-Caveat Lector-
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
21ST-CENTURY HATE
The Return of Anti-Semitism
To be against Israel is to be against the Jews.
BY HILLEL HALKIN
Tuesday, February 5, 2002 12:01 a.m.
"I have awakened to anti-Semitism these days," wrote the American
Jewish
author Jonathan Rosen in an article in the New York Times Magazine
last
November.
An odd statement for someone as well-versed as he in Jewish matters.
What
Jew, less than a lifetime after the Holocaust, should have to
"awaken" to
anti-Semitism? Where had Mr. Rosen been all these years? In 1990,
according
to a national survey, 83% of American Jews felt anti-Semitism was a
"serious
problem" even in the United States, the most hospitable country in
history to
a large Jewish minority. How could a writer and intellectual who
would score
in the top percentiles in any test of Jewish knowledge or
identification--Mr.
Rosen formerly served as the editor of the weekly Forward's Arts &
Letters
section, and has written widely on Jewish themes--have been near the
bottom
in worrying about the most perennial of threats to Jewish life?
But why pick on Mr. Rosen? I have awakened in the same bed. For the
first
time in my life, anti-Semitism scares me.
And I know where I have been. I knew the history of anti-Semitism
better
than most Jews. New manifestations of it did not fail to anger me. I
simply
believed, like Mr. Rosen, that historically it was, at long last, a
spent
force. Other well-informed observers had supplied the facts and
figures to
support this belief. In places that mattered, such as Europe and the
United
States, these figures showed that anti-Semitism had declined
drastically and
steadily since World War II. In places where it had not, like Russia
and the
Arab world, there were, or soon would be, few Jews left. I would have
agreed
with Barry Rubin, a professor at the Hebrew University, who wrote in
1995:
The starting point for any honest discussion of anti-Semitism today
is the
phenomenon's unimportance. Never before, at least since the time
Christianity
seized power over the Roman Empire, has anti-Semitism been less
significant
than at present.
I doubt whether anyone would write those words today.
Admittedly, the evidence is circumstantial. I have seen no polls
indicating
that anti-Semitism has risen sharply anywhere. I have simply reacted
to the
kinds of things that Mr. Rosen has:
An acquaintance from Paris saying that never does she remember Jews
being
talked about there with such open hostility as they are now. A friend
back
from Spain relating: "It's never happened to me before--I only had to
say I
was from Israel for all eyes to go cold." An article in the respected
French
left-wing weekly Le Nouvel Observateur reporting, straight-faced, a
long-disproved slander to the effect that soldiers of the Israel
Defense
Force rape Palestinian women so that their families will then murder
them to
redeem the family honor. Another article by the respected British
novelist
A.N. Wilson in the London Evening Standard of Oct. 22, coming
"reluctantly"
to the conclusion that the state of Israel no longer has a right to
exist.
A piece by Petronella Wyatt in the London Spectator, observing with
dismay
that "since September 11 anti-Semitism and its open expression has
become
respectable at London dinner tables." ("Well," Wyatt recounts being
told by a
liberal member of the House of Lords, "the Jews have been asking for
it, and
now, thank God, we can say what we think at last.") A column by the
publisher
of the German weekly Der Spiegel, comparing Ariel Sharon's attitude
toward
Palestinian Arabs to Hitler's attitude toward the Jews. A cartoon in
the Dec.
7 International Herald Tribune, four days after 26 Israelis were
killed by
suicide bombers to whose recruiters Yasser Arafat had given carte
blanche:
perched atop a tank with a Jewish star, a bulging "Jewish" nose
(which he
does not have) on his cruelly contorted face, Ariel Sharon points a
cannon at
the helpless chairman of the Palestinian Authority and screams,
"Prove you
have the authority to obey us!" On the wall of Arafat's wrecked
office is a
map of Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank labeled "Palestine" and
showing the
1947 United Nations partition borders. Palestinian refugees peer
through a
shell hole in the wall. The International Herald Trib!
All this is quite apart from the accumulating record of actual
anti-Semitic
incidents in Western Europe, from the burning and defacing of
synagogues to
the molestation of Jewish schoolchildren. And it is apart, too, from
the
murderous lunacies about Israel circulating in the Arab and Muslim
world,
such as the widespread accusation that the Mossad engineered the
September 11
attack on the United States and somehow got word to Jewish employees
in the
World Trade Center not to report for work that day, or the 30-part
series--produced by Arab Radio and Television, featuring a cast of
400, and
aired during the second half of Ramadan this past year--which
"dramatized"
"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." "For the first time," enthused
a
reporter in a leading Egyptian weekly, Arab viewers could see
revealed "the
central line that still, to this very day, dominates Israel's policy,
political aspirations, and racism."
Arab viewers were also recently treated, on Kuwaiti TV, to a popular
political satire showing Mr. Sharon drinking the blood of Palestinian
children. But of course, this may not have told them anything they
did not
know. The medieval charge that Jews drink the blood of Gentile
children, or
bake Passover bread with it, which has been raised periodically in
the Arab
world since the Damascus Affair of 1840, was already "proved" in "The
Matzah
of Zion," published in 1983 by the current Syrian minister of
defense,
Mustafa Tlas. It was seconded two years ago by the Egyptian mass
circulation
daily al-Ahram, which reported "many recorded cases of the bodies of
[Palestinian] Arab children who had disappeared being found, torn to
pieces,
without a single drop of blood. The most reasonable explanation is
that the
blood was taken to be kneaded into the dough of extremist Jews." "The
past,"
as Mr. Rosen puts it, "has come calling."
For me, the alarm bell had already rung at September's grotesquely
named
"conference against racism" in Durban, South Africa, an event soon
forgotten
by the media in the wake of Sept. 11. But Durban is not so easily
forgettable. It was not only the largest and best-publicized
international
anti-Semitic rally in history, it was the first to be attended by all
the
world's governments and major humanitarian organizations. Many of
these
governments, to be sure, including all the European ones, formally
opposed
the anti-Semitic resolutions on the agenda, which accused Israel of
genocide,
ethnic cleansing, racism and apartheid. Yet none followed the lead of
the
United States in walking out when these resolutions were tabled, or
publicly
pilloried the many delegates who supported them.
The supporters themselves, of course, insisted they were not
anti-Semitic.
They were merely anti-Israel and anti-Zionist. But one cannot be
against
Israel or Zionism, as opposed to this or that Israeli policy or
Zionist
position, without being anti-Semitic. Israel is the state of the
Jews.
Zionism is the belief that the Jews should have a state. To defame
Israel is
to defame the Jews. To wish it never existed, or would cease to
exist, is to
wish to destroy the Jews.
This is not something that is as obvious to as many people as it
should be.
Yet only an anti-Semite can think the world would be better off
without
Israel, just as only a Francophobe can think the world would be
better off
without France. Only an anti-Semite can systematically accuse
Israelis of
what they are not guilty of, just as only an Anglophobe can make such
accusations against the English. "Jewish" and "Israeli" are not
synonymous?
No, they are not--but 40% of the world's Jews live in Israel. There
are Jews
who are anti-Zionist? Yes, there are--and there are Englishmen who
revile
England.
Even this is not putting it strongly enough. There are times when
only an
anti-Semite can accuse Israel of what it is guilty of.
Let us take the case, lately in the news again, of Sabra and Shatila.
These
were the Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut where, in September
1982, two
months after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Christian Lebanese
forces
murdered hundreds of Palestinians, many of them women and children,
while on
a mission to flush out armed Palestinian militias and terrorists.
Although
the exact degree of Israeli complicity in this action is unclear,
there is no
doubt--as determined by a special commission set up at the time by
the
Israeli government itself-- that the Israeli army permitted the
Christian
forces to enter the camps and operate freely there; there is also no
doubt
that the army should have known what these forces were doing and
stopped them
immediately. Construed most leniently, this was criminal negligence.
Since
the army's commander-in-chief at the time was then-defense minister
Ariel
Sharon, can it be anti-Semitic to try him for war crimes, as a
Belgian court,
responding to litigation brought by the victims' families under a
1993 law,
is now poised to do?
It can be and it is.
The reason is simple. Justice is prejudicial when not applied fairly
and
equally. In the case of Belgium's courts, this means they should
indict, or
be prepared to indict, criminal negligence in similar cases. One of
these
took place in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica in December 1995, when a
Dutch
NATO contingent, assigned to protect the town's Muslim inhabitants
against
Serbian attack, pulled out and left them at the mercy of the Serbs,
who
proceeded to massacre thousands of them. The Dutch had every reason
to know
that such a massacre would take place in their absence. Does anyone
believe
that, were the families of these slaughtered Bosnians to appeal to
Belgian
justice, the latter would indict the Dutch officer in command of this
contingent, or the U.N. and NATO officials who counseled him to
withdraw?
Or a more recent example. This past December, as the Northern
Alliance rolled
up the Taliban in Afghanistan, large numbers of prisoners, especially
those
belonging to al Qaeda, were executed or permitted to die, some by
being
shipped long distances in sealed containers in which they suffocated.
The
Northern Alliance had American military advisers attached to it and
was
acting as an American proxy. Suppose a Belgian court were asked to
indict
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Would the plaintiffs get past
the
courtroom door?
And this of course is not taking into account the many--the
innumerable and
unambiguous--war crimes committed around the world in the last two
decades
from Sudan to Indonesia and from Chechnya to the Congo. It is not
taking into
account repeated Palestinian atrocities against Israelis, many
carried out at
the express behest of Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat.
Though
similar suits have been filed in Belgian courts against figures like
Fidel
Castro and Saddam Hussein, Belgian justice has so far agreed to
consider
indicting Israel alone.
This is anti-Semitism, even if the court's judges would be shocked to
be
accused of it. It is anti-Semitism because, as Norman Podhoretz once
wrote,
"All criticisms of Israel based on a double standard, rooted as this
is in
the ancient traditions of anti-Semitic propaganda, deserve to be
stigmatized
as anti-Semitic." It is anti-Semitism even if those expressing it
have never
made a consciously anti-Semitic remark, or had a consciously
anti-Semitic
thought, in their lives.
Can one then be anti-Semitic without knowing it? Of course one can,
just as
one can be unconsciously antiblack or antigay or a misogynist. When
prejudice
is socially acceptable, we admit it, first of all, to ourselves. When
it is
taboo--as, with regard to Jews, it has been in Europe and America
since the
Holocaust--we often conceal it even from ourselves. The preferred way
of
concealing anti-Semitism in our times is to judge Israel more harshly
than
other countries. This is why an expert on anti-Semitism like Jerome
Chanes
was begging the question when he said the 1990 data showed that the
linkage
in America between "anti-Israel attitudes" and "anti-Semitic beliefs"
was
"not especially strong." The pollsters might as well have asked a
neurotic
about the linkage between his obsessive symptoms and their repressed
cause.
If the neurotic could acknowledge the linkage, the cause would not be
repressed.
Certainly, this is a truth that can be abused. Labeling any negative
comment
about Israel as prejudicial can be an easy way of fending off
criticism, just
as anti-Semites like to accuse Jews of doing. Israel should be no
more above
criticism than other countries. There is a danger, in defending it,
of coming
to resemble the stutterer in the joke who, turned down for a
broadcaster's
job, tells a friend, "I kn-knew th-th-they'd n-never take a
J-j-j-jew!"
That is why Podhoretz's observation is crucial. It is precisely the
presence
or absence of a double standard that determines whether an attitude
toward
Israel is biased or not.
Take, at random, the morning of Dec. 13, 2001, when I was working on
this
article. At 6:00, I switched on my television to the news on CNN. The
day
before, 10 Israeli civilians had been killed in a Hamas bus attack.
The news
began with an announcement that Israeli-Palestinian tensions had
reached "new
heights." It continued with . . . a report from Gaza on Palestinian
suffering
and anger, and footage of a Palestinian crowd accompanying the
coffins of
four men killed by Israel. There was no mention that all four were
shot while
launching mortars at Israeli settlements. There was no mention of the
10
Israelis. And yet, I cautioned myself, perhaps the Israeli side of
the story
would be told later. Why be a Jewish stutterer?
I should have known better. At 3 p.m. a CNN interviewer was scolding
an
Israeli cabinet minister for not knowing that Palestinians were
killing Jews
because of "the illegal Israeli occupation of Arab land." (I have
never seen
CNN scold a Palestinian.) At 11 p.m. there were more scenes of the
carnage in
Gaza, this time of the bombed musical instruments of Arafat's
military
band--mangled trombones that were, presumably, every bit as bad as
mangled
bodies. (Of which, in this retaliatory raid deliberately conducted by
Israel
on an empty building, there were none.) The following morning,
another
interviewer handled an Israeli spokesman with aggressive sarcasm and
listened
with docile respect to a Palestinian one. The 10 Israeli dead were by
now
ancient history.
This is not to say that CNN, or other international networks that
behave
similarly (the BBC has been worse), never give Israel a fair hearing.
They
sometimes do. But it is such incremental media bias that more than
anything
else has created a distorted picture of Israel in much of the world.
It does
not have to be dramatic. Week by week, month by month, it adds up.
Still, even if such bias is consistent, why insist that its only, or
even its
most likely, explanation is anti-Semitism? It could be a product of
superior
Palestinian public relations. It could reflect the instinctive
sympathy of
journalists for the perceived underdog in a conflict whose roots they
do not
understand. It could be a response to political or financial
pressures that
tilt more strongly to the Arabs. Why look for anti-Semites beneath
every bed?
And why, especially, look for them when, like Jonathan Rosen, I have
never
been personally affected by anti-Semitism in any but the most trivial
ways?
In my 30 years of living in America before moving to Israel, I could
count on
one hand the number of anti-Semitic incidents I encountered, all in
my New
York childhood. Unlike the generation of my parents, who remembered
signs in
New England in the 1930s that said, "No Jews or Dogs Allowed," my
generation--the one before Mr. Rosen's--never experienced Jewishness
as the
slightest bar to anything. Joseph Lieberman, a prominent member of
that
generation, recently swept New England while coming within a few
hundred
votes of the vice presidency in an election in which anti-Semitism
never
figured publicly at all.
Still, a large majority of American Jews, polled in 1990, thought
anti-Semitism was a serious problem. What were they responding to
that Jews
like Mr. Rosen and me were not? Was Earl Raab, a close student of the
Jewish
community for many decades, right in stating that "The large
proportion of
American Jews who say they worry about anti-Semitism . . . are really
expressing a concern not so much about its currency as about its
potential"?
And even if he was, why wait for Durban when one should have been
just as
alarmed by the potential of the horrendous "Zionism is racism"
resolution
passed by the U.N. General Assembly in 1975? Why have some Jewish
intellectuals either paid no attention whatsoever to anti-Semitism or
been
less anxious about it than "ordinary" Jews, more sanguine about its
future,
more inclined, like Mr. Raab, to the view that "if the cycle of
anti-Semitic
behavior and attitude continues to wind down, if the cultural
reservoir of
Judeophobia is unused long enough, there is no rational basis for
believing
that it will not virtually disappear"?
This is not, needless to say, a question that pertains to those
Jewish
writers and intellectuals who are themselves estranged from, or
uninterested
in, the concerns of the Jewish community, or who actually sympathize
to a
greater or lesser degree with the attacks on Israel. Rather, it needs
to be
asked about those who have a strong Jewish identity and the
confidence that
comes from it. Is it not curious that they, too, should have been, in
Mr.
Rosen's image, asleep?
And yet this is perhaps not as paradoxical as it seems. A strongly
identified Jew may be less concerned than other Jews with the
non-Jew's
opinion of him. Because he unreservedly likes being Jewish, it may
not
immediately occur to him that he could be disliked for it. He might
even be
the last to notice if he were, just as he might be the last to wonder
what
non-Jews say about him in his absence. He is like a fish in the
center of a
large school of fellow fish, oblivious of the tremors in the water
that warn
those on the periphery of the approach of sharks.
More than that: such a Jew--I am of course speaking also about
myself--may
resent anti-Semitism less than he resents the idea of being defined
by it.
The old saw that Jews who have forgotten their Jewishness will always
be
reminded of it by the world irritates him not so much because of what
it says
about the world as because of what it says about the Jews. He does
not need
to be reminded.
I remember the first time I read, as a college student, Jean-Paul
Sartre's
"Anti-Semite and Jew." A well-intentioned critique written shortly
after
World War II, it contains a classic formulation: "The Jew is one whom
other
men consider a Jew: that is the simple truth from which we must
start. It is
the anti-Semite who makes the Jew." Had Sartre called me a dirty
kike, I
could not have felt greater injury. He was telling me I was a
nothing, an
interior cavity, a blank page waiting to have "Jew" written on it by
someone
like himself. I would have liked to walk into Les Deux Magots, his
Paris
cafè, and inform him that he had me to thank for being French, which
he only
was because I thought he was.
For the same reason, I refused to put the Holocaust at the center,
or
anywhere near the center, of my sense of being a Jew. The Holocaust
was not a
Jewish deed. It was a Gentile one, and I declined to be defined by
what had
been done to me rather than by what I had done. I would not have put
it
exactly as did Jonathan Rosen, who felt that it was "an act of mental
health"
to recognize that the world of his father, a Hitler refugee, "was not
my
world and that his fears were the product of an experience alien to
me." I
had never thought of the Jewish experience in Europe that way. But
not to
identify with the annihilation of it was an act of mental health. One
remembered one's catastrophes--with horror, with grief, with rage,
and with
(yes) shame. One did not celebrate them or build more than the
necessary
minimum of monuments to them.
The Holocaust has made some Jews less, rather than more, able to see
anti-Semitism around them. This is because, if the Nazis demonized
the Jew,
they also demonized the anti-Semite. In itself, anti-Semitism is not
necessarily a lethal vice. But although it is more commonly
characterized by
the desire to exclude Jews than to kill them, and in this respect is
not very
different from other ethnic prejudices, its culmination in the
Holocaust has
forever distinguished it from them. Historically, discrimination
against
Asians has been far worse in America than discrimination against
Jews--yet
because no one has ever proposed exterminating Asians, it does not
seem, even
in an age of political correctness, a moral enormity to be accused of
prejudice against them.
The same cannot be said--to the Jewish mind at least--of
anti-Semitism. It
can no longer be genteel. And since it cannot be, there may be a
reluctance
to call it by its proper name. When Daniel Bernard, the French
ambassador to
England, recently referred to Israel at a London dinner party as "a
sh---y
little country" and then denied being anti-Semitic, there was a
temptation to
give him the benefit of the doubt by acquitting him, not of libel,
but of
complicity in murder.
As a Zionist, too, one may hesitate to interpret attacks on Israel
as
anti-Semitic. It was Zionism's proud claim, after all, that it would
eliminate anti-Semitism by providing Jews with a homeland to escape
to, since
anti-Semitism could not exist without Jews. Today we know that it can
exist
without Jews, or at least without focusing on them--and precisely
because
there is a Jewish homeland to represent them. But admitting this is
tantamount to admitting that Zionism has failed in a central
objective. It is
to acknowledge that, whatever merit there may have been in the claim
that
Israel would weaken anti-Semitism by fostering a more positive image
of the
Jew, this has long been outweighed by the anti-Semitization of the
image of
Israel itself. For anyone believing that Zionism was the most
farsighted of
all Jewish responses to modernity, and the one best calculated to
restore the
Jews to the family of man, this is a bitter reality to accept.
And the persistence of anti-Semitism after the Holocaust must be
even more
bitter for the committed Jewish secularist. Traditionally, Jews
suffered from
anti-Semitism; they were not bewildered by it. On the contrary, they
understood not only that it existed but that it must exist; that
hatred of
them was hatred of the God who chose them; and that the Gentile who
"in every
generation and generation rises up to destroy us" was acting a role
in a confl
ict that would end only in the fullness of time. Anti-Semitism was
sometimes
devastating. It was never surprising or demoralizing.
But for the Jew unshielded by religious belief, the demoralization
caused by
the persistence of anti-Semitism is profound. There is simply no
reasonable
context to put it in. Once upon a time it could be viewed as the
product of
specific religious, social or economic circumstances, something that
would va
nish with the advent of Enlightenment, or Emancipation, or socialism,
or
liberal democracy. But neither Enlightenment, nor Emancipation, nor
socialism, nor liberal democracy has made good on that promise,
though the
last has done better than the others. Or it could be explained as the
Jews'
own fault, an incorrigible something in their character that
alienated others
in all times and places--but the Jew who has not internalized this
explanation by becoming an anti-Semite himself knows that, whatever
his
failings, these are on the whole no worse than those of others who
are not
held in contempt for them. Or it could be seen, in the words of one
writer,
"as a symptom of a generalized disease of the Western mind"--but it
is most
rampant today in Islamic countries that do not possess the Western
mind. Or
it could be mystically accepted, in Anne Roiphe's words, as "a
demonic force,
loose in the world, that has chosen for its victim the Jewish
people." Yet as
Ms. Roiphe observes, this is to despair of understanding it at all;
it is to
conclude that, if the moral nausea caused by the murder of six
million Jews
could not purge the world of anti-Semitism, nothing ever can or will.
Rather than admit that something is incomprehensible, people often
tend to
deny its existence, and intellectuals are more prone to this tendency
than
others. The 2 1/2 decades between "Zionism is racism" and Durban
facilitated
such a denial. They opened with the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty,
which
temporarily silenced virulent criticism of Israel. There followed the
1982
invasion of Lebanon, succeeded five years later by the first
intifada; while
leading to a fresh rhetorical assault on the Jewish state, these
might have
left one wondering whether Israel's own policies and actions were not
the
cause, to which a concerned world was at most overreacting. Next, in
1993,
came Oslo and another lull. But the current vilification of Israel
began to
build again during the Oslo process itself, reaching new heights
after it
broke down, and especially since the summer of 2000 and Ehud Barak's
tremendous concessions to the Palestinians.
That anti-Semitism has grown in direct proportion to Palestinian
violence
against Israel; that it has systematically ignored this violence in
order to
concentrate exclusively on the evils of Israeli retaliation; that it
has
gotten worse even as the world has applauded, or passively accepted,
an
American attack in Afghanistan, many times more destructive of
innocent lives
than any Israeli reprisal, on terror groups closely allied with
Israel's
enemies--this defies all rationalization. It can open the eyes even
of
sleepers.
One must not give an inch on this point. The new anti-Israelism is
nothing
but the old anti-Semitism in disguise.
I will be told that my own account belies this. If Israel's image in
the
world has improved or deteriorated in concert with the state of its
relations
with its Arab neighbors, surely the problem is not anti-Semitism but
those
relations. Improve them once more--stop occupying Palestinian
land--and the
problem will disappear.
I invoke the double standard. Who at London dinner parties makes
nasty
remarks about Hindus because India has militarily occupied Muslim
Kashmir for
half a century? What French diplomat calls China a "big, sh---y
country"
because of its occupation of Tibet? Besides, even if an
Israeli-Palestinian
idyll would blunt the critics, such an idyll cannot come to pass. A
truce is
conceivable, perhaps even a formal settlement based on Israeli
withdrawal
from Palestinian territory conquered in 1967; a reconciliation,
untroubled by
further Palestinian and Muslim demands, is not. As long as these
demands
exist ("But why doesn't Israel take back the families of the
Palestinian
refugees?" "But why doesn't it return the land it stole in 1948?"
"But why
must it be a Jewish state?") and can be met only by Israel's
destruction,
anti-Semitism will go on hiding behind them.
One must keep a sense of proportion. Support for Israel continues to
be
strong in many places, particularly in the United States and in the
Bush
administration. Even in Europe, where sympathy for it is markedly
lower, the
country has held its own diplomatically. Polls show that Americans
side
4-to-1 with Israel as against the Palestinian Authority; among
Frenchmen the
proportion is 4-to-3.
No doubt it is not anti-Semitism but Arab oil and political and
financial
power, compared with which Israel's own resources are tiny, that
account for
many of Israel's international difficulties. Given that power,
indeed, the
remarkable thing is how well Israel has maintained its position. And,
on
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
