ГУЛаг Палестины

found whose anti-Slavic calumnies are able to compete with those of the Jews in the gang of ten (or with those of the Jews in the CBS gang

of seven).

(2) The gang of ten is prominent. One notices too that these are not ten obscure Jews, but highly placed ones. Their

names are recognizable. They constitute a Jewish leadership. They hold high office within the Jewish community, or within society

generally. Two have been spoken of as candidates for Nobel prizes. They frequently appear on television or are quoted in the media or are

cited in the discussion of Jewish affairs. Perhaps the only other Jews who equal or exceed them in prominence fall into three categories: (i)

Jews functioning in a non-Jewish capacity, as for example musicians and scientists; (ii) North American Jewish politicians, particularly

Congressmen, Senators, or Mayors in the United States, but again functioning only in small part as Jewish representatives; and (iii) Israeli

politicians and military leaders. However, restricting our attention to Jews who live in, or who are influential in, North America, and to those

who appear expressly as representatives of Jewish interests, the gang of ten constitutes a dominant clan. They set the agenda for

Jewish-Slavic dialogue. Even the one who lives in Austria (Simon Wiesenthal), and the two who live in Israel (Yitzhak Arad and Dov

Ben-Meir), are able to make their presence felt in North America either during their visits, or in being covered by the media, or by means of

their court room testimony either in Israel or in North America. American Jews such as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein are also highly

prominent, and do speak on Jewish affairs, but speak primarily of the State of Israel, and - unfortunately - have little to say about the

Slavic world. Overwhelmingly, the Jews who step forward to speak on the Slavs do so only to calumniate. Whereas individual Jews have

occasionally stepped forward to defend Ukrainians, I know of none who does so on an ongoing basis the way that the gang of ten defames

Ukrainians on an ongoing basis.

Raul Hilberg. Jewish historian Raul Hilberg deserves mention as falling in a class by himself. I do not agree with everything he says, but in

cases where I disagree, I do not regard Hilberg as guilty of calumny, but only as falling within the range of responsible but divergent opinion

which is to be expected upon any historical question. Raul Hilberg has amply demonstrated that he is ready to be guided by the evidence to

conclusions without regard to whether they are palatable to Jews or Germans or Ukrainians or other involved parties.

(3) The gang of ten is typified by deception. I understand calumniation to mean damaging utterances characterized

by untruth. An utterance that is true, I do not characterize as calumny no matter how damaging. To not mince words, then, the gang of

ten is a pack of liars. The most fantastic, the most childish, the most palpably untrue statements spew from their lips in profusion, as is

amply documented on the Ukrainian Archive. They suppress evidence, they create historical events out of thin air, they contradict

themselves from one recitation to the next.

(4) The gang of ten enjoys impunity for lying. When the deceptions of any of these calumniators are brought to

their attention, or to public attention, the refutations are ignored. The ten calumniators appear to be able to say whatever untruths they

want with little fear of punishment or censure or even embarrassment. They rarely have to correct their misstatements, or to retract them,

or to apologize for them. Of the ten, only Jerzy Kosinski has lost his impunity, but he did nevertheless enjoy a large measure of impunity over

many years of his professional calumniation. The generalization, therefore, is not that the gang of ten enjoy absolute and permanent

impunity, but only that they enjoy surprising measures of impunity over surprising intervals of time.

(5) The gang of ten is typified by modest intellectual capacity. On the whole, the members of the gang of

ten have the minds of children. This is demonstrated primarily in their lying which is primitive and palpable, and which is not merely

occasional, but which permeates their thinking. On top of that, their speech and their writing tends to be illogical to the point of

incoherence. They are strangers to the ideal of being constrained by logic. They don't know the facts, and they don't rely on facts. In not

a single case have I come across anything any of them might have said or written touching on Ukrainian-Jewish relations that one would be

forced to admire - or so much as respect - for its reasoning or its data or its expression. Given their prominence and their power, their

academic and intellectual accomplishments, on the whole, are unimpressive. The bulk of their writing would get C's or worse if submitted in

freshman courses in history or political science or journalism. The only one of the ten to achieve an unambiguous distinction outside his

calumniation activities is Alan Dershowitz - Harvard law professor, media star, defender of O. J. Simpson. He alone among the ten must be

acknowledged to have substantial academic qualifications and to show flashes of intelligence and wit. However, restricting myself to his

statements on Ukrainians or Palestinians, I find Dershowitz's thinking fully as primitive and as childishly self-serving and as duplicitous as that

of the other nine.

The incongruity between low desert and high reward is particularly great in the case of Jerzy Kosinski; the evidence below will demonstrate

that in addition to lacking academic capacity, and in addition to lacking literary skills, every area of his life was crippled by immaturity,

irresponsibility, deception, and perversion.

What picture emerges?

Is there any way of tying all of the above generalizations into a single coherent picture? Why should it be the case that the leading