The thrust of the Spielberg movie is simple, fanfare notwithstanding: Israeli killers are conscientious and humane people, while Palestinians are always--no matter what--killers. But a Spielberg movie about current affairs is like a Thomas Friedman’s column about…Emanuel [sic] Kant. What do you expect. But you know? Did you notice how one lone critical opinion of the movie by one Israeli diplomat, which only mildly criticized the movie, got so much press in the US? It was needed; and it even helped to promote the movie to give a “balanced” cast to the narrative, that it of course does not deserve.

This one critical opinion reminded me of [FoxNews commentator Bill] O’Reilly; how he every night finds one email from somebody in Montana who tells him that he is too liberal. He needs that to maintain an image that does not exist, just as Spielberg needs to maintain an image that he does not deserve. This movie could easily have been a paid Israeli advertisement for its killing machine. In fact, it could be a recruitment movie for Israeli killing squads. I mean that. In fact, it is a celebratory movie of Israeli murder of Palestinians. Israel killing is always moral, and always careful, and always on target.

Today, yet another New York Times reviewer who also thinks that Spielberg was not sympathetic enough to the Israeli killers, even had the audacity to describe Israeli killings at the time as "targeted assassinations" when even Israel had not invented that propaganda term back then. He must have forgotten to remember. That's all.

Where do I begin.

I mean yes, I was quite angry watching it; and I got more angry as I watched the Berkeley liberal audience react sympathetically to the movie, rooting for the Israel head killer, as he went about his "civilized" killing. I watched the audience root for an Israeli killing team, and this WAS a true story, and Palestinian victims were real people, with real blood. The most emotional moment for Spielberg, and presumably for American audiences was when the head killer talked with his baby daughter in New York, that he missed very much. Oh, ya. That was the point at which you were expected to shed a tear or two; the music got particularly sentimental at that point. It had to be.

But where to begin; the movie was based on a book that took the Israeli account as it was delivered. But the book was honest and more accurate at least on one count: in the book by George Jonas titled Vengeance None. In the book but not in the movie, the killers, according to Jonas, had "absolutely no qualms about anything they did." How could Spielberg miss that. Well, he just managed. Hell, that was the whole movie, and the whole political project behind it.

Of course, it was not easy for me to watch this movie, I mean not only at the political and intellectual levels, but also at the personal level. I can connect to the story, in its details and personalities. The first victim of the movie was Wa’il Zu`aytir, and I knew his niece; I went to school with Abu Hasan Salamah’s son--he was younger; and I knew the street and building where the three PLO leaders were massacred in Beirut. And let me tell you that NONE of the five people mentioned here had anything to do with Munich--but more on that later.

NONE.

But why should this movie, a Spielberg’s movie for potato’s sake, bother with facts, especially if they come in the way of a smooth pro-Israeli narrative? But this movie is intended for mass audiences who know nothing about the facts of the conflict. That is exactly why it will work, and why it will deliver the (propaganda) goods.

Let me start by saying this: this, Munich that is, was not as planned an operation as has often been maintained. This was not planned months in advance, as Abu Iyad maintained in his account with Eric Rouleau (translated into English as My Home, My Land by dear Linda Butler). Abu Iyad for years exaggerated the claims about the “carefully planned” operation, and PLO media at the time lied about how the PLO gunmen threw grenades into the helicopters, so as to make the last shootout more of a fight that it actually was. Angry Palestinians who were being hit by Israeli fighter jets in their refugee camps demanded heroes and heroism, and the PLO had to give them some, even if they were not legitimate heroes. The German troops were going to take them out, no matter what, and no matter how much they, the Germans in this case, endangered the lives of the hostages, and they presumably had Israeli consent.

The Arab League diplomat talked about this recently when he broke his silence in an interview on Ziyarah Khassah on Al-Jazeera. He should know: he was the negotiator with the Palestinian team in Munich. Yes, I know. It can be argued that the Palestinian attackers risked the lives of the hostages by taking them hostages, even if they did not intend to kill them. That is true. This is like hijacking: the hijackers, any hijackers, are responsible, and should be held responsible for whatever endangerment to the lives and health of victims. That is true. But it is also true that the State of Israel has taken a nation as a hostage, and has been endangering the lives of Palestinians since the inception of the state of Israel. This is why it is all a question of who is retaliating against whom?

One of the many false premises of the movie is that Israel only went on a killing rampage—and only against Palestinian “killers”--after Munich. That Munich was a watershed. Watershed it was not, except in Israeli propaganda brochures. Israel has been going on killing rampages against Palestinians, civilians mostly, since before the creation of the state of Israel.

And how could you even talk about Golda Meir and forget to mention her most memorable quote: that “there is no such thing as the Palestinian people.” Spielberg must have missed that, just as he needed to show her as grandma goodness who was pushed into vengeance by Palestinian cruelty. More humanization. That is why we had to see the head Israeli killer with his child: you need to see him as a human being.

Do you know that not a single Palestinian in the movie appeared unarmed? They all were terrorists, and their murder had to be justified, and Spielberg did a great service for the state of Israel in that regard.

They should name some stolen Palestinian property in Israel in his honor, I argue. A street, a destroyed Arab village, or a stolen olive tree. Anything. He deserves it. And let us see what Israel was doing before Munich.

Before Munich, NOT AFTER—did you get that, Israel placed a bomb under the car seat of Palestinian writer/artist, Ghassan Kanafani and killed him and killed his niece (14). The niece was not plotting the Munich operation when she was murdered by the Israelis; nor was her uncle. That was BEFORE Munich. Kanafani was best friends with my uncle; they both used to write in Al-Hurriyyah magazine during their days at the Movement of Arab Nationalists.

Israel also—BEFORE Munich—sent a letter bomb to Bassam Abu Sharif (a writer and journalist with the PFLP), and left him with life-long scars and bodily damage, and they also sent a letter bomb to Anis Sayigh, a scholar and researcher, who was not a member of any group. But he was a really diligent researcher, and Israel did not appreciate it--I am assuming.

This is not easy for me; I have shaken the hands--or what was left of their hands--of both of those men, and Abu Sharif never had a military role—I say this although I never liked Abu Sharif or respected him (read my review of his memoir in Journal of Palestine Studies a few years ago). But those were innocent victims of Israeli killing. They never held guns those two, or those three, or four. This story is personal for me, of course. I see them as human beings, and not as armed and vengeful characters that they appear in Spielberg’s movie.

And typical of US movies where Arabs appear, Arabs when they speak Arabic never need subtitles. We need them when people speak in French and German, but Arabic is not important. It is not important to know what cheap natives say; we only need to know what expensive people say: Europeans and Israelis.

And do you notice that Hollywood still portrays Israelis as Europeans: they still don’t want to accept that some half of all Israelis come from Asian and African countries. This makes it easier for the White Man to identify with them.

And there is this element that is never mentioned about Palestinian attacks: and this is true of the present and of the past. It is not that some Palestinian leaders recruit or compel Palestinians to attack Israelis. It is the other way round. Palestinians, regular rank-and-file and sometimes civilians, pressure Palestinian leaders and commanders to send them on military or suicidal missions against Israeli targets. Munich occurred exactly like that. Palestinians in the camps in Lebanon, those who were trained by Fath and by other groups, were lobbying for “action.” Why?, you may ask? Well, not only for the loss of Palestine but also because Israel was KILLING Palestinians.

In February of the same year PRIOR to Munich, Israeli jets bombed Palestinian refugee camps, and killed tens of innocent people. This is what is missing in the movie, among many other things. Most Palestinians who are killed by Israelis are unarmed and are killed not by assassins who are conscientious and sensitive—as they are outrageously portrayed in this movie—but by pilots who bomb refugee camps filled with unarmed civilians. Palestinians who are bombed from the air, long before Munich, are elderly and people and children in their beds. These are the victims that you will never see in a Spielberg movie.

So Israel was killing Palestinians, and this was the context of pre-Munich. So a small group decided to do something, but they were not sure what, and this was only 3 months before Munich. And one of the handful of people who knew about this, and this will never make it into the press was Abu Mazin--yes, that Abu Mazen the head of the puppet Palestinian Authority.

But do you notice that US/Israel always forgive the past of those who submit to Israeli dictates? Look at how US and Israel forgave Anwar Sadat for his anti-Semitic Nazi past. Abu Mazin was the money guy, and he dispersed the funds for Abu Dawud, who engineered the operation. And the American public in US media and popular culture is so enamored with the Mossad, that the image of the Mossad does not match its actual reality.

The best evidence is this movie: look at this obsession with Abu Hasan Salamah as the “mastermind” of Munich when he had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with Munich. To be sure, Abu Hasan was a braggart, and had a big mouth, and would take credit for things he did not do, and would distance himself from failed “operations” that he planned, like the Sabena failed hijacking in 1972. That was Abu Hasan: he lived the life of a playboy, and enjoyed a unique indulgent pampering from Abu `Ammar who treated him like a son. Abu `Ammar would never say no to Abu Hasan, on anything. But Abu Hasan had nothing to do with Munich, and this ostensibly all-knowing Mossad, did not know it, and probably still does not know it.

Former CIA director, Stansfield Turner, once said that the Mossad is a mediocre organization, but that it is outstanding in PR--only in PR. Former CIA man in Beirut Robert Baer said this about the Mossad--I am translating this from an interview he gave to Al-Jazeera:

“Let me tell you something, what people most err in in the Middle East, and I am responsible for my words to the end, is related to Israeli intelligence. To be sure, they can kill somebody in Paris or Rome or killing the wrong person in Finland or wherever else they did that in [he meant Norway]. To be sure they know Europe and Palestinians, and they know many things about Palestinians, but when it comes to the rest of the Middle East, I have not seen anything from their part that indicated their knowledge of those countries.”

But this can never be maintained in a country that wants to exaggerate the prowess and knowledge of an intelligence agency not only to help feed the Israeli propaganda myth, but to also prepare the American public for more ruthless times and ways.

So a very small number of people knew about it, and of course Abu Iyad was one of them. And Abu Iyad is the most important person on the list, and yet his name was NOT on the list, just to show you about how much--or how little-- Israel knew. Abu Iyad spoke more than he needed not only because he wanted to send a message to the enemy, but also because the wars of factions and "Abu"s within Fath necessitated a game of one-up-manships, and of wild exaggerations at times. And while Black September was a paper name, and did not have a separate organizational existence or structure, several factions used the name for their own ends.

Nobody consulted with Abu Iyad about Abu Hasan’s use of the name for the Sabena’s failed hijacking mentioned above. Abu Dawud is a key person here. And while his name was mentioned in passing, it was added after the fact in Israeli propaganda accounts. Abu Dawud was arrested in France for another reason in 1977, and he was released because there were no German or Israeli warrants about his involvement in Munich.

That shows you.

Now, I will not give a blow-by-blow account of Munich. But I personally believe the account of Abu Dawud more than I believe Spielberg, i.e. Israeli propaganda claims, or even German police. (Abu Dawud's account is found in Abu Dawud, Filastin: Mina-l-Quds Ila-Muikh (Beirut: Dar An-Nahar, 1999)). German police lied quite a bit about the case; they leaked to the press fanciful accounts of Palestinian infiltration of the workforce at the Olympic city, when none of that actually took place. They were too embarrassed to tell the truth.

Similarly, the Israelis wanted to back the German account, especially as the violence at Munich was a propaganda bonanza for the Israelis in the West, just as Munich—this is not known in the West—was a propaganda bonanza for Fath in the Middle East, as horrrific as the outcome was for all. And in that sense, the Germans, the Israelis, and Abu Iyad (and certainly Abu Hasan) lied about Munich, but not Abu Dawud, in my opinion.

Abu Dawud is one of those 2nd tier PLO leaders who did not get corrupted in the messy Lebanese scene, and who did now allow the Gulf money that corrupted many PLO leaders to affect him. This was a man who was in charge of Beirut during the Lebanese civil war, and yet his name does not appear in any chronicle of the war because he was too low key, and because he never bragged. (Hell, he never talked even when the brutal mukhabarat in Jordan held him from his feet for days, while torturing him. People who saw him in jail at the time did not recognize him. But you know this: your reliable "moderate" friends in Jordan are quite "good" in torture. They are probably the best; they are helping you in that regard as we speak.) Most Lebanese did not even know his name. But this also explains why he survived, unlike say Abu Hasan Salamah, who married a Lebanese former Miss Universe, who introduced him to Lebanese bourgeois society, and he could not get enough of that life. He developed a routine, and lived in a fancy apartment on Madame Curie Street in Beirut, and the routine he developed (going to the GYM at the same time every day), made him an easy target.

Abu Hasan could get all the money he wanted for his own group from `Arafat, and was doing a good job of maintaining not only good relations with the CIA but also with Lebanese right-wing groups. He became good friends with some right-wing militia leaders. Read the novel by Navid Ignatius, Agents of Innocence: it is about Abu Hasan, although the author does not admit it.

It is interesting that in the movie, the Israeli head killer (who was in the movie Troy), was cast to be most appealing to the audience: a good looking and charismatic figure. But say what you want about Abu Hasan (and many people in Palestinian struggle, like Abu Dawud, did not like him) but he was a good looking and charismatic figure in real life, but not the actor who played him in Spielberg’s movie. But Spielberg did not want the viewer to identify with any Palestinian in the movie: that was contrary to him and to his political goal. He just wanted to identify with the expensive human beings: the Israelis.

The Arabs are worse than they were in Renoir’s painting, the Mosque, as an unidentifiable blob. They were just armed, with no humanity. They were not supposed to evoke emotions, and you were not supposed to see them bleed, and if you did, you had to cheer for their killers. The only ones that you had to feel sorry for: were the Israelis who get killed, including the killers when they kill. The music that played when Israelis die, was different from the music that played when Palestinians died. And no speaking roles for Palestinians were necessary. Why bother. Give one a line, and you have done your "objective" duty.

And the list of prisoners that attackers submitted to German authorities did not have “200 Arab prisoners” on it, as the movie said. It had some 234 Arab and NON-Arab names on them, including Japanese and German prisoners, but that was not in the movie. And the statement that was issued by the attackers gave a name to the “operation”: Bir`im and Ikrit, names of two (predominantly Christian) villages in northern Palestine, the people of which were expelled by Israeli occupation forces in 1948 for “security reasons.”

In 1972, the people of those villages petitioned the courts to return to their villages, and the courts of course turned them down. But if you were to use the name of the “operation” you would have to tell the audience those burdensome details that would have distracted from the celebration of the Israeli killing machine.

But this begs the question: why is Munich more famous than the savage bombardment of Palestinian refugee camps back in February prior to Munich? And why did the letter bombs to three Palestinian writers not get any world attention? Why did American liberals and PEN not notice it back then? Could you imagine what would happen if a Palestinian threw even a rose at an Israeli writer? Could you imagine what would happen among American leftists if a Palestinian were to say even a bad word to Amos Oz for example? That was the stature of Ghassan Kanafani among Palestinians and Arabs.

Now, I will not get into the military/intelligence background of the Israeli hostages as Abu Dawud does in his memoirs because the attackers did not know that information prior to the “operation.” Abu Dawud gives many details about the military backgrounds of some of the hostages, but I do not think that this is appropriate because even Abu Dawud did not know that before hand.

I will not get into what actually happened at the site at the airport when the hostages were being transferred by their captors not only because the captors were responsible by virtue of the hostage "operation", but you can raise questions regarding the actual responsibility of the killing of the hostages.

Abu Dawud cites Israeli newspapers from the 1990s in which writers raised questions about German responsibility, and on how the German government never published autopsy reports of the hostages, etc. The Israeli government also did not want to examine the bullets that killed the Israeli hostages. That would have settled the question, of course.

Abu Dawud stressed that the attackers were under strict instructions to not shoot at the hostages, and you noticed in the scene, even in the movie, that when they were storming the compound, they clearly struggled with the door and avoided shooting, while that could have shortened the time of entry, and Abu Dawud says that they were under strict instructions to avoid using the grenades.

And Abu Dawud raises the possibility that the helicopter may have exploded from a bullet that hit it gas tank, but I don’t know, and I have never relied on Spielberg, or on the silly book on which he based his account, for historical accuracy.

And another thing comes to mind: Palestinians also have managed to assassinate Israeli military and intelligence leaders but that never gets attention because the trend in US media and popular culture is that you should only show Palestinians when they are killing civilians. And it is not true that the Israeli response was confined to the assassination of the 11 Palestinians as was shown in the movie: Israel was also killing other Palestinians.

Israeli “response” or initiative we should call it, was more massive and brutal that the operation of the secret team. Three days after Munich, Israel ordered an air strike which required the use of some 75 Israeli aircrafts (the largest attack since 1967) and the attacks on Palestinian refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon resulted in the killing of more than 200 mostly civilians. And this is not because the Israelis knew that there was a camp north of Sidon that was used for training the Munich attackers. That camp was not even hit (another sign that Israelis had no information about the real culprits of Munich) and other camps with civilians were hit. And then while the assassinations were taking place, Israeli bombing of camps continued uninterruptedly.

And the most glaring omission in the film, which shows you that the Israeli team was not only savage but also ignorant of their targets, was what happened on July 21st 1973, when `Ali Bushiki, a Moroccan waiter resting with his pregnant wife around a swimming pool in Norway, was murdered by that assassination team merely because `Ali resembled what the hit team thought Abu Hasan Salamah looked like. (The Norwegian police tracked and arrested the killers, but they were all released in a secret deal with the Israeli governement--is that not nice?) Should that not have made it to the movie? But that would have made them look more brutally clumsy than Spielberg wanted them to look like.

And even Wa’il Zu`yatir, the PLO representative in Rome. He knew nothing about Munich, and was an academic with close ties to socialist circles in Italy. Zu`ytir was shot 14 times. He never held a gun in his life. These Israeli team members were killers who really relished killing, and did not seem susceptible to moral second-thinking as was stressed over and over again in the movie. Zu`ytir was more interested in literature than he was in military affairs, on which he knew nothing.

And PLO representative in France Mahmud Hamshari also had nothing to do with Munich; Israeli propaganda later had to contend with that, and claimed after killing him that the attackers passed through France on their way to Munich. In reality, the attackers never stepped on French soil when they went to Germany.

And the movie, it seems really enjoyed covering the 1973 massacre in Beirut. Spielberg I could tell really enjoyed learning and covering that massacre by Israeli terrorist squads. But who were the three PLO personalities killed in that "operation"? And who cares about the details? Kamal `Udwan was the Fath/PLO leader responsible for the West Bank and Gaza. He not only had no responsibilities in Europe, but he opposed “operations” in Europe, and even those by Black September.

More than that, `Udwan was one of the most moderate Fath leaders having accepted the two-state solution back in 1970, before any of his colleques in Fath. Abu Yusuf An-Najjar was in charge of intelligence in Lebanon—Lebanon, not Europe. While `Udwan had no knowledge of Munich, Abu Yusuf may have heard about it but had no role whatever in it. The third person was a poet: and you know how much Israelis like to murder Palestinian poets, artists, and writers. Kamal Nasir was a poet, and was killed in his bed.

The movie did not tell you that by the time the Israeli terrorists finished with their “mission,” some 100 Palestinians and Lebanese were murdered on that day in April 1973. I also was amused--not really--how Spielberg portrayed the neighborhood where the PLO leaders AND others were killed: it had all the features of Orientalist imagination. It was traditional and the houses were old styles with arches, and the place was protected like a military base. In reality, the PLO leaders lived in a residential building in the most modern and upper class neighborhood of Verdun in Beirut. But why bother with that detail too.

And the Fath representative in Cyprus also had nothing to do with Munich; he was the intelligence envoy of Abu Yusuf An-Najjar. And some people on the list of the Israeli murder team were not only not involved with Black September, but some were not even members of the Fath organization.

Basil Al-Kubaysi was a Palestinian scholar who had just completed his PhD in political science; I recently had dinner with Basil’s best friend in college in Candada. Kubaysi was in the PFLP and not in the Fath organization. The same for Muhammad Budia: he was with Wadi` Haddad, and not with Black September. But then again: I read that Spielberg offered the script to Dennis Ross and to Bill Clinton to verify the “accuracy” of Middle East political and historical references. The two are experts on the Middle East, in case you have not heard.

More than that, the movie did not tell you that on September 16th, and 17th, Israel launched a savage invasion of South Lebanon, erasing the refugee camp of Nabatiyyah, and the Lebanese newspapers at the time (I even remember that as a 12 years old) had on the first page that famous picture of a smashed civilian car with seven Lebanese civilians smashed inside when an Israeli tank ran over the car near Jwayya in South Lebanon. That must have been too messy for Spielberg to cover. Why bother? And the car had stopped at the Israeli checkpoint that was set up at the entrance to the village. Were those civilians in the car also involved in Munich?

Later, as the movie ended, it was written on the screen that Abu Hasan Salamah was later “assassinated.” Spielberg forgot to add that he was “assassinated” by a massive car bomb in a crowded street in Beirut, which killed and injured tens of people—oh, and those people also were not involved with Munich.

The reviews of the movie in US media almost expressed frustration that Spielberg did not express enough sympathy for the Israeli killers. Only Michelle Goldberg of Salon to her credit (great review Michelle) pointed out that contrary to that lousy review by Leon Wieseltier** in the New Republic “many of those [Israelis] in Munich are, if anything, slightly unbelievable in their constant self-interrogation and closely guarded humanism.”

I was thinking after the movie that public ignorance of the Middle East greatly helps Israeli propaganda; this explains why Zionist organizations express contempt and wrath at Middle East expertise and specialty (as in MESA) because those who get to know and learn about the Middle East overwhelming find it difficult if not impossible to consume the unbelievable dosages of Israeli propaganda delivered via US media and popular and political cultures.


*Three of the Munich Palestinian attackers survived. One died from a heart attack; the remaining two are...somewhere in the Middle East.

** Wieseltier on Spielberg [observed by The Flogger]: “Munich is aesthetically no different from War of the Worlds, and never mind that one treats questions of ethical and historical consequence and the other is stupid. Spielberg knows how to overwhelm. But I am tired of being overwhelmed. Why should I admire somebody for his ability to manipulate me? In other realms of life, this talent is known as demagoguery. There are better reasons to turn to art, better reasons to go to the movies, than to be blown away.”

On November 1st, unanimously and without a vote, the representatives of the 191 countries constituting the UN adopted an Israeli-drafted resolution proclaiming January 27th “International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust”. Moreover, this text “Rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or part”. Thus are targeted all those who, like the revisionists, demand a re-examination of the evidence and testimonies on which the argument of the alleged “Holocaust” of the Jews is based. In the main, the upholders of that argument affirm that, during the Second World War, the Germans 1) had a policy of physical extermination of the Jews; 2) had designed, built and used great slaughterhouses for humans called gas chambers (not to be confused with the crematory ovens, which had nothing criminal about them) and 3) caused, by this means and others, the death of six million Jews.

The proposition was adopted through a sleight of hand that I have described in a text of which you are aware entitled “The UN Decides a Universal Ban on Revisionism”.

The accusation brought by the Jews against the German people constitutes a slander. Marked with the sign of Cain, that people has thus far had no other recourse than to lose itself in contrition for a crime that it never committed. Sixty years after the war, Germany is still in a state of subjection and has not yet had the right to a peace treaty. The German (and Austrian) leaders ceaselessly ask the Jews’ forgiveness and lay out colossal financial
“reparations” to Jewish or Zionist organisations and the State of Israel. For sixty years, those countries’ rulers have lived in dread of arousing the Jews’ wrath; consequently they can be seen stifling any sign of historical revisionism. In Germany, in Austria but also in a good many other countries in Europe, the Jews have succeeded in getting special laws passed serving to protect their own version of the history of the Second World War from any challenge.

The imposture of the “Holocaust” is the sword and shield of the Jewish State, its no. 1 weapon. It enables the Jews and Zionists to indict the whole world: first Germany which, according to it, committed an abominable and unprecedented crime, then the rest of the world which had let that crime be committed. The Jewish extremists and the Zionists have gone on to charge Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman, Stalin, De Gaulle, Pope Pius XII, the International Committee of the Red Cross as well as all the countries that took part in the Second World War and even all the neutral countries, beginning with Switzerland. All are accused of having been indifferent to the tragedy and of having let the Jewish people be exterminated as alleged!

So it is that in taking a position today against the lie of the “Holocaust”, Iran happens to be defending not only Palestine and the Arabo-Moslem world but also an entire part of the human race against a gigantic slander, blackmail and extortion operation.

You inform me that, thanks to President Ahmadinejad, the occasion may finally have arisen to envisage the holding of an international conference on revisionism.

You surely know that the revisionists were, in 2001, preparing to hold such a conference in Beirut from March 31 to April 2 of that year. But Israeli and American pressures became so threatening that Lebanese President Rafik Hariri had to forbid the gathering. We should therefore be happy to turn to President Ahmadinejad and request his help in holding a conference in your country.

However, in view of the circumstances, such a project seems, sad to say, unrealisable at this moment. Allow me to explain why.

At present the main revisionists who, in 2001, would have participated in the Beirut conference are either in prison, in exile or in a precarious situation that forbids them from crossing national borders and from boarding a flight at an international airport.

We may take the appalling case of Ernst Zündel. Married to an American lady and living peacefully in the State of Tennessee, he was arrested outside his house on February 5, 2003 and thrown in jail under a pretext made of lies. Then he was delivered to Canada where, for two years, he languished in degrading conditions of solitary confinement in a high-security prison. Finally, he was handed over to Germany, where he is now in prison (in Mannheim) awaiting trial for revisionism. In Canada, as in Germany, revisionists are deprived of the right to defend themselves. In those countries, when a man accused of revisionism stands before a judge, the latter begins, in line with the routine, by having him swear to tell the truth. But if, in the following minute, the accused says, for example: “I affirm that the alleged Nazi gas chambers did not exist because the truth - which I can well demonstrate - is that they could not exist”, the judge will interrupt him immediately. The Canadian judge will tell him: “Before this special court [christened ‘Human rights tribunal’] truth is no defence”. As for the German judge, he will tell him: “You have not the right to challenge obvious facts of common knowledge (offenkundig)”. Thus neither the revisionist in question nor his lawyers can present a defence on the merits of the case. In Canada, judge Pierre Blais, presiding alone without a jury over proceedings against Ernst Zündel admitting of no appeal, the special court went so far as to examine anonymous witnesses in closed session. Then, in Mannheim, the chief judge dismissed in succession the four lawyers whom Ernst Zündel had chosen, and this because he suspected them of revisionism.

Still in the United States, near Chicago, the German citizen Germar Rudolf was recently kidnapped in the same style, torn from his American wife and their child and delivered to Germany; he is in prison in Stuttgart.

The Belgian Siegfried Verbeke was arrested last summer at Amsterdam airport and handed over by the Netherlands to Germany; he is in prison in Heidelberg.

The British historian David Irving was arrested in November while travelling in Austria and is now in prison in Vienna.

These four persons risk being sentenced to years of imprisonment, except perhaps David Irving if, as his lawyer lets it be understood that he will do, he retracts, shows repentance and pleads for the court’s leniency.

Other revisionists are in prison in Germany or Austria, notably the barrister Manfred Roeder, the school headmaster Ernst G. Kögel and the chemist Wolfgang Fröhlich.

Germany has become Israel’s “Guantanamo Bay” by the intermediary of a sort of judicial and police mafia which, in the United States and Canada, lashes out at revisionists (and at certain Arabs or Moslems) within the so convenient framework of the “fight against terrorism”.

In Switzerland the revisionists Gaston-Armand Amaudruz (aged 84) and Ren-Louis Berclaz have recently got out of prison, but might well return there.

Some important revisionists are living in exile in difficult conditions. I shall refrain here from naming either them or the countries where they have found refuge.

There remains the case of those revisionists who are neither in prison nor in exile. Their existence is hardly more enviable. The police harass them, the courts convict them. To speak only of France, Jean Plantin (prosecuted in Lyon), Vincent Reynouard (prosecuted in Limoges) and Georges Theil (prosecuted in Grenoble, Limoges and Lyon) have been or are currently under diverse sentences, including that of imprisonment without remission. Bruno Gollnisch, member of the European parliament, is to be summoned before a court in Lyon simply for having said that he wished historians could express themselves freely on the problem of the Nazi gas chambers’ existence! I myself am to appear on June 20, 2006 at the 17th chamber of the Paris criminal court for having given a telephone interview of revisionist substance to the Iranian television channel “Sahar”; charges were brought by Mr Dominique Baudis, president of the Conseil Supérieur de l’audiovisuel.

Fredrick Töben, an Australian national of German origin, had developed his revisionist activity in Australia and on the Internet. While traveling in Germany and seeking to inquire at the source about judicial repression of revisionism in that country, he soon found himself in prison there. Now back in Australia, he has been hit with a “gag order”, that is, he is in principle bound to silence on pain of summary conviction for contempt of court.

In Poland, the Czech republic, and other countries of Europe, revisionists are also prosecuted and convicted.

In Sweden, Ahmed Rami carries on with indomitable courage a struggle for both Islam and revisionism which has earned him time in prison.

In Germany, the number of publications burned by the police because of revisionism is not officially known but it might be considerable. Likewise in Canada.

I shall not relate here the revisionists’ exclusions from professions of all sorts in various countries or the family tragedies and suicides provoked by the repression. In Munich on the 25th of April 1995 the revisionist Reinhold Elstner burned himself to death as a protest, as he had written, against “the Niagara of lies” poured upon his people. The mainstream German press passed his heroic act over in silence and the police there, doing as ordered, confiscated the bouquets of flowers laid at the site of that sacrifice and proceeded to question those who, by that gesture of compassion, had shown their own anguish. In France, armed Jewish groups use violence with impunity even in the halls of the central courthouse in Paris. Personally, between 1978 and 1993, I suffered ten physical assaults on the part of Jews who, however, were never tried.

If the Jews and Zionists use physical violence and judicial repression in this way, it is because, on the level of scientific and historical argumentation, the revisionists have beaten them hands down. The drama of it for the Jews and Zionists is that they have been lying and that this fact is becoming known more and more. Certain Jews and even certain Israelis seem to be conscious of this. A minute few have had the courage to declare their scepticism concerning the reality of the “Holocaust” whereas others have been content to speak out against “the Holocaust religion”, “the Holocaust industry” or the “Shoah business”.

In conclusion, I think that, until things have changed somewhat, an international conference is, unfortunately, impossible. But, in accord with an idea put forth by professor Arthur Robert Butz, I shall say that we hope to see President Ahmadinejad create in Iran an international centre for revisionist studies whose first task would be to propagate historical revisionism’s attainments in the Arabo-Moslem world via the Internet or any other medium. Meanwhile, we request that Iran make repeated appeals to the Western world for the freeing of our prisoners of conscience.

In any case, we for our part consider that as long as in the United States, Canada, nearly all of Europe and as far away as Australia the revisionists are subjected either to special laws or tribunals, underhanded police procedures, or methodical vilification by media in the service of certain Jewish or Zionist pressure groups, the Western world will have ever less right to impose lessons of lawfulness, morality or democracy on others.

Yours respectfully,

Robert Faurisson

New York's Finest, for example, who are also unionized, by the way — they feel such solidarity with their "brothers and sisters," you see, but, more decisively, expect support should they ever strike — were uncharacteristically inept when it came to nabbing the perps who torched newsstands during the truckers strike. (Some stands somehow managed to get their newspaper deliveries, but that turned out to be as prudential as movin' in on the Gambinos' turf in the '60s.)

Unions are little mafias that want to be big mafias, and are not above breaking a few legs to "set an example" that's only "good for business." And they can count on the applause of all "responsible" segments of our "free society."

The TWU's political theater, captured in all its ugliness on the local news, is performed daily outside the Hyatt hotel where the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) "negotiates" with those who would commandeer and, if it suits them, sabotage its property. You can just smell the thuggery. All that Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Pataki seem capable of doing, however, is to commend "both parties" (i.e., aggressor and victim) for "staying at the bargaining table" or some such bullshit. Perhaps Bloomberg doesn't care to hear TWU's President Toussaint repeat his invitation of three years ago to shut his trap.

Strikes are politically protected thefts, and those men are politicians who covet Union support would rather die than be thought of as "anti-Union," even though that label should be no more malodorous than "anti-Mafia" or "anti-terrorist."

Tens of thousands of Americans are ready and willing to work for the MTA on current or even inferior terms, which would still be superior to what many of them enjoy now. Those TWU members who want "more, more, more" need only make themselves more productive as the free market defines and rewards productivity and then let prospective employers bid for their fine services.

But why work so hard, they must think, when crime pays so much better? Such musings reveal striking unionists to be, not "friends of labor," but enemies of real, flesh-and-blood working people who would gladly take their place.

After the TWU held the city hostage for eleven days in 1980 (April 1-11), members of the air traffic controllers union (PATCO) thought they could reinforce their monopoly privilege by the same means. So several months later, on August 3, they walked off their jobs.

In response, however, President Reagan did not stand alongside I-95 asking drivers, as then-Mayor Ed Koch did during the transit strike, "How am I doin'?" Reagan simply did what he had promised to do: he fired and replaced them all.

By the way, the feared mid-air collisions never materialized. "I thought Reagan was bluffing," one striker belched.

NYC's and New York State's "leadership" could free NYC once and for all from this triennial hostage scenario, with its devastating economic and psychologic toll, by inducing the MTA to place ads for those rocket-scientist jobs — driving trains and buses! The netherworld to which Reagan dispatched the dispatchers would then soon have a vibrant immigrant population who, I'm sure, would bestow upon that realm all the blessings of diversity.

The Turkish government today tries Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk for stating publicly, courageously, and virtually alone that, some 90 years ago a previous Turkish government instigated the murder of a million Amenians. The charge includes “insulting Turkishness.” The “Europe community” that proudly persecutes those who “defame the memory of the dead,” i.e., “Holocaust deniers,” has without a hint of irony put Turkey on trial for its prosecution of Pamuk.

If in the near future thousands of Iranian noncombatants fill American-financed craters in Tehran (a mere stepping stone to Iranian democracy), the Bushoids will shamelessly impute responsibility for those war crimes to Ahmadinejad. They will claim that while the case against Iraq——you know, weapons of mass destruction, ties to Al Qaeda, and all that——may have been weak, Iran is different because . . . its President is a Holocaust denier!

For a perspective on Ahmadinejad’s heresy you won’t find on the evening news, I highly recommend Michael Hoffman’s two recent editorials.

Excerpts:
“What has been the latest reaction of the West to these words from Iran? The reaction has been to confirm the Iranian leader's observation. He said that the ‘Holocaust’ has been placed above God in the West. The West has reacted by stating—almost with one voice—that Iranians should not have nuclear power, because their President does not believe in the Holocaust! This is mass hysteria disguised as foreign policy. A country is to be denied nuclear energy because it makes heretical political and religious statements? And we claim to be modern, no longer residing in the Middle Ages?” For the rest go here.

“In fact, America and especially Europe are death cultures with self-extinguishing birth rates, i.e. deaths and abortions exceed live births among indigenous whites. People who do not have sufficient spark to reproduce their race are profoundly sick. While Europeans have sleek cars, and trains that run on time, and pride themselves on their hygiene and modernity, they are in fact mentally ill and one manifestation of that pathology, is their support for the infallible religion of Holocaustianity.

“Having long ago rejected the infallibility of the Catholic popes, they have now embraced the infallibility of various Judaic popes, from Elie Wiesel to Abe Foxman and the Lubavitch chief rabbi of Russia, to name but a few. None of the wild statements about gas chambers by these religious fanatics may be weighed in the scale of science or historical research. To assess them is mortal sin, abomination and anathema. Abortion, contraception, greed, hatred of the family, these are no longer sins, because the Bible is no longer a document that compels any serious mass allegiance in Europe. The gas chambers alone exert the power of the holy relics of yore, and hence we have the spectacle of half-nude hedonists genuflecting in pious awe before the mystic holy grail that is Auschwitz.” For the rest go here.

Government, in sum, must be limited to the smallest possible minimum; "inaction" was the proper function of government, since only inaction can permit the individual to flourish and achieve happiness. Any intervention by government, Lao-tzu declared, would be counterproductive, and would lead to confusion and turmoil. After referring to the common experience of mankind with government, Lao-tzu came to this incisive conclusion: "The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished…. The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

The wisest course, then, is to keep the government simple and for it to take no action, for then the world "stabilizes itself." As Lao-tzu put it, "Therefore the Sage says: I take no action yet the people transform themselves, I favor quiescence and the people right themselves, I take no action and the people enrich themselves…."

Lao-tzu arrived at his challenging and radical new insights in a world dominated by the power of Oriental despotism. What strategy to pursue for social change? It surely was unthinkable for Lao-tzu, with no available historical or contemporary example of libertarian social change, to set forth any optimistic strategy, let alone contemplate forming a mass movement to overthrow the State. And so Lao-tzu took the only strategic way out that seemed open to him, counseling the familiar Taoist path of withdrawal from society and the world, of retreat and inner contemplation.

I submit that while contemporary Taoists advocate retreat from the world as a matter of religious or ideological principle, it is very possible that Lao-tzu called for retreat not as a principle, but as the only strategy that in his despair seemed open to him. If it was hopeless to try to disentangle society from the oppressive coils of the State, then he perhaps assumed that the proper course was to counsel withdrawal from society and the world as the only way to escape State tyranny.

That retreat from the State was a dominant Taoist objective may be seen in the views of the great Taoist Chuang-tzu (369 BC - 286 BC) who, two centuries after Lao-tzu, pushed the master's ideas of laissez faire to their logical conclusion: individualist anarchism.

The influential Chuang-tzu, a notable stylist who wrote in allegorical parables, was a highly learned man in the state of Meng, and also descended from the old aristocracy. A minor official in his native state, Chuang-tzu's fame as a writer spread far and wide throughout China, so much so that King Wei of the Ch'u kingdom sent an emissary to Chuang bearing great gifts and urging him to become Wei's chief minister of state. Chuang-tzu's scornful rejection of the king's offer is one of the great declarations in history on the evils underlying the glittering trappings of State power; it was a fitting declaration from the man who was perhaps the world's first anarchist:

A thousand ounces of gold is indeed a great reward, and the office of chief minister is truly an elevated position. But have you, sir, not seen the sacrificial ox awaiting the sacrifices at the royal shrine of state? It is well cared for and fed for a few years, caparisoned with rich brocades, so that it will be ready to be led into the Great Temple. At that moment, even though it would gladly change places with any solitary pig, can it do so? So, quick and be off with you! Don't sully me, I would rather roam and idle about in a muddy ditch, at my own amusement, than to be put under the restraints that the ruler would impose. I will never take any official service, and thereby I will satisfy my own purposes.

Chuang-tzu reiterated and embellished Lao-tzu's devotion to laissez faire and opposition to state rule: "There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success]." In fact, the world simply "does not need governing; in fact it should not be governed." Chuang-tzu was also the first to work out the idea of "spontaneous order," developed particularly by Proudhon in the nineteenth and by F. A. Hayek of the Austrian School in the twentieth Century: "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone."

Chuang-tzu, moreover, was perhaps the first theorist to see the State as a brigand writ large: "A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a State." Thus the only difference between State rulers and out-and-out robber chieftains is the size of their depredations. This theme of ruler-as-robber was to be repeated, independently of course, by Cicero and then by St. Augustine and other Christian thinkers in the Middle Ages.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) was dean of the Austrian School. Posted on Mises.org December 5, 2005, the above was excerpted from Rothbard’s "Concepts of the Role of Intellectuals in Social Change Toward Laissez Faire," The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol IX No. 2 (Fall 1990), 43-67. He delivered an ancestor of this paper in Poland in March 1986 (when, it doesn’t hurt to remind readers, that land was still Communist-ruled).