News  #  1039
[ Arabic ][ Deutsch ][ Espa˝ol ][ Franšais ][ Italiano ]

Dr Kaukab Siddique | Editor-in-Chief 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."

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 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 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.


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.


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.


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.

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,


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.


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.

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

2006-06-06 Tue 21:37:00 cdt