Toronto, Ontario

‑‑- Upon resuming on Monday, May 25, 1998

    at 10:15 a.m.

RESUMED:  FREDERICK SCHWEITZER


         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good morning everyone.

         With respect to the matters that were argued last day, I have asked the Clerk to hand out copies of the Reasons for Judgment of the Tribunal which I will summarize as follows.

         MR. FREIMAN:  Mr. Chairman, should the witness be present during these Reasons?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I don't see any reason why he cannot be present.

         It is the finding of this Tribunal that truth is not an issue before us.  Parliament has spoken.  The use of telephone messages for purposes prohibited by section 13 of the Act cannot be justified by asserting that such messages are truthful.  The sole issue is whether such communications are likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.

         Accordingly, cross-examination directed to the issue of truthfulness of such statements or the calling of evidence in that regard will not be permitted.

         We will continue the cross-examination of Professor Schweitzer.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I have some questions arising out of that.

         First of all, having not received this ruling until just this moment, it will require some consideration of our cross-examination.  For some reason or other you did not address the issue that I raised in my submissions on the last occasion as to whether the facts of the exposure might be based on something other than the identity of the person based on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Christie, allow me to interrupt you.  I think, in fairness, the copy of the Reasons should be given to you for examination.  I think the issues you have raised are addressed in the Reasons.  Rather than take time to read them, I thought we would hand them out.  Perhaps we should recess to allow you reasonable time to examine the Reasons.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  It may take the rest of the day to consider them.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am not sure that that is the case.  We will recess for 15 minutes.

‑‑- Short Recess at 10:20 a.m.

‑‑- Upon resuming at 10:43 a.m.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Christie, please.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  In the time I have had to consider your Reasons, it is clear that you have not addressed the central issue that I raised of this witness' own testimony.  You ignored that completely for some reason.

         The witness' own testimony was, as you well know, that truth was a factor in the determination of antisemitism.  You mentioned not a word about that. 

         Consequently, I don't know that you have necessarily precluded the issue from being raised with this witness on the issue of what is or is not antisemitism.  If you wish to make that ruling now, it would help to clarify my position with regard to further cross-examination.  I would like to have you do that, if you would.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Freiman, please.

         MR. FREIMAN:  Professor Schweitzer was asked about whether antisemitism ‑‑

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Professor Schweitzer should not be told in his presence what he is supposed to have said.


         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Would the witness step outside, please.

‑‑- Witness Withdraws

         MR. FREIMAN:  Professor Schweitzer was asked whether antisemitism was true, and he said that, no, it wasn't true.  Mr. Christie then spent the next 20 minutes trying to move to the other side.  In other words, since antisemitism is false, is it possible that something that is true could be antisemitic?  Over the course of the next 20 minutes they debated it, and in the final analysis Professor Schweitzer did say that, if it is antisemitic, it is not true.

         He then went on later to explain that antisemitism, historically, always has a grain of truth and is built on truth.  Therefore, the whole concept of truth is problematic.

         Whatever one makes of it, at the highest it addresses Professor Schweitzer's academic definition of what is antisemitism.  It is not the standard in section 13(1) of the Act.  Section 13(1) of the Act does not require a demonstration of truth.  Therefore, there is no relevance to the determination of truth, and you did deal exactly with the issue.

         The fact that in Professor Schweitzer's view, as in the view of any right-thinking individual, it is inconceivable to link the concept of antisemitism and, in fact, statements likely to arouse hatred and contempt with ultimate truth is irrelevant.  Therefore, there is no room for questions tending to establish the truth of the antisemitic statements, and they don't help you at all.  At most, they ask the question in terms of Professor Schweitzer's own higher standard, which is a different standard from that in the Act.

         In fact, all Professor Schweitzer said was that he does not accept that antisemitism is true.  That is not the same thing as saying that, if it is true, it is not antisemitic.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Mr. Freiman should not, unless he has the transcript, give you the evidence, unless he is testifying.  Since he claims to have the ability to do so, I should have the right to reply and tell you that our notes indicate that at one point he said, "To tell the truth could never be antisemitism."  He was asked if truth can ever be antisemitic, and he said that truth is truth and he thinks not, that Jews have no fear of the truth.

         Those were statements he made.  We tried to get the transcript.  It is clear that those statements relate to his evidence.  Whether my learned friend likes them or not, they are his witness' evidence.  That evidence is relevant to determine whether the statements are or are not antisemitic.

         The witness was not called to give evidence as to whether they were likely to expose Jews to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact of their identity.  That was not his reason for testifying.  If the reason for testifying was to identify antisemitism, lethal or otherwise, then what he says about that is the evidence, not what my friend says about it or what he would like to say about it. 

         The right to cross-examine should at least relate to the evidence as it stands and as it was stated by the witness, not as the Commission would like to use it.  That is not the criterion of cross-examination.  If the evidence was relevant at all, then the test of antisemitism that he established and the exclusion of the truth from that category should be open to consideration and questioned by the opposing side.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I don't propose to reopen the whole issue that was fully argued last day.  The Tribunal has made its ruling, and I am going to have the witness recalled and ask you to continue your cross-examination.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  As I indicated to the Clerk, in view of your ruling which was given to us this morning, we have to consider the relationship of our questions in the future to these rulings.  This will take some time because we had developed a course of cross-examination.  I need the day to consider your ruling.  I need your ruling on that, and I need the time to consider it.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  The ruling of the Tribunal is that the cross-examination will continue now.

         The prospect of what would happen at this point was open to all counsel, and there was one of two alternatives.  Either your argument, Mr. Christie, could have been acceded to by the Tribunal or refused.  There were only two alternatives in that regard.  You might have expected that this ruling would go either in your favour or against you. 

         It has gone against you, and I think you should proceed with your cross-examination.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Mr. Fromm has advised me that he won't be able to be here tomorrow, for other reasons.  He asked if it would be possible for him to ask certain questions, and I have no objection.  It will give me a chance to clear my position.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Let me be clear that the Tribunal wishes this matter to proceed with all deliberate speed.  We are celebrating, if that is the proper term, the first anniversary of the commencement of this Hearing.  I think there is a reasonable expectation that we can complete the evidence perhaps before the end of June.  If we have to sit longer hours, then we will do that, too.

         I am going to recall the witness and ask Mr. Christie to continue his cross-examination.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Are you ruling that Mr. Fromm may not cross-examine?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I didn't say that he may not cross-examine.  He would have to be here and available to do so.  Perhaps he would like to speak to that himself.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I am certainly willing to allow him to take his position this morning, and I think he should have that right.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I don't think that is fair to either the witness or the proceeding.  Mr. Fromm, do you have anything to say?

         MR. FROMM:  Mr. Chairman, I have an unavoidable conflict tomorrow and would appreciate being able to ask a few questions of the witness, if I may, today.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  How much time do you anticipate you might need?

         MR. FROMM:  I would think about half an hour.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  We will try to accommodate that today.  In the meantime, Mr. Christie will continue.


         Call the witness, please.

‑‑- Witness returns to the stand

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You remain under oath, Professor Schweitzer.

         THE WITNESS:  I understand, sir.

CROSS-EXAMINATION, Continued

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   When you assess the subject of antisemitism, do you consider truth as part of the social context?

         A.   I don't understand the question.


         MR. FREIMAN:  Maybe the witness could be excused.

‑‑- Witness Withdraws

         MR. FREIMAN:  We have a ruling.  Mr. Christie has attempted to extend that ruling to an objection relating to a response that Professor Schweitzer gave.  That was rejected.  The very first question out of Mr. Christie's mouth re-introduces exactly the same question for the patent reason of attempting somehow to get back at that issue of truth so that he can continue to do that which the Panel has said he cannot do.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Where are you going with this, Mr. Christie?

         MR. CHRISTIE:  In your seven-page ruling, on page 6 you say:  "Rather it is the social context in which the message is delivered or heard which will determine the effect the communication will have on the listener."  So I asked the witness whether truth is part of the social context in his assessment of antisemitism, to determine whether the truth plays any role in the social context.

         I hear the authority on social context, but I am not sure about your authority on how he assesses antisemitism.  If it is your judgment that social context is relevant, then why would it not be relevant to ask him if truth is part of the social context in his view as an expert on antisemitism? 

         We might like to exclude truth from the entire proceedings, it would seem from the objection and from your position taken.  Surely, if the witness is under oath to tell the truth, it would seem relevant to ask him whether he considers truth part of the social context.

         MEMBER DEVINS:  Mr. Christie, I wonder if you can assist us with your argument in terms of the rest of the ruling which goes on to talk about truth or absolute truth ultimately not being what is important in terms of subjective interpretation, but rather by virtue of the tone, the context and the medium, not the truth per se.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  If you are telling this party that truth has no part in the assessment of social context, just say so.  You are asking me to tell you what effect your ruling has; I am asking you to tell me.

         MEMBER DEVINS:  I am asking you to assist us with your argument so that we can fully understand.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I told you.  If you can't understand the argument, then I can do no better.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You can sit down now.  Mr. Freiman, please.

         MR. FREIMAN:  Among other things, Professor Schweitzer didn't testify as to social context.  It is not his role to testify to that.  The Tribunal's ruling says that that is a matter for the Tribunal to assess, based on its own perception and based perhaps on the evidence of a semanticist such as Professor Prideaux who has testified on this.

         Professor Schweitzer is not an expert on semantics and is not an expert on social context.  All Mr. Christie is doing is asking the same question as the Tribunal has said he can't ask, namely, the import of truth for this witness so that he can get into the truth of all the antisemitic statements on the Zundelsite.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  My learned friend should not attempt to assume what I have intended to do.  I asked him a specific question.  There is no intention to get into the truth of all these supposedly antisemitic statements on the Zundelsite, but the issue of social context is very much a live issue.  If the issue of social context is a live issue, whether it is relevant to tone or to pitch or to frequency of modulation or whether it is relevant to a variety of other subjective aspects, it might have a part to play in the social context, which I find it difficult to believe that you could have resolved already. 

         That you could have decided that truth has no place in the social context would seem to me somewhat prejudicial, even though you take the position that all the subjective elements that you have told us in your Reasons are the basis for assessment of whether a statement constitutes exposure to hatred or contempt.  Surely you cannot have already decided that truth has no part in social context.  After all, if the truth is told in a nice, pleasant tone and then we can assess the issue of tone, whether it incites calumny or vilification could be determined on the basis of whether the statement is factual or not.

         You seem to imply by your question, and my friend Mr. Freiman strongly urges you by his argument, to regard the determination of whether or not the offence is committed is an entirely subjective one.  Affronts to dignity, if that is to be the criterion, surely must have some relationship to truth, even in our society where truth seems to play less and less a part. 

         If social context is relevant, as you have ruled it is, then why would you think, in advance of hearing the evidence and before any opportunity to argue has ever happened, that social context excludes any consideration of truth?  I haven't heard you to rule that, and your question seems to imply that.

         I would really appreciate that ruling so that we could at least have a court decide whether that is accurate or not.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Do other counsel have any submissions?  Mr. Kurz, please.

         MR. KURZ:  Very briefly, Mr. Chair.

         This is Mr. Christie's second attempt to, in effect, get the Tribunal to overrule its own written decision.  The term "social context" is not Professor Schweitzer's term.  As Mr. Freiman said, Professor Schweitzer is not an expert on social context.  Social context is a term that you used in your ruling, and it has nothing to do with his evidence and it is improper to ask him that question.

         The first line of attack was to get through the back door by using Professor Schweitzer's comments about truth, and you have ruled on that.  Now there is an attempt to get through another back door in terms of the social context.  That should be rejected, in my respectful submission.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I would like to reply to that.  In your ruling you said that it is not the truth or falsity, per se, that will evoke the emotion but, rather, how it is understood by the recipient.  The words "per se" imply that, although it is not so per se, it could still be true ‑‑ and I hope you haven't decided that truth or falsity have no effect on social context, that, although it might not per se evoke such an emotion, it might.

         You go on to say:  "The statements ultimately have no consequence if the objective interpretation by virtue of tone, social context and medium is one which arouses unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification."

         If one of the elements in the determination of the subjective interpretation is social context as well as tone and medium, then surely you must accept the proposition that truth may be a factor in the determination of the whole social context.  If we are to have any access to debate upon matters of race, religion or ethnic origin or any discussions about them which might arouse strong emotions, then the issue of truth should be a factor in the determination of the whole social context.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  We will recess for five minutes.

‑‑- Short Recess at 11:00 a.m.

‑‑- Upon resuming at 11:09 a.m.

         MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE:  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the audience, I spoke to other people, and they cannot hear what is being said.  We came here under the assumption that this is a public hearing.  What good is it if the public cannot hear what is being said?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Can you move your chairs up closer?  Anyone who is having difficulty hearing, please stand up.

         All I can suggest is that you move your chairs up closer around this side of the room and see if that doesn't help.  Then we will ask counsel to speak a little more loudly.  This is definitely a public hearing, and we want everyone to be aware of what is happening.

         Mr. Christie, our ruling, I think, is clear.  In any event, that is the basis under which you will conduct your cross-examination from here.  The line of questioning which you propose to follow is in defiance of that ruling, so I am asking that you continue on another line.

         Please bring the witness in.

‑‑- Witness returns to the stand  


         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   I would like to ask you about some historical writings that I would like your view on as to whether they are reliable and careful and whether you regard them as writings of a historical nature upon which a competent historian would rely.

         Are you familiar Arthur Koestler's book "The Thirteenth Tribe"?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Do you regard him as a reliable, authoritative source?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Why not?

         A.   He is not a historian.  That is a subject of medieval history, and he doesn't know the languages involved.  I don't remember precisely, but he tends toward racist conclusions.  I remember particularly a sort of cartoon which shows a Jewish nose and something of that sort.  A much better book is D.M. Dunlop.

         Q.   Arthur Koestler is a racist and not familiar with the languages?  Is that your position?

         A.   There are some elements in that book that give me some misgivings.  It is some time since I read it.

         Q.   Is he a Jewish author?

         A.   I don't particularly know.  I don't judge works of history by whether they are or not. He may be; he may not.

         Q.   What are the languages in question that you say, as a mediaeval historian, he would have to be familiar with?

         A.   You have to know the Latin.  You need to know the Ural-Altaian languages or the particular branch of the Ural-Altaian language that these people belong to.  It is comparable to Magyar?

         Q.   What people are we talking about?

         A.   The Huzzars.

         Q.   Are you familiar with those languages?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   So, in order to be a credible historian on that subject, you have to be familiar with those languages and you are not.

         A.   I can judge that book in the context of my understanding of mediaeval Jewish history and mediaeval history.  I would not review such a book in the American Historical Review because I would not be competent.  I would have to be a specialist in the area and know the primary and secondary sources and, of course, know the languages. and I do not know that.

         Q.   So to assess whether Arthur Koestler was a competent historian in this area, you would have to know those things which you do not know.

         A.   No, I don't say that.  Reading that book makes me skeptical as to the conclusions that he reaches.

         Q.   You have read the book?

         A.   I said I read it.  I said I read it some time ago, probably 10 or 12 years ago.

         Q.   Do you know anything about Arthur Koestler?

         A.   "Darkness of Noon" which I read as an undergraduate.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I hesitate to rise, but this is such a waste of time.  The only purpose for the accreditation was to determine whether the witness considered Mr. Koestler to be a reliable historian, and the answer was "no."  Mr. Christie has to take that answer and proceed.  To now debate about Mr. Koestler's qualifications gets us nowhere except to waste more time.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  To test the credibility of this witness' opinion, one should be entitled to ask questions as to the basis of them, and that is what I have done.

         MR. FREIMAN:  He is not giving opinion evidence about Dr. Koestler.  The analogy is that we could ask Professor Schweitzer any question at all under the sun and then to embark on a poignant cross-examination on the basis of that. 

         This is not part of his testimony.  The only purpose for asking the question was to see whether Professor Schweitzer has knowledge and credibility so that further questions could be asked based on texts.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  This line comes to an end rather quickly once the witness says either, "I don't know the work" or "I know the work, but I don't accept it as authoritative." 

         I suppose, Mr. Christie, you have a limited right of cross-examination on whether he should know the author and his opinion as to whether he is a credible writer.  I will allow you to continue, with that caution, along that line.

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book "The Third Reich and the Palestine Question" by Francis R. Nicosia, published by the University of Texas Press in 1985?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with that writer?

         A.   No, I am not.  What is the name?

         A.   Francis R. Nicosia.

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "The American Jews: Portrait of a Split Personality" by James Yaffe, published by Random House in 1968?

         A.   I know of the book.  I have never had it in hand.  I have never read it.  I couldn't offer any judgment on it.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book called "West German Reparations to Israel" by Nicholas Balabkins, published by Rutgers University Press in 1971?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "A Certain People:  American Jews and Their Lives Today" by Charles E. Silberman, published by Summit Books in 1985?

         A.   No, I am not.  I know that name vaguely, Charles Silberman.

         Q.   Is he a historian?

         A.   No.  If he is the one I know, he is at Lehigh University and he is in Jewish Studies, though not history; perhaps literature; perhaps theology or theological thought, religious thought.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "Our Man in Damascus: Elie Cohn"? by Eli Ben-Hanan?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   You have never read that book?

         A.   No, I have not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "By Way of Deception" by Claire Hoy & Victor Ostrovsky?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book "An Empire of Their Own" by Neal Gabler, published by Crown Publishers?

         A.   No. I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the word called "Esau's Tears" by Albert S. Lindemann, published by Cambridge University Press in 1997?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with who Albert S. Lindemann is?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book "An Eye for an Eye" by John Sack, published by a division of Harper Collins in 1993?

         A.   I know of the book because of citations in bibliographies and so forth, but that is all.

         Q.   You are not familiar with it?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book called "The Fatal Embrace" by Benjamin Ginsberg, published by University of Chicago Press in 1993?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book called "The Rise and fall of the Jewish Gangster in America" by Albert Fried, published by Holt Rinehart Winston in 1980?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with a book called "A Nation on Trial" by Norman G. Finkelstein and Ruth Bettina Birn, published in 1998?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "The Grandees:  American's Sephardic Elite" by Stephen Birmingham, published by Harper and Row Publishers Inc. in 1971?

         A.   No.  I know his book called "Our Crowd," but I don't know that one.  That is an older work, and I read that 12 or 15 years ago.

         Q.   Is he is a historian of American Jewry?

         A.   Not really.  He is a journalist.  I would put him in a category with Tom Segev rather than a professional historian.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "Greek & Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Volume One: From Herodotus to Plutarch" by Menahem Stern?

         A.   Yes, I have used that as a reference book.

         Q.   Your history of antisemitism, you indicated, began with the story of Little St. Hugh of Lincoln and the Crusades.  Do you acknowledge that authors from Herodotus to Plutarch had comments similar in tone and nature in respect of Jews and Judaism?

         A.   In what specific way?

         Q.   I could get into specifics, but I am asking a general question.  If you are familiar with the work, I take it that you are familiar with the fact that this study of the ancient writers on the subject of Jews and Judaism deals with the remarks made by the ancient writers in Greek and Roman texts from Herodotus to Plutarch.  Is that correct?

         A.   Yes, I am familiar with that.  I have used it as a reference book.  I have never read it through.

         Q.   You say you don't know whether it refers to remarks similar to what you have attributed to the Christian Church in the Middle Ages from the ancient writers?

         A.   Yes.  I know that in Roman antiquity, Christians were accused of ritual cannibalism, probably ‑‑

         Q.   My question relates to Jews and Judaism.

         A.   But that is the origin of that accusation that was later applied to Jews. 

         Q.   Later it was applied to Jews?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   This is before Christian time, sir.  I am not suggesting, and I don't think you are suggesting that the writers from Herodotus to Plutarch are necessarily talking about Christians.

         A.   I deny, however, that the accusations that are made in pre-Christian time about Jews, with the area of ritual murder, is what you come upon with Little St. Hugh of Lincoln.  They are not the same.

         Q.   They are not the same.  Is there an accusation of ritual murder in ancient time, prior to Christian time?

         A.   In a vague way.  It is something that would be picked up by later writers and used ‑‑ I would say "misused" ‑‑ to support the accusation.

         Q.   You want specific references in regard to that.  Is that your position?

         A.   No, I have indicated my perspective.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the writer, Michael Bar-Zohar?

         A.   Say the name again, please.

         Q.   Michael Bar-Zohar.

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with a work called "Israel's Sacred Terrorism" by Livia Rokach?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World" by Peter Schafer, Ranon Katzoff and Shaye J.D. Cohen?

         A.   No.

         Q.   You are not familiar with that?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work of Martin Gilbert, "The Jews of Hope"?

         A.   I know some of the works of Martin Gilbert, but not that one.

         Q.   Do you regard Martin Gilbert as a credible, reliable historian?

         A.   Very much so.

         Q.   Do you consider his work to be credible and reliable?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "The Jewish Dilemma" by Elmer Berger?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "Jewish Identity and the JDL" by Janet L. Dolgin, published by Princeton University Press in 1977?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "Jews and Money:  The Myths and the Reality" by Gerald Krefetz, published in 1982?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "Jewish Power - Inside the American Jewish Establishment" by Johnathan Jeremy Goldberg, published by Addison Wesley in 1996?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work by Judith Ramsey Ehrlich and Barry J. Rehfield, "The New Crowd" published by Harper Collins in 1989?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work "The New Israelis" by Yossi Melman, published by Birch Lane Press?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work by David Halberstam, published by Alfred A. Knopff in 1975,  "The Powers That Be"?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   You said you were familiar with the work by Stephen Birmingham called "The Rest of Us".

         A.   No, "Our Crowd."

         Q.   You are not familiar with the work called "The Rest of Us?"

         A.   No.

         Q.   With regard to the subject of Jews and historical antisemitism, are you familiar with the work of Kevin MacDonald from the University of California, published in 1998 by Praeger Publishers, called "Separation and Its Discontents?"

         A.   No.  1998 is a brand new book.

         Q.   Have you read his earlier work called "People Who Shall Grow Apart?" in 1995?

         A.   No, I have not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work by Jean Bauer called "The Self-Chosen: 'Our Crowd' is Dead - Long Live Our Crowd" published by Arbor House Publishing Co. in 1982?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "Every Spy a Prince" by Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman, published by Houghton Mifflin Co. in 1990?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with a work "Special Tasks" by Pavel Sudoplatov and Anatoli Sudoplatov, published by Little, Brown & Company in 1994.

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with Volume 2 of Menahem Stern's "Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism from Tacitus to Simplicius?

         A.   Yes, I have also used it as a reference book.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the study of Jewish influence in American politics called the "The Lobby:  Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy by Edward Tivnan, published by Simon and Schuster in 1987?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with a work called "They Dare to Speak Out" by Paul Findley, published by Lawrence Hill & Co. in 1981?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "They Must Go" by Rabbi Meir Kahane, published by Grosset & Dunlap in 1981?

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "The Transfer Agreement" by Edwin Black, published by Macmillan & Co. in 1984?

         A.   I am not sure.  There is a book on the Transfer Agreement that I have used.  I have just dipped into it.  I couldn't speak fairly about its work.

         Q.   So, historically, you are not sure whether it is a credible book or not?

         A.   No.  Who is the publisher?

         Q.   Macmillan Publishing Co., 866 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y., 1984.

         A.   That is my publisher also, so I assume it is a reputable house that publishes reputable books.

         Q.   Are you prepared to credit it as being a reliable and authoritative historical source?

         A.   Yes, at first broach, certainly.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the book "The Fateful Triangle:  The United States, Israel & the Palestinians" by Noam Chomsky, published in 1983?

         A.   No.

         Q.   You have never read it?

         A.   No.

         Q.   You have never read it?

         A.   No, I have not.

         Q.   Are you familiar with the work called "The Warburgs:  The Story of a Family" by David Farrer, published by Stein and Day in 1994?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Are you familiar with a book called "You Gentiles" by Rabbi Maurice Samuel, publisher unknown?  Are you familiar with that work?

         A.   No.  I know some of the works of Maurice Samuel, but he was no rabbi.  I know it is a common enough name, but this Rabbi Maurice Samuel and the work you mention, no, I do not know.

         Q.   Are you familiar with Alfred Lilienthal?

         A.   Yes, I know the name.

         Q.   Is he a historian?

         A.   No.  He is a government official, to my knowledge.

         Q.   A government official.  Are you familiar with his work "The Zionist Connection - What Price Peace?" published by Dodd, Mead & Co. in New York in 1978?

         A.   I have had it in hand.  It is in our library at Manhattan, but that is the extent of it.

         Q.   Have you read it?

         A.   No, I have not.

         Q.   Has your reading in this subject been very extensive in terms of contrary points of view?

         MR. FREIMAN:  Perhaps Mr. Christie would like to specify what "this subject" is.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  His subject, as I understood his answer ‑‑

         MR. FREIMAN:  "This subject." 

         MR. CHRISTIE:  This subject, yes.  The subject of antisemitism.  I hope that is not too confusing.

         Q.   Do we understand each other?

         A.   What is the question you are asking?

         Q.   Are you familiar with contrary points of view on the subject of antisemitism?

         A.   Yes, I would think so.

         Q.   How much have you read that suggests that antisemitism is a weapon used to silence critics of Israel and Judaism?  How much have you read in that field?

         A.   I have read it in the Zundelsite material and I have read it in some of the material that you gave out last time from Mr. Shahak.

         Q.   And Segev's book, "The Seventh Million?"

         A.   Segev, yes.  However, Segev is ‑‑ there are a lot of points of view.  It is a fairly balanced book, although on the whole I think one of his principal purposes is to argue that the Holocaust has been exploited politically in Israel by Israeli governments, the Begin government in particular.  But he gives a lot of material on the other side, so that one emerges, even with Tom Segev, with a balanced view.  I think, on the whole, he is hopeful about the resolution of this, that the Holocaust will be understood in Israel and taught in Israel the way other subjects in history are, as a point of general history and approached by the same methods of historians, and that it will be not used by the politicians as a political weapon, that there will be less and less scope for that.

         Q.   Have you read any other books that raise those questions and suggest that the Holocaust was exploited than you were shown here?

         A.   Yes, I have a read a book by Dina Porat who is a younger Israeli historian, a much better historian than Tom Segev.  I made the distinction last time to the Panel that I would acknowledge Tom Segev as reliable, but not authoritative.  When Tom Segev quotes something, I am quite sure it is correct.  It is what he does with the quotations.

         When Dina Porat uses some of the same quotations, her interpretations I find more authoritative.

         Also a work by Dahlia Ofir who has written extensively on the historiography of the Holocaust in Israel.  Again, one gets a balanced picture.  The prospect, in her view, is that the Israeli understanding of the Holocaust will undergo a normalization and will not be susceptible to political use and misuse by politicians and parties in their rhetoric and in their policymaking, whether of the left or the right.

         Q.   Is it true to say that Nahum Goldmann was an important person who promoted and established the State of Israel?

         A.   Yes, I would think so.

         Q.   Do you consider him an authoritative source at all?

         A.   In the sense of an autobiography or some account of that kind which would be not so much a historical monograph but a personal account reflecting his role, his experience, his views, and so forth, but not an authoritative work.

         Q.   So it would be accurate if it was autobiographical?

         A.   I would approach it with the confidence that it is reliable.  My skepticism would not be laid aside.

         Q.   Would you agree with Segev's opinion that Goldmann was a tireless dissembler, exploiting his image as one of the Elders of Zion sometimes to the point of making threats and bordering on extortion?

         A.   That seems like hyperbole to me.  I would have to see what Tom Segev precisely is talking about.  That Goldmann had an ego I am sure.

         Q.   If you need to see what Tom Segev is talking about, let's deal with that.

         MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE:  Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the witness could speak into the microphone so that we can understand what he is saying.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I wonder whether the audience could be reminded that their role is to sit here and to listen, not to attempt to put on a show.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  If they can't listen, I think they should tell us.  This is supposedly a public hearing.  If they want to hear, they can hear.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Witness, would you try to raise your voice a bit and speak closer to the microphone.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I also suggest that, if members of the audience have a problem, the proper way of dealing with it is to talk to the Clerk, and she can take care of that as a logistical matter, rather than interrupting the procedure and addressing the Chairman.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I don't agree.  I think, with all due respect, if they waited to talk to the Clerk, they might not hear very much until the next break.  I would like to suggest that, if this is in theory and practice an open, public hearing, if they can't hear, they should say so.  They shouldn't be afraid to do anything like that.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Continue with your questions, please, and will the witness and you, Mr. Christie, as well raise your voice a bit, please.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Certainly.

         Q.   At page 229, going over to 230 ‑‑ you wanted to know the context in which he said this.  In the bottom paragraph:*

"The reparations and compensation agreements ‑‑"

Have you found that, sir?

         A.   Yes, I have it.

         Q.   "‑‑ with Germany were largely the fruit

of Goldmann's ability to impress Konrad Adenauer.  The German chancellor respected him, used him, suspected him ‑‑ and feared him as well.  He seems to have believed that Goldmann had as much influence on the American government and on American public opinion as he pretended to have.  Adenauer's memoirs, written fifteen years after the fact, mention their first meeting.  Adenauer said that Goldmann had brought with him Israel's ambassador to London, but had introduced him under an assumed name to conceal Israel's willingness to speak with him directly.  He was incorrect: the man who accompanied Goldmann was Noah Baru of the World Jewish Congress, who had helped correct the draft of Adenauer's declaration to the Bundestag.  The fact that, after so many years and after the innumerable meetings he had since held with Goldmann, the German chancellor still believed that the Jewish leader had tried to mislead him says something about the relations between them. The fact that, after so many years and after the innumerable meetings he had since held with Goldmann, the German Chancellor still believed that the Jewish leader had tried to mislead him said something about the relations between them.

  In another context,  Adenauer noted in his memoirs that he knew better than to underestimate the ability of 'Jewish banking circles' to bring his country harm.  Goldmann, a tireless dissembler, exploited his image as one of 'the elders of Zion,' sometimes to the point of making threats bordering on extortion.  A file in his archives contains information on the Nazi backgrounds of key members of Adenauer's government.  Some in Bonn believed that Goldmann had the power to destroy them unless they could ensure his silence about their pasts.  He was much helped by Hans Globke, one of the chancellor's close advisers and formerly a high official in the Nazi interior ministry, where he had been an expert on the Nuremberg laws."

         In that context, do you agree that Goldmann was a tireless dissembler and exploited his image as one of the Elders of Zion sometimes to the point of making threats bordering on extortion?

         MR. FREIMAN:  Before the witness answers, may he be excused?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.

‑‑- Witness Withdraws


         MR. FREIMAN:  To be fair to Mr. Christie, I guess he should be given the opportunity to indicate why this is anything but an attempt to get around the Tribunal's ruling.  This passage was, first of all, already cited last time.  The witness was questioned on it.  The purpose of the questioning at the time appeared to me to be improper ‑‑ that is, to be tending toward establishing the theoretical truth of the matters complained about on the Zundelsite.  We let it pass until, shortly after this one, Mr. Christie went one step farther.

         Now he is coming back to it, and I can't see any reason whatsoever that this would be relevant other than to try to establish the underlying truth of certain statements on the Zundelsite.  If I am wrong, I will be glad to reconsider it, but it seems clear that that is where we are going.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Earle, please.

         MR. EARLE:  I just want to note, Mr. Chair

‑‑ and Mr. Freiman has already made the point ‑‑ that, according to my notes, the exact question was asked on May 15.  I believe this is the second time now that that passage has been read into the record.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  The objection to which the ruling gave an answer, the interim decision of today, was in relation to a question as to the truth or falsity of contents of the material analyzed by the witness.  It was not directed to the question of whether historically the opinion of this author on the nature of antisemitism can be tested with other sources which he regards as credible and reliable, which tends to show that such remarks are not antisemitic.

         We are not, as far as I know, told that truth is totally irrelevant for testing the credibility of the witness or that other historical sources that point to the same aspects of historical writing are necessarily of no value.  He could accept the truth of the statement or he could say that it is acceptable historical opinion.  If he does and then he says it is not antisemitic, then it goes to the weight of his opinion that similar statements or similar opinions are antisemitic if expressed by Mr. Zundel or expressed by someone alleged to be Mr. Zundel.

         I suppose what it amounts to is that it is difficult to take the view ‑‑ at least, we don't take the view ‑‑ that your ruling necessarily excludes all historical analysis that contradicts the witness on the issues that he has expressed.  It should not be taken either that it is irrelevant that other historians take views that might be supportive of the opinions expressed on the Zundelsite.  It is not to prove their truth, but to prove that in the social context of our time, with the historical knowledge of which we are now possessed, these opinions are not considered to be antisemitic. 

         We have not got to the point of deciding if that opinion is antisemitic; we have not been allowed to ask that question.  I did ask him if he considers that statement true.

         If he considers that statement true in the historical sense or reliable or accurate, it may be of value to determine whether or not it relates to the other evidence in the case, but that is a matter of argument.

         If it is your intention to banish the question of truth from these entire proceedings by extending your ruling farther and farther so that we may not ask any questions on the effect of truth in matters of history, then I would question how we are entitled to cross-examine this witness at all.  He makes all sorts of broad assertions about history.  He tells you what the truth in history is but, if we bring up evidence of other historians that he even regards as credible, who do not agree with him, we are not allowed to put that to him?  This becomes ridiculous.

         In my submission, my learned friends' objections are, as they have been so many times before, basically obstruction by objection so that we do not get to the point that we are allowed to pursue cross-examination and we cannot explore the relevant issues that should be explored on how credible this historian is and whether other historians have points of view that differ from his. 

         We are not, after all, required to believe that this is the only historian in the world who has any elements of credibility to his opinion.  I would like the opportunity to pursue that question with this witness.

         Thank you very much.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Reply.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I will try to make myself heard without making myself obnoxious.

         MR. FREIMAN:  That won't be easy.

         MR. FREIMAN:  Nothing in Professor Schweitzer's evidence goes to Nahum Goldmann's views.  Nothing goes to Konrad Adenauer's views of Nahum Goldmann.  Nothing goes to the identity of people who were with Nahum Goldmann and Konrad Adenauer while they spoke with each other.  Nothing in his testimony relates to any of the subject matters upon which Mr. Christie is attempting to cross-examine.

         If you listen carefully to what he is saying, he tries carefully not to say it overtly.  What he wants to do is to establish the truth of these propositions and then to juxtapose them with what is stated on the Zundelsite.  On the Zundelsite there is lots of stuff about Nahum Goldmann; there is lots of stuff about dissemblers; there is lots of stuff about Jews being exploited.

         It is totally within the scope of your ruling, and Mr. Christie doesn't have a chance to get up four times and talk.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  If a new issue is raised and an objection is raised in a different way, why shouldn't I be able to ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Are you asking leave to make different submissions?

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I heard a different form of objection from the first time, and I would like the opportunity to reply to it.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  What part do you want to reply to?

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Whether this has anything to do with the case.  History has to do with the case.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  It seems to me that there has been full argument on this matter.  Please sit down.

         This witness has been called as an expert in antisemitism.  He has given his opinion with respect to various motifs related to antisemitism.  An appropriate line of questioning of this witness is in relation to those opinions.  For example, the proposition and the statement put to the witness can form the basis of cross-examining this witness on the basis of whether he believes the statement to be antisemitic or not, and not beyond that in relation to issues that have a bearing on the truth or falsity of a historical fact.

         Recall the witness.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I also note that that very question was asked of this witness.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I am not clear on the ruling.  Do you mean I can't ask a question ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You can cross-examine the witness as to whether it is antisemitic or not.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  But I can't ask him whether it is true or not, in his view.


         THE CHAIRPERSON:  No.

‑‑- Witness returns to the stand

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   Having read it in context, do you consider this statement that Goldmann, a tireless dissembler, exploited his image as one of the Elders of Zion sometimes to the point of making threats bordering on extortion ‑‑ is that antisemitic?

         A.   Ho, I wouldn't think so.  He is saying that Goldmann is wily.  He is using the diplomat's arts to attain his aims.

         Q.   Why isn't it antisemitic to call Goldmann a tireless dissembler?

         A.   Because he is not attacking Goldmann because he is a Jew; he is attacking Goldmann because he does things that don't measure up to ordinary standards of human behaviour.  I don't think I can put any other construction on that.  He is using whatever comes to hand in these negotiations.

         Q.   The reference to the Elders of Zion, I thought you made very clear, was a reference to a very antisemitic tract.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Do you take the view, then, that to use antisemitism or the fear of Semites arising out of The Protocols of Zion and manipulatively  using it to extract concessions is not antisemitic?

         A.   I don't know why the "elders of Zion" appears there in quotation marks.  It is not clear that Goldmann said, "I am one of the Elders of Zion.  Beware!" and so forth.  That doesn't come across at all.

         Whose use of this phrase?  Is this a quotation from Goldmann or is it Tom Segev's interlineation?  You really can't tell.

         Q.   It is clear that Segev is saying that Goldmann was a tireless dissembler ‑‑ which is what?  A liar?

         A.   Prevaricator, manipulator.

         Q.   What is the difference between a liar and a prevaricator?  In simple English, it's liar, isn't it?

         A.   Dissembler is a  nicer word.

         Q.   Does it mean the same thing as liar?

         A.   Essentially.

         Q.   "Exploited his image as one of the elders of Zion."  Surely that is a reference to the famous antisemitic tract, isn't it?

         A.   Yes, it is, but I don't know what the significance of that phrase being there is.  Goldmann, as far as I know, can be humorous:  "Watch out, Mr. Chancellor.  I am one of the elders of Zion."  I don't know what that means.  It could mean anything or nothing.

         Q.   The next part of the sentence tells you what it means, that he exploited it to the point of making threats bordering on extortion.  In the context, sir, it says that a file in his archives contains information on the Nazi backgrounds of key members of Adenauer's government.  "His archives" are Goldmann's archives.  Right?

         A.   Correct.

         Q.   It is quite clear, isn't it, from the context that what Goldmann was doing was exploiting the image of the omnipotent Jewish elder of Zion to make threats bordering on extortion by reference to the Nazi backgrounds of key members of Adenauer's government with the fear in their minds that, if they were revealed, they would be brought down?

         A.   I don't say that that is so clear as you make it out to be.

         Q.   It's not?

         A.   No.  "Elders of Zion" can mean, as I say, anything.  The fact was that there were men with a brown past, as the phrase was, in Adenauer's government.  He tried to be as broad and inclusive as he could.  That was a political liability.  It is not only that Goldmann used that kind of ploy against his cabinet, but the opposition of Willie Brandt exploited such things.

         Q.   What I am interested in asking you is:  Is it antisemitic to point out that this tactic of personal blackmail was used to extract concessions from the Bonn government?

         A.   I don't call that antisemitism because Goldmann is not being attacked by Segev as a Jew because he is a Jew and that he behaves this way because he is a Jew.

         Q.   Would he be able to use the exploitation of the term "elders of Zion" if it wasn't referring to him as a Jew?

         A.   Yes, obviously Goldmann is a Jew.  I don't think you have to have that phrase to establish that.

         Q.   I am not trying to establish that he is or isn't Jewish.  I am suggesting to you, sir, that by the use of the term "elders of Zion," he is using the same antisemitic fear to impress and extort money from Germany.

         A.   I would not call it extortion.  These are the Wiedergutmachen negotiations.

         Q.   What would you call it if someone says, "You do this and give us this money, or we reveal your brown past?"  What do you call that?

         A.   I call that attacking, wily.

         Q.   Wily attacking.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   That is like nasty polemic when it came to referring to Jesus Christ burning in human excrement.  That was nasty polemic, in your words, wasn't it?

         A.   Do you want to pursue that?

         Q.   No, I just want to confirm that that is the language you used before.

         A.   Here they could get at Chancellor Adenauer's government.  Those who were going to burn Jesus in oil couldn't get at him.  He was sitting at the right hand of God the Father.

         Q.   He wasn't burning in oil.

         A.   Whatever the terminology was.

         Q.   You don't remember?

         A.   No, I don't remember.  I would say that this footnote 9 has to be pursued to establish how the phrase "the elders of Zion" gets in there and what it means.

         Q.   I see.  So you think footnote would be of assistance.  We will check that.

         A.   If Tom Segev is a historian worth his salt, it should.

         Q.   Do you have the book with you?

         A.   I do.

         Q.   Then you tell us what footnote 9 says and tell me how it changes the meaning of what I put to you.

         A.   Mr. Christie, you try to put words in my mouth.  Please don't do that.

         Q.   I have a right to ask you questions even here.

         A.   Yes, ask all the questions you wish.

         Q.   How does it change the meaning of what I put to you?

         A.   Will you let me finish?

         The footnote is useful.  The citation is to NGA, Z-6 1998.  So we have to look into his list of abbreviations.  That is the Nahum Goldmann archives.

         Q.   It just quotes the source.  Right?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Does that change the meaning ‑‑

         A.   In order to answer your question in the way a historian deals with these issues, I have to go to NGA, Z-6 and look over the passages that are the basis for Segev's presentation in that paragraph.

         Q.   Are you now saying that you don't trust him to be honest, accurate and forthright in the way he presents ‑‑

         A.   I am not saying that at all.

         Q.   Can I finish my question?  Are you now saying that you cannot trust Tom Segev to be accurate, honest and reliable in the way he presents the Goldmann archives?

         A.   No, I don't say that.  There are shadings and nuances of which historians are immensely conscious, so I want to find out what the shadings and nuances of inference and implication are by going to the source.

         Q.   But as to shadings, nuances, tone, pitch, none of the remarks of Mr. Segev you view as antisemitic.

         A.   No, I wouldn't think so.  Again, I can only state that he is attacking Goldmann here.  By the time this was written, Goldmann, of course, was dead.  Is he mounting an antisemitic attack on Goldmann?  I would hardly think so.  He is depicting this man as wily, shrewd, pulling all the stops, and having, I wouldn't say justified but explicable in the circumstances, a willingness to play the game by other than a precise application of the rules.

         Q.   Further it says:

"Goldmann and his team also mobilized officials in Israel, the leaders of Jewish organizations in the United States, and the American media."

Is it antisemitic to say that?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Primarily, I suppose, there is nothing wrong with being able to do that, I take it?

         A.   No.  He is an American citizen.  He can play lobbyist and so on like anyone else, as many other American citizens do, Jewish and non-Jewish.

         Q.   He was a citizen of many countries, wasn't he?

         A.   I don't precisely know.

         Q.   He goes on to quote Abba Eban.  He was the foreign minister of Israel, was he not?

         A.   Correct.

         Q.   "Ambassador Abba Eban asked ... Dean

Acheson to put pressure on Germany.  'An unsatisfactory answer from Bonn would be one of the darkest events in the annals of human morals,' Eban said, getting carried away.  Acheson spoke with Adenauer.  Some American Jewish leaders spoke with President Truman.  The American high commissioner in Germany, John J. McCloy, also intervened.  At one point, Gen. Julius Klein, head of the Jewish War veterans organization in the United states, was sent to Adenauer."

         Does that seem to imply the international organized efforts of a group of people?

         A.   Yes, like any other group of people.  I don't see anything exceptional or unusual about this, or questionable.

         Q.   Mobilizing the American media, the President of the United States, the Secretary of State of the United States ‑‑ nothing unusual about that, in your view?

         A.   No.  That is done all the time.

         Q.   "Klein told Adenauer that, if the talks

were not resumed, he would campaign for shelving the 'Germany Agreements,' which were meant to return Germany to the community of nations and clear the way for membership in NATO.  Klein dropped the name of influential senator Robert A. Taft, who was known as a friend of Israel.  'Adenauer was impressed by Klein's brutal position and promised to do everything to renew the negotiations,' Maurice Fischer reported from Paris.  'Klein advises that we behave stubbornly and

roughly ‑‑"

I am going to end it there.  You have the book, if you wish to pursue it further in relation to this question.

         Would you not think that this book implies an international Jewish organization to achieve goals?

         A.   Organization ‑‑ this is ad hoc.  This is not a single organization that is acting in the manner of the Elders of Zion, presumably.  This is whipped together as they go along.  They think, "Ah, this one is a likely spokesman and influential and we can use him or her at this stage," and so forth.  They go along ad hoc, improvising and putting their team together.

         Q.   It's ad hoc, is it?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Who was Nahum Goldmann?  Was he head of the World Jewish Congress?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   So it wasn't ad hoc as far as he was concerned.  He was the head of the largest Jewish organization in the world, wasn't he?

         A.   Yes, but that is not the only entity that is involved here.

         Q.   Isn't it?  Would you take issue with what Segev says, that "Goldmann and his team also mobilized officials in Israel, the leaders of Jewish organizations in the United States and the American media?"  His team wasn't ad hoc, was it?

         A.   No.  What are these other Jewish organizations?  The Jewish War Veterans are not members of the WJC and so forth.

         Q.   They have no connections with them?

         A.   I don't know.  It wouldn't matter if they did.  They are autonomous organizations and they put their heads together to co-operate in carrying out or seeking aims of common concern and interest.

         Q.   In relation to terrorism, do you recognize that the State of Israel has engaged in terrorism?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  How is that relevant?

         MR. CHRISTIE:  How is that relevant?  That might be relevant to show that, if another person refers to Israel being involved in terrorism, it would not be antisemitic.  It could be that other historians have expressed the same view.  To preclude us from asking the question, as my learned friend Mr. Freiman seems to rise to suggest, we would be prevented from showing that to report what other historians have already reported and not considered antisemitic would not itself be antisemitic.  I think that would prevent us from showing some of the important aspects of our defence.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You are putting to the witness a bald statement, not any quote from any author that this witness has recognized as authoritative.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  This witness is an expert in the history of Jews, Judaism and antisemitism, I take it, according to the criterion of his curriculum vitae.  If I ask him a general question, he might answer it and I would not need to put those contradictions.  I don't know how he is going to answer it.  I ask him a general question to find out what his view is, and then, if I have to contradict him, I will, but I won't contradict him until I hear what he has to say.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  We are not concerned about whether he can answer it or not.  We are concerned about the relevance of the question.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I explained the relevance in terms of the need to show that statements of historical proportions or discussions of history in relation to Israel or the Jewish issues that are confirmed by other historians would not be considered antisemitic in that context.  Then, of course, we have to concern ourselves with social context, tone, emotional impact and all the rest of it.  If we are able to show through a credible and reliable witness for the prosecution that historians have taken these views and that they are not considered antisemitic, then why should we not be entitled to ask you to infer that anyone can take those positions, be they Ernst Zundel or anyone else?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You have been pursuing a line of putting propositions and quotations to the witness and asking whether he agrees or disagrees with whether such propositions are antisemitic.  I am suggesting that that is an appropriate line, but the last question you put is not consistent with that line.

         If you could put the question in another way, in relation to an authoritative author that he is able to recognize, then I would allow the question.

         MR. FREIMAN:  In my submission, this is nothing more than yet another attempt to get to the truth.  When you ask ‑‑ and I don't remember the exact words ‑‑ "Is it accurate that Israel is a terrorist state or has committed acts of terrorism?" it is no different from saying, "Is that true?"  To say that other historians have recognized that is no different from saying, "Isn't that true?"  That is what we are getting at.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  That may be the case, but I am not going to say that that is the case at this point.  As I have said, the appropriate line of questioning is in relation to this witness' expertise which he purports to have in the field of antisemitism.  The question can be put in a way which follows an appropriate line.

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   Maybe we could turn to page 298, the bottom paragraph.  Segev writes:

"Israel's Arab citizens had been under military rule since the establishment of the state.  The military government restricted their freedom of movement, made administrative arrests, and promulgated a variety of arbitrary regulations.  The government contended that this type of control was necessary because the Arabs were a security and political risk.  There was another benefit, too ‑‑ military law also made it easier to confiscate Arab land.  In the 'triangle,' an area bordering on Jordan with many Arab villages, the Arabs lived under a permanent curfew that began, generally, at nine P.M.  On the first day of the Sinai campaign, the curfew was moved up to five P.M.  A short while after the curfew went into effect that day, several dozen residents of Kfar Kassem appeared on the outskirts of their village.  They were returning from work elsewhere and were not aware that the curfew had been changed.  They arrived via the main road, in trucks and wagons and on bicycles.  At the entrance to the village they met a detachment of the Border Police.  The soldiers ordered them to halt.  After identifying them in a general way as residents of the village, the guards lined them up and shot them to death, in compliance with the order they had been given:  'Cut them down.'  Villagers continued to arrive in small groups, and they too were shot.  Close to fifty people were killed, among them seven children and ten women.  A few of the wounded played dead and survived.  'My God, what will become of our little country!' Moshe Sharett wrote in his diary; he had  then been ousted from the cabinet."

         I just want to ask you if you consider that reliable and accurate in terms of its historicity.

         A.   Essentially, yes.

         Q.   Is it inappropriate in historical debate ‑‑ this seems to imply that Israel has been involved in terrorism from time to time.  Would you agree?

         A.   This is war.  This is the 1956 war.

         Q.   So it is not terrorism in this case because it is war?

         A.   I would say it's a crime against humanity committed in war and ought to be punishable as Moshe Sharett probably would wish.  But it's war.  War is hell, we have learned from General Sherman.

         Q.   I see.  Is this antisemitic, to report this event?

         A.   No, this is honesty.

         Q.   Would it be antisemitic to comment on that event and say that Israel is involved in terrorism?

         A.   It depends on what you use it for, how you use it.  He says that this means that Israel is a terrorist state, et cetera, et cetera.  That is a false use.  That terroristic acts have occurred, no one doubts that, least of all the Israelis.

         Q.   Historically, isn't it true ‑‑ and I can read the rest of it if you wish.  Historically, isn't it true that the government of Israel has condoned these acts and continues to do so? 

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  That is not relevant.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Just a moment.  Wait until I finish the question.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I know where the question is going.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Not really, unless you are prepared to read my mind, and I would deny you that right even if you are Chairman of this Tribunal.

         Q.   Would it not then be fair to say that terrorism is, in effect, sanctioned by Israel if this author ‑‑ and I can read the rest if you wish ‑‑ confirmed that the Israeli government actually sanctioned the act, was aware of it, and did not in any way take issue with it or punish those individuals?

         MR. FREIMAN:  This is entirely an inappropriate question under your ruling.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am going to allow the witness to answer that question.

         THE WITNESS:  Please repeat the question.

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   If it can be established that the nation of Israel or the government of Israel, becoming aware of this act, took no steps to punish the parties involved, would you not consider that condonation?

         A.   This is condemnation of the act of some soldiers on the spot.  I don't see any directive from the Chief of Staff, commanding general or the government here.  I don't see that this can interpreted in any way as policy.

         Q.   I put it to you this way.  I am asking you if this is accurate in terms of historicity:

"The government at first tried to cover up the incident.  And since the newspapers did not immediately demand the military censor's permission to publish the story, the first reports of the massacre were spread by word of mouth.  A Mapam activist, Latif Dori, went from hospital to hospital and took testimony from the wounded.  Communist party officials did the same.  It was seven days after the incident that the newspapers began to submit brief and inaccurate items about the slaughter to the censor.  The censor forbade publication.  Kol Haam alone appealed the decision but was refused.  In the days that followed, newspapers ‑‑ most prominently Kol Haam, Al Hamishmar, Haaretz, and Haolam Hazeh ‑‑ began to pressure the censor.  Knesset member Esther Vilenska (Maki) mentioned the slaughter in one of her speeches but was immediately told to stop; her words were stricken from the record.  Tawfik Tubi, also a Maki Knesset member, described the incident in a pamphlet he distributed.  Ultimately the government, unable to withstand the growing pressure, was forced to publish an official statement.  Earlier it had set up a commission of inquiry.  After lengthy negotiations between the Knesset factions, it was agreed that Ben-Gurion would make a statement about the slaughter.  The Knesset would rise for a moment of silence, and it would forgo debate.  'There is no people in the world that values human life more than does the Jewish people,' Ben-Gurion said in his statement.  'We have learned that man was created in the image of God and no one knows what color skin Adam had.'  That was about six weeks after the massacre.  Most Israelis did not yet really know what it was all about."

         Do you think that is an appropriate response for a legal government or a non-terrorist government?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Christie, are you asking this witness whether that constitutes an antisemitic statement, in his opinion?

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Fair enough.

         Q.   Is it antisemitic to say that that shows terrorism on the part of Israel?

         MR. FREIMAN:  I have to protest.  No matter how many times the Panel tries to help Mr. Christie ‑‑

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I don't need help.  I am not asking for help.  It is not my right or duty to sit and listen to objections that suggest help is necessary.  If there is an objection, I wish my friend would state it and be done with it.

         MR. FREIMAN:  The question is not phrased in terms of someone making a statement which is antisemitic.  The question was phrased on the basis, "If this is true, would it be wrong to condemn this as terrorist," which is exactly what this Panel has said is not proper.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  The Tribunal has rephrased the question for Mr. Christie, and suggested that the question should be whether, in his opinion, this quotation constitutes antisemitism.  It is an appropriate question if put in that context.  If Mr. Christie is prepared to put the question in that way, the witness can answer.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I object to the straitjacket, but I have no choice, so I will put it that way.

         Q.   Do you understand the question?

         A.   No, please repeat it.

         Q.   Is that antisemitic?

         A.   This passage, this paragraph?

         Q.   Yes.

         A.   No, it is not.  This was a crime.  It was a scandal.  It was hushed up.  The hush-up reflects the sense of scandal and shame.  Six weeks later in some way it is acknowledged.  The Knesset standing for a moment of silence is something akin to mourning, I would think.  I don't think this is antisemitic.  This is telling what happened.

         Q.   So, even though the author says that nobody seemed to know what it was all about, that is telling what happened, in your view.

         A.   In my sense of war, censorship is very much a part of it.  That is what I see operating here.

         Q.   Turning to page 397, it says:

"Begin knew how to give the Oriental Israelis, especially those who had come from North Africa, the sense that he respected their culture.  He restored their most important treasure ‑‑ their self-respect ‑‑ stolen from them by the Labor movement.  In so doing, he involved them in what had up until then been a solely Ashkenazic privilege ‑‑ Holocaust consciousness.  The great popularizer of the Holocaust, Begin did more than anyone else to politicize it.  A master of the symbolic historical gesture, he missed no opportunity to exploit the Holocaust in debating his political opponents and in creating his own political image."

         Is that antisemitic?  I guess that is the question I am allowed to ask.

         A.   No, it is not antisemitic.  This is a statement of Begin's attitude and conduct.

         Q.   So to say that someone exploits the Holocaust is not necessarily antisemitic.

         A.   He is exploiting this politically ‑‑

         Q.   We are not allowed to discuss truth, sir ‑‑

         A.   I am not discussing truth.

         Q.   In your view of antisemitism, is it necessarily antisemitic to say that someone exploits the Holocaust?  The answer is "no," isn't it?

         A.   You are putting words in my mouth.

         Q.   I am, because it is cross-examination and I don't have a whole lot of time.  I am suggesting to you ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Just a moment, Mr. Christie.  Allow the witness to answer.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  He said I am putting words in his mouth.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  We don't need remarks of the sort that you seem to be addicted to this morning.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Addicted?  That's a very harsh word.  Are you suggesting that I am addicted to words?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Just listen to what I have to say.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  It was a bad choice of words.  I object to what you say.  I don't appreciate being referred to as addicted.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You are not comporting yourself in a manner that is befitting counsel this morning.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I don't agree.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I don't want any further remarks from you.

         Answer the question.

         THE WITNESS:  The question is:  Are these passages antisemitic?

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   No.  I said:  Is it necessarily antisemitic to say that someone exploited the Holocaust?   I put it to you that you say "no."

         A.   No, it is not necessarily antisemitic.

         Q.   Thank you.  He goes on to say:

"The longer he spoke of the Holocaust and used it to justify his policies and to shore up his political position, the more he expropriated Labor's monopoly on it.  This had always been one of his goals.  He often seemed to believe that, by controlling the memory of the Holocaust, he could control the country.  His first action as prime minister was to grant asylum ‑‑"

         Do you think that the Holocaust's use for political purposes or to mention it as a means of political control is antisemitic in that context?

         A.   No, not necessarily.

         Q.   It goes on to say:

"Begin tended to give the impression that the whole world was tainted with Nazism and that Israel stood alone.  Two years before he took office, the UN General Assembly had itself promoted this impression by resolving that zionism was a form of racism."

Are you familiar with that resolution?

         A.   Yes, I am.

         Q.   What was the number of it?

         A.   I don't remember.  I know it has been repealed recently, about two years ago.

         Q.   "Israel's ambassador to the UN, Haim

Herzog (later elected president), expressed the future prime minister's sentiments particularly well when he told the General Assembly delegates that Hitler would have felt at home among them."

         Is it antisemitic to say that Israel had exploited the image of Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust for international acceptance?  Is it antisemitic to say that?

         A.   No, it is not necessarily antisemitic.  It is a reflection of the angst, the tremendous fears of the people of Israel at many stages in their history.

         Q.   At page 399, in dealing with the issue of the Holocaust, it says:

"The Holocaust was, especially throughout Begin's term in office, a cornerstone of the basic creed of the State of Israel and the policies of its government.  In June 1981, Begin justified the demolition of an Iraqi nuclear facility with the words 'We must protect our nation, a million and a half of whose children were murdered by the Nazis in the gas chambers.'  He often compared Yasir Arafat to Hitler, referring to him as a 'two-legged beast' ‑‑ a phrase he had used, years earlier, to describe Hitler.  Begin further compared the PLO's Palestinian National Covenant to Mein Kampf.  'Never in the history of mankind has there been an armed organization so loathsome and contemptible, with the exception of the Nazis,' he liked to say.  On the eve of Israel's invasion of Lebanon, in June 1982, Begin told his cabinet:  'You know what I have done and what we have all done to prevent war and loss of life.  But such is our fate in Israel.  There is no way other than to fight selflessly.  Believe me, the alternative is Treblinka, and we have decided that there will be no more Treblinkas.'  A few weeks after the war began, Begin responded to international criticism of Israel by repeating a premise that his predecessors had shared:  after the Holocaust, the international community had lost its right to demand that Israel answer for its actions."

I stop there.

         Is that antisemitic?

         A.   That is a report of Begin's use of the Holocaust.  It is one aberration after another.  I would think he is genuine in his fears and phobia when he invokes Treblinka and such things.  This is the political exploitation of the Holocaust by Begin, who is the most notorious example, which gave rise to a chorus of criticism and objection.  This passage is simply repeating all the twists and turns.  He undoubtedly had the Holocaust in the marrow of his bones, and that it pops out in his debate and speechifying should not be surprising.  That he abuses it, yes.  He does indeed.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Witness, can you answer the question?

         THE WITNESS:  That this is antisemitic?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.

         THE WITNESS:  No, I don't find this antisemitic.  I find it a report of Begin's aberrant use or misuse of the story of the Holocaust.

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   Do you recognize that to say that after the Holocaust the international community has lost its right to demand that Israel answer for its actions ‑‑ do you agree that that is an exploitation of the Holocaust?

         A.   Yes, but that doesn't stand up.  That is his view.  As it says, one of his predecessors took that position.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You are getting into the truth of the statement.  Can we move on to the next question, please?

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   So it is not antisemitic to point that out, I take it.  If someone pointed out that persons were using the Holocaust to justify immoral acts, that would not necessarily be antisemitic.

         A.   No, I don't think that is necessarily antisemitic.

         Q.   It says further:

"A similar statement was included in the resolution adopted by the cabinet after the massacres in Sabra and Shatila, the Palestinian refugee camps on the outskirts of Beirut."

         I ask you a hypothetical question.  If that is true ‑‑ a hypothetical question is not going to the truth of the contents of the question, so Mr. Freiman can wait until I finish.

         If that is true, do you think it would be correct to say that that is exploitation of the Holocaust?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Ms Matheson, I haven't heard from you for some time.

         MS MATHESON:  I would like to make the observation that the fact that the question is posed in terms of an assumption does not obviate the need to comply with the ruling.  An assumption as to a fact can be put to a witness if the fact is relevant and at some stage it is going to be proved.  It is clearly not relevant under the ruling, nor would it be appropriate for it to be proved at any stage of this proceeding.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Freiman, would you like to say anything more?

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I would like to respond to that.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I will allow you to respond.  I am just asking Mr. Freiman if he has anything more to say.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I have nothing to add.  Ms Matheson is exactly correct.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.  Mr. Christie, please.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I have already said that I am prepared to call someone to discuss these issues and to put another point of view as to whether this is or is not an exploitation, whether it is proper and appropriate in the circumstances of historical debate and that it is not necessarily antisemitic to say that it is exploitation.

         I am asking this witness to test his own opinion against that and to ask him a hypothetical question, if that is true.  I don't see anything wrong with asking him that in relation to the credibility of  his own opinion.

         He has condemned all of the parts that are highlighted in the material, that I am not allowed to ask him the truth about, as antisemitic.  He even called it lethal antisemitism on a continuum, whatever that means.

         To ask him then if these would demonstrate exploitation of the Holocaust, if it is true, is a hypothetical question which I should be entitled to put because I am going to call someone who is prepared to say that it would be not antisemitic to say that.  He, of course, will say that it is antisemitic.

         MR. FREIMAN:  Just the way it is phrased demonstrates the impropriety of it.  I am not going to anticipate what is going to happen next.  The issue cannot be of relevance, and the way Mr. Christie has phrased this question demonstrates it:  If such and such is true, would it be antisemitic?  It goes right to the heart of the Panel's ruling.  It doesn't matter whether it is asked in cross-examination or whether he brings someone to testify under whatever guise to say, "If it is true, it is not antisemitic."  It is still not relevant.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am not going to allow the question.  Next question, please.

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   Is it antisemitic to point out that statements of that kind about the Holocaust justifying actions such as Sabra and Shatila occurred?  Would it be antisemitic to point that out?

         A.   Not necessarily.  Those massacres were not conducted by the Israelis.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I ask a question regarding antisemitism, and he resorts to aspects of what he would call truth, and I am not allowed to ask him about that.  That is fair, is it?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You elicited the answer.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  No, the question didn't elicit that answer.  He used that as a rationalization.  It went beyond the scope of the question.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Next question.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  So it's okay for him to do that?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Next question, please.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Could I have a ruling, please?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I have ruled on it.  Next question.

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   When is it in context then antisemitic to say those same things?

         A.   Antisemitism hinges on attacking Jews because they are Jews.

         Q.   Does this attack Jews in any way?

         A.   It attacks Begin.  It attacks his government.  It attacks some Jews.  It doesn't attack "the Jews."

         Q.   So the distinction then to be made between whether it is antisemitic or not is whether it attributes those actions and conduct to all Jews.  Is that the point?

         A.   Your question mystifies me.  It doesn't seem to follow.

         Q.   I am trying to understand what I would suggest is a mystifying answer.  You say that it doesn't attack all Jews, that it refers to Begin and some Jews and, therefore, it is not antisemitic.  Did I understand you correctly?

         A.   This is simply a report, as I said before, of Begin's aberrant use and abuse of the Holocaust story.

         Q.   To promote the cause of Israel.  Right?

         A.   Correct, at least to promote the cause of his government and his policy.

         Q.   So to point that out is permissible as long as you don't attribute that to all Jews.  Is that correct?

         A.   It is permissible to point that out as part of the history of Israel, this particular chapter in the history of Israel.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Christie, you are pausing for a moment.  We did not take our morning break, so I think we will pause for lunch now and come back at two o'clock.

‑‑- Luncheon Recess at 12:28 p.m.

‑‑- Upon resuming at 2:10 p.m.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Apparently, we have made some adjustment to the sound system, so hopefully it can be totally a public hearing now.

         Mr. Christie, please.

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   Just as a measure of your own position on these matters, do you support those propositions which I put to you, that after the Holocaust the international community has lost its right to demand that Israel answer for its actions?  Do you support that?

         A.   No.  I think Israel is subject to criticism like any other nation state.

         Q.   When does criticism come to the point of being antisemitic?

         A.   When it becomes antisemitic, when it attacks Jews as Jews in the sense of the antisemitic ideology that I described the other day that sees them as evil, immensely powerful and influential and attacks them as "the Jews." 

         Q.   That is a bit obscure to me.  Can you help me understand what that means?  Does it become antisemitic by virtue of the fact that a reference is made to all Jews as opposed to some Jews, or not?

         A.   That I would think is part of it.

         Q.   Part of it.  How much of it?  Is it 20 per cent?

         A.   That is in my testimony of the first days that I was here.

         Q.   We are entitled to ask some questions about that, and I am trying to pin down what precisely you mean by that.  In endeavouring to do that, I would like to ask you:  Precisely what part of a statement that is antisemitic if it relates to an accusation attributed to all Jews as opposed to some Jews?

         A.   When you have a statement that invokes the Jews as evil, criminal, powerful, dangerous, then I think you are crossing the line into the realm of antisemitism.

         Q.   Invokes the image?  Those are your words.  Did I hear you right?  Invokes the image?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   How do you invoke an image?  That is somewhat vague as well.  When you invoke the image of all Jews being dangerous, how does that happen?

         A.   It is because it is an abstraction.  It is because it floats in the air.  It is the notion of the Jews that is set forth by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which have a long history and, as I suggested, can be traced back to the notions of the Antichrist.

         Q.   So, if it is an abstraction and it is not particularized, that is when it becomes antisemitic.  Is that right?

         A.   I am not so sure what you are leading me into saying.

         Q.   I am not so sure I understand your definition, and that is why I ask, to try to get some specificity into it.

         We understand what "invoking the image" means.  If it is an abstraction, it is antisemitic; but, if it is concrete, it is not?

         A.   It need not be.  It can be.

         Q.   How can it be if it is concrete?

         A.   These matters are not obvious.

         Q.   I agree.  In order to know which side of the line you are on, how do you find out whether you are talking in abstractions or in concrete terms about some Jews or all Jews?

         A.   If the image of the Jews as dangerous, powerful, scheming, evil and so forth is part of the statement or implicit in the statement, then there is the danger of antisemitism.

         Q.   So there is only the danger of it if the image of the Jews as evil is part of the statement or implicit; there is the danger of antisemitism.  How do we know whether that danger is real or just a possibility?

         A.   It depends on the particular situation.

         Q.   So each statement has to be analyzed in its own context?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Did you actually look at the context of the statements you analyzed in the material you were given to determine what proportion, if any, they are of the whole of the Zundelsite?

         MR. FREIMAN:  That is precisely the question that was asked on the very first day of cross-examination.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am going to allow it.

         THE WITNESS:  I am not sure what material you are referring to.

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   The Zundelsite material is what I understand you looked at.  Is that correct?

         A.   Correct.

         Q.   We were given in your brief of materials the tabs and we were given highlighted portions that you have given evidence about.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Did you read all of the unhighlighted portions?

         A.   Indeed I did, 1 through 33.

         Q.   In terms of No. 7, for instance, you say:

"To claim that World War II was fought by the Germans, as the Holocaust Promotion Lobby incessantly claims, just to kill off the Jews as a group, is a deliberately planned, systematic deception amounting to financial, political, emotional and spiritual extortion."

That is the highlighted portion I was referred to.

         A.   Is this in my brief?

         Q.   Yes, it is in your brief of materials.

         A.   No. 7?

         Q.   Tab 7, page 2 of 4.  That is what I was referred to.  It's tab 6.

         Applying the criterion you just gave me, that, if the image of "the Jews" as evil is part of the statement or implicit, there is a danger of antisemitism, how is there a reference to "the Jews" in those terms?

         A.   The second line, "to kill off the Jews as a group."

         Q.   Of course, that is not suggesting anything about those people, is it?  It is suggesting that the Holocaust Promotion Lobby is involved in a plan of systematic deception amounting to ‑‑-

         Surely, you are not going to suggest that to say that the Holocaust was to kill off the Jews as a group is necessarily antisemitic.  That is the generally accepted version, isn't it?

         A.   Yes, correct.

         Q.   What I think the thrust of that statement is ‑‑ and you correct me if you think I am wrong ‑‑ is that the Holocaust Promotion Lobby is committing financial, political, emotional and spiritual extortion.  Isn't that the thrust of the statement?

         A.   Yes, it is.

         Q.   Is the Holocaust Promotion Lobby necessarily to be taken as all Jews or the Jews?

         A.   It can be, in the context of the memorandum which I presented which refers to the Jews in the manner and formulas of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  It can be taken in that measure.

         Q.   How is there any reference there to The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion or how does that become relevant to interpret that statement?

         A.   You don't need The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  That is an antecedent.  That is this abstraction that I referred to earlier of antisemitism with which the Zundelsite material has repeated resonances.

         Q.   The abstraction that you refer to is so nebulous that I don't know how you establish its connection to this statement.  Can you help me understand how you establish the connection of the Learned Elders of Zion to this statement, that the Holocaust Promotion Lobby is involved in planned, systematic deception amounting to financial, political, emotional and spiritual extortion?

         A.   This is the Jews who are the classic liars, financial swindlers.

         Q.   It doesn't say that.  How does the Holocaust Promotion Lobby refer to all Jews or even the Jews?

         A.   The citation that I make of that is as in mediaeval and modern antisemitic theory.  The Jews are a criminal people, and that is what is being stated here.

         Q.   How is it being stated ‑‑

         A.   Extortion, racket.

         Q.   How is it being stated that "the Jews" are in any way to be taken as indicated by the words Holocaust Promotion Lobby?

         A.   The Holocaust Promotion Lobby, I assume, operates on behalf of the Jews.

         Q.   Why do you assume that?

         A.   Because it is the way with antisemitic ideology.

         Q.   So you interpret this by forming the judgment that this is antisemitic ideology, and then you interpret it in a special way because that is the way antisemitic ideology works.  Is that how you analyze this?

         A.   No.  I have worked my way through all 33 tabs, and then I have gone over it again in the light of my understanding of historic antisemitism, mediaeval, early modern, 19th century and so forth.  These are the passages that strike me as fitting in that pattern.  One of the patterns is to depict Jews as a criminal people, and that is what I see here.

         Q.   This doesn't depict Jews as a criminal people; it depicts the Holocaust Promotion Lobby as involved in planned, systematic deception amounting to financial, political, emotional and spiritual extortion.  Right?

         A.   And I suggest that the reference to Holocaust Promotion Lobby is that this is acting on behalf of "the Jews."

         Q.   When Tom Segev refers to Menachem Begin as being a promoter of the Holocaust, you don't consider that as referring to all Jews, do you?  That was Menachem Begin.  You gave us that earlier.

         A.   I don't see the parallel.

         Q.   I am not asking you to see the parallel.  I am just asking you to at least answer the question, that that was the way you presented the situation then.

         A.   I see Menachem Begin making political hay out of the story of the Holocaust.

         Q.   Surely you will acknowledge that in widely accepted historical texts there is reference to and acceptance of the existence of the Holocaust Promotion Lobby.  Many historians and commentators make reference to it.  Isn't that true?

         A.   Yes, I have seen the phrase.  I haven't met these people.  I don't know precisely what is meant by the Holocaust Promotion Lobby except some mysterious group with great influence, power, that operates publicly or clandestinely or whatever.  Are there Holocaust Promotion Lobbies, one in each country?  Is there an international Holocaust Promotion Lobby, and so forth?  All of that is undefined.

         Q.   If you, in reference to those sources, don't know what is meant by Holocaust Promotion Lobby, how is it that you claim to know that it refers to all Jews in the Zundelsite reference?

         A.   I think this is a figment of the Zundelsite imagination.  There has to be some kind of devious force or organization operating to promote what is said elsewhere to be this enormous lie.  How do you do that except by such an entity as this one?

         Q.   Dr. Schweitzer, you just said that you recognize that it is a term used in historical discussion and political commentary, that there is a Holocaust Promotion Lobby.  Why do you now say that in relation to this same word in the Zundelsite it is a figment of the Zundelsite imagination?

         A.   I don't know that something of this sort actually exists, any more than the "team" that you referred to with Nahum Goldmann was an international organization.

         Q.   I am not allowed to deal with truth, but I am asking you to admit, at least, that when those phrases are used by other people ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Christie ‑‑

         MR. CHRISTIE:  The witness actually made comments about aspects of truth.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am not addressing what the witness has said at the moment.  The reason for my remarks this morning were prompted by the fact that you are prone to making comments parenthetically which tend to reflect on the decision that this Tribunal made this morning.  I don't think those remarks assist the Tribunal, and it only tends to distract from the legitimate line of questioning that you are now pursuing.

         I request that you not make remarks about the fact that you, as you put it, are prevented from getting at the truth.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I want it on record that I would have pursued that question on the basis of truth had I the right to do so.  That is why I want to make it clear that I did not, in view of your ruling.  I don't think it is improper to identify the reasons for not pursuing a line of questioning, particularly when I think that is a matter we may have to discuss elsewhere sometime.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  That, of course, is a good reason for not pursuing it here.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I had to identify why I am not.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You have the right to pursue it elsewhere, so let's get on with the business of the important issues before this Tribunal.  I expect you and other counsel to do everything you can to assist us in coming to a conclusion on these important issues.

         Will you proceed now?  Thank you.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Could I have the last question and the last answer read back so that I can get the context of my question?

‑‑- The Reporter read back as requested

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   I am not asking you whether you know that such a thing exists or not.  I am asking you to explain why it is that you acknowledge that in popular discourse and historical discussion and analysis and political commentary the term "Holocaust Promotion Lobby" is used and has meaning and why you then say that in the Zundelsite reference to it it must be a figment of the Zundelsite imagination.  If it is a term in common parlance, sir, it is just as valid a term for the Zundelsite as it would be in common parlance.  Is that not right?

         A.   Yes, if it is a term of common parlance.  I am not so sure that it is.

         Q.   I thought you were sure a few moments ago.  If you think not, I can try to show you examples.

         Do you not accept the proposition that in historical analysis of the use made of the Holocaust, both in Goldhagen's book and in the book by Segev and others, there is reference to it being used as a form of political promotion?

         A.   That there is promotion of the Holocaust and study of the Holocaust I am sure.  But "the Holocaust Promotion Lobby" is a reference to a single entity, and I doubt that there is such a thing.

         Q.   You doubt there is such a thing.  You accept the proposition that others don't doubt it.  They talk about it a lot, not necessarily anti-Semites.

         A.   Yes.  Tom Segev, as you say, uses it, but it's a phrase.

         Q.   It's a phrase.  I am not asking you to say it's a true phrase, an accurate phrase, a realistic phrase.  I am asking you to consider whether, in the use made of it by others, it is not necessarily referring to all Jews, is it?

         A.   Not necessarily, but it can, given the history and nature of antisemitism as I have tried to develop it.

         Q.   It could be used by people you call anti-Semites.  Right?

         A.   Yes, it certainly could.

         Q.   But how do they become anti-Semites?  Just because they use the term?

         A.   No, they don't necessarily become anti-Semites by using the term.  However, it fits all too nicely within the context of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and antisemitism.

         Q.   When you make that comparison and create that analogy, are you not saying, in effect, that antisemitism is whatever is said by those that the Jews don't like?

         A.   No; hardly.

         Q.   If Tom Segev uses the term, it is not antisemitic but, if it is used on the Zundelsite, it is, because you say Zundel is an anti-Semite.  Right?

         A.   Correct.

         Q.   Isn't that a perfect example of a tautology or of a circular argument?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Have you ever studied logic at all?

         A.   I have as an undergraduate.

         Q.   When you justify a judgment on the basis of an a priori conclusion about the subject, aren't you making, in effect, a tautology?

         A.   No, I don't think so.  That is not what I have been doing here.

         Q.   How do you know it is antisemitic for it to be used in that context?  How do you know that it refers to all Jews in the context of that statement, that statement being at page 2 of 4 in tab 7?

         A.   This highlighted passage should not be taken alone.  It should be taken in full sweep of the 33 tabs of the Zundelsite material.

         Q.   I see.  So we can't look at it in isolation.  Is that right?

         A.   Yes, we can, but with the larger context in mind.

         Q.   Do we have to consider the larger context to determine if it is antisemitic or would be viewed as such in terms of the society in which we live being slightly different from the Middle Ages?

         A.   Context is all-important.

         Q.   Is that part of the context?  You talk about mediaeval antisemitism and you relate it on this continuum to the Zundelsite.  Do you think there is some rational basis for comparing what you call mediaeval antisemitism to modern statements on a web site in a situation where millions of web sites exist with contrary positions?  Is there some comparison?

         A.   The replication of motifs of antisemitism that go back to the 12th and 13th century, and in some instances earlier, is what I find over and over again in the Zundelsite material.

         Q.   What is a motif?

         A.   An element.

         Q.   An element.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Anything else?

         A.   A part, a significant part, a part, I would say, that can be detached and applied elsewhere to another instance.

         Q.   All antisemitic acts or opinions or statements have some elements that are the same.  Is that right?

         A.   They have often much in common, yes.  They repeat these motifs over and over again, the lie.

         Q.   What is the element in this statement that is common to mediaeval antisemitism?

         A.   The Jews as a criminal group.

         Q.   It isn't "the Jews:" it's the Holocaust Promotion Lobby which I take you to accept is not necessarily all Jews, do you?

         A.   Yes, but, as I say, it fits the pattern all too well.  Again, the context of the 33 tabs, I would venture to say and to fear that the allusion of the Holocaust Promotion Lobby is to "the Jews."

         Q.   Why is the allusion possible, in your view, to swear that it is in some way connected to all Jews when, if it is used by Tom Segev, it is not?

         A.   Tom Segev is doing something quite different.  He is writing a history of Israel.

         Q.   Why is it not possible to write opinions that are less than history in which that term has the same meaning?  Why do you take it differently just because someone else says it in a different context?

         A.   Because in the Tom Segev book, if you go on to some of the pages beyond what your selective material indicated, you will find countervailing voices and opinions.

         Q.   If there are references by virtue of the Zundelsite to other opinions different from the Zundelsite opinions, wouldn't that be comparable to having included in your own book the opinions of others who disagree?

         A.   I am sorry, I don't follow the line of question that you have just put to me.

         Q.   Do you understand the question?

         A.   No, I do not.

         Q.   Were you ever able to look at the Zundelsite?

         A.   Yes, I did once or twice, very briefly.

         Q.   Did you see that it has links to the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Nizkor site?

         A.   Yes, that is in these 33 tabs, among other things.

         Q.   So, obviously, reference is made to contrary points of view.

         A.   I don't think, Mr. Christie, that proves anything.

         Q.   What you think it proves I don't think is the question.  I just asked you if it was comparable to having within your own book the opinions of others with whom you disagree.

         A.   Those opinions appear in the Zundelsite material to be dismissed contemptuously out of hand.

         Q.   So if you don't have enough respect for the opposing point of view, that is a sign that you are an anti-Semite, not just a critic.

         A.   Again, I don't fellow the tenor of that question.

         Q.   The tenor I don't understand because I am more of a baritone.  What do you mean by "tenor?"

         A.   The drift.  What is the intent of your question?

         Q.   The intent of the question is to ask you if there is any comparison between a link to another site of a contrary opinion, and you said that, if it is disparaging of that contrary opinion, it cannot be seen as what, valid criticism, that it becomes antisemitic?

         A.   It seems to me that that material that you refer to is irrelevant to the questions, to the matter that you are putting to me.

         Q.   It is for somebody else to decide what is relevant.  Can you try to answer the question?

         A.   I have answered the question to the best of my ability.

         Q.   Then you refer us to the statement on page 3 of 4:

"experts on the United States RICO statutes pertaining to extortion racketeering on a national and global scale (the "Holocaust" may fit the crime!)"

         Is that a reference to all Jews?

         A.   It is a reference to the Jews as a criminal people.  That is why it is cited.

         Q.   Why is it a reference to "the Jews" as a criminal people?  If we agree that the Holocaust Promotion Lobby does not necessarily include all Jews and the Holocaust promotion is viewed by Segev and others as being on the border of extortion ‑‑ we have been through that, and that wasn't antisemitic.  Why is it antisemitic to refer to the Holocaust as fitting the description of racketeering?

         A.   Because this is one of the most familiar motifs of antisemitism, namely, that the Jews are an inescapably criminal people.

         Q.   You derive that inference from those words when there is no reason to derive that inference, is there?

         A.   "The Holocaust may fit the crime."  RICO deals with racketeering and so forth.

         Q.   Does that refer to all Jews or the Holocaust Promotion Lobby?

         A.   It doesn't say.

         Q.   It doesn't say.  Let me think about that.  It doesn't say.  When you look at it in context, it does, though, doesn't it?  It has in the previous paragraphs referred to the Holocaust Promotion Lobby, hasn't it?

         A.   Yes, but I don't agree with the words you were just putting in my mouth a bit ago, that I acknowledge that the Holocaust Promotion Lobby does not represent all Jews.  That is a distinct possibility, given, as I have tried to convey, the motifs of historic antisemitism.

         Q.   Why is it a motif of antisemitism if Ernst Zundel uses the term, but not if Tom Segev does?

         A.   Tom Segev is doing something entirely different.  He is writing a history of Israel.

         Q.   So he speaks about a Holocaust Promotion Lobby?

         A.   Yes, he refers to it.  So do other authors.

         Q.   So do a lot of authors.  Why is it wrong or antisemitic for someone on the Zundelsite to refer to the same thing in exactly the same words and apply what is, in effect, description to that which is not that much different in substance or in tone or in pitch or motif to that used by someone who happens to be Jewish?

         A.   Because there is no day of reckoning held out ominously in the book by Tom Segev, as there is here.

         Q.   Day of reckoning.  Where is that?

         A.   It is in a number of passages which were cited ‑‑

         Q.   It is in one passage, and I will find it.  The day of reckoning is the day of truth.

         If the Holocaust is being promoted by a lobby and if, as Segev says, it is being used by prevaricators or liars to get money from countries, which I think we went over earlier and that wasn't antisemitic, why would a day of truth in which these prevarications are exposed not be just as good as any other day?  Why does it have ominous implications for you?

         A.   That is one reference.  There are references to this day of reckoning at tabs 27, 28, 29 and 30.  The one you are referring to is which?

         Q.   I don't know.  You are the one who claims to know they are in there.

         A.   You just cited ‑‑

         Q.   You want to refer me to tab 27, page 5 of 6:

"The day of global reckoning is dawning.  The Jewish Century is drawing to a close.  The Age of Truth is waiting to be ushered in, and we will be its ushers."

         Is there something ominous about truth to you?

         A.   Yes, because what is meant is that the Age of the Lie, Jewish domination, the Jewish century, is drawing to a close.  That is threatening and it is the day of global reckoning.  That seems to me to be threatening indeed.

         Q.   Why is it threatening that truth should overcome what is referred to as lies?

         A.   Because the lie is the capital "L" Lie that has been manufactured supposedly by the Jews, the Holocaust lie, and now that is finally going to be shattered and dispelled once and for all, and that is the day of reckoning, the day of global reckoning, the Jewish ‑‑

         Q.   Why is that ominous?

         A.   What is the Jewish century that is drawing to a close?

         Q.   If you don't know the answer, why can you take it to be ominous?  You have to ask me a question in the course of your answer.  Why is that ominous?

         A.   I say that this line of argument is threatening to Jews.

         Q.   Why is truth threatening to Jews?

         A.   Because it is going to supplant "the Lie" and the Jews as the upholders of that lie.  Is that not what the allusion is to?  That is the way I read it.

         Why should there be a day of global reckoning?  Let the truth come.

         Q.   That is what it says.

         A.   No, it says a day of reckoning.  That is ominous.

         Q.   When truth and lies confront each other and history judges, is that necessarily ominous or bad?

         A.   You are trying to twist me into knots.

         Q.   No, I am not trying to twist you into knots.

         A.   "The Jewish century is drawing to a close."  That means the Jewish century of domination, of the Big Lie, of the Holocaust lie, of ‑‑

         Q.   Whose words are those, yours or his?

         A.   They are throughout the 33 tabs.

         Q.   No, they are not throughout this paragraph, so why put them there when they aren't there?

         A.   Again, this has to be read in itself and it has to be read in the larger context of all 33 of these documents.

         Q.   We can't deal with 33 at once, so why do we avoid dealing with this one by reference to others?

         A.   I am not avoiding dealing with it.  I am giving you the answer as I can best do so, to say that this is ominous and threatening to the Jews.

         Q.   What does it threaten?

         A.   It threatens some kind of punishment.

         Q.   Does it?  Where?

         A.   "The day of global reckoning;" "the Jewish century."  What does that bring to mind?  The Jewish century ‑‑ I can't imagine what that means except one that is dominated, manipulated, controlled by the Jews in The Protocols fashion.

         Q.   What is the day of reckoning going to be?  The Age of Truth.

         A.   No, the day of reckoning is going to be the undoing of Jewish control through this century.

         Q.   Doesn't it say "The Age of Truth is waiting to be ushered in?"  Doesn't it say that?  Doesn't that identify what the global reckoning is?  The Age of Truth.

         A.   These ushers are going to be ‑‑

         Q.   People who speak the truth are ushers of the Age of Truth, aren't they?

         A.   You can believe that; I don't.

         Q.   What do you believe?  What is your reasoning?

         A.   I believe, Mr. Christie, that this is threatening to the Jews.

         Q.   Why?

         A.   Because it is in the context of material that appears repeatedly in the 33 tabs, and it is also closely parallel with tabs 28, 29 and 30.

         Q.   So you want me to look at 28, 29 and 30 to find that the Age of Truth is threatening to Jews.  Is that your position?

         A.   I am saying that these passages hang together as a single piece.

         Q.   If they hang together, we will see how they hang together.  Am I asked to look at tab 28, then? 

"There is always the last straw that breaks the camel's back. 

  The pattern has been the same from the Weimar Republic, where Jewish elements had immense power, to various Bolshevik countries where they lost their near-total power because of their own excesses, to Clinton's grotesque and disproportionate Cabinet appointments, where Jews - who represent only 5% of the U.S. population, if you believe those fudged statistics which hide all those 'Holocaust survivors' - make up over 50% of the Clinton Cabinet and other major appointments.  By deduction this can only lead people to conclude that, with the exception of this small tribal group, the rest of American citizens are seen as incompetent or stupid and unworthy to hold cabinet posts."

         How does that relate to the day of reckoning when truth will prevail?

         A.   Go on to the next two paragraphs.

         Q.   All right.

"Do they like it?  Of course not!  My American friends tell me that America is seething with resentment.  In Canada, the power of the tribe is more hidden and not as brazen.  However, few who still think are fooled.

  I predict that once again the tribe's near-total victory will end in near-global disaster for them.  In the affairs of men, and in nature, NOTHING LASTS FOREVER."

         Does that mean that truth is going to be disastrous?

         A.   That is what it says, "near-global disaster."

         Q.   For what?  Lies?

         A.   No, domination, in the Clinton cabinet ‑‑

         Q.   So the denial or, let's say, the diminution of influence is disastrous, even if it's based on truth.  I just want to understand what you are saying here.

         A.   I am saying that these passages represent a threat to the Jews.

         Q.   A threat of what?  That their influence will be diminished.  Right?

         A.   Their near-total victory will be snatched from their hands and they will suffer near-global disaster.

         Q.   What does that mean in the context of power?   They will be out of power.  Isn't that what it means?

         A.   They will be out of power.  They will just be shown the door and "please leave."

         Q.   When governments are defeated and they are out of power and they are facing near-global disaster, like the Conservative Party after Mulroney, of which you would know nothing ‑‑ when politics changes and parties suffer disaster, it doesn't mean they are excommunicated or executed, does it?

         A.   No, but that is not what is referred to here.

         Q.   Oh?  When Clinton's cabinet is more than 50 per cent Jews, you don't think that is referring to power? 

         A.   You have been referring to a change of power through elections and so forth.  That is not what is the subject here.

         Q.   If truth prevailed and some points of view were seen as not being justified by the Holocaust, as they have been, maybe support for Israel, maybe the influence of Jews in Clinton's cabinet, why is that necessarily indicative of anything but a change in power?

         A.   Any change of power would not be a near-global disaster.

         Q.   How much influence do you think is resting upon the Holocaust in terms of issues like Swiss reparations?  How much do you think rests on the Holocaust in that?

         MR. FREIMAN:  Why on earth are the witness' opinions of the relationship between the Holocaust and Swiss reparations of any value at all to this Tribunal, other than to badger the witness?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I thought Mr. Christie was in a perfectly legitimate line of cross here, up to this point.

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   When he says "nothing lasts forever,"  what is he talking about?  The power of the Jews in Clinton's cabinet?

         A.   It could mean the Jews.

         Q.   Pardon?

         A.   It could mean the Jews. 

         Q.   But in the context he is certainly talking about power, isn't he?

         A.   Power?

         Q.   Yes.

         A.   He is talking about a near-global disaster.

         Q.   In relation to power.  What does he say in the previous paragraph? 

"My American friends tell me that America is seething with resentment.  In Canada, the power of the tribe is more hidden and not as brazen.  However, few who still think are fooled."

Isn't he talking about power?

         A.   Yes, he is, but he also talks about the tribe's near-total victory and compares that earlier, as you read the passage, to the Weimar Republic.

         Q.   Yes, and he speaks of the Weimar Republic in terms of the monopoly of power, doesn't he?

         A.   And then what happened?  Disaster.

         Q.   So you are saying that, because he speaks of the Weimar Republic, Clinton's cabinet, the influence of Jews in Canada, he necessarily means harm to Jews if their power diminishes.

         A.   I mean that "the tribe's near-total victory is now going to be followed by near-global disaster" is ominous indeed.

         Q.   What do you mean by "ominous?"  It could have many meanings or one meaning only?

         A.   Dangerous.

         Q.   Dangerous in what way?

         A.   Dangerous to their well-being.

         Q.   To their well-being.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Is power part of their well-being?

         A.   How would I know?

         Q.   You just used the term, so I assume you knew what you were talking about.  I suggest to you that power is very much a part of well-being.  When you don't have it, you know that ‑‑ and you know that.

         A.   Yes, the will to power.

         Q.   Very cute.  The power that people have as a group, based upon things like their status as a persecuted group, surely that is a power that would be disastrous to lose, wouldn't it?

         A.   I don't think so, just to lose it in the normal way of fluctuations of power.

         Q.   Surely, sir, you are aware that the power of Israel, for example, which Segev comments about, is based to a large extent on justifications arising out of the Holocaust.

         MR. FREIMAN:  Here we go again.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Would you rephrase your question.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I would like to know what is wrong with the question so that I can do that.

         MS MATHESON:  Mr. Chairman, that is an assertion of fact that counsel is asking the witness to either agree or disagree with, and it is in contravention of your ruling.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  It is in the same category, Mr. Christie, as other questions that we have ruled out.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Just so I understand, I can't challenge the assertions of fact the witness has made in his own opinion with allegations of other facts or information based upon fact.  I was trying to do that.  His opinion which he gave under oath, swearing to tell the truth, was of supposed facts in history.

         Am I to take it that I cannot attack those assertions of fact with a contrary submission of fact?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  What you put to the witness is not a proper question.  Would you move on to your next question, please.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  You are not assisting me very much to know what that means in relation to my question.

         Q.   In relation to your assertion that it is ominous to suggest that it would be disastrous for Jewish power, are you saying that there is no other inference that can ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Should we allow him to finish his question?

         MR. FREIMAN:  I am just objecting to the mischaracterization of what the witness said.  I don't know whether you want the witness to leave; it is such a small point.  It is something he has been trying to put in the witness' mouth for the last 15 minutes.  Being unable to do it, he now simply states it as though it has come from the witness' mouth and wants to continue from there.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am going to allow him to finish his question, and then we will decide where we go from there.

         MR. CHRISTIE:

         Q.   In relation to the term "the tribe's near-total victory," has he not identified in the previous three paragraphs that he is referring to power?

         A.   Where are we again, please?

         Q.   Exactly where we were, which was your reference to tab 28 as a reason to modify the previous tab 27.

         A.   Yes, power, dominance.

         Q.   Have you ever heard the term:  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

         A.   Power tends to corrupt, Mr. Christie; absolute power, absolutely.  Lord Acton.

         Q.   Is it appropriate to say that to apply that dictum in the context of Jewish power is ominous?

         A.   No.

         Q.   So, if this dictum is referred to as historically valid for Gentiles, can it be historically valid for Jews?

         A.   Of course it can.

         Q.   It is true that the Weimar Republic and whatever influence Jews had there had a disastrous effect, isn't it?  That is where antisemitism became lethal in the 20th century.  Isn't that right?

         A.   It has been lethal since the 12th and 13th centuries.

         Q.   In the 20th century, the lethality of antisemitism was engendered by the fall of the Weimar Republic, wasn't it?

         A.   No, it was very much a part of World War I, the Russian revolution, the civil wars that exploded out of it, and so on.

         Q.   Wouldn't you agree that Adolf Hitler exploited the power of Jews in the Weimar Republic to justify the ascendancy of national socialism?

         A.   He attacked the Weimar Republic as the Jew Republic, and so on, yes.

         Q.   And so, to give it as an example of disastrous effects for Jews, does that necessarily imply that it is desirable or expected to occur if Jewish power should be threatened again?  Is that what you are suggesting is the implication?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Hold that question in your mind, Witness.  Ms Matheson wishes to speak.

         MS MATHESON:  Mr. Chairman, in the interests of getting on with this, one does not rise on every question to which your ruling applies, but we continue to get back over and over again to matters to which your ruling applies.  I do not wish to rise over and over again, so I only say now that any question like the series that we just heard, in my respectful submission, is improper.  The Tribunal should not assume from the fact that some counsel don't get up every time that that does not continue to be at least my submission to you.

         We do want to get through this and, in the interest of doing that, I have not been rising with every question.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  We seem to be straying somewhat from what we considered an appropriate line concerning cross-examination of this witness on the basis of his opinions of what constitutes antisemitism.  With that caution, I am going to allow Mr. Christie to proceed.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Madam Reporter, do you have the question?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Do you have the question in mind, Witness?

         THE WITNESS:  He was asking me about the Weimar Republic, the unstated assumption being that the Weimar Republic was controlled by the Jews, that the Jews were inordinately powerful in it, which wasn't true.

         The antisemitism was a very important part of the propaganda attack on it.  The leading party, initially at least, had been the Social Democratic Party which was Marxist.  Some of its members were Jews; most were not.  But there wasn't anything particularly Jewish about the Weimar Republic or about the Jews being dominant in it.  It was a democratic society, and it opened doors of opportunity to Jews, to women and to other segments of the population as no German regime had done before.

         It suffered terribly from ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I don't want us to get into an extensive history of the Weimar Republic.  Can you proceed with your next question?

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   But you will concede that the perceived power of Jews, whether you say they were powerful or not ‑‑ and I am not entitled to challenge you on that.  Your perception of the perceived power of Jews in that situation was the method by which national socialists rationalized their attack on it.  Is that what you are saying?

         A.   One of them, one of their propaganda lines.

         Q.   So they destroyed the power of Jews by attacking the Weimar Republic, even though they were totally unjustified in doing so, according to you, because the Jews were just another factor in the government; they were not significant in it.  Right?

         A.   They were members of the government; they were members of German society; they were members of the German university professoriate, and so on, which is perfectly understandable in the light of what was initially a genuine democratic society.

         Q.   Wasn't it the practice of national socialists and Adolf Hitler in particular to identify the number of Jews in various positions ‑‑ among lawyers, among doctors, among professors ‑‑ wasn't that a tactic of propaganda?

         A.   Yes, it was.

         Q.   And isn't it clearly the same question that is being raised in the material you analyzed?  For example, the Clinton administration and the reference to proportions there?

         A.   That is comparing oranges to apples, it seems to me.

         Q.   Precisely.  Obviously, the results of any such pointing out would be different after the Holocaust than before it.  Right?  In the social context in which we live now?

         A.   Is that a question?

         Q.   Isn't that the truth?  We shouldn't say, "What is the truth?"

         A.   What is the truth?

         Q.   You don't know the truth?  The truth in relation to your opinion.  You have said that it is comparing apples and oranges to compare the Weimar Republic to the Clinton administration because the outcome of such comparisons would be much different after the Holocaust than before it, wouldn't it?

         A.   The outcome of this line of propaganda attack on the Weimar Republic was the Hitler regime.

         Q.   Yes, and to compare that with the Clinton situation, you said, was apples and oranges.  Why did you say that?  We will have to start there, I guess.

         A.   Because I don't see any Adolf Hitler in the wings of American politics.

         Q.   Precisely.  So to point out these powerful interests is not to invite the Holocaust in the latter half of the 20th century, with all that we have seen in the intervening social context.  I suggest to you that what it involves is a possible diminution in power and adulation to the Jewish cause.  Isn't that right?

         A.   The language is not consistent with the interpretation that you have put on it.

         Q.   How is the language different from the interpretation I have put on it?

         A.   Because the language promises, threatens, near-global disaster.

         Q.   And nothing lasts forever.  What disaster is implied then to you?

         A.   The fact that it is vague makes it that much more ominous.

         Q.   So if it is vague, it is antisemitic because it is not precise and it's ominous.

         A.   I say that these passages that we have been going over, in the setting of the Zundelsite material, those 33 tabs ‑‑ that this is ominous.

         Q.   What do you mean by "ominous?"  What do you think it threatens?

         A.   It threatens harm to Jews.

         Q.   What kind of harm?

         A.   Any kind of harm.

         Q.   And any kind of harm could include diminution of popularity?

         A.   I wouldn't consider that harm.

         Q.   How does it imply any other kind of harm?

         A.   It implies something drastic, near-global disaster.  There is no getting away from that phrase.

         Q.   And if Israel is not looked upon with adulation and if the Jewish cause is seen as just the same as other people's, from the position they are in now, wouldn't that be a disaster?

         A.   No.  I don't look upon Israel with adulation.

         Q.   You don't.

         A.   No.

         Q.   You have never said anything critical that I have heard, have you?

         A.   You didn't ask me to give my estimate of Israel's worth as a member of the community of nations.  I don't think it's relevant to these proceedings.

         Q.   You call yourself a Christian Zionist.

         A.   Yes.  That means I look with favour and satisfaction on the fact that Israel has been reborn, and I wish it well.

         Q.   And you wish it well.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   You saw nothing wrong with the position taken in the Begin remarks, that Israel should not be judged according to the standards of other nations.

         A.   I take that wrong; of course, I take it wrong.

         Q.   You don't condemn Israel for its conduct, though.  You excuse it on the basis continually of the Holocaust and the reasonable apprehension of harm that Jews always have.

         A.   I neither condone nor condemn.  I express criticism for certain aspects of its policies and actions, but I do not condemn the state, the society, as a whole.

         Q.   Why do you say, then, that you look with favour on it?  I take that to mean that you look with favour in the sense that you like it.

         A.   Yes.  I look with favour on my own country.

         Q.   Any other country besides Israel that you look with favour on?

         A.   I look with favour on Germany.

         Q.   Any other?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Let's not go too far around the world.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Thank you very much.

         Q.   If I turn to tab 7 ‑‑ I would like to know, first of all, if each of these statements in isolation to avoid antisemitism, as you have called it, would have to be excised, or does the whole thing have to be excised?

         A.   Are you referring to these highlighted passages?

         Q.   That's right.  That is what I am referring to.

         A.   Do you want me to perform some kind of surgery to cut out the antisemitic poison?

         Q.   No, I want you to answer my question.  The antisemitic poison.  Are you telling me that none of these statements in all the material you have seen must be excised in order to eliminate what you have called antisemitic poison?

         A.   That, if we took the passages that I have highlighted out, it wouldn't do much good.  The material as a whole is still antisemitic.

         Q.   The material as a whole.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   So there is absolutely nothing that has any redeeming value in the rest of the material, in your view, then?

         A.   I am not sure I would say that.  It is probably correct.  I do not put confidence in assertions that are made here, in these 33 tabs, unless I know them to be true independently.

         Q.   If you did know them to be true independently, you might put confidence in them and, therefore, they would have redeeming qualities? 

         We are not dealing with the issue of truth, but only its significance to this person's judgment.  I am sorry I mentioned "truth," but that is how it came out.  He brought it out.

         MR. FREIMAN:  It is another way of getting in the back door ‑‑

         MR. CHRISTIE:  It's just another way of bringing up the truth.  Why is truth such a problem?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Next question, please.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Can I deal with that question, or am I told not to?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Put the question again.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Can I have it read back, please.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You can ‑‑

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I don't remember it, I am sorry.  When I get into these little tête-à-têtes with Mr. Freiman, I am aware of how important it is to listen to every word he says.  I don't remember exactly how I put it, and I would like to keep it on the record.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Is the reporter able to pick that out?

‑‑- The Reporter read back as requested

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   Did you not say that, if it had truth or if you had seen that it had some truth to it ‑‑ that you didn't rely on it but that, if it had truth to it, it might have redeeming value?

         MR. FREIMAN:  No, that was the suggestion.  He said that he doesn't place any confidence in the material.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Is Mr. Freiman the witness or is the witness to answer the question?  I thought it was a fairly reasonable question.  Mr. Freiman stands up and answers it.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I think Mr. Freiman was trying to ‑‑

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Assist the witness.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  No, trying to paraphrase the answer given by the witness.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  If that is the case, he is assisting the witness.  I asked him the question as to exactly what he meant.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Fromm, please.

         MR. FROMM:  Mr. Chairman, I have counted at least 30 interruptions to Mr. Christie's questioning of this witness since this morning.  I realize that there is perhaps some reason for counsel occasionally to do this, but this seems to be harassment to the extent that no coherent line of thought can emerge.  It must be very difficult for you as a Tribunal to follow the line of questioning.  It strikes me as very unfair, the type of thing which has called Parliament into disrepute when there is this hooting and hollering and shenanigans and carrying on during Question Period. 

         I think what has been going on demeans the proceedings here.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you, Mr. Fromm.  I thought we were doing a little better this afternoon.

         Mr. Christie, please.

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   I want to understand your views of this material.  You have called it antisemitic, and you have said that it has elements of antisemitism throughout.  I would like to know:  If it had elements of truth throughout, would it, in your view, then have redeeming value and qualities that would remove it from the category of antisemitic writing?

         A.   I doubt it very much.  I can't say.  I would have to go through carefully, deliberately, from 1 to 33.

         Q.   I didn't ask you if it had.  I said "if it had."  I am asking you as a historian and as an expert in antisemitism.  As a historian, would it have redeeming value and quality if it had elements of truth in it?

         A.   I would say probably not.

         Q.   Why not?

         A.   I can't give you a blank cheque.

         Q.   I am not asking for a blank cheque, so don't take me the wrong way.  I am not asking you for your conclusion on whether or not there are elements of truth in it. 

         I am saying:  As a historian, if there were elements of truth in it, would it have redeeming value as opposed to what you have referred to as antisemitism?

         A.   I would say there are elements of truth in it, but I don't accept the second ‑‑

         Q.   I am sorry, I missed that.

         A.   I don't accept the second part of your statement.

         Q.   Which is what?

         A.   That it would have redeeming value.  That would remain to be demonstrated.

         Q.   What did you say the first part was that you agreed with?  I missed it, I am sorry.

         A.   I say that there are elements of truth in it.  I don't think they are very weighty.  I don't have any distinct memory of such things.

         In the sense that you are formulating the query to me ‑‑ if there are elements of truth in here, therefore, this would have redeeming value ‑‑ that does not follow.  It does not necessarily follow.

         Q.   Why doesn't it follow?

         A.   Because, as I said, I would have to go through the texts carefully and deliberately and establish what I think is recognized as truth and what significance they have for the overall impression that these 33 documents make on one.

         Q.   And you weren't asked to do that.

         A.   You are asking me to do it.

         Q.   Were you asked to do that in giving your evidence?  No, you weren't.

         A.   No.

         Q.   Is that correct?

         A.   I was not directed ‑‑ I was directed to read through this material and to come to a conclusion whether it contained recognizable antisemitic materials, and that is what I did.

         Q.   In fact, had you been asked to assess whether it had any redeeming values, you would have assessed any statements in it relating to statements of fact to see if they were true, and then you would have to assess whether those statements had any bearing or value in the discussion as you see it.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Were you asked to make the determination on antisemitism or not on the basis of the continuum you described?

         A.   No.  It was simply ‑‑ there was no time bracket put on it.  It was simply antisemitism.  The adjective may have been there, traditional antisemitism, but nothing more precise than that.

         Q.   Is there a distinction to be drawn between antisemitism and anti-Judaism?

         A.   Some historians do make that distinction and impart great significance and importance to that distinction.

         Q.   Who are they?

         A.   Gavin Langmuir, for example.

         Q.   What has he written on the subject?

         A.   He is the ranking authority in the world, I would say, on mediaeval antisemitism.

         Q.   In relation to this continuum of antisemitism you have mentioned many times, what is it?

         A.   What is the continuum?

         Q.   Yes.

         A.   It is simply that the antisemitic motifs ‑‑ the Jews as liars, the Jews as conspirators, et cetera, et cetera ‑‑ are used over and over and over again, transmitted generation by generation, century by century, into the 20th century.

         Q.   Surely you recognize that there have been some liars who are Jews and some Jews who are liars.  Is that right?

         A.   I never denied that.  I don't think anyone denies that.

         Q.   You don't consider it wrong for Mr. Segev to refer to Menachem Begin as a liar or Nahum Goldmann as a prevaricator.  That's no problem.

         A.   No.

         Q.   So how do you avoid identifying persons who represent Jewish groups and Jewish interests and the Holocaust in general ‑‑ how do you avoid identifying those persons as Jews?

         A.   I don't get the question.

         Q.   How do you avoid identifying those persons who identify themselves with Jewish causes, Jewish groups and the Holocaust ‑‑ how do you avoid identifying them as Jews if you want to criticize them?

         A.   I don't have any sense of the need to avoid identifying them as Jews.

         Q.   So it's okay to identify them as Jews.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   And there are some Jews who have exploited the Holocaust; is that right?

         A.   Yes, Menachem Begin in the lead.

         Q.   Indeed, it would appear that Nahum Goldmann at times exploited the image of the international Jew and the elders of Zion for his own advantage, too.

         A.   No, not for his own advantage; I suspect for the question of reparations.

         Q.   For Israel.  Right?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Is Israel a Jewish state?

         A.   Yes, I understand it to be such.

         Q.   So it is not wrong to refer to Israel as a Jewish state.  Right?

         A.   Right.

         Q.   And the Holocaust as a Jewish issue?

         A.   No.  The Holocaust, it seems to me, is a universal issue.

         Q.   Some people think it shouldn't be a universal issue.  Is that right?

         A.   There are historians who insist that the Holocaust is unique in the suffering of Jews, and the explanation simply is that for the first time in history a regime set out to destroy the Jews, in a literal sense, to the last man, woman and child, and that no other group has suffered that or been threatened with that, although other people ‑‑ the gypsies perhaps are a very close parallel.

         More and more the historiography of the Holocaust is to include all the victims of the Nazi regime, beginning with the Germans themselves from 1933 on ‑‑ gypsies, communists, social democrats, those who were epileptic and had such handicapped conditions ‑‑ and to see this as ‑‑ it is more and more the trend of Holocaust historiography as practised by the Jewish historians and non-Jewish historians to see it as a part of general history, as an indispensable part of World War II, of the 20th century, and of the history of Europe and the western world.

         Q.   Are some historians entitled to disagree with that viewpoint?

         A.   In what sense?  Historians disagree among themselves all the time.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I wonder what the purpose of this could be other than to, again ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Let me say this.  I have briefly spoken to the witness about his answers in terms of trying to be as succinct as he can.  Listen to Mr. Christie's question and, if it is capable of a succinct answer, leave it at that.

         We will take our afternoon break.  Before doing so, Mr. Fromm, I am going to ask you to cross-examine at 4:30.  Do you expect to be that long, Mr. Christie?

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I would think so, knowing that objections arise.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  There haven't been too many this afternoon.  With good behaviour on both sides, maybe we can finish your cross-examination today.

‑‑- Short Recess at 3:17 p.m.

‑‑- Upon resuming at 3:41 p.m.

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   Do you have any objective standards by which you measure this term "antisemitic" or "non-antisemitic" writings?

         A.   Objective terms as opposed to subjective terms?

         Q.   Is that a question or is that an answer?

         A.   I want the question to be put a little more precisely.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  He has asked you if you have any objective standards by which you measure antisemitism, as I understood it.

         THE WITNESS:  I don't really measure antisemitism in any quantitative sense.  The standard that I use is that it attacks Jews as Jews and sees them as a dangerous, powerful, criminal group, and so forth, in a way that in the past has brought harm to Jews and in the present and future may bring harm to Jews again.

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   So that if, objectively, the comment or statement does not attack Jews as Jews or sees them, per se, as a powerful or criminal group, then it is, by definition, not antisemitic.  Is that a fair statement?

         A.   I simply indicated some of the motifs.  There are others.  There is the Jew as the liar; there is the Jew as the conspirator, and so forth, as I set forth in the memorandum.

         Q.   So we don't have an objective definition at the moment, do we?

         A.   We have the definition that I set forth, and it appears in the memorandum.  In its simplest terms, I define antisemitism as hatred, fear and hostility for "the Jews" that results or is likely to result in harm to Jews.

         Q.   Again, I say:  If it doesn't attach or apply harm to all Jews, it would not be antisemitic.

         A.   If it does harm to some Jews, the Jews of some city or some country, that is antisemitic.

         Q.   So it doesn't have to be "the Jews;" it could be any Jews that it might harm.  It would still be antisemitic.

         A.   It certainly could be antisemitic.

         Q.   Could be or would be?

         A.   Could be and would be.

         Q.   Objectively, can't you express views that might expose some Jews to harm in some sense without being antisemitic?

         A.   Yes.  If these hypothetical Jews are guilty of crimes and would be tried and punished, that would be harm, yes.

         Q.   That is not antisemitic, then?

         A.   No.  There are criminal Jews.

         Q.   If there are Jews that are deceiving the public and they were exposed and, thereby, their popularity and influence was diminished, if those Jews were exposed, would that be antisemitic?

         A.   What is it that is being exposed?

         Q.   Let's say, for the sake of a hypothetical question, that a group of Jews had promoted a particular belief in society that was found to be unsubstantiated and, if it was objectively possible to identify what that view was and to expose it to public criticism and to expose that view in such a way that it would be rejected, would it be antisemitic to cause those Jews some harm in that sense, that their views would be no longer appreciated or regarded as true?

         A.   I wouldn't think that is harm.  That is loss of public esteem or prestige, and so forth.  I don't think that is harm, certainly not in the sense that comes to mind with antisemitism.

         Q.   In the objective sense, the harm you contemplate is harm not justified by any fact.  Is that right?

         A.   Normally, yes, that is correct.

         Q.   That is what I thought.

         Looking at tab 7, you said that you could not excise any part of that and find it had any redeeming qualities.  I want to ask you to look at it and tell me why this is either antisemitic or harmful.

         Look at the first page, for instance:

"To my friends around the world!

Summer has begun, and Canada is enjoying a beautiful season with lots of sunshine.  That's good news for us at Samisdat HQ in Toronto because we still have no roof over half of our building.

  Every time we have rain, the old bucket brigade is at work.  Temporary interior plastic sheet eaves troughs, invented by one of our clever Zundel Team members, guides the dripping, sooty mess into buckets, garbage cans etc. until the storm has passed."

         I suggest that, if you read the whole page, it is basically going on in the same tenor to explain circumstances at the residence of Ernst Zundel.  Right?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   There is nothing antisemitic or objectionable about that, is there?

         A.   I don't think so.

         Q.   So you agree that that is certainly capable of existing in a sense without harm to Jews.  Right?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   In the sense you have described.

         Then, going on to the next page ‑‑ and I will just read part of it, but I suggest that this is reflective of the whole:

"After lengthy and protracted negotiations and many independent estimates, we have come to as yet only a verbal agreement.  Next week, all should be finished by lawyers' notaries etc.  The City of Toronto Building Department has finally approved the re-building permit and we will begin to gut many of the areas on the three floors ‑‑"

Et cetera.

         Down to the words, "Revisionism is gathering steam and producing results in many unexpected ways," is there anything antisemitic in that?

         A.   In the passages up to there, I don't offhand detect any.

         Q.   Were you asked to look at these to put the whole thing in context, or not?

         A.   I was given the whole body of material, to read the whole body of material, and so I did.

         Q.   Were you asked to assess them in terms of context to see if they constituted antisemitism or just the highlighted portions?

         A.   No.  The highlighting is mine.  I was given this body of material and asked, as I said before, to go through it and to ascertain whether there were the elements of familiar, traditional antisemitism, and that is what I did.

         Q.   Can we take it, then, that any part you didn't highlight does not satisfy that criterion?

         A.   No.  What is highlighted has a special reference to the categories that are spelled out on pages 16 and 17 of the memorandum.

         Q.   You have answered my question.

         Then I must ask you:  In regard to "Media Outreach," there is nothing there that constitutes antisemitism, is there?

         A.   Glancing over it, I don't see anything.

         Q.   Under the heading, "Wanted! Internet Cowboys!

Do you have a computer?  We are looking for 'Internet cowboys' - people with computer skills who can surf the Internet and drop hints that people can find interesting information on our Website!  Don't annoy people with cross-posting - you can achieve the same effect by letting them know what interesting information you found on our Website, or by simply mentioning an article or book or dropping questions about what you read about Revisionism on our Website.  The idea is to 'ride herd' on people and to bring them into our corral.  We are convinced that once they read our stuff, they will be fascinated and stick with us.  We can make spectators into activists to help the cause of freedom of expression.

  You can also reach us on our soon-to-be-expanded North-America-wide Info-Telephone from anywhere in Canada or the US free of charge to leave a brief message.  Here is the number."

         Is there anything antisemitic in that?

         A.   I don't think so.  There need not be.

         Q.   Reading the last paragraph ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Can I suggest, Mr. Christie, that you just refer him to the paragraph?  This section is already in the evidence, I believe.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Thank you.

         Q.   Reading the last paragraph, is there anything there?

         A.   The last paragraph on which page, please?

         Q.   The third page, above "My Citizenship Status".

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  It is the third paragraph, immediately above "My Citizenship Status?"

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Right.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  The question, I take it, is:  Do you see anything wrong with that paragraph?

         MR. CHRISTIE:  That's right.

         THE WITNESS:  On the surface, there need not be, but it is trenching in that direction.  "The liars and hate-merchants of New York, Los Angeles and Hollywood" ‑‑ who are they?  That is not clear.  "They can see their lies crumble" ‑‑ that is the purveyors of the great Holocaust lie, presumably.   "They are now employing school kids who act as telephone terrorists" ‑‑ there we are getting close to the line if not across the line.  "‑‑ who send garbage messages" and so on and so forth.

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   Is that or is that not across the line?

         A.   This paragraph by itself, I would say not.  It is an internal message or a message to disciples, as it were, or would-be disciples.

         When you start using the verbal formulations, "liars and hate-merchants in New York, Los Angeles and Hollywood," that seems to me to be treading in what could become dangerous waters, especially "see their lies crumble before their very eyes" and so on, and "terrorists."

         Q.   If you have investigated the Holocaust and you genuinely don't believe in six million, gas chambers or a plan, how can you say it, according to you, without being antisemitic?

         A.   You can write a text which explains your position and the reasons, the evidence, and cites that evidence and cites it accurately and fully and deals with opposing views and interpretations and why you reject those.

         Q.   Maybe, if you looked at the whole Zundelsite, you would see that.  Right?

         A.   No, Mr. Christie, I would not see that.

         Q.   You wouldn't?

         A.   No.

         Q.   How do you know if you haven't looked?

         A.   I am sorry, I refer to the materials here.

         Q.   But the Zundelsite as a whole, the area from which you were given these materials ‑‑ you didn't extract them yourself.  Right?

         A.   No, I did not.

         Q.   In order to know whether that site, which is the subject matter of this investigation, attempts to do what you just described, you would have to look at that site to see what evidence it presented and whether it referred to opposing points of view, wouldn't you?

         A.   In the abstract, that would be an ideal thing to do.  However, I was given this material and asked to ‑‑

         Q.   I am not blaming you.

         A.   ‑‑ inquire whether the familiar, like motifs of antisemitism are here, and that is what I did.

         Q.   I understand.  But to determine if what a person who constructed the site was doing was a legitimate expression of their doubts about those issues, you would have to look at the whole site and see if they accurately set out the evidence in their support, evidence opposing them, and explained their reasoning.  Right?

         A.   Yes, that is true, but I would suggest that that is a question that should not be put to me but to the person who took this material down from the Internet.

         Q.   I understand that.  But to give context to your own opinion, to see if it met the standards you just described, you would have to know more about the Zundelsite, would you not?

         A.   No.

         Q.   If I told you there were 25,000 documents and hundreds of thousands of references and references to opposing points of view, you say that would be totally irrelevant to whether or not this expressed the doubts about the Holocaust in a reasonable way?

         A.   Again, I have not been brought here to discourse on the truthfulness or not of the Holocaust.

         Q.   I am sure you must understand that that was not my question.

         A.   That is what I understood your question to be.

         Q.   Let me make it clear, then, if you think that was my question.  It wasn't.

         My question was:  In order to assess whether the criterion you have just expressed ‑‑ that is, the legitimate way that a person could express doubts about the Holocaust, the six million, the gas chambers or a plan ‑‑ you said would be to set out all the evidence in support of the position, express the reasons for the belief, and to then designate or identify opposing points of view.

         Did I understand you correctly to say that that is the way you could express it?

         A.   Yes, and to explain why I don't accept those opposing points of view.  But that is not the inquiry that I was charged with.

         Q.   You were given a series of selected portions and asked to identify what you considered as typical of traditional antisemitism contained therein.

         A.   No, it wasn't put that way.  I was asked to read this material and to judge whether it fit the pattern of traditional antisemitism, which I have done.

         Q.   With regard to the topic "My Citizenship," there is nothing there that you would regard as antisemitic, is there?

         A.   I don't think so.  I don't quite understand that question.  It is really none of my personal business.

         Q.   You are here to assess antisemitism.  Is there anything antisemitic in the topic "My Citizenship" on the page we were just looking at?

         MR. FREIMAN:  Maybe the witness could read rather than being asked whether the topic is antisemitic.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I thought that was what he was doing.

         THE WITNESS:  I would say this is trenching on the boundaries in a couple of points.  In the first paragraph the reference at the end, "pressure that comes, perversely enough, both from the Germans and the Jews", being of course official bodies, not the common man, and so forth ‑‑ that is the wire-pulling, conspiring Jews of familiar image.

         "The German toadies" who are under the spell of the Zionist lobby ‑‑ that sort of thing fits all too readily in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion kind of image of the Jews.

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   I take it that, if there is any similarity to remarks made in The Protocols by a writer, that means that it is antisemitic.

         A.   It means, as I said, that it is trenching on that.  I use The Protocols simply as a kind of codification, of synthesis, of all of this.  It doesn't mean that a particular text has direct reference to The Protocols, although it may.

         Q.   It may.  How do we know whether it does or not?

         A.   That requires exegesis of the text.

         Q.   What is exegesis?

         A.   Exegesis?

         Q.   Yes.  Isn't that a theological term?

         A.   No.

         Q.   What does it mean?

         A.   It is taught in graduate school in history, where you learn to take a document apart, and putting the questions to it as to where it was written, why it was written, how it was written, by whom it was written, for what purpose, what is its relationship in time and place to its subject matter, are there other documents that deal with this, are they parallel or in contrast, contradictory, and so on.  That is exegesis.

         Q.   Do you do that to decide if it is antisemitic or not?

         A.   I do that with every text that comes under my eye.

         Q.   So that is your standard operating procedure.  You, as an expert, have now told us that this trenches on the line.  Which side of the line is it on?

         A.   The wrong line.  When it sees these Jews as wire-pullers and the German toadies under the spell or in the grip of Zionist lobby and "Schmutz" ‑‑ the dirty Jews are at it again ‑‑ it all fits too readily together in this antisemitic image of the Jews.

         Q.   Isn't the "Schmutz" referring to the Germans?

         A.   It's a German word.

         Q.   Isn't it referring to Germans in that context?  He is referring to these German toadies and to the Zionist lobby as "Schmutz."

         A.   I think it's the whole business.  It's the Zionist lobby and the German toadies together.

         Q.   Why do you think that, when it says:

"In Germany the simple people have a fitting word for these German toadies to the Zionist Lobby: 'Schmutz,' - meaning filth?"

         A.   I take that as one entity, these German toadies and the Zionist lobby.

         Q.   You seek to create that out of what rational analysis of that sentence?

         A.   Out of the structure of the sentence.

         Q.   Doesn't the word "Schmutz" refer to German toadies?

         A.   And the Zionist lobby.

         Q.   So it doesn't matter how the sentence is constructed; if the word "Zionist lobby" is there, you will find the meaning that you seek to give to it.

         A.   Zionist lobby is ‑‑

         Q.   Is that just Jews?

         A.   I assume it is.

         Q.   Aren't there Christian Zionists?

         A.   I don't think they are organized in lobbies.

         Q.   What is an organized lobby anyway?  Just a group of people who agree, isn't it?

         A.   No, I don't think so.  Isn't it people who meet in the corridors of legislative chambers and the offices of the civil service and try to persuade and influence them to embark on this action to pass this legislation rather than that, and so forth?

         Q.   The word "lobby" can apply to more than just that in common parlance, don't you think?

         A.   Yes, but it has a capital letter "L."

         Q.   So, because it is a capital letter "L", it must mean a group of registered people who tramp the halls of some legislature.  It cannot mean people who share the same view and seek to achieve the same end.

         A.   Of course it can mean that, but I don't think that is the intention here.

         Q.   Why don't you think that's the intention here?

         A.   As I said, because it is put with a capital "L", and these people have the German toadies in their grip.

         Q.   It would have to be, I guess, a German lobby then, would it?

         A.   Not necessarily.  The governing word is "Zionist."

         Q.   Why isn't the governing word "German?"  How do you differentiate between those two?

         A.   Because the sentence, it seems to me, is saying that the German toadies would not be toadies and they would do the right thing if they were not under the spell of the Zionist lobby.

         Q.   So, again, Zionist lobby means all Jews because why?  Because only Jews could organize a Zionist lobby?

         A.   I didn't say it means all Jews.  There are Jews who are not Zionists; there are some Jews who are anti-Zionists.

         Q.   So it doesn't apply to all Jews.  Does it apply necessarily to Jews?  Can there be Christian Zionists in a lobby as well?

         A.   Theoretically, I would think so, although I have never come upon that.  I have never been in such a lobby.

         Q.   Obviously, it depends on the facts, and you don't know the facts, and we can't be sure what it means without knowing those facts.

         A.   True, but this is the broad brush with which anti-Semites go about their business.

         Q.   So if it is vague and capable of having an antisemitic meaning, then you determine whether it is antisemitic or not by reference to who says it.  Is that right?

         A.   Then you are on your guard and you pursue the matter as best you can.

         Q.   So you agree with that assessment.  You decide that it is antisemitic not basically on the basis of what it says, but on who says it.

         A.   No.  I am talking about what is said.

         Q.   What is said there has no specific meaning referring to Jews, and it certainly doesn't include all Jews, does it?

         A.   No, I don't think so.

         Q.   So it is definitely not antisemitic, is it?

         A.   But the Zionist lobby is a Jewish group, organization or what have you of some kind.

         Q.   How do you know it's a Jewish group?

         A.   Because it is called Zionist lobby.

         Q.   You already said yourself that there could be Christian Zionists.  They could be in that lobby.

         A.   Surely.

         Q.   So how do you know that it refers to Jews?

         A.   I don't precisely know but, normally, when I see the word "Zionist," I think anyone would tend to equate it with Jews, at least predominantly.

         Q.   Why do you say that?

         A.   Because of the usage that I am familiar with in reading the daily newspaper and reading monographs, scholarly histories and so on.  The word "Zionist", "Zionist movement" and all uses of the term tends normally to Jewish groups.

         Q.   Didn't Churchill refer to himself as a Zionist?

         A.   I don't precisely know.

         Q.   Haven't all the Presidents of the United States taken the view that they are Zionists, certainly since 1948?

         A.   That may be true.  I remember, when the UN resolution condemning Zionism as racist and so forth, a lot of people ‑‑ there were so many of them that they obviously were not Jews ‑‑ were wearing buttons sporting "I am a Zionist."  If that is the sort of thing you mean, then "Zionist" can apply to non-Jews.

         Q.   And it commonly does, doesn't it?

         A.   It commonly does.

         Q.   So in that sense, to attack Zionism and to attack Zionist beliefs is not to be antisemitic by any stretch of the imagination, is it?

         A.   I don't say that.  It can be.  It can go that far; it can become that extreme.  It can gather up into itself the antisemitic ideology that I have set forth in my memorandum.

         Q.   Objectively, there is no way to identify anti-Zionism with antisemitism, is there?  It is all a matter of degree and nuance and tone and mode and speaker.

         A.   Yes.  Every text has to be judged, and one goes on from there.

         Q.   It wouldn't be a big problem if it was just a matter of judging for yourself, would it?  But when you are judging for someone else in an objective sense in a court of law or in a court of some sort under oath, don't you feel some obligation to test that in some objective fashion, as an expert?

         A.   I stand by my oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, as best I can.

         Q.   Have you ever testified as an expert before?

         A.   No, I have not.

         Q.   You have never testified in a court of law before?

         A.   No, I have not.

         Q.   As far as your expertise is concerned, has it ever been recognized before any court, tribunal or adjudicative body in the United States of America where you live or in any other country?

         A.   No, it has not.

         Q.   Going on to "The Althans Case," as an expert in history, have you ever heard of a historian giving expert opinion evidence on what is or is not antisemitism in any other court, other than this proceeding?

         A.   Yes, I have heard.  I couldn't give you specific examples.

         Q.   In the United States?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   You have no examples?

         A.   No, I don't have the examples at my fingertips.

         Q.   So as far as a special recognized sphere of expertise is concerned, do you know of any other person who has been recognized as an expert in this sphere?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   And testified about it under oath?

         A.   I don't know precisely.

         MR. KURZ:  Mr. Chair, I have to rise to object.

         This sounds to me like questions that should have been raised in voir dire.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Weight is still an issue.

         MR. KURZ:  Weight may well still be an issue, Mr. Chair, and certainly Mr. Christie could argue that everything ties into credibility.  I waited for the first few questions, but basically what we are hearing is a cross-examination that, if Mr. Christie felt was relevant, he should have done when Professor Schweitzer was qualified.  Those questions go to the weight of his qualification and whether he should be qualified at all.

         To now, in effect, divide that examination is improper, in my respectful submission.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  It seems to me, Mr. Christie, that your cross should be confined to this witness' evidence, not to re-examine an area which has to do with his qualifications to give expert evidence.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  It is trite law that the issue of the weight of an expert's opinion is very much a live issue after he has been qualified.  The standard of qualification is whether he is paritus, whether he has any expertise better than that of the Tribunal.  That doesn't determine the weight to be given to it.  It is inevitably and frequently allowed that expert opinion evidence is tested after he has been qualified to determine its weight.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  But based on his evidence.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Any evidence.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Based on his evidence-in-chief.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Any evidence can be introduced or brought to light.  Any fact that is relevant to determine the weight to be given to his testimony is permissible in cross-examination.  Certainly, if no other historian has ever been placed in the position he is in and if he has never given evidence before as an expert, it affects the weight to be given to his testimony.

         I stand by the principle that that is certainly not improper.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Go on with your next question, please.

         MR. CHRISTIE: 

         Q.   In relation to the Ewald Althans case

‑‑ are you familiar with the case?

         A.   I read it over when I got this material, but I didn't think it germane to my work, so it has drifted out of my memory.

         Q.   Is there anything antisemitic in the first four paragraphs?

         A.   I had better read them over.

         In those four paragraphs there are no references specifically to Jews, though allusions would seem to involve them.

         Q.   Are they antisemitic or not?

         A.   When you refer to so-called Holocaust casualties solely based on the perjured evidence of alleged eye witnesses and the cooked evidence, forged invoices and fudged proofs of losses, it is not clear who these people are.  Presumably they are Jews who are making the claims as Holocaust casualties.

         I would say that that is verging on the line, if it has not crossed the line.

         Q.   Certainly if it was referring to Jews, which is a matter of interpretation, you agree ‑‑ do you?

         A.   Yes, but it would seem to be a pretty clearcut inference that these Holocaust claims would be made by Jews, although ‑‑

         Q.   It certainly wouldn't be all Jews, would it?

         A.   They were not the only victims.

         Q.   It wouldn't be all Jews, would it?

         A.   No, not necessarily.

         Q.   So the question then would become whether or not there were such false claims, wouldn't it?

         A.   Yes, whether these claims were false.  The assertion here is that they are out of hand, that they are utterly false, massive fraud, and so forth.

         Q.   What it attacks is the Kohl government and the Allied-created Quisling order in post-war Germany; isn't that right?

         A.   Yes, that is the terminology.

         Q.   And it says "to save their incompetent hides and their lucrative careers, they silence the whistleblowers.  This is a classic case!."

         "They" in this context are definitely the German bureaucrats and the Kohl government.  Right?

         A.   It would seem to be, yes.

         Q.   So it is critical of them.  Then we come to the highlighted portion.  Is that right, that it is critical of them?

         A.   Yes but, as I said, the inference in the earlier paragraph is that Jews lie behind these massive frauds.

         Q.   Some Jews.  Do you agree?

         A.   Some Jews.  It leaves it very vague and nebulous as to who these people are, how many they are, and so on.

         Q.   Is it antisemitic to be vague and nebulous?

         A.   Not necessarily.

         Q.   Can we determine in some objective fashion when being vague and nebulous would be antisemitic and when it wouldn't?

         A.   We would have to have the text.

         Q.   We have the text.  How can we tell here?

         A.   On the basis of this, it would seem to me that the evidence is not sufficient to convict of antisemitism, although the possibility is clearly there.

         Q.   The possibility is there.  Now we come to the conclusion of what the problem is.  It says:

"The problem is, very simply, that the German oligarchy and the Jewish/Zionist/Marxist racketeers who have conned the Germans, the Americans and, for that matter, the whole world with their Holocaust extortion scheme, are both dependent for their own survival on the non-exposure of this fraudulent, parasitic enterprise."

         That is antisemitic, according to you.

         A.   Yes.  There we have almost the whole gamut, or a large portion of the antisemitic gamut.

         Q.   We have been over Segev's work and talked about the subject of ‑‑ we hadn't finished it, but I suggest to you that if you want ‑‑ you have read it, haven't you?  I gave you the copy and you have read it over?

         A.   I read the Manhattan College Library text, which I have with me.

         Q.   Whatever you read, you are familiar with the text, are you?

         A.   Fairly familiar, yes.

         Q.   And you agree with me that in there it is clearly indicated that Yad Vashem, for instance, had started making lists of Holocaust victims and got up to three million.  Mr. Nahum Goldmann said that it was improper to make a list because they would never get up to the six million.  That wasn't antisemitic ‑‑ oh, we have a parade.  I had better stand down.

         MR. KURZ:  The reason there is what Mr. Christie calls a parade is that he cannot see me rise, and I have to approach in order to speak.

         I think, again, we are getting very close to your ruling.  Mr. Christie is referring to facts that he alleges come from Mr. Segev's book.  Again, I refer you to your ruling.  We will be here forever if Mr. Christie wants to continue to deny that your ruling exists and feels that he has carte blanche to ask questions about truth, notwithstanding anything that the Tribunal has ruled.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Do any other counsel want to speak?  Mr. Christie, please.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I didn't finish my question.  I was trying to avoid having to read the text, but I guess, if I have to, I will.  It might take more time.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Just refer to the text.  Point the witness to the text that you want to refer to.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  My purpose is to point out certain statements in the historical context.

         Q.   At page 425:

"By the fall of 1990 fewer than three million names were on file.  Somewhere in the minutes of a board meeting one can find Nahum Goldmann' contention that such a list should not even be started, since it could never contain a full six million names and so would give neo-Nazis cause to argue that six million were not murdered.  Such an outcome would cause great embarrassment, the president of the World Jewish Congress warned the Yad Vashem board, since the six million figure served as the basis for the reparations and compensation agreements with Germany."

         Is that an antisemitic statement?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Consequently, to point out those discrepancies would not be antisemitic, would it?

         A.   No.

         MR. FREIMAN:  Again, this is exactly what Mr. Christie keeps saying he is not going to do, and he does.  The purpose of this question is not to ask whether Mr. Segev's quote is antisemitic or not.  He immediately takes it to the next level and asks why, if that is not antisemitic and it talks about historical facts, it is not antisemitic.  That is exactly what this Panel has ruled cannot be done.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  He has put the question on the basis of whether the particular statement is antisemitic.  The answer is "no."

         Move on to the next question, please.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  And I asked the question as to whether to put that statement is itself antisemitic, and he said "no."  To point out this discrepancy, I said, would not be antisemitic, and he said "no."

         Q.   Turning to page 426 of Mr. Segev's work, the footnote at the bottom says:

"The six million figure ‑‑"

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Can you just refer him to it?  Is this an exhibit?  It is not an exhibit.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  It should be.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Just proceed.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Could it be, please?

         MR. FREIMAN:  I object to random parts of the text being introduced as though they constitute some coherent text.  These are artificially chosen excerpts, often wrenched out of context, with a passage that utterly contradicts the earlier section or explains the earlier section being omitted.  To be introduced as an exhibit on its own would be monumentally irresponsible and would not represent what the text says.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  The textbook should not be an exhibit.  You can refer, as you have, in the course of cross-examination to portions of the textbook that you want to put to this witness.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I would like to have had the opportunity to submit to you that it is appropriate to test this witness' opinion in respect of antisemitism by reference to any text, even whether he is familiar with it, because he, of course, is determining what is or is not antisemitic.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You have our ruling on that.  Please proceed.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  But, the reference to these passages in the text should be clearly on the record and they should be part of the exhibits to these proceedings.  It is quite unfair and typical of the position taken that we are being frustrated in preparing and presenting the defence in the case.

         If it is not going to be an exhibit, then I must read it into the record, because I want it on the record.

         Q.   At page 426:

"The six million figure received canonical status only gradually.  Right after the war one could still hear the phrase 'more than five million,' and one Knesset member spoke in 1950 of seven million.  The Yad Vashem Act (1953), which chartered the institute, cites the six million figure, but draft versions of the law said simply 'millions.'  There was a debate over whether to give legal status to the number of victims, or to leave the subject to the historians.  In his opening statement at the Eichmann trial, Attorney General Gideon Hausner said that he was representing 'six million accusers,' but the charge sheet stated that Eichmann was culpable in the deaths of 'millions of Jews,' without stating a precise number.  The verdict also avoided specific figures and used the phrase 'some six million.'"

         Is it antisemitic to point out those discrepancies?

         A.   No.  These are just sources, some of them historians, some of them not, who disagree over the number of victims.  There is a problem with the way of reckoning.  That is all that amounts to.

         Q.   Is it antisemitic to say that these figures have now received canonical status?

         A.   "Canonical" is a very loose usage.  The figure of six million is repeatedly used, and it is common usage.  It is just as appropriate to say as "canonical."

         Q.   Is it antisemitic to refer to it as canonical figures or not?

         A.   That is Tom Segev's phrase.  I don't particularly like it, but I don't have any objection to it.

         Q.   It is not antisemitic then?

         A.   I wouldn't think so.

         Q.   It implies, does it not, that the Holocaust has been turned into a religion?

         A.   Yes, that is what was in my mind when I answered your previous question, and that is why I would have misgivings about it.

         Q.   But it is not antisemitic to say that it has been turned into a religion, is it?

         A.   It depends upon ‑‑ assuming that the Holocaust has been turned into a religion, opening sentence.  What is the next paragraph, the next chapter, the next book to which that is an opening?

         Q.   That's a question, not an answer.  Could you answer my question.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I think it is responsive.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  It is quite obvious.

         Q.   Turning to page 464, I would like to refer to the footnote at the bottom of that page:

"In similar fashion, any denial of the Holocaust would be seen as an attempt to challenge the right of Israel to exist. 'There is a world conspiracy, financed by those who hate Israel, whose goal is to twist the historical truth about the Holocaust,' warned one member of the Knesset.  In July 1981 the Knesset passed a law that prohibited the denial of the Holocaust:  'The publication, in writing or orally, of work that denies the acts committed during the period of the Nazi rule, which are crimes against the Jewish people or crimes against humanity, or that downplay their dimensions with the intention of defending those who committed these crimes or of expressing support for or identification with them is liable to five years' imprisonment.  A proposal to impose ten years' imprisonment was not accepted.  Thus the extermination of the Jews was no longer a subject for the historians; it was almost as if it had been uprooted from history itself and had become a national doctrine of truth, protected by law, somewhat similar in legal status to religious faith.  Indeed, in one way the Holocaust has even a higher status than religion:  The maximum punishment for 'crass injury' to religious sensibilities or tradition ‑‑ including, presumably, any denial of God's existence ‑‑ is one year in prison."

         Is it antisemitic to say that?

         A.   I don't think ‑‑ this is ‑‑

         Q.   Is it antisemitic?

         A.   Just a moment.  He begins by saying that any denial of the Holocaust would be seen as an attempt to challenge the right of Israel to exist by some spokesmen, some quarters, and so forth, and he gives the example of the Knesset speaker, which I think is just wrong.  But it's politics.  It's the misuse, which is intentionally one of Segev's purposes in this book, to diagnose or expose the misuse of the Holocaust as a political weapon in the politics of Israel.

         Then the legislation is a matter of their politics, but the more important passage is toward the end where he says:  "Thus the extermination of the Jews was no longer a subject for the historians."  I submit that Tom Segev is just absolutely wrong on that.  The works that I mentioned earlier by Dina Porat ‑‑

         Q.   What was the title of that book?

         A.   Dina Porat's book was written after this one, so he can't cite it.  It was called "The Blue and Yellow Star of David."

         Q.   Who published that?

         A.   I don't know offhand.

         Q.   You say it was published in 1998?

         A.   No, it was published after this book.

         Q.   And Dina Porat is spelled D-i-n-a  P-o-r-a-t?

         A.   Correct.

         Q.   You say it was published in Israel?

         A.   No.  It may have been published in Israel, but it has been published in English in the western world, I am not sure where.  I could probably find that.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Christie, I am going to pause there to allow Mr. Fromm to cross-examine.  Depending on how long he takes, we may be continuing after he has finished.

         Mr. Fromm, please.

         MR. FROMM:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION


         MR. FROMM:

         Q.   Professor Schweitzer, I would like to know if you have read any of the writings or met personally a mentor of mine, the late Father E.A. Sinan.

         A.   No, I don't know him, but I know a book that he did.  He was a mediaevalist, and he did a book on mediaeval papal documents with regard to the Jews with the Latin and the English translation.  It's a work that I highly value.

         Q.   The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   One of your main areas of emphasis was antisemitism in the Middle Ages ‑‑

         A.   Correct.

         Q.   ‑‑ in the piece you wrote, "Mediaeval Perceptions of Jews and Judaism?"

         A.   Correct.

         Q.   In the opening part of your memorandum you put considerable emphasis and analysis on the format antisemitism took in the Middle Ages.

         A.   Correct.

         Q.   From the passages you have been given to read from the Zundelsite, were you able to determine whether the Zundelsite accuses Jews of being Christ-killers?

         A.   I don't remember that specific accusation.  What I do remember is the criminality of Jews which stems from the accusation of Jews as Christ-killers.

         Q.   But in your testimony, the nature of antisemitism in the Middle Ages was essentially a religious one, based on a perception of Jews.

         A.   Correct.

         Q.   Do you see any religious basis in the writings on the Zundelsite?  Are there any religious accusations against Jews?

         A.   Not that I can recall offhand.  There are some sorts of echoes, but it is essentially secular antisemitism.  It is mediaeval, religious antisemitism secularized.

         Q.   But surely, if there are no references to the Jews as Christ-killers or the Jews bearing any religious guilt for the events around the time of Christ, this is not consistent with mediaeval antisemitism.

         A.   No, but you misunderstood me.  The connection is that antisemitism, mediaeval and modern, makes the Jews a criminal people, archcriminals, a criminal race and so on.  The reason that they are an archcriminal people is their commitment of the murder of Christ, of the crucifixion, the inexpiable crime according to St. John Chrysostom.

         Q.   Even in this mediaeval religious antisemitism, there was no way a Jew could escape from this opprobrium, was there?

         A.   There was, by conversion.

         Q.   So ceasing to be a Jew.  But one could not remain a Jew and not share in this inexpiable guilt.

         A.   Yes, they would be exposed to that.

         Q.   If I understood your comments correctly in direct examination, you teach a course in genocide, do you?

         A.   I do.

         Q.   What is the subject matter of that course?

         A.   About 50 per cent is the Holocaust, which includes the gypsies.  The other portion of the course is the Armenians.  I give other examples of the Biafrans, Polpot, and sometimes I have included the people of East Timor who were overridden by the Indonesian government when Portugal renounced its colonial empire.  Some of the examples vary according to topical interest.

         Q.   Leaving aside the 50 per cent of the course dealing with the Holocaust, the other examples of genocide all would refer to numbers under two million?

         A.   With the exception of the Armenians.  The toll may there be, in the span from 1894-95 to 1922-23, as high as two and a half million.

         Q.   In your course, do you make any reference to the ethnic cleansing of the ethnic Germans or the Volkdeutsch from eastern Europe from 1944 to 1950?

         A.   I do.  My aunt and her family were part of that exodus, so I know it firsthand from her.

         Q.   So when I ask you if there were others, in addition to the Holocaust, you would include that as well in your course?

         A.   Yes, and I start that with a quotation from Churchill in his Iron Curtain address in 1946, complaining and criticizing that.  That is the departure for my inquiry.

         Q.   Did I understand you correctly to say that undermining the legitimacy of the State of Israel would be antisemitic, that that was one type of antisemitism?

         A.   Yes, I would be afraid that that would be true.

         Q.   I take it that you would agree that not all Jews are Zionists.

         A.   Oh, absolutely.  Some are anti-Zionists.

         Q.   Jews who are anti-Zionist, in some cases, consider the political State of Israel an abomination.  Would that be correct?

         A.   Yes, they use such terms.

         Q.   Would such Jews be antisemitic?

         A.   I don't know.  They live there.  I would have to ask them.  I don't know.

         Q.   But that view, I take it, is largely a religious view that the State of Israel is an abomination.  Would that be antisemitic?

         A.   I would tend to think so.  They are awaiting the Messiah to come on wings of heavenly glory and, in the meantime, they just sit.

         Q.   So those Jews who hold the view that the State of Israel is a political creation and a religious error would be antisemitic?

         A.   Yes, I would tend to designate them as such.

         Q.   Are you saying that only Zionists are good Jews?

         A.   Oh, no, I am not saying that these anti-Zionist Jews are not good Jews.

         Q.   But they are antisemitic.  That is, they hate themselves?

         A.   I am afraid that in history there is a number of examples of antisemitic Jews.  The pressure on Jews has been so demeaning that, as Haimish Hainan in his witty, sardonic way said, "Judaism is not a religion; it's a misfortune," which he had to escape and, by conversion, try to get a passport or something to that effect into the modern world.  There have been Jews, I would say, at least since the Enlightenment who ‑‑

         Q.   You live in New York city?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Do you know any anti-Zionist Jews?

         A.   No, not to my knowledge.  I don't know that many Jews.

         Q.   Would you see anti-Zionism as simply a branch of Jewish thought?

         A.   Yes.  It is a religious conception that Israel will be reborn, that the Messiah will come, all by the intervention of Heaven.

         Q.   While there may well be other factions within Judaism, there are at least two.  There is a large Zionist faction and probably a somewhat smaller anti-Zionist faction.  Would this, in a sense, be comparable to the fact that there are American capitalists who are a subset of the American population and there are American trade unionists who are another subset and they are at each other's throats sometimes?

         A.   Yes.  The bitterness can be quite extreme, with throwing stones at cars being driven on the Sabbath Day and that kind of thing.  That strikes me as bizarre behaviour, born of a religious compunction.

         Q.   In your testimony ‑‑ and I want to make sure I heard this correctly.  I have you saying that one of the themes of antisemitism is that the communist revolution was Jewish-manufactured.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   This is a theme that you find in the Zundelsite.  Am I correct?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   You made mention of tab 20, the second page.

         A.   If I may say, the page we are just looking at:

"The problem is, very simply, that the German oligarchy and the Jewish/Zionist/Marxist racketeers who have conned the Germans ‑‑"

That is another passage.

         MR. FREIMAN:  At tab 7.

         MR. FROMM:  Thanks for the help.  I was particularly looking not at Marxism, but at the Bolshevik Revolution.

         Q.   At tab 20, page 2, the highlighted section is:

"The fact is that the Jewish Lobby - or the Israeli Lobby, as some like to call it - have long had a deliberate policy of lying to non-Jewish Americans.  They lied to us about Hitler and about National Socialist Germany, because they wanted America to go to war with Hitler to destroy this threat to their schemes.  They have lied to us about their own role in setting up the Communist conspiracy, which spread out of London and New York to Russia and from there to other countries until it engulfed half the earth and consumed tens of millions of human lives."

         That is how you tied the Zundelsite ‑‑

         A.   That is a statement of that thesis that communist is just Judaism with a little philosophical tinsel thrown over it, and the Bolsheviks were Jews.  Adolf Hitler said that.

         Q.   There is a spectrum, though, is there not?  On one extreme there is the view that no communists were Jews, and the complete other extreme that communism was entirely Jewish.

         A.   Both are wrong.

         Q.   At what point would the observation that Jews played a considerable role in the Russian revolution cease being a statement somewhere on the spectrum and become antisemitic?

         A.   I am sorry, I don't follow your question.

         Q.   There is a spectrum going from no Jews were communists to the communist revolution being an entirely Jewish creation, and many views along the way.  At what point would the observation that there was Jewish participation in the Russian revolution become antisemitic?

         A.   I think the extreme that you indicated, which I dismiss simply on historical grounds as being historically false ‑‑ that is the accusation that is made, that, if not 100 per cent, then a very high percentage of them were Jewish.  As a matter of fact, the percentage of Jews among the revolutionaries is high, given their proportion in the population at large, but it is lower than that of other minorities in the Russia of the czars.  The bulk of the revolutionaries, going back to the 1870s and 1880s, were drawn from the disaffected minorities.  Stalin is an example from Georgia, being Exhibit A.

         Again, Jews were disproportionate to their numbers in the population at large, represented among the Bolsheviks, but the minorities ‑‑ Armenians, Georgians, et cetera ‑‑ accounted for the highest proportion of the revolutionaries.

         Q.   According to your testimony, then, it would not necessarily be antisemitic to take note of the fact that Jews were disproportionately involved among the revolutionaries in Russia.

         A.   Yes, with that qualification of among the minorities.

         Q.   The passage, though, that you cite as an example of this theme of antisemitism, leaving aside the earlier rhetoric, says:  "They have lied to us about their own role in setting up the Communist conspiracy."  Does that, in fact, say that the Russian revolution or the communist conspiracy was entirely Jewish?

         A.   I must confess that I absolutely don't know what that means.  This is historically laughable, this whole paragraph.

         Q.   Whether it is laughable or not, the particular statement, "They lied to us about their own role in setting up the Communist conspiracy" ‑‑ is that, in fact, antisemitic?

         A.   No, I don't think so.  I don't think Jews denied having a role in the communist revolution.

         Again, Trotsky is the leading example.  They were Jews certainly, but what kind of Jews were they?  Trotsky mocked Jews as Jews; he was an antisemitic Jew.  He mocked Zionism, mocked any kind of religious belief or practice, so he was, in the phrase of one historian of the Russian revolution, a non-Jewish Jew.

         Q.   The passage, though, that you cited does not in fact say that Jews created the communist revolution, simply that they had a role.  You admit that that is not factual, not true.

         A.   Not necessarily antisemitic.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I know Mr. Fromm is trying to abide by the guidelines, but I think he is beginning to stray right into the same issue that Mr. Christie was ‑‑ that is, is it true or is it not true?  That is not a matter of any interest to this Tribunal.  We can see us going down this slippery slope again.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I have a point to make in regard to that question.

         At no time did Mr. Fromm ask him about truth or falsity; he asked him about the character of the statement on a spectrum of various statements about Jews being involved in the Bolshevik Revolution.  Mr. Freiman is quite unhelpful and inaccurate in telling you otherwise.  In fact, I suggest that, when he sees an answer that is about to cause him embarrassment about to occur, he stands up to make sure that it doesn't get said, and usually fairly successfully.

         Let me point out another aspect of this case which is so totally unfair, and I would like you to think about this.

         Your ruling has rendered it impossible for us to question the assertions of fact about history that this witness has made repeatedly, both in-chief and in cross, the last being a classic example of his views about what Trotsky did or did not do, what Trotsky was or was not.  Your ruling has made it impossible for us to question that, to challenge that or even to refute it because, of course, Mr. Freiman's ready observation is that it raises that as a fact.

         The witness is allowed to say what he likes about fact, and we are never allowed to challenge it.  That is the problem with your ruling as it relates to everything where truth is an issue.  It is quite unfair.

         MR. FREIMAN:  May I just comment on a couple of aspects of that?

         First of all, what Mr. Fromm said specifically was:  You will agree that the statement that Jewish involvement in the Russian revolution was not factually correct, and that is where I got up, at the moment when he said "factually incorrect," so we were dealing with truth.

         Then, when we get to the wider complaint about how hamstrung the Respondent's team is, the reality is that he has been given the widest possible discretion to go through totally irrelevant areas.  We have sat and sat and sat, and we get up when he moves into areas that the Panel has said will not be of any assistance.  The kind of questioning that he now thinks will be of assistance is paradigmatic.  It is the building up of a straw man.

         Why is Professor Schweitzer dealing with facts about the Bolshevik Revolution?  Because Mr. Fromm asked him to deal with facts about the Bolshevik Revolution.  That is precisely the collateral fact rule.  If you get into an area that is outside any matter of relevance in the proceedings, you take the witness' answer ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You are stuck with the answer.

         MR. FREIMAN:  You are stuck with it, and that is why you can't challenge it.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  It was never totally irrelevant when Dr. Schweitzer was speaking in-chief about his views of history.  He gave us statements of fact and he told us what the truth in history was, and now your ruling and the extension of it made over and over again by Mr. Freiman prevents questioning on that very point.

         Why was it relevant if it was evidence-in-chief, but it is not relevant to challenge it in cross?  Obviously your ruling has been taken far beyond what is inherently necessary from the text of it and is now being applied to even the challenging of his statements of fact.

         MR. KURZ:  Mr. Chair, I don't want to unduly prolong this, but there are two quick points that I want to make.

         This is probably the eighth or ninth time today that Mr. Christie has, in effect, asked you to overrule your ruling.  I am submitting that that is improper.

         Second, with regard to the conduct of these objections, Mr. Christie objects every time that Mr. Freiman says what he thinks, or what have you, and then he launches into an ad hominem attack on counsel, usually Mr. Freiman.  That seems to me quite improper.  I would ask that Mr. Christie not make personal attacks about what other counsel are doing, especially as he is asking for the same on his behalf.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  The Tribunal ‑‑

         MR. CHRISTIE:  I object to the statements made by Mr. Kurz because ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Excuse me, Mr. Christie.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  ‑‑ I have never made any personal attack.  I have never made any personal attack that has not been made first upon me.  I have responded in kind.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Christie and other counsel, these flourishes exposed before the Tribunal are of absolutely no assistance to the Tribunal.  There seems to be some misunderstanding of our ruling, which I think was expressed with the utmost clarity.

         My colleague Devins has just made a point to me, which I think bears repeating.

         MEMBER DEVINS:  My point was solely the distinction ‑‑ of course, on cross-examination you are entitled, as anybody is, to test the credibility and test the facts that were asserted on examination-in-chief.  As I understood the argument and the nature of the objections that have been made now and our ruling, it goes to testing the truth or the proof of the facts underlying the statements made on the Zundelsite.  There is a distinction there that perhaps has been missed.

         That is certainly how I had understood the objections to date.  It is the truth of the statements made on the Zundelsite, which are sought to be proved, as opposed to the accuracy or the facts that were asserted in examination-in-chief and, for example, found at tab 5.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Or, for example, in an answer like the last one?  It seems to me that is what raised the issue in my mind.  The witness was saying something about Trotsky which you seem to think was relevant.  If he says something like that, can we raise a contradictory position or points to him?

         MEMBER DEVINS:  Perhaps the Chair can address that because I think that goes to the issue that was subsequently raised with respect to collateral facts.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am going to ask Mr. Fromm to continue.

         MR. FROMM:

         Q.   Are you aware of a book by Professor Kevin MacDonald called "Separation and its Discontents?"

         A.   Say the title again.  I don't think so.

         Q.   "Separation and its Discontents:  Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Antisemitism."

         A.   No, I am not.

         Q.   You are cited in one of the footnotes.

         Are you aware that the American Jewish Congress in the 1920s and 1930s was very, very concerned about the high level of participation of American Jews in the communist movement?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am afraid that is not an appropriate question, Mr. Fromm.

         MR. FROMM:

         Q.   It was your testimony, was it not, Professor Schweitzer, that the contents of the Zundelsite that had been brought to your attention were a form of lethal antisemitism?

         A.   State the question again, please.

         Q.   The passages from the Zundelsite that were brought to your attention constituted lethal antisemitism?

         A.   Yes.  To be clear, the 33 tabs were given to me without any characterization, but simply the instruction to read through and find, if any ‑‑

         Q.   No.  I am asking: Was it your conclusion that ‑‑

         A.   Yes, they are potentially lethal.

         Q.   Potentially lethal.

         A.   Yes, on the ground that this kind of attack has been made in the past and has caused harm to Jews, so the danger is that history will repeat itself.

         Q.   It was also your testimony that, although you had looked briefly on two occasions at the Zundelsite, you are not aware of all that is on that site.

         A.   Not at all.

         Q.   Basically, you are aware of the 33 passages that were given to you to read.

         A.   That is right.

         Q.   Are you aware of any program that the Zundelsite has?

         A.   What program?

         Q.   A program.  It expresses many views on contemporary and past history, but does it have any sort of program?

         A.   The only program I could infer would be the antisemitic one that comes across from these 33 tabs.

         Q.   So people might read these passages.  What are they recommended to do about what they have read, from what you have been able to see?

         A.   The conclusion I draw is that the Jews are a danger and that we had better take some drastic action.  They are reported at some stage as to be on the verge of the complete triumph or domination or whatever, and we are just going to nip that in the bud.  That, to me, is ominous.  That is "the day of reckoning" passages that we looked at earlier.  That frightens me.  If I were Jewish and knew this sort of thing was being directed at the people of whom I am a member, that would give me nightmares.

         Q.   Are you able to point to anything that readers are encouraged to do, though, with this information or this historical refutation that they have been provided with?

         A.   Imperatives to the readers?

         Q.   Yes.

         A.   No.  The operator of the Zundelsite is going to do this ‑‑ the initiators of the day of truth or the ushers of the day of truth, and so forth.

         Q.   In point of fact, though, what is on the Zundelsite, at least what you have been able to see, is simply a series of expressions of view.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Is there any action advocated that readers or viewers are encouraged to take?

         A.   There is no direct action, but it is implicit when you come to the kind of passage that I referred to a moment ago, about their being on the verge of being in control, taking over, and so forth, and that we have to move now before it is too late.

         Q.   Who has to move now?

         A.   We who are the victims of Jewish domination and control and extortion and so on.

         Q.   Is there any indication of what sort of move that would be?

         A.   No.  The fact that it is so vague, it seems to me, makes it worse, more ominous.  "The day of reckoning" is a term that is used several times over, and the term about the "dark forces."  That all adds up to a very grim, foreboding outlook, in my view.

         Q.   Did you see anything in the passages you read that would suggest anything other than simply wider distribution of a particular point of view leading to a change in the acceptance or the perceived domination of a particular group or faction?

         A.   It is a series of attacks on Jewish domination.  Again, the inference is, pretty pointedly, that something has to be done about this.

         Q.   But that something is not spelled out, is it?

         A.   No.  Typically, The Protocols paint this ominous picture.  They don't spell out the action that is to be taken to avert this.

         Q.   Are there exhortations to violence in the passages you read from the Zundelsite?

         A.   I would think so, if I had the leisure to go through them systematically.  My memory is that, again, this being true, something drastic has to be done.  It's a warrant for extreme action.

         Q.   Might that extreme action simply be nothing more than replacing politicians susceptible to what is perceived to be the Holocaust Promotion Lobby?

         A.   Theoretically, I would agree to that.  But, if that is your aim and purpose, then go into politics in one of the existing parties or organize a new party of your own.

         Q.   You have indicated that you are not a historian of contemporary American history but that you are well read.  You have read enunciations from time to time of the domination of American society by multinational corporations or capitalists.

         A.   Yes, capitalists and big business.

         Q.   Is the implication of those enunciations that workers should rise up and burn down General Motors?

         A.   No, not these days certainly.  It is that they ought to co-operate and work out labour agreements, profit-sharing agreements and that sort of thing.

         Q.   In fact, to seek a political realignment that will give them more power and U.S. capitalism less power.  Is that not ‑‑

         A.   Give them more power and income and guaranteed jobs.  I don't know that it follows that capitalists slip in any way.

         Q.   Do you see anything in the passages you read from the Zundelsite that would suggest anything different, that at some point in the future people of those views ought to organize to see a realignment of influence and power?

         A.   No, he doesn't say that.  He doesn't hold out a hand of "let's conclude an agreement or negotiate or discuss" and so on.  I see belligerence and hostility along the lines that I was saying previously ‑‑ these dark powers on the verge of taking over.

         Q.   But no advocacy of violence.

         A.   The trouble with antisemitic treatises is that the author is not necessarily the one who carries out the warrant, the injunction, and does the bloody, cruel work.

         Q.   In your testimony, though, about mediaeval antisemitism, you said that in many cases there were clearcut injunctions to do harm to Jews, because they were beyond the pale, because they were Christ-killers.

         A.   Yes, although with the critical limitation that I indicated, that the Jews remained theologically necessary to Christendom as the people of the Old Testament, the people of the promises and the prophets and so forth, and they were the witness people.  They had to survive to the end of time as a great in-gathering in a humiliating, remnant kind of way.  It was a dual policy.  There was an awful lot of massacre and ill-treatment of Jews, but there was also a certain measure of restraint, as I indicated when I referred to St. Bernard of Clairveau.

         Q.   Those authors of antisemitic writings of that time gave their followers in many cases a pretty clear program of what to do about the views.

         A.   Yes.  Often the injunction is to forcibly baptize them and to give them the choice ‑‑ the baptismal fount or the executioner.

         Q.   In the passages you read from the Zundelsite, there were no such admonitions.

         A.   No.

         Q.   I would like to call your attention to tab 29.  This is part of a larger passage about the attempt to get money from the Swiss banks, et cetera.  The highlighted portion says:

"Where will this end?  I fear for the 'little Jew' who has no voice and no say in this matter, but ultimately will have to suffer the fallout!"

         Does this not make a distinction between whatever might be called the Holocaust Promotion Lobby and all Jews?  The author, whoever he or she might be, of this is indicating a concern for those Jews who are not part of the lobby, who may suffer similarly because they happen to be Jews.

         A.   Yes, the little Jew.  That is the lone statement, it seems to me, where one segment of the Jews is set off as, one would almost call them, innocent and shouldn't suffer.  It seems to me that it is out of step with the rest of the 33 tabs.

         Also, I am reminded that the "little Jews" are cited in antisemitic texts such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as coerced by the big Jews, like the Bronfmans in the previous paragraph, and that antisemitism is a bogey manufactured by those big Jews just to keep the little Jews in line.

         My reading of this passage would be to fit it in that kind of context.  As I say, if this is interpreted as meaning a concern for the little Jews, it seems to me that it is an exception to the rule that prevails in these 33 tabs.

         Q.   But you will admit that you were only given a small portion of what is on the Zundelsite.  Whether or not there are other expressions of concern for Jews who may not be part of the Holocaust Promotion Lobby, you are in no position to testify.

         A.   I will agree.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Fromm, you are a little over your estimated time, and I wonder how long you are going to be.  I would like you to finish if you can.

         MR. FROMM:  Five minutes.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Thank you.

         MR. FROMM:

         Q.   Finally, in characterizing antisemitism, you used the terms ‑‑ and I don't know if I have this pronounced correctly ‑‑ chimeria.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   I think you define that on page 2 of your memorandum as a lapse into the irrational and into the illicit.

         A.   Yes, illicit reification.

         Q.   Then on page 17 of your memorandum you refer to "malignant fantasizing places Jews in a category distinctly different from normal humanity."

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   In previous cross-examination you agreed that there is considerable Jewish representation in American political life, in the Clinton administration.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   In your study of Christian-Jewish relations, would you agree that over the last 50 years there has certainly been a lessening of tensions, at least in the United States?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Would blatantly antisemitic expressions be readily carried in mainline publications like the New York Times?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Or on mainline TV, CBC and CNN?

         A.   No.

         Q.   Would you not agree, then, that, if what is on the Zundelsite is chimerical and malignant fantasizing ‑‑ if, indeed, it is that ‑‑ it would have very little credibility or currency in the United States today?

         A.   Yes, to the audience of the New York Times and so on, but there are other audiences in Idaho and so on.

         Q.   Are you saying these are the stupid ones?

         A.   No.  These are anti-Semites who tell you that Jews have horns and that sort of thing.

         Q.   Are there a lot of such people?

         A.   I haven't been out to Idaho recently, but they seem to be thick there on the ground.  There are on some of the local radio and TV stations in the middle west all kinds of pipings about the Jews as Satan's agents and bent on doing his work of the destruction and ruination of human souls and so on and so forth.  They are out of the Middle Ages.

         I am afraid that I have to stand by the phrase "malignant fantasizing."  That is certainly what comes from parts of Kansas.

         Q.   But given what you have agreed is a great improvement in Christian-Jewish relations in the United States at least and certainly a very significant position and influence in American society, if indeed what is on the Zundelsite is malignant fantasizing and chimerical material, is there really any lethal danger?

         A.   It doesn't take many people to do lethal things on a broad scale.  Some of these vigilante groups that one reads about, the militias and so forth, armed to the teeth and so on ‑‑ I don't have any confidence that Jews or any other target ‑‑ Blacks, Asians and so forth ‑‑ are safe because they are relatively ‑‑

         Q.   We are not going to talk about the militias.  Are there any passages in the material that you were given to examine that advocate the breaking of the law ‑‑ harm to Jews, harm to Jewish property, or harm to anybody?

         A.   No.  There is not ‑‑

         Q.   Thank you.

         A.   I must give a full answer. 

         The implication of this material is that it should be done and that someone else will take it upon themselves to carry out that mission.


         THE CHAIRPERSON:  We will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow.

         MR. FREIMAN:  Before we adjourn, I don't want to be caught without a witness.  I wonder if Mr. Christie could give us an estimate as to whether he will be completing the cross-examination tomorrow so that we know whether to bring the next witness in from Ottawa.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Subject to what Mr. Christie has to say, I would think that you should have your witness on call for tomorrow.

         MR. FREIMAN:  Perhaps Mr. Christie could confirm that, because it is expensive for the taxpayers to ferry people back and forth.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Mr. Christie...?

         MR. CHRISTIE:  In view of the difficulty as to what is permissible and what is not, I can't give you a very clear estimate of how far I can go.  If it involves going to the factual assertions of the doctor's statements in-chief and his statement in his Memorandum on Lethal Antisemitism, if I can challenge the facts that he asserts there, I may or may not be finished tomorrow.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  That is as far as we can go at the moment.

‑‑- Whereupon the Hearing was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

    to resume on Tuesday, May 26, 1998 at 10:00 a.m.