Getting at the truth in today’s
world — Part III
G. S. 
initial posting 4 Dec 2010 - last update 25 Jan 2011


Oaxaca, Mexico!
Wednesday 1 December 2010

      This was a day of symbolic liberation for the people of this southern Mexican state, the day that they were finally no longer under the direct rule of a dictatorial administration totally controlled by the PRI (the Institutional Revolutionary Party) — after 80 uninterrupted years! I say “symbolic” to emphasize that despite the massive euphoria marking this change in the party affiliation of their governor, the reality of their lives in most regards is almost entirely unchanged, with the burdens of huge public debt, corruption, a largely impoverished citizenry and the still entrenched PRI in much of the state administration and in control of the legislature, all remaining as enormous burdens. The euphoria is mainly an expression of relief that the former governor, Ulises Ruiz Ortiz (URO), perhaps the most hated governor Oaxaca ever experienced, has been replaced by Gabino Cué Monteagudo. URO was/is an out and out murderer, a vengeful, smiling liar, utterly without a shred of compassion. Every Oaxaqueño above age 5 (the kids mature early here) knows URO enough to despise him. So when Gabino Cué publicly quipped about himself that he would not be known as un asesino (an assassin) no one here needed to have Cué’s meaning explained. Thus euphoria. What a relief to no longer have as governor the unequalled assassin in the state! A day of celebration, and hope.

      That same day, 1 December 2010, also marked a stage in my personal liberation, a stage of surging doubts and reconsiderations. After almost two weeks, I concluded with a nasty e-mail,

Subject: Enough bullshit
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:15:19 -0600
To: Ken Freeland <>
CC: Israel Shamir <>

“you have every right as an activist to make the inquir- ies you feel you need to make to clear up your doubts about anyone . . . Anyone who is not forthcoming to a good faith request only invites further scrutiny . . .” — Kenneth Freeland, 8 March 2010 in an e-mail to George Salzman

Ken, No more letters from me to you. What I have to say I'll post to my website.

      So what’s this all about? In a nutshell,
1. I wrote strongly anti-Zionist opinions on my website and in e-mails. [2]
2. These opinions were misinterpreted by some virulent Jew-haters as showing — they thought — that I was a potential ally.
3. Although I don’t think Israel Shamir or Kenneth Freeland is a Jew-hater, their website has attracted a number of such people. Neither Shamir nor Freeland has done anything I know of to disavow the site’s accumulation of rabid haters.
4. When I first began to have doubts about the purpose of their website I wrote them, as a sincere friend who was troubled, fully expecting them, as the close allies I thought we were, to clarify the situation and reassure me.
5. I was wrong, sadly. Despite my tentative statement, my emphasis that my concern was based solely on circumstantial “evidence” and that I hoped I would be apologizing to them, they immediately “excommunicated” me.
6. I tried to resume friendly contact with Freeland, an attempt that failed. [3]
7. Initially I didn’t know they had decided to “ditch” me, and I waited for a hoped-for response. But after a couple of months I knew I was out of their group.

Who to trust? And who to distrust?
      Here we are in the global cesspool of lying — of calculated dissemination of misleading “facts” and allegations — each of us who even cares to try is relatively free to choose what to believe and what to disbelieve. It wasn’t always this way. Thanks to the explosion of the information age, and with it of course all the new disinformation sources, the field is wide open. An immediate consequence of this historical cusp in social development is the separation of most of the world’s population into two antagonistic groups: those who welcome the “age of information” and those who deplore it. We who welcome it are, happily, in the vast majority. Our opponents, a group that includes those who would like to retain their old privileges,with their large degree of control over the consciousness of most of the world’s population, are fighting tooth and nail to be able to censor information. We welcome WikiLeaks and its leading organizer and advocate Julian Assange. Our judgements on where justice lies in this conflict agree with those of Daniel Ellsberg, John Pilger, Eric Walberg, Robert Fisk, and Raffi Khatchadourian, among many others. [4]

      An aside, The New Yorker of 1 November 2010 published an investigative article, The Online Threat: Should we be worried about a cyber war? by its seasoned writer/investigator Seymour M. Hersh.[5] Its focus is especially on China. It has no mention of the current WikiLeaks/Assange internet turmoil. Hersh must have been doing the research for his article well before its publication, nevertheless it may be a bit surprising that there’s not even a brief commentary on the surge of cyberwar concern generated by the WikiLeaks release and the threats against Julian Assange, nor even a mention of Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks. [6]

The tail end of my ‘affaire’ with Shamir/Freeland

      This “wrap-up” is only for the few people who are interested to know whether I did really attempt to re-establish cordial relations with Ken Freeland.

Discovering the two faces of Kenneth Freeland

            Face 1: As the intrepid searcher for truth, Ken first wrote me,
Subject: kudos
From: Ken Freeland <>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:50:43 -0500

Greetings George, I just want to thank you personally for your recently published correspondence and analysis re: Selig. As a moderator of ShamirReaders listserve, I have reposted it there. I hope you are a subscriber or soon will be. It is the work of people like yourself that best protects us all against the emergence of any real antisemitism, an ever present danger given the evident Zionist control of US media and US foreign policy. I pray that God gives you the courage to continue your invaluable work. Peace, --Ken Freeland [7]

            Face 2: As the whisperer from the shadows urging me to take on the
                        brave role he avoids, and asking me to inform him what I find.
Subject: RE: On making judgments
From: Ken Freeland <>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:09:14 -0600

Hi George, Thanks for sharing this correspondence. I will ask you to keep my following comment confidential . . . it is advisory only. I don’t have any smoking guns on ZZZZZ, but based on some direct observation . . . during a recent National Assembly to Stop the War against Iraq convention, I will share with you that I have developed some doubts about ZZZZZ myself. Again, nothing I can put my finger on, but in any case, you have every right as an activist to make the inquiries you feel you need to make to clear up your doubts about anyone. Any of us in this movement ought to be willing to be transparent about our political and financial backgrounds. I think it is the price of admission, so to speak. Anyone who is not forthcoming to a good faith request only invites further scrutiny. More power to you. Please keep us informed of any developments. (Emphasis added by G.S.)

      I was on the verge of cutting off my effort to communicate with Freeland (along with Shamir), but a very careful reading of his report on his experience attending the Anti-war convocation in Cleveland in late July 2008 made me hesitant. Perhaps I was making a mistake. His lengthy report, How the Zionists Subvert the American Antiwar Movement, is on my website [8], with various parts that I highlighted to make them easy to find. It was a 2-day effort to prepare and then write Freeland my letter seeking rapprochement. Here’s what I wrote:

Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 16:39:42 -0600
To: Ken Freeland <>
Subject: A possible reappraisal

Dear Ken, Your forceful article “How the Zionists Subvert the American Antiwar Movement” stimulated me to write you again. We should be allies in the struggle against the Zionist conquest of the Palestinians. Your article is you writing in a white heat about brutal Israeli murderers in Palestine and the manipulative dishonest American (mainly) Jewish Zionists who protect them while clothing their lies with professions of humanitarian concerns. I read through your account of the frustration you experienced and highlighted a few parts so I could find them easily. Attached is my marked-up copy. Of course we both despise AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), Abraham Foxman and his ADL (AntiDefamation League) and all the rest. Did you pursue the matter after the few days in Cleveland? My guess is that you did not, that you had had enough frustration in those three days. If so, I would like to write to Stan Heller, the Middle East Crisis Committee of Connecticut (MECC), and the 13-members of the Administrative Body of the National Assembly who signed the statement ending with “it would hurt — not help — the Palestinian cause by diverting attention from the injustices of the Israeli occupation to what will be regarded as smearing religions. In our view, retention of the “Jewish and Christian Zionist— language would be lethal to the future of the National Assembly.” The 13 signers were: Zaineb Alani, Colia Clark, Greg Coleridge, Donna Dewitt, Jamilla El-Shafei, Mike Ferner, Jerry Gordon, Jonathan Hutto, Marilyn Levin, Jeff Mackler, Fred Mason, Mary Nichols-Rhodes, and Lynne Stewart. I want to push them to confront their dishonest behavior. As an American Jew I feel totally comfortable in challenging them, and have no concern that, if I can get any of them to respond, they might try to label me a “self-hating Jew”, an anti-Semite, etc. I’m ready to defend my views without any equivocations. If you can send me the e-mail addresses of Stan and the 13 manipulators, I’ll be very appreciative, and will follow through. Also, do you know if the MECC address in your article, MECC <>, is still correct, because I'd like to also write the MECC.

      Now, the difficult part of this letter. I would like to suggest what I think would be a radical, but justified move on your part. I believe you ought to be a full partner with Israel in determining the intellectual structure of what is now clearly “his” site. You and he are very different people. He maintains, and you believe that it truly is, an anti-Zionist website, which I now strongly doubt. My understanding of Israel is that his guiding principle is that whatever he does, he wants it to be fun. He is not fundamentally a struggler for social justice in the way that your paper shows you to be. But it doesn’t matter for my suggestion, because he can continue having fun as a true partner with you, even as the intellectual substance of the site is moderated into agreement with your values. Let me be explicit. The current content, which the site gives the impression is being determined primarily by Israel, is such that the site has attracted a following that includes people who are imbued with hatred of Jews, not of particular people such as the 13 mentioned above but of all people whose ethnicity marks them as Jewish, for example me. So far as I know, Israel has done nothing to distance himself from these rabid Jew-haters. In fact, he seems pleased to be well-regarded by them. His current role is thus like that of a Pied-Piper whose following includes a troop of Jew-hating rats. But it needn’t be that way. If he gets rid of them, more accurately if you and he get rid of them, there will still be many people who are captivated by his personal charm and wit apart from that gang of haters, people like Cynthia McKinney and Linda Dittmar and – yes – even the critical guy who’s writing this letter right now. I’ve benefitted a great deal from my contact with Israel. And the fact is that I still like him, though admittedly I would like him more if he had not acted to cut me off. He’s very much into his own ego. On the one hand, there’s no way that people like you or I can compete with his style, his suave acceptance of the world as it is. On the other hand, there’s no way he can match our shared commitment to humane values and the compassion it accompanies. I cannot imagine you, for example, casually taking part in the slaughter of trapped Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai (it was just his job) and later rationalizing it – affirming that there was no hatred involved – that’s just the way the world is.

      I realize that if you were to take seriously my suggestion it would present you with quite a challenge. Surely Israel would not be happy to “just” continue as the main center stage attraction while the overall intellectual content began in reality to reflect your values as well as his. But I think you deserve more of a role than that of a skilled technician. You have clearly worked a great deal in developing a technically excellent site that celebrates Shamir. You may not believe my initial statement when my doubts about the real purpose of the site first surfaced — my statement that I hoped I was wrong and that my doubts were based strictly on circumstantial evidence. I truly regarded both of you then as real friends, and anticipated a continuation of the friendship. I hoped you would acknowledge your mistake in seizing on “Coffinman’s” reference [Hennecke Kardel’s book, Adolph Hitler — Founder of Israel: Israel in war with Jews.]. I imagine you used it only in the heat of the argument between you and Gordon Arnaut, in which Gordon went at you hammer and tongs.

      During the course of my contact with Gordon over several years, followed by the intense association with him and David Baillie during a couple of months, I came to know a good deal about him. He has been far more open about himself than either you or Shamir. Incidentally, David has also been way more open than you or Shamir. Shamir’s contempt for Gordon was totally unjustified. I am critical of Gordon’s seeming unwillingness to acknowledge the extent to which Zionist propaganda in Canada has brainwashed him. However, I respect his integrity. His personal experiences visiting in Europe, including in Croatia where many of his family members — ethnic Serbs — were murdered by Croatian Nazis cannot be rationally ignored. Shamir wanted to hear nothing about it, in fact, told Gordon he didn’t want to hear from him any more. I suppose that because you identified so closely with Shamir, you accepted his attitude towards Gordon as probably justified, and when you entered the discussion you did so very politely but also clearly in an effort to counter Gordon’s strongly anti-Croatian/Nazi position.

      You may not have read my essay, Getting at the truth in today’s world — Part I, initial posting 21 Oct 2010 - last update 4 Dec 2010,, where I gave some of the background about the conflict that developed. I’ve excerpted some of the key parts, and will include them here for your convenience. Very sincerely, and with good wishes, --George
[Excerpts from]
      Gordon Arnaut letter to Coffinman (C.C. to Ken Freeland)
Subject: Re: Death March Addendum
From: Gordon Arnaut <>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
To: Coffinman <>
CC: Ken Freeland <> . . .

      This is complete bullshit. First of all there is no such thing as “civilized war.” [Coffinman maintained that the army of the Third Reich had conducted civilized war, in contrast to the military of the Allies —G.S.] War is brutality of the worst kind. This kind of horseshit can only come from someone whose “experience” of war is through his computer keyboard, not from invading armies marching into his town and tanks rolling down the street. I have traveled throughout Europe and heard how the supposedly “civilized” German troops behaved . . . It was the Russians that won WW2, and if Hitler had been smart he would have looked for Lebensraum in England and you would all be speaking German now. I’m putting this coffinmoron on the blocked list. A complete twit.
      Ken Freeland letter to Gordon Arnaut
Subject: Re: Death March Addendum
From: Ken Freeland <>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:11:03 -0500
To: Gordon Arnaut <>
CC: Coffinman <> . . .

      Dear Gordon, On the whole, I find your response to Mr. Coffinman cogent and historically accurate, notwithstanding the fact that I also think Mr. Coffman’s thesis is not without merit. Mr. Coffman should not need you tell him that Hitler’s grandfather was alleged to be Frankenberger (note spelling) rather than Rothschild, as one of the pages on his website to which he refers us makes this quite clear, in addition to noting that Mr. Frankenberger paid child support for Hitler’s father Alois for 14 years, making the case quite convincing.

      You pose the following challenge: “And here is a bit of simple logic. If the Rotschilds and this Jewish cabal were so all-powerful that they could orchestrate the entire massive event of WW2, then why would they even need to do that? If they are so powerful they would have no need to avail themselves of such a desperate and risky enterprise as war, now would they?”

      The answer to this is complex, but I think it has an answer. Essentially, the Bolshevik revolution, subsidized by these same parties, was now regarded as a threat to private capital, which it truly was. Those with something to lose to such expropriators of the means of production needed a foil, and they found it in Hitler, whom they also subsidized. He seemed the best available thwart to the spread of Communism which had already made inroads into Germany, both electorally and militarily (Bavarian Soviet Socialist Republic). Hitler sold out the socialist planks of the NSDAP [Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, National Socialist German Workers' Party —G-S.] for their financial support (followed by the violent purge of the SA’s [Sturmabteilung, Storm Troopers, Hitler’s Nazi terrorists —G.S.] socialist elements in the night of the long knives), and they had their man. Hitler engaged Germany in an impossible war with the USSR, but capitalist property relations were preserved throughout, and survived WWII, and continue unmolested to this day. Peace, —Ken
      Ken Freeland responded to Gordon’s letter of 13 Oct (above) with this note to him and the others, in which he backed far away from Coffinman’s pro-Hitler, anti-Allies position, as follows:

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:27:07 -0500
      Is it just possible, do you think, that war brings out the worst in both sides, and that after a point there is no innocent belligerent? While both Germany and Russia claimed to be fighting a defensive war, it is useful to look at their earlier “nonaggression pact,” which was actually an aggression pact . . the division of Poland between them cannot be viewed by Polish eyes as anything but naked aggression. Yet in the narrative of both belligerents, there was no doubt a “defensive” explanation for this. There does not seem to me to have been a single belligerent in WWII that was not guilty of some kind of war crime at some point. I think that rather than spending so much effort trying to vindicate one side or the other, justice is better served by our opposition to our own nations’ involvement in war today (still replete with war crimes), and their support for other nations so involved.
Peace, —Ken
      Gordon Arnaut response to Ken Freeland (Cc’d to rest):

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 06:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
      Ken, I appreciate your call for peace in our time but I think there is a deep flaw with drawing equivalence among the actions of all sides in WW2. This is unsupportable. There was an aggressor side and that was Germany, motivated clearly by Lebensraum, something that has always been at the heart of war and which [Eugene] Debs astutely identified as the desire for conquest and plunder. In every war there has been one side seeking conquest and the other defending itself. In some cases, it is true, the defender was spoiling for a fight too, and this was clearly the case of the US, which did everything it could to insert itself into both World Wars, especially the war against the Japanese which it pretty much engineered with provocations. But US soil was never attacked. So why even go to war, other than imperial ambition? Again, conquest and plunder. And if we are to talk about war crimes, it is true that they were committed on all sides, but again there can be no equivalence as that would be absurd and stupid. We must remember that the fundamental war crime is aggression, because in it is the seed of all the atrocities that follow. This universal principle is easy to understand and was articulated in the aftermath of WW2 at the Nuremberg trials. What I object to most is present day imperialist propaganda and brainwashing that seeks to demonize the Russians as being of equal guilt, or worse, than the Germans. And after decades of brainwashing, anti-Russianism and anti-Slavicism is a strong current in mainstream Western society. This, I believe, will eventually come to a head too, just as WW2 resulted from the buildup of antagonism over many years. Yes, the Western world has long been spoiling for a fight with the Slavic world and they will get that fight sooner or later. And if they dream they are going to march into Moscow, they should remember that both Napoleon and Hitler had the same dream. But what they got was the Russians marching into Paris and Berlin instead. See Pictures. Regards, —Gordon.
      George Salzman comment: So far as I know, Freeland did not reply to Gordon . . .

      My last real effort to reconcile the difference in Ken Freeland’s and my assessments of the conflict was in my 7 December letter, to which Ken replied

Subject: RE: A possible reappraisal
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 17:11:49 -0600
      George, The National Assembly is water under the bridge. It is feckless, as proven by its antidemocratic praxis and, think about it, who knows anything about it today? And BTW, you should be aware that Lynne Stewart has bigger fish to fry now that she has been incarcerated with an extended sentence for supposed improper conduct as the attorney of an allege\d Islamic terrorist.
      I have no desire to wake up any of the sleeping dogs that are, nevertheless, apparently disturbing your repose. I did not reply to Gordon because it was plain to me that he and I just needed to agree to disagree, and I graciously allowed him the last word. History is nobody’s canard, in the end.
      Now then, with respect to Shamir’s site, I cannot follow your logic. It is, after all, HIS site. I am not as editorially involved as you seem to think. I do some voluntary maintenance there, but content selection is totally his bailiwick. Shamir and I do not always see eye to eye on things. Nevertheless, it is his site and he determines content. I would not presume to tell him otherwise. Other than being an occasional contributor, and a former editor of much of his prose, I have no editorial role there, nor do I seek one. If you think his site would benefit from pruning content, you will need to direct your comments to him directly. I won’t comment on your characterization of what motivates Shamir. I am less involved with him than I used to be, though I still appreciate the alternative point of view he sometimes very capable presents. Peace, --Ken
      My response to Ken
Subject: Re: A possible reappraisal
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 18:34:24 -0600
      Ken, You are a formidable person. Thank you for writing back to me so promptly. I already knew that you and Israel differ very significantly, but I had the mistaken impression that your involvement was more as an editor/programmer. I still believe that the main effort in the U.S. should be to try to inform the Gentile majority how they are being hurt by the influence of Israeli Zionist policy on U.S. politics. From that perspective it could be worthwhile to “out” the people you tangled with. You might be surprised if you knew the amount of misplaced sympathy Gordon Arnaut has for “the poor eternally persecuted Jews”. Gordon is a beautiful person. In fact he and David Baillie and I had a pretty good discussion going for almost two months. David is also basically a very decent but badly uninformed poor working guy. I seem to be pretty ineffective in my efforts to reach out. You know, Mazin has been taken in by some of the pseudo anti-Zionist work of the so-called International Center for Nonviolent Conflict of that slimeball Peter Ackerman, who was Michael Milken’s top assistant at Bernard Madoff’s global Ponzi scheme headquartered in New York City. No one is free of making mistakes some times, of course. Best, George
      Then, two days after my note above to Ken I got an unexpeted e-mail that kindled additional questions about Ken. Namely

Subject: On Anna Ardin, Israel Shamir and glass houses
From: David Sketchley <>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:59:58 +0100
To: George Salzman <>

      As you appear to be an admirer of Shamir
On Anna Ardin, Israel Shamir and glass houses
--David Sketchley
      I wrote back within the hour:

Subject: View from Oaxaca
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 11:52:44 -0600
To: David Sketchley <>, Miss Machetera <>
CC: Ken Freeland <>

      Dear David and “missmachetera”, There’s no question but that until about 2 months ago I was “an admirer” of Israel Shamir. As it happens, I just learned a couple of days ago that Ken Freeland, who did a substantial amount of work getting Shamir’s website going, no longer considers himself so close to Shamir. My early admiration for Israel plummeted when I became suspicious of the true intent of the Shamir Reader site and, on informing him openly (as a friend) what troubled me about it, he immediately completely cut me off. The posting you sent me, “On Anna Ardin, Israel Shamir and glass houses”, confirms my suspicions. I’ll go and read the piece on Counterpunch. I reported my exchange about the “Shamir/Freeland” site in two postings:
      Getting at the truth in today’s world — Part I, initial posting 2010-10-21, last update 2010-11-04.
      A firey exchange on the role of powerful Jews in today’s world, and on whether Israel Shamir’s and Ken Freeland’s website is truly anti-Zionist, or an effort to generate confusion . . . To see item (htm).
      Getting at the truth in today’s world — Part II, initial posting 2010-10-23, last update 2010-11-04.
      Circumstantial evidence that questions whether Israel Shamir’s and Ken Freeland’s website is truly anti-Zionist, or an effort to generate confusion . . . To see item (htm).
      Now I am reworking what is to be a sequel: Getting at the truth in today’s world — Part III, which will embody my favorable change of view regarding Ken Freeland. When I started to write it I thought he and Shamir were “in the same boat” and both needed to be “outed”.
      David, is there anything new on the investigation of Giordano’s relation with the so-called International Center for Nonviolent Conflict? I see that Al[Giordano]’s next school session will be funded by Peter Ackerman’s outfit again, to the tune of up to $20,000. That slimy operator knows how to keep Al hooked. So presumably that arrogant shithead Marovik (spelling?) will again “teach” the students of Al’s project. It’s good to hear from you. Best wishes --George
      Ken’s last thrust. That did it.
Subject: RE: View from Oaxaca
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:23:51 -0600
To: George Salzman <>, Gordon Arnaut <>, David Sketchley <>, Miss Machetera <>
CC: Israel Shamir <>
      Well George, If you will recall, you essentially challenged me to post the information about the Israeli war criminals, with the insinuation that Israel Shamir would not be pleased. I posted this info to the Shamireaders listserv as a demonstration to you that Israel has no objections to such clear and blunt anti-Zionist info. He has not sent me a bit of critical feedback for the post, and I think you should be willing, on your end, to acknowledge the implications. No secret Zionist in the employ of Zionists would encourage the distribution of such damning information, as Israel Shamir has done here by default. The post reached hundreds of his readers. Not one of them has reacted either! This tells you all you should need to know of where his sympathies (and those of his readers) truly lie. To continue this disparagement of the man in the face of such a demonstration of proof of where his loyalties lie suggests that it is YOUR loyalties that deserve to be questioned. Peace, --Ken Freeland
      Ken’s note had me somewhat stymied for a few days. I began to respond point by point, not knowing whether he had posted the information incorrectly or whether I was erring in my efforts to see it, because when I went to his post on the site, message #1962, I got the somewhat misleading text that Ken composed, and a poorly laid out presentation that did not include any of the photographs of the individual Israeli war criminals to whom Qumsiyeh wished to direct attention. These are individuals in command positions of the Israeli military who were directly invoved in the Gaza assault of 27 Dec 2008 - 19 Jan 2009. Ken’s message, #1962, dated Dec 1, 2010 9:06 am, is
Wikileaks Palestinian style
      Greetings all. While the controversy continues to rage over all the mainstream media about the fallouts from the latest Wikileaks revelations, and all over the alternative media about their true provenance, some revelations of a different sort, namely, the identities of 200 Israeli war criminals who helped perpetrate the recent criminal assault on the civilian population of Gaza has been circulated and published by such notable activists as Mazin Qumsiyeh, but has been brutally hacked and suppressed by Israeli cyber forces. Still, the truth cannot ultimately be suppressed. As we approach the second anniversary of the Gaza massacre, it is fitting that we commemorate its victims by giving its perpetrators full exposure. Below are the first twelve names of the list just to give you a sample. To view the rest, go to one of these websites referenced by Mazin: [The remainder of this paragaph was written by Qumsiyeh, but inserted here by Freeland without reference —G.S.] The original site that posted the data was shut down (by Israeli authorities) but by then the list has gone viral and I was forwarding it to all my list (I am not the source). In one of my emails I sent a follow-up. Here is part of it: Israel war criminals data cannot be hidden. Several websites hosted the information (more would be welcome since racist Zionists are trying to shut out dissemination of such information)
-Mazin Qumsiyeh

      The message above was signed, Peace, Ken, and followed by the names and identifying information for the first 12 named Israeli war criminals in the Gaza assault of 12 Dec ‘08 — 18 Jan ‘09.

1. Agai Yehezkel, Brigadier General, Head of the Armored Corps, Born 19 Apr ‘66, ID No. 22380406, Address 26 Inbar St. Caesarea 30889

2. Aharon Haliwa, Colonel, Head of “Bahad 1” (officer training academy), Born 12 Oct ‘67, ID No. 23050578, Address not shown

3. Alex Shakliar, Second Lieutenant, Nesher Field Intelligence Battalion, Squad Commander, Born 12 Dec ‘87, ID No. 304074636, Address not shown

4. Amir Ulo, Lieutenant Colonel, Yahalom Engineering Battalion Commander, Born 09 May ‘71, ID No. 28542900, Address 62 Hagai St. Har dar 90836

5. Amir Abstein, Lieutenant Colonel, 7th Regiment, 75 Romach Battalion Commander, Born 28 Mar ‘73, ID No. 16436917, Address 21 Yahalom St. Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut 71725

6. Amir Shimon Eshel, Major General, Head of the Planning Directorate, Born 04 Apr ‘59, ID No. 55652846, Address #78 Kidron 70795

7. Amos Yadlin, Major General, Head of Intelligence Directorate, Born 20 Nov ‘51, ID No. 51112027, Address 11 Smadar St. Karmei Yosef 99797

8. Anna Strelski, Sergeant, Bislmach Infantry Training Academy, Mortar Commander, Born 22 Sept ‘88, ID No. 309313674, Address not given

9. Anton Siomin, Lieutenant (Reserve), Paratroopers 202 Zefa, Company Deputy Commander, Born 22 Dec ‘84, ID No. 324417930, Address Haifa

10. Aram Zehavi, Captain, 601 Assaf Engineering Battalion, Company Commander, Born 03 Sept ‘81, ID No. 43249036, Address not given [no photo given]

11. Ariel Brickman, Colonel, “Hazor” Air Force Base Commander, Born 01 Jan ‘64, ID No. 58497306, Address Machane Tali, Mizpe Ramon 80600 [no photo given]

12. Ariel Karo, Brigadier General, Head of Field Intelligence Corps, 01 Jan ‘65, ID No. 22136576, Address 73 Herzl St. Kefar Sava 44213 [no photo given]

      Freeland’s note of the 10th, which ended with his suggestion that it is MY loyalties that deserve to be questioned, came one day after David Sketchley wrote me and initiated the brief exchange with him and Miss Machetera, which I Cc’d to Freeland.[9] The Machetera piece, which Sketchley called to my attention, agreed with my own conlusion — Israel Shamir is not only not on our side, he is actively opposed to the work of building a humane world that would benefit all peoples, his immediate focus being on undermining the struggle of the Palestinians. I believe it is unfortunate that he is so fixated on drawing attention to himself, as though the entire universe revolves around his persona. This degree of paranoid egotism is the precise negative of the humble but dignified self-respect so common among many of the indigenous Oaxaqueños I encounter here. Egotism bordering on paranoia is not so uncommon among those of us nurtured in “Western” cutures, but in Shamir’s case it is extreme.

      Although Freeland has remained largely hidden by the larger-than-life image of Shamir (which Freeland works to promote), I have come to know a little about him in the course of our correspondence. Intellectually I think he is superior to Israel, but lacking the easy evasive charm that Israel usually exudes. I think it’s fair to characterize their relationship as having a quality of incestuousness — each of them thinks he gains from indecent acts performed with the other. Israel has the whip hand. He permits enough recognition to Freeland to keep him willing to do his work, while 99 percent of the supposed “glory” is showered on Shamir.

      A craven exhibit of Israel’s need to focus on himself is the pathetic note he posted on his website:
      “News of the site. As Israel Shamir became a source of much controversy in connection with Wikileaks, please read this statement. Israel Shamir supports Wikileaks, agrees with its ideas and admires its head, Julian Assange. However, Israel Shamir is NEITHER a member NOR an employee of Wikileaks: he is a free lance writer accredited with Wikileaks.
   Here is Shamir’s reply to the Moscow Times claims: http://www.israelshamir.
   Here is Shamir’s reply to the Expressen claims:”

      Both statements show a miserable Shamir, someone who is ready to play loose with truth, morality and other people’s sensitivities, but who squeals like a stuck pig when some other fast, loose player subjects him to similar unscrupulous treatment. I suppose that’s just what we might expect. However, it’s worse than that. Even if he is justified in repudiating the statements of Julia Latynina of the Moscow Times and Magnus Ljunggren (whose attack is on the website, which I imagine he is, he exploits his relationship to his son, Johannes Wahlstrom, in order to bring the focus squarely to where he invariably wants it, on Israel Shamir. Here’s a bit of his retort to one of the critics: “Magnus Ljunggren was a teacher of Russian in Goteborg. He also learned a lot from Russians . . . Joseph Stalin declared ‘A son is not responsible for his father’s deeds’. But . . . Stalin’s message is too enlightened for the more orthodox Magnus L. He prefers it old style. His attack on Johannes Wahlstrom, a young Swedish journalist, is based mainly on his descent. Johannes happens to be a son of Israel Shamir. And Israel Shamir is ... Who is Israel Shamir? Israel Shamir is me. I stand squarely . . .”

      This is not the usual fun-enthralled slick Israel Shamir engaged in his customary pursuit — seeking pleasure no matter what he does — whether it’s hugging lovely Cynthia McKinney in Turkey, firing a totally justified broadside at ADL director Abraham Foxman,[10] or slaughtering trapped Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai in 1967 with the overwhelmingly superior equipment of the U.S.-supplied Israelis — fun that must involve no risk for our heroic Shamir. Here his guard is down and he shows his true colors. Unsurprisingly, he is a bitter complainer, like the stereotypical self-pitying supposedly blameless Jew forever at the cruel mercy of the uncivilized Gentiles. It is ironic that Shamir should have become the very stereotype he despises, a true self-hating Jew.

      It was Kenneth Freeland who on 8 March 2010 wrote me  “you have every right as an activist to make the inquiries you feel you need to make to clear up your doubts about anyone . . . Anyone who is not forthcoming to a good faith request only invites further scrutiny . . .”  When I did precisely what Ken said I had every right to do, his “boss” at once gave the order to his “jew-hating troops” Salzman is in the enemy camp. Shamir’s exact actions I of course do not know, but one way or another he let his haters of Jewish ethnicity know I should be cut off. And they mostly obeyed. Except for my unsuccessful attempt to re-establish contact with Freeland, I have heard nothing from any of Shamir's gang.
      This prolonged unpleasant part of my effort to acquire a small list of people whose basic honesty I could rely on to help me stay abreast of important global social developments had an unexpected aspect. It ended up being far more work to decide that Shamir is not to be trusted, nor Freeland, than to gain confidence that any one of the several dozen individuals on my “trustee” list belongs there. That is a reflection of the deceptive skill of Shamir, and especially of Freeland, and of course of my anarchist naiveté, my wish for relations of mutual trust with as many people as possible. I don’t want to discard (waste) a potential friend. Friends, true friends, are too precious to lose. I think I learned a good deal from my contacts with Freeland and Shamir. However, as Miss Machetera remarked in her article “On Anna Ardin, Israel Shamir and glass houses” [9] about the Tlaxcala translation group’s go-round with Shamir, “the Shamir affair was in the end, something that not only damaged reputations but robbed precious time from the Tlaxcala team.” That assessment, after my own experience with Freeland and Shamir, sounds totally credible.
The likely outcome
      My hope is that eventually Freeland will come to grips with the facts that he has thus far evaded and realize that Shamir’s role in the Zionists vs. Palestinians struggle is one of deliberate falsification. That will be a difficult step for Freeland because he has “invested” (a word I don’t like to use, but I have none better right now) a good deal of energy and thought in developing Shamir’s project. He will be reluctant to abandon that effort and thus “lose” that connection. But if enough good people who Freeland respects also question the intent of Shamir’s project — for example people like Mazin Qumsiyeh, Hanan Sharfelddin, Eric Walberg, Linda Dittmar, Alan Hart, Nurit Peled-Elhanan, Bill Templer, James Petras, Khalid Amayreh, Cynthia McKinney, and others, — I think Freeland will conclude that he was mistaken to join Shamir and will act honorably. In fact, the valuable material on Shamir’s site is mainly available in its original form on other sites. It is thus unnecessary to visit his site to gain such information. My checklist of the authors I find very valuable — about three dozen — is on my website.[11]
To Kenneth Freeland and Israel Shamir
      If either of you wishes to make a statement regarding this conflict between us I will add it to this post with your text faithfully copied in its entirety. Sincerely —George
[1] This article is a continuation (Part III) of the earlier essays, Getting at the truth in today’s world — Parts I and II, which are, respectively, at [1] and [2].

[2] My anti-Zionist views. These continued for several years, at the end of which I formulated my position, which includes a call for the dissolution of the State of Israel. It is part of The ethics of a just solution of the “Palestinian/Israeli” conflict. Originally I included these ideas as endnotes in each of the essays “Getting at the truth in today’s world”. Now, instead of endnotes, the most complete and up to date version is posted at

[3] The Israel Shamir/Kenneth Freeland site is: The Writings of Israel Shamir.

[4] Telling it like it is. Trustworthy supporters of Julian Assange.
Daniel Ellsberg:

John Pilger:

Eric Walberg:

Robert Fisk:
Raffi Khatchadourian:

[5] The Seymour Hersh New Yorker article of 1 November 2010 on cyberwar:

[6] Bradley Manning, the “Daniel Ellsberg” of today’s U.S. war crimes, ought to be of as much interest to The New Yorker as any other story rich in human interest, with which this oh-so-sophisticated publication loves to spice its pages. Germaine to this issue, there is: March, 2009 New Yorker article -- entitled "Is Long-Term Solitary Confinement Torture?" -- the surgeon and journalist Atul Gawande. See also The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention, by Glenn Greenwald, 15 December 2010 at An article in The Independent on 18 December 2010 is on the machinations of the U.S. to get testimony that Assange solicited the leaks from Manning. It’s at

[7] Freeland is referring to correspondence and postings on Selig that began in early June, the first one at My final paper on Selig was at

[8] Ken Freeland’s report, How the Zionists Subvert the American Antiwar Movement, is at

[9] On Anna Ardin, Israel Shamir and glass houses alexander cockburn, anna ardin, CIA, conspiracy theories, counterpunch, israel shamir, julian assange, ladies in white, posada carriles
      Israeli writer is Swedish anti-Semite Tor Bach, Sven Johansen and Lise Apfelblum, Date: May 2004

[10]Cynthia McKinney Abraham Foxman

[11] George’s checklist. My check list is posted at so that anyone who wishes can make use of it.

George Salzman is a former American Jew living in Oaxaca, Mexico, an Emeritus Prof of Physics, Univ of Massachusetts-Boston.

All comments and criticisms are welcome.  <>

      If you know folks who want to ‘save the world’, starting with global open communication — no censorship, I’ll be glad to add them to my Notes of an anarchist physicist listserv [noaap]. To subscribe write me, including your first and last names, please, or send a blank e-mail to

*     *     *
Return to the latest postings page of website II,
Return to the home page of website II,

Initial posting of this page: 4 December 2010.
Last update: 25 January 2011