Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 10266 (since 2010-02-28 20:54:05)



Showing comments 10266 - 10201

  • Understanding the Jewish National Home
    • Gosh, I didn’t remember that in addition to being incredibly, almost unbelievably informative on the history of Zionism, (and other things besides, I would hardly stop there.) Hostage’s comments can be, well, lively, too.

      Well I'm no Einstein, but I can usually hold-up my own end of a detailed conversation about the legal meaning and origins of the equality clause in Israel's declaration of independence, personality disorders, insults, applied physics, methods of lie detection, and Zionist history. See for example this lively and informative exchange with Richard Witty. link to

    • There is an important point in Ben-Gurion’s testimony that you have omitted, his definition of a Jewish State. ... Not exactly a description of the state his government produced.

      I still intended to comment here, at length, about the subject matter of the article. I'm just busy with other things today. I'm responding to some questions in another thread about the Hillels. I promised someone there that I'd provide some answers. I noticed your link to your first article, and I've got some useful information that I can supply there too. It concerns the customary rules that govern the creation of states by international bodies and how they apply to the case of the Mandated States and to both Israel and Palestine. Most people are not even aware of the subject matter or its implications and wouldn't know where to begin to look for information on the topic.

    • Hostage, neither of your links goes to the Malcolm memo

      Agreed. I only meant to point out that the details of the account were authentic, since the story had been cited and discussed, in a favorable way, in an article that appeared in a reputable Jewish historical journal. I didn't mean to imply that the JSTOR link contains a full copy of the memo, free or otherwise. It simply offers an independent confirmation of Malcolm's role. I'm sorry for any confusion.

    • I was going to leave a rude comment on the Slater article, only because of the “claiming all of Palestine for the Arabs” absurdity

      I'm sorry to hear that you left that undone.

      but am now too drunk and stoned to find it,

      That's a better reason than I had for ending up here. I'm glad that you thought of it and were brave enough to go first. I'm going to go pour myself a tall one right now and join-in the search for Slater's reply button.

      respect Sir.

      Back at ya!

    • A fascinating memo from a key British player, James A. Malcolm, can be found at, link to The site seems a bit dubious but the document copy from the British Museum appears authentic.

      Well the story certainly is. I came across it in "Lucien Wolf and Theodor Herzl", by Josef Fraenkel, in Transactions (Jewish Historical Society of England) Vol. 20, (1959-61), pp. 161-188 and have cited it and linked to it here several times, e.g. link to its available online through JSTOR, which is legit enough for me;-) link to

    • There is a significant wealth of information in the book by Doreen Ingrams called “Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict”

      I have a well worn copy and you're absolutely correct. I've cited it here on many occasions. She wasn't present at the Creation, but she was at Churchill's Cairo Conference and had an insiders knowledge of most of the earlier and subsequent classified documentary evidence from the Foreign Office and War Cabinet meetings on Palestine. She provides brief comments and then let's the original government officials and their written records speak for themselves. If you can only afford one book, this is probably one of the best buys you can make.

    • @ Hostage We know what a devotee of Jewish-Christian syncretism you are.

      None required. Unlike my religious brethren, I'm a not a believer in any of the underlying theological claims. So I don't try to pretend that the so-called "Christian gospels" portray anything other than the redacted tales of yet another competing 1st century Jewish sectarian cult.

    • Careful Hophmi, your feigned outrage and lack of common sense are showing again. Try to slow down and read something by Alfred Lilienthal for comprehension. It might help break through the mental fog and clear-up all those delusions of adequacy you're experiencing.

      The letter to Rabbi Wise from the Zionist Executive helps explain exactly why the US and other countries were reluctant to open their doors to Jewish refugees as a result of the Evian Conference. Morris Ernst, one of the founders of the ACLU, wrote that FDR had told him that the Zionists lobbied against efforts to raise the immigration quotas here in the US to allow in more Jewish refugees. Ernst was tapped by FDR to help lay the ground work for the Evian Conference. See M. Ernst, "So Far so Good", Harper, 1948, pages 176-77 We all know from many other published accounts that the Zionist and Israeli leadership have made similar demands for other countries to close their doors to Jewish refugees who were desperately trying to flee places like the former Soviet Union.

      Weizmann's comments were made after the war started, while he was the President of the WZO. I don't see how you can complain about anyone else's attitude, if you can ignore his total disregard for the fate of a million or more Jewish refugees that he indicated were worth little more than dust in his estimation.

      Your explanation about the immigration certificates is nonsensical. The JTS reported on many occasions that there were thousands of illegal refugees who were admitted after the White Paper went into effect or interned safely in camps elsewhere, like Cyprus. I've commented here in the past about published reports concerning the actions taken by the British to evacuate all of the Struma passengers who held expired visas to Palestine. They used an overland route after the ship docked in Turkey. When they asked the Jewish Agency to agree to reduce the number of its thousands of unused entry permits so that the remainder could be evacuated too, the Zionists stubbornly refused and chose instead to abandon them to their fate. link to

      If you are going to vehemently denounce others for merely "appeasing the Nazis", then the hypocrisy of the Zionist Organization must literally rise up to the heavens over their subsidiary's formal business partnership selling the Nazi regime's manufactured goods for a tidy profit to the neighboring countries. Even when a transaction actually had some plausible connection to an unfortunate refugee's German deposit account, the Zionist and German banking partners took a hefty thirty percent cut as a currency exchange fee. Then there was the matter of the Irgun offering of a Jewish and Nazi alliance. If these people can all be excused for trying to save other people's hides from the Germans, then why can't the Mufti be excused for trying to save his own beleaguered brethren who were being summarily executed or imprisoned in British concentration camps?

    • And you repeat this abomination about Jews being unable to fulfill their quotas under the White Paper, which they were unable to do because Jews were unable to emigrate, not because they didn’t want to.

      No you repeated the lame canard that their "escape route" was cutoff by the White Paper policy (as if it had been the British or the lack of quotas that prevented them from seeking refuge somewhere else, and not the Nazi regime). Even if there had been a logistical miracle, whereby six million people could have been transported to Palestine, common human decency would have dictated that a few million of them be selected from the other, non-Jewish victims, who had their escape route closed through no fault of the White paper.

      The fact is that it's you who is committing a blood libel against others, while ignoring the actual role played by the Jewish Agency Executive in making sure that there were no other safe havens available and concentrating their money and efforts on non-European Jews during the Holocaust.

    • And Captian Yale, the military man, on hearing of the cablegram, instantly cabled Westermann to discount its alarming feature.

      Great job Hostage!

      As I pointed out in my comment above, Wilson was a staffer, not a commissioner - and he was not the only military officer assigned. I certainly wouldn't be bragging about his prescience or lack of alarm if I were a Zionist talkback troll.

      Wisdom is a common theme in the post-biblical Jewish literature. There's an old Christian proverb of Jewish origin that says "Wisdom is vindicated by all of her children". Those who optimistically suggested that a large military force wouldn't be necessary to impose the mandates were in the extreme minority and their rosy predictions were proven to be totally unwarranted in very short order.

      In March 1920, only a few months after the King-Crane cable was sent, Trumpeldor and his fighters were cut-off from outside assistance and laid low. Back home, the British and French governments were contending with public demands for a rapid post-war demobilization. The remaining British contingent in Palestine was unable to handle the Nebi Musa riots in early April. When the Mandates were finally assigned and announced later that same month by the San Remo Conference, there were protests and uprisings in all of the Arab countries concerned, and scores of British soldiers were slaughtered in Iraq. I've already provided a link to Dr. Eder's racist comments during his testimony about the riots the following year, in 1921.

      I've commented elsewhere that the LoN Yearbook recorded the fact that the British and French devoted most of their time and effort at San Remo to planning the route of a corridor for the construction of a railway, telegraph, and oil pipelines between Haifa and Mosul. After the imprudent overthrow of the Hashemite regime in Damascus, both Britain and France suddenly realized they could afford neither the money nor the manpower needed to establish and maintain all of the additional military garrisons that would be required to defend those very same rail, communications, and oil facilities in the vast interior of Arabia from the guerrilla warfare tactics the Hashemites had perfected during their operations against the Turks. So, Churchill quickly convened the Cairo Conference and had to come to terms with them. The British Military Intelligence circulated a report afterward on the May 1921 Arab uprising. It was authored by an officer who had served in Palestine ever since 1917. It openly condemned Churchill's policies and noted the causes of "the Moslem and Christian opposition to and hatred of the British Zionist policy". Some of the main headings were:
      *The special privileges accorded to Jews.
      *The influence of the Zionist Commission and the openly declared political aims of the Zionists
      *The behaviour and immorality of the immigrants
      *The fall in price of land, trade depression, and the prohibition of export of cereals affecting the peasantry
      *Arrogance of Jews towards Moslems and Christians.
      *No representation in the Government of the country or control of expenditure being accorded to the Arabs, who realise that the money taken from them in taxes is spent on employing foreign Jewish labour instead of native, keeping up Jewish immigration offices and such-like matters.
      *The realisation of the injustice of self-government being given to nomadic savages in Trans-Jordania and refused to Palestine;

      He concluded:

      It is impossible not to admit the truth of the conclusion that if the present British policy in Palestine is to continue unmodified a much larger garrison than the present one will be required to enforce it. The Arab population is so incensed against the Zionists and the British because of their support of the former that we must inevitably give concessions to them. These concessions should be prohibition of Jewish immigration until it can be properly controlled and the present intensive system be definitely abolished, and representative Government for all the people in Palestine.
      We are not faced by a simple outbreak of mob violence, in spite of pillage and other signs of participation of criminals and evil elements of the population. The troubles in Jaffa and other parts of the country are only the expressions of a deepseated and widely spread popular resentment at the present British policy. If that policy is not modified the outbreaks of to-day may become a revolution to-morrow.
      (Signed) C. D. BRUNTON, Captain G.S.
      General Staff Intelligence.

      link to

      It's ironic that Jabotinsky's interpretation of the meaning of the Balfour Declaration/Mandate and his written assessment of the military situation in 1923 were in total agreement with the initial impressions reported by the King-Crane mission after only one day in Palestine and those of Capt. Brunton:

      Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy.

      Not only must this be so, it is so whether we admit it or not. What does the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate mean for us? It is the fact that a disinterested power committed itself to create such security conditions that the local population would be deterred from interfering with our efforts.

      All of us, without exception, are constantly demanding that this power strictly fulfill its obligations. In this sense, there are no meaningful differences between our “militarists” and our “vegetarians.” One prefers an iron wall of Jewish bayonets, the other proposes an iron wall of British bayonets, the third proposes an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be satisfied with Baghdad’s bayonets – a strange and somewhat risky taste’ but we all applaud, day and night, the iron wall.

      -- link to

      By the time the British government finally decided to abandon the Mandate, their 100,000 man force in Palestine was unable to maintain law and order. The government representative's report to the UN Palestine Commission described weeks of disturbances, with over 2,000 Arab, Jewish, and British dead . It also remarked that, "were it not for the efforts of the security forces over the past month, the two communities would by now have been fully engaged in internecine slaughter." -- link to

      The only thing more pathetic than the attempts to portray Crane as an anti-Semite, are the equally absurd reports that he was a Jew-loving communist, fellow-traveler, and friend of Trotsky, who was hell-bent upon waging war against capitalism. e.g. link to link to link to

      If you and Hophmi are almost finished trying to teach Grandma how to suck eggs, the rest of us would like to discuss the article now.

    • “But, oddly, nowhere in the report does any Zionist say anything remotely like that.

      The relevant portion of the report is discussing information supplied in Zionist literature and conferences:

      (2) The commission was abundantly supplied with literature on the Zionist program by the Zionist Commission to Palestine; heard in conferences much concerning the Zionist colonies and their claims; and personally saw something of what had been accomplished. ...
      The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.

      I've already cited one example of a published manifesto mentioned by Ben Gurion's biographer: "Ben Gurion’s 1919 Ahdut Ha’avodah party platform contained a manifesto which demanded the establishment of “a Jewish Socialist Republic in all of Palestine, and the transfer of Palestine’s land, water, and natural resources to the people of Israel as their eternal possession.” See Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, Shabtai Teveth, page 99

    • Why should the Palestinians have felt sorry for the plight of the Jews, when they had their own problems? The Mufti had been deported from his own country in violation of fundamental human rights and his own people had been killed and imprisoned. The British used concentration camps, false confessions obtained by torture, and summary executions to accomplish their aims. See:
      * Matthew Hughes, The Banality of Brutality: British Armed Forces and the Repression of the Arab Revolt in Palestine, 1936 – 39, English Historical Review Vol. CXXIV No. 507, Oxford University Press, 2009, link to
      *Prof. Susan Pedersen, The Meaning of the Mandates System: An Argument link to
      *Segev, Shlaim, and other historians document the fact that when Major General Bernard Montgomery was given command in Palestine to put down the Arab revolt, the British forces were given standing orders on how to handle rebels: kill them.

    • Ben-Gurion also complained about the racist Land Transfer Regulations on 1940, which effectively prohibited Jews from purchasing land in 95% of the Mandate.

      LOL! Shabtai Teveth wrote that economic, social, and geographical partition (i.e. de facto apartheid and Bantustanization) were inherent in Ben Gurion's conception of Zionism. See pages 10-12, 43-44, 66, 99, and 179-184 of Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985

      You are correct in that Ben Gurion personally testified to the UN Special Committee on Palestine that Jews, were prohibited from purchasing land in 2/3rds of the country, and only owned about 6 percent of the privately-owned land in the remainder:

      Mr. BEN GURION: . . . There are some 600,000 Jews in Palestine and some 1,100,000 Arabs. There are no reliable figures in this respect. There is an even greater disparity than that. The Arabs own 94% of the land, the Jews only 6%. — link to

      Mr. BEN GURION: “To partition,” according to the Oxford dictionary, means to divide a thing into two parts. Palestine is divided into three parts, and only in a small part are the Jews allowed to live. We are against to

      But the Churchill White Paper stipulated that the mandatory never contemplated that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home. When the Jews demanded a state in a portion of Palestine, their efforts were rewarded by the 1939 White Paper. It partitioned the country into three administrative zones and allocated 2/3rds of it to the Arab majority and the remainder of the country to the mixed existing population of Jews and an Arab minority. Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Negev, and the Galilee were legally allocated to the Arabs. See the zones in the map here: link to

      FYI, if you don't accept the competence of the UN to partition Palestine, then those were the legal borders of the Jewish state at the moment of independence.

      Ben Gurion claimed it was racist and illegal, but the Palestine High Court of Justice disagreed. See the case of Bernard A. Rosenblatt (petitioner) vs. the Registar of Lands, Haifa ; Director of Land Registration, Jerusalem; Edmond N. Levy (respondents) (High court case no. 19/47): in the Supreme court sitting as a High Court of Justice ; before the chief justice Sir William Fitzgerald and Mr. Justice de Comarmond; hearings on 9th May, 1947 and 12th May, 1947.

      If Ben Gurion actually thought that it violated the terms of the Mandate, then he only needed to get one LoN member to agree. But he couldn't find even one. Article 26 of the Mandate stipulated:

      The Mandatory agrees that, if any dispute whatever should arise between the Mandatory and another member of the League of Nations relating to the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the mandate, such dispute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation, shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice ...

      link to

      Ben Gurion revealed in his memoirs that the members of the Permanent Mandates Commission had privately advised the Jewish Agency Executive in 1937 that the Mandate could not be implemented according to the Zionist Organization's wishes. See David Ben-Gurion, "Letters to Paula and the Children", translated by Aubry Hodes, University of Pittsburg Press Edition, 1971, pages 134-135

      He immediately setup a working group to devise his own racist partition proposal that would keep the majority of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine from buying any property in the Jewish half of the country. Prof Yossi Katz devoted an entire chapter (pages 85-109 in Partner to Partition) to the presentation of the rather ample archival evidence which illustrates the Jewish Agency's decade long effort to formulate their own plan for transferring the Arab population out of the Jewish state. That was an integral part of the Agency's Mandate era partition proposal. Katz said it was developed by a staff of over three hundred people and eventually presented to the UN for adoption.

      Just to refresh your memory, in the Boundary Dispute Case (Burkina-Faso v Mali), the ICJ ruled that:

      In this connection it should be noted that the principle of uti possidetis seems to have been first invoked and applied in Spanish America, inasmuch as this was the continent which first witnessed the phenomenon of decolonization involving the formation of a number of sovereign States on territory formerly belonging to a single metropolitan State. Nevertheless the principle is not a special rule which pertains solely to one specific system of international law. It is a general principle, which is logically connected with the phenomenon of the obtaining of independence, wherever it occurs. Its obvious purpose is to prevent the independence and stability of new States being endangered by fratricidal struggles provoked by the challenging of frontiers following the withdrawal of the administering power.
      The essence of the principle lies in its primary aim of securing respect for the territorial boundaries at the moment when independence is achieved. Such territorial boundaries might be no more than delimitations between different administrative divisions or colonies all subject to the same sovereign. In that case, the application of the principle of uti possidetis resulted in administrative boundaries being transformed into international frontiers in the full sense of the term. This is true both of the States which took shape in the regions of South America which were dependent on the Spanish Crown, and of the States Parties to the present case, which took shape within the vast territories of French West Africa. Uti possidetis, as a principle which upgraded former administrative delimitations, established during the colonial period, to international frontiers, is therefore a principle of a general kind which is logically connected with this form of decolonization wherever it occurs.

      It's hard to see how the customary rule applies in "all cases", if it doesn't apply to Palestine. It has been part of customary international law, since 1810, and was an integral part of the Monroe Doctrine cited in Article 21 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. So I doubt the ICJ could rule-out its application to Palestine, if it were ever asked to decide.

      All the British government did was draw administrative boundaries to establish the full extent of the Jewish national home in accordance with their own Balfour Declaration and the mandate conferred upon them by the San Remo Conference. FYI, the Chairman of the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission advised the representative of Great Britain in 1932 that the Jewish national home had long-since been established. See the verbatim minutes of the 22nd Session, 6 December 1932 link to

      So it's hard for me to get all worked up over Ben Gurion's deceitful testimony or your worries that I might be taking it out of context.

    • I can find nowhere in Ben-Gurion’s testimony a call for a Jewish state to created in Palestine by force and to be administered as a trusteeship.

      I can't blame you, it's buried in Orwellian double talk:

      CHAIRMAN: If I sum up correctly what you have said, you mean that it would be an administration of the country under supervision by the United Nations?

      Mr. BEN GURION: Yes, The Jewish Agency

      CHAIRMAN: But is that not a continuation of the Mandate in another form?

      Mr. BEN GURION: No, it is not. Because the Mandate means-and you will see the first Article of the Mandate begins: "That the Mandatory shall have full power of legislation and of administration . . . save as they may be limited by the terms of this Mandate. This had to be done because at the beginning there was only a very small Jewish community of some 60,000 and they could not foresee how long it would take to reach the consummation of the purpose of the Mandate. We are now in a different phase. There is only a very short interval between the decision to have a Jewish State and the material and legal consummation of a State.

      CHAIRMAN: Of course, when I asked whether it is not a continuation of the Mandate, that was a contradiction, as there will be no Mandatory. It will be a direct administration by the United Nations. But do you think there is an advantage in such a situation?

      Mr. BEN GURION: There is, because, first of all, there will be a clear-cut, unequivocal decision that Palestine is becoming a Jewish State.

      Sir ABDUR RAHMAN (India): Do I understand correctly that you want a Jewish State to be established, to be forced on the country by the arms of the United Nations? ...

      Mr. BEN GURION: Yes. I say that the fact is, first, that force is being used against people exercising their rights. Our right is to come back. To prevent this, force is being used.

      If the United Nations will give a decision in justice and equity that the Jews have a right to come back to their country, then I believe it will be their duty, if necessary, to enforce it.

      I do not know how much force will be necessary, but you have the same problem everywhere in the world. The main question is not whether to use force or not; the main question is whether a thing is right or wrong. That is what the United Nations have to decide: Is it right or is it wrong? If it is wrong, then it is for the United Nations to stop every Jew from coming into the country, and perhaps, as some people here want, to send away those who are here. Such a thing has happened to us. So, this is the question: if the United Nations will say this is right, then they will do everything to enforce that right, the same as they are doing to enforce right everywhere else in the world. It is not a special question applied to us.
      link to

    • As he always does, Hostage selectively quotes from Ben-Gurion’s op-ed, which argues that after World War I, Arabs in the Middle East achieved independence in a land mass larger than Western Europe, and that Jews had no other place that they could call home.

      Hophmi, I'll let you polish that turd. Ben Gurion lived in New York for nearly three years during WWI. It's where he met and married his wife. As far as I can tell, nothing, except mean spiritedness and spitefulness, kept him in Palestine after his brief stint in the Mule Corps. If you don't call the USA home, what's keeping you here? The notion that the Arabs who had been placed under mandate in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Transjordan, and Iraq had achieved independence is simply risible.

      Just to keep the record straight: The 1950 "Entente" agreement between AJC President Jacob Blaustein and Prime Minister Ben-Gurion still reflects the thinking of most American Jews. Most of them would also agree with the restatement in the report issued by the World Jewish Congress’ 33-member international Economic and Social Commission chaired by Baron Guy de Rothschild in 1988. It endorsed the right of diaspora Jews to criticize policies of any Israeli government; rejected the Zionist tenet that diaspora Jews live in exile; expressed the view that aliya from Western countries would not increase substantially in the future; and asserted that Jews who choose not to settle in Israel should not feel guilty or be made to feel guilty. See "WZO Executive Criticizes WJC Report and Accuses Its Authors of Flippancy Toward Zionism link to

    • Other sources Hostage cites are notable for how wrong they were about Europe. Sylvain Levy complained about Jews seeking a state in Palestine when they were asking for equal rights in Europe. We all know what equal rights in Europe became between 1933 and 1945.

      I block quoted Mr. Levy. He didn't mention a word about a Jewish state. FYI, Weizmann's remarks during the same meeting indicated that a Jewish national home didn't even require the establishment of a Jewish government. You're artlessly misstating Levy's position. He wasn't complaining about the Jews asking for a state in Palestine, he was shocked that they were asking for superior rights there, while the rest of the world was about to recognize their entitlement to equal rights, i.e.: "Under the circumstances, it seemed to him shocking that the Jews, as soon as their rights of equality were about to be recognised in all countries of the world, should already seek to obtain exceptional privileges for themselves in Palestine. Privileges so obtained as a rule did not profit either the giver or the receiver."

    • Commission Technical Assistant WIlliam Yale’s ‘minority report’, and advocacy for a Jewish State.

      William Yale wasn't one of the commissioners, he was one of their staff military officers.

      ‘After a single day in the Holy Land, King and Crane dispatched
      to Paris a telegram which said that it would be impossible to carry
      out the Zionist program without the presence of a large army.’

      The two commissioners were accompanied by a full staff, including military officers who already had service experience in the Near East, such as Captain William Yale. -- link to

    • The Guardian, the paper you all know and love, denounced it as a death sentence for tens of thousands of Jews. Seems to me that the Guardian was exactly right.

      Hophmi, I see that you are living in your usual state of delusion and denial. The Jewish Agency always had unused immigration certificates at its disposal, even after the 1939 White Paper policy went into effect. In any event, the country was usually hosting thousands of illegal refugees. Here is an example from the JTA we all know and love:

      5,000 Unused Palestine Certificates Extended; Total War Entry Reaches 20,000
      December 22, 1940

      JERUSALEM (Dec. 20)

      The Palestine Government has extended for three months the validity of more than 5,000 unused immigration certificates under the former schedule, it was learned today. The action followed appeals from the Jewish Agency. The Jews to whom the certificates were issued have not yet been able to use them because of wartime travel difficulties.

      The Jewish Agency, it was learned, is making efforts to obtain transit for 1,500 immigrants with certificates who are still in the Baltics. The first group, from Sweden and Denmark, is expected to arrive soon.

      A total of 20,000 Jews entered Palestine in the 16 months since the beginning of the war, Elishu Dobkin of the Jewish Agency reported to a conference of the World Union of Poale Zion-Hitachduth at Ayanoth. They included 8,700 in various quota categories and more than 10,000 refugee illegal immigrants.

      Dobkin added that the Palestine Government had turned over to the care of the Agency more than 7,500 illegals after they had served six months internment and that 2,400, including some 1,600 survivors of the sinking of the S.S. Patria on Nov. 25, were still in the Athlit camp.

      The Patria death toll reached 72 today when four more bodies, including Max Zwillinger, 49, of Vienna and three unidentified women, were recovered from the submerged ship.

      The Ayanoth conference adopted resolutions calling for continuation of the organization’s work in occupied European countries, demanding that American Jews increase their assistance to suffering European Jews and asking strengthening of the World Jewish Congress to make it an authoritative representative body.
      link to

      So there were plenty of certificates for the passengers of the Patria, but they were left on the ship to suffer and many of them were massacred by the Jewish Agency terrorists for propaganda purposes.

      Even after it learned of the Holocaust, the Jewish Agency was employing its unused immigration certificates in Yemen, not Europe:

      During the early 1940s, the imam’s attitude towards Jewish emigration took a new direction: neither prohibition nor official permission, but rather unspoken consent to the departure of Jews from San a and other central Yemeni settlements. This development was initially noted in 1943, when the Jewish Agency began its active involvement in Yemen. Toward the end of 1942, the fate of European Jews and the horrors of the Holocaust became well known. The Jewish Agency suggested that in order to increase the Jewish demographic presence in Palestine, unused immigration certificates be transferred to Jews from Muslim countries. Accordingly, Yosef Ben David, the Yemeni born Jewish Agency education emissary in Aden, was dispatched to Yemen in 1943, in order to explore the possibilities of Jewish immigration to Palestine. -- Traditional Society in Transition: The Yemeni Jewish Experience, By Bat-Zion Eraqi Klorman, page 97 link to

      The rank and file membership of the Zionist Organization and the WJC were concerned about the plight of Jewish refugees in Europe, but the members of the Zionist Executive were not. The documentary record shows that, long before Israel became worried about being flooded with millions of Palestinian refugees, it was worried about being flooded with millions of undesirable Jewish refugees.
      The Jewish Agency Executive were not concerned with bringing all of the Jewish people, as such, to Palestine or concerned about their fate:

      A representative of the Jewish Agency has stated that in the event of partition the 400,000 Jews in the Arab states outside Palestine may have to be sacrificed in the interest of the Jewish community as a whole.

      link to
      Weizmann never considered many Jews to be fit material for the Jewish community he was building in Palestine:

      Dr. Weizmann, President of the World Zionist Organization and ex-officio President of the Jewish Agency, stated that he had come to this country, with Palestine as always uppermost in his mind, to raise $4,000,000 outside the United Palestine Appeal for strengthening the Jewish community in Palestine.
      It was to be anticipated, Dr. Weizmann said, that at the end of the war there would be at least 2,500,000 Jews seeking refuge. Of these perhaps 1,000,000 would represent Jews with a future and the others Jews whose lives were behind them-”who were but little more than dust”. He believed that it would be possible to settle in Palestine 1,000,000 of these refugees, so far as possible those with a future, one-fourth on the land, the remainder as an addition to the urban population.

      link to
      Here are a number of cites from Boaz Evron, “Jewish State or Israeli Nation?”, Indiana University Press, 1995, page 260-261 regarding the deliberations and correspondence of the Zionist Executive on the subject of the Evian Conference on Refugees:
      *The Jewish Agency’s Executive met on June 26, 1938 to discuss the Evian Conference goal of raising Allied attention to the need for efforts and funding in order to resettle endangered Jews in other countries. Evron wrote that: “It was summed up in the meeting that the Zionist thing to do ‘is belittle the Conference as far as possible and to cause it to decide nothing’.
      “We are particularly worried that it would move Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for aid to Jewish refugees, and these collections could interfere with our collection effort.” Ben Gurion said “No rationalization can turn the conference from a harmful to a useful one. What can and should be done is to limit the damage as far as possible.”
      *Evron quotes from a letter written by Georg Landauer, the managing director of the Jewish Agency Central Bureau for the Settlement of German Jews, to Rabbi Stephen Wise, the Co-Chair of the American Zionist Emergency Council, dated February 13, 1938: I am writing this letter at the request of Dr. Weizmann because we are extremely concerned lest the problem be presented in a way which would prejudice the activity for Eretz Israel. Even if the conference does not propose immediately after its opening other countries but Eretz Israel as venues for Jewish emigration, it will certainly arouse a public response that could put the importance of Eretz Israel in the shade. . . . We are particularly worried that it would move Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for the aid of Jewish refugees, and these collection efforts would interfere with our collection efforts.
      *There was also the statement made by Menachem Ussishkin head of the Jewish National Fund in the meeting of the Zionist Executive on June 26, 1938 regarding the report of Mr. Greenbaum: “He is also concerned at the Evian Conference. . . . Mr. Greenbaum is right in stating that there is a danger that the Jewish people also will take Eretz Israel off its agenda, and this should be viewed by us as a terrible danger. He hoped to hear in Evian that Eretz Israel remains the main venue for Jewish emigration. All other emigration countries do not interest him. . . . The greatest danger remains that attempts will be made to find other territories for Jewish emigration.”
      The statement by Ben Gurion and the letter to Rabbi Wise were also cited in S. Beit Zvi, Hatzionut Ha-Post-Ugandit Bemashber Ha’shoah (Post-Uganda Zionism and the Holocaust), Tel Aviv: Bronfmann, 1977, page 178, 181, 182

    • Could you not write your own series of articles? I am only doing four. Perhaps you could fill in the gaps?

      Certainly. If Phil and Adam would publish them, I'd write them.

      It's nice to see you're still here. IIRC, the last time we were exchanging views and information, the Mondoweiss admins were methodically disabling comments after only a few days and we got cut-off in mid-conversation.

      I can see that you're swamped responding to the comments made here by others. After the dust settles down a little, I'll post some comments and documentary references that you and the others might find useful.

    • Or simply, the Carlsbad resolution suggests that Zionists have always vied for peace, and it is their Arab neighbors who have been unwilling to make peace with them.

      I think the record speaks for itself on that particular score. The King-Crane Commission reported that:

      —it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist Program must be greatly modified. For a “national home for the Jewish people” is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the “civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine”

      link to

      About the same time as the Calsbad resolution Dr. M. D. Eder, the acting Chairman of the Zionist Commission in Palestine, testified to the British Haycroft Inquiry that:

      “In his opinion there can only be one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish predominance as soon as the numbers of that race are sufficiently increased.”

      — — Palestine. Disturbances in May, 1921. Reports of the Commission of Inquiry with correspondence relating thereto .. (1921) page 57 link to
      Over very strenuous British government objections, Eder went on to serve two terms on the Zionist Organization Executive that served as the principal organ of "The Jewish Agency for Palestine". Fellow Executive Committee member Ze’ev Jabotinsky was even more bellicose in his demands to arm the Jews against the Arabs and employ an “Iron Wall” of bayonets to keep them at bay until all hope of resistance could be extinguished.
      Ben Gurion’s 1919 Ahdut Ha’avodah party platform contained a manifesto which demanded the establishment of “a Jewish Socialist Republic in all of Palestine, and the transfer of Palestine’s land, water, and natural resources to the people of Israel as their eternal possession.” See Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, Shabtai Teveth, page 99.

      One of the members of the original Zionist Commission to Palestine, Sylvain Levy, warned that the whole undertaking would probably be a disaster:

      The first difficulty lay in the great disproportion which existed between the area of Palestine and the millions of people who might want to go there from Eastern Europe. In the second place, the actual condition of the country, which was at present able to maintain only a small population owing to the climatic and other causes brought about by the action of men and the misgovernment of the authorities. At the present moment, some 600,000 or 700,000 Arabs only dwelt in that country, but it would be impossible for an equal number of Jews to adapt themselves to the same conditions of life, since they had in Europe, and especially in Western Europe, acquired certain methods of life which would not be satisfied by the conditions which were sufficient for the Arabs. In the third place, the masses of people who might wish to return to Palestine, would largely be drawn from those countries where they had been persecuted and ill-treated, and the mentality which such a regime was likely to engender could be easily realised. Those people would carry with them into Palestine highly explosive passions, conducive to very serious trouble in a country which might be likened to a concentration camp of Jewish refugees. . . . Under the circumstances, it seemed to him shocking that the Jews, as soon as their rights of equality were about to be recognised in all countries of the world, should already seek to obtain exceptional privileges for themselves in Palestine. Privileges so obtained as a rule did not profit either the giver or the receiver.

      Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, page 167-8 link to

      A Royal Inquiry Commission recommended partition and a forced exchange of populations in 1937.
      Ben Gurion responded with an editorial which explained that the only thing that would keep the Jews from taking over all of Palestine was British military force:

      The Jewish people have always regarded, and will continue to regard Palestine as a whole, as a single country which is theirs in a national sense and will become theirs once again. No Jew will accept partition as a just and rightful solution.
      The proposal of the Royal Commission to set up a Jewish State in a restricted area is to put a drastic limit to the possibilities of a Jewish return, and to condemn the rest of the country to stagnation and desolation.
      Anything may be imposed on a defenceless Jewish people by the superior forces of the British Empire, just as the Jewish people had in the past to submit to the destruction of their country by the Roman legions, and in our own times to their persecution by Nazi Germany and other countries.
      But they can never regard the proposal as something which is right and just in itself.

      -- See "The Jews", David Ben Gurion, The Palestine Post, Thursday, July 15, 1937, Page:5 link to
      The Zionists advised the US government as early as 1943 that they intended to impose a solution on their Arab neighbors by force and were no longer interested in a negotiated settlememt:

      “I have noted in discussions with Zionist spokesmen visiting Cairo recently a marked hardening in their attitude (possibly owing in part to increased confidence resulting from alleged large-scale clandestine arming by Jews in Palestine) which in several cases has taken the form of frankly admitting that it is idle to continue to talk of “negotiations” with Arabs, in balance obvious that any solution satisfactory to Zionists would have to be “imposed” on Arabs by threat or use of force and this latter the only realistic line of action to adopt. — Kirk link to

      Ben Gurion's initial testimony to UNSCOP called for a Jewish state in all of Palestine established by force and administered as a UN trusteeship by the Jewish Agency. He suggested that Palestinians would have to seek their self-determination in one of the many Arab states.
      link to

      Nothing changed after 1948:

      In 1956, Ben-Gurion proposed the division of Jordan: “Jordan has no right to exist and should be partitioned. Eastern Transjordan should be ceded to Iraq (then under a pro-Western monarchy), which would offer to accept and re­settle the Arab refugees. The territory to the West of the Jordan should be made an autonomous region of Israel.” As for the Gaza and Sinai, Sharett’s diaries reveal that Dayan and Ben-Gurion began planning a war of territorial conquest against Egypt in 1953, even before Nasser came to power and turned to the Soviet Union for arms.

      -- Critical Essays on Israeli Social Issues and Scholarship: Books on Israel, Volume III, SUNY Press, 1994, page 185 link to

      So, there should have never been any doubt among the members of the international community of states that the Zionists intended to seize Palestine and drive off as many Arab inhabitants as the international community would permit.

  • My personal journey of transformation
    • P.S. Recently Jeb Bush wrote:

      The Obama administration treats announcements of new apartment buildings in Jerusalem like acts of aggression.

      -- link to

      The Obama administration was reacting to Netanyahu's election campaign stop in "Har Homa" which was built on West Bank land that was illegally annexed to the Jerusalem municipality by Israel long after the 1967 Six-Day War. It's important to remember that, after Israel annexed East Jerusalem, it was Nixon’s Ambassador to the UN, Charles Yost who advised the other members of the Security Council that our government nonetheless considers East Jerusalem occupied territory:

      97. . . . The expropriation or confiscation of land, the construction of housing on such land, the demolition or confiscation of buildings, including those having historic or religious significance, and the application of Israeli law to occupied portions of the city are detrimental to our common interests in the city. The United States considers that the part of Jerusalem that came under the control of Israel in the June 1967 war, like other areas occupied by Israel, is occupied territory and hence subject to the provisions of international law governing the rights and obligations of an occupying Power. Among the provisions of international law which bind Israel, as they would bind any occupier, are the provisions that the occupier has no right to make changes in laws or in administration other than those which are temporarily necessitated by his security interests, and that an occupier may not confiscate or destroy private property. The pattern of behaviour authorized under the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 and international law is clear: the occupier must maintain the occupied area as intact and unaltered as possible, without interfering with the customary life of the area, and any changes must be necessitated by the immediate needs of the occupation. I regret to say that the actions of Israel in the occupied portion of Jerusalem present a different picture, one which gives rise to understandable concern that the eventual disposition of East Jerusalem may be prejudiced, and that the private rights and activities of the population are already being affected and altered.
      98. My Government regrets and deplores this pattern of activity, and it has so informed the Government of Israel on numerous occasions since June 1967. We have consistently refused to recognize those measures as having anything but a provisional character and do not accept them as affecting the ultimate status of Jerusalem.

      link to

      For over 50 years the international community of states worked on a definition of the crime of aggression. During that time, both Republican and Democratic administrations ratified the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Montevideo Convention, The Organization of American States Charter, The Geneva Conventions, and the United Nations Charter. Each of those conventions prohibit the acquisition of territory by war or through annexation by an occupying power:

      The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,

      -- Definition of Aggression, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) and "Article 8 bis Crime of aggression," in the amended Rome Statute.

    • Wonder what Ms Thier thinks of the Goldhagen thesis re his book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners”? Would she think it relevant to her own experience, the average German’s experience growing up in Germany back in the day?

      I would thinks so, since her use of the term Judaize has an exact historical parallel to the Nazi program of "Germanization" - which was one of the major war crimes tried by the post-WWII Tribunal. She said:

      There is a tremendous effort to Judaize east Jerusalem and house demolitions is one of them. Demolishing Palestinian houses that had been built without permit, is the pretext, as permits are not given… We met Palestinians and listened to their frustrating, sad stories. Their status as residents can be revoked easily, which indeed has been done. Since Oslo accords 140,000 Palestinians lost their residency, because they dared to go abroad, they lost their right to return home.

      Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention covered all of the crimes involved in population transfers. The process of acquiring a territory by evicting its population, either through military attacks or occupation, and implementing a policy of apartheid or genocide are the primary examples of war crimes and crimes against humanity listed in the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

      Count 3 of the Nuremberg Indictment, i.e. "(J) GERMANIZATION OF OCCUPIED TERRITORIES" charged the Nazis as follows:

      In certain occupied territories purportedly annexed to Germany the defendants methodically and pursuant to plan endeavored to assimilate those territories politically, culturally, socially, and economically into the German Reich. The defendants endeavored to obliterate the former national character of these territories. In pursuance of these plans and endeavors, the defendants forcibly deported inhabitants who were predominantly non-German and introduced thousands of German colonists.

      -- See pdf page 73 (printed page 63) of The International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, Trial of the Major War Criminals, Vol. 1 at the Library of Congress link to or see the Indictment, Count 3 "War Crimes" at the Avalon Project link to

      "In their verdict, the four Allied judges found that the main aim of the Nazis, i.e., the conquest of living space, had been amply proven by the prosecution. Therefore, they viewed the atrocities committed during the war as consequences rather than ends— but did not refer to these policies as a program of genocide:

      The evidence shows that at any rate in the East, the mass murders and cruelties were not committed solely for the purpose of stamping out opposition or resistance to the German occupying forces. In Poland and the Soviet Union these crimes were part of a plan to get rid of whole native populations by expulsion and annihilation, in order that their territory could be used for colonization by Germans.

      -- See Reassessing the Nuremberg Military Tribunals: Transitional Justice, Trial Narratives, and Historiography page 109-110 link to

  • Stanford Hillel defied Hillel guidelines by hosting Gottlieb -- 'and no one burst into flames'
    • This is a complicated issue. Why people crave approval of their communities

      No the important question is: How did the Jewish Community get so fucked-up that it forgot the original facts about Hillel? The Talmud says that the House of Hillel and its students were famous for three things:

      1. They had to be put to the sword, before their adversaries in the Palestine Sanhedrin could obtain a majority in favor of adopting legislation to sever all communications or commerce with their Gentile neighbors. (You don't have to guess about that Hillel House's position on the construction of the Wall);

      2. That they taught the heathens of Palestine that there is just one Golden rule that comprises the whole meaning of the Torah and that that one law was applicable to the native-born Jews and Gentiles and any strangers living in Palestine;

      3. That a Divine Voice from Heaven said that the law follows the House of Hillel, because they always were polite, courteous, and made sure that their adversaries views were presented first, before presenting their own.

      Hillel doesn't stand for any of those things today.

    • Only it hits me as the exact equivalent of White people insisting to hear about the Civil Rights movement from Whites exclusively, Negroes needn’t apply. That was their right too, wasn’t it?

      No, it really isn't equivalent. It's more like a despotic oriental fiefdom or a mandarin ruling class sitting on a mountain of cash solicited from the general public under false pretenses. Fingerhut is the head of a national Jewish fraternal organization that is also a tax exempt public charity. It doesn't actually own or fund these independent local Hillels.

      Hillel International claims in its solicitations for donations, legacies, and endowments that it provides campus services for the benefit of all members of the Jewish religion. The USPTO Hillel trademark registration says the same thing - and that the service association promotes Jewish cultural education and discussion of human rights. But Fingerhut has forbidden local Hillels, as such, from sponsoring, partnering, or providing facilities for pro-BDS groups, like Jewish Voice For Peace or Students For Justice in Palestine. So even if your chapter bought and paid for its own facility, he's threatening to sue you if it is used for one of its stated purposes.

    • I can’t quite get what she means by that by “criminalization”.

      The Lanham Act makes willful trademark violation or unfair competition a federal crime. Likewise the Sherman Antitrust Act makes planning and organizing a boycott a federal crime. The courts have carved-out narrow exceptions for 1st and 14th amendment political and religious activities that Congress isn't allowed to regulate under the "Commerce Clause" of the Constitution, but Fingerhut led the charge in Congress to outlaw the BDS movement anyway. He and his ilk employ the hasbara argument that Israel is a vibrant democracy. They falsely claim that the Palestinian civil society's BDS movement isn't a human rights boycott similar to the landmark NAACP v. Patterson (No. 91) 357 U.S. 449 - 1958 and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 US 886 - 1982 cases.

  • Netanyahu to stage hunger strike against world peace
  • The Jewish establishment has banned these four valiant Jews. Why?
    • Anyone who is not turned off by phil’s use of gangster in this context is already converted to the cause.

      What's fair for the goose is fair for the gander. I just responded to a comment by JeffB, who claimed that Hillel chapters which support the Open Hillel campaign are somehow guilty of trademark infringement and fraud. link to

      The article above mentions a letter from Fingerhut's lawyer which also suggests that the Swarthmore Hillel was violating the law. Do you object to that language?

      I explained the fact that the Hillel brand was established by a Reform Rabbi in 1923, when the anti-Zionist Pittsburgh Platform was in effect and that in 1948 Hillel International specifically invited the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism to setup chapters on campus under the Hillel umbrella. The Word mark registration for the term "Hillel" at the USPTO specifically stipulates that one of the services or activities offered by the association is the promotion of discussions about human rights. If the directors at Hillel International suddenly want to exclude anti-Zionist Jews and say that the brand name prohibits the very thing it was registered to promote, then it's their fiduciary responsibility to establish a new service mark for that, and to avoid bringing the existing mark and name into disrepute and destroying the goodwill it enjoys based upon its history of plurality.

      Otherwise, Hillel International is probably guilty of pulling the wool over the eyes of a lot of us and engaging in misapplication of the property rights others have assigned and entrusted to their care - plus fraudulent solicitation of charitable donations from members of the Jewish religion or community that it happens to disagree with.

  • Open Hillel's big month: Swarthmore 'Kehilah' is born and a student resigns over Hillel restrictions
    • P.S. the link above was an example of one type of third party fair use in commerce that I intended to cite. The Pepsi Co. brand history timeline link should have been: link to

      An example of the same type of statutory third party fair use of the Coca Cola mark would be the Collectors Club link to

    • The claim is that Hillel is a brand like Pepsi

      That's preposterous. You keep citing Coca Cola and Pepsi, but there is simply no parallel to the Hillel word-type service mark in those product names. Neither of those words was a generic term or the name of an ancient Jewish religious school that had fallen into the public domain and become popular in that same connection with synagogues and scores of other Jewish educational institutions engaged in commerce, before one of "the many" using the word finally registered it with the USPTO. The name Hillel appeared in English texts like Rodkison's Talmud, The JPS Tanakh Book of Judges, and the Jewish Encyclopedia "Hillel", "School of Hillel", & etc. entries. By then, it had even been mentioned and discussed at length in older English Christian works authored by scholars, like Alfred Edersheim.

      In terms of the local groups being run by colleges that makes things far better for Hillel not worse. If college X is funding an independent Open Hillel then when B’nai B’rith sends them a cease and desist letter it is going to be directed at the college misleading students by fraudulently claiming to be providing Hillel brand Jewish social clubs while in reality college X is running the club themselves - See more at: link to

      For reasons of standing and joinder, B'nai B'rith would inevitably get dragged into court as a result of any lawsuit filed by its licensees against a third party. So I would be amazed if it didn't retain the right to waive Hillel International's claims in exactly the same fashion that Novell finally stepped-in and waived SCO's claims against IBM in the decade-long UNIX open source code case I mentioned above. FYI, Neither B'nai B'rith nor Hillel International provided services to Swarthmore College, but that didn't stop Hillel International from soliciting charitable donations from the public as if it did. The College chartered the student group, funded it, and provided it with facilities. That means the College was the normal everyday "source" or "origin" of the campus Hillel brand "service". The Supreme Court ruled in the Daystar case that the Lanham trademark Act cannot be used to prevent unattributed use by others of any material that has fallen into the public domain and that the trademark act cannot be used to sustain a "passing-off" claim against other independent sources or points of origin in such cases. link to

      Hillel was just another campus ministry back in 1923 and there were already other Jewish community centers with study halls or dedicated integral auxiliaries, e.g. Beth Hillel synagogues with integral Beth Midrash and/or: seminaries; elementary schools; high schools; academies; yeshivas; and university book clubs - all doing business as "Hillel's" and promoting the same forms of Jewish religious or cultural education. That situation rules out the only conclusive statutory ground used to establish that a word mark has acquired a secondary meaning, i.e. five years of exclusive or nearly exclusive use in commerce. I've already provided a link to 15 USC 1052 here is a link to the USPTO Examiner's manual discussion of its criteria for acquired secondary meaning: link to

      I've already discussed the fact that either a more "senior" mark or long-term, unchallenged common law use of junior marks by others (through "waiver", "laches", and "estoppel") are explicitly mentioned as statutory defenses against a claim of infringement involving a so-called "incontestable mark". In fact, the Daystar decision notes with irony that infringement of an unregistered trademark can even provide the basis of a claim that would result in a federal case against the USPTO-registered owner.

      Anyone can use a generic word for an exclusive trademark, but not if it's merely descriptive of the service or product subject matter. For example, people in the apple orchard business have to disclaim exclusive rights to the word "Apple" in their trademarks. Entities in non-related fields, like the computer or record industries, have been permitted to use the same generic, word "Apple" in their "exclusive" non-orchard related trademarks - precisely because it is unintuitive and non-descriptive. By 1963, any use of the term Hillel in the field of Jewish religious or cultural education was no longer exclusive, original, unintuitive, or non-descriptive of the subject matter.

      In regard to your example, the "Coca Cola" and "Pepsi" web sites explain that those are trademarks owned by their companies. There are pages providing legal notices about that fact: link to link to and timelines or histories of the companies trademarked brands link to link to

      Neither B'nai B'rith nor Hillel International have legal notices on their web sites to inform the public that "Hillel" is a registered trademark. In fact, the web page for "Small Campus Hillels" advises students how to become "Hillel Student Organizations (HSO’s): Affiliated Hillel’s without professional staff that exist as student groups and are overseen by an advisor." The page description repeatedly uses the term "Hillel" and the step-by-step instructions amount to an implied license for any group of students to use that same name when applying with their Dean of Students to become a registered student group on their campus, as a necessary preliminary step, before they can even approach Hillel to apply for an affiliation or trademark license agreement (much less agree in writing to accept its Israel guidelines):

      If your school does not belong to our network of Hillels with smaller Jewish populations, and your Jewish student group would like to join the Hillel network, follow these simple steps:

      *Become a registered student organization on your campus
      *Recruit students interested in helping to build a Jewish community on campus
      *Find an advisor on campus who can provide counsel and guidance
      *Complete the application
      A Hillel Campus Services representative will contact you when we receive your application."

      -- link to

      There's obviously nothing remotely like that on any Pepsico or Coca Cola company web page.

      6) A servicemark is a type of trademark. While there are some specifics that change mostly the same rules apply.

      A service mark is supposed to identify the "source" or "origin" of a service. It actually used to do that when B'nai B'rith Foundation was the national sponsor, proprietor, and trademark owner. The Remaking of Hillel Case Study I cited elsewhere explained that the Foundation bylaws even prohibited local chapters from doing their own fund raising back in those days.

      When B'nai B'rith spun-off Hillel, it retained the trademark and merely licensed it to Hillel International and signed over the other property rights to the local foundations. In some cases it actually sold them-off to third parties. Hillel International reports that the 550 local Hillels are actually "independently funded" and the Forward reported that individual universities even provide the staff Rabbis in many cases. There is obviously no mention of the Israel guidelines in the accreditation manual and that program itself doesn't seem to be urgent or mandatory. All of that has led to situations where the actual service provider is neither B'nai B'rith nor Hillel International, i.e. one of the statutory "defenses" or "defects" that can be raised against an "incontestable trademark" is: "That the registered mark is being used by or with the permission of the registrant or a person in privity with the registrant, so as to misrepresent the source of the goods or services on or in connection with which the mark is used" link to

      For example, there was another unusual case in the headlines a few years ago regarding the Chicago Metro Jewish Federation's surprise mass firing of the entire University of Chicago Hillel Board and its announcement that it had purchased all the Hillel's in the State of Illinois when B'nai B'rith spun-off the organizations. That funding/ownership/management situation even came as something of a surprise to people and groups who thought they were familiar with the Chicago Federation and the Chicago Campus Hillel. See "Looking Beneath the Surface in Chicago" link to

      I think we are going in circles. You are presenting interesting arguments but you are not dealing with the central question of how your arguments if they were accepted wouldn’t completely undermine trademarks in almost all situations.

      No, you are arguing in circles and trying to redefine statutory terms and employ the normal consumer confusion standard to statutory and nominative fair use situations, where the Courts have explicitly ruled that test simply doesn't apply.

    • Organizations affiliated with churches can expel heretics or apostates, that is established law.

      No, you can't use the commerce clause when it suits you and escape its clutches when it doesn't. I've already explained that these are not Churches or integral auxiliary organizations and that their primary source of income is federal and state grants and donations from the general public. So for instance, the Department of Homeland Security FAQ says that when "Only part of my organization receives DHS assistance. How broad is the reach of Title VI?":

      Since 1987, the Title VI definition of "program or activity" has included all the operations of any entity, any part of which is extended financial assistance. Therefore, Title VI and its prohibition against discrimination are not limited to the aspect of the recipient's operations that specifically received the federal financial assistance, but rather apply to all operations of the recipient.

      -- Title VI Overview for Recipients of DHS Financial Assistance link to

      You can only apply for DHS assistance under programs, like the Urban Areas Security Initiative Nonprofit Security Grant Program through a State government Homeland Administering Authority. link to

      Those state governments in-turn require applicants to comply with both state and federal human rights or civil rights statutes. In many, if not the majority of cases, those state codes add religion and creed to the list of legally protected characteristics.

      In several instances, when we talk about violations of the Hillel guidelines, we may actually be discussing federally funded seminars on interfaith social issues held in federally-subsidized Hillel facilities, where it would be improper or illegal for government agencies, such as the University Regents, Department of Homeland Security, and the Homeland Security State Administering Authorities to provide Hillel with grants to supply a public forum and secure public accommodations and then permit it to censor substantive content of speech on the basis of its own private religious creed. You're ignoring the fact that so-called Anti-Zionism is a perfectly acceptable and honorable Jewish religious creed that's reflected in the Talmudic literature regarding the "Three Oaths" and in historical doctrinal statements, like the Pittsburgh Platform. In addition the Balfour Declaration/Palestine Mandate safeguarding clause regarding the rights and political status of Non-Zionist and Anti-Zionist Jews in this country was an integral part of the quid pro quo agreement by which you Zionist sycophants obtained government acquiescence for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. See the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention (1924), 44 Stat.2184; Treaty Series 728.

      FYI, it was only after B'nai B'rith, the Jewish Federations, and the local Hillel's, including the Philly area and Boston area Hillels, started applying for millions of dollars in Community Block Grants and Department of Homeland Security Grants to upgrade the security of their so-called non-denominational "community centers" and other "public accommodations" at taxpayer expense under the Urban NGO Security Program, or DHS programs to conduct multi-year, multi-campus Hillel-sponsored seminars to "Build Interfaith Bridges" that the Jewish Taliban in the community started shreying about the Anti-Zionist views of some of the participants involved. See for example: Grant Helps Campuses Build Interfaith Bridges, Hillel News |Mar 11, 2008 link to and pages of Lori Lowenthal Marcus' "Hillel Explains When ‘Open Hillel’ Will Result in Disaffiliation" link to

      They demanded the immediate adoption of post hoc Israel guidelines that could be used to magically exclude non-Zionist or Anti-Zionist Jews and Palestinian Muslims or Christians who support BDS from participating in these stage-managed Pro-Israel taxpayer funded events on the basis of their creeds. But that is a violation of the Department of Homeland Security and the individual State Administering Authority's legal guidelines.

      There have always been Arab Christian and Muslim groups that have Anti-Zionist (and even Supersessioinist) religious creeds too. Let me clue you in, there were a pair of Supreme Court rulings which allowed both Jews and Arabs to file civil rights complaints as racial groups that also happen to have some religious characteristics:
      * St. Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, link to
      * Shaare-Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, link to

      The whole Campus Anti-Zionism=Anti-Semitism crusade falls apart once you understand that the same law prohibits you guys from harassing Jewish and Arab Anti-Zionists and explicitly excludes their religious creeds from the DOE's legal definition of Anti-Semitism:

      In late 2004, OCR [the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights] finally determined that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits anti-Semitic harassment at federally funded public and private universities, except to the extent that the harassment is exclusively based on tenets of the student's religious faith. In other words, OCR policy now treats anti-Semitic harassment as prohibited racial or ethnic harassment except when it is clearly limited to religious belief rather than ancestral heritage. -- page 3 -- In 2004, OCR issued a series of policy statements announcing that it would assert, for the first time, jurisdiction to pursue claims alleging harassment of Jewish students. These statements were issued as part of broader guidance concerning "complaints of race or national origin harassment commingled with aspects of religious discrimination against Arab Muslim, Sikh, and Jewish students."' They were issued, interestingly, in the course of determining an appropriate disposition for a case alleging harassment against a Sikh student. At the same time, they were issued in the belief that a uniform policy should apply to members of all groups exhibiting both religious and ethnic or racial characteristics -- page 23

      -- Kenneth L. Marcus, Anti-Zionism as Racism: Campus Anti-Semitism and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 15 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 837 (2007), link to

      FYI, there are many state universities that only allow private organizations to operate on campus if they agree in advance that they will not discriminate against others on the basis of legally protected characteristics such as race, religion, creed, or national origin. For example, Fingerhut is one of the Ohio University Regents. The Ohio Constitution explicitly prohibits the government from granting a preference to any "religious society". The Ohio University Community Standards Code makes it a Class A offense to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of their religion, creed, or nationality. link to After mentioning that the original Hillel was founded at the State University of Illinois, author Deborah D. Moore points out that:

      By the time of Frankel's sudden death at the age of thirty in 1927, three new Hillel units had been added at the Universities of Ohio State, Michigan, and California. These schools were all publicly supported institutions, prohibited by law from teaching religion.

      -- B'nai B'rith and the Challenge of Ethnic Leadership, pages 142-143 link to

      She goes on to say that within a few years those same state universities, together with, Alabama, Iowa, Connecticut, Northwestern, and Oklahoma were offering Jewish and Christian students Hillel courses for academic credit. Situations like that would make it almost impossible for college administrators to exclude Non-Zionist or Anti-Zionist students and groups from subsidized Hillel activities and facilities without violating explicit Supreme Court holdings on the subject, including Gary E. Widmar et al., Petitioners v. Clark Vincent et al. No. 80-689 and Ronald W. Rosenberger, et al., Petitioners v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, et al. 515 U.S. 819 (1995) Fingerhut must also be aware of the fact that he can't use bogus trademark claims against state university administrators. They enjoy sovereign immunity from intellectual property lawsuits in the federal courts. e.g. See "State Sovereign Immunity and Protection of Intellectual Property", link to

    • So I’m going to get a little more specific with a scenario. Assume that Open Hillel of Swarthmore didn’t change their name. George from Open Hillel invites Phil (Ali Abunimah or …) to speak. Phil agrees. George ... We have 4 possible claims.

      No, the fact is that Hillel International isn't the source of anything at Swarthmore. It looks like the Philly Area Hillel may have provided a Reconstructionist Faculty Advisor who had finished her seminary work. She has announced her departure. Other than that, the College provided all of the grants and setup individual accounts with the Student Budget Committee for each Jewish Group on Campus, e.g. Chabad Chaverim, Hillel, Swat Students for Israel, etc.
      link to link to
      and provided them with an Interfaith facility, Bond Hall. link to

      The answer to your hypothetical is that George is not an agent of Open Hillel. If he is a member of Swat Hillel, then he's not passing off. His group really was an official affiliate of the Greater Philly Area Hillel Foundation, named Hillel - even after the resolution saying it was also an Open Hillel.

      Andrea claims she thought the contract was with Hillel and wouldn’t have signed a contract with payment after the event with some small student club. Betsy claims she thought it was a Hillel event and wouldn’t have bought the ticket had she known.

      Hillel International and the Local Philly Hillel Foundation didn't fund Swat Hillel, the College did. The Hillel didn't change its name, so Andrea was dealing with the same small non-profit student group in any case and should have known that. Here's what Title 15 of the Pennsylvania State Code says about Liabilities of an unincorporated association: § 9117. Liability.

      (a) Scope.--

      (1) A debt, obligation or other liability of a nonprofit association, whether arising in contract, tort or otherwise, is solely the debt, obligation or other liability of the nonprofit association.

      (2) A member or manager is not personally liable, directly or indirectly, by way of contribution or otherwise, for a debt, obligation or other liability of the nonprofit association solely by reason of being or acting as a member or manager.

      (3) This subsection applies regardless of the dissolution of the nonprofit association.

      (b) Liability for conduct.--A person's status as a member or manager does not prevent or restrict law other than this chapter from imposing liability on the person or the nonprofit association because of the person's conduct.

      (c) Agents.--A person that makes a contract or incurs an obligation on behalf of a nonprofit association after September 9, 2013, is not liable for performance or breach of the contract or other obligation if the fact that the person was acting for the nonprofit association was disclosed to, was known by or reasonably should have been known by the other party to the contract or to the party owed performance.

      (d) Observation of formalities.--The failure of a nonprofit association to observe formalities relating to the exercise of its powers or the management of its activities and affairs is not a ground for imposing liability on a member or manager of the nonprofit association for a debt, obligation or other liability of the nonprofit association.

      (July 9, 2013, P.L.476, No.67, eff. 60 days)

      2013 Amendment. Act 67 added section 9117.

    • Pick me, Pick me!!! Listen i own a book on Tekyu, which makes me almost a Prophet.

      Your application has been approved! But it made me realize that "The Jewish People" just wasn't inclusive enough. You can be the Grand Mufti of our "B'nai B'rith Mosque & Maddrassah" .

    • P.S. It appears that the Jewish Federation and Hillel of Greater Philadelphia Area have accepted Homeland Security grants to upgrade their facilities. The grants were obtained from the US Department of Homeland Security through the State Homeland Security Administering Authority. The grant applications say that the recipients and their contractors have to comply with state and federal civil rights statutes. So it's a lively question whether they can legally discriminate against anyone on the basis of their creed or religion. The Federations and Hillels just about everywhere else are in the same boat. FYI, there are similar civil, criminal, and administrative prohibitions against those forms of discrimination in CA, NY, MA, OH, IL, and many other states I've checked.

    • Do you mean the trademark or the affiliation license? Assuming you mean trademark, I think that’s the core of it. But there is nothing unusual there. Coca-Cola’s only leverage over me preventing me from selling a soda called Coca-Cola is their trademark.

      I think you need to adjust your medication and stop talking nonsense about Coca Cola products. I meant that Hillel can't ask the College to discriminate against Jewish students on the basis of their Anti-Zionist creed if he doesn't have a license agreement with each of them.

      Hillel is a service mark, not a trade mark. You might want to read my comments above about the fact that a service is only an activity that you do for others, not for your own members or affiliates. Read the USPTO Examiner's manual entries from 1301 to 1301(a)(ii): link to

      It appears now that Fingerhut's only leverage at Swarthmore was the affiliation agreement. If he doesn't have one with the new campus Kehillah umbrella organization, nothing would prevent it and the College from having a subordinate Hillel Club. If that Club only provides activities for its own members and obtains all of its funding from the College through Kehillah, then the name wouldn't be used as a service or trademark anyway, i.e. it's neither a source of a product nor a service. It's just a private unincorporated association meeting in the College-owned Interfaith facility.

      FYI, Swarthmore does accept federal funding and it's non-discrimination policy complies with both federal and state laws. The latter prohibits the College from discriminating against students on the basis of religion or their Anti-Zionist creed, i.e. the Dean of Students could file a complaint with the State Human Rights Commission and have Hillel banned from campuses statewide, until it changes its Israel Guidelines

    • even the Open Hillel people don’t buy your argument about the trademark being iffy. They say, “Yes, Hillel would be within its legal rights to be a political organization where only certain views are acceptable — but that’s not what we want to see in our community.

      I notice you still have reading comprehension problems. There's no mention of the B'nai B'rith trademark or Hillel International The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life on that page.

      You keep forgetting that these people include, dissatisfied customers, stakeholders, and what the Israel Guideline page called "the Local Hillel". Those affiliate members are independently funded and are the actual service providers to other Jewish groups on their campus. They quite correctly think of themselves as "Hillel" and can't be accused of falsely passing themselves off, as such, in any Court until Fingerhut gets off his ass and formally disaffiliates them. You might think it's cute to conflate a chartered student group name with the name of a service mark, but the Judge would stop you right in your tracks. About a third of the "Local Hillel" affiliates have entity or trade names like "The Vassar Jewish Union". Adopting a resolution that says they are an "Open Hillel" doesn't have any relevant legal effects on their charter or affiliation agreement.

      So, you could just as easily interpret that as: “Yes, (our) Hillel would be within its legal rights to be a political organization where only certain views are acceptable — but that’s not what we want to see in our (local) community.

      The "Remaking Hillel" study that I mentioned to Mooser noted that the first CEO of the new Hillel International wanted to borrow a new idea from academia, "accreditation" so that he could use it to fire directors. He assigned the project to a staffer, who reported back that the directors would not accept it, and that it would could only be implemented from the bottom-up. Some Philanthropists donated the money for a consultant and the directors eventually sat down an wrote a watered-down standard themselves. Within a year’s time, the accreditation process was formalized into the "Everett Pilot Program for Excellence", and eventually a manual was even published.

      Here is the latest Hillel International web page I can find on the bottom-up "accreditation" program that's dated Jul 25, 2005. link to It said that after 14 years, only 71 Hillel Foundations in the United States and Canada had received accreditation. So it's obvious that the 2010 Israel guidelines are not even incorporated in the manual and that its possible that many, if not most, of the 550 Hillels have been unaccredited since the mid-1990s. Here is a relevant statement from another Hillel Official:

      Another point of clarification: Almost all the Hillels are independent organizations with our own tax identification numbers, our own board of directors, our own bylaws and our own tax accountants. Some Hillels are more closely linked with their nearby federations, but the majority are stand-alone, non-for-profit religious organizations. As a result, we are all hired and fired by our local board of directors. While we each have an affiliation agreement with Hillel International, there is nothing in that affiliation agreement to indicate that anybody is going to get fired by the CEO of the organization.

      link to

    • Hostage, that still doesn’t relieve JVP of the liability associated with improperly using the “Jewish” word and logo. ... Sorry, I meant Cadillac or Mercedes-Benz. My apologies.

      I always say to go with your first impressions, they can't always be wrong. So, according to the Kansas Secretary of State's Business Identity System @ link to

      Kansas Business Center
      Name Availability Status

      "The Jewish People" Is Available

      You can reserve this name now for a $30.00 fee. A name reservation is not required to form a new business. It is ONLY for those who intend to form a corporation or other entity, but require additional time to complete the necessary paperwork.

      The right to a reserved name may be transferred by filing a written consent signed by the original applicant. A Name Reservation is valid for 120 days, after which it expires and the name is released for public use.

      Name reservations may not be renewed if a reservation is submitted prior to the expiration date of a current name reservation. If this occurs, the new reservation will be rejected. ... Reserve this Name?

      FYI, you can never be too safe so I checked and: Name Availability Status "The Palestinian People" Is Available too, but only if we act now.

      If you've ever read "The Remaking of Hillel: A Case Study on Leadership and Organizational Transformation, Mark I. Rosen, Case Analysis, by Amy L. Sales", then you know that Hillel International is funded in part through a corporate combination, the US Council of Jewish Federations, and that their facilities in Kansas and elsewhere around the country have been upgraded especially for use by "The Jewish People" at the taxpayers expense, courtesy of the Department of Homeland Security (and a plethora of other federal community block grant programs). So I don't believe they are allowed to discriminate against "The Jewish People" patrons and our "Hillel Symposium (and "Trefa Banquet") by denying us accommodations on the basis of our non-violent Anti-Zionist religious creed, deviant tastes in Klezmer music, or fondness for German cars. See "Charity Helps Jewish Groups Feel Safe" (link to

    • , if hillel can be trademarked exclusively, why not washington or jesus?

      @Annie, the correct answer is that you can string together preexisting generic words or sprinkle them with a few new ones you've coined yourself ("Adventist"), place them on logos, and trademark them together, e.g. "The Standard Oil Company". You can even sue anyone else who brings that new combination of terms or shapes that you created into disrepute, e.g. "The Seventh Day Adventist Church". What you cannot do is trademark a single preexisting generic term like "Hillel", "Jesus", "Washington", "Standard", "Oil", "Company", "Seventh", "Day", "Church" and try to prevent others from using them in their own unique combinations, e.g. "Open Hillel" or "Independent Hillel Service". I've already explained there is no requirement to obtain the owner's consent before you use the same unique name in commerce and little or no burden on a defendant to prove the element of confusion is absent in those cases. Here we are taking about a single preexisting generic word or words. For heavens sake, if you could do something like that, why waste your time with Hillel? Just register "The Jewish People" and serve constructive notice to the Zionists that the game is over and its use by others is prohibited.

      Back to reality, From the outset I noted that there aren't any of the usual supporting documents for the original Hillel Torah Scroll logo application available online in the USPTO TESS database. The applicant would have been required to submit a written list of all known exceptions to its claims of exclusivity - and there were plenty of them. I pointed out that the Hebrew Union Seminary had given one of their rabbinical candidates an assignment to work with the students of the University of Illinois campus at Urbana and how that classic campus ministry evolved into the very first Hillel. It's no accident that a "Synagogue" is just synonym for a Jewish community center that does all of the things listed as "association services" on the Hillel trademark registrations.

      JeffB incorrectly stated that B'nai B'rith and Hillel International are "churches", but never explains how they would be able to keep the many other church entities, e.g. a "Temple Beth Hillel", from coming onto a campus and competing in the marketplace by setting up their own brand named "integral auxiliaries", just like the Hebrew Union Seminary did in the first place. Ever since the Clinton era, the barriers that kept some of them off of campuses in the past have disappeared under the auspices of "charitable choice" legislation and "faith-based initiative" programs. JeffB seems blissfully unaware of the fact that any attempt to block them by Hillel International could be construed as per se violation of the antitrust statutes.

      So it's just silly for JeffB to suggest that anyone can use a trademark to prevent that same type of private religious unincorporated association from meeting to eat pizza, and raise money for things, like new jerseys for the Jewish student sporting association, if they also happen to be named something like "The Minyan Beth Hillel" and want to discuss Palestinian human rights. The trademark statues only govern activities that Congress is permitted to regulate under the Commerce clause of the Constitution. The Courts have always ruled that doesn't include the 14th Amendment right of private association or the 1st Amendment right to practice your religion and exercise free speech on any political issue.

      No matter when the applicant first used the mark in commerce, "constructive use" only starts when it gets filed with the USPTO. Anyone with more "senior" common law rights before that date can have it declared invalid, even after it has been granted "incontestable" status. The statute itself mentions some examples of prior unregistered use that can be employed as an affirmative defense in such cases. Usually common law rights are limited to a particular state or region, but in several cases, a prior user has been able to have the registered mark declared invalid in the entire country. One of the authorities that has been noted by the Supreme Court and cited in a dozen other cases in that connection is Cuban Cigar N.V. v. Upmann International, Inc. link to

      So for example, if Hillel was a "church" as JeffB suggested, then all of the hundreds of other Temple Beth Hillel's, or integral parts of a church, like a Hillel seminary, elementary, or high school would have to be listed on B'nai B'rith's USPTO application as exceptions. The fact that the real trademark owner has never sued another one of those other entities can be explained by the part of the Statute I cited above which explicitly states that waiver, laches, and estoppel are also statutory defenses and grounds for dismissal in the case of alleged infringement of a so-called "incontestable" mark.

      If B'nai B'rith Hillel was a fraternal organization, prior users, like the Texas A&M Hillel Book Club, dozens of academic sporting associations, & etc. should have been listed on the application for registration too. The purpose of the trademark system is to register marks, not words. So all of those others could be employing their own unique registered logos too if USPTO decides there's no confusion issue. That's why every town in America can have its own "Baptist", "Methodist", "Presbyterian", or "Mt. Zion" hospital engaged in commerce without a shit storm of trademark lawsuits.

      Contrary to JeffB's narrative, a simple check of the IRS form 990s indicates that Hillel International, B'nai B'rith, and the Jewish Federations are not "churches" (Jewish, Christian, or Muslim places of worship) or "integrated auxiliaries" (church "schools" or "seminaries") or "School" organizations for the purposes of the tax code. They are actually part of the $28 billion dollar tax-exempt Jewish Public Charity Industry who report that they earn most of their money from federal community block grant programs and donations from the general public. Like all fraternal organizations or businesses, they can discriminate against applicants for membership in their organizations on the basis of religious creed, but they are prohibited from doing that in connection with any services they provide to the public if those are funded either wholly or in part by a government subsidy or grant. As I noted above, during the Clinton and Bush administrations there was a push for so-called "Charitable Choice" legislation that allows "pervasively sectarian institutions" named Hillel (churches, synagogues, mosques) to begin competing to provide community services on State-owned university campuses for the first time against these more loosely "religious-affiliated" or "nonreligious" (Jewish people) charities. So they are potential competitors in the same service sector. Full stop

      That's enough for one comment. But it should begin to illustrate why Fingerhut isn't breaking down any Courthouse doors to enforce his exclusive B'nai B'rith license and why the real owner is still keeping its mouth shut about the whole affair.

    • Open Source didn’t start with operating systems ... I don’t know of anyone prior to Stallman who thought let’s unify these pieces of open source software together entire an entire full featured operating system.

      Just to keep the record straight. The "Educational License" for Research UNIX was free until the late 70s. You were really only paying for the cost of materials , duplication, and shipping of the complete source code tape. It was only licensed for non-commercial, non-competitive educational use, and those licenses required the derivative works to be relicensed for free and redistributed at cost. That's why you had hundreds of colleges and universities adopting it so quickly and why the original Berkeley license terms were so damned generous. If it had been up to the UC Regents, you'd have never heard of a free license. Stallman only got infuriated because that culture suddenly went away, when the decree was lifted and the cost of a source code license went sky-high. A commercial license was a quarter of a million dollars and hundreds of small businesses just folded-up.

    • @JeffB

      Your trademark analogies and arguments are really not relevant, I only mentioned the UNIX example because of the license or contract agreements. Those can be used to impose terms and conditions that have nothing at all to do with the content or intent of the federal statutes. Licenses also happen to be the only real leverage that Fingerhut might posses. To borrow the hammer analogy, if all you have is a license, everything starts looking like a licensee. But that's an inherent weakness too. We are talking about a service mark. In order to satisfy the statute criteria that has to be an activity you perform for third parties, not your own organization or member associations. So on Swarthmore we have Chabad, Chaverim, Hillel, Swat Students for Israel, and a host of other student groups that may have Jewish participants who could request services from the local Hillel chapter. Fingerhut doesn't have a license agreement with any of those other groups, so nothing at all prevents them from employing the word "Hillel" or participating in the Open Hillel protest movement as disgruntled customers, so long as they satisfy the criteria I've mentioned above for statutory or nominative fair use.

      We aren’t disagreeing on the seminar type issue. I’ve said that multiple times, “you have to engage in trade to violate a trademark”. There is no question that Open Hillel can as long as money doesn’t change hands be fine.

      You still failed to grasp that "money changed hands" in both of the Supreme Court cases (and all of the others that I mentioned above) AND that the defendants don't need the trademark owner's consent to use the words in commerce under either the statutory fair use exception or in the case of nominative fair use. There is no consumer confusion burden of proof for the defendant in a statutory fair use case. The only confusion test the Courts allow in the case of nominative fair use is whether or not the defendant falsely claimed or implied the owner's endorsement or approval.

      Your history is a bit off. The Open Group was an industry alliance against Sun and AT&T it had nothing to do with open source but rather open standards.

      There was no need for any such alliance, while AT&T was legally prohibited from competing in the market. And The Open Group formed for exactly the reasons I stated. You're just having some reading comprehension difficulties. I never said the Open Group had anything to do with open source. I said that once AT&T became a competitor, it adopted new licensing policies for its source code that "were so onerous that the research community quickly formed various “Open Group”, “Open Source”, BSD, or Free Software foundations and/or protest movements." I indicated that those were are all separate things.

      Many commercial enterprises were members of the research community who held UNIX source code licenses on code encumbered with patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret (NDA ) licensing terms. Everyone in the commercial UNIX business had a research and development business and an AT&T source code license. So even their non-derivative works were suddenly susceptible to AT&T claims of theft of trade secret methods and procedures. Scientists or programmers who had accessed the source code suddenly had to be quarantined or firewalled-off from participating in other important development projects - just in case. None of the members of the Open Group could even sell their UNIX derivatives without an AT&T license, so there was really no question of competing against AT&T and Sun on a level field without a large strategic patent pool.

    • @ JeffB one of the biggest problems with your analysis so far is your failure to comprehend statutory fair use or the related nominative fair use doctrine and the fact that fair
      use is, by definition, not infringement.

      In the example I outlined above, any University Jewish or Hebrew Studies, Middle Eastern Studies, or Interfaith Religion Department could convene a permanent or recurring "Hillel Seminar", "Hillel Project", or "Hillel Symposium" and invite guest speakers, scholars, and students to make presentations or submit papers which discuss the ethics and philosophy of Hillel the Elder, the School of Hillel, and what they might say to inform Jewish or Gentile opinion today about the subject of Palestinian human rights in the Biblical Holy Land. They could do that to their heart's content, so long as the term is used descriptively with regard to the seminar, symposium, or project's subject matter, and not used in the sense of a commercial trade mark, or service mark. That would be a classic example of statutory fair use against any claim of infringement by a registered trademark owner. "15 U.S. Code § 1115 (b) Incontestability; defenses (4)" stipulates one of the available statutory defenses is: "That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark" and T.M.E.P. § 1202 "Use of Subject Matter as Trademark" says:

      Not everything that a party adopts and uses with the intent that it function as a trademark necessarily achieves this goal or is legally capable of doing so, and not everything that is recognized or associated with a party is necessarily a registrable trademark. As the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals observed in In re Standard Oil Co., 275 F.2d 945, 947, 125 USPQ 227, 229 (C.C.P.A. 1960):

      The Trademark Act is not an act to register words but to register trademarks.

      link to

      FYI, in KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., the Supreme Court said that the possibility of consumer confusion in connection with the descriptive use of some generic registered word marks by a competitor in commerce was completely irrelevant in the case of their statutory fair use:

      The question here is whether a party raising the statutory affirmative defense of fair use to a claim of trademark infringement, 15 U. S. C. §1115(b)(4), has a burden to negate any likelihood that the practice complained of will confuse consumers about the origin of the goods or services affected. We hold it does not

      . link to

      Similarly, the doctrine of nominative fair use allows the minimum necessary portion of a registered trademark needed to positively identify the genuine product or service to be employed - even in commerce - without the owners permission, whenever it is necessary for purposes of criticism, news reporting or comparison, or as a point of reference. In cases where a nominative fair use defense is raised, the Courts only ask whether (1) the product was “readily identifiable" without use of the mark; (2) defendant used more of the mark than necessary; or (3) defendant falsely suggested he was sponsored or endorsed by the trademark holder." The Courts have also held that this test is the only one required to evaluate the likelihood of confusion in nominative fair use cases. See for example:
      * Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. v. Tabari link to
      *New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Pub., Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992) link to
      *Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Kenneth G. Wheeler, et al., Defendants, Appellants, 814 F.2d 812 (1st Cir. 1987) link to
      * Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, 264 U.S. 359 (1924) link to

      Disclaimers, such as: "Hillel is a registered trademark of B'nai B'rith International" and "The following views may not represent those of the trademark owners" are optional, but not legally required. In each of the cases listed above, the Courts ruled that the defendants were allowed to use the trademarked words or names without any logo or emblems in their advertising, website names, or business names. Some of those names included "New Kids on the Block", "Lexus", "Volkswagen", "VW", and "Coty". The use was required to positively identify the genuine trademarked items that the defendants either discussed in their newspaper articles and contests or sold, serviced, modified, & etc. The Courts even ruled that it was irrelevant in the case of nominative fair use whether or not the practice lowered the trademark owner or licensees' profit margins or undermined their territorial exclusivity due to fair competition from the defendants for sales and services in the same marketplace.

      No one can positively identify and criticize Hillel International's Israel guidelines without, as a minimum, using the trademarked word "Hillel". The Open Hillel movement does not employ the Hillel emblem or logo on their website, and it should be painfully obvious to any reader that the movement has never falsely suggested or implied for one moment that Hillel International supports or endorses the movement's views.

      With those preliminary rules explained and out of the way, I can make separate comments on some of the examples you have provided.

    • @ JeffB, let me explain something to you. I've commented elsewhere that my day job in the Air Force for many years required me to arrange for the contract work performed by members of the DoD research community on computer operating systems employed for telecommunications. I also participated in UNIX/IEEE standard setting bodies. Nearly everyone involved was an AT&T source code licensee. Despite the fact that Bell Labs was part of one of the largest government-franchised monopolies of all time, all of us were working within the strict parameters of a DOJ antitrust consent decree, until the local Bells were finally spun-off in the 1980s. After that, AT&T entered the communications computer data market and became a normal competitor. From that point on, everyone was constantly threatened and reminded that the UNIX source code was protected by trademark, copyright, patent, and license non-disclosure agreements regarding proprietary trade secrets. The new policies were so onerous that the research community quickly formed various "Open Group", "Open Source", BSD, or Free Software foundations and/or protest movements. Several of them were located in the same Harvard-MIT community that spawned the Open Hillel movement. For decades there were infringement lawsuits between AT&T and its successors in interest and licensees including UNIX Systems Labs vs The University of California Regents, SCO vs IBM, & manufacturers who employed the Linux/Android kernel source code. Unlike the smart lawyers at the DOJ, I managed to retire without getting sued by anyone for infringement, theft, or weird entanglements with the Israeli Mossad. See the Inslaw scandal entry @ link to

      So I wasn't born yesterday. You're going off the deep end quite a bit and engaging in fanciful discussions that really have nothing to do with reality. Each case has to be decided individually by the Courts, based upon the material facts and the applicable laws. In these cases, the necessary facts simply aren't available to the public yet. There are reliable reports from former Hillel officials in the Jewish Daily Forward and the Jewish Press which claim: that there is nothing in their affiliation agreements that would permit the CEO of Hillel International to fire anyone; that all of the affiliation agreements they are familiar with contain non-exclusive trademark license agreements; that Fingerhut hasn't revoked or disaffiliated a single foundation or campus student group yet, despite the fact that many of them have ignored the new Israel guidelines; that the Greater Philadelphia Area Hillel Foundation still considers Swarthmore Kehilah to be one of its campus organizations. So, Fingerhut has presumably been threatening the school administrators instead, on what appears to be a rather flimsy theory of their unlicensed use of the Hillel name and mark or for unfair competition.

      FYI, under both the Federal Rules of Procedure and the Trademark Statute itself, anyone holding one of those affiliate license agreements is entitled to request relief from the Court against a claim of infringement on the grounds of a statutory affirmative defense. See Rule 8(c) License link to and 15 U.S. Code § 1115 link to

      It appears that, since the spin-off, B'nai B'rith and Hillel International may have been deceiving the public through the use of the service mark about the true source of the services, funding, and ownership of the individual Hillels. That is one of the statutory defenses against a claim of infringement. I'll comment on your hypothetical examples and your church or religious-affiliated group arguments in separate comments.

    • . i recall learning from you about that showdown between hillel and the Shammaites before. “to permit every one to enter, but no one to leave.” ... it’s a crazy decision to make, the separation between jews and gentiles.

      I hope that you've also learned from me that the United Nations conditioned the establishment of Jewish and Arab states on complete legal equality for everyone and that there never was any intention of severing either communications or commerce between the Jews and Gentiles. I've commented almost endlessly here about the fact that the minority protection plan, and the plan for economic union and right of transit, were integral, indivisible parts of the "Plan for the Future Government of Palestine" a.k.a. UN resolution 181(II).

      I've also discussed "The Three Oaths" here in the past. Some Orthodox Jews claim that the criteria have already been fulfilled, while others contend that it's still just a prophecy of future events. This is the first time I've explicitly pointed out the connection between the Oaths and the criteria regarding legal equality for all in both the Torah and the stipulations contained in resolution 181(II). To say that Zionists have rebelled against the Nations in that regard would be a guarded understatement.

      it does seem strange to use the name hillel and then not ascribe to his beliefs.

      I agree, but the primary problem is the use of an utterly false name association with the beliefs of an authoritative Jewish religious institution, the House or School of Hillel, in order to deliberately disparage, bring into disrepute, and even prohibit the adoption of its core beliefs - all "in the name of Hillel" - and under the auspices of "the commerce clause" of the US Constitution. It's supremely ironic to me, that Jewish religious tradition teaches everyone that the real students of Hillel were so strongly opposed to the adoption of man-made ordinances forbidding any commerce or communications between Jews and their Palestinian neighbors that the measure could only be adopted after they had been put to death with the sword.

      I pointed out in an earlier comment that the trademark statute, itself, attempts to prevent situations, just like this one, from ever coming up in the first place. Any trademark can generally be registered, unless it consists of matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute. link to

      Everything I've outlined above can be easily confirmed by simply reading the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia entries for "Gentiles", "Hillel", "Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai", and "Academies in Palestine", taken together with passages from Rodkinson's 1918 translation of the Babylonian Talmud or the Soncino versions. The documentary evidence establishes, beyond any doubt, that prior to either its registration by USPTO or its first use "in commerce", "Hillel" was in common English usage. It was: (a) the name of a famous deceased person; (b) a name that already had a secondary generic meaning. It was used with the definite article ("The House of Hillel", "The School of Hillel", "The Academy of Hillel") to identify "a college", "a sort of university or academy", or a specific, authoritative (halakhical) Jewish religious institution with a very well-defined set of beliefs and practices. There were already institutions on university campuses here and abroad, like the Hillel Book Club at Texas A&M. For example, the "Hillel House" of the Perse School in Cambridge, England was established in 1904. It was originally a Jewish day school for the children of Cambridge dons. It evolved into a co-educational boarding school, a student athletic society, and a religious center/home away from home for Jewish students of all ages. Its members are known as "Hillelians". They in-turn have been active in founding other university organizations there that promote Jewish, Christian, and Muslim interfaith relations and study offerings under the Cambridge University system umbrella and imprimatur, i.e. The Woolf Institute, The Centre for the Study of Jewish Christian Relations, The Centre for the Study of Muslim Jewish Relations, and The Centre for Policy and Public Education. I wonder if JeffB is worried about consumer confusion in those cases?

      All the available evidence suggests that the original Hillel Foundations deliberately chose the name Hillel for the same reasons as everyone else - precisely because it symbolized those beliefs and practices that I've described above. That was certainly the case when the trademark was first used in commerce in 1923; when it was first published for public objections by USPTO; and during the five year waiting period before the papers were filed requesting that the mark be granted uncontestable status.

    • I’ve been struck nearly speechless through 2 readings of your post, Hostage

      I apologize for the length of the post. But I wanted to make sure that everyone here thoroughly understood the fact that Hillel International's 2010 Policy Guidelines on the State of Israel are an absolute perversion of every vital principle of the Torah and the Halakhah that the real House of Hillel stands for in mainstream, historical Judaism and traditional Jewish culture.

    • I have to tell you I’m starting to lose track on what points of law we are disagreeing about vs. what points of fact we are disagreeing about vs. what points of likely outcome we are disagreeing about.

      Starting this here to avoid narrowed-down block quotes. We are disagreeing on: (a) the meaning of just about every important point of Jewish religion, history, and culture; and (b) the extent to which contracts, common law, or federal and state laws can be used to regulate individuals or their religious or political associations.

      I've discussed the details of all those individual subjects here in the past, including the disastrous results of the dispute between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel over relations with the Gentile inhabitants of the Land of Israel and denial of their basic humanity. I've never tried to condense all of those thousands of comments into one reply before. But I really do think that there is a unified "Jewish Theory of Everything" which explains all of the hatred and attempts at censorship within the Jewish community that invariably get triggered by the Zionists among us, whenever anyone else talks about "The Three Oaths", "the State of Israel's right to exist", or the State of Israel's formal adoption of a dual system of laws and regulations that deny the most basic human rights to the non-Jewish inhabitants of the country and any occupied territories unlucky enough to come under its jurisdiction. If readers will stick with me, I'll try to tie-up some of the loose ends.

      Our Gentile friends can be excused for their ignorance about the sage Hillel. But I'm really amazed that the task of having to explain exactly why Hillel International's position is so ridiculous and outlandish on religious grounds, has fallen through the cracks into the hands of a secular Jew, like myself. There have been scores of articles, both here and in the Jewish press, about this heated debate inside the local Hillel chapters and none of them have explained it either. Maybe some of those authors will read this and spread the word.

      I'll have to address the religious and cultural aspects here and the legal aspects in separate comments, just to keep this post down to a manageable size.

      It's only fitting for Hillel chapters to object about the attempt by Hillel International to impose a policy, "in the name of Hillel", of silencing or disaffiliating groups of religious Jews who insist on politely hearing and discussing opposing points of view regarding violations of the law and fundamental human rights. Like the Christian Professor who helped establish the first campus Hillel chapter, I'm shocked that so many Jews aren't more familiar with their own biblical literature and traditions on the subject. The "law" and "the way to go" (a.k.a. the Torah and the Halakhah) are supposed to govern nearly every aspect of Jewish life - even on campus. The Talmud tells us that the law followed the House of Hillel when it came to these differences over basic human rights and listening to, or debating, opposing points of view:

      Rabbi Abba said in the name of Samuel: For three years the Schools of Hillel and Shammai were in conflict, each saying, “the law is according to our view.” A heavenly voice announced: “Both are the words of the living God – but the law is according to the School of Hillel.” But if both are the words of the living God, why did the School of Hillel “win?” Because they were calm and humble and always taught both their own view and that of the school of Shammai. Moreover, they would always state the view of the School of Shammai before their own.

      – Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, 13b link to (.pdf file)

      So, the Talmud encourages all of the Jewish faithful to be disciples or students of the teachings of the "House" or "School" of Hillel and to follow their example, rather than the example of the House of Shammai in the case of these particular debates over Jewish relations with others.

      The Jewish Encyclopedia article on "Gentiles" explains that some Jewish sages held that the Torah itself was Israel's exclusive, Divine inheritance. They felt that anyone who revealed it to a Gentile was worthy of death. The story about Hillel and the Golden Rule implicitly deals with that subject and what the law said about relations with the Gentiles

      On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, 'Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.' Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand. When he went before Hillel, he said to him, 'What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbour: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.'

      Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbath, Folio 31a link to (.html file)

      Many Jews today think that the Torah deals only with the subject of Israel's relationship to God. But this story about Hillel says that the Torah, and all of the 613 commandments, can be boiled-down to just one simple rule that governs a person's neighborly relations with everyone else (including God).

      Xenophobia, paranoia, and dislike of Gentiles is likened to idolatry in the Jewish religious literature on these debates. The scriptures indicate that there were always unassimilated, native-born Gentiles living in the Land of Israel. They included the remaining Canaanites that King Solomon conscripted to build the first Temple. They also included the Rechabites, righteous Bedouin descendants of Jethro. the priest of Midian, who lived on the southern border of Judah and in their own communities by the Sea of Galilee in the Northern Kingdom. Various other groups of native born or visiting Gentiles are mentioned in the books of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Scriptures.

      According to the Torah, there is only supposed to be one law for these native-born Jews and Gentiles and for any strangers who happen to be sojourning in the land. Some claim that the term "strangers" only applies to proselytes or converts to Judaism, but that interpretation is simply untenable. The same scriptures remind us to love the strangers, because our own Patriarchs were once strangers in Egypt. The only ritual formula that the Torah requires each Jew to recite is the one which reminds us that our Patriarch and his family went down to Egypt and became a great and mighty nation there. The scriptural story of their sojourn in Egypt does not say that they were proselytes or converted to another national religion.

      According to the Talmudic legends in Yoma and Gittin, empty acts of piety, charity, and hatred without a cause had become endemic in the Jewish religious community. Those conditions eventually led to the destruction of the 2nd Temple and the exile, e.g. Yoma 9b says:

      But why was the second Sanctuary destroyed, seeing that in its time they were occupying themselves with Torah, [observance of] precepts, and the practice of charity? Because therein prevailed hatred without cause. That teaches you that groundless hatred is considered as of even gravity with the three sins of idolatry, immorality, and bloodshed together.

      link to (.pdf file)
      Shulchan Aruch Orech Chayim sec. 580 lists dates on the Jewish Calendar on which tragic events occurred. It’s traditional for a religious person to fast on those days. The last date on the list is the 9th of Adar, when the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel over "the 18 ordinances" took place. The disciples of Shammai, subsequently managed to murder enough of the followers of Hillel to secure a majority of votes in the Sanhedrin in favor of implementing the ordinances:

      “The disciples of the school of Shammai stood below, slaughtering the disciples of the school of Hillel. Six of them ascended, while the rest threatened them with swords and spears.”

      -- See the extract from the Jerusalem Talmud at link to

      Our sages tell us that

      “Five misfortunes befell our forefathers on the 17th of Tammuz,” … …”The second is also from the Talmud, tractate Shabbat 13b and 17a”: A count was conducted, and it was found that the sages of Shammai were more numerous than the sages of Hillel. Eighteen ordinances were enacted on that day… and that day was as difficult for the people of Israel as the day on which the Golden Calf was made.

      -- See link to and link to

      Then as now, some bigoted Jews created a controversy that almost destroyed the Jewish people by insisting that they accept a legal system which viewed Gentiles as enemies. The new ordinances made it illegal to have anything at all to do with native born or foreign Gentiles. Then as now, the Zionist zealots insisted that Jews cannot live normal lives and co-exist in peace with Gentiles. The Jewish Encyclopedia notes that it eventually became impossible for the two differing Houses to even form a minyan and worship together in public under the same roof:

      Bitter feelings were consequently engendered between the schools; and it appears that even in public worship they would no longer unite under one roof (Jost, "Gesch. des Judenthums und Seiner Sekten," i. 261; Tosef., R. H., end). These feelings grew apace, until toward the last days of Jerusalem's struggle they broke out with great fury.

      As all the nations around Judea made common cause with the Romans, the Zealots were naturally inflamed against every one of them; and therefore the Shammaites proposed to prevent all communication between Jew and Gentile, by prohibiting the Jews from buying any article of food or drink from their heathen neighbors. The Hillelites, still moderate in their religious and political views, would not agree to such sharply defined exclusiveness; but when the Sanhedrin was called together to consider the propriety of such measures, the Shammaites, with the aid of the Zealots, gained the day. Eleazar ben Ananias invited the disciples of both schools to meet at his house. Armed men were stationed at the door, and instructed to permit every one to enter, but no one to leave. During the discussions that were carried on under these circumstances, many Hillelites are said to have been killed; and there and then the remainder adopted the restrictive propositions of the Shammaites, known in the Talmud as “The Eighteen Articles.” On account of the violence which attended those enactments, and because of the radicalism of the enactments themselves, the day on which the Shammaites thus triumphed over the Hillelites was thereafter regarded as a day of misfortune (Tosef., Shab. i. 16 et seq.; Shab. 13a, 17a; Yer. Shab. i. 3c).

      link to jewishencyclopedia.comThe Jewish Encyclopedia also explains that before his death Hillel is said to have prophetically designated Johanan Ben Zakkai, his youngest pupil, as “the father of wisdom” and “the father of coming generations” (Yer. Ned. v., end, 39b). Zakkai, was the primary source of the core text of Rabbinical Judaism, the Mishnah. According to the theory formulated in the Mishnah (Ab. ii. 8), that traditions were handed down through an unbroken chain of scholars, Johanan, in receiving the teachings of Hillel, formed the last link in that chain.
      Johanan argued in favor of peace with the Roman’s during the Jewish Revolt. He was trapped in Jerusalem during Vespasian’s siege against the city. (Giṭ. 56b; Lam. R. i. 5; Ab. R. N. iv.). When the strife between the Zealots and the other parties in the besieged city became unbearable he had his students carry him to the Roman camp in a coffin to negotiate with Vespasian. He even obtained permission to teach and practice his religion on a portion of the Roman Emperor's personal Estate in Yavneh (aka Yabneh/Jamnia). He established an academy and an authoritative rabbinic college there and turned it into the new center of Jewish religious life after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. link to jewishencyclopedia.comFor almost two millennia, religious Jews were taught that their return to the Land of Israel would be governed by the conditions of "The Three Oaths":

      'What was the purpose of those three adjurations? — One, that Israel shall not go up [all together as if surrounded] by a wall; the second, that whereby the Holy One, blessed be He, adjured Israel that they shall not rebel against the nations of the world; and the third is that whereby the Holy One, blessed be He, adjured the idolaters that they shall not oppress Israel too much'.

      Kethuboth 111a link to

      FYI, the Gentile "nations" have never been completely synonymous with the idolators or persecutors of the Jewish people. The friendly nations didn't overly burden the Zionists about their return to Palestine. Article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate simply imposed "suitable conditions" to allow gradual, rather than mass Jewish immigration, in the interest of preserving the rights and position of the existing Gentile communities. link to In response, the Zionists rebelled and formed underground terror units which ignored the imposition of official immigration quotas. Next the United Nations agreed to the establishment of a Jewish state. But only on condition that a declaration regarding equality of rights would be supplied to the United Nations by the new Provisional Government and that it would swear the stipulations contained in it were:

      "recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them: "No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex.

      All persons within the jurisdiction of the State shall be entitled to equal protection of the laws."

      The Nations said those rights:

      "shall be under the guarantee of the United Nations, and no modifications shall be made in them without the assent of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Any Member of the United Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the General Assembly any infraction or danger of infraction of any of these stipulations, and the General Assembly may thereupon make such recommendations as it may deem proper in the circumstances.

      Any dispute relating to the application or interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.

      UN Resolution 181(II) link to

      I've commented dozens of times here about the fact that the Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency, and the Government of Israel had claimed at the time that they had accepted that resolution and swore during the subsequent hearings on UN membership that they had provided for all of those stipulations in Israel's Declaration of Independence. Their representatives claimed that they had published the declaration as the law the land in their new official State Gazette. But in actual practice they haven't lived up to either their UN or Torah obligations to love the stranger and to adopt one law for the native born Jews and Gentiles - even after the General Assembly belatedly took them to the World Court in 2003. The Zionists and the State of Israel continue to rebel against the nations over the findings in that case. Now history is just repeating itself. Instead of having one or two states, with justice and liberty for all, the disciples of the House of Shammai have "doubled down" and continue to build walls of separation, even among the Jews. Then as now, they have become ill-tempered and refuse to even allow us to meet together under one roof in the name of Hillel to discuss the mess they've made of things and to give opposing views a fair hearing. They blame anyone who even remotely resembles a modern disciple of Hillel for violating their heretical policy guidelines.

    • My condolences, Hostage.

      Well thank you, and everyone else here. The deceased was a lifelong best friend of mine and one of my brother-in-law's siblings. He passed away after a long illness. He was probably considered the favorite uncle among my sister's children and grandchildren. They all came in from out-of-town to attend the funeral. She and I were both busy hosting everyone and putting-up all of those who stayed-over to visit.

    • @JeffB There was a death in the family yesterday and I haven't had time to respond. I promise I'll post a reply to this shortly when things settle down.

    • As for Open Hillel not wanting to conduct business. If they don’t conduct business they can’t violate a trademark and the rest doesn’t matter.

      I'd have agreed with you, if you had stopped right there. The government hasn't given B'nai Brith a monopoly on campus political activities and services under any name, for the simple reason that those activities fall completely outside of the scope of the categories and types of services listed on the registrations of the limited monopoly rights that have been published for objection by USPTO. You are comparing apples to oranges again. The Swarthmore Hillel could have adopted a resolution proclaiming itself a Rainbow LGBT Hillel, and Open Hillel or any other number of things without violating any trademark statutes or student association bylaws, or altering a word in its papers of incorporation.

    • There were “Menorah Clubs” which were early Hillels though obviously under a different name including the one you mentioned, in 1916 they were the “The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas (TAMC) Menorah Club” not a Hillel till 1923

      No, I just quoted an extract from the Texas A&M "About Us" page and provided you with a link which explains that their Menorah Club changed its name to the "Hillel Club" in 1920. It did not immediately go into business, partnership, or affiliation with the "Hillel" that was subsequently established in 1923, neither did B'nai B'rith for that matter. Your willful ignorance of the historical, chronological details is duly noted.

      It really doesn't matter whether B'nai Brith subsequently acquired rights to its brand through mergers or otherwise, there should still be some documentation about that merger or acquisition of mark ownership on file with the trademark application. That's particularly true if it is going to claim "exclusive rights" to it - and if Hillel International (itself) still needed a license after the merger. In any event, the first use of the term on the registrations is incorrect. It wasn't an entity doing business as B'nai B'rith or even Rabbi Frankel's Hillel in Illinois. In the example above, the Texas A&M group wouldn't necessarily have lost its existing rights established in 1920 under state or common law usage, simply by becoming a member or affiliate of another association with a similar Hillel trade name in its registered design mark. Nothing would prevent it from reviving or continuing to use the words "Hillel Club" once B'nai Brith let the 1966 trademark for its old logo expire in 1989. The new logos are not registered, but would be covered by copyright protections and licensing anyway as works of art . My point is that: if the Texas A&M Hillel declared itself to be an Open Hillel, and Fingerhut decided to sue, they might very well prevail in Court and have his trademark on the word declared invalid or severely reduced in its scope of applicability through the incorporation of disclaimer statements. As I noted earlier there is no mention of college campuses in the 1992 registration that would exclude its application against hundreds of thousands of other entities that provide similar services in "Hillel" schools, academies, yeshivas, & etc. It's pretty obvious that Fingerhut is not complaining about those entities unlicensed use of his word mark.

      The rest of your post is drivel. The Open Hillel website explains that it is "a student-run campaign to encourage inclusivity and open discourse at campus Hillels". It's not a business partnership or a merger to provide goods or services. That's fair use of the term for the purposes of public discussion and debate. link to They advocate that Fingerhut's existing affiliate Hillel partners do exactly what the trademark registration says that they do in connection with the promotion of discussions about human rights. Fingerhut doesn't have any grounds to go after them when one of his affiliates adopts an Open Hillel resolution and declares itself to be an Open Hillel. He has to take that matter up with the Hillel concerned. It appears that in the Swathmore case, Fingerhut no longer has any presence on campus.

      Fingerhut seems to think that "members of the Jewish religion" doesn't include anti-Zionists and that he can conduct a campus harassment campaign against them using his trademark claims. He needs to be careful about that if he wants to avoid a Title VI complaint on that account. Even Ken Marcus had to admit in his William and Mary journal article that anti-Zionism cannot be construed as anti-Semitism, when it is based upon a student's religious beliefs. Anti-Zionist Jews can certainly file formal complaints about other groups that have the school's permission to offer public accommodations on campus, but refuse to provide them service on the grounds of either their particular Jewish creed or ethnicity. School administrators have the same responsibility to them as they have to other Jews when it comes to preventing a threatening campus environment.

    • Re: I’ll assume you aren’t Jewish. Among American Jewish students Hillel is very well known.

      That's one of the reasons the trademark should have been denied. The law generally allows any trademark subject matter to be registered unless it falsely suggests a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or brings them into contempt, or disrepute. See 15 U.S. Code § 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration link to

      I've given you a link to an Encyclopedia article which explained that Hillel (a dead person's name) was deliberately chosen because he was a national and religious "symbol" who was considered a champion of social justice and plurality. Now the Zionists have misappropriated his good name and adapted it, like everything else, for the exclusive use of their abominable Jewish state and brought it into disrepute, by making it synonymous with intolerance and denial of human rights.

      That a vendor isn’t well known for people who aren’t potential customers doesn’t mean much. The public is the public of customers. If “Open Hillel” were selling flowers to Mormons they would have a better claim but they are going after the same customer base using B’nai Brith’s property.

      The only live registered trademark currently held by B'nai B'rith says the customers are members of the Jewish religion. By itself, it's pretty useless, unless you are keeping others from designing, engineering, or developing something, in international class 42, like computer hardware or software used to promote human rights. The specimens of its use in commerce were computer screen shots of a web site. How any reasonable person could confuse that with the power to prohibit affiliates in good standing from meeting in their own Hillel building on campus to hold an in-person discussion about human rights beats the hell out of me.

    • Re: The guys at Swathmore having an Open Hillel are pretending to be Hillel brand college clubs when they aren’t.

      No Open Hillel is a student protest movement that doesn't provide any goods and services. The only trademark involved is B'nai B'rith's. FYI, the Courts have held that trademarks, like all intellectual property rights, are subject to fair use by others for the purpose of parodies, criticism, protests, & etc.

      Re:The moment any money changes hands that’s trademark infringement and quite possibly fraud.

      The New York Times quoted a B'nai B'rith spokesman who admitted that each of its 550 affiliated campus Hillels are independently funded. FYI, the first Hillel was established and branded by an independent group who hired a Reform Rabbi back in the days when the anti-Zionist Pittsburgh Platform was still in effect. At the time that "Hillel" entity asked the Hebrew Union and the B'nai B'rith to become its national sponsors, neither of those organizations had publicly endorsed Zionism. Collective trademarks were prohibited by law at that time. So it's pertinent to ask if, and exactly how, B'nai B'rith acquired the rights owned by the Illinois entity which was established by the Rabbi and some area businessmen?

      A recent editorial noted the fact that anti-Zionist organizations were still being invited to form their own local campus chapters under the Hillel umbrella after the State of Israel was established:

      In 1948, upon the establishment of the State of Israel, Hillel directors across the country sought guidance from the national office asking if the then-anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism should be allowed to form chapters within the Hillel umbrella. The answer from Hillel International was clear: “Hillel represents the total Jewish community on each campus which it serves, it excludes no student activity which legitimately represents the interests of a group of students, so long as they accept the principle of community responsibility. Just as there are Orthodox, Conservative and Reform outlooks represented in the Hillel program, so there can be both Zionist and anti-Zionist outlooks.”

      link to

      The 1992 Hillel trademark registration specifically stipulated that promoting discussions of human rights would be one of the services offered to members of the Jewish religion under the exclusive Hillel brand. To sum-up: for decades persons who harbored anti-Zionist views have relied upon what appear to be fraudulent assurances when they were asked to provide charitable contributions of money, property, or real estate; made posthumous endowments; or donated their personal time and effort to build-up the Hillel organization.

      While the 1946 trademark statute permitted collective service marks used to denote accredited membership in an association, B'nai B'rith didn't register one until 1966. That one was granted for a now-defuct logo and was subject to a disclaimer on any rights to generic depictions of the Torah. It was abandoned in 1989. So for more than half a century there is a documented history of unregistered use by the individual chapters who acquired their own funding and rights to the brand through its use under common law or state law. There are no consent agreement documents or assignments of ownership at all contained in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) which might indicate that one or more of them had ever signed over their legal rights in the brand to B'nai B'rith.

    • Re: Certainly Kehilah can say they and not the organization called Hillel are the authentic or more accurate, more righteous followers of Rabbi Hillel. So absolutely they can claim all they want to be students of Hillel or forming a school to study Hillel’s teachings. That’s a religious assertion and not subject to trademark.

      Once again, I'm talking about hundreds of thousands of entities "doing business as" d/b/a Hillel academies, schools, and etc. Many of them pre-date the first B'nai B'rith application for a federal service mark registration in 1966. FYI, prior unregistered use in the USA by others is grounds for denial of registration or invalidation of an existing mark by the Courts.

      Re: B’nai Brith on the other hand owns the trademark for foundation for campus jewish life (college clubs) under the name Hillel.

      The Encyclopaedia Judaica explains that the first Hillel at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign was a classic example of a campus ministry. B'nai B'rith only own an exclusive service mark on the category of "association services" listed on any "live" USPTO registration that has been published for public notice and objection. They may still have state or common law rights on "expired" or "abandoned" marks that remain in continuous use, but they are not necessarily entitled to the normal legal presumptions in federal court that are granted to an owner who pursues renewals, pays the necessary fees, and maintains a "live" trademark with USPTO.

      The current registration for the "Word Mark: Hillel" ... "Type of Mark: Service Mark" does not mention campuses or foundations. It could be used to prohibit others from using the name in their own religious ministries, since it stipulates that the beneficiaries or customers of the Hillel service are members of the Jewish religion:

      IC 042. US 100. G & S: association services; namely, promoting the interests of members of the Jewish religion through religious, career and vocational counseling programs, sporting events and social programs, and by providing information on issues concerning human rights and inter-faith relations. FIRST USE: 19230000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19230000

      One of the most obvious problems with these registrations was the examiners jaw-dropping failure to demand a disclaimer statement. Any mark, copyright, or patent is a government-franchised monopoly. The establishment clause of the first amendment prohibits the Congress from granting any kind of monopoly to one of many competing Jewish religious ministries regardless of whether or not their services happens to be offered on state property.

      FYI, the goods and services description is considered more dispositive than the category shown above, i.e. Nice Agreement international class 42 ("Scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; industrial analysis and research services; design and development of computer hardware and software". The two specimens provided to illustrate the use of the word mark in commerce were captured computer screen images from the Hillel internet site. It would still be perfectly okay for another entity to file an application using the word Hillel in Class 41 ("Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities") if their description of goods and services were sufficiently different or distinct from those in the B'nai B'rith Class 42 registration.

    • There is no evidence that prior to B’nai Brith there were Jewish college clubs operating under the name “Hillel” nor that people generally don’t associate Hillel with the Hillel organization.

      That's nonsense. Rabbi Hillel the Elder has always been part and parcel of Jewish learning and education. If you simply Google "Hillel School" you'll get over 2 million hits for entities in all levels of Jewish education doing business as yeshivas, Hebrew schools, academies, day schools, and other entities associated with or operating in traditional places of worship and study like Synagogues, Shuls and Temples. They all pick that name for their pedagogical endeavors for the same religious reasons that Reform Rabbi Benjamin Frankel picked it for his Jewish "campus ministry" at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign in 1923. Hillel the Elder was a national figure from the Second Commonwealth of Israel who "symbolized" open inquiry, the pursuit of life long learning and teaching of others, plurality, and social justice according to the principles of the so-called "Golden Rule". But he wasn't just another Rabbi who founded his own academy and attracted a few disciples. He was reputedly a descendant of King David and one of the Patriarchs of the Palestinian Jews who was accorded the title "Nasi" or Prince. He served as one of the Presidents of the Great Sanhedrin during the Temple era. As such, he had sufficient respect and religious authority to hand down decrees or decisions on Jewish law that became part of the Halakhah, which many religious Jews feel obliged to study and observe to this very day.

      Frankel's campus "Hillel" raised $12,000 in one day from Chicago business men and was doing business, as such, for more than a year before Frankel decided to approach the Reform Hebrew Union and the B'nai B'rith to see if they were interested in becoming his national sponsors. Here's a link to a Jewish Virtual Library reprint of the Encyclopaedia Judaica Hillel article on the subject © 2008 link to and a related one at My Jewish Learning link to

      Even B'nai B'rith publications admit that it didn't become involved or sponsor any campus Hillel organizations until 1925. While they credit Frankel, there are other examples of even older claimants, e.g.:

      Founded in 1916, Texas A&M Hillel is the oldest organization in the United States called “Hillel.”

      The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas (TAMC) Menorah Club was organized in 1916 by Esther Taubenhaus and Dr. Jacob Taubenhaus, the first Jewish professor to be hired at TAMC. In the fall of 1920, the group was transformed into the TAMC Hillel Club under the guidance of Rabbi David Lefkowitz of Dallas.

      link to

      So there is no chicken and egg conundrum involved here at all. There were already campus Hillel clubs, branded as such, with common law rights to the name years before B'nai B'rith ever got involved.

    • Re: Hostage, that still doesn’t relieve JVP of the liability associated with improperly using the “Jewish” word and logo.

      To quote Rufus T. Firefly, "I object!" At the worst we would have to bamboozle the Judge with the patented "Who is Jew?" argument and then demand a dismissal on the grounds that the other "purported Jews" are just a bunch of rotten scoundrels who had failed to state a claim (i.e. alleged a cause of action that doesn't even exist). In any event, we could make a good counterclaim case over the way their flagrantly improper use of the terms "Jewish people" and "peace" - in the marketing of their "peace process" scam - had sullied everyone else's good "Jewish" reputations, names, and service marks.

    • "Hillel International is the sole and exclusive licensee with the right to use the famous Hillel name."

      Looks to me like Open Hillel should file a Title VI complaint against both Bnai Brith and Hillel International for making threats and discriminating against Jewish students on campus on the basis of their ethnicity or religious beliefs;-)

    • Re: If Swarthmore can get sued for using the “Hillel” name

      Anyone can file a lawsuit over trademark infringement, but B'nai Brith probably can't win one over the use of the term "Open Hillel". They have a registered Service Mark, "Hillel", for their association's services: namely, promoting the interests of members of the Jewish religion through religious, career and vocational counseling programs, sporting events and social programs, and by providing information on issues concerning human rights and inter-faith relations.

      But "Hillel" is a figure from the 2000 year old Talmudic literature and tradition. So there are thousands of so-called "Hillel" day schools, private schools, academies, & etc. which have nothing to do with B'nai Brith. They have obviously violated and diluted the trademark's value without B'nai Brith raising any complaints. The B'nai Brith didn't file "Hillel" as a "collective mark" that could only be used by a specific class of persons. In fact, anyone of the Jewish faith or any Jewish student association could legitimately claim to be "students" (talmudim) or followers of the "school of Hillel" or "house of Hillel" without obtaining Mr. Fingerhut's or B'nai Brith's consent (if I've read the Talmud and the 1st amendment correctly).

  • Jeb Bush bashes Iran talks as 'foolish' and hails Israeli settlements as 'new apartment buildings in Jerusalem'
    • …….”The Obama administration treats announcements of new apartment buildings in Jerusalem like acts of aggression…..” ... "So who’s going to straighten out Jeb Bush’s blatant misconception ..."

      Okay. The announcements of new apartment buildings located beyond the armistice lines in Jerusalem only constitute an illegal threat of aggression in violation of article 2(4) and Article 24 and 25 of the UN Charter and the applicable Security Council resolutions. Once the apartments are actually built, and the Jewish settlers move in, that will constitute an act of aggression.

      For example, Count 3 of the Nuremberg Indictment, i.e. "(J) GERMANIZATION OF OCCUPIED TERRITORIES" charged the Nazis as follows:

      In certain occupied territories purportedly annexed to Germany the defendants methodically and pursuant to plan endeavored to assimilate those territories politically, culturally, socially, and economically into the German Reich. The defendants endeavored to obliterate the former national character of these territories. In pursuance of these plans and endeavors, the defendants forcibly deported inhabitants who were predominantly non-German and introduced thousands of German colonists.

      -- See pdf page 73 (printed page 63) of The International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, Trial of the Major War Criminals, Vol. 1 at the Library of Congress link to or see the Indictment, Count 3 "War Crimes" at the Avalon Project link to

      FYI, the Official documentary record of major US Foreign Policy decisions published by the U.S. State Department contains an entire chapter on "Resolutions proposed by the United States to the General Assembly of the United Nations to encourage the progressive development of international law and its codification" which reveals that it was actually the President of the United States who requested that the UN General Assembly codify the legal principles contained in the Nuremberg Charter as international law. See page 539 & et.seq of the Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. General; the United Nations link to

  • Washington 'sits shiva' for the 2-state solution

Showing comments 10266 - 10201