on the secret service to revise the list, which incited interethnic hatred, in order to clear up the “inaccuracy.”

Feldman believes there is a danger that the “Holodomor Affair” materials are being used for political purposes.

In late May, security service head Valentin Nalivaychenko claimed at a meeting with representatives of the World Congress of Ukrainians that “Ukraine has collected enough evidence to bring a criminal case regarding the famine, which was artificially created by the Bolshevik regime and caused mass death of citizens.”

Through the World Congress of Ukrainians, Nalivaychenko turned to leading foreign lawyers with a request to help find out the circumstances connected with preparing and committing the genocide.

Israel PM Olmert brags about ordering Bush around

By James Edwards

Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister of Israel, is boasting to his fellow Israelis about how much control Israel has over “our” government:

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said that US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was left “embarrassed” after President George W Bush ordered her to abstain from a UN vote on Gaza war, which she herself had prepared and organised.

Speaking in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon, which has come under rocket attacks during the last 17 days, Olmert took pride in narrating how Bush intervened in the matter at his request.

“Early Friday morning [Israel time], the secretary of state was considering bringing the ceasefire resolution to a UNSC vote and we didn’t want her to vote for it. Suddenly, within ten minutes it became clear that, the vote was going ahead”, the Israeli premier recounted.

“I [called the White House and] said, ‘Get President Bush on the phone.’ They tried, and told me that he was in the middle of a lecture in Philadelphia. I said, ‘I’m not interested, I need to speak to him now”, he said.

“He (Bush)got down from the podium, went out and took the phone call. I told him that the US cannot possibly vote in favour of this resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote for it. She was left quite embarrassed,” he narrated.

Well, yeah, I guess he would “take pride” in telling this story. Of course, the Bush White House is denying this, calling the story completely untrue. But nobody believes it, except maybe FOX News viewers.

And this is nothing new. Jews regularly boast that they control “our” government. Here’s what Ari Shavit, one of Israel’s most respected pundits, wrote a while back. It appeared in an Israeli newspaper back in 1996, after Israel had killed over a hundred civilians in Lebanon.

We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own….”

It was also in Haaretz, a prominent Jewish newspaper, where Shavit bragged that the war on Iraq was created by 25-30 people, almost all of them Jews.

And a Jewish writer for the LA Times recently boasted that Jews control not only the entertainment and news media in America, but also “Wall Street” and “the government” to boot.

I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.


But I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.

We’re all supposed to not even notice it, and God forbid we should talk about it, or we’re Nazis. But Jews are allowed to not only say these things, they can brag about them while rubbing our faces in it.

While all these liberals and progressives run around screaming No War For Oil, and the conservatives run around parroting They Hate Us For Our Freedoms, Jews are laughing in our face. They know why we’re over in Iraq, and it’s not because of 9/11 or oil. It’s because of Israel. Thousands of American kids have died for Israel, not this country.

And if you think it’s bad now, it’s going to be even worse after Obama takes office. He’s appointed Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff. Emanuel is an “American” citizen who ducked fighting the first Iraq war on America’s side, and instead was a civilian volunteer for the Israeli military, which sat out the war, just like they did this one. He’s going to be calling the shots in the White House, as everyone knows. Obama couldn’t run a Waffle House, let alone the White House. Emanuel will be the real president, and whatever Israel wants Israel will get. Obama will just be there to fool Americans into thinking that they still control “America’s” government, and to take the blame when Israel drags us into another fiasco like Iraq.

HA HA HA ALLAH AKBAR Abu Ghraib Torturer killed by IED

WASHINGTON - Santos A. Cardona, an Army dog handler involved in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, was determined to continue fighting in America's overseas battles to erase the stain of his assault conviction, his family members said.

Those closest to him said his passion for doing what he loved in the service of his country led him to try to return to Iraq in 2006, but the military kept him home after his planned deployment was publicized. Late last year, Cardona, 34, got his chance to rejoin the fight.

He traveled to Afghanistan as a government contractor, using a German shepherd to search for improvised explosive devices and weapons stockpiles. Last Saturday, Cardona and his dog, Zomie, were killed when his military convoy hit a roadside bomb, according to Cardona's employer and his family.

Cardona's death was a violent end to a quest for redemption. His loved ones said he undertook one last year at war to earn money for his young daughter, show the military that he was good at his job, and dispel the cloud caused by photographs from Abu Ghraib that circled the globe.

"He wanted to prove that he had nothing to hide, and his way of dealing with that was to go back to war," said Steven Acevedo, Cardona's uncle and close friend. "He very much believed his job was important, but he was resentful that his president and that his government had turned their back on him and tried to use him as a scapegoat."

Cardona and his tan Belgian Malinois, Duco, were shown in photographs of detainee abuse that surfaced publicly in 2004. The most notable image showed Duco growling at a cowering, naked detainee.

Cardona argued he was ordered to have Duco intimidate high-value detainees at the behest of senior officers - assertions supported by court testimony and military records - and jurors acquitted him of all but one assault charge. Cardona was ecstatic after receiving a verdict that spared him jail time and allowed him to stay in the Army.

But staying in the Army did not mean the legacy of Abu Ghraib would disappear. After his blocked attempt to return to Iraq in 2006, he worked at the Army's dog kennels at Fort Bragg, N.C. Demoted as part of his sentence and finding he was unable to sign up for the five more years it would have taken to earn a full military retirement pension, Cardona was honorably discharged on Sept. 29, 2007, according to Army records.

Though Cardona always believed he had done nothing wrong at Abu Ghraib, he carried a silent anger at those who ordered his actions but never were held to account, family members said. "I know that the accusations and the trial tore him up," said Heather Ashby, the mother of Cardona's 9-year-old daughter, Keelyn. "Emotionally, it was a huge drain on him. I don't think he ever wanted to be remembered like that, and I know he was angry that people who were giving orders didn't pay a price or defend what happened."


by Patrick J. Buchanan

On Good Friday, John Demjanjuk, 89 and gravely ill, was ordered deported to Germany to stand trial as an accessory to the murder of 29,000 Jews — at Sobibor camp in Poland.

Sound familiar? It should. It is a re-enactment of the 1986 extradition of John Demjanjuk to Israel to be tried for the murder of 870,000 Jews — at Treblinka camp in Poland.

How many men in the history of this country have been so relentlessly pursued and remorselessly persecuted?

The ordeal of this American Dreyfus began 30 years ago.

In 1979, the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) at Justice, goaded and guided by Yuri Andropov’s KGB, was persuaded that Demjanjuk was “Ivan the Terrible,” a huge, brutal, sadistic guard at Treblinka, who bashed in babies’ heads and slashed off women’s breasts, as he drove hundreds of thousands of Jews into the gas chambers.

Demjanjuk’s defense was simple: I was never at Treblinka.

Yet, a dozen survivors, shown a photo spread, identified him as the beast of Treblinka. In 1986, OSI had him extradited to Israel. In 1988, he was convicted and sentenced to death. The greatest Holocaust monster since Mengele was to be hanged.

His family, friends and lawyers did not give up. They scoured Europe and, in the last days of the Soviet Union, struck pay dirt. In Moscow’s files on Treblinka they discovered a photo of the real “Ivan,” a far bigger, more mature man than the 23-year-old Demjanjuk in 1943.

Ivan Marchenko was positively identified as Ivan the Terrible.

To its eternal credit, Israel’s Supreme Court threw aside the verdict and stopped Demjanjuk from being the first man hanged in Jerusalem since Adolf Eichmann in 1961.

A humiliated OSI, through its Israeli friends, now asked the court to authorize a new trial, charging Demjanjuk with having been a guard at Sobibor — during the same time they previously charged he had been at Treblinka.

What OSI was admitting was that its case against Demjanjuk, to see him hang from the gallows as “Ivan the Terrible,” had been based on flimsy or falsified evidence and worthless or perjured testimony.

Replied the court, we don’t do double jeopardy here in Israel.

Demjanjuk was released. And the grin of the jailer who opened his cell testified that many in Israel never accepted the charge that this simple man was some unrivaled devil of the Holocaust.

So, after 13 years, the last four on death row reflecting on his hanging for horrors he never committed, Demjanjuk came home to Cleveland, a free man. His citizenship was restored.

Though disgraced, OSI was not ready to throw in its hand. For it had been dealt a new card by its old comrades in the KGB.

The new evidence was a signed statement by one “Danilchenko,” who claimed to have been a guard at Sobibor and had worked with Demjanjuk. As this document would have blown up the Treblinka case in Jerusalem, OSI had withheld it from the defense.

Another document turned up suggesting that Demjanjuk had indeed, after training at Trawniki camp, been assigned to Sobibor.

When the defense asked to interrogate “Danilchenko,” to verify he had made and signed the statement and to question him on details, they were told this was not possible. Seems Danilchenko had died after signing.

So, after the first 13 years of his ordeal took him right up to a gallows in Jerusalem, Demjanjuk has now been pursued for another 17 years by an OSI that will not rest until he has been convicted, somewhere, of genocide.

And so we come to today.

Demjanjuk is to be taken to Germany and prosecuted as an accessory to the murder of 29,000 Jews at Sobibor — though not one living person can place him at that camp and not even the German prosecutor will say that he ever hurt anyone. One witness in Israel, who was at Sobibor and says he knew all the camp guards, says he never saw Demjanjuk there.

If Friday’s ruling is upheld, John Demjanjuk, who has been charged with no crime on German soil, is to be taken to Germany, home of the Third Reich, to be tried by Germans for his alleged role in a genocide planned and perpetrated by Germans. He is to serve as the sacrificial lamb whose blood washes away the stain of Germany’s sins.

But if Germans wish to prosecute participants in the Holocaust, why not round up some old big-time Nazis, instead of a Ukrainian POW.

Answer: They cannot. Because the Germans voted an amnesty for themselves in 1969. So now they must find a Slav soldier they captured — and Heinrich Himmler’s SS conscripted and made a camp guard, if he ever was a camp guard — to punish in expiation for Germany’s sins.

The spirit behind this un-American persecution has never been that of justice tempered by mercy. It is the same satanic brew of hate and revenge that drove another innocent Man up Calvary that first Good Friday 2,000 years ago.

Monday, June 8, 2009



Monday, May 25, 2009


HINDA39_1 THE JEWISH SPY FROM PALTALK ADMITTED TO BEING A SAYANIN FOR ISRAEL. Katya and Sayanin: A Katya is a Jewish spy. Katya and Sayanin: A Katya is a Jewish spy. The Sayanin are those Jews resident in the host nation who provide support and assistance to the spies in their missions. In 1979 an ex-CIA official said "Mossad can go to any distinguished American Jew and ask for help." (9/3/1979, Newsweek) Some years ago an analysis of the Forbes list of billionaires found that almost 40% were Jews. Did they have some assistance from Jerusalem in acquiring their money? Were the 200 Israeli spies expelled after 9/11 the only spies they have in this country? If it were any other country and we caught 200 spies what would we have done? Why did the spy story only run on one network? Why did the spy story disappear from the Fox News website?
As Jews make up about 2% of our population and blacks make up about 14% there should be 6 times as many black spies as there are Jewish spies wouldn't you think? I can't think of any black spies.

1947. Information collected by the ADL in its spy operations on US citizens is used by the House Select Committee on Unamerican Activities. Subcommittee Chair Clare Hoffman dismisses the ADL's reports on suspected communists as hearsay."

1950 John Davitt, former chief of the Justice Department's internal security section notes that the Israeli intelligence service is the second most active in the United States after the Soviets.

1954 A hidden microphone planted by the Israelis is discovered in the Office of the US Ambassador in Tel Aviv.

1956 Telephone taps are found connected to two telephones in the residence of the US military attach in Tel Aviv.

1954 "The Lavon Affair". Israeli agents recruit Egyptian citizens of Jewish descent to bomb Western targets in Egypt, and plant evidence to frame Arabs, in an apparent attempt to upset US-Egyptian relations. Israeli defense minister Pinchas Lavon is eventually removed from office, though many think real responsibility lay with David Ben-Gurion.

1965 Israel apparently illegally obtains enriched uranium from NUMEC Corporation. ( Washington Post, 6/5/86, Charles R. Babcock, "US an Intelligence Target of the Israelis, Officials Say.")

1967 Israel attacks the USS Liberty, an intelligence gathering vessel flying a US flag, killing 34 crew members. See "Assault on the Liberty," by James M. Ennes, Jr. (Random House). In 2004, Captain Ward Boston, Senior Legal Counsel for the Navy's Court of Inquiry into the attack swears under oath that President Lyndon Johnson ordered the investigation to conclude accident, even though the evidence indicates the attack was deliberate. Given the use by Israel of unmarked boats and planes, and the machine-gunning of USS Liberty's lifeboats, the most likely explanation is that USS Liberty was to be sunk with all hands, with evidence left to frame Egypt for the sinking. This would have dragged the US into the war on Israel's side.

1970 While working for Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Richard Perle is caught by the FBI giving classified information to Israel. Nothing is done.

1978, Stephen Bryen, then a Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffer, is overheard in a DC hotel offering confidential documents to top Israeli military officials. Bryen obtains a lawyer, Nathan Lewin, and the case heads for the grand jury, but is mysteriously dropped. Bryen later goes to work for Richard Perle.

1979 Shin Beth [the Israeli internal security agency] tries to penetrate the US Consulate General in Jerusalem through a "Honey Trap", using a clerical employee who was having an affair with a Jerusalem girl.

1985 The New York Times reports the FBI is aware of at least a dozen incidents in which American officials transferred classified information to the Israelis, quoting [former Assistant Director of the F.B.I.] Mr. [Raymond] Wannal. The Justice Department does not prosecute.

1985 Richard Smyth, the owner of MILCO, is indicted on charges of smuggling nuclear timing devices to Israel ( Washington Post, 10/31/86).

1987 April 24 Wall Street Journal headline: "Role of Israel in Iran-Contra Scandal Won't be Explored in Detail by Panels"

1992 The Wall Street Journal reports that Israeli agents apparently tried to steal Recon Optical Inc's top-secret airborne spy-camera system.

1992 Stephen Bryen, caught offering confidential documents to Israel in 1978, is serving on board of the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs while continuing as a paid consultant -- with security clearance -- on exports of sensitive US technology.

1992 "The Samson Option," by Seymour M. Hersh reports, illicitly obtained intelligence was flying so voluminously from LAKAM into Israeli intelligence that a special code name, JUMBO, was added to the security markings already on the documents. There were strict orders, Ari Ben-Menashe recalled: "Anything marked JUMBO was not supposed to be discussed with your American counterparts."

1993. The ADL is caught operating a massive spying operation on critics of Israel, Arab-Americans, the San Francisco Labor Council, ILWU Local 10, Oakland Educational Association, NAACP, Irish Northern Aid, International Indian Treaty Council, the Asian Law Caucus and the San Francisco police. Data collected was sent to Israel and in some cases to South Africa. Pressure from Jewish organizations forces the city to drop the criminal case, but the ADL settles a civil lawsuit for an undisclosed sum of cash.

1995 The Defense Investigative Service circulates a memo warning US military contractors that " Israel aggressively collects [ US] military and industrial technology." The report stated that Israel obtains information using "ethnic targeting, financial aggrandizement, and identification and exploitation of individual frailties" of US citizens.

1996 A General Accounting Office report "Defense Industrial Security: Weaknesses in US Security Arrangements With Foreign-Owned Defense Contractors" found that according to intelligence sources "Country A" (identified by intelligence sources as Israel, Washington Times, 2/22/96) "conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any US ally." The Jerusalem Post (8/30/96) quoted the report, "Classified military information and sensitive military technologies are high-priority targets for the intelligence agencies of this country." The report described "An espionage operation run by the intelligence organization responsible for collecting scientific and technologic information for [ Israel] paid a US government employee to obtain US classified military intelligence documents." The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (Shawn L. Twing, April 1996) noted that this was "a reference to the 1985 arrest of Jonathan Pollard, a civilian US naval intelligence analyst who provided Israel's LAKAM [Office of Special Tasks] espionage agency an estimated 800,000 pages of classified US intelligence information."

The GAO report also noted that "Several citizens of [ Israel] were caught in the United States stealing sensitive technology used in manufacturing artillery gun tubes."

1996 An Office of Naval Intelligence document, "Worldwide Challenges to Naval Strike Warfare" reported that " US technology has been acquired [by China] through Israel in the form of the Lavi fighter and possibly SAM [surface-to-air] missile technology." Jane's Defense Weekly (2/28/96) noted that "until now, the intelligence community has not openly confirmed the transfer of US technology [via Israel] to China." The report noted that this "represents a dramatic step forward for Chinese military aviation." (Flight International, 3/13/96)

1997 An Army mechanical engineer, David A. Tenenbaum, "inadvertently" gives classified military information on missile systems and armored vehicles to Israeli officials (New York Times, 2/20/97).

1997 The Washington Post reports US intelligence has intercepted a conversation in which two Israeli officials had discussed the possibility of getting a confidential letter that then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher had written to Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. One of the Israelis, identified only as Dov, had commented that they may get the letter from Mega, the code name for Israel's top agent inside the United States.

1997 US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, complains privately to the Israeli government about heavy-handed surveillance by Israeli intelligence agents.

1997 Israeli agents place a tap on Monica Lewinsky's phone at the Watergate and record phone sex sessions between her and President Bill Clinton. The Ken Starr report confirms that Clinton warned Lewinsky their conversations were being taped and ended the affair. At the same time, the FBI's hunt forMega is called off.

2001 It is discovered that US drug agent's communications have been penetrated. Suspicion falls on two companies, AMDOCS and Comverse Infosys, both owned by Israelis. AMDOCS generates billing data for most US phone companies and is able to provide detailed logs of who is talking to whom. Comverse Infosys builds the tapping equipment used by law enforcement to eavesdrop on all American telephone calls, but suspicion forms that Comverse, which gets half of its research and development budget from the Israeli government, has built a back door into the system that is being exploited by Israeli intelligence and that the information gleaned on US drug interdiction efforts is finding its way to drug smugglers. The investigation by the FBI leads to the exposure of the largest foreign spy ring ever uncovered inside the United States, operated by Israel. Half of the suspected spies have been arrested when 9-11 happens. On 9-11, 5 Israelis are arrested for dancing and cheering while the World Trade Towers collapse. Supposedly employed by Urban Moving Systems, the Israelis are caught with multiple passports and a lot of cash. Two of them are later revealed to be Mossad. As witness reports track the activity of the Israelis, it emerges that they were seen at Liberty Park at the time of the first impact, suggesting a foreknowledge of what was to come. The Israelis are interrogated, and then eventually sent back to Israel. The owner of the moving company used as a cover by the Mossad agents abandons his business and flees to Israel. The United States Government then classifies all of the evidence related to the Israeli agents and their connections to 9-11. All of this is reported to the public via a four part story on Fox News by Carl Cameron. Pressure from Jewish groups, primarily AIPAC, forces Fox News to remove the story from their website. Two hours prior to the 9-11 attacks, Odigo, an Israeli company with offices just a few blocks from the World Trade Towers, receives an advance warning via the internet. The manager of the New York Office provides the FBI with the IP address of the sender of the message, but the FBI does not follow up.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Prominent Lawmaker Caught Whoring for AIPAC

WASHINGTON, Apr 20 (IPS) - A U.S. government investigation of Israeli spying caught a prominent Democratic congresswoman discussing what is alleged to be a "quid pro quo" deal involving the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Washington’s powerful hawkish pro-Israel lobby.

Representative Jane Harman of California was recorded in 2005 on a National Security Administration (NSA) wiretap promising a suspected Israeli agent that she would intervene on behalf of two AIPAC staffers accused of passing classified information to the Israeli government, and her interlocutor responded by promising to help get Harman appointed to a top congressional intelligence post, according to an article published Sunday by Congressional Quarterly (CQ).

Perhaps even more notably, then-attorney general Alberto Gonzales later halted an FBI investigation of Harman’s actions because of Harman’s political value as a defender of the George W. Bush administration’s much-criticised warrantless wiretapping programme, the CQ report states.

The Harman scandal’s political repercussions appear to be growing, and it sits at the intersection of several controversial issues - among them, the influence of the "Israel lobby" on Capitol Hill, the complicity of top Democrats in Bush-era abuses, and the politicisation of judicial proceedings under the Bush administration.

Harman has a reputation as one of the Democratic Party’s foremost hawks, both on Israel-Palestine and on issues related to the "global war on terror". She has long enjoyed a close relationship with AIPAC, and is scheduled to speak at the group’s annual conference in May.

Allegations of a quid pro quo arrangement involving Harman and AIPAC are nothing new; Time magazine reported in 2006 that the FBI and Justice Department were investigating whether such a deal took place.

What was new in Sunday’s CQ piece, written by reporter Jeff Stein on the basis of conversations with multiple senior national security officials speaking anonymously, were the claims that the deal had been recorded by the NSA wiretap and that attorney general Gonzales had squelched the investigation of Harman for political reasons.

In an online discussion Monday, Stein stated the wiretap was court-approved and did not target Harman; rather, it was directed at the suspected Israeli agent with whom she was speaking.

Harman and her interlocutor were discussing the impending trial of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, two senior AIPAC staffers who had been fired and charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for passing classified information to the Israeli government.

(Rosen’s and Weissman’s trial is scheduled to start this summer; Lawrence Franklin, the Pentagon staffer who passed them the classified information, pled guilty to conspiracy in 2006 and was sentenced to over 12 years in prison.)

Harman was recorded saying that she would be willing to "waddle into" the AIPAC case to try to get the Justice Department to reduce its charges against Rosen and Weissman. In return, the suspected Israeli agent promised to help lobby Nancy Pelosi, at the time the House minority leader and now its speaker, to convince Pelosi to appoint Harman as chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

Harman at the time was serving as the Democratic ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, but had a testy relationship with Pelosi; she was ultimately passed up for the committee chair in 2006 in favour of Representative Silvestre Reyes.

The identity of Harman’s interlocutor is unknown, although most analysts are assuming that he or she had significant ties to AIPAC, which has traditionally been dominant in lobbying members of congress on matters pertaining to Israel.

Haim Saban, a prominent Israeli-American businessman, has been frequently mentioned in the "blogosphere" as a possible suspect, but this identification seems primarily to have been based on the fact that Saban’s name was mentioned in the 2006 Time magazine piece about Harman. So far no solid evidence has emerged to link him to the incident.

One anonymous source told the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder that Harman’s interlocutor was a U.S. citizen.

AIPAC denied having participated in any wrongdoing in the Harman scandal. "AIPAC would never engage in a quid pro quo related to a federal investigation or any other federal matter," spokesman Patrick Dorton said. "That is absurd."

Harman’s office also released a statement denying any wrongdoing.

"The CQ Politics story simply recycles three year-old discredited reporting of largely unsourced material to manufacture a ’scoop’ out of widely known and unremarkable facts," the statement said.

"If there is anything about this story that should arouse concern, it is that the Bush Administration may have been engaged in electronic surveillance of members of the congressional Intelligence Committees."

Harman’s concern about the Bush administration’s surveillance policies is somewhat ironic, given that she was previously the strongest defender of the administration’s warrantless wiretapping programme among congressional Democrats - and that she appears to have avoided a federal investigation of her AIPAC ties only as a result of her permissive stance on wiretapping.

Harman had previously helped convince the New York Times not to report on the programme, and after the newspaper finally decided to run the story, she blasted its editors for compromising U.S. national security.

Due to Harman’s value in providing bipartisan cover for the administration’s policies, Gonzales intervened with CIA director Porter Goss to derail a pending FBI investigation of her, including a court-approved wiretap.

(The wiretap targeting the suspected Israeli agent that captured Harman’s conversation had been approved by the special court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and thus was not part of the NSA warrantless wiretapping programme.)

According to Stein’s sources, then, the end of the FBI investigation of Harman was not due to "lack of evidence", as her defenders publicly claimed, but rather due to political considerations by the Bush administration.

The Harman scandal comes at an especially unwelcome time for AIPAC. The organisation has faced mounting criticism in recent years on charges that it - along with other, similarly right-leaning groups within the "Israel lobby" - have for years skewed Washington’s Middle East policy in a hawkish direction and stifled open discussion of Israel-Palestine issues.

These concerns led to the formation last year of a new pro-Israel lobbying group, J Street, which aims to give voice to what it characterises as the more dovish views held by most U.S. Jews.

Now, with its annual conference approaching, AIPAC finds itself once again in the spotlight, linked to a story that its critics are taking as a corroboration of many of the harshest claims made against it.

Yad Vashem fires employee who compared Holocaust to Nakba

Elie Wiesel is widely admired by many of the Catholics who wield power in the diocesan chanceries and the administrations of the nation’s Catholic schools and universities. He has received honorary degrees from a number of Catholic institutions, including Georgetown, Notre Dame, Fordham and Marquette. He is also fawned over by assorted Catholic intellectuals. He is accorded this treatment despite the fact that he plays a prominent role in exploiting the abusive relationship that exists between the representatives of the major Jewish Organizations and those Catholics who “dialogue” with them. In the 40 years since Vatican II, this alleged “dialogue,” well intentioned at the beginning, has actually turned out to be a monologue in which the Jewish side ritually denounces Catholics and Catholicism while the Catholic representatives nod in approval. No serious criticism is ever made of Jews or Zionism. The dialogue, for instance, is strangely “silent” about the unrelenting Israeli war against the Christians of Palestine. In 1948, 18-20 percent of Palestinians were Christian. That figure is down to about 2 percent today. The Christian population of Bethlehem, once 95 percent, has dwindled to about 15 percent. Even worse, the “separation fence” now under construction cuts through many places that are holy to all Christians.
The role that Wiesel has assumed in the abusive relationship is to exploit his privileged access to the media to attack high value Catholic targets. In 1979, he attacked the Pope for not mentioning the word “Jew” while visiting the Auschwitz victims’ monument, which also omitted the word. He also attacked the Pontiff for not mentioning the word “Israel” on his visit to the U. N. When the Pope invited him to come to Rome for a personal visit, Wiesel turned him down. Then, in 2000, he rebuked the Pontiff because his apology to Jews for past persecutions was not good enough.

His attacks against Cardinal O’Connor of New York, an honest, sincere and terribly naïve man, began in the 1980s. When O’Connor visited Jerusalem in 1987, he broke down in tears over Jewish suffering during World War II. Upset, he stated that this was a “gift.” What he meant was that, in Catholic terms, it was a possible occasion of grace, as is all suffering. Wiesel and other New York Jewish figures ripped him in the media for his supposed bigotry and insensitivity. He and Wiesel then became “friends” when Wiesel came to visit him.1 Wiesel then convinced O’Connor to do an “interview” book with him. It was called Journey of Faith (1991), and in it the Cardinal was on the defensive from cover to cover. In 1997, he talked O’Connor into helping him dedicate the Jewish Holocaust Museum in New York City. While there, the Cardinal took it upon himself to “apologize” for all Catholics who had contributed to past Jewish suffering.2 Then, on September 8, 1999, very sick and not far from death’s door, he wrote Wiesel a personal letter in which he made the same kind of “apology.” Wiesel then paid $99,000 to turn the cardinal’s private missive into a full-page ad in the Sunday New York Times on September 19. Strongly implied in each of O’Connor’s gestures was the idea that Jewish suffering of World War II replicates the sufferings of Christ in the 20th century, an idea that a faithful Catholic simply cannot accept.3

Wiesel’s relationship with Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger of Paris followed the same pattern in the 1990s. First he attacked Lustiger because he had converted to Catholicism as a boy, then he achieved reconciliation and finally “friendship” with him.

Wiesel also delights in desecrating what is for many Catholics the beloved memory of Pope Pius XII, routinely trashing him for his supposed “silence” during World War II. No other Jewish media voice even comes close to Wiesel in terms of the frequency and the vitriol of his insults to the Catholic memory of that Pope. Wiesel has been claiming for the past 35 years that Christianity died at Auschwitz. As early as 1971, he stated: “The sincere Christian knows that what died in Auschwitz was not the Jewish people but Christianity.”4 Yet, the Catholic press, intellectuals and hierarchy treat Wiesel with reverence! To Wiesel (as well as to our disproportionately Jewish mediarchy), Jewish suffering during World War II has replaced the sufferings of Christ as the functioning paradigm of the post-Christian era. It is the media’s benchmark, the sacred “burnt offering” of the secularists. As Rabbi Jacob Neusner has pointed out, “the Judaism of Holocaust and Redemption” has become the civil religion of America.5 Hardly a day goes by without the Judeo-corporate media producing an article, report, TV show or movie of some kind on the subject of the Holocaust and the dubious “lessons” we are supposed to draw from it. Media propaganda, both against Catholicism and in favor of the “specificity,” or superiority of Jewish suffering, never stops.

Over the course of his career, Wiesel has told many tall tales about his alleged experiences during World War II. They can be called “true lies,” since they are meant to edify and are told with supposedly good intentions, even though they are not true. In the following pages, I shall examine closely one of these “true lies.” It has to do with his internment at Buchenwald. As I tell the story, it will become apparent to readers that I avoid using the word “Holocaust.”6 Since that term is has become a media code word that is all too often used as a justification for the Jewish war crimes and crimes against humanity that are routinely committed in occupied Palestine, it is tainted. It is also associated with the scams and manipulations of various Jewish holocaust profiteers, of whom Wiesel himself is probably the most flagrant example. It also serves the purposes of the pro-Israel Judeo-corporate power structure, since it justifies foreign adventures to “prevent another Holocaust.”7 I refer instead to the Jewish Ordeal of World War II (JOW) to describe the Nazi persecution of innocent Jews.

Wiesel’s Credibility

But who is Elie Wiesel, and how is he related to the JOW? One Jewish commentator, Pierre Vidal Naquet, whose father died at Auschwitz, wrote of Wiesel: “For example, you have Rabbi Kahane, the Jewish extremist, who is less dangerous than a man like Elie Wiesel, who says anything that comes to mind. . . You just have to read parts of Night to know that certain of his descriptions are not exact and that he is essentially a Shoah merchant. . . who has done harm, enormous harm, to historical truth.”8 Another Jewish voice made the following comments on Wiesel’s self-righteous autobiography: “Elie Wiesel’s memoir is written by a man whose inner postures have gone so long unreviewed he cannot persuade us he is on a voyage of self-discovery, the first requirement of a testament. His book, I am sorry to say, gives being witness a bad name.”9 Christopher Hitchens, taking issue with Wiesel for his silence about Jewish war crimes in Palestine, wondered out loud: “Is there any more contemptible poseur and windbag than Elie Wiesel? I suppose there may be. But not, surely, a poseur and windbag who receives (and takes as his due) such grotesque deference on moral questions.”10

From November 1947 to January 1949, Wiesel worked for Zion in Kampf, the newspaper of the terrorist gangsters of the Irgun. The Irgun extermination of innocent Arabs at the village of Deir Yassin took place on April 8, 1948, while Wiesel was on the payroll, yet he is always appalled by Palestinian “terrorism.” Likewise, while he was actively campaigning for a Nobel Prize in the 1980’s, he made a trip to South Africa. Of course, the New York Times was there with him and recorded his ritual denunciation of apartheid. Yet Wiesel now strongly favors the apartheid wall being built in occupied Palestine even though it will impose additional inhuman hardships on the Palestinians. Even worse, he has attacked Pope John Paul II for proposing that what the Middle East needs is bridges, not walls, writing: “From the leader of one of the largest and most important religions in the world, I expected something very different, namely a statement condemning terror and the killing of innocents, without mixing in political considerations and above all comparing these things to a work of pure self-defense. To politicize terrorism like that is wrong.”11 Ironically, the same Wiesel who accuses Pius XII of “silence” now wants Jean Paul II to be “silent” about Jewish war crimes in Palestine.

Wiesel and François Mauriac

Wiesel’s claim to fame is his problematic “autobiography,” Night, which is actually a novel, since it contains a good deal of invented material. It was first published in French in 1958, and was based on a much longer Yiddish version, which he had published under the title And the World Forgot (Und Di Velt hat Geshveyn) in Buenos Aires in December 1955. At a reception held at the Israeli embassy in May 1955, which Wiesel attended as a reporter for an Israeli newspaper, he approached the well-known Catholic novelist, newspaper chronicler, man of letters, and 1952 Nobel Prize winner, François Mauriac (1885-1970), and asked if he would consent to be interviewed.

Mauriac was a French right-wing nationalist by birth and upbringing. In his family in the early days of the 20th century, they referred to the bedroom’s chamber pot as “le zola,” since the Mauriacs were convinced, like many French people, that Dreyfus had been guilty despite the media campaign in is favor. But he changed political stripes in the mid-1930s, becoming a strong supporter of world Jewry. He continued this support through the war years and after, when he favored the creation of Israel. Then, in 1951, he was the first Catholic to accuse Pope Pius XII of “silence” during the war years. Amazingly, just two years later, when his career seemed dead, for he had not published a major piece if fiction since 1940, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature—for his novels! The Parisian literati were stunned! How could this be, they wondered, especially at the height of the “existentialist” craze? One question they did not dare ask was the possible role of the Jewish lobby, so powerful with the Nobel Committee, in this decision. Was the Nobel Prize a payback for his support of Jewry through the years of World War II, as well as for waving an accusatory finger at Pius XII, who was still very much alive? I have not yet been unable to resolve this question.

In any case, Mauriac invited Wiesel to his home. They talked about the war years and the concentration camps. In fact, it seems clear in retrospect that this was the only subject Wiesel wanted to talk about. The two men became friends, and Mauriac told Wiesel he would help him find a publisher for his book. But his book was not only written in Yiddish, it was also several times longer than what would eventually become La Nuit. How did the transformation take place? Did Wiesel rewrite it, as he has always claimed, or did he get help from Mauriac? The answer to this question could probably be found in their voluminous correspondence, but Wiesel is in possession of both the letters received from Mauriac and the ones he wrote to his friend and benefactor. Wiesel sits on this correspondence and refuses to publish the letters, despite the entreaties of his rather naive liberal Catholic admirers.12

La Nuit became Night when it appeared in New York in 1960. With the backing of the ADL, it became mandatory reading in high schools shortly thereafter and has sold millions of copies since then. It contradicts Jewish holocaust dogma on many key points, and in fact is guilty of “holocaust denial” in this respect. Nevertheless, it remains the only “holocaust memoir” with any redeeming literary qualities (which brings us back once again to the question of who actually wrote the final draft of the book). In the meantime, Wiesel moved to New York, where he continued to work as a correspondent for an Israeli newspaper. Shortly after his arrival, he was struck by a car near Times Square. Given to exaggeration by nature, he later claimed: “I flew an entire block. I was hit at 45th Street and the ambulance picked me up at 44th. It sounds crazy. But I was totally messed up.”13 Then, after the success of Night, he was awarded a tenured teaching position at a public institution, Hunter College. Despite his claims over the years about having studied philosophy and psychology at the Sorbonne and doing a two year internship at the Hôpital Sainte-Anne in clinical psychology, he actually never enrolled for any credit-bearing course at the Sorbonne, or any other branch of the University of Paris. Even worse, there is no evidence that he ever earned a French secondary school diploma. Yet, he now earns a huge six-figure salary as a year as a Mellon Professor of Literature at Boston University, a position that theoretically requires a Ph.D.

During the years from 1960 to 1967 the two men kept up a regular correspondence. After the conquest of Palestine in 1967, Mauriac voiced concern in his Bloc-Notes column in Le Figaro that the Israelis were now behaving more and more like Nazis. During the war, Mauriac had been obliged to give shelter to several German soldiers in his home for over four years, and he knew what occupation did to both occupier and occupied. The two men quarreled, and there were harsh words committed to paper. Wiesel would prefer nowadays not to revive this issue, for he probably wrote some things he is now ashamed of. Yet, for years he proclaimed he was going to some day publish the letters.14 But I believe there might be a much more important reason for the suppression of the correspondence, for it could possibly reveal Mauriac’s active role in the redaction of La Nuit. After all, as Naomi Seidman has pointed out, La Nuit differs dramatically from the Yiddish original in length, tone, basic themes and meaning. She rightfully attributes this difference to Mauriac’s “influence.”15 But how do we define “influence?” While the Yiddish original appears to be hated-filled, dripping with a Jewish desire for vengeance against goyim, the latter is more oblique and restrained. In a word, it is a work of literature and, as such, implies the presence of a mature literary hand, like Mauriac’s. Conversely, when one compares La Nuit to the many novels that Wiesel has written since then, the absence of a mature literary hand, like Mauriac’s, is obvious. In France, La Nuit is mandatory reading in state-sponsored indoctrination classes, but none of his other novels are read in schools or taken seriously by critics. The same situation prevails in this country. In a word, La Nuit is totally different from anything else that Wiesel has written, and it is fair to ask if in fact Mauriac’s influence went beyond the level of mere suggestion and advice.

Wiesel at Auschwitz and Buchenwald

Wiesel, along with his parents and three sisters was deported from Sighet, Hungary, to Auschwitz in May 1944. Born in September 1928, he was fifteen and a half years old. The Germans needed labor for their factories, since Nazi ideology forbade German women from engaging in such work. Women stayed home in Nazi Germany, a policy that made sense to the Nazi racists who ruled the country but left the Germans short of blue-collar labor. Wiesel’s mother and a sister died at Auschwitz in the summer of 1944, probably in the horrible typhus epidemic that raged in the women’s camp. Their death certificates are in the files at Auschwitz, but on a research trip there I was not allowed to see them. The two other sisters survived the epidemic, and lived to advanced age. Wiesel was sent to the men’s camp with his father. In late 1944, when Wiesel injured his foot in an industrial accident, he was operated on at the camp hospital. According to the vulgate version of the Jewish holocaust story, he should have been disposed of in a gas chamber since he was not only a child but was also disabled. Yet nothing of the sort happened. While in the hospital, he befriended the hospital personnel and, as the Russians approached in January 1945, was offered the opportunity by the Jewish staff physicians to stay on and not be evacuated with the retreating Germans. Yet, Wiesel preferred to go off with the Germans who, according to the Jewish holocaust story, were allegedly sending 20,000 people a day to the gas chambers. This decision raises a number of very serious questions. Not only that, he also insisted on dragging his sickly father along with him, which was the equivalent of writing the man’s death certificate. The latter, physically weak even before the horrible trauma of the camps, died of dysentery shortly after arriving in Buchenwald in the dead of winter. Repatriated to France in late April at the age of sixteen and a half, Wiesel was reunited there with the two sisters who had survived the typhus epidemic.

On July 4, 2004, Parade magazine featured an article by Wiesel. It included what is probably the most famous propaganda picture from World War II. In it, a circle is drawn around the face of a man who is supposedly Wiesel. The picture was taken by Private H. Miller of the Civil Affairs Branch of the U. S. Army Signal Corps at Buchenwald concentration camp on April 16, 1945, five days after the American arrival there on April 11. It was not taken on the spur of the moment on April 11, but was one of a larger group of about a dozen photos in which professional montage and mise en scène techniques were used.16 The shot was then released to the media to be used for the usual propaganda purposes: project an image of the Germans as war criminals while distracting the American public from the horrible war crimes then being committed by Allied forces. The fact that the picture is still being exploited almost 60 years after it was taken shows how successful and adaptable it has proved to be.

The last two pages of Night recount the events associated with the flight of the Germans and the arrival of the Americans at Buchenwald. Wiesel writes in Night that “three days after the liberation of Buchenwald, I became very ill with food poisoning. I was transferred to the hospital and spent two weeks between life and death.” Thus, Wiesel’s first claim about his mysterious illness is that it occurred “three days after the liberation of Buchenwald,” that is, on April 14. He was immediately hospitalized, and “spent two weeks between life and death.” According to this scenario, he would have been in the hospital from April 14 to April 28. Since the picture was taken on April 16, he could not have been in it.

Wiesel later changed this basic story a number of times. Here is the second version of events, which he invented many years later. “After the liberation I became sick and it’s strange how it happened. I hinted at it in Night but it’s not the full story. April 11, 1945, when the Americans came, we were some 20,000 left in Buchenwald out of some 60,000 or 80,000, and we hadn’t had food for a week or so. Suddenly the Americans came and brought their food but they really didn’t know what they were doing; they gave fats. 5,000 people died immediately from food poisoning. . . and my body rebelled; I lost consciousness immediately and was sick for ten days or so—unconscious, in a coma—blood poisoning or something.” In this second version, Wiesel says that he ate the food “an hour or two after the liberation,”17 which contradicts his original claim in Night that he only got sick three days after liberation. Also, in this new version he is sick, unconscious and in a coma for ten days, or from April 11 until about April 21. Here, once again, he could not have been in a picture that was taken on April 16. As for Wiesel’s claim of 5,000 deaths from food poisoning, it is pure hysteria, and is not supported by the historical record.

Wiesel, Mendacity and the New York Times

The Buchenwald picture first appeared in the New York Times on May 6, 1945, several weeks after it was taken. The caption read: “Crowded Bunks in the Prison Camp at Buchenwald.” The caption does not date the photo, but it does imply that the picture was taken when the prisoners were being liberated on April 11. The media has always implied this date, but that is the basic lie on which everything else is based. Also, the New York Times does not identify any of the men in the picture, which did not so much portray the chaotic reality of Buchenwald on April 11, but rather the Holywoodized version of it that had been carefully crafted by the Signal Corps. The photo appeared in conjunction with an article by correspondent Harold Denny, in which he communicated the official U. S. Government propaganda line. Entitled “The World Must Not Forget: What was done in the German prison camps emphasizes the problem of what to do with a people who are morally sick,”18 his piece was a distraction from what the Allies were doing to innocent German civilians. As he wrote, Germany was a smoldering ruin as a result of Allied carpet bombardment of civilians, Dresden and Hamburg had been bombed to a pulp, the dams on the Rhine had been destroyed drowning untold numbers of innocents and destroying their homes, countless German civilians whose families had lived in East Prussia and Poland for generations were being forcefully evicted by the advancing Soviets, the five million Volga Germans who had been settled in Russia since the 18th century had been deported to Siberia during the war where most of them would perish, the valiant men of the Red Army were in the process of raping millions of German women as they advanced through Germany, and, most dreadful, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were on the drawing board. For the NYT, however, it was the Germans who were “morally sick.” But the Allies had saved “civilization.”

The third version of Wiesel’s liberation from Buchenwald is linked to this photo. In 1983, almost 40 years after the picture was taken, the NYT published it with the caption: “On April 11, 1945, American troops liberated the concentration camp’s survivors, including Elie, who later identified himself as the man circled in the photo.” It is important to note here that Wiesel had never claimed to be in this famous picture before 1983. Why had he never told anyone about this before 1983? And why did the NYT suddenly want to associate Wiesel with this picture, especially since the individual circled in it was a young man, and clearly not a boy of 16? Furthermore this man does not resemble in any way what Wiesel actually looked like at this age! Obviously, no checking was done by the paper to see if Wiesel’s claim was true, but the NYT knows that in the matter of the Jewish holocaust story, no one would dare to challenge them. In retrospect, however, it is clear that this bogus claim was a first step in the NYT campaign to secure a Nobel Prize for Wiesel, either for literature or peace.19 The picture was published in the high circulation Sunday NYT Magazine, and included the statement, “His name has been frequently mentioned as a possible recipient of a Nobel Prize, for either peace or literature.”20 Incredibly, after the NYT had manufactured history by declaring erroneously that Wiesel is seen in the picture, they had the nerve a few years later to castigate Buchenwald Museum authorities for not repeating their lie as fact! In 1989, a NYT reporter visiting Buchenwald wrote: “A large photograph in the [Buchenwald] museum shows Mr. Wiesel, among others, on the day of liberation. He is not identified in a caption. And the guide who has shown visitors around Buchenwald for 14 years had never heard of the author, who has written eloquently about that camp.”21 In addition to Wiesel’s earlier claims that he was sick when the picture was taken, another major problem with Wiesel’s alleged image in this picture is that it is quite unlike his appearance in a photo taken shortly before his deportation eleven months earlier. Clearly, he was merely a boy at the time, and his image bears no relationship to that of the man shown in the bunk at Buchenwald.22 This picture, coupled with the fact that he has stated repeatedly over the years that he was sick on April 16, offers double proof that his claim be to shown in the Buchenwald shot is nothing but a Jewish holocaust scam. Tragically, this true lie exploits the tragic sufferings of Wiesel’s relatives and all the other innocent Jews.

As the Nobel campaign went forward, the NYT usually tried to present Wiesel in dramatic terms, even if it meant telling more “true lies.” His image as a JOW survivor needed to be enhanced. Thus, for example, when he made a trip to Berlin in January 1986 to attend a JOW conference, the NYT reporter declared solemnly: “Elie Wiesel returned to Germany this week for the first time since he was released from the Buchenwald concentration camp almost 41 years ago.”23 Unfortunately, this dramatic statement was nonsense, as the NYT should have known, since Wiesel had begun his career as a New York journalist in December 1962 when he published a hate-filled article appropriately entitled “An Appointment with Hate” in Commentary, the organ of the American Jewish Committee. Its subject was a recent trip he had made to Germany. In it, he wrote: “Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate—healthy, virile hate—for what the German personifies and for what persists in the Germans. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.” The word “Catholic” can easily be substituted for “German” here.

Likewise, even after the Nobel award was announced on October 14, 1986, the NYT would continue to embroider the facts, always trying to dramatize Wiesel’s life experience. For instance, on November 2, they triumphantly republished a severely cropped version of the Buchenwald photo with the caption: “Elie Wiesel, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize (at far right in the top bunk) in the Buchenwald concentration camp in April 1945, when the camp was liberated by American troops.”24 The picture was cropped in such a way that the man who is supposed to be Wiesel remains barely visible. The NYT also suggests the picture was taken on April 11, 1945 without, of course, actually saying so. Then, in January 1987, they erroneously claimed that Wiesel had been “freed from Auschwitz” during the war.25 A year later, when he made a trip to Auschwitz, the NYT wrote: “Mr. Wiesel was a prisoner at Auschwitz and witnessed the killing there of his father and one of his sisters.”26 Of course, Wiesel’s father died in Buchenwald, and the tragic details of his sister’s death are contained in the unavailable (to me at least) Auschwitz camp records. But the word “Auschwitz” is one of the three Jewish holocaust terms that have been sloganized in the pages of the NYT, along with “six million” and “gas chambers,” while “Buchenwald” is not.

In 1987, a year after cashing his $270,000 Nobel check, Wiesel appeared at the Klaus Barbie trial in Lyons, France. Here, once again, the Buchenwald photo was put to use by the media, although it is not clear to what extent Wiesel was involved in this particular Jewish holocaust fraud. On June 3, 1987, the Chicago Tribune published an AP photo containing a cropped version of the men in the bunks at Buchenwald. What was completely new in this fourth tall tale about his liberation was that Wiesel, accompanied by two other people, one of whom might have been French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, was shown standing in front of a blown-up version of the picture and pointing to himself in it. The caption read: “Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel points to a picture of himself, taken by a German at the Auschwitz death camp in 1945. The photograph is part of the Holocaust Memorial in Lyon, France.”

This caption is totally mendacious, and the only problem with this particular scam is determining Wiesel’s role in it. However, when we recall words he wrote early in his career and has repeated many time since then, we have a possible key. “Some events do take place but are not true; others are true although they never occurred.”27 Telling a “true lie” with good intentions is simply not a problem for Wiesel. Also, since the Barbie trial focused on deportations to Auschwitz, not Buchenwald, the former was in the news every day during the summer of 1987, while hardly a word was being said about the latter. Thus, Wiesel, never shy about generating publicity for himself, might well have felt that a “true lie” was called for here.

In 1995, Wiesel offered a fifth version of his liberation experience in an interview published in the German weekly Die Zeit. It contained two new pieces of information. The first was the claim that the picture had actually been taken the day after the liberation, that is, on April 12, 1945, not on April 11th, as the media had always implied. This new date not only contradicts the date of April 16 given by the U.S. Army, but it also made it impossible for him to be in it if we believed his second claim that he had been put in the hospital for ten days immediately upon eating American food on April 11th. The second new assertion to emerge from this interview was that the picture was taken in the children’s barracks, or Kinderblock at Buchenwald, where Wiesel was lodged. The following statement to this effect appears twice in the article, once in the text and once again as the caption to the picture (in which the person alleged to be Wiesel is circled as it had been in the NYT in 1983): “On the day after the liberation the picture was taken in the Children’s Block at Buchenwald by an American soldier. It shows old men. But these old faces are the faces of men who, in truth, were 15 or 16 years of age like I was.”28 Since 1945, when the NYT first made propaganda use of this picture, no one has ever claimed that it depicts children. Yet, Wiesel actually expects us to believe that these men, some of whom are heavily bearded or partially bald, were mere boys. Finally, when Wiesel states that the picture was taken “by an American soldier,” he gives the impression that it was a spur-of-the-moment event and not one that was carefully orchestrated for propaganda purposes.

A sixth version of events at the liberation of Buchenwald was concocted by Wiesel in 1989 when a black filmmaker and a Jewish producer were trying to create a new myth, namely, that a black unit, the 761st Tank Battalion, had actually liberated the Jews at Buchenwald. Their intention was to increase black and Jewish mutual “understanding” in Brooklyn through a movie to be shown on PBS called Liberators. For the benefit of the NYT, which gave serious coverage to this far-fetched story, Wiesel conjured up a brand new memory that he had never mentioned before: “I will always remember with love a big black soldier. He was crying like a child—tears of all the pain in the world and all the rage. Everyone who was there that day will forever feel a sentiment of gratitude to the American soldiers who liberated us.”29 He made this statement despite the fact that there were no blacks present at the liberation of Buchenwald on April 11, 1945, and the black unit in question was over 50 miles away on that date. After a gala preview screening of the movie in Harlem, it was gradually revealed that the film’s thesis was a hoax. Thus, it was never released. Jeffrey Goldberg, among others, denounced this media fabrication that the NYT had so strongly supported.30 Yet, Wiesel repeated this true lie in his autobiography: “I will never forget the American soldiers and the horror that could be read in their faces. I will especially remember one black sergeant, a muscled giant, who wept tears of impotent rage and shame, shame for the human species, when he saw us. He spewed curses that on his lips became holy words. We tried to lift him onto our shoulders to show our gratitude, but we didn’t have the strength. We were too weak to even applaud him.”31 In Wiesel’s patronizing and essentially racist view of the world, blacks are portrayed as physically strong but inarticulate. They can only spit out obscenities. Amazingly, even though the story was known to be false, he later incorporated it into his lecture routine, as needed.32


Elie Wiesel, so admired by many U. S. Catholic leaders, is in fact a con man who has enriched himself with his tall tales. Although courted by various misguided Church representatives, he is actually an outspoken enemy of traditional Catholicism, and should play no role whatsoever in Catholic life in this country. It is also evident that both Wiesel and the NYT are comfortable using true lies to promote the Jewish holocaust story and, in turn, Israel. Even worse, it is appalling that Wiesel, in his drive to become a multi-millionaire (he charges a standard fee of $25,000 per appearance and demands a chauffeur-driven car to go with it), and media personality, has so heartlessly exploited the suffering and death of his parents and sister at the hands of the Nazis. In falsifying his “memories” for personal gain, Wiesel has trivialized the personal tragedies of not only his closest family members, but also of all those, Jews and Gentiles, who died in the camps. The old shame of the JOW was, and is, the documented deaths of all too many innocent Jews during the war. The new shame of the JOW is the ongoing media exploitation of those deaths by people like Wiesel and the editors of the New York Times.