NewTrendMag.org
News
#
1039
[
Arabic
][
Deutsch
][
Español
][
Français
][
Italiano
]
Jamada al-Awwal 10,1427/June 6, 2006 #35
Thought of the day: quotes from Buchanan,
a right winger who is often right
"The purpose of U.S.-Israeli policy today is to punish
the Palestinians for how they voted and to force Hamas
to yield or to collapse its government. How does such
a policy win hearts and minds for America?
Terrorism has been described as waging war on innocents
to break their political leaders. Is that not a fair
description of what we are doing to the Palestinians?
No wonder they hate us."
Analysis
Canada: Would-be Terrorists Caught?
Or is it a Blatant Asssault on the Rights of Canadian Muslims?
New Trend Special report
Canada's government announced, June 2, that it has
caught "home grown terrorists," 17 in number, who
were planning massive bomb attacks three times the
size of the Oklahoma City bombings.
Through the weekend,June 3-4 the government of Canada
and the anti-Islam forces were exulting over this
great victory against terrorism scored by
the security agencies.
However, when we use the tools of analysis to study
the assertions of the Canadian government and the
sensationalist reports splashed across the Canadian
media, one can't help but notice the big holes in
the establishment's claims.
Who are the "Terrorists?" and Why were they arrested.
1. These are 17 people from Canada's middle class,
reasonably well-to-do and living comfortably. Of
those arrested FIVE ARE CHILDREN [or "under age" as
the government describes them]. The names of the
children have not been released; hence one must ask,
why have they been arrested. No answer from Canada.
2. Have those arrested COMMITTED any act of terror?
No! Thus this is a "Conspiracy" trial in which all
kinds of charges are piled on the accused which they
then have to disprove. It amounts to saying "GUILTY
UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT," thus turning the rule of law
on its head. The most blatant "atrocities to be"
stories are loaded on the charge sheet.
3. Read into the small print of Canadian newspapers and
a fact comes out which is not being emphasized: Most of
THOSE ARRESTED ARE FROM THE AFRICAN DIASPORA. {Black or
passing White.} They are of Somali, Trinidadian, Jamaican
and Egyptian origin. Thus there is a racial component to
this "terrorism" case being charged by a lily white
Canadian government.
THE CRUX OF THE GOVERNMENT'S STORY:
The government claims that the accused had acquired
three tons of fertlizer to carry out horrendous
terrorist acts. The media keep repeating that this
is three times the amount used in the Oklahoma bombing.
[But wait a minute! Nothing happened here. So Why this
build up of fear propaganda?]
Again go into the small print of the Canadian newspapers
and one finds that the ENTIRE PURCHASE and
TRANSPORTATION of the explosive material was carried out
by the Canadian secret services themselves, not by the
accused. The media are being shown ONE sack of
fertilizer, which is certainly no big deal in
agricultural Canada. Where is the rest of the stuff?
In addition, Canadian intelligence adds that the mareial
was replaced with harmless stuff before it was handed
over. This is definitely fishy.
Even if we accept the entire government story, it seems to
be a clear cut case of:
1. Enticement/incitement.
2. Entrapment.
THE TIME SPAN INDICATES our ANALYSIS is CORRECT:
The government claims that it had been monitoring
this group since 2004. If there was any evidence of
"terrorist" activity, why were the accused not
arrested earlier? Evidently, the government was
building up the case and cracked down after it had
trapped the Muslims. It's not too difficult to make
young people talk hot, polemical stuff about war when
they feel they are in a free country and can say all
kinds of rhetorical stuff on chat rooms and emails.
The case looks WEAK. Already, on the third day, the
attempt to connect the accused to plans to attack the
U.S. was rejected by the U.S. itself, after three
days of propaganda in its favor.
CANADA'S BUSH:
The statement issued by the new Canadian leader,
Harper, after the arrests indicates that he is cut
out of the same cloth as USA's George W. Mr. Harper
claimed that the "terrorists" hate our democracy and
want to destroy our way of life. Could a responsible,
democratic leader make such statements about the
citizens of his own country against whom
nothing has been proven yet?
IMPERIALISM's LITTLE BOY? Canada has been sending
heavily armed troops to Afghanistan where they are
wandering around in the wilderness increasingly exposed
to the Islamic resistance led by the Taliban. What
business does Canada have sending troops to support
the occupation of a far away Islamic country? It's
not too speculative to say that Canada's Bush is trying
to prove to the real Bush that he can not only send
troops to Afghanistan, he can actually trap Islamic
"terrorists" right here in Canada.
ATTEMPT TO TERRORIZE CANADA's DEFENSELESS MUSLIMS:
Such a massive crackdown on Canada's Muslims is
bound to affect the peaceful existence Muslims
have had in Canada. It's not too difficlult to
guess which forces would like to turn Canada
into another USA for Muslims.
SEVENTEEN is a considerable number in a small
community. The media have taken the fear and
loathing into every home. One mosque has
already been attacked.
Canada's Leaderless Muslims in a State of Panic and Terror:
After the government's accusations came out, CAIR
CANADA [Gamal Badawi, etc] immediately endorsed the
government's position and expressed its thankfulness
for the prompt government action. [Fools did not
notice that the government had planned this since 2004.
It was not prompt but calculated.]
The Canadian Council seemed to be speechless and came out
with an award to honor a Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan.
The most interesting was Tarek Fatah's group.
Fatah plays the role of Steve Emerson in Canada. He
has been described as "the brown man who thinks he is
white and that he owns Canada." He was on TV
expressing his thankfulness that Canada had been
saved from the "terrorists" and that more such
"housecleaning" should be done. He forgot all about
rule of law and the presumption of innocence. Fatah
is known among Canada's Muslims as a traitor to Islam
and a lackey of the Zionist-Jewish lobby.
Muslims in Canada should look at the case of Ernest Zundel.
He is not even a Muslim and he was confronting the Jewish
power structure head on, and yet he never flinched.
Canada's Muslims must stand up for their rights. Remember
that the Harper government is imitating Bush and will not
be impressed by the "we are pious bootlickers" stance.
Find out what the law says and go to court to stop the
media and government rampage against Muslims.
UPDATE on CANADIAN MUSLIMS: June 6, 2006
Today the Islamic prisoners were brought to a
Canadian court for a bail hearing. Three facts
came out of the appearance of the Muslims whose
hearing has now been put off for 6 days:
1. Till now defense ATTORNEYS HAVE BEEN UNABLE
TO MEET THE ACCUSED. This is what Canada is doing:
Denying due process to its citizens though 4 days have passed.
2. The Islamic victims complained of bad prison
conditions. They have already been denied their
religious rights. They are not allowed to pray together.
3. The relatives of the accused pressed in towards
the court and complained that the media is harrassing them.
[The government of Canada at the highest level is
directly involved in the denial of Muslms' rights.
One attorney openly told U.S. media that Prime Minister
Harper should stop intefering in the legal process. The
right wing leader of Canada has already issued hate filled
messages saying that the Islamic prisoners were aiming at
the destruction of Canada's freedom, democracy, etc.]
Re: Synagogue of Satan
Example of a Good Jew
From New Trend's New York City representative
You mentioned the Jewish students' organization,
Hillel, and its bully tactics on college campuses
nationwide. This brings to mind a program I saw
this week on cable television.
This past Wednesday (5/31/06), the Gilchrist
Experience came on public access channel 34 in
Manhattan. It's a show covering topics that
the mainstream media ignores. Anyway, this
episode was hosted by Graham Weatherspoon (one
of the co-founders of 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement)
and the guest was Rabbi Yisroel David Weiss,
Jews Against Zionists.
Rabbi Yisroel attended the UC-Irvine college campus
as a guest speaker for the MSA that has been
embroiled in controversy. Inspite of that controversy
between the MSA and Hillel, Rabbi Yisroel stated that
college campuses are beginning to become aware that
Israel is not based on the Jewish religion or its
doctrine but, is based in politics.
He stated that orthodox Jewish sects live in Israel but
do not display the Israeli flag nor participate in
politics. Rabbi Yisroel also stated that the Torah and
the Rabbis warned against zionism and that Jews would
rather pray than fight. He stated that historically
Muslims have never oppressed the Jews in Muslim lands.
Although orthodox Jews steer away from zionism, sects
such as the Lubavitcher sect have joined forces with
the zionists through fear. Rabbi Yisroel pointed out
that the zionists use fear and propaganda to get support
for their cause. He said that the zionists preach that
the Arab/Palestinian mission is to kill the Jews.
Zionists state that Muslims are incapable of living in
peace with Jews in Israel and with Christians in
Europe or America.
The only problem I have was that he kept referring to
Jews as semites and he is of European-descent. Semite
is a region that covers Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of
Asia regardless of religion. Even Graham Weatherspoon
stated that there wasn't too much time to get into the
Semite topic. Other than that it was a very
interesting show. Rabbi Yisroel pointed out that
Muslims and Arab peoples are not the killers the
zionists portray us to be and that the zionist machine
has a very strong hold on the mainstream media.
Salaam,
Sis. 'Aisha
Understanding Africa
Afrocentrics and Islamic Africans Should Avoid Bashing Each Other
[Courtesy Timbuktu Collective Yahoogroups.]
Sent to New Trend by Br. Abu Talib, Brooklyn, New York
The contemptuous attitude of the Afrocentrists
towards Islam fans the flames. So in the
Muslim--non-Muslim dialogue over Africa, everybody
comes in with swords drawn ready to spill blood.
Some of them, we'll never be able to reason with.
For example in the New York Afrocentric circles
there is a guy who calls himself the Voice of Africa.
He calls in to the Gary Byrd Show, which is an
Afrocentric radio talk show also known or nick-named
as the Global African Experience show, and he attends
the First World Alliance (Afrocentric) forums in
Harlem and is outspoken there also. He says a lot
of deep and revolutionary things which are nearly
always on point. But he also rants against Islam.
For him, the Fulani Jihads by Uthman DanFodio were
examples of black-on-black genocide in the name of
Islam. so he is an Islam-hater. And I guess that from
that perspective the Fulani jihads can be seen as
genocide, so there is not much of an answer that you
can give to a person like that, and he does spew his
hatred for Islam like venom whenever he gets the chance
so it poisons a lot of African Americans against Islam.
And we at Timbuktu Collective who are New Yorkers have
had to raise swords against Afrocentrists who used to
operate a study circle in Brooklyn -- Professor Mackey's
Study Circle --although the elder, who is now deceased,
was not part of the foolishness. It was his students and
guest lecturers who were making all sorts of preposterous
claims --such as anyone who was Muslim, Christian or Hebrew
was incapable of leading our people because they had been
psychologically and culturally Westernized. The strange
thing was that they were all claiming to be students of
Cheik Anta Diop but then they dismissed Diop as not going
far enough because Diop's Afrocentric thinking was allegedly
tainted by his Muslim upbringing, his Marxism, his
education in France, and his white wife.
And they said some real dumb things such as on Hajj when
Muslims stoned the devil, that Muslims were really stoning
the phallic representation of Osiris (as in the obelisks),
and thus stoning African gods. (The custom probably did
derive from the stoning of a phallic god but not
necessarily Osiris since a lot of pre-Islamic or rather
non-monotheistic cultures have phallic worship. Even
those cultures who were primitive and had no contact
with the high civilization of Kemet (Ancient Egypt) and
therefore did not dervive their phallic god from the
phallus of Osiris.
They also said that Ancient Egyptian culture was the
originator of the star and crescent motif, and that Islam
stole the symbol from Egyptian culture, another
unsubstantiable claim, since the star and crescent appear
in the night sky universally around the entire planet
since the beginning of humanity. Hence it is a symbol
which many cultures have "discovered," and appropriated
in their own unique way, independently of one another. All
of the celestial bodies --sun, moon and stars are
universal symbols of mankind and no one culture stole or
borrowed them from another culture. But this is the
asinine reasoning that someof these Afrocentrists have.
Still it does no good when we Muslims ape the
Afrocentrists, and make ridiculous unsupportable and
contemptuous statements about pre-Islamic African
cultures which were not all jahiliyya cultures or
cultures of ignorance, darkness and superstition as
was allegedly the case in pre-Islamic Arabia. remember
that te state of ancient Ghana rose in 300 AD which is
a good three centuries before the Holy Prophet (SAW)
began to preach Islam.
I had sat under Muhhamad Shareef when he came and made
presentations at the Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood in
Harlem a several years ago and I was extremely impressd
by the brother's deep knowlege of Islamic African
societies, his command of the Arabc, his translations
of the ancient Islamic African texts, etc. But a few
years later when i accompanied a brother who drove from
New York to DC to attend a Muslims for Reparations
Conference at Howard University (and by the way I have
spoken at such conferences myself, as I am a Reparations
activist, but I was not on the dais for this one), I
was glad to see that Muhammad Shareef was one of the
speakers. So was H. Khalif Khalifa of United Brothers
and United Sisters (UB&US)Publishing, who is some sort
of NOI affiliate or ex-member, so the spetrum of Islamic
speakers was very broad. But when Shareef started making
his presentation about slavery and Reparations (which
was very elaborate with photographic slides when it came
to Islam in Africa, etc.) I was appalled by the way he
just trashed and dismissed pre-Islamic society. And so
was the audience, many of whom were Howard students who
had come with an open mind to hear what Muslims had to
say and to embrace Muslims as comrades in the struggle
for Reparations and African American liberation. But
Shareef blew it, and went off on a tangent, mocking and
deriding pre-Islamic African societies. I was surprised
and really let down.
But anyway, there are some lessons to be learned here,
about how we approach non-Muslims who have an open mind.
Interestingly someone like Dr. Abdullah Hakim Quick, who
used to be in a strict Wahhabi camp, started learning
about about an African-centered perspective (and I think
we had some influence in that when he encountered the
Ahmad Baba group -- the pre-cursors of Timbuktu Collective
-- at a conference at Princeton University) and he started
doing slide presentations about Kemetic/Ancient Egyptian
culture at Islamic gatherings and got so hype about it
that his former Wahhabi sponsors kicked him out of their
camp and stopped funding him. But he is a brother who
made a principled stance and I respect that.
Anyway, we need to engage the non-Muslim Afrocentrists
who do have an open mind and do it in a non-hostile way .
Even from amongst the group of Afrocentrists in the
Brooklyn study circle who were saying all the dumb
stuff about stoning the devil and stealing the star
and crescent, a brother ran into me a year later and
said that he was thinking about becoming Muslim and
asked me what mosques that he should check out. That
surprised me. And then he said that it was my balanced
perspective on Islam and African-centeredness which
attracted him to Islam. So we have the potential for
bringing these open-minded Afrocentrists into the Deen,
and I think Timbuktu is the vehicle to do it, insha'Allah.
I am addicted to email too, but I need to stop, as I have
a manuscript due on Black Nationalism which an editor
is waiting for.
Peace and Blessings to all,
Yusuf
A Look at The 'Powerful Jewish Lobby'
By Mark Weber
For decades Israel has violated well established
precepts of international law and defied numerous
United Nations resolutions in its occupation of
conquered lands, in extra-judicial killings, and
in its repeated acts of military aggression.
Most of the world regards Israel's policies, and
especially its oppression of Palestinians, as
outrageous and criminal. This international consensus
is reflected, for example, in numerous UN resolutions
condemning Israel, which have been approved with
overwhelming majorities.
"The whole world," United Nations Secretary General
Kofi Annan recently said, "is demanding that Israel
withdraw [from occupied Palestinian territories].
I don't think the whole world ... can be wrong." [1]
Only in the United States do politicians and the
media still fervently support Israel and its
policies. For decades the US has provided Israel
with crucial military, diplomatic and financial
backing, including more than $3 billion each
year in aid.
Why is the U.S. the only remaining bastion of support for Israel?
Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was awarded
the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize, has candidly identified
the reason: "The Israeli government is placed on a
pedestal [in the US], and to criticize it is to be
immediately dubbed anti-Semitic," he said. "People
are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong
because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful." [2]
Bishop Tutu spoke the truth. Although Jews make up
only about three percent of the US population, they
wield immense power and influence - vastly more than
any other ethnic or religious group.
As Jewish author and political science professor
Benjamin Ginsberg has pointed out: [3]
Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable
influence in American economic, cultural,
intellectual and political life. Jews played a
central role in American finance during the 1980s,
and they were among the chief beneficiaries of that
decade's corporate mergers and reorganizations. Today,
though barely two percent of the nation's population
is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews.
The chief executive officers of the three major
television networks and the four largest film studios
are Jews, as are the owners of the nation's largest
newspaper chain and the most influential single
newspaper, the New York Times ... The role and
influence of Jews in American politics is equally marked ...
Jews are only three percent of the nation's population
and comprise eleven percent of what this study defines
as the nation's elite. However, Jews constitute more
than 25 percent of the elite journalists and publishers,
more than 17 percent of the leaders of important
voluntary and public interest organizations, and more
than 15 percent of the top ranking civil servants.
Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National Affairs
of the American Jewish Committee, similarly notes the
"disproportionate political power" of Jews, which is
"pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural
group in America." He goes on to explain that "Jewish
economic influence and power are disproportionately
concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the
news industry." [4]
Two well-known Jewish writers, Seymour Lipset and
Earl Raab, pointed out in their 1995 book,
Jews and the New American Scene: [5]
During the last three decades Jews [in the
United States] have made up 50 percent of the
top two hundred intellectuals ... 20 percent of
professors at the leading universities ... 40
percent of partners in the leading law firms in
New York and Washington ... 59 percent of the
directors, writers, and producers of the 50
top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982,
and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers
in two or more primetime television series.
The influence of American Jewry in Washington,
notes the Israeli daily Jerusalem Post,
is "far disproportionate to the size of the
community, Jewish leaders and U.S. official
acknowledge. But so is the amount of money they
contribute to [election] campaigns." One member
of the influential Conference of Presidents of
Major American Jewish Organizations "estimated
Jews alone had contributed 50 percent of the funds
for [President Bill] Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign." [6]
"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the
reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular
culture," acknowledges Michael Medved, a
well-known Jewish author and film critic. "Any
list of the most influential production executives
at each of the major movie studios will produce a
heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names." [7]
One person who has carefully studied this subject
is Jonathan J. Goldberg, now editor of the influential
Jewish community weekly Forward. In his 1996
book, Jewish Power, he wrote: [8]
In a few key sectors of the media, notably among
Hollywood studio executives, Jews are so
numerically dominant that calling these
businesses Jewish-controlled is little more
than a statistical observation ...
Hollywood at the end of the twentieth century
is still an industry with a pronounced ethnic
tinge. Virtually all the senior executives at
the major studios are Jews. Writers, producers,
and to a lesser degree directors are
disproportionately Jewish - one recent study
showed the figure as high as 59 percent
among top-grossing films.
The combined weight of so many Jews in one of
America's most lucrative and important industries
gives the Jews of Hollywood a great deal of
political power. They are a major source of money
for Democratic candidates.
Reflecting their role in the American media, Jews
are routinely portrayed as high-minded, altruistic,
trustworthy, compassionate, and deserving of
sympathy and support. While millions of Americans
readily accept such stereotyped imagery, not
everyone is impressed. "I am very angry with some
of the Jews," complained actor Marlon Brando during
a 1996 interview. "They know perfectly well what
their responsibilities are ... Hollywood is run by
Jews. It's owned by Jews, and they should have a
greater sensitivity about the issue of people
who are suffering." [9]
A Well-Entrenched Factor
The intimidating power of the "Jewish lobby" is
not a new phenomenon, but has long been an
important factor in American life.
In 1941 Charles Lindbergh spoke about the danger
of Jewish power in the media and government. The
shy 39-year-old - known around the world for his
epic 1927 New York to Paris flight, the first solo
trans-Atlantic crossing - was addressing 7,000
people in Des Moines, Iowa, on September 11, 1941,
about the dangers of US involvement in the war
then raging in Europe. The three most important
groups pressing America into war, he explained,
were the British, the Jews, and the Roosevelt
administration.
Of the Jews, he said: "Their greatest danger to
this country lies in their large ownership and
influence in our motion pictures, our press, our
radio, and our government." Lindbergh went on:
... For reasons which are understandable from their
viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for
reasons which are not American, [they] wish to
involve us in the war. We cannot blame them for
looking out for what they believe to be their own
interests, but we must also look out for ours. We
cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices
of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.
In 1978, Jewish American scholar Alfred M. Lilienthal
wrote in his detailed study, The Zionist Connection: [10]
How has the Zionist will been imposed on the
American people?... It is the Jewish connection,
the tribal solidarity among themselves and the
amazing pull on non-Jews, that has molded this
unprecedented power ... In the larger metropolitan
areas, the Jewish-Zionist connection thoroughly
pervades affluent financial, commercial, social,
entertainment, and art circles.
As a result of the Jewish grip on the media, wrote
Lilienthal, news coverage of the Israel-Palestine
conflict in American television, newspapers and
magazines is relentlessly sympathetic to Israel.
This is manifest, for example, in the misleading
portrayal of Palestinian "terrorism." As Lilienthal
put it: "One-sided reportage on terrorism, in which
cause is never related to effect, was assured because
the most effective component of the Jewish connection
is probably that of media control."
One-Sided 'Holocaust' History
The Jewish hold on cultural and academic life
has had a profound impact on how Americans look
at the past. Nowhere is the well entrenched
Judeocentric view of history more obvious than
in the "Holocaust" media campaign, which focuses
on the fate of Jews in Europe during World War II.
Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer, a
professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem,
has remarked: [11]
Whether presented authentically or inauthentically,
in accordance with the historical facts or in
contradiction to them, with empathy and understanding
or as monumental kitsch, the Holocaust has become a
ruling symbol of our culture ... Hardly a month goes
by without a new TV production, a new film, a new
drama, new books, prose or poetry, dealing with the
subject, and the flood is increasing rather than abating.
Non-Jewish suffering simply does not merit comparable
attention. Overshadowed in the focus on Jewish
victimization are, for example, the tens of millions
of victims of America's World War II ally, Stalinist
Russia, along with the tens of millions of victims
of China's Maoist regime, as well as the 12 to 14
million Germans, victims of the flight and expulsion
of 1944-1949, of whom some two million lost their lives.
The well-financed Holocaust media and "educational"
campaign is crucially important to the interests of
Israel. Paula Hyman, a professor of modern Jewish
history at Yale University, has observed: "With regard
to Israel, the Holocaust may be used to forestall
political criticism and suppress debate; it reinforces
the sense of Jews as an eternally beleaguered people
who can rely for their defense only upon themselves.
The invocation of the suffering endured by the Jews
under the Nazis often takes the place of rational
argument, and is expected to convince doubters of the
legitimacy of current Israeli government policy." [12]
Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish scholar who has taught
political science at City University of New York
(Hunter College), says in his book, The Holocaust
Industry, that "invoking The Holocaust" is "a ploy
to delegitimize all criticism of Jews." [13] "By
conferring total blamelessness on Jews, the Holocaust
dogma immunizes Israel and American Jewry from
legitimate censure ... Organized Jewry has exploited
the Nazi holocaust to deflect criticism of Israel's
and its own morally indefensible policies." He writes
of the brazen "shakedown" of Germany, Switzerland and
other countries by Israel and organized Jewry "to
extort billions of dollars." "The Holocaust," Finkelstein
predicts, "may yet turn out to be the 'greatest robbery
in the history of mankind'."
Jews in Israel feel free to act brutally against Arabs,
writes Israeli journalist Ari Shavit, "believing with
absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the
Senate and much of the American media in our hands, the
lives of others do not count as much as our own." [14]
Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the US Joint
Chiefs of Staff, has spoken with blunt exasperation
about the Jewish-Israeli hold on the United States: [15]
I've never seen a President - I don't care who he is -
stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the
mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know
what is going on all the time. I got to the point where
I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people
understood what a grip those people have got on our
government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens
certainly don't have any idea what goes on.
Today the danger is greater than ever. Israel and Jewish
organizations, in collaboration with this country's
pro-Zionist "amen corner," are prodding the United
States - the world's foremost military and economic
power - into new wars against Israel's enemies. As the
French ambassador in London recently acknowledged,
Israel - which he called "that shitty little country"
- is a threat to world peace. "Why should the world be
in danger of World War III because of those people?,"
he said. [16]
To sum up: Jews wield immense power and influence in
the United States. The "Jewish lobby" is a decisive
factor in US support for Israel. Jewish-Zionist
interests are not identical to American interests.
In fact, they often conflict.
As long as the "very powerful" Jewish lobby remains
entrenched, there will be no end to the systematic
Jewish distortion of current affairs and history, the
Jewish-Zionist domination of the U.S. political system,
Zionist oppression of Palestinians, the bloody conflict
between Jews and non-Jews in the Middle East, and the
Israeli threat to peace.
Notes
1. Quoted in Forward (New York City), April 19, 2002, p. 11.
2. D. Tutu, "Apartheid in the Holy Land,"
The Guardian (Britain), April 29, 2002.
3. Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace:
Jews and the State (University of Chicago, 1993), pp. 1, 103.
4. S. Steinlight, "The Jewish Stake in America's
Changing Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided
Immigration Policy," Center for Immigration
Studies, Nov. 2001.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back1301.html
5. Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab,
Jews and the New American Scene
(Harvard Univ. Press, 1995), pp. 26-27.
6. Janine Zacharia, "The Unofficial Ambassadors
of the Jewish State," The Jerusalem Post
(Israel), April 2, 2000. Reprinted in "Other Voices,"
June 2000, p. OV-4, a supplement to
The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
7. M. Medved, "Is Hollywood Too Jewish?," Moment,
Vol. 21, No. 4 (1996), p. 37.
8. Jonathan Jeremy Goldberg, Jewish Power:
Inside the American Jewish Establishment
(Addison-Wesley, 1996), pp. 280, 287-288.
See also pp. 39-40, 290-291.
9. Interview with Larry King, CNN network, April 5,
1996. "Brando Remarks," Los Angeles Times,
April 8, 1996, p. F4 (OC). A short time later,
Brando was obliged to apologize for his remarks.
10. A. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection
(New York: Dodd, Mead, 1978), pp. 206, 218, 219, 229.
11. From a 1992 lecture, published in: David
Cesarani, ed., The Final Solution: Origins
and Implementation (London and New York:
Routledge, 1994), pp. 305, 306.
12. Paula E. Hyman, "New Debate on the Holocaust,"
The New York Times Magazine, Sept. 14, 1980, p. 79.
13. Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry
(London, New York: Verso, 2000), pp. 130, 138, 139, 149.
14. The New York Times, May 27, 1996. Shavit
is identified as a columnist for Ha'aretz, a
Hebrew-language Israeli daily newspaper, "from
which this article is adapted."
15. Interview with Moorer, Aug. 24, 1983. Quoted
in: Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People
and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby
(Lawrence Hill, 1984 and 1985), p. 161.
16. D. Davis, "French Envoy to UK: Israel Threatens
World Peace," Jerusalem Post, Dec. 20, 2001.
The French ambassador is Daniel Bernard.
#2016 6/02
About the author
Mark Weber is director of the Institute for
Historical Review. He studied history at the
University of Illinois (Chicago), the University
of Munich, Portland State University and Indiana
University (M.A., 1977). For nine years he served as
editor of the IHR's Journal of Historical Review.
This essay, and others in this series, are
available in handy leaflet format, ideal for
wide distribution. They can be ordered, postpaid,
at these prices:
10 copies, $2.00 :: 50 copies, $7.50 ::
100 copies or more, 10 cents each.
Institute for Historical Review
P.O. Box 2739 - Newport Beach, CA 92659 - USA
ihr@ihr.org
2006-06-06 Tue 21:37:00 cdt
NewTrendMag.org