[More Jewish attack upon Islam:]
The Jihad against the textbooks. One man's jihad can be another man's mission of distortion,
by Suzanne Fields, Townhall, February 20, 2003
"The Islamist terrorists who attacked America on Sept. 11 cited their murderous rampage as a 'jihad.' The suicide bombers who terrorize Israeli schools, restaurants and malls called their mission their 'jihad.' But American school kids might never know anything about it. A lot has gone missing in our textbooks. Patterns of History, for example, published by Houghton Mifflin and adopted as a world history textbook in high school classes in Texas and many other states, never even mentions the word. A seventh-grade world history book by Houghton Mifflin, titled Across the Centuries, defines 'jihad' merely as a struggle for a Muslim 'to do one's best to resist temptation and overcome evil.' There's no mention of the fact that millions of Muslims - not all, but many millions - are taught to regard anything not under Muslim rule or control as 'evil'. 'Islam and the Textbooks,' a 35-page report compiled by the American Textbook Council in New York, analyzes seven history textbooks widely used between the seventh and 12th grades and finds that millions of American schoolchildren are being cheated of accurate history. Politically correct advocacy groups have thoroughly intimidated teachers, administrators and school boards - and in a way that the most fundamentalist of Christians or the most orthodox of Jews never could."

[The National Post is part of the censorial and grotesquely propagandistic Zionist mogul Izzy Asper's chain of Canadian newspapers.]
Extremists joining forces, CSIS warns. Unlikely partners: White supremacists allying with Islamists, document claims,
National Post (Canada), February 21, 2003
"White supremacist groups are working to expand their support in Canada, according to a top-secret intelligence document released yesterday as federal authorities tried to figure out what to do with Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. 'We do have, unfortunately, our share of homegrown problems. By way of an example is the white supremacist movement,' said the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) document, dated last Nov. 22. The briefing report, obtained by the National Post under the Access to Information Act, cites efforts by hate groups 'to increase their support and criticize the immigration policies of the Canadian government ... 'The threat from the far right has not disappeared, though it's been overshadowed by the threat from Islamism and Arabism,' said Manuel Prutschi of the Canadian Jewish Congress. 'And indeed, in some ways, they have re-energized each other. It's a bizarre alliance, but nonetheless there it is' ... Mr. Zundel was "one of the pioneers" of the alliance between the anti-Israeli movement in the Middle East and the Holocaust denial movement in the West, Mr. Prutschi said. When he was charged in 1984 with 'spreading false news,' Mr. Zundel had been distributing not only propaganda denying that six million Jews were killed by Nazi Germany, but also a four-page letter called 'The West, War and Islam.' The letter was mailed to 1,200 addresses in the Middle East ... Evidence of the ties between the extreme right and Muslim extremists can be found on the Internet site operated by Mr. Zundel's spokesman, Mark Weber. He devotes significant space to the Middle East and one of his columns on the 'powerful Jewish lobby' was republished by a newspaper in Saudi Arabia."

Jews may live in Turkish hinterland, but keep secret in order to stay safe,
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 4, 2003
"It seemed like anti-Semitism masquerading as history. Baki Ozmen, a self-described historian of the Jews of the remote Turkish city of Sanliurfa, pulled down the neck of his brown turtleneck sweater with one hand and made karate-like chops at his tan-colored flesh with the other. 'The Jews used sharp metal objects to cut the neck of their brethren. Only the Jews kill that way,' he told JTA. 'They were the city’s best smiths; that’s how we know it was the Jews who killed that Jewish family in 1945. This is what our elders tell us.' To create a pretext that would enable them to immigrate to Palestine, the Jews of Sanliurfa, an ancient city known in the Bible as Ur, hatched a plan to hack to death a local Jewish family and then blame it on their Muslim neighbors. Or so goes local lore. Since then, said Ozmen, a bear-like man with a jowly, bearded face, there have been no Jews in the stalls that once belonged to Jewish artisans pounding out copper pots or finjans deep in the city’s labyrinthine bazaar — or anywhere else in the city, for that matter. But Ozmen’s information isn’t quite accurate: About 10 Jewish families still live in Sanliurfa, clandestinely celebrating certain Jewish holidays in the privacy of their homes. To stay alive, the Jews of Sanliurfa — the ancient town where Abraham stopped to water his camel train, according to the Bible — conceal their yarmulkes and Jewish books in hidden corners of their homes, according to several sources, including Kadir Celikcan, the director of Sanliurfa TV. Like their neighbors, they dutifully head to the city’s ancient mosques to pray, finger worry beads, and wear the traditional baggy pants and red-checkered Kaffiyeh of the Kurds — yet they remain Jews."

[Below is well-illustrated the Jewish Lobby's imperialist aims, on behalf of Israel. The author of this aricle is Michael Ledeen, who is Jewish-American. The chief editors of this newspaper (Seth Lipsky and Ira Stoll) are also Jewish, as are the dominant financial investors (Michael Steinhardt, etc.) in the new New York City tabloid, the New York Sun. Here Ledeen calls for war against Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, after Iraq.]
AFTER BAGHDAD, TEHRAN, DAMASCUS, RIYADH,
by Michael A. Ledeen, middleeast.org (from New York Sun),
March 19, 2003
"The battle for Iraq is about to begin, and in all likelihood it will involve us in the broader war about which the president has been speaking ever since September 11, 2001. Once upon a time, it might have been possible to deal with Iraq alone, without having to face the murderous forces of the other terror masters in Tehran, Damascus, and Riad, but that time has passed. We have given them more than a year to prepare for this moment, and they are ready. The Iranian, Syrian, and Saudi tyrants know that if we win a quick victory in Iraq and then establish a free government in Baghdad, their doom is sealed. It would then be only a matter of time before their peoples would demand the same liberation we brought to Afghanistan and Iraq. Thus, they must do everything in their power to tie us down in Iraq, bleed us on the ground, frustrate our designs, and eventually break our will ... Iraq is a battle, not a war. We have to win the war, and the only way to do that is to bring down the terror masters, and spread freedom throughout the region. Rarely has it been possible to see one of history's potential turning points so clearly and so dramatically as it is today. Rarely has a country been given such a glorious opportunity as we have in our hands. But history is full of missed opportunities and embarrassing defeats. We'll know soon which destiny we will achieve. Michael A. Ledeen holds the Freedom Chair at AEI. In the Spotlight "There has been a distinct carefulness in the language of many senior Bush administration officials whenever the 'd-word' comes up. The boldness of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz-'If we commit . . . forces, we're not going to commit them for anything less than a free and democratic Iraq'--has not often been repeated."

[Ledeen is Jewish. Here is argues for more assault about Muslim and Arab governments.]
Syria and Iran Must Get Their Turn,
By Michael A. Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute (from National Post [Canada], April 7, 2003
"A year ago, as I was finishing the first draft of The War against the Terror Masters, I wrote that Syria and Iran could not tolerate an American success in Iraq, because it would fatally undermine the authority of the tyrants in Damascus and Tehran. Since the United States has taken too long to move on from Afghanistan to challenge the regimes of the terror masters, they had forged an alliance and would co-operate in sending terror squads against coalition armed forces, with the intention of repeating the Lebanese scenarios in the mid-Eighties (against the United States) and the late Nineties (against Israel). U.S. diplomats didn't believe a word of it ... Now, Eli Lake of United Press International reports the government is aware of Iranian terrorist operations inside Iraq, and there have been many stories reporting Syria's campaign to send terrorists across the border to attack U.S. forces. In truth, Americans didn't need intelligence to know this was going on, because the Iranian and Syrian tyrants had announced it publicly. Assad gave an interview recently in which he proclaimed--in words that could have been taken right out of my book--that Lebanon was the model for the struggle that had to be waged in Iraq against coalition forces. And Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, gave a speech a few weeks ago in which he said the presence of American troops in Iraq would be even worse for Iran than the hated regime of Saddam Hussein. So they are coming to kill coalition forces, which means that there is no more time for diplomatic 'solutions.' The United States will have to deal with the terror masters, here and now. Iran, at least, offers Americans the possibility of a memorable victory, because the Iranian people openly loath the regime, and will enthusiastically combat it, if only the United States supports them in their just struggle. ... This is the path--the correct path--that President George W. Bush has charted, despite the opposition of so many of his diplomats, and despite the near-total indifference of the Western press to the plight of the Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian people. It is the path that most fully expresses the American revolutionary tradition, and gives the peoples of the Middle East the chance to recapture their dignity by empowering them to govern their own lands ... Yet it is impossible for a democratic Palestine to emerge, let alone survive, so long as the dominant countries in the region are tyrannical supporters of terrorism. If, at long last, the United States is going to transform the Middle East in the name of the democratic revolution, it is madness to entrust this task to a Department of State that does not believe in it. ... But, like U.S. diplomats, American elected representatives need a crash course in democratic revolution, the better to advance their cause, defeat their enemies and save the lives of the incredible fighting men and women. The United States has written an exceptional page of military history in Iraq, but it can be undone by suicidal political blunders in the region in the very near future. It's time to bring down the other terror masters. Faster, please."

[Note: Akamai Technologies was co-founded by Daniel Levin. Levin, an officer in the Israeli military, was killed in one of the planes involved the 9-11 attack. Another censor listed below is Yahoo! -- which is headed by Terry Semel, also Jewish and a judge at a recent Israel Film Festival.]
Al Jazeera and the Net - free speech, but don't say that,
By John Lettice, The Register (UK), April 7, 2003
"Arabic satellite TV network Al Jazeera's efforts to build an English-language web site have run into another speed bump. Akamai Technologies, whose 'Accelerated Networks can stand up to unpredictable traffic and flash crowds for even the largest events,' fired Al Jazeera last week. Akamai issued a statement saying it had worked 'briefly' last week with Al Jazeera, but that it had decided 'not to continue a customer relationship' with the channel. No reason was given for the decision, but an Al Jazeera spokeswoman told the New York Times that companies were coming under 'nonstop political pressure' to refuse to do business with the channel. Al Jazeera launched an English-language web site at the end of last month, and this immediately came under fire on several fronts. It was hacked, DDoSed, Network Solutions was tricked into allowing the domain to be hijacked (which inspires confidence), and US host DataPipe gave it notice after what Al Jazeera claimed was pressure from other customers. The English language site was up at time of writing, but Al Jazeera clearly needs to find a robust, long-term solution, and this is equally clearly going to be very difficult indeed. There are many ironies to the multi-decked 'get Al Jazeera' campaign; one attack suppressed the site with the slogan 'Let Freedom Ring!' (only up to a point, presumably), while practically none of those busily denying themselves the right to access it can have had time to read it in the first place ... Al Jazeera protests, in fairly mild terms, that it is 'increasingly appearing to be subject to a campaign designed at limiting its access to Western audiences,' and this does look awfully like the truth ... Essentially Al Jazeera's 'Iraqi propaganda' activities are no greater (perhaps even rather less) than those of many liberal media outlets. In the UK many of these have also been criticised by the government, but they have not been the subject of major hacking attacks, nor have hosting and services companies declined to do business with them. We should also clarify something regarding the footage of the prisoners and the dead servicemen; military spokesmen to the contrary, reproducing such images is not a breach of the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention is directed at governments, and does not cover news organisations. Al Jazeera has arguably broadcast images of the Iraqi Government breaching the Geneva Convention, but that is not the same thing. To get this into perspective, note that one of the most striking pictures from the Vietnam war was of a South Vietnamese officer shooting a prisoner - do we argue that this should not have been published? If Al Jazeera had footage of an Iraqi shooting a British prisoner, should that be broadcast? The other way around? Are our standards today different from those of the 60s, or do the criteria differ depending on the nationalities of the participants and/or the audience? The answers are not straightforward, nor should they be ... By Western standards Al Jazeera may have breached standards of taste and decency, and may not (again by Western standards) have sufficiently contextualised bin Laden and Iraqi exercises in propaganda. But by Middle Eastern standards Western media could similarly be accused of too readily parrotting propaganda in the other direction, and of too frequently operating a system of self-censorship. There's some merit to both points of view, the demise of Arnett being a good example of self-censorship, but there's no good reason for casting Al Jazeera into outer darkness - unless of course the problem is that its coverage has been increasingly reaching a Western audience. Or an Internet audience. Back in the irony department Yahoo!, which you may recall had some trouble with the French government a while back over Nazi memorabilia, is one of the companies declining to carry Al Jazeera advertising owing to 'war-related sensitivity,' and there's probably a high correlation between people who want Al Jazeera run off the web and people who oppose virtually any kind of internet censorship. Al Jazeera meanwhile has racked up millions more new TV viewers than it could possibly hope to gain via a web site, and its service has continued to be available in the US during the war. So why is the Internet different? To some extent, it possibly isn't. Al Jazeera seems to have been able to run an Arabic web site without coming under serious fire until it introduced the English version. Similarly, it's been able to run an Arabic TV station without Western companies trying to pull the plugs on it, and with Western governments denouncing it on the one hand while using it in order to get to its audience on the other. So it's possibly OK if it's over there, in Arabic, but not if it's over here, in English (if it goes ahead with its planned English TV service later this year, then we'll no doubt find out). The Internet is different, however, in that despite it being, allegedly, the New Frontier, the ultimate medium for free speech, it's also eminently suited to the suppression of free speech. Sure, anybody can set up a web site and say whatever they like, but only if not too many people read what they say, and only if they're careful about what it is they say. Say something controversial that enough people don't like, and you'll get attacked. Say something particular pressure groups don't like, and you'll get attacked on multiple fronts, bombarded via email, mail and voice phone, indirectly via your neighbours, other people in your organisation, hosts your organisation deals with, other outfits using the same hosts who don't like the publicity."

[Another Jew twists history and conjures a bogus Americanism to champion the killing of Arabs for their "liberation" into Zionist-driven U.S. imperialism. "Progressive Spirit," yah: cluster bombs and body parts. Even old pacificist Walt Whitman is appropriated to the Judeocentric bandwagon to lead the charge with raised bayonets!]
Today's Progressive Spirit. The scenes in Baghdad flow from understandings realized at the American founding,
by David Brooks, Weekly Standard, April 9, 2003
"I wish Ronald Reagan could be aware of the scenes being played out in Baghdad. He would know that the liberationist sentiment he rekindled in the American heart didn't die out with the liberation of eastern and central Europe. With his optimism, Reagan revived the progressive spirit that courses through our founding Declaration, that all human beings are created equal and all are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Reagan felt deep in his bones that this statement is true, and contains an implication. It assigns us the task of doing what we can to see that all human beings are able to realize these rights, in Europe, in the Arab world, and everywhere. After September 11, George Bush was seized by this sense of mission, and has remained true to it. Happily, he is alive to see this day. I doubt he will bang bongo drums or light up cigars for the cameras, a la Bill Clinton. But I'm sure he must feel some quiet satisfaction that he, more than anyone else on earth, is responsible for liberating the Iraqi people and destroying the most murderous regime of our age. I'm glad that many, though sadly not all, members of the U.S. and British armed forces can see this day, and know that their sacrifices have paid off so handsomely. I'm glad that the much maligned hawks are around to watch the images of Saddam's statue falling and the torture chambers emptying. Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld deserve their share of the glory ... On the left, Michael Ignatieff, a Harvard professor, has endured the scathing criticism of his colleagues because he knew what was right for the Iraqi people. Paul Berman of NYU recognized that the Whitmanesque spirit of optimism and progress demands that we do what we can to liberate peoples and advance the cause of self-determination. There are millions of others who deserve recognition today. Sure, big challenges remain. But destroying the Baath regime is already a great gift from America and Britain to the world. We don't know what the Iraqi people are going to do with the opportunity to be free. But they are being given this opportunity, which is not nothing ... The rump 15 percent of Americans who still oppose this war may perhaps grow more bitter, lost in the cul-de-sac of their own alienation. But, however things shake out over the next months and years, this is the sort of day that represents what the United States is on earth to achieve. Thank God we have the political leaders and the military capabilities to realize the ideals that have always been embodied in our founding documents."

Jewish groups aim to block Al-Jazeera in Canada,
Canadian Jewish Congress (by James Adams, Globe and Mail - Toronto), April 9, 2003
"Canada's two largest Jewish organizations say they plan to oppose an attempt by the Canadian Cable Television Association to carry the Al-Jazeera network on its members' digital-cable service. Calling the Qatar-based network 'anti-Semitic,' the Canadian Jewish Congress and B'nai Brith Canada will intervene in hearings against the CCTA plan. Last week, the association, as a prelude for licensing hearings, asked that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission include Al-Jazeera as part of a bundle of 'ethnic' channels on the CRTC's list of eligible satellite services. At the same time, the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations says it will intervene in favour of Al-Jazeera, arguing 'it would broaden the horizon of the Canadian public' with respect to issues in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Keith Landy, president of the Ottawa-based Canadian Jewish Congress, said his organization's 'close monitoring' of Al-Jazeera, started in 1996, shows that its programming and journalism is marred by 'blatant anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and the glorification of suicide bombers.' 'We certainly don't want this to appear as a political attempt to prevent another view from being aired,' Landy said. "But by granting them a licence, the kind of stories that they carry could contravene the Criminal Code,' as well as hate legislation, the federal government's terrorism act and broadcast regulations established by the CRTC and the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. Joseph Ben-Ami, director of communications for B'nai Brith Canada, agreed. 'Al-Jazeera is quite well known as a network that transmits blatantly anti-Israel material and sometimes anti-Semitic material. It has no place in Canada, at least not under the sanction of the government of Canada' -- a reference to the CRTC, which operates as an arms-length adjudication body under the Canadian Heritage ministry. However, Hussein Amery, president of the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations, says interventions against Al-Jazeera by the CJC and B'nai Brith are 'a form of censorship and suppression of the media' at a time when concentration of media ownership is 'restricting our perspectives of the world.'"

[The especially grotesque thing about this article is that Hezbollah doesn't really have a gripe with the United States. Theirs is a fight with repressive Israel, which seeks to draw Americans into a larger war against Arabs and Islam.]
Jerusalem Urges Bush: Next Target Hezbollah. Warns of Threat To U.S. Security,
by Ori Nir, [Jewish] Forward, April 11, 2003
"Israel is urging the Bush administration to target Hezbollah following the war in Iraq, arguing that the militant Shiite organization threatens the stability of the Middle East and the security of the United States worldwide. Based in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah has stepped up its anti-American rhetoric since the start of the war in Iraq three weeks ago. Israeli intelligence sources warn that Hezbollah may be involved in recruiting volunteers to fight allied forces in Iraq, although the group has not directly targeted Israel or the United States since hostilities began. According to Israeli government sources in Washington, such warnings have been conveyed to American officials during 'working level' talks between the two countries on postwar priorities. Critics of Hezbollah argue that the group's global network of sleeper cells and its ability to destabilize the region with missile attacks against Israel make it impossible for the Bush administration to ignore. Israeli sources said that one plausible scenario would be an American green light for Israeli strikes against Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon, following American diplomatic measures to ensure that such Israeli actions would not spark a Syrian reaction. 'Clearly, we would have to work together closely on this one,' said an Israeli diplomat in Washington. Several experts warned that any military or diplomatic action by the United States against Hezbollah could trigger a string of devastating, retaliatory terrorist strikes. 'They have dormant cells around the world, which they can easily decide to use,' said Gal Luft, an expert on Hezbollah who co-directs the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, a small Washington-based advocacy group dedicated to ending America's dependence on Arab oil. Israel's position is that after stabilizing the situation in Iraq, the United States should act against Hezbollah, regardless of the organization's behavior during the war, sources said. Israeli sources told the Forward that even if Hezbollah does not actively fight with Iraq in the war, action must be taken because the organization has both the motivation and the ability to launch future attacks. Israeli officials have warned that Hezbollah boasts a military capability exceeding that of some Arab states, and a global network of dormant cells with the ability to hit American targets around the world. Also, Israeli officials warn, Hezbollah could at any moment destabilize the region by provoking Jerusalem with cross-border attacks."

[As usual, one standard for Jews and another for everyone else:]
Florida Muslims Decry Leniency For Terrorist,
Information Clearinghouse, April 14, 2003
"Florida's office of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-FL) today expressed deep disappointment over the government's failure to charge as a 'terrorist' a man who was actively plotting to bomb 50 Islamic centers and Muslim schools in that state. Robert Goldstein, 38, pleaded guilty Thursday to conspiracy to violate civil rights, attempting to damage religious property and a weapons possession charge. He faces a maximum of 15 years in prison. Goldstein was arrested last August when authorities found a large arsenal in his town house. That arsenal included more than 30 explosive devices, light-armor rockets, hand grenades, a 5-gallon gasoline bomb, .50-caliber machine guns, and sniper rifles. Authorities also found a detailed plan that called for planting bombs and using automatic weapons to attack a local mosque and cultural center. Goldstein had a list targeting 50 Muslim institutions in the Tampa area. According to court documents, Goldstein, who is Jewish, wanted to make a statement for 'his people' following the 9/11 terrorist attacks ... CAIR-FL is calling on the U.S. Attorney's office to explain why Goldstein was not charged as a terrorist under the USA Patriot Act of 2001, and why no effort was made to seek testimony from the intended Muslim victims. 'The fact that Goldstein was not charged as a terrorist demonstrates that the Patriot Act is a tool to be used solely against Muslims and Arabs,' said CAIR-FL Executive Director Altaf Ali. 'The leniency shown in this case sends the wrong signal to Florida's Muslim community. It signals that the charges and sentencing for planned acts of terrorism now depend on the perpetrator's religion and ethnicity,' added CAIR-FL Communications Director Ahmed Bedier. CAIR-FL is urging the sentencing judge and the probation department to hear from the Muslim community and issue a tougher sentence than the maximum of 15 years agreed to in the plea bargain."

[The omnipresent Jewish dual standard throughout American culture: one standard for Jews (who are secularly sacred) and anotherstandard for everyone else:]
Terrorism or hate crime? U.S. authorities apply different labels to crimes committed by two extremists -- one Muslim, the other Jewish,
by Eric Boehlert, salon.com, April 17, 2003
"On Independence Day last summer, a depressed 41-year-old Muslim immigrant by the name of Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, whose views on the Arab-Israeli conflict had become increasingly extreme, approached the ticket counter of the Israeli-run El Al airline at Los Angeles International Airport. Loaded down with a recently purchased .45-caliber semiautomatic Glock pistol, a 9 mm handgun and a 6-inch knife, he opened fire. During a 30-second rampage, Hadayet emptied the 10-round revolver, killing two people and injuring scores more, before an El Al security guard shot him dead. Six weeks later, in Tampa, Fla., a depressed Jewish podiatrist by the name of Dr. Robert Goldstein, 38, who wanted to send a message on behalf of 'his people' following the attacks of Sept. 11, and to express his anger over the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict, was arrested after police raided his home. There they discovered a detailed plan to blow up 50 local mosques and Islamic centers, 'kill all 'rags‚'' and 'liquidate' Muslims during the attacks if necessary. Police also uncovered a vast illegal stash of weapons, including 30 explosive devices, light-armor rockets, hand grenades, a 5-gallon gasoline bomb, .50-caliber machine guns, silencers, and sniper rifles. Ultimately, law enforcement authorities would label one man a terrorist, and the other a dangerous but deluded perpetrator of hate crimes. How do two crimes with similarities that seem highly relevant in the midst of a war on terrorism come to be defined so differently? Some observers cite paranoia in the wake of Sept. 11 as the reason. Others don't. But even some law enforcement officials are stymied by the choices made by their colleagues in the two cases."

[Unspoken context: Jewish dominance of Hollywood and the omnipresent Jewish Lobby:]
Shooting the Arabs. They're the studio's villains of choice when comes to depicting terrorists, arms dealers or torturers. And after September 11, it looks like getting worse. Author Jack Shaheen escorts Sean Clarke through the shabby history of the Hollywood Arab,
The Guardian (UK), April 17, 2003
"If Hollywood does take up the story of blonde, blue-eyed Private Jessica Lynch, there's at least one man who won't be optimistic about the film's treatment of her Iraqi captors. Professor Jack Shaheen has spent 20 years cataloguing Tinseltown's portrayal of Arabs in over 900 movies. He's found that, with very few exceptions, Arabs are presented in the movies as 'subhuman' and destable to a degree that the studios would no longer dare with any other ethnic group. Shaeen's new book, Reel Bad Arabs, compares the case of Pocahontas - Disney's Native American animation, on which Native American groups were widely consulted in order to produce an acceptable portrait - with that of Aladdin, one of the Arab and European world's most cherished folk tales, which features 'hook-nosed Arabs' singing of their milieu: 'it's barbaric, but hey, it's home.' This, as Shaheen doesn't point out, in a story set in the Baghdad Caliphate, the most culturally powerful and one of the most enlightened polities of its time. 'The tragedy' he admits, 'is that we've begun to unlearn other stereotypes' - about Blacks, Jews, Native Americans. 'But we haven't with this one. And 9/11 took it to another level' ... Shaheen even thinks the dehumanisation of Arabs in Hollywood can affect the US public's attitude to war in Iraq. 'For instance,' he says, 'we hardly ever see Arab suffering. Look at the war coverage - it's almost invisible. It's almost as if the bombs are falling on empty buildings. And that's been true historically, when every news report that comes out of Israel rightly shows Israeli suffering, but wrongly passes over Palestinian suffering. We have not allowed ourselves to empathise with Arabs or see them as being like us' ... But when asked who's to blame for Hollywood's prejudices, he identifies a less obvious culprit: the Arab American community itself. 'Hollywood can villify anything and everything Arab without getting any pressure not to do that. There's no lobby in Hollywood. There are two power centres in the US; Washington DC and Hollywood. One influences policy, and the other influences perception. No Americans of Arab heritage have recognised the importance of lobbying those who impact perception.'"

Israeli Communications Priorities 2003, [in pdf form, here]
The Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee,
"ADC has obtained, and is publishing in full, a vital new Israeli propaganda strategy document for the period following the war in Iraq. The document, entitled 'Wexner Analysis: Israeli Communications Priorities 2003'” was prepared for the Wexner Foundation, which operates leadership training programs such as the 'Birthright Israel' project which offers free trips for young Jewish Americans to Israel, by the public relations firm the Luntz Research Companies and the Israel Project. However, please note that the report’s suggested language is written in a distinctly Israeli, as opposed to a Jewish American, voice:
WEXNER ANALYSIS: ISRAELI COMMUNICATION PRIORITIES 2003 OVERVIEW The world has changed. The words, themes and messages on behalf of Israel must include and embrace the new reality of a post-Saddam world. In the past, we have urged a lower profile for Israel out of a fear that the American people would blame Israel for what was happening in the rest of the Middle East. Now is the time to link American success in dealing with terrorism and dictators from a position of strength to Israel's ongoing efforts to eradicate terrorism on and within its borders. In the current political environment, you have little to lose and a lot to gain by aligning with America. With all the anti-Americanism across the globe and all the protests and demonstrations, we are looking for allies that share our commitment to security and an end to terrorism and are prepared to say so. Israel is a just such an ally. THE NEXT STEP The fact that Israel has remained relatively silent for the three months preceding the war and for the three weeks of the war was absolutely the correct strategy - and according to all the polling done, it worked. But as the military conflict comes to a close, it is now time for Israel to lay out its own "road map" for the future which includes unqualified support for America and unqualified commitment to an ongoing war against terrorism. Perceptions of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are being almost entirely colored and often overshadowed by the continuing action in Iraq. Partisan differences still exist (the political Left remains your problem) and complaints about Israeli heavy-handedness still exist ... If you only read two pages, these are the key conclusions: 1) Iraq colors all. Saddam is your best defense, even if he is dead. The worldview Americans is entirely dominated by developments in Iraq. This is a unique opportunity for Israelis to deliver a message of support and unity at a time of great international anxiety and opposition from some of our European 'allies.' For a year - a SOLID YEAR - you should be invoking the name of Saddam Hussein and how Israel was always behind American efforts to rid the world of this ruthless dictator and liberate their people. Saddam will remain a powerful symbol of terror to Americans for a long time to come. A pro-Israeli expression of solidarity with the American people in their successful effort to remove Saddam will be appreciated ... THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT WORDS: SADDAM HUSSEIN (STILL) This document is about language, so let me be blunt. 'Saddam Hussein' are the two words that tie Israel to America and are most likely to deliver support in Congress. They also just happen to be two of the most hated words in the English language right now ... A WARNING.There are some who would say that Saddam Hussein is already old news. They don't understand history. They don't understand communication. They don't understand how to integrate and leverage history and communication for the benefit of Israel. The day we allow Saddam to take his eventual place in the trash heap of history is the day we loose our strongest weapon in the linguistic defense of Israel. References to the successful outcome of the war with Iraq benefit Israel." [Etc. for 17 pages]

[Another Jewish commentator (this one a psychiatrist) tells us how to impose "democracy" upon Iraq -- first by pathologizing Muslim culture and ignoring "tribal" Judeocentrism.]
The great task of rebuilding Iraq,
by Irwin Savodnik, Washington Times, May 1, 2003
"So far, most considerations regarding the war in Iraq have centered on strategic issues. Now, we are faced with the problem of implementing the Bush doctrine. First articulated by the president in June 2002, the doctrine calls for introducing or imposing democracy in a land that has never experienced it. This goal may turn out to be more formidable than the war itself. The reasons are historical, cultural and, well, 'psychiatric' ... While the West authored the Magna Carta and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, experienced a renaissance, a reformation, an enlightenment and a scientific revolution, the cultural richness of the Arab world seemed to lie fallow. One result of this troubled development has been the persistence of modes of thought characteristic of tribal societies dominated by a mythical conception of the world. Such thinking often includes contradictory statements, bizarre logic and peculiar meanings. With insubstantial political development to separate the Arabs from their past, these archaic forms of thinking continue to exert their influence, thereby reducing the conceptual flexibility necessary to negotiate for themselves a suitable accommodation with the West. There are, of course, educated classes in the Arab world more inclined toward reason — graduates of the University of Baghdad, Tikrit University, Cairo University and others. Nevertheless, many Westerners perceive an irrational quality in Arab life — the glorification of the suicide bomber, the fear of female sexuality and a pervasive intolerance of 'infidels,' for example. What are these ways of thinking that seem to glue Arab feet to a world long gone? First, there is the tendency to substitute fantasy for reality, to seek refuge in an autistic explanation of the world. ... Dr. Irwin Savodnik is a psychiatrist at UCLA Medical Center."

heritage."

[Jews don't like attempts at Arab influence in academe to counter their own. If Jews were to pull questionable funding sources from Jewish organization coffers, most might go bankrupt.]
Harvard is pressured to return $2.5m gift,
By Jenna Russell, Boston Globe, May 11, 2003
"Harvard Divinity School is poised to return a $2.5 million gift from the president of the United Arab Emirates after questions recently surfaced about his ties to a controversial Arab think tank with alleged anti-Semitic and anti-American leanings. UAE president Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan gave the money three years ago to fund a new professorship in Islamic studies, but in recent months several Divinity School students and faculty members have questioned his connection to the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-up, which champions unity between Arab nations. A spokeswoman for the Divinity School's dean, William A. Graham, said he assigned a researcher to investigate ties between the Zayed Center and the UAE president after students brought the issue to his attention. Wendy McDowell, the spokeswoman, said the extreme views aired on the center's Internet site ''upset (Graham) and the faculty greatly.'' The site's roster of speakers included a Holocaust denier and an author alleging the US government masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks ... In his opening remarks at a conference last year, the executive director of the Zayed Center - described on its website as ''a fulfillment of the vision of the President of the U.A.E.'' - denounced Jews as 'the enemies of all nations,' according to press accounts of the event, triggering objections from the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish activist group. Harvard theology student Rachel Fish was the first to raise the issue with Harvard administrators. 'The university has the right and the responsibility to discriminate in where its funding comes from,' said Fish, 23, whose Harvard studies have jointly focused on Judaism and Islam ... In March, Fish and two other students took their concerns about Sheik Zayed - and copies of pages from the Zayed center website - to Graham, and forwarded copies to Harvard president Lawrence Summers [also Jewish] ... Jimmy Carter has been criticized for his association with the Zayed Center, which published his autobiography in Arabic."

[Another Jewish "Terror Slut" exposed. Steven Emerson is a frequent TV pundit on "terrorism."]
Withdraws Defamation Suit. "Terror" Slut Steve Emerson Eats Crow (Just for Starters),
CounterPunch, May 19, 2003
"Wire Self-styled 'terrorism expert' Steven Emerson has filed for dismissal of a multi-million-dollar defamation suit against a Florida newspaper and its senior editor. The 'notice of voluntary dismissal' (Case No. 00-03739) filed in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Fla., states: 'Plaintiff Steven Emerson herewith serves notice of his dismissal of this action, without prejudice, against defendants John Sugg and The Weekly Planet, Inc.' 'This lawsuit did not have any merit, and I believe it was filed in bad faith to deter us and others from telling the truth about Emerson. I think that 'pseudo-journalist' is a perfect description for Steven Emerson,' said Sugg, currently senior editor of Creative Loafing in Atlanta, Ga. Sugg added: 'We reported the truth. In four years of litigation, Emerson has been unwilling or unable to come up with any evidence that what we reported was false. Now that we were close to forcing him to back up his claims, he has run away.' Emerson's lawsuit alleged that Sugg, then senior editor of Florida's Weekly Planet newspaper, 'maliciously and repeatedly published false and defamatory utterances' in an 'ongoing campaign to undermine Emerson's credibility and damage his professional and personal reputation.' Emerson sought one million dollars in actual damages and ten million dollars in punitive damages on each of three causes of action. The complaint centered on allegations reported by Sugg that two Associated Press reporters said Emerson gave them a document on terrorism supposedly from FBI files: 'One reporter thought he'd seen the material before, and in checking found a paper Emerson had supplied earlier containing his own unsupported allegations. The two documents were almost identical, except that Emerson's authorship was deleted from the one purported to be from the FBI. 'It was really his work,' one reporter says. 'He sold it to us trying to make it look like a really interesting FBI document.'" (Weekly Planet, May 1998) ... The lawsuit also disputed allegations that Emerson gave false information to a Senate subcommittee during testimony in 1998. In an article headlined 'Ties to Spies?' Sugg wrote: "In a missive submitted to a U.S. Senate subcommittee in February, Emerson stated that a federal lawman and other authorities in 1995 told him 'radical Islamic fundamentalists had been assigned to carry out an assassination of me. An actual hit team had been dispatched...' Emerson claimed the authorities said he could probably 'get permission to enter the Witness Security Program' "After I sent Emerson's document to the Justice Department's Terrorism and Violent Crimes Section, this on-the-record response was made by spokesman John Russell on May 5. 'You pushed the right button asking about your friend Steve Emerson,' Russell said. 'We've never given any thought to putting him in the witness protection program.' Is there any truth to the allegation of an assassination team? 'No, none at all,' Russell responded.' In documents filed with the court, Emerson said he was 'notified by U.S. government officials in 1995 of a death threat against him.' Emerson is best known for his controversial 1994 PBS production 'Jihad in America.' Muslims say he has a long history of defamatory and inaccurate attacks on the Islamic community in this country."

Israel's America,
By B.A. Jeddy, Dawn (Pakistan), June 1, 2002
"With the help of a strong Jewish lobby within the corridors of power in the US, Israel is well in control of the biggest and the baddest bully in the world. Most people wonder why the United States of America treats Israel like a spoilt child? Every year it gives Israel tremendous financial aid in excess of three to five billion dollars, in the process supporting it unreservedly in its policy of inhuman atrocities against the Palestinians. America also uses its veto to block any adverse Security Council resolution that might be against the interests of Israel. It also completely ignores the fact that Israel reportedly has a deadly arsenal of over 300 nuclear bombs. It is a well-known fact that most of the print and audio-visual media that has an impact on the minds of the American public is controlled by Jews. Just how tight this control is consider the following examples. A few weeks ago an American free-lancer wrote in an English paper that after he had published an anti-Israeli feature in a paper, which had previously accepted all his work, he was told his writing would no longer be required. Then there is the story narrated by a British General, Sir John Glubb, popularly known as Glubb Pasha. He had commanded the Arab Legion in Jordan from 1939 to 1956 and defended that country's borders against Israeli incursions during the Arab-Israeli conflict. Some well-acclaimed books of his experiences had already been published in England. After his retirement in the sixties he wrote down the eventful story of his life and took it to the US, hoping to find a bigger market. But the first question he was asked by American literary agents was, 'Does it contain any material derogatory to Israel?' On his affirmation it was rejected outright. On the 16th of March a 23 year old American peace activist' Rachel Corrie, was killed in cold blood as she courageously tried to stop an Israeli bulldozer from destroying a Palestinian family home. But the cruel murder of even an American citizen received only muted publicity in the American press. Jews manage to control the media by becoming the owners of most public impact papers and magazines. They also acquire a hold on many politicians and legislators. Politics in America is a game of big money. There is hardly a congressman or woman who has not been financed by the American Israeli Public Action Committee, AIPC for short. Even after being elected if anyone does not toe the line of the AIPC, they are quickly surfed out by having buckets of sewage of past misdeeds thrown at them in the papers."

Sunni Imam Accuses US Of Opening Iraq To 'The Jews',
rense.com, June 20, 2003 (AFP)
"A Sunni Muslim prayer leader charged Friday that US forces occupying Iraq were opening up the country to 'the Jews' and chided Iraqis he said were working as 'brokers' for the Jewish infiltrators. 'The liberation of which they spoke boils down to liberating Iraq from its Arab Muslim people ... so that the Jews can enter it,' Sheikh Mahmud Khalaf told the faithful during weekly Muslim prayers in Baghdad's Sheikh Abdul Kader al-Kilani mosque. 'The Jews, civilian and military people, are now entering Iraq ... buying property, factories and companies while Iraqis work for them as brokers and guides,' he said. 'It is a sin for Iraq's people to sell their lands to the Jews and to deal with the Jews in this way,' the imam said."

The new anti-Semitism. A document once used by the Nazis to stir up hatred of Jews and long known to be a forgery is once again being circulated, this time by Muslim scholars. David Aaronovitch challenged them, by David Aaronovitch,
Observer (UK), June 22, 2003
"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - supposedly a transcript of a meeting of the world's top Jews, called to discuss the achievement of world domination - was concocted by an ultra-orthodox member of the Tsar's secret police, Sergei Nilus in about 1903. By the early 1920s it was being widely circulated in Europe and America, was later taught in the schools of Nazi Germany and is now to be found on any good neo-nazi web-site near you. It is the classic of Holocaust-era anti-Semitism, portraying the Jews as a conniving, Machiavellian race, plotting how to gain power well beyond their puny numbers, through manipulation and money. So what on earth is it doing in the twenty-first century manifesto of an Islamic movement?"

JDL Activist Said Talking With FBI. Earl Krugel, awaiting sentencing in a bombing plot, is being quizzed about the 1985 Santa Ana blast that killed an Arab American,
By David Rosenzweig, Los Angeles Times, July 4, 2003
"A Jewish Defense League activist awaiting sentencing for plotting to bomb a mosque and a congressman's office has been cooperating with the FBI in its continuing investigation of the organization and a 1985 bombing that claimed the life of Arab American civil rights leader Alex Odeh, according to sources familiar with the case. Granted immunity from prosecution for any self-incriminating statements, Earl Krugel, the JDL's former West Coast coordinator, has undergone several days of questioning about a range of subjects, including the Odeh slaying, the sources said. Over the years, the FBI has investigated several onetime JDL members in connection with the slaying, but no charges have ever been filed. The JDL has denied any involvement. Odeh, western regional director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, was killed by a bomb that went off when he opened the front door of the committee's Santa Ana office. Seven others were injured. The Justice Department has offered a $1-million reward for information leading to an arrest and conviction. One source cautioned, however, that the information provided by Krugel is not likely to "crack the case open." Krugel pleaded guilty earlier this year to plotting to bomb the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City and a field office of Rep. Darrell E. Issa (R-Vista), who is of Lebanese descent. Krugel was to have been sentenced this week, but the prosecution and defense jointly petitioned U.S. District Judge Ronald S.W. Lew to postpone the hearing until Aug. 11, saying additional time was needed to allow Krugel to "fulfill his obligations under his plea agreement."

[Jewish censorship of Arab perspectives in Canada:]
CRTC considers Al-Jazeera for Canadian systems,
CTV (Canadian Press), July 11, 2003
"Canada's broadcast regulator is inviting public comments beginning Friday on proposals to import the signal of the Quatar-based Al-Jazeera news network, sometimes referred to as the Arab world's CNN during the Iraq conflict. Calling Al-Jazeera's coverage in the Middle East anti-Semitic, the Canadian Jewish Congress and B'nai Brith Canada have promised to intervene against it. "By granting them a licence, the kind of stories that they carry could contravene the Criminal Code," warns Keith Landy, CJC president, referring to what he calls the network's racist and hate content. Ron Singer, the CJC communications spokesman, says they are still putting the final touches on their formal brief. The National Council on Canada-Arab Relations, though, has argued that carriage in Canada would "broaden the horizon of the Canadian public" on Middle Eastern issues. The organization has also made the point that many Canadians are already spending up to $100 a month using the TV black market to watch the channel via the EchoStar's Dish Network in the U.S. "Opposition to Al-Jazeera's presence undermines Canadian core values of freedom of thought and speech," NCCAR executive director Mazen Chouaib said Wednesday. "Keeping Al-Jazeera from the Canadian market would serve extremists, alienate moderates and deal a blow to our collective freedoms." The Canadian Arab Federation also calls the CJC's opposition extreme and disingenuous. "Allowing Al-Jazeera to broadcast in Canada tests our fundamental commitment to free speech," says Raja Khouri, the federation's national president. "A free and healthy society is one in which all voices may be heard."

[This Fish is of course Jewish, and so is Summers:]
Harvard Graduate Crusades Against Arab Donor,
By ALAN COOPERMAN, Hartford Courant (Washngton Post), July 20, 2003
"When she received a master's degree in theological studies last month, Rachel Fish accepted her diploma from the dean of Harvard Divinity School and handed him something in return: 130 pages of research and a petition. The research was on anti-American and anti-Jewish propaganda allegedly emanating from a Middle Eastern think tank, the Zayed International Centre for Coordination and Follow-Up. The petition urged Harvard University to give back a $2.5 million gift from the center's namesake, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan Nahyan, president of the United Arab Emirates. Over the past six months, Fish, 23, has almost single-handedly created a furor over the sheik's three-year-old donation, which was earmarked for a professorship in Islamic studies at the divinity school and had attracted little notice. The endowed chair is on hold as the divinity school dean, William Graham, and the university president, Lawrence Summers, examine the sheik's links to the think tank and consider whether to reject his money, a university spokeswoman said. With her research, which she conducted alongside her coursework but not for credit, Fish has handed Harvard a dilemma. Despite the university's $17.5 billion endowment, faculty members say $2.5 million is far from pocket change for the divinity school, Harvard's smallest graduate school, with 39 faculty members and about 475 students. Moreover, giving the money back might be seen as an admission that university officials failed to vet the gift. There could even be diplomatic repercussions if Summers, who served as treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, publicly spurns a gift from the leader of a U.S. ally in the war on terrorism [I]f Harvard keeps the sheik's gift, some students, faculty members and alumni will accuse the university of turning a blind eye to anti-Semitism. "Harvard has got itself entangled with the founder and patron of a group that spews forth anti-American and anti-Jewish hate, and Harvard needs to extricate itself as soon as possible," said Jon Levenson, a professor of Jewish studies. Levenson is one of seven faculty members at the divinity school who have urged the university to return the money. More than 8,500 people, including hundreds of Harvard students and alumni, have signed Fish's petition since January. This is not the first time that Fish has challenged school administrators. When she was in the first grade in Johnson City, Tenn., she recalls, her teacher began each day with a prayer in the name of Jesus. Though she was too young to know that the Supreme Court had declared organized prayer to be unconstitutional in the public schools, she did know she was Jewish. So she sat in the hallway for a few minutes each morning - until her parents went to the principal and the school board, and the prayers stopped. "When you're growing up in a small town in the Bible Belt, it's important to know who you are and what you believe in," she said."

The Times’ Thomas Friedman on Iraq: spreading “democracy” with missiles and lies,
By Bill Vann, World Socialist Web Site, July 22, 2003
"[Thomas] Friedman glibly acknowledges that Bush lied to the American people, but he sees nothing wrong with that. In essence, he is advising the White House to abandon yesterday’s lies and concentrate on today’s. Concede the false claims about weapons of mass destruction, and instead promote what is a brutal colonial occupation aimed at securing US control over strategic oil reserves as a crusade for “democracy” and “pluralism.” Never mind that the majority of the Iraqi people regard the new council in much the same way the Norwegians viewed the Quisling regime set up under Nazi occupation. Some 10,000 Iraqis poured into the streets of Najaf Sunday, confronting US Marines, demanding the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and denouncing the council as a collection of “lackeys.” Those participating were overwhelmingly Shiite, making it impossible for the US government and media to attribute the anti-American protest to remnants of the old regime or Baathist conspirators. Acknowledging the popular hostility to Iraq’s “liberators,” Friedman responds with a modest proposal for another bloodbath: “These areas need to be reinvaded and then showered with reconstruction funds,” he writes. The World Socialist Web Site has frequently commented on Friedman, not because his columns marshal intellectual arguments that merit serious debate. Rather, he personifies the corruption of the mass media to the point where it functions as an enthusiastic accomplice in the criminal enterprises of US imperialism. In the run-up to the Iraq war, Friedman drafted columns that parroted the line of those in the Pentagon’s civilian leadership most intimately involved in promoting an invasion. These writings included friendly advice to the administration on how best to create a pretext for war. Answering the cry of the antiwar protests—“No blood for oil!”—Friedman replied, “Why not?” offering a rationalization for the US seizure of Iraq’s oil reserves. His specialty, however, is the elaboration of pious appeals to the supposed “better instincts” of the Bush administration, attributing to the gang that controls the White House the task of bringing democracy and prosperity not only to Iraq, but to the whole of the Middle East and the world at large."

STEREOTYPING OF ARABS BY THE U.S. ENSURES YEARS OF TURMOIL,
by Edward Said, Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2003
"At least since World War II, American strategic interests in the Middle East have been, first, to ensure supplies of oil and, second, to guarantee at enormous cost the strength and domination of Israel over its neighbors. Every empire, however, tells itself and the world that it is unlike all other empires, that its mission is not to plunder and control but to educate and liberate. These ideas are by no means shared by the people who inhabit that empire, but that hasn't prevented the U.S. propaganda and policy apparatus from imposing its imperial perspective on Americans, whose sources of information about Arabs and Islam are woefully inadequate. Several generations of Americans have come to see the Arab world mainly as a dangerous place, where terrorism and religious fanaticism are spawned and where a gratuitous anti-Americanism is inculcated in the young by evil clerics who are anti-democratic and virulently anti-Semitic. In the United States, "Arabists" are under attack. Simply to speak Arabic or to have some sympathetic acquaintance with the vast Arab cultural tradition has been made to seem a threat to Israel. The media runs the vilest racist stereotypes about Arabs -- see, for example, a piece by Cynthia Ozick in The Wall Street Journal in which she speaks of Palestinians as having "reared children unlike any other children, removed from ordinary norms and behaviors" and of Palestinian culture as "the life force traduced, cultism raised to a sinister spiritualism." Americans are sufficiently blind that when a Middle Eastern leader emerges whom our leaders like -- the shah of Iran or Anwar Sadat -- it is assumed that he is a visionary who does things our way not because he understands the game of imperial power (which is to survive by humoring the regnant authority) but because he is moved by principles that we share ... Israel and the United States regard Arafat as an obstacle to the settlement they wish to impose on the Palestinians, a settlement that would obliterate Palestinian demands and allow Israel to claim, falsely, that it has atoned for its "original sin." Never mind that Arafat -- whom I have criticized for years in the Arabic and Western media -- is still universally regarded as the legitimate Palestinian leader. He was legally elected and has a level of popular support that no other Palestinian approaches, least of all Abbas, a bureaucrat and longtime Arafat subordinate. And never mind that there is now a coherent Palestinian opposition, the Independent National Initiative; it gets no attention because the U.S. and the Israeli establishment wish for a compliant interlocutor who is in no position to make trouble.... We are in for many more years of turmoil and misery in the Middle East, where one of the main problems is, to put it as plainly as possible, U.S. power. What the United States refuses to see clearly it can hardly hope to remedy."

Recognition of Israel faces rigorous test in Pakistan. Muslim majority deeply identifies with Palestinians,
by Juliette Terzieff, San Francisco Chronicle, August 1, 2003
"Under pressure from the Bush administration, President Pervez Musharraf has broken with 50 years of tradition by suggesting that Pakistan might consider officially recognizing the state of Israel. "We have had three wars with India, but nobody makes any fuss about having diplomatic or trading ties with them, so why not have ties with Israel?" Musharraf asked nonchalantly last month before a visit to Africa, one of several hints he has dropped over the past six weeks. But judging from the highly charged responses to Musharraf's words, that may be too much to ask in a country where the vast majority of people sympathize deeply with the Palestinian quest for a homeland. "Whoever supports Israel supports tyranny," said Syed Munawar Hasan, secretary general of the Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan's largest religious party. "He is following an agenda dictated by the interests of Jews and Americans. It is anti-Pakistani, anti-people and anti-Islam" ... Most analysts see Musharraf's new enthusiasm for official recognition of Israel as a response to political pressures both within Pakistan and from outside. Domestically, Musharraf, an army general who seized power in a bloodless 1999 coup, is facing harsh criticism for unilaterally enacting constitutional amendments that cement a role for the military in the government. Many believe he is trying to bolster his standing internationally to circumvent any attempt to oust him. There are regional considerations, too, that may be pushing Pakistan to express a new interest in Israel. Defense cooperation between Israel and India, Pakistan's main regional foe and fellow nuclear power, has passed the $1 billion mark. But most trace the impetus for the idea to the Bush administration, which is intent on building an international consensus on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and considers Pakistan a key to mustering that support. Musharraf first floated the recognition idea days before meeting with President Bush in Washington on June 24. When Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom issued a statement welcoming the idea, he said Musharraf's comments could be attributed to his Washington visit and to a meeting with a group of congressmen headed by Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, who reportedly called on the Pakistani president to forge ties with Israel. The government has denied published reports that several Pakistani political leaders and businessmen have had clandestine contacts with Israel, but one Western diplomat told the News, a Pakistani daily, that "some Islamic countries are already engaged in closet discussions related to a possible quid pro quo for according recognition to Israel." Indeed, as this impoverished nation awaits congressional approval of a five- year $3 billion U.S. aid package, it can hardly afford to lose the support of the Bush administration."

[Joseph Farah is one of the few Arab Zionists in the world, he is beloved in Jewish propaganda circles, and much touted by the Judeocentric press. He apparently has found another Zionist-sponsored Arab traitor.]
Radical Islam's 'plan' to take over America Arab-American author outlines secret 20-year strategy to undermine country,
by Joseph Farah , World Net Daily, August 4, 2003
"A refugee from the Muslim Middle East thinks he has discovered Islam's 20-point plan for conquering the United States by 2020 – a plan revealed in the latest issue of Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin. Anis Shorrosh, author of ''Islam Revealed'' and ''The True Furqan,'' is a Christian Arab-American who emigrated from Arab-controlled Jerusalem in January 1967. ''The following is my analysis of Islamic invasion of America, the agenda of Islamists and visible methods to take over America by the year 2020,'' Shorrosh says. ''Will Americans continue to sleep through this invasion as they did when we were attacked on 9/11?'' 1. Terminate America's freedom of speech by replacing it with statewide and nationwide hate-crime bills. 2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson and other visible religious personalities who promote Islam as the religion of African-Americans while insisting Christianity is for whites only."

Excerpts from Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s dialogue with ulama, intellectuals and religious leaders of Syria in Damascus on Monday,
New Straits Times, August 21, 2003 [Mahathir is prime minister of Malaysia]
"Q: Do you still believe in this conspiracy of Jews in the Asian financial crisis? A: I will have to give a very comprehensive answer to that. There are not that many Jews, only about 30 million. But they want to control the world, it has nothing to do with their religion, it's their personal Zionist ambition to rule the world. The answer lies in capturing the most powerful country in the world — the United States. How was it done? They invented and propagated the idea of democracy. If you are democratic, they have a right to all the rights of a democracy. They can stand for election, they can campaign, you cannot have any more massacres as they used to have in Europe. Secondly, they promote the idea of human rights, that they must be given the same rights as anybody else. So again, there cannot be any discrimination against Jews. Now, having spread these ideas among all the people, the majority feel that it is wrong to discriminate against the Jews. At one time, Harvard University will not accept Jews. At one time, Jews were not allowed to participate in banking in America. Through the spread of democracy and human rights, they can do all that. They can carry out banking, and they are very good in banking. From ancient times, they are the ones who collected the greatest amount of interest. When they became equal, they went for institutions that have the most influence on society. They captured the media. The media in the West belongs to them, that includes the electronic media (TV) and Hollywood. It became a propaganda machine for them. And then, having got the media, they go for politics. Today, the US Government, many of the members of Congress, are Jews. If they are not Jews, their staff members are Jews. I appeared on the same platform as Mr Ashcroft in Davos, he was assisted by a young man whose name was Israel. Their staff are all Jews. They come to Malaysia, and they have the same view. So by controlling the Press and media, controlling the money through banking, and controlling now the Congress, they have become the power in the United States. They may not be many, American political candidates are extreme candidates, but there are only six million Jews in America. They can ensure that you win or lose, because they are united whilst the others are divided. In Malaysia, we have the same experience. In a constituency with majority Muslim Malays, for example, and a minority made up of Chinese and Indians, the Muslims are actually divided. The Chinese and Indians will decide who will win, with their votes. There are more Muslims than Jews in the US, but they are divided into 1,000 different groups. And they can never get together so they cannot play the same role as the Jews. The biggest power in America now controls the world and economy. Their ideas about currency trading is that which resulted in the attack on Malaysia. I said this, and of course, I was roundly criticised at that time. They said they want to make money, it's not because they are Jews. But whether they want to make money or not, the fact is that they are Jews and what they have done, benefit the Jews. So that is the situation."

UAE shuts research centre after Jewish complaints,
gsonweb.com (from Reuters), August 27, 2003
"The United Arab Emirates has closed down a research centre it funded amid accusations by Jewish lobby groups that it was promoting hatred against Jews. A decree issued by UAE President Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan on Wednesday announced the closure of the Zayed International Centre for Coordination and Follow-Up (ZICCF) because it had "engaged in a discourse that starkly contradicted the principles of interfaith tolerance." The ZICCF was set up in 1999 and operates under the umbrella of the Cairo-based Arab League. It researches regional political and economic issues, including relations between Arab countries and the West. The decree gave no further details, but the ZICCF has been embroiled in controversy over the past months for hosting Arab and European intellectuals who lectured on Israel and Judaism. Arab newspapers have repeatedly reported on what they called a Zionist campaign against the ZICCF and efforts by U.S and British Jewish groups to close it. Intellectuals in Syria and Egypt have campaigned to support the centre, which media said was closed two weeks ago."

Israel bans mosque visits,
news.com (Australia), August 29, 2003
"ISRAELI police have banned all Muslim men under the age of 45 from going to Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa mosque compound on Friday, the Muslim weekly day of prayer, for fear of demonstrations, a police statement said. The measure, which does not apply to Muslim women, was was taken “following concurring intelligence (reports) on Palestinian plans for demonstrations,” the statement said. The Palestinian intifada, or uprising, erupted in September 2000 following a controversial visit to the mosque compound by the then Israeli opposition leader and now prime minister, Ariel Sharon. The compound, known to Jews as Temple Mount, is both the third holiest site in Islam and the most sacred spot in Judaism. Israeli authorities reopened the compound to Israeli and foreign tourists last week despite opposition from the Waqf, the Muslim authority in charge of the site. They were not given permission to pray at the site."

[The view from Iran about the bomb that killed over 80 people leaving an Iraqi Shiite mosque].
Martyrdom of Ayatollah Hakim in Line with U.S., Zionist Objectives: Leader, Tehran Times, August 30, 2003
"The Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei in a condolence message on the martyrdom of Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer Hakim said the tragedy in Najaf and the martyrdom of the grand combatant scholar was undoubtedly carried out in line with the objectives of the U.S. and the Zionists. Ayatollah Hakim was the head of the Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SAIRI) who was killed in a car bomb explosion in the Iraqi city of Najaf when he was returning from Najaf Friday prayers yesterday which he himself had led. In his message, Ayatollah Khamenei said that the sinful hands of the servants of the hegemonic powers created another disastrous tragedy once again in which the Iraqi nation was robbed of a priceless personality who was considered as a solid stronghold against the occupiers of Iraq. Pointing to the way the Ayatollah was martyred, the Supreme Leader described him as a combating scholar who had spent long years to restore rights of the Iraqi nation against the Baathist regime and then stood strongly firm against American and British occupiers. The martyrdom of this grand combatant is another proof to the fact that the occupiers have imposed insecurity and chaos to the country with their illegitimate presence in Iraq, the message read. The Supreme Leader further stressed in his message that the enemies of Muslims and of an independent Iraq should be aware of the fact that this sad event would never result in demoralizing the Iraqi nation so as not to confront the plans and goals of the hegemonic powers and the Zionists or to weaken their faith in Islam and the religious leadership. The message concluded by reminding the Iraqi nation of the fact that the only way for them to get rid of the dangerous plots of the hegemonic powers and the Zionists was their unity under the glorious flag of Islam."

The Rest of the Story,
by Mark Glenn, Information Clearinghouse, September 3, 2003
"[T]he racists who run our media and, by default, have assumed the power of doing our thinking for us have painted the religion of Islam as something organically inimical to Christianity and Christian culture. One in particular, and lately much discussed is a rabid Zionist and unapologetic racist by the name of Daniel Pipes (recently appointed by Bush to sit in on the Board of the United States Institute of Peace) has made his living and his fame over the period of the last decade with publications whose one and only purpose was to slur the peoples of the Middle East, all done principally for the reason of benefiting his co-religionists in the nation of Israel, whose racist ideology he seems to embrace without any detectable reserve. Were any other person foolish enough to voice only some of the opinions that Pipes has been bold enough to put down on paper, they would have been run out of the business, if not worse. The fact that he has endured and has in fact been rewarded for such sentiments speaks volumes about what is the double standard which exists in the United States today as pertains race and religious issues, particularly when they are applied to the situation involving Israel and the Middle East. For those who are still holding out on whether or not to accept the “conspiracy crackpot theory” that the US government and media have been captured and are dominated by racist ideologues who worship before the golden calf of Zionism, consider some of the following quotes which Pipes has authored, and allow reason to weigh in on the fact that this man has not endured the standard treatment that others receive when they voice sentiments that only appear to be racial in nature. "All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most. West European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene.” A quick translation of the above statement would read like this: Muslims are the worst of immigrants, who, smelling bad and having an unusual palate, are not welcome in white societies. The Golden Boy of the Zionist establishment has not limited his remarks to only these mentioned. In other writings he accuses Muslims of being parasites on society, being disproportionately engaged in criminal behavior, (most notably the crime of rape) of having unacceptable customs and seeking to take over the country. In short, this is the stuff of the infamous Ku Klux Klan. Replace the word “Muslim” with “black” or “nigger,” and the comparison is without equal. How then is it possible for such men to possess the amount of prestige and influence as he does, without being subject to the same backlash that would result from someone else engaging in such behavior? Quite simply, he is an example of the “politically correct” racist, meaning, a racist in favor of Israel and Judaism, and, unfortunately, he is only one of many who work diligently in keeping Americans from hearing the rest of the story. Only in a nation whose government, media, and culture have been hijacked by the interests of an ideology such as Zio-naziism could such statements have been made by an individual without any resulting serious repercussions. In a nation where someone is attacked in an overtly coordinated effort for merely speaking out against the verifiable history of Israeli violence and duplicity (or for that matter, simply making a film concerning the crucifixion of Jesus Christ) the fact that individuals such as Daniel Pipes could get away with saying such things speaks volumes about what is the deplorable state of intellectual dishonesty in American society."

[As always: one standard for Jews, another everyone else:]
New Jersey prisons don't have to serve Muslim inmates Muslim meals,
by Jonathan Schuppe, Unknown News, (from The Star-Ledger [Newark, NJ] ), Sept. 11, 2003
"New Jersey State Prison does not have to provide its Muslim inmates with meals containing meat prepared according to Islamic dietary law, a federal appeals court has ruled. The judges agreed with state Department of Corrections officials that it would cost too much to serve halal meat to more than 200 inmates at the maximum security prison in Trenton, and that the Muslim prisoners have many other opportunities to practice their religion. Other religious inmates, including Jews, are served special meals to conform to their beliefs. But because all those meals are vegetarian, the prison is not discriminating against Muslims by serving them meatless meals, the court said. Inmates Ishmon Stallworth and James Williams claimed in their lawsuit that New Jersey State Prison's refusal to serve halal meals violated their right to practice Islam, while the prison gave special consideration to Jewish inmates. They argued that the prison spends more than $3,600 a year to meet the kosher needs of each of four Jewish inmates but wouldn't spent an estimated $280 to feed each of its 225 Muslim prisoners halal meals. Prisoners' rights advocates and Islamic groups said the decision issued this week by a three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hurts devout Muslim prisoners around New Jersey who have been seeking meals with halal meat ... Halal is a Muslim dietary law similar to kosher regulations for Jews."

[America hates the Palestinians because of the Jewish American Lobby. Period. The people who run America are slaves to power, Jewish power. And the Palestinians are powerless.]
Why does America hate us?,
By Mohammed Shaker Abdallah, Arab Media Internet Network, September 18, 2003
"Palestinians are once more stunned by the recent U.S. veto in the U.N. Security Council to block a resolution demanding an Israeli retraction from a decision to expel President Yasser Arafat. They recollect a series of such vetoes almost all of which targeted their national rights of security and protection. Every time the international community opts to defend the legitimate rights of the Palestinians, to rid them or less from the Israeli atrocities or to condemn the settlement activities in the West Bank or Gaza Strip, the Americans step in to provide a safety net for the Israeli aggressions. Another notorious American veto bluntly killed a proposal to send an international peacekeeping force to the region that would provide both protection to the Palestinian innocent civilians and deterrence against potential suicidal bombings inside Israel . The question that then floated in Palestinian minds was: What is wrong with that proposal? It was really balanced and designed to satisfy the demands of the Israelis and Palestinians alike. The American heritage has traditionally stood beside tortured nations and sought to lift suffering from within their societies. From the dawn of American history the values of freedom and human rights were the pillars of the U.S.A. social, political and cultural structure. Yet, when any outside observer evaluates the American attitude toward the oppressed Palestinian people, he would only shudder at the paradoxical contrast. Palestinians all through the recorded history of their relationship with America have been friends and admirers. Only when the U.S. sided with Israeli occupation did they complain or revolt, and the very few incidents that occurred during the 1970's should be regarded as signs of protest, and not hostility or ferocity. For Palestinians, America was never the enemy, but the power that holds the key for a lasting peace and yet insists on keeping the door tightly locked. The principles of justice, to which the U.S. presumably adhere, dictate that it backs the natural rights of the Palestinians - to be free from occupation, oppression and foreign dominance, as this was the direct cause of the American Revolution against the British tyranny and cruelty. It is very strange and unbelievable that the U.S.A. goes that far in standing in the way of Palestinian aspirations. Even the pretext for this unaccountable position, the strategic relationship with Israel , seems too fragile to be comprehended ...Wielding the sword of a veto against the security of and steadfastness of the Palestinians only serves to raise a persistent Palestinian exclamative question: Why does America hate us to that extent?""

Jewish Lobby forced to apologise to Interpal over 'terror' claim,
Muslim Public Affairs Committee, September 23, 2003
"We found this in the Jewish Chronicle, looks like Muslim groups are starting to fight back at the smear campaign being waged against them by Jewish groups. EMBARRASSED Board of Deputies officials are to apologise to a Palestinian fund-raising group un-der Charity Commission investigation for alleged links to Hamas over a press release branding it a "terrorist organisation." Interpal has threatened legal action over the claim, which the Board admits was "incorrect in UK terms." A spokesman said it would aplogise to Interpal, which was recently banned from operating in the US. "The matter is in the hands of our solicitors," said Board director-general Neville Nagler. "As soon as we heard from Interpal's solicitors, we changed the wording of the press release." The release was issued after the Board had written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw urging that funds held in the UK for Palestinian terrorist groups be frozen. The Charity Commission recently announced it had opened a formal investigation into Interpal over concerns about "links to Hamas's political or militant activities." In a statement, Interpal chairman Ibrahim Hewitt said it had instructed its legal advisers to begin proceedings against the Board. He denied Interpal had political ties and insisted its funds were distributed "on the basis of humanitarian need, no more, no less."

[The Jewish trashing of Edward Said. Academic attention to the Middle East is -- first and foremost -- an ideological war: Jew versus Arab, as we see here. Frum was a speechwriter for George Bush and remains, like the rest of the Jews in the White House realm, hyper-absorbed with pro-Israel zeal.]
EDWARD SAID,
by David Frum, National Review, September 29, 2003
"Probably the best that can be said of the late Professor Edward Said, who died Thursday, is that there was a part of him that ardently loved and sincerely appreciated art and beauty. Under different circumstances, he might genuinely have become the great literary critic that his admirers falsely make him out to be. On the other hand, under different circumstances, any one of us might have turned out to be much better or much worse than we in fact turned out to be. We can only be judged against the circumstances we actually encountered – and by that standard, Said does not deserve the many accolades that will surely now be showered upon him. Said is best known for his 1977 book Orientalism, a book that may well rank as the single most influential academic study of the past quarter-century – and as the most disastrous. Orientalism has, as the Straussians might say, both an exoteric and an esoteric meaning ... Orientalism was intended (among other things) as an attack on the life and work of Bernard Lewis. ... In his timely and important book, Ivory Towers on Sand, Martin Kramer describes how professors imbued with Said’s ideas blinded themselves to the rise of Islamic extremism – that is, when they did not volunteer their services as apologists for it ... Said’s claims turn out to be less than fully true, as Justus Weiner demonstrated in a lengthy article in the September 1999 issue of Commentary.... Said’s personal and individual lie – that he was born into a Middle Eastern paradise that had been spoiled only by the intrusion of an alien Zionist serpent – is the collective and political lie that has distorted all our understanding of the region ... And the only people in the region who championed the humane, liberal, and democratic values that Said praised but did not practice were the very Israelis to whose extermination he sacrificed both his vocation and his integrity."

Israeli Raid in Syria Alarms Arab World,
by Jason Keyser, Yahoo! News (from Associated Press), October 6, 2003
"Israel bombed a target inside Syria that it claimed was an Islamic Jihad training base, striking deep inside its neighbor's territory Sunday for the first time in three decades and widening its pursuit of Palestinian militants. The airstrike — a retaliation for a suicide bombing Saturday that killed 19 Israelis — alarmed the Arab world and deepened concerns that three years of Israeli-Palestinian violence could spread through the region. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for Saturday's bombing, in which 55 people were wounded. Washington urged both sides to show restraint — but added pointed criticism of Syria, saying Damascus "must cease harboring terrorists and make a clean break from those responsible for planning and directing terrorist action from Syrian soil." With little option for military retaliation, Syria turned for international support. On requests from Damascus, the U.N. Security Council and the 22-member Arab League held emergency sessions Sunday as Syria's foreign minister Farouq al-Sharaa sought measures to deter Israeli "aggression." Syria's U.N. Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad called on the council to adopt a resolution condemning the attack. "Arabs and many people across the globe feel that Israel is above law," Mekdad said ... Israel said the bombing signaled it would pursue militants wherever they found support — and it added an accusation that Iran also backs Islamic Jihad. "Any country who harbors terrorism, who trains (terrorists), supports and encourages them will be responsible to answer for their actions," government spokesman Avi Pazner said. In the West Bank, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat declared a state of emergency and installed an emergency Cabinet with Ahmed Qureia as prime minister. The hasty action was an apparent attempt to deflect possible Israeli action against Arafat following the suicide bombing since Israel has threatened to expel him. The leader of Islamic Jihad, Ramadan Shallah, told Dubai-based Al-Arabiya TV that the Israeli attack was "a grave development that exceeded all rules of the game." He also warned Israel that the suicide bombing "will not be the last resistance operation" committed by his group. In Egypt, the Arab League condemned the Israeli attack. It said the bombing "exposes the deteriorating situation in the region to uncontrollable consequences, which could drag the whole region into violent whirlpool."

[Why is the following perspective suggesting Islamic unification against Jews condemned in America's Zionist-trained Western press? A little further down this page you'll find, for example, an article where international Jewry suggests a boycott of the entirety of Greece because of an "offensive" (to Jews) art exhibition: "the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s director for international liaison, Shimon Samuels, wrote to Greek Prime Minister Kostas Simitis. Samuels said that the center would call on Jews around the world to boycott the Olympic games in Greece if the show is allowed to open." Jews make such threats and smears against entire national and ethnic groups all the time. Why not give Jews a taste of their own medicine?]
Malaysian Urges Muslims to Unite Vs. Jews,
Earthlink (from Associated Press), October 16, 2003
"Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad on Thursday told a summit of Islamic leaders that "Jews rule the world by proxy" and the world's 1.3 billion Muslims should unite, using nonviolent means for a "final victory." His speech at the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit, which he was hosting, drew criticism from Jewish leaders, who warned it could spark more violence against Jews. Mahathir, who is known for his outspoken, anti-Western rhetoric, criticized what he described as Jewish domination of the world and Muslim nations' inability to adequately respond to it as he opened the meeting of Islamic leaders from 57 nations. "The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy," Mahathir said. "They get others to fight and die for them." Malaysia, a democratic nation which has a large non-Muslim population and does not enforce strict Islamic law, has long been a critic of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories and of U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the war in Iraq and its strong backing of the Jewish state. Mahathir, 77, who is retiring on Oct. 31, has used almost every international podium to lambaste the West for two decades, winning a reputation as an outspoken champion of Third World causes. "For well over half a century we have fought over Palestine. What have we achieved? Nothing. We are worst off than before," he said. "If we had paused to think, then we could have devised a plan, a strategy that can win us final victory." The prime minister, who has turned his country into the world's 17th-ranked trading nation during his 22 years in power, said Jews "invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy" to avoid persecution and gain control of the most powerful countries ... Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said Mahathir has used anti-Israel statements in the past to prove he's tough on the West. But, he said, Thursday's speech was still worrisome. "What is profoundly shocking and worrying is the venue of the speech, the audience and coming in the time we're living in," Cooper said during a visit to Jerusalem. "Mahathir's speech today is an absolute invitation for more hate crimes and terrorism against Jews. That's serious." U.S. Ambassador to Malaysia Marie Huhtala declined to comment on Mahathir's speech. Washington was angered over a speech he made in February, as host of the Non-Aligned Movement of 117 countries, in which he described the looming war against Iraq as racist. Afghan President Hamid Karzai said he supported Mahathir's analysis, which also included steps for how Muslim nations can develop economically and socially. "It is great to hear Prime Minister Mahathir speak so eloquently on the problems of the ummah (Muslim world) and ways to remedy them," Karzai said. "His speech was an eye-opener to a lot of us and that is what the Islamic world should do."

[Unlike Western "leaders," the Malaysian prime minster refuses to kiss Jewish Butt. All the heavy, ham-handed international Jewish pressure to discipline PM Mohamad for telling the truth UNDERSCORES THE ACCURACY OF HIS POINT.]
Unrepentant Mahathir Says Jews Control the World,
by Ed Cropley, Yahoo! News (from Reuters), Oct 21, 2003
"An unrepentant Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad repeated Tuesday his belief that Jews rule the world, denied President Bush had rebuked him for it and hit out at Australian leader John Howard. Mahathir, who steps down at the end of the month after 22 years in power, told the Bangkok Post in an interview that widespread criticism of his recent remark that "Jews rule the world by proxy" proved he was right. "The reaction of the world shows that they control the world," he told the newspaper. "Israel is a small country. There are not so many Jews in the world. But they are so arrogant, they defy the whole world. Even if the United Nations says no, they go ahead. Why? Because they have the backing of all these people," Mahathir said. Bush called the initial comments -- which the outspoken leader of largely Muslim Malaysia said were taken out of context -- "wrong and divisive," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "It stands squarely against what I believe," he quoted Bush as telling Mahathir during the annual summit of the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Bangkok. But Mahathir said reports Bush had rebuked him were wrong. "Certainly, he did not rebuke me," Mahathir told a news conference after the two-day summit ended. "All he said was that 'I regret today to have to use strong words against you'," Mahathir said. "After that we were walking practically hand-in-hand." The Nazi-hunting Simon Wiesenthal Center said Mahathir's speech could spur violence against Jews. "This is incitement against Jews and it provides a rationale and motivation for terror against Jews," Ephraim Zuroff, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Israel, told Reuters. The World Union for Progressive Judaism, an umbrella body grouping liberal and reform Jewish communities around the world, urged acting U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Bertrand Ramcharan to speak out against Mahathir's "racist remarks' ... In the Bangkok Post interview, Mahathir complained that reports of his remarks on Jews last week to an Islamic summit in Malaysia, which the United States, the European Union, Australia and others denounced as anti-Semitic, "just picked up one sentence in my speech." News accounts had ignored his condemnation of all violence, including suicide bombings, and his call on Muslims to heed the teachings of the Koran and talk peace with Israel, he said. Asked why he thought this was the case, Mahathir replied: "Well, many newspapers are owned by Jews. They only see that angle and they have a powerful influence over the thinking of many people. Only their side of the picture is given now."

Jewish Property in Muslim Countries: $100 Billion,
by Staff Writer, Jewish Post
"A group from Washington D.C. Justice for Jews from Arab Countries is demanding compensations amounting to $100 billion from Arab or Muslim countries because of loss of property or money by 900,000 Jews who lived there before 1948. According to this new organization only 8,000 Jews live in Arab or Muslim countries today. In Libya, for example, only 6 Jews. Most of these Jews from Arab countries or North-African countries have made aliyah to Israel. Most of them left because of persecution and Muslim anti-Semitism. Arabs tend to blame Zionism for this reality, as if Jews were accepted in the Muslim world as citizens and not just as victims or Dahimi in the Muslim terminology. For example, just learn the history of Jews in Yemen. This new organization approaches the issue from legal vantage point according to HA’ARETZ and its leader Stanley Urman. The issue of compensation was launched by many organizations or leaders such as Mordecai Ben-Porat in Israel, Dr. Heskel Haddad in the U.S.A. For example, they argued that Jews in Iraq left $2 billion in bank deposits. Jews owned a lot of land and real estate in Iraq. They lost everything in 1951, when they fled to Israel. Some fled to Great Britain. Recently, American Sephardic Federation under the leadership of Leon Levy and Vivian Romani launched a special educational campaign in order to teach Sephardim, victims of Muslim-Arab countries, about their rights. So: Muslim countries such as Libya, Arab countries such as Iraq, must pay!"

Malaysian PM: Jews are not 'Chosen People' ,
Interest! Alert (from UPI), October 30, 2003
"Retiring Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, on his last day in office, Thursday delivered more critical remarks about Jewish people. Mahathir, who received worldwide criticism for previous remarks alleging Jewish world dominance, compared Europe's past ill treatment of Jews to the way Israel treats Palestinians. The Jerusalem Post said Mahathir, who retires Friday after 22 years in power, used a visit to a mosque to stoke the controversy. Apparently referring to a U.S. Senate vote tying Malaysian military aid to a guarantee of religious freedom for Jews, he said: "Some people say we here have no freedom of religion. In reality, the people in (the United States) are the ones who were forced to embrace a religion." He said people "who abducted from Africa were brought to that country and made slaves, tortured, and forced to change their religion..." During a news conference, Mahathir was asked if he had a parting message for Jews. He replied: "They must never claim they are the chosen people. ... They have taken land belonging to the Muslims." The Post said Mahathir, 77, is credited with transforming Malaysia from a rubber- and tin-producing backwater to one of Southeast Asia's most prosperous and modern nations."

ADL Issues First Report in New Series Exposing Arab Media's Anti-Semitism,
U.S. Newswire, November 5, 2003
"Concerned with the ongoing surge in hateful anti-Semitic images in the Muslim and Arab press -- a problem compounded by the debut last week of an anti-Jewish series on Arab satellite television -- the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the first in a new series of reports documenting the extent of this "troubling and worsening problem." Released in conjunction with ADL's 90th Annual National Commission Meeting in New York City, the ADL report Anti-Semitism in the Arab and Muslim World: October 2003 exposes anti-Semitic articles and cartoons appearing during the 10-week period ending October 31 in Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Oman, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Syria. "Anti-Semitism in the Arab world has always been troubling, but now it is a worsening problem. The failure of the international community and Arab nations to address this problem is serious," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director and author of the new book Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism (HarperSanFrancisco, 2003). "The fact that we are dealing with a phenomenon that is not on the fringes, but in the mainstream of many Arab and Muslim countries, makes the danger very great and immediate. The anti-Semitic images are especially of concern because in Arab nations with low levels of adult literacy, people are getting daily doses of anti-Jewish stereotypes through the cartoons." Copies of the League's report are being distributed on Capitol Hill, and ADL communicated its concerns this week to Secretary of State Colin Powell, urging the United States to press the issue with those Muslim and Arab governments whose media regularly promote and rationalize anti-Semitism."

Scholarship or Sophistry? Bernard Lewis and the New Orientalism,
By M. SHAHID ALAM, CounterPunch, June 28, 2003
"It would appear from the fulsome praise heaped by mainstream reviewers on Bernard Lewis's most recent and well-timed book, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response (Oxford University Press, 2002), that the demand for Orientalism has reached a new peak. America's search for new enemies that began soon after the end of the Cold War very quickly resurrected the ghost of an old, though now decrepit, enemy, Islam. Slowly but surely, this revived the sagging fort1unes of Orientalism, so that it speaks again with the treble voice of authority. The mainstream reviewers describe Bernard Lewis as "the doyen of Middle Eastern studies," the "father" of Islamic studies, "[a]rguably the West's most distinguished scholar on the Middle East," and "[a] Sage for the Age." It would appear that Lewis is still the reigning monarch of Orientalism, as he was some twenty-five years back when Edward Said, in his Orientalism, dissected and exposed the intentions, modalities, deceptions, and imperialist connections of this ideological enterprise ... Who Is Bernard Lewis? We will return to the book in a moment, but before that, we need to step back some twenty-five years and examine how Edward Said, in Orientalism, has described this Orientalist tiger's stripes and his cunning ploys at concealment. Edward Said gets to the nub of Lewis's Orientalist project when he writes that his "work purports to be liberal objective scholarship but is in reality very close to being propaganda against his subject material." Lewis's work is "aggressively ideological." He has dedicated his entire career, spanning more than five decades, to a "project to debunk, to whittle down, and to discredit the Arabs and Islam." Said writes: The core of Lewis's ideology about Islam is that it never changes, and his whole mission is to inform conservative segments of the Jewish reading public, and anyone else who cares to listen, that any political, historical, and scholarly account of Muslims must begin and end with the fact that Muslims are Muslims. Although Lewis's objectives are ominous, his methods are quite subtle; he prefers to work "by suggestion and insinuation." In order to disarm his readers and win their trust and admiration, he delivers frequent "sermons on the objectivity, the fairness, the impartiality of a real historian." This is only a cover, a camouflage, for his political propaganda. Once he is seated on his high Orientalist perch, he goes about cleverly insinuating how Islam is deficient in and opposed to universal values, which, of course, always originate in the West. It is because of this deficiency in values that Arabs have trouble accepting a democratic Israel-it is always "democratic" Israel. Lewis can write "objectively" about the Arab's "ingrained" opposition to Israel without ever telling his readers that Israel is an imperialist creation, and an expansionist, colonial-settler state that was founded on terror, wars, and ethnic cleansing. Lewis's work on Islam represents the "culmination of Orientalism as a dogma that not only degrades its subject matter but also blinds its practitioners." Lewis's scholarly mask slips off rather abruptly when he appears on television, a feat that he accomplishes with predictable regularity. Once he is on the air, his polemical self, the Orientalist crouching tiger, takes over, all his sermons about objectivity forgotten, and then he does not shrink from displaying his sneering contempt for the Arabs and Muslims more generally, his blind partisanship for Israel, or his bristling hostility toward Iran. One recent example will suffice here ... This Zionist Orientalism has assiduously sought to paint Islam and Islamic societies as innately hostile to the West, modernism, democracy, tolerance, scientific advance, and women's rights. This Zionist camp has been led for more than fifty years by Bernard Lewis, who has enjoyed an intimate relationship with power that would be the envy of the most distinguished Orientalists of an earlier generation. He has been strongly supported by a contingent of able lieutenants, whose ranks have included the likes of Elie Kedourie, David Pryce-Jones, Raphael Patai, Daniel Pipes, and Martin Kramer. There are many foot soldiers, too, who have provided distinguished service to this new Orientalism. And no compendium of these foot soldiers would be complete without the names of Thomas Friedman, Martin Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, and Judith Miller."

[Let's flip this around. Let's say there was a book by, say, Mohamad Al-Gaza and the name of the book was "Preachers of Hate: Judaism and the War on America." Such a book would never see the light of day. By definition, it would be declared a rant of "hate." Why? Here we have it all in a nutshell: endemic hypocrisy, fraud, and rampant Judeocentrism that seeks to paint "Islam" as a singular entity, while furiously decreeing that to generalize ANYTHING about Jews is (however incongruous to the free realm in attacking Islam) an implicit act of "hate" and bigotry. Such hypocrisy runs U.S. foreign policy. Too many Jewish censorial bigots have taken over, spewing junk like this below. And it's clearly why more and more of the world "hates" America.]
Farah hosts bestselling author Kenneth Timmerman Latest book, 'Preachers of Hate,' reveals threat of 'new' anti-Semitism,
World Net Daily, November 10, 2003
"KennethTimmerman, author of "Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on America," will be a guest on Joseph Farah's radio show today. In his new book, the investigative journalist uncovers how an ancient hatred now threatens the life and livelihood of not only Jews, but Americans specifically and the West in general. Timmerman exposes how this "new" anti-Semitism targets American values, lifestyle and freedoms. "Is there a conspiracy between America and the Jews?" asks Timmerman. "Indeed there is: A common heritage, a dedication to improving the human condition through compassion and tolerance of differences—a conspiracy of freedom. And that is why they hate us."

[Why, did you ask, do Muslims hate America?]
Israel gets new F-16I fighter/bomber,
by Arieh O'Sullivan, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 14, 2003
"Pilots of the newest F-16I long-range fighter/bomber which is to roll off the assembly line in Texas Friday are itchy to get their hands on the $45 million jet. The rollout ceremony marks the interim phase in this $4.5 billion dollar deal, the largest arms deal ever taken in the history of the state. Lockheed Martin won the tender, beating rival Boeing, in 1999 to supply 102 of the advanced fighter jets which are aimed at strengthening the IAF's long reach, being able to reach nations like Iran and Libya. The aircraft have been supplemented to Israel's specifications and are different from any other F-16, even in the service of the US Air Force. They are being paid for from the annual US military grants given to Israel, which this year stands at about $2.2 billion. The next phase is transporting the jets to Israel. The first is expected to arrive next month and gradually the whole squadron will be in place at the Ramon base deep in the Negev. A total of three squadrons will be delivered by 2008 ... With the arrival of the 102 F-16Is, Israel will have a total of 362 of the jets – the largest fleet in any country in the world behind the United States."

[How to guarantee increased war, increased "terrorism," increased "anti-Semitism," and less and less "security" for the Jewish state. Israel always does what it wants to do, like a spoiled child toying with a nuclear bomb in its lap.]
Israel threatens strikes on Iranian nuclear targets,
"by ROSS DUNN, The Scotsman (Scotland), November 23, 2003
"Israel has warned that it is prepared to take unilateral military action against Iran if the international community fails to stop any development of nuclear weapons at the country’s atomic energy facilities. As the International Atomic Energy Agency prepares to meet again this week to discuss the situation in Iran, Israel has told Washington it is prepared to act alone and launch a strike similar to its attack on Iraq in 1981 when its air force bombed a nuclear reactor near Baghdad. In an apparent attempt to increase pressure on the IAEA and United Nations to limit the development of Iran’s nuclear facilities, Israel’s defence minister Shaul Mofaz has made what sources have described as a warning of "unprecedented severity". At the time of the Iraq attack, Israel defended its actions, claiming it had dealt a devastating blow to Saddam Hussein’s goal of developing nuclear weapons. Israel views Iran in much the same way as it did Saddam’s Iraq. Mofaz set out his government’s position last week during a visit to the United States stating that "under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession". He said that in the course of the next year Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons would "reach the point of no return". Mofaz’s warning has been reinforced by Meir Dagan, the head of Israel’s secret services, Mossad, who claimed that the spectre of nuclear weaponry in Iran represented the greatest threat Israel had faced since the founding of the Jewish state in 1948. Addressing Israel’s foreign affairs and defence committee, he added that he thought Iranian nuclear capabilities would pose a threat not only to Israel but to Europe as well."

[What is "anti-Semitism?" Increasingly nothing, except a political football. Here's a case where political correctness implodes upon itself. Jews pressured a study to be made on "anti-Semitism" in Europe. The results show that European Muslims are disproportionately "anti-Semitic," which of course they are in fighting brutal, racist Israel. But in totalitarian PC (politically correct) Thought, you can't say Muslims are disproportionaley anything negative in the same way you can't say Jews are disproportionately anything negative either. So the horror of honestly facing two facts (the international Jewish community represents racist bigotry for supporting racist Israel and Muslims overwhelmingly despise this) cancel each other out. Hence, two taboos facing each other equal ZERO. Stasis. The issue of confronting Jewish racism goes on a shelf to rot and fester, and surely get worse. The PC nuthouse Jews have been central in creating creates the conditions in which facing reality, from a variety of directions, is forbidden.]
European study on anti-Semitism is scrapped,
By Irene Zoech, Telegraph (UK), Novemeber 23, 2003
"A study backed by the European Union on the rise of anti-Semitism has been shelved after officials decided that its findings were "too controversial". The 112-page survey, commissioned by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia based in Austria, found that many anti-Semitic incidents were carried out by Muslim and pro-Palestinian groups. The research was ordered in response to fears that anti-Semitism was on the rise across Europe - and apparently confirmed the truth of the claims. However, the centre - which is the EU's official racism watchdog - was unnerved by its results. A spokesman for the watchdog refused to comment yesterday, but according to authoritative reports officials admitted a "political decision" was taken not to publish it partly because of fears that it would increase hostility towards Muslims. The watchdog, which was set up in 1998, has published three reports on anti-Islamic attitudes in Europe but has yet to publish any parallel findings on anti-Semitism. Officials apparently objected that the study - carried out by the Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism at Berlin's Technical University - defined anti-Semitism incorrectly by including hostility to Israel. An official who refused to be named said: "There is a trend towards Muslim anti-Semitism, while on the Left there is also mobilisation against Israel that is not always free of prejudice. Merely saying the perpetrators are French, Belgian or Dutch does no justice to the full picture." Earlier this year Beate Winkler, the director of the EUMC, said that anti-Semitism was on the rise across Europe and was now happening "on a large scale" in France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands. The French president, Jacques Chirac, called a cabinet meeting last week to discuss attacks on synagogues and schools in France. The anti-Semitism study is understood to have been presented to the watchdog's board, which includes representatives from each EU country as well as the European Commission, Parliament and the Council of Europe, before a decision not to publish it was taken. Ms Winkler said that the study was rejected as it was considered as being unrepresentative because the period it covered - May and June 2002 - was too short to reach a full conclusion. Instead the EUMC will use it as part of another survey next year. Dr Rita Koch, a prominent Jewish historian in Vienna, said that the refusal to publish the report was pushing political correctness to extremes."

[Folks, it's a propaganda war. Question: if the Jewish World Review, below, feels it's kosher to trash Islam, why don't they feature a similar article that trashes Judaism in a quite parallel manner, almost point by point? We humbly submit this web site as a scholarly resource to write that article.]
What you need to know about the 'religion of peace', Part II,
By Larry Elder, Jewish World Review, December 1, 2003
"More facts the "spinners" and do-gooders have conveniently decided to ignore. Last week's column contained excerpts from my interview with Robert Spencer, author of "Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West." He makes the case that violent Islam stems from a straight reading of Islamic religious texts, and that moderate Muslims need to face up to and repudiate this so that true reform can take place. This is Part II of the interview: Larry Elder: You cite Koran passages that state Jews, Christians and nonbelievers have three choices: conversion, second-class citizenship or death. When people say these kinds of things are "taken out of context," you say this simply isn't true?
Robert Spencer: Yes. They're dealing from a broad tradition within Islam that mandates violence against nonbelievers. It's an unpleasant fact . . . but . . . I give abundant testimony from Islamic sources to this effect, and it's no use denying it. Elder: These madrasas where they are teaching the Koran, teaching hatred of Jews, Christianity and the West — your argument is that they are not corrupting Islamic text, they are teaching actual text. Spencer: They're working from very clear Islamic text. Radical Muslims around the world call Jews "monkeys" and "pigs." This comes from several very clear passages in the Koran that say Jews and Christians are under the curse of Allah, because of their disobedience and refusal to accept that Muhammad is a prophet . . . G-d turned them into monkeys and pigs. The fact that this kind of hatred is so deeply rooted in core Islamic text makes it all the more difficult to eradicate.
Elder: What does "jihad" — an essential duty of every Muslim — mean?
Spencer: When people say that jihad is a peaceful struggle — it means "struggle," literally — it means to bring the soul into line with the teachings of the Koran and the will of the law, that's true. But it's not the only meaning of jihad, or even the principal meaning. Throughout Islamic history, and Islamic theology and law, you have violent jihad being the primary understanding of what it means — this collective responsibility of the Islamic community to wage war against non-Muslims until they either convert or submit as second-class citizens under Islamic rule.
Elder: There are about 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide. What percentage subscribes to this violent jihad ideology?
Spencer: It's difficult to tell. Some people have estimated 10 percent, which sounds comforting until you realize it's 100 million people. There are also more disturbing indications. A recent poll in the Palestinian Authority indicated that 71 percent approved of suicide attacks against civilians in Israel. Noncombatants are not to be targeted . . . but if they are considered to be aiding in the war effort, then they can legitimately be fought. This is the justification that Osama bin Laden used for 9/11, and the Palestinians use for suicide bombing attacks in Israel.
Elder: If the West hadn't interfered in the Middle East, if the U.S. hadn't propped up the Shah of Iran, if we didn't have troops in Saudi Arabia, if we weren't supporting Israel, then would this part of the Arab world have it in for us?
Spencer: They might not be as stirred up as they are, but there's no doubt that they would have it in for us, nonetheless. You're talking about a group of people that gets their intellectual justification from passages such as . . . the prophet Muhammad saying, "I have been commanded to fight against people until they confess that there is no God but Allah and that I am His Messenger." The Muslim world took that seriously and acted it out for centuries."

[JTR contributor's commentary: "Your prediction that Eisner's critics will soon be called 'anti-semites' appears close to fulfilment. Disney chairman Michael Eisner, who is currently in a corporate battle to remove the last member of the Disney family from the company, has denied calling his critics within and outside Disney 'Shiite Muslims'. Other slurs, including 'anti-semite' are sure to follow. Eisner is known for his poor understanding of basic morality."]
Disney chief denies Jobs ‘Shi'ite’ claim,
Macworld (UK), December 2, 2003
"Disney chairman Michael Eisner apparently dismissed Apple CEO Steve Jobs as a Shi'ite Muslim, according to the Drudge Report. Eisner denies the report's claims, which it says were revealed to the LA Times in an interview yesterday. The LA Times interview – which is available this morning – makes no reference to the allegation, but details the boardroom feud between Eisner and directors Stanley Gold and last-remaining Disney family member Roy Disney. Both dissident directors have quit the board, and want to see Eisner ousted. They intend "educating" Disney's shareholders about the company's deteriorating performance under Eisner, and have already begun to approach the company's institutional investors to gather support. They point to the way Disney under Eisner has allowed relationships with Miramax Films and Apple CEO Steve Jobs' other company Pixar Animation Studios to deteriorate. Though Disney's results have improved, this is partly due to the success of Pixar's Finding Nemo movie smash. Disney's official line is to condemn the actions of its dissident directors as "a destructive course of action".

[The Jewish war against Islam continues. "Intellectual dishonesty and cowardice" in facing the truth about Jewish history and identity is a Jewish foundation. If there's outrage about preventing release of a study about European "anti-Semitism," how about some outrage over the fact that no one dares discuss exactly WHY there's such hostility to the Jewish community.]
WJC Puts Shelved EU Anti-Semitism Study on Web,
by Marcus Kabel, Reuters, December 2, 2003
"The World Jewish Congress made public Tuesday a disputed anti-Semitism report kept under wraps by the European Union and accused the EU of not facing up to anti-Jewish sentiment among Muslim immigrants in Europe. The WJC and Jewish community organizations in the 15-nation EU put the report on their Web sites even though it has not been released by the EU's European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), which commissioned the study. The report was also posted on at least one European news Web site, that of Danish television station TV2 (http://gfx.tv2.dk/images/Nyhederne/Pdf/report_en.pdf). The EUMC has denied accusations in the European press that it had shelved the report because it singled out Muslims immigrants and pro-Palestinian groups as the main culprits. "We think the failure of the EU to release it until now was an act of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice," said Elan Steinberg, executive vice president of the WJC. "To be candid, I think they are not prepared to deal with the sensitive subject of anti-Semitism among Muslims, who constitute Europe's largest minority," he told Reuters in a phone interview from his New York office. Steinberg did not say how the EWJC obtained the study, which has been published in excerpts in some European media. A spokesman at EUMC headquarters declined to comment on the Internet release. The WJC and the affiliated European Jewish Congress said the EUMC report was being published in English on Web sites including those of the French umbrella group CRIF (www.crif.org), Britain's Board of Deputies of British Jews (www.bod.org.uk) and the Central Council of Jews in Germany (www.zentralratdjuden.de)."

Diplomatic pressures led to police taking criminal action,
RAY ABDILLA speaks to Simone Zammit Endrich, about the controversy of her opinion article regarding the Arabs and the Jews, which resulted in the police taking action against her,
Malta Today, July 21, 2002
"THE CONTROVERSY about Simone Zammit Endrich’s opinion in a local newspaper still raves on. She is being accused by the police of committing a criminal act by inciting racial hatred against Palestinians. People in the street, politicians and programmes have already been aired on TV and radio stations on the matter. MaltaToday spoke to Simone Zammit Endrich, an opinionist and columnist, who on 9 October will have to appear in court accused of spreading racial hatred ... Ms Zammit Endrich also said that when there is a war between two parties and the scales are turning completely on one side, as if the other is some kind of saint, when that is not the case, someone has to stand up and say so. "I know that many people believe that the Israelis are not the Satans in this conflict. I believe that both have their right and wrongs. So when I wrote the article I wanted to show some sentiment for the underdog in this matter. "Yes maybe because I come from a Jewish origin, many might argue that I will always side the Israelis. No, not necessarily. Even when I spoke about the intelligence and cultures of both people, I only said what the mass media and what the facts state about the two countries. "Why did the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the President of Malta take sides in this issue when we are supposed to be a neutral country." Ms Zammit Endrich said that she is against the European Union, she is against Malta's accession into the EU and will vote against when the referendum takes place ... Ms Zammit Endrich said that she thinks that the reason that her story made a lot of noise is because she is a woman. "The Arabs do not like it all when they see a woman speak freely for herself. They are not like Europeans who have the right to say what they want," Ms Zammit Endrich said. Regarding what The Independent had to say about the article, she said that she claimed a right of reply but the replies were never published. She resigned from her post with the newspaper. As far as the media is concerned she also said that she has received a lot of support. Most journalists simply did not believe that such things happen in Malta, a democratic country with the right of freedom of speech. Ms Zammit Endrich interest in journalism goes back some six years when together with Dr Emmy Bezzina, she started the Divorce Movement."

Canadian Muslims challenging Jewish lobby over the style of anti-racism in the school curriculum,
By Zafar Bangash, Muslim Media, July 1-15, 2001
"A vigorous debate is underway in York Region (the site of Crescent’s Canada office), on the question of racism, or more precisely how to address the issue of racism in the school curriculum. The controversy began in April and has now pitted some dedicated Muslims against the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) and Jewish members of the region’s race-relations committee. Bader Abu Zahra, a Muslim member of the committee, who is originally from Palestine, distributed a review of The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, by Norman Finkelstein, at a teachers’ conference convened to discuss the need to include "Holocaust and Anti-racist education in History, English and Social Science courses" in public-school curricula. Abu Zahra’s position was (and remains) that placing special emphasis on the Holocaust excludes other genocides and marginalizes others’ suffering. He proposed that the suffering of other peoples — Ukrainians, Chinese, African-Americans, Native Peoples etc — also be included in the school curriculum. This makes sense in particular because of the composition of the Canadian population, a third of whom are non-white. In cities like Toronto, nearly 50 percent of the population is non-white, and this proportion is increasing. Abu Zahra’s distribution of the book-review upset the Jewish chairman of the race relations committee, one Alan Shefman, so much that Shefman wrote to Abu Zahra to demand his resignation. Abu Zahra, of course, refused. Shefman then tabled a motion calling for Abu Zahra’s dismissal from the race-relations committee. A clear majority of the 20-member committee rejected the motion. Abu Zahra’s case was defended vigorously and argued cogently by Ahmed Motiar, another Muslim on the committee. He was able to convince the majority of members that Abu Zahra had done nothing wrong and that in a multicultural society like Canada diverse points of view should be welcomed. He further stated that it was unacceptable that one man, Shefman, should act as accuser, judge and jury; he (Shefman) had overstepped his authority by demanding Abu Zahra’s resignation in the first place. In dismissing Shefman’s demand for his resignation, Abu Zahra wrote: "The belief there is a hierarchy of human suffering is in itself profoundly racist and deeply offensive." He went on to say: "The notion that the suffering of Jewish people should be featured in the school curriculum over that of others is without intrinsic merit from either an educational or human-rights perspective." This sent the Jewish lobby into a frenzy; they denounced any challenge to their opinions as "racism" and even described Finkelstein’s book as "overt racism." To understand the true import of this allegation, one needs to bear in mind that Finkelstein is himself Jewish; his parents are survivors of the holocaust and many of his relatives perished in it. What he has done, however, is to challenge the exploitation of Jewish suffering by turning it into a commercial enterprise. This is what has touched the raw nerve of the self-appointed guardians of the world’s conscience. Shefman, however, did not accept his defeat gracefully and drop the issue; instead he dragged the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) into the affair. Bernie Farber, CJC’s executive director, threatened to take the York Region board of education to the human-rights commission if Abu Zahra was not immediately dismissed. At first Bill Crothers, the board chairman, stood his ground and refused to accede to the CJC’s demand, saying: "We respectfully disagree with the CJC on the appropriateness of overturning a decision of a committee that has been duly constituted by the board, particularly when the committee was constituted to deal with these very issues." He also stated that board trustees had worked hard to ensure the 20-member race relations committee was representative of all York Region’s diverse communities by ethnicity, language, culture and religion as well as geographically. But later Crothers buckled under Jewish pressure and denounced the book-review as "anti-Semitic". He said that if the review had been brought to the board’s attention before its distribution at the teachers’ conference, it would not have been allowed. It is true that the board was unaware of Abu Zahra’s action, but it is cowardly of the board chairman to cave in to CJC’s blackmail. It is inconceivable that the human rights commission would agree with the CJC’s position, for there is absolutely nothing wrong with the position taken by the Muslims; they just want an inclusive, not exclusive, curriculum. But there was another reason for CJC’s anger which became apparent from Bernie Farber’s letter to the board: "People are concerned about what happened at the conference, but they are more concerned with the lack of respect shown to Alan Shefman and the Congress in terms of our expertise in identifying anti-Semitism." It takes chutzpah to make such outlandish claims. Farber and Shefman have appointed themselves sole interpretors of what constitutes anti-Semitism, and demand instant submission to their demands. Why should people respect Shefman and the Jewish Congress when they are so dismissive of others’ concerns, especially in a multicultural society like Canada? No group has a monopoly over suffering or the right to demand that only their own history be taught to the exclusion of others’. This matter may not be over. Muslims will have to make a stand for a worthy principle. We must not allow the Jewish lobby to dictate to the rest of us what we can or cannot think and teach our children. It may also be an opportunity to bring home to the rest of the general public t the extent to which their officials are constantly manipulated by a tiny minority by coercion and blackmail. It is time for us to stand up and declare that enough is enough."

[The Jewish traffic in Muslim sex slaves. This one should go over BIG in the Muslim world. The whole world is Israel's enforced whorehouse.]
The pimps moved to Uzbekistan. Every few months a ‘new import line’ for sex trafficking into Israel opens up. First, women were brought from Ukraine and Moldavia; now they come from Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, [Scroll to second story]
by Roni Singer, from Haaretz (Israel), December 2003
"A woman in her mid 20s was born and raised in a Muslim village in remote Uzbekistan. While she was still a teenager, her father arranged her marriage to a man from the village who already had one wife. Before she knew it, she was pregnant, not once, but twice.“M” suffered physical abuse, and eventually left her violent husband while still pregnant with the second child; she went off to live with her ailing, unemployed father. Caring for the second child, she lacked money and work; the family faced unbearable financial stress.Then M. heard from a woman in thevillage about a line of work in which a lot of money could be made by convincing men to drink a lot of alcohol. This work is done overseas, she was told. It’s easy work, and yields hundreds of dollars in profit – sometimes $1,000 a month.Where M. comes from, a villager who earns $20 a month is considered well off. With her family on the edge of dire poverty, she agreed to try the line of work, even though her oldest son was still a child, and the younger one was just three months old. Her plan was to work for a short time, and then return to her chiildren. When she arrived in Moscow, from where she was to depart to work in Israel, she was imprisoned in a room and raped. She was informed that she would be brought to Israel to work as a prostitute. Later, M. testified that when she discovered what was happening to her, she urinated in her pants out of fear. After arriving in Israel, she refused to comply with clients’ requests, and wept constantly. She fled several times, only to be found in each instance and returned to work; in the end, her captors gave up on her, and put her out on the streets. She turned to the police for help, and was detained for illegal residence in the country. Recently, after several months of detention, she was deported back to Uzbekistan. During the past year, some 20 women from Uzbekistan managed to escape from slave traffickers, or were detained by immigration police; all 20 await expulsion from the country. At the Isha L’Isha Haifa Feminist Center, which is sponsoring a project on the struggle to end sex trafficking in Israel, experts believe that some 300 sex slaves who were brought from Uzbekistan currently work in Israel.“Based on meetings with women in the field, we have found that in recent months a new export route has opened up, running between Uzbekistan and Israel,” Isha L’Isha project director Rita Heiken says. Sex traffickers in Israel use a number of import routes. Every few months, a route originating in a new country opens up; suddenly a number of women from the same country who never before set foot in a brothel turn up in Israel. Police-men and social activists have monitored these import lines, particularly since Israel passed an anti-trafficking law in 2000. “After the anti-trafficking law was passed, and after we started to enforce it, we found in Tel Aviv massage parlors alarge number of women who had been brought here from Russia and Ukraine,”says police superintendent Pini Aviram, who heads a police unit that deals with crime originating in Russia. A year later, the import route was altered, Aviram explains – a large proportion of sex workers in Tel Aviv, particularly in the area of the old central bus station, came from Moldavia. Isha L’Isha’s Heiken continues: “Starting in June-July 2002, we started to find Muslim women from Uzbekistan. It has become clear over the past year that this is a very busy import line.” In recent months, activists from Isha L’Isha and police officers have started to notice sex workers who have been brought here from Georgia, Kazakhstan, and other countries. “Wherever there are economic troubles, sex traffickers will find women who agree to do this sort of work,” says Heiken. Police officers claim that most of the women who are brought to Israel know why they have been brought here. Yet it is very difficult to support a theory holding that the sex workers labor by consent, the policemen admit, “in view of their intolerable conditions and the horrific exploitation.”While social activists have agreed that many of the sex workers are aware of the purpose of their arrival in Israel, all concur that the situation is different with the women from Uzbekistan. “In the case of women from Uzbekistan, there is a higher percentage of women who really didn’t know why they were brought here,”concludes attorney Naomi Levenkron, who coordinates a Hebrew University of Jerusalem program for the struggle against trafficking in women. “This is probably the reason why the Uzbek women represent a large portion of the women who dare to escape from the pimps, and turn to the police.” According to a survey sponsored by the Isha L’Isha project, some 50 percent of the women from Uzbekistan did not know in advance that they would work in prostitution in Israel. One woman close to the issue of trafficking explains that the“women from Uzbekistan are not suckers; when they discover that instead of working as waitresses or as domestic servants, they are to be used as prostitutes, they struggle against this fate with all their might.” “Uzbekistan is still virgin ground from which one can import women easily,” explains attorney Levenkron. “Economic distress there is acute ... Coming from a pious, conservative background, women from Uzbekistan are often overwhelmed by their encounter with the sex industry in a foreign country. As if their brutal treatment as sex workers were not enough, those who manage to escape are forced to endure long waiting periods in detention beforebeing sent back to their home country. ... Moldavia, police sources explain, became two years ago a major supplier of sex slaves largely because major traffickers who were born there immigrated to Israel .... Public officials in Moldavia have over the past two years made an increased effort to stop the export of women to Israel. Recently a new import line originating from Kazakhstan has opened up."

[The Jewish assault on Arabs and Islam continues, unabated, in deference to Israeli state "terrorism" against the Arab and Muslim world. Arlen Specter, predictably, is Jewish.]
Specter Launches New Sanctions Push,
By ORI NIR, Forward (November 28, 2003
"Emboldened by the overwhelming congressional vote this month to impose sanctions on Syria, Middle East hawks on Capitol Hill are pushing similar legislation targeted at Saudi Arabia. At the same time, most observers say the Bush administration appears unlikely to act against either country. Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, recently introduced a Saudi sanctions bill modeled after the Syria Accountability Act. The bill aims "to halt Saudi support for institutions that fund, train, incite, encourage, or in any other way aid and abet terrorism." The White House opposes Specter's bill. The administration has dropped its earlier opposition to the Syria legislation and the president is expected to sign it when it reaches his desk, but he is widely expected to invoke a waiver allowing him to defer sanctions against Damascus. The two measures highlight a split between the administration, which still appears dedicated to working with most Arab regimes, and a growing number of lawmakers from both parties who favor a more confrontational approach. Several key Jewish groups are allied with the congressional hard-liners. "This represents what is an emerging movement in Congress of judging nations by what they do, not by what they say," said Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York, who last week introduced a version of Specter's bill in the House of Representatives. "That is a welcome change in U.S. policy. It hasn't started in the White House, but it certainly is taking hold in Congress." The Saudi Arabia Accountability Act would require the president to certify that Riyadh is doing its utmost to fight terrorism or slap sanctions on Saudi Arabia. The bill authorizes Bush to take several measures, including prohibiting the export of any military material or defense services to Saudi Arabia, as well as any "dual use" articles that could be used for either civilian or military purposes. The bill would also restrict the travel of Saudi diplomats to a 25-mile radius around the city in which their offices are located. Like the Syria Accountability Act, the Saudi bill grants the president the power to waive any or all of the sanctions for reasons of national security. The Zionist Organization of America worked closely with Specter in drafting the legislation, according to the group's president, Morton Klein. But other Jewish groups, including ones that lobbied actively for the Syria sanctions, have not yet taken a public position on the Saudi legislation. A spokeswoman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the leading pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, said the organization was not involved in promoting the Saudi bill. Jewish groups and their congressional allies, however, are promising to press the White House to act against Damascus ... One pro-Israel activist said that Jewish activists would also be working to see that the bill is not ignored. "On a scale of one to 10, I'd say it's a 10," the lobbyist said of the upcoming effort. "You will not necessarily see it publicly, but privately, it certainly will be done" ... Meanwhile, the Anti-Defamation League made its own contribution last week to the push for sanctions, calling on the American government to punish Lebanon until its government "takes action to confront the rampant antisemitism on their airwaves." In a meeting on Capitol Hill with a bipartisan group of congressional leaders, ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, called for the United States to curb its foreign aid package to Beirut, making at least a portion of the funding contingent upon the Lebanese government's willingness to confront antisemitic content in its media."

Israel: Iran is now danger No. 1. US, Britain, France, and Germany threatened Iran on Monday with sanctions over its nuclear program,
By Nicole Gaouette, The Christian Science Monitor, November 28, 2003
"Even as the US and European nations press Iran harder to comply with international law on its nuclear program, Israel is moving ahead with its own program to check its powerful Middle Eastern neighbor. Israel is working on a wide range of measures to undermine Iran's nuclear program, with senior leaders hinting that Israel may take preemptive action if that is deemed necessary. Analysts here suggest that action may include a strike similar to Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor. The Israeli initiative includes political, military, and intelligence wings of government and dovetails with US efforts to contain Iran within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The effort reflects the widespread assessment here that Iran poses a greater threat than Iraq has for the past decade and is gaining nuclear expertise more quickly than the US estimates. "Iran has a clandestine [nuclear] program that is very ambitious," says Uzi Arad, director of the Institute of Policy and Strategy in Herzilya. "That country thinks big and fast and ... poses a threat that is very real. Should it acquire nuclear weapons or even come close, it would completely alter the Middle East. It's a very ominous threat."

[As long as Jews run American foreign policy and so many of the "think tanks" that inform it, this is the kind of grotesque propaganda we'll be getting: toxification of the entirety of Islam as America's enemy because it is colonial Israel's nemesis. Here you have the Jewish ideological delight: Israel and its giant molded poodle, America, and -- by default -- Christianity, aligned against the entire Islamic world. Any honest analysis of Muslim hostility to the West must begin with the racist Jewish state: Israel, and American support for it. Bodansky, who is Jewish, is the Director of the U.S. Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare.]
ISLAM VERSUS CHRISTIANITY AND ITS EASTERN SALIENT: ISRAEL,
by Yossef Bodansky and Vaugn S. Forrest, Conference for Middle East Peace (Source: House Republican Task Force on Terrorism)
"Since early December 1993, and especially in the aftermath of Vatican City's movement toward recognition of Israel, Islamist leadership and terrorist organizations have launched an increasing barrage of denunciations and attacks on the Church. As a result, the Islamists' self-proclaimed "Holy War" against the West now encompasses an increasing attack on Christianity, attacks that go well beyond the historic repression of Christian minorities living in Muslim countries. The origins of contemporary Islamist opposition to Christianity, particularly from Tehran and Khartoum, are the product of a backlash against the Church's humanitarian efforts throughout the Third World. These Christian humanitarian efforts, usually associated with missionary activities and religious organizations, often involve providing a Western-style education to local populations, as well as obtaining scholarships for students to study in the West. Increasingly, the Islamists perceive these efforts as an attempt to develop a Western educated leadership class in the Third World that would be hostile to Islam."

As Arab TV Program Ratchets Up Anti-Semitism, ADL Calls for Aid Sanctions Against Lebanon,
U.S. Newswire, November 20, 2003
"Shocked by the gratuitous dramatization of a Jewish ritual murder on Lebanese satellite television, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today called for the United States government to consider formal sanctions against Lebanon "until the Lebanese government takes action to confront the rampant anti-Semitism on their airwaves." In a meeting on Capitol Hill with a bipartisan group of Congressional leaders, Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director called for the U.S. to curb its foreign aid package to Lebanon, making at least a portion of the funding contingent upon the Lebanese government's willingness to confront anti-Semitism. "Lebanon needs to understand that it cannot, without any consequences, broadcast a blood libel that has been the cause of centuries of pogroms and anti-Semitism," said Foxman, the author of Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism (HarperSanFrancisco, 2003). "At a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise globally and just days after Jews were targeted with violent attacks in Paris and Istanbul, we must look to put a stop to the root sources of this hatred in the Muslim and Arab world." The meeting was convened by the bipartisan Congressional Task Force Against Anti-Semitism and hosted by Co-Chairs Reps. Tom Lantos, D-CA and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL."

Jamal Akkal: Yet another Arab-Canadian whose Canadian passport is unable to offer him protection,
By Samah Sabawi, Montreal Muslim News, December 11, 2003
"Jamal Akkal is the most recent Arab-Canadian to make the painful discovery that his Canadian passport is unable to offer him the protection that it should. Akkal was arrested at the Rafah border crossing on his way back to Canada after he spent a few weeks in Gaza looking for a bride. Before he was even given a trial, in fact, before he was even charged, the Israeli ambassador to Canada announced that Akkal was a trained Hamas assassin, who was returning to Canada with plans to wage terror on its soil and then blame AlQaida for it. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service was quick to issue a statement denying that there is any likelihood that Hamas plans to terrorize the Canadians. To many observers of Middle-East politics this does not come as a surprise. There is no history of such attacks by Palestinian Militant factions. After all, why would Hamas plan attacks on Canadian soil? Does Canada occupy their land? Does it confine their population to a life of misery? Does it send in their tanks to torment their children on their way to school? Is it building a wall to divide their communities and strangle their economy? The only thing more ridiculous than the claim that Hamas will launch attacks in Canada is the claim that it plans to blame AlQaida for these attacks. Every time any of these groups attack, they proudly make a written, audio and visual announcement that they were responsible, they never blame anyone else. So while the young 23 year old Akkal sits in a jail in Israel, a country that holds one of the world's worst human rights records, our Canadian government chooses to play politics with Israel and our newspapers are busy playing lingo trivia trying to define whether our Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham had "reprimanded" the Israeli ambassador for his unfounded slanderous remarks about Akkal or whether Graham only had a "frank" discussion with him."

[Canadian Jewish Lobby seeks to ban "the CNN of the Arab world" from Canada:]
Will Al-Jazeera win its war? It's not likely that protests from bodies such as the Canadian Jewish Congress will stop the CRTC licensing the currently illegal Arab station, James Adams writes,
Globe and Mail (posted at Canadian Jewish Congress), December 2, 2003
"You won't find Al-Jazeera, described almost ad nauseam since its creation in 1996 as "the CNN of the Arab world," in any TV Guide-type listing or on the digital-cable menus of Rogers, Shaw, Videotron and other big Canadian carriers. Indeed, it's illegal right now for anyone in Canada to carry the unexpurgated 24-hour-a-day Al-Jazeera signal, either via cable or DTH satellite ... Videotron, Quebec's largest cable company, and the Canadian Cable Television Association, which includes Rogers, want to change all this. Earlier this year, they asked the broadcast regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, to list Al-Jazeera and a dozen or so other "foreign-language" or "ethnic" channels as permissible viewing for Canadians. A decision is expected some time this month, and sources close to the CRTC say it's expected to be favourable. If so, it means the cable companies can soon begin negotiations with executives at Al-Jazeera, RAI International, Cine Latino, Romanian Television International and the rest to pull down their satellite fare and have it digitally distributed as specialty programming across Canada .. This will no doubt please many of the estimated 600,000 Canadians of Arab and West Asian origin who have been going to places like the Bloor West halal restaurant, with their U.S. satellite dish and other so-called "grey-market technologies," for the Al-Jazeera broadcasts. But it will prove irksome to organizations like the Canadian Jewish Congress, which has strongly opposed the addition of Al-Jazeera to the list of satellite services eligible for digital carriage. In the cover letter for its 37-page, Aug. 8 submission opposing the legal introduction of Al-Jazeera into Canada, the Congress argued that Al-Jazeera's "programming content contains hate propaganda, in contravention of Canadian laws and broadcast standards." Indeed, Jews on Al-Jazeera "are frequently characterized . . . as a duplicitous, corrupt, world-dominating conspiratorial force," the CJC said. Holocaust denial, too, is "commonplace" on the network. Authorizing Al-Jazeera for distribution places control of its content far beyond the reach of the CRTC. "That is why [the] application must be denied at the outset" .. Even the Canadian Jewish Congress, which argues freedom of speech is not "an absolute right," seems prepared for this eventuality if the penultimate page of its Aug. 8 report to the CRTC is any indication. There, the CJC says that if the CRTC allows Al-Jazeera on its digital distribution list, it should do so under three conditions: (1) it must be a dedicated subscriber-only service à la the Playboy Channel; (2) its licence should be for only 12 months at a time, with its broadcast distributors filing concerns and complaints from viewers to the CRTC every three months; (3) the service should be subject to a code of ethics analogous to what the Canadian Association of Broadcasters has for its members, as well as an enforcement mechanism similar to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council."

[JTR contributor comment: "Pot calling the kettle black?"]
Shin Bet: Iran is Number One in terror,
Interest! Alert (from UPI), December 16, 2003
"The chief of Israel's Shin Bet security service Tuesday called Iran the "number one terror state in the world," Ha'aretz reported. "Iran may be defined, sharply and clearly, as the number one terror state in the world," Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter said. "The Iranians are acting against Israel in a number of channels in order to strike both at Israel and at Israeli interests throughout the world." Addressing a conference on Israeli security and strength, Dichter also warned of a potential "strategic threat" of Jewish terrorists, which he said dreamed of removing the mosques on Jerusalem's Temple Mount or Noble Sanctuary, a step which he said could turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in to a confrontation pitting the world's 13 million Jews against one billion Muslims."

[Before you do anything, you MUST jump through the requisite Jewish hoop and ask permission from the Jewish Thought Police. The terms "Intifada" and "Mujahedin" mean different things to different people. They are not exchange words for "suicide bomber." But the Jewish Lobby is not happy unless it removes any notion of resistance to Israeli oppression from the English language and consciousness. We suggest as an American Muslim soccer name "Nonviolent Warriors Against the Jewish Thought Police." Then, suicide bomber-less, we can all struggle with Jewish censorship from there, where the real issues at stake will be out in the open.]
Muslim Football Tournament Under Fire,
by CHELSEA J. CARTER, Yahoo! News (from Associated Press), December 29,. 2003
"The idea was innocent enough: A group of young men organize a holiday football tournament and give their teams such innocuous names as "4th and Goal" and "Playmakerz." It was some of the other team names that raised eyebrows: Intifada, Soldiers of Allah and Mujahideen. The furor that followed has forced some teams to change their names and a handful of players to quit. It also sparked a debate that threatens to overshadow the tournament, which was planned primarily for young Muslims and scheduled for Jan. 4. "This was really just supposed to be about the youth playing football. Now it's become so political that a part of me thinks we shouldn't even play," said Tarek Shawky, 29, one of the tournament's organizers. Those involved in the league said they never set out to upset or offend anyone. But critics say such names as Intifada and Mujahideen glorify terrorism. Intifada, "uprising" in Arabic, is a term used by Palestinians for their revolts against Israeli occupation from 1987 to 1993 and over the past three years. Mujahideen, which means "holy warrior," is associated with several Islamic groups that are on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. "The issue is these are words that are linked to real terrorists, real threats, real murders today," said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. "There shouldn't be young Americans chanting the name Mujahideen as American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are put in danger and attacked daily," Cooper said. "As for Intifada, it has been a disaster for the Palestinians and the nearly 1,000 Israeli children and parents murdered by suicide bombers."

[Jews elbow their way in to shape the world to their liking, everywhere, anywhere.]
Muslim Youths Change Football Team Names,
By JEREMIAH MARQUEZ, Yahoo! News, January 4, 2004
"After objections to team names like "Soldiers of Allah" and "Moujahideen" overshadowed a football tournament organized by Muslim youths, the players sacked most of the offending names and took to the field to more cheers than protests. Jewish leaders had objected to some of the planned names, and Muslim leaders asked the teams to reconsider. One member of a team called Intifada said a few of his friends quit because their parents were worried for their safety. Organizers said none of the names were meant to offend, and players refused to change some of them, including Intifada. "We're just playing football," said Sabih Khan, 18, a tournament organizer. "It's just sport. There's no politics involved." About 120 mostly Muslim men in their teens and early 20s played under clear skies at a suburban park as friends and family cheered from the sidelines. Five protesters waved placards at the park entrance, far removed from the football field. Their signs said, "Murder is not a game," and "When these guys throw the bomb, they really throw a bomb." "To me, these names glorify terrorism," said Barry Spatz, a Jewish psychologist from Laguna Niguel. He carried a sign showing pictures of victims killed by suicide bombers in Israel. "If Muslim youth want to get together and do something positive, that's fine. But this is an insult to me," Spatz said."

[Isn't it interesting, that for all the Jewish sexual degradation in Israel -- running from the international Israeli sex slave trade to plenty of Jewish rape, etc. -- it's an Arab who gets to be castrated? Must be coincidence. ]
Court recommends chemical castration for sexual offender,
By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz (Israel), January 1, 2004
"A Jerusalem court Thursday recommended chemical castration on a man convicted of a sexual offense, the first time such a recommendation has been handed down by an Israeli court. Abu Nia, a taxi driver from Jerusalem, was sentenced to four years' imprisonment after being convicted in the Jerusalem District Court of committing indecent acts under aggravated circumstances on minors. In handing down the sentence, the court recommended "examining the possibility, at the end of his period of incarceration, that the convicted man be given pharmaceutical or other treatment to assist him in suppressing his sexual urge." Abu Nia has an extensive history of sexual abuse of minors, for which he was convicted four times over the past 20 years and spent long periods in jail. His last conviction was for sexually abusing a 13-year-old girl and a 15-year-old boy he had picked up in his taxi on separate occasions. Probation officers noted in the report they submitted to the court that Abu Nia developed a pattern of abuse against children and teens. During his previous trial for sexual offenses, in 1999, probation officers suggested to him that he undergo chemical treatment to suppress his sexual urges, but he refused. Abu Nia told the court that, unlike in the past, he was now "well aware of his uncontrollable urges." He said that in the past he had refused treatment out of concern over irreversible impotence, but that now he and his wife were prepared for the chemical castration because he had "had enough of his shameful actions and prison life."

[Fantastic! If this project can get off the ground, and the Israeli Hebrew press is laid bare before Western readers in English, Israel and the Jewish Lobby is in BIG, BIG, trouble.]
'The other Israel'. A new NGO attempts to build a case against Israeli racism. Omayma Abdel-Latif talked to the founders,
Al-Ahram, (Egypt), January 1-7, 2004
"Where in the Middle East did a school principal get away with burning the New Testament in front of students? And in which country did a religious man say that a man's life is more important than a woman's? Was it Iran? Saudi Arabia? The right answer is Israel, where teachers at religious schools, it turns out, urge their students to write to soldiers to encourage them to "kill as many Arabs as possible", and where an IDF officer at a checkpoint may use glass shards to carve a Star of David on a Palestinian's arm. Israel's dark side, argue a group of Arab activists who have founded Arabs Against Discrimination (AAD), is rarely seen by the West. The horrors described above, and much else, are rarely reported in both Western and Arab media. The new NGO, which is being launched today, will have as its primary objective the monitoring of the Israeli media in order to expose any content with a racist and discriminatory nature. It will also attempt to bridge the language gap between the West and the Arab world -- where very few people speak Hebrew -- by offering comprehensive overviews of what is being published in the Hebrew press. Based on a personal initiative by Al-Ahram Board Chairman and Editor-in-Chief Ibrahim Nafie, who also heads the Arab Journalists Federation, a group of Arab activists have been laying down the groundwork for the project over the past six months. The AAD's web site will provide translations from the Hebrew press into three languages -- English, French and Arabic. The site will feature stories that discriminate against the West, women, Israeli Arabs, Islam, foreign workers, Palestinians, and Christians. It will also feature stories translated from the Hebrew press on freedom of expression, citizenship laws, intellectual extremism and the refuseniks. AAD, according to Emad Gad, Editor of Al-Ahram's (Dirasat Israelyia) Israeli Studies, a periodical on Israeli affairs, and AAD's secretary- general, aims to combat all forms of racial and ethnic discrimination by highlighting the blatant slurs, extremism and intolerance which permeate Israel's press and media discourse. He said the discrimination was not just against Arabs, but also against a slew of other ethnic and religious groups. "There is no endgame here," explained Abdel-Alim Mohamed, an expert on Israeli affairs. "This is about a side of Israel that is not reported. Israel is reported only in terms of its relation to the Arab world, but not in terms of a society where racism, extremism, and dehumanisation of the other -- be it an Arab or a Western -- have become the order of the day." Another AAD founding member explained that while there is a constant invocation in the global media of anti-Semitism against Jews, there is hardly any mention of what is going on in "the other Israel". "There is a black hole when it comes to the institutionalised racism, extremism and anti-Gentile discourse permeating the media, intellectual and religious circles in Israel," Diaa Rashwan told the Weekly. For years, Israeli politicians and media entities have accused Arab, and particularly Egyptian, media, of using anti-Jewish slurs. One Washington- based web site -- MEMRI -- is actually devoted to undermining the reputation of the Arab press by selecting its most offensive writings, translating them into English, and disseminating them to the widest possible public, usually out of context. Yigal Carmon, who used to work in Israeli intelligence, runs the site. Although Carmon has denied that the site serves an Israeli agenda, many Western observers believe it does. While Gad acknowledged that AAD was formed in part as a response to such "vile efforts", he said AAD would not use the same tactics, and would definitely not be taking things out of context or tampering with the translations. "We don't need to resort to such tactics because the reality itself is already so appalling. We also post the original Hebrew text to eliminate any suspicions." Over the past six months, the group has managed to get its hands on what they described as a wealth of articles, audio-video material and literature that is -- if judged by international standards -- abhorrent beyond imagination. Western test readers, according to Rashwan, registered shock and disbelief when offered a chance to read the material. While the group does not claim to be neutral about the Arab-Israel conflict, they insist that the criterion used to select the articles is neither political nor ideological. "We did not deal with issues like house demolitions or extra legal assassinations. This is not about quoting the extremist examples in the Hebrew press, but rather highlighting mainstream trends which reflect the Israeli establishment and society's thinking."

[Below is a sample article referencing the above AAD project to translate Hebrew texts into English for Western readership. The original Hebrew text is also scanned for online reference.]
Theory of the Jewish race, [Go to AAD's home page and click on this title at the bottom of the page]
By: M. Eliraz [The following is an excerpt from an article that appeared in the ultra-orthodox newspaper Hamodia], Arabs Against Discrimination
"Inquiry : According to my knowledge of the Jewish faith, they often speak of the sanctity and distinction of Israel. In contrast, in the public education system, in which my world view was formed, we learned that all man are born equal, regardless of religious, racial, or national differences. In light of this clear contradiction, I am very interested to understand the Jewish essence and the moral basis of these feelings of religious superiority that beat in the hearts of pious Jews. Answer: Humans are not born equal; they come into existence without any internal similarities. Respected inquirer, contrary to what you were taught by your teachers in public schools—these teachers who have no connection to the Torah or religious teachings—matters are simple and clear in the pious Jewish vision. Just as men are not born equal in their external forms, they come into this world with no internal similarities among their souls. There is a profound, fundamental difference between the Jewish and non-Jewish soul. The holy books have taught us that some people come into this world with a soul created in a more elevated place. Others have souls created in a lower place. Some infants are born with a Jewish soul and others with a non-Jewish soul. Rabbi Yehuda Halevi wrote about this matter in his Book of the Khazar. He said, just as there are essential differences between mineral and vegetable, vegetable and animal, and animal and human, so there are profound differences between a Jewish and non-Jewish soul. There is no more credible, authoritative proof of this than the painful consequence and the bitter reality that are clear to all when we see that those who blaspheme this Jewish theory are the same ones that deny and brutally ignore the horrible tribulations visited on their brothers and sisters, the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They reveal their tendencies publicly: their untiring aspiration to find a compromise with those human animals, the descendants of Ishmael, who do everything possible so that the name of Israel will not appear in the world. The sacred book Zohar has taught us that Israel is linked to rationalism.* Thus, the great distance between the Jew and the Gentile is such that it can only be compared to the distance between animals and humans. Rabbi Loew Yehuda of Prague has spoken at length of this fundamental difference in his Lord of Israel, in Chapter 14, where he indicates that the great difference between the Jew and the Gentile is such that it can only be compared to the distance between animals and humans. Our rabbis have also said, You are humans; Gentiles are not humans. It is if they are saying that the position of Israel relative to other nations is like the position of man relative to dumb animals. The first Chabad rabbi gave us in his famous Proof at the end of Part 1 a lengthy explanation of this essential difference between the souls of the Jew and the Gentile and the breadth of the gap. He said that every one in Israel, whether good or evil, is endowed with two souls that are like two plateaus, one representing evil and the other representing good. There are also special qualities implanted in all the people of Israel over the generations, such as mercy and goodness. This differs from the souls of Gentiles, pagan worshippers. They are made of the rest of defiled souls, which contain no good. *Linguistically, using a cabbalistic interpretation—ed."

[Jews always set the parameters of acceptable discourse. The Saban Center exists because of Israeli-born media mogul Chaim Saban money. Saban Center Director Martin Indyk (a former Bill Clinton administration official) has worked for AIPAC. We think that former Malaysian prime minister Matathir Mohammad (who shook the Judeocentric news world by declaring that "Jews rule the world by proxy") should be a keynote speaker.]
Brookings Saban Center Announces Doha Conference Will Kick Off U.S.-Islamic World Forum,
U.S. Newswire, January 6, 2004
"The Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution announced today that former President Bill Clinton and Sheik Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani, the emir of Qatar, will be the keynote speakers at the inauguration of the U.S.-Islamic World Forum. Hosted by the government of Qatar in Doha from Jan. 10-12, the forum is a new initiative of the Saban Center's Brookings Project on U.S. Policy Towards the Islamic World. It will open with a conference of U.S. and Muslim leaders that will stress the need for frank diplomacy and concrete action to improve relations between the United States and the Islamic world. Over 150 leaders from the United States and 38 Muslim countries plan to attend the conference. Top American and Muslim world figures from the fields of politics, business, civil society, academe, and the news media will participate in both plenary sessions and smaller working groups, examining such issues as the Iraq war, the Middle East peace process, free trade and economic development, education, and the role of the private sector in easing tensions between Muslim countries and the United States. The forum will follow up the Doha meetings with a series of joint initiatives aimed at strengthening ties between the Islamic world and the United States, as well as outreach, research, and publication activities. Among the speakers scheduled to appear in Doha are Hamad Bin Jasim Al Thani, foreign minister of Qatar; Marwan Muasher, foreign minister of Jordan; Mohammed Dahlan, former minister of security for the Palestinian Authority; Richard Holbrooke, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; Qazi Hussein Ahmed, ameer of the Jamaat-e-Islami Party of Pakistan; Lorne Craner, U.S. assistant secretary of state for democracy, labor, and human rights; and Surin Pitsuwan, former foreign minister of Thailand. Peter W. Singer, the forum project director and a National Security Fellow at Brookings, called the conference, "an important step in bringing together both policymakers and opinion-shapers from the U.S. and across the Islamic world, something that is all the more critical given these trying times." Saban Center Director Martin Indyk and Brookings senior fellows Stephen P. Cohen and Shibley Telhami are the Forum's co-convenors and will serve as moderators at the meetings."

[The National Post is of course controlled by the avidly Zionist Asper family. The Jewish Lobby is trying to create for themselves a worldwide censorial fortress wherein Jews are legally beyond criticism. Criticize Jews? Go to jail. And we know all about Canada's foremost Thought Police: the Canadian Jewish Congress. They're trying to shut down discussion about Jews and Israel in all directions -- here they go after a mosque. We think it's time the public reads what's in the Jewish Talmud, the holy book of so many synagogues. Why is this no less a "hate crime?"]
B.C. Muslim newspaper accused of anti-Semitism. Article blames Jews for 9/11, both world wars, the Great Depression,
by Stewart Bell, National Post, January 7, 2004
"Copies of a B.C. Muslim newspaper have been turned over to the province's hate crimes unit after it published an article accusing "the Jews" of everything from faking the Holocaust to staging the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The Canadian Jewish Congress made a complaint seeking a criminal investigation into what it called "a virulently anti-Semitic article" published in The Miracle, a weekly newspaper distributed in mosques in B.C.'s Lower Mainland. The edition of the paper featuring the page-long list of misdeeds it says were committed by Jews also includes a column penned by Liberal Senator Mobina Jaffer and an advertisement by the local Liberal MP, Joe Peschisolido. "It isn't Arabs lying about and guilt-tripping us with 'the holocaust' -- it is Jews," the article reads. "It wasn't Arabs who caused the Great Depression -- it was Jews. It wasn't Arabs who started WWI -- it was Jews. It wasn't Arabs who started WWII -- it was Jews." The Dec. 19 article by Edgar Steele of Idaho goes on to blame Jews for 81 other items, ranging from pedophilia and organized crime to "race-mixing," militant feminism and "forcing us to allow homosexuals to lead Boy Scout troops." "It is appalling to see that a Canadian newspaper would even consider printing an article by Mr. Steele, whose earlier works include, In Defence of Racism, a venomous piece on the purported intellectual inferiority of black people and their 'propensity for violence and primal satisfaction,' and 'It's the Jews, Stupid' a particularly noxious treatise blaming the Jews for all things nefarious past, present and future," said Keith Landy, the president of the Canadian Jewish Congress. The Miracle, published in Delta, B.C., with a circulation of about 2,500, says on its editorial page it is dedicated to "Islamic brotherhood" and bringing "harmony amongst all Muslim and other communities." Chief editor Nusrat Hussain said he had no regrets about publishing the rant against Jews. "We try to keep freedom of speech and not necessarily that we agree with the article and that is what Canada is about." The latest edition claims the capture of Saddam Hussein was a hoax. "We are truly disgusted to see this racist trash appearing in a local newspaper that claims to cater to a particular faith community," said Nisson Goldman, a spokesman for the Jewish congress. "This article trots out all of the typical anti-Semitic lies familiar to Nazis and white supremacists and invents a few more."

[Yes, Virginia, Jews monitor even this sort of thing. Tell the truth and they're looking to get you fired. Jews are sacred. All hail the Jew.]
Touchdown Allah, [from the Breaking News section at the JTA home page]
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, January 2004
"A U.S. university hired a European Muslim scholar who wrote an article accusing French Jewish philosophers of abandoning universalist values. Notre Dame hired Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss scholar who wrote an article on a Web site in October saying French Jewish intellectuals had placed their religion ahead of their duties as scholars by supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq, the New York Sun reported. Ramadan is widely considered to be an apologist for radical Islam, though he also has spoken out against anti-Semitism."

[The Jewish attack on the largest Muslim organization in America. Is the common Jewish premise that all Muslims are terrorists and must be put in cages? Isn't it time every synagogue in America be exposed for their allegiances to "terrorist" Israel? Dare to criticize Jews? Oh, you're "anti-Semitic" and THEREFORE "anti-American."]
OUTED AND OUT, Muslim group leaves Alliance For Marriage's queer coalition just weeks after exposure by JewishWorldReview.com,
By Evan Gahr, Jewish World Review, January 16, 2004
"The Alliance for Marriage, which suffered nationwide embarrassment, the loss of two key Jewish allies and withering criticism from prominent religious right leaders because JewishWorldReview.com has since 2001 exposed its collusion with radical Islamic groups, yesterday announced the resignation from its star-studded advisory board of the Islamic Society of North American (ISNA), currently under Congressional investigation for alleged terrorist connections. ISNA was on the AFM website's "PARTIAL listing [emphasis added]" of advisory board members. The AFM previously refused JWR's request to name any other names. So it's an open question if the advisory board is entirely de-infested. But ISNA's efforts to infiltrate American society has failed — even though its former colleagues on the AFM advisory board, Rabbi Barry Freundel, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Father Richard John Neuhaus and Evangelical Richard Mouw, were determined to work along side their terrorist friendly comrades in the AFM led effort to amend the Constitution to limit marriage to heterosexuals. In an email distributed late yesterday morning, AFM president Matt Daniels attributed ISNA's "withdrawal" to the Indianapolis-based group's desire to avoid becoming a "distraction" from the goals of his organization. Actually, it was Daniels who had tried to create a "distraction" to avoid scrutiny of his alliance with an organization that at the very least has indulged the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and anti-American sentiments far more vile than the stuff that got the Nation of Islam banished from polite society."

[Is there stuff to gripe about with aspects of Islam? Sure. But here's the usual dual moral standard in action. Direct parallel: We need to create a Christian-Islamic Coalition which condemns racist Judaism. We pull up to a selected synagogue, get out en masse, scream about all the Jewish lawsuits going on (Holocaust this, Holocaust that), lean into the TV cameras and start reading the worst stuff from the Talmud, like "The best of Gentiles should be killed," etc. Then we note how traditional Jewish texts and tradition actually sanction slavery (the "Ham myth," etc. ) and this stuffs actually INFORMS Islam (since it stems from the Old Testament's Judaism) and how Israel has, literally, a giant modern sex slave trade of imported non-Jewish women TODAY within its borders. Will this parallel demonstration ever happen? No. It can't. The Power Elite determine the one-sided range of permissible discourse. And, stemming from Israel's war with the Muslim world, Islam is the new Judeocentric enemy.]
AMECA Takes Issue with Council on American-Islamic Relations & Islamic Slavery,
U.S. Newswire, January 18, 2004
"Contact: Steve Klein ... for the American Middle East Christian-Jewish Association ... The following is a statement of the American Middle East Christian-Jewish Association: "We strongly protest the ongoing lawsuit of CAIR against Congressman Cass Ballenger, (R-N.C.), and the intimidation of Paul Harvey and Dr. Laura Schlessinger and the Sudanese Government's insistence of enslaving Christians and Animists in Sudan. "American Middle East Christian-Jewish Association (AMECA) has learned of these ongoing tactics by CAIR frightening American citizens from enjoying their cherished First Amendment. "It has been determined that criticizing or suing our Judeo-Christian leaders is fair game for CAIR but turn about is not. While CAIR can criticize well-known Americans, those who criticize CAIR had better not even utter a word against CAIR or Islam that they don't like or the lawsuits and demands of sponsors to cut shows will be served. "AMECA will conduct a peaceful educational seminar in accordance with our First Amendment rights on the public sidewalk in front of the Anaheim CAIR office at 2180 West Crescent Avenue, Suite F, Anaheim, CA 92801, on Monday, Jan. 19 from 10:30 a.m. to noon. "As it is Martin Luther King Jr. day, we will also have a number of Sudanese who fled Islamic dominated Sudan to prevent becoming slaves of these Islamists. We will have a number of experts in Islam to share quotes from the Koran in both Arabic and English. We will provide an American civics lesson for both CAIR and those who wish to see our First Amendment exercised peacefully and profoundly: A right found in no Islamic-controlled nation anywhere in the world.

[Filthy anti-Jewish racist Arabs department: "We are Jews and here's what we demand." Case 243,296,445B]
Flying Kosher Leaves Bitter Taste in Passenger's Mouth,
Israel National News, Jan 27, 2004
"Emirates Airlines recently refused a request for a kosher meal, according to a story in the Australian Jewish News. Melbourne radio journalist Bruce Hill, 42, requested a kosher meal on his December 25 flight from Melbourne to Auckland with Emirates Airlines. His travel agent confirmed the request, but once Hill was airborne he was offered a vegetarian meal and was informed that the airline does not cater for kosher travelers. Hill said that Emirates ground staff in Auckland told him that the airline "has a policy of refusing to accept requests for meals that meet Jewish religious requirements" and that Emirates is "an Arab airline, so we don't really expect Jews to use us". In a letter to Emirates Airlines, Hill charged the Dubai-based airline with "having this policy which deliberately targets Jews" and "breaking international air transport regulations". (www.koshertoday.com)

[World Judeocentric Thought Control continues. Everywhere political sycophants kiss Jewish Butt for Jewish support, power, and money. The real Question at stake here isn't the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The real Question is What EXACTLY is "anti-Semitism" that is to be literally banned? The ban is not of the "Protocols," but of "anti-Semitism." What is "anti-Semitism?" The Ultimate Answer: Whatever the Jewish Lobby says it is.]
Anti-semitic programming to be banned on Arab channels,
Ireland Online, Febuary 1, 2004
"The government will take action to ban Arab satellite television stations from broadcasting anti-Semitic programmes in France, Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has announced. Raffarin told France’s Jewish leaders last night he was revolted by some of the anti-Jewish broadcasts he had seen on French television and that parliament would pass legislation to ban such programming from French airwaves. “I say to the Jews of France, do not be afraid, do not be tempted by those who want to separate you from the national community,” Raffarin told a crowd of 800 people attending the annual dinner of CRIF, an umbrella group of French Jewish organisations. The announcement comes one day after Israel announced that it had asked France to block broadcasts by Al-Manar, a television station that belongs to Lebanese-based Hezbollah militants. Hezbollah is fighting Israel in south Lebanon. Israel and the United States last year formally protested at the Al-Manar channel’s broadcasting of a series it said was based on the “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, a 19th-century, anti-Semitic tract commonly used in Nazi propaganda to incite hatred against Jews. Raffarin said Culture Minister Jean-Jacques Aillagon was to prepare an amendment to electronic communications legislation being examined by the National Assembly on February 10. The amendment would allow the CSA, France’s media watchdog authority, to bring action before a judicial administrator in order to have programmes banned from French television. Financial penalties would be put in place for violators."

[Bernard Lewis, long a Zionist activist and apologist and ideological nemesis of Edward Said, epitomizes how Zionism has poisoned American culture, including academe. He is one of the best known American "scholars" of the Arab and Muslim world who really functions as a propagandist for world Judeocentrism. What kind of authentic "scholar" advocates military invasion of the world of his supposed expertise? What kind of scholar advocates the destruction of the cultures of his lifelong study? The model for Lewis' "irrational" Muslim "hater" of America is of course the "irrational" anti-Semitic "hater" of Jews. The questions Lewis poses below about Muslim society's "hatred" of America are exact echoes of the Jewish questions about the evil, stick-figure "anti-Semite." Lewis' influence in American culture, to the highest levels, is yet another case of brutal, racist Zionism leading the blind American people by a rope at the nose.]
A Historian's Take on Islam Steers U.S. in Terrorism Fight. Bernard Lewis's Blueprint -- Sowing Arab Democracy -- Is Facing a Test in Iraq,
By PETER WALDMAN, Wall Street Journal, February 3, 2004
"Bernard Lewis often tells audiences about an encounter he once had in Jordan. The Princeton University historian, author of more than 20 books on Islam and the Middle East, says he was chatting with Arab friends in Amman when one of them trotted out an argument familiar in that part of the world. "We have time, we can wait," he quotes the Jordanian as saying. "We got rid of the Crusaders. We got rid of the Turks. We'll get rid of the Jews." Hearing this claim "one too many times," Mr. Lewis says, he politely shot back, "Excuse me, but you've got your history wrong. The Turks got rid of the Crusaders. The British got rid of the Turks. The Jews got rid of the British. I wonder who is coming here next." The vignette, recounted in the 87-year-old scholar's native British accent, always garners laughs. Yet he tells it to underscore a serious point. Most Islamic countries have failed miserably at modernizing their societies, he contends, beckoning outsiders -- this time, Americans -- to intervene. Call it the Lewis Doctrine. Though never debated in Congress or sanctified by presidential decree, Mr. Lewis's diagnosis of the Muslim world's malaise, and his call for a U.S. military invasion to seed democracy in the Mideast, have helped define the boldest shift in U.S. foreign policy in 50 years. The occupation of Iraq is putting the doctrine to the test. For much of the second half of the last century, America viewed the Mideast and the rest of the world through a prism shaped by George Kennan, author of the doctrine of "containment." In a celebrated 1947 article in Foreign Affairs focused on the Soviet Union, Mr. Kennan gave structure to U.S. policy in the Cold War. It placed the need to contain Soviet ambitions above all else. Terrorism has replaced Moscow as the global foe. And now America, having outlasted the Soviets to become the sole superpower, no longer seeks to contain but to confront, defeat and transform. How successful it is at remolding Iraq and the rest of the Mideast could have a huge impact on what sort of superpower America will be for decades to come: bold and assertive -- or inward, defensive and cut off. As mentor and informal adviser to some top U.S. officials, Mr. Lewis has helped coax the White House to shed decades of thinking about Arab regimes and the use of military power. Gone is the notion that U.S. policy in the oil-rich region should promote stability above all, even if it means taking tyrants as friends. Also gone is the corollary notion that fostering democratic values in these lands risks destabilizing them. Instead, the Lewis Doctrine says fostering Mideast democracy is not only wise but imperative. After Sept. 11, 2001, as policy makers fretted urgently about how to understand and deal with the new enemy, Mr. Lewis helped provide an answer. If his prescription is right, the U.S. may be able to blunt terrorism and stabilize a region that, as the chief exporter of oil, powers the industrial world and underpins the U.S.-led economic order. If it's wrong, as his critics contend, America risks provoking sharper conflicts that spark more terrorism and undermine energy security. After the terror attacks, White House staffers disagreed about how to frame the enemy, says David Frum, who was a speechwriter for President Bush. One group believed Muslim anger was all a misunderstanding -- that Muslims misperceived America as decadent and godless. Their solution: Launch a vast campaign to educate Muslims about America's true virtue. Much of that effort, widely belittled in the press and overseas, was quietly abandoned. A faction led by political strategist Karl Rove believed soul-searching over "why Muslims hate us" was misplaced, Mr. Frum says. Mr. Rove summoned Mr. Lewis to address some White House staffers, military aides and staff members of the National Security Council. The historian recited the modern failures of Arab and Muslim societies and argued that anti-Americanism stemmed from their own inadequacies, not America's. Mr. Lewis also met privately with Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. Mr. Frum says he soon noticed Mr. Bush carrying a marked-up article by Mr. Lewis among his briefing papers. A White House spokesman declined to comment. Says Mr. Frum: "Bernard comes with a very powerful explanation for why 9/11 happened. Once you understand it, the policy presents itself afterward" ... The Lewis Doctrine posits no such rational foe. It envisions not a clash of interests or even ideology, but of cultures. In the Mideast, the font of the terrorism threat, America has but two choices, "both disagreeable," Mr. Lewis has written: "Get tough or get out." His celebration, rather than shunning, of toughness is shared by several other influential U.S. Mideast experts, including Fouad Ajami and Richard Perle. A central Lewis theme is that Muslims have had a chip on their shoulders since 1683, when the Ottomans failed for the second time to sack Christian Vienna. "Islam has been on the defensive" ever since, Mr. Lewis wrote in a 1990 essay called "The Roots of Muslim Rage," where he described a "clash of civilizations," a concept later popularized by Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington. For 300 years, Mr. Lewis says, Muslims have watched in horror and humiliation as the Christian civilizations of Europe and North America have overshadowed them militarily, economically and culturally. "The question people are asking is why they hate us. That's the wrong question," said Mr. Lewis on C-SPAN shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. "In a sense, they've been hating us for centuries, and it's very natural that they should. You have this millennial rivalry between two world religions, and now, from their point of view, the wrong one seems to be winning." He continued: "More generally ... you can't be rich, strong, successful and loved, particularly by those who are not rich, not strong and not successful. So the hatred is something almost axiomatic. The question which we should be asking is why do they neither fear nor respect us?' ... Eight days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with the Pentagon still smoldering, Mr. Lewis addressed the U.S. Defense Policy Board. Mr. Lewis and a friend, Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi -- now a member of the interim Iraqi Governing Council -- argued for a military takeover of Iraq to avert still-worse terrorism in the future, says Mr. Perle, who then headed the policy board. A few months later, in a private dinner with Dick Cheney at the vice president's residence, Mr. Lewis explained why he was cautiously optimistic the U.S. could gradually build democracy in Iraq, say others who attended. Mr. Lewis also held forth on the dangers of appearing weak in the Muslim world, a lesson Mr. Cheney apparently took to heart. Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press" just before the invasion of Iraq, Mr. Cheney said: "I firmly believe, along with men like Bernard Lewis, who is one of the great students of that part of the world, that strong, firm U.S. response to terror and to threats to the United States would go a long way, frankly, toward calming things in that part of the world." The Lewis Doctrine, in effect, had become U.S. policy. "Bernard Lewis has been the single most important intellectual influence countering the conventional wisdom on managing the conflict between radical Islam and the West," says Mr. Perle, who remains a close adviser to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "The idea that a big part of the problem is failed societies on the Arab side is very important. That is not the point of view of the diplomatic establishment." Mr. Lewis declined to discuss his official contacts in Washington. When told his political influence was a focus of this article, he turned down an interview request. "It's still too early," he said. "Let's see how things turn out" in Iraq. In speeches and articles, Mr. Lewis continues to advocate assertive U.S. actions in the Mideast, but his long-term influence is likely to turn on whether his neoconservative acolytes retain their power in Washington in years to come ... Mr. Perle recalls hearing Mr. Lewis speak in the early 1970s and inviting him to lunch with Mr. Perle's then-boss, the late Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson of Washington. "Lewis became Jackson's guru, more or less," says Mr. Perle. Mr. Lewis also was an adviser to another Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, when Mr. Moynihan was ambassador to the United Nations in the 1970s. He formed lasting ties with several young Jackson and Moynihan aides who went on to apply his views to Iraq. Among them were Paul Wolfowitz, now deputy defense secretary; Elliott Abrams, now National Security Council Mideast chief; and Frank Gaffney Jr., a former Pentagon official. Talking with Mr. Lewis, Mr. Perle says, was "like going to Delphi to see the oracle." Mr. Lewis retired from teaching in 1986 but has maintained ties with many former students in high posts. One, Pentagon analyst Harold Rhode, has played prominent roles as Mr. Wolfowitz's adviser on Islamic affairs, as a planner of the Iraq occupation and as an aide to Pentagon strategist Andrew Marshall. Mr. Lewis dedicated his latest book, "The Crisis of Islam," to Mr. Rhode -- who says Mr. Lewis is "like a father to me." Mr. Lewis is also close to government circles in Israel and Turkey -- non-Arab lands he describes as the only successful modern states in the region. He warmly praises Kemal Attaturk, who made Turkey a secular republic after World War I by suppressing Islam. (He has also said the Ottoman Turks' killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 wasn't genocide but the brutal byproduct of war. It was a stance for which a French court convicted Mr. Lewis in 1995 under France's Holocaust-denial statute, imposing a token penalty.) Israeli experts say Mr. Lewis's contacts with Turkish generals and politicians helped cement Israeli-Turkish military ties in the 1990s. Mr. Lewis became politically involved with Israel by the mid-1970s, when he wrote an article for the American Jewish Committee publication Commentary. At a time when Israel was dead-set against a Palestinian state, he recommended that Israel "test the willingness" of the Palestine Liberation Organization to negotiate a two-state solution to the conflict. But Mr. Lewis also wrote that Palestinian Arabs didn't have a historical claim to a state, because Palestine hadn't existed as a country prior to British rule in 1918. Israeli leaders jumped on that part of his thesis. The late Prime Minister Golda Meir required her cabinet to read the article, says Amnon Cohen of Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who worked for the West Bank military government ... He became the confidant of successive Israeli prime ministers, including Ariel Sharon ... Some academics say Mr. Lewis's descriptions of Arab and Muslim failures epitomize what the late Edward Said of Columbia University dubbed "Orientalism" -- the shading of history to justify Western conquest. Mideast historian Juan Cole of the University of Michigan praises Mr. Lewis's scholarly works earlier in his career but says his more-popular writings of recent years tend to caricature Muslims as poor losers, helpless and enraged. Mr. Cole is among those who say Mr. Lewis's call for military intervention to transform failed Muslim states risks making the culture clash between Islamic lands and the West worse. So far, they say, Iraq looks more like a breeding ground for terrorism than a showcase of democracy -- not surprising, they say, given that the U.S. invaded an old and proud civilization. "Lewis has lived so long, he's managed to live into an era when some people in Washington are reviving empire thinking," says Mr. Cole. "He's never understood the realities of political and social mobilization and the ways they make empire untenable." Ilan Pappe of Haifa University says Mr. Lewis's view that political cultures can be remade through force contributed to Israel's decision to invade Lebanon in 1982. "It took the Israelis 18 years, and 1,000 soldiers killed, to abandon that strategy," Mr. Pappe says. "If the Americans operate under the same assumptions in Iraq, they'll fail the way the Israelis failed."

[Sure. It's an old Jewish adage: a weak Christianity is good for Jews. (Forbid displays of crosses and the Nativity in public spaces, ban prayer from schools, etc. etc. etc.) In other words, destroy the logical rallying points that might be antithetical to Jewish tribal interests. Likewise, and per the Judeocentric rampage in the Middle East, a denuded, defeated Islam (No headscarves! Wear mini-skirts.) is also very good for Jews. Here we have another article about the rich, powerful Jewish victim who is forced by a bigoted society into Jewish tribal private schools.]
Anti-Semitism infuses scarf debate, French schools fight deeply rooted racism,
by Thomas Fuller, International Herald Tribune, February 10, 2004
"Head scarves were banned by administrators at the public school in this Paris suburb long before France began its current round of tortured debate on the issue. While the public discussion focuses on France’s vaunted secularism, on women’s rights and the definitions of Frenchness, racism is a silent but powerful undercurrent propelling the debate. It’s an undercurrent that Sarah Aguado, a precocious 13-year-old, knows well. As the only Jew in a school with a large Muslim minority, she was repeatedly insulted and attacked and finally forced to flee. Classmates called her a ‘‘dirty Jew.’’ One student slapped her and made a racist remark. Another asked whether her family in Israel ‘‘owned guns and killed Palestinians.’’ Sarah stopped eating and had nightmares, according to her mother. Five weeks ago, mother and daughter moved to the south of France, where Sarah enrolled in a new school, relieved to exit the ‘‘catastrophic’’ situation. . [On Tuesday, France’s lower house of parliament voted in favor of banning head scarves and other religious symbols from the classroom.] Teachers and Jewish groups said the larger problem of anti-Semitism in French schools remained deeply ingrained and would not be solved simply by banning religious headgear. Anti-Semitism is so prevalent in some of the housing projects that ring Paris and other major French cities that ‘‘it’s become infused into the language,’’ according to Barbara Lefebvre, a history teacher at a French public school. . ‘‘Just about every week I see students in my class — where there are no Jews — insulting each other by saying, ‘Stop it, you Jew.’ Or ‘No, you can’t borrow my pen, it’s not yours, Jew.’ Or if their pen is broken they’ll say, ‘What’s wrong with my pen? It’s a Jew.’ ‘‘When you point it out, they say, ‘This is just a way of speaking.’’’ France’s interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said last week that the number of violent anti-Semitic attacks in the country had declined 37 percent in 2003, with 125 incidents recorded by police. But teachers and Jewish groups say many incidents of harassment or anti-Semitic insults go unrecorded. . As part of the government’s campaign against anti-Semitism, the Education Ministry last year established a system of ‘‘surveillance cells’’ specifically to track anti-Jewish incidents. Officials will issue the first data from this effort sometime in the next few months. In the meantime, Jewish groups say, one measure of anti-Semitism in French schools is the number of Jewish students switching to Jewish private schools, Catholic schools or moving to different cities or neighborhoods ... Those who study anti-Semitism in French schools say the problem is not generalized throughout the entire French school system ... Private Jewish education in France was almost nonexistent a half-century ago, said Jean-Jacques Wahl, secretary general of Alliance Israélite Universelle, a French educational group. France’s public educational system was touted as the way to instill what the French call ‘‘republican values’’ — a sense of citizenship and national solidarity. ‘‘Jewish schools I would say were against the general spirit of France,’’ Wahl said. ‘‘The republican school was the foundation for the citizen and had an excellent reputation.’’ But today, Wahl said, ‘‘people are beginning to question the republican ideal.’’ Wahl’s organization manages a half- dozen private Jewish schools that have 2,000 students enrolled. ‘‘Demand is very, very strong for spots and we can’t fulfill it,’’ he said."

Imre Salusinszky: We should nix Hicks flick,
The Australian, March 18, 2004
"Curtis Levy, the director of The President v David Hicks, which will screen on SBS tonight, has never tried to conceal the point of his documentary. In 2002, before shooting a single frame, Levy said his film would "look at how Western countries can throw away democracy". In that one pithy sentence he encapsulates the "blaming ourselves" mentality that so many Western artists and intellectuals have applied to the issue of terrorism since September 11, 2001. Levy's film leaves us in far less doubt than we were before that Australian Taliban fighter David Hicks is a vicious fundamentalist who trained with al-Qa'ida. It simply concludes that that is far less reprehensible than the detention of Hicks by George W. Bush, and the acquiescence of John Howard. So while this is certainly a disturbing and thought-provoking documentary, most of the questions it raises are not of the "How could we throw away democracy?" kind. Instead, viewers who are not of Levy's anti-US predisposition will wonder, along with a Northern Alliance commander whom the film does everything it can to discredit, what could motivate a boy from an advanced country to "come here and join hands with those who said women couldn't go out". Despite the fact that the film focuses on Hicks's father, Terry, as he retraces his son's footsteps and mounts international protests against his treatment, he is never pressed to provide an answer to the Northern Alliance commander's question ... But what is most disturbing, and raises most unanswered questions, is just where this film stands on Hicks's virulent anti-Semitism. In his letters to his family, Hicks tells them his training in Pakistan and Afghanistan is designed to ensure "the Western-Jewish domination is finished, so we live under Muslim law again". He denounces the plots of the Jews to divide Muslims and make them think poorly of Osama bin Laden. After reading aloud a letter from his son warning him to ignore "the Jews' propaganda war machine", Terry Hicks smiles affectionately and says: "I think David's told me off in his way there." Given that this film is unashamedly advocating for David Hicks, and that in promoting it Levy has said it exists to counter the "demonisation" of Hicks, shouldn't the film-maker have given us a hint about what he thinks of these racist comments, or pressed Terry Hicks to do so? Once upon a time, we would not have wondered where those on the Left stood on such a question. But in an era when virulent anti-Semitism erupts daily on such "progressive" websites as sydney.indymedia.org, or when John Pilger can claim without embarrassment that the "Jewish establishment" will never allow the true causes of September 11 to be known, all bets, and all assumptions, are off. Nor were my qualms settled by an interview with Levy on the World Socialist website, where he describes Hicks's racism as "innocent"."

[Turning way from Jewish trashing of Mel Gibson and Christianity for two minutes, here's some more Jewish racist "hate" on another front -- this time of Islam and Arabs:]
The Bill Handel Show Islamophobic Skit Transcript,
La Voz de Aztlan, March 18, 2004
"[The following is a transcript of a hateful and bigoted anti-Islamic skit that aired on Los Angeles radio station KFI-AM 640 (Clear Channel Communications) on March 10. The radio show is hosted by a Jew named Bill Handel who has a history of making obscene and racist remarks against non-Jewish ethnic, racial and religious groups including Mexicans. The skit has prompted a Muslim civil rights group to demand FCC action.]
KFI-AM Bill Handel Show : With us is that great constitutional scholar -- the Iraqi constitutional scholar -- Muhammad Barak Farud Kaffi: (phonetic spelling) Mr. Muhammad, would share with us some of the provisions in that constitution that very few of us are aware of.
"Muhammad": Yeah, I brought a couple of pages to read to you.
Handel: Okay. "Muhammad": We, the people of Iraq, in order to form a more perfect union, promote injustice, ensure domestic anarchy, provide for a radical religious fundamentalist theocracy, promote the subjugation of women and secure the blessing of the almighty Allah for ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this interim constitution of the new Iraq. Sounds very familiar, doesn't it?
Handel : It does. I'm surprised. You took a lot of it from the United States, didn't you, sir?
"Muhammad": Yes, and we will take more of your money.
Handel: Yes, thank you.
"Muhammad": Article One, Section One: All legislative powers are herein granted and shall be vested in Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, who will personally see to it that personal freedom and civil rights be set back 1,000 years. Section Two: Death to the Jews, death to the Jews, death to the Jews. Section Three: The House of Representatives shall be composed of [unintelligible] of American-hating terrorists who shall conduct a war of attrition for one thousand years or until the infidel is eradicated from the planet entirely, whichever comes first. Section Four: Kill all Jews, death to Israel, kill all Jews. (pause)
Handel: Thank You.
"Muhammad" : Section Five.
Handel: Oh, there's more? Go ahead, yes, go ahead.
"Muhammad": Section Five, every martyr in the name of Allah will be given 72 virgins upon entry into heaven. The virgins, however, will not be hairy Iraqi women but lovely Japanese schoolgirls. This will be personally guaranteed in the name of Allah. Section Six: The Hebrew must die, free Palestine, the Hebrew must die. Section Seven: All western teachings shall be from this day banned throughout Iraq, especially the infidel custom of bathing on a regular basis. Section Eight: Death to the Zionist conspiracy, death to the Zionist conspiracy, death to the Zionist conspiracy. Section Nine: All homosexual marriages are expressly prohibited and are punishable by death; however civil unions between consenting Iraqi adults and loving camels and goats will be recognized. Section Ten, See Sections Two, Four, Six, and Eight."

[This Muslim stated that the Queen of England is afraid of the Zionist Lobby and Jews control the British government? Sure, that sounds good for prison time. Gosh. Why would he think Jews are so powerful when it's taking more than a weekend to get him jailed for criticizing them?]
Calls to Prosecute Hamza Over anti-Jewish Remarks, [Offline paper edition]
by Bernard Josephs, Jewish Chronicle, February 20, 2004, p. 5
"A radical Islamic preacher is facing calls for prosecution for inciting racial hatred over comments he reportedly made about Jews. MPs and Jewish leaders are demanding action against Abu Hamza over a sermon given outside Finsbury Park Mosque last week. Egyptian-born Hamza -- who is appealing against a Home Office decision to strip him of his British nationality -- is quoted as having told supporters that the Queen was intimidated by Zionists after having failed to visit a Holocaust memorial while she was in Germany. 'She did not visit the so-called grave of the Holocaust and there was a war against her,' Abu Hamza reportedly declared. 'The Queen in her palace shakes when she hears about Zionism.' Accusing Jews of controlling the government, he said that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Tory leader Michael Howard had 'anglicized' their names to disguise their Jewish origins. [Jewish] Board of Deputies director-general Neville Nagler called Abu Hamza's remarks 'shocking and appalling." He said that the board was writing to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, and to Scotland Yard's head of specialist operations, Asssistant Commissioner David Veness, calling for the cleric to be prosecuted for racial incitement."

[More on the world Jewish Death Totem: Israel. Quick! More conferences on, and condemnation of, "anti-Semitism."]
World fears after Yassin killing. Sheikh Yassin's killing has been widely condemned,
BBC, March 22, 2004
"The killing of Sheikh Yassin has drawn widespread condemnation in the Arab world and Europe, while the US State Department has appealed for calm. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak described it as cowardly and King Abdullah of Jordan called it a crime. Iranian officials said the killing would trigger an even bigger struggle against Israel and the US. European Union foreign ministers condemned what they called Israel's "extra-judicial killing". "Not only are extra-judicial killings contrary to international law, they undermine the concept of the rule of law, which is a key element in the fight against terrorism," they said at their regular monthly meeting in Brussels. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw described the assassination as "unacceptable" and "unjustified". Mr Straw said he did not think Israel would benefit from an attack on an old man in a wheelchair. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said such acts could only "feed the spiral of violence". The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said the killing was "very, very bad news" for the Middle East peace process. In Moscow, the Russian foreign ministry said it was "deeply concerned" at the assassination, which it feared would cause "a new wave of violence". Restraint urged The US was among the first countries to issue an official reaction in the wake of the killing of Sheikh Yassin by Israeli forces. State Department spokesman Lou Fintor said: "The United States urges all sides to remain calm and exercise restraint." An Australian foreign ministry spokesman also urged efforts to "try and prevent any further decline into violence". Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said he had cancelled a visit by Egyptian members of parliament to Jerusalem in protest at the assassination. The delegation was to have taken part in celebrations to mark the 25th anniversary of the Camp David peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Mr Mubarak described the killing as "regrettable and cowardly". When asked about its possible impact on the Middle East peace process, he said: "What peace process?" Iran's ex-President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani warned that Sheikh Yassin's "martyrdom" would trigger an "even more serious struggle by the oppressed Palestinians against the Israeli terrorist occupiers and their US supporter". Roadmap fears Other leading figures in the Arab world have also criticised the killing of Sheikh Yassin. Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said it was "state terrorism in its most hideous form", while Iraq's US-appointed Governing Council said it could escalate danger in Iraq. One member of the Council, Muwaffaq al-Rubaiye, told the AFP news agency: "We condemn the killing, which will only serve to strengthen the justifications for terrorist acts in the world and does not serve peace." Kuwaiti Prime Minister Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah said: "Violence will increase now because violence always breeds violence." Lebanese President Emile Lahoud said Israel was "mistaken" if it thought that by killing resistance fighters, it could kill the Palestinian cause. The spiritual leader of Egypt's outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Mehdi Akef, said Sheikh Yassin had fallen as a "martyr" in a "cowardly operation". BBC diplomatic correspondent Barnaby Mason says the world's big powers are likely to be dismayed that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has chosen to escalate Israeli military action against Hamas. Our correspondent says there will also be concern, especially in the British government, that the killing might further hinder the progress of the international roadmap peace plan for the Middle East."

[Massive Jewish propaganda "spin" on the murder of a prominent Arab -- in the name of Jews everywhere. It's the World Israel Team, there's blood on their hands, and they're your neighbors.]
Pro-Israel Activists From all 50 States Available for Reaction to Assassination of Hamas Leader; Leadership Conference in Washington,
U.S. Newswire, March 22, 2004
"News Advisory: What: Nearly 2,000 delegates and national Jewish leaders from across the country meeting in Washington, DC, at the United Jewish Communities (UJC) National Young Leadership Conference are available for interview on Israel's assassination of Hamas founder Sheik Yassin. Attendees will hear from top American and Israeli political, media and community figures on global terrorism, the prospects for peace in the Middle East and the 2004 election. United Jewish Communities, the successor organization to United Jewish Appeal (UJA), is the umbrella organization for the 156 Jewish community federations across the country, is a major voice of the organized American Jewish community, and is the largest Jewish fundraising organization in the United States. WHEN: Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, March 21-23 WHERE: Washington Hilton, 1919 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. -- SELECTED PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS BY DAY: The Growing Terrorism Network, At Home and Abroad: 10-11:15 a.m. Monday, March 22, Georgetown Room A discussion of international terror networks, where they are likely to strike, and what can be done to destroy them and prevent attacks. Panelists: -- Roger Cressey, president, Good Harbor Consulting, LLC; -- Steven Emerson, author and commentator; -- Matthew Levitt, senior fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy; -- Sabi Shabtai, consultant, author and terrorism expert ..."

[The Jewish community is morally bankrupt. It seems to have a deep desire to be loathed by everyone. It lives for "anti-Semitism" and "terrorism" to define them.]
Most U.S. Jewish groups back Israel’s killing of Hamas leader,
By Rachel Pomerance, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 23, 2004
"In contrast to the international debate about the efficacy of Israel’s killing of Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the Jewish organizational world almost uniformly backed the assassination. Except for a few peace groups that made their views known through news releases, most Jewish groups backed Israel’s killing of Hamas’ founder and spiritual leader. “The Israeli government is responsible for defending the country’s citizens, and whether it’s putting up a security fence or targeting archterrorists, most American Jews believe that those are decisions that are best made in Jerusalem,” said Martin Raffel, associate executive director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. Many leaders of Jewish organizations agreed, saying they defer to Israel on security matters and praising the killing of a ringleader of terrorism. “There is more consensus today because of the nature of the issues we’re dealing with” — matters of Israeli security, not the details of peace plans, said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations ... Despite the overall consensus, there were a few Jewish groups who criticized the Israeli action. Israel’s move “served to stoke the fires of hatred” and would likely ratchet up the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Americans for Peace Now said in a statement. “It would be very helpful were Sharon to give credibility to moderate voices instead of always doing something that martyrs or casts the heroic spotlight on the extremists,” said Letty Cottin Pogrebin, a past president of Americans for Peace Now. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz had a different opinion. “I am overjoyed at the killing,” he said. “I’m critical of Israel, and I think it deserves to be criticized,” said Dershowitz, an Israel advocate and author of a new book called “The Case for Israel.” But “this is an area where it deserves to be praised,” Dershowitz said. “This will save many lives.” Morton Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America, agreed. “The best time of killing any of these killers is as soon as possible,” he said. “It is an obligation for Israel to destroy the terrorist infrastructure.”

Zionism And The Politics Of Assassination. On Extra-judicial Executions,
By Mazin Qumsiyeh, Information Clearinghouse, March 22, 2004
"As the fourth strongest army in the world, Israel could have arrested the quadriplegic and partially blind spiritual elder of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). But history shows that such extrajudicial executions (200 so far) create instability and a cycle of revenge that is calculated to serve Zionist colonization efforts. Political Zionism started in 1845 with a British feasibility study for Jewish colonization in Palestine to further British interests in weakening the Ottoman Empire and establish connections to colonial holdings in India. The adoption of this political (as opposed to religious or cultural) Zionism by a small but very influential segment of Ashkenazi Jews in Europe was deemed crucial for success. Zionism remained marginal among Jews until it capitalized on the atrocities of WWII. Early advocates of Zionism did not shy away from using the term colonization to describe their activities or to describe the use of violence to achieve their goals because natives will always resist such efforts. This violence against native Palestinians started in 1917 when the Zionist Herbert Samuel was appointed as British high commissioner. He made it clear with violent action that the end result will be the creation of a Jewish state in a land that had less than 6% Jewish population. Most native Jews, including the Palestinian Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, were opposed to Zionism at the time. Before 1917 Palestinian Christians, Muslims, and Jews coexisted in relative harmony. Violence between 1917 and 1949 resulted in the establishment of a Jewish state and the ethnic cleansing of 530 Palestinian villages and towns. Israel rejected International law by adopting exclusionary laws that prevent refugees from returning while offering automatic citizenship to Jews (including converts) from anywhere in the world. Zionists expected resistance of Palestinian Christians and Muslims. 800,000 were made refugees by 1949 (now nearly 5 million including Yassin's family). Israeli leaders from Ben Gurion to Sharon have always used the 'Zionist response' to resistance: overwhelming violence and increased colonization. It was Zionist Jews who first to plant bombs in market places (1930s), first bomb civilian neighborhoods using aircraft (1947), first sent mail letter bombs (1940s), and first to hijack (1954) and shoot down (1973) civilian airplanes. As our biased mainstream US media keeps emphasizing, Palestinians also engaged in expected violent resistance. Violence is a symptom and was used to further colonization efforts whether in Palestine or in America (against Native Americans). It is not a coincidence that the major waves of expulsions of Palestinians occurred between October 1947 to January 1949 and in June 1967. It is not a coincidence that in the name of 'security', Israel destroyed over 3000 Palestinian homes rendering some 15,000 civilians homeless most in the most desirable land. The Apartheid wall being built with the excuse of the violence is not separating Israel from the occupied areas but is surrounding Palestinians in small cantons to starve them and force them to leave. Thus, Zionist leaders deem violence and escalation a sound strategy because, as the first Prime Minister of Israel admitted, peace would mean having to restore rights to native people. Israel's assassination of Sheikh Yassin was described as stupid (Gush Shalom), horrendous mistake (Yossi Beilin), contrary to International law (Amnesty International and the European Union), and a war crime (Israeli liberal leaders). I think such actions remove any doubt about the fact that political Zionism is incompatible with peace in the 21st century. As for us here, Israel's strong lobby in congress drained us of over $100 billion in direct aid and much more indirectly. It is responsible for the low standing of the US around the world."

Maariv survey: 61% support Yasin killing, 21% object,
Maariv (Israel), March 23, 2003
"Even though only 9% expect terror to decline after Hamas leader's elimination; small majority wants Arafat killed too. An evening poll conducted yesterday (Monday) by Maariv and “The New Wave” indicates that 61% of the population supports the IDF's killing of Hamas leader Ahmad Yasin. 21% thought Israel should not have killed the Hamas leader. The poll also reveals that the Israeli public is more evenly divided on the question of whether Israel should also assassinate the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority Yasser Arafat. 43% believe Israel should eliminate Arafat, while 38% object to such an operation. According to the survey, respondents are already resigned to the new terror wave that is expected following the Yasin hit: 55% believe terror will increase. 36% think it would not change while only 9% claim the level of terror would decrease. The survey sample was 504 adult Israelis, including Arabs -- which appears to indicate that among Jews support for the Yasin killing is even higher. The margin of error was 4.2%."

Who Won World War II?,
by Ran HaCohen, anti-war.com, March 27, 2004
"The Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th edition) comments: "Civilized warfare, the textbooks tell us, is confined, as far as possible, to the disablement of the armed forces of the enemy; otherwise war would continue till one of the parties was exterminated." Compare this with Adolph Hitler's words: "The aim of war is not to reach definite lines but to annihilate the enemy physically. It is by this means that we shall obtain the vital living space that we need."(*) Luckily, Nazi Germany lost the War. But almost sixty years after its defeat in the battlefield, Hitler's concept of war – part and parcel of his overall Weltanschauung – celebrates a rising tide in the global ideological arena. Israel's assassination of Hamas' leader Sheik Ahmad Yassin is a milestone in this process of barbarisation of the human kind. War and Occupation Following the trauma of World War II, the international community committed the moral standards of the winning Allies to writing. The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1950, states that "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely" (Article 3). A simple derivative of the idea that the aim of war is not annihilation but disablement of the enemy's armed forces. Furthermore, Articles 47-78 of the Convention protect persons who "find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals," and defines the rights of such "protected persons." Again, the idea is that humanity as a whole should protect people who are at the mercy of an occupying force, since their (army's) defeat does not make them lose their human rights; and that this very idea, as the Nazi occupation had demonstrated, is not always clear to occupying forces, and should therefore be reinforced by an international Convention. The Convention presents in detail the practical consequences of the aims of war as stated in the Britannica, as opposed to Hitler's war concept of annihilation. Thus, "The Occupying Power shall permit ministers of religion to give spiritual assistance to the members of their religious communities" (Article 58). "No sentence shall be pronounced by the competent courts of the Occupying Power except after a regular trial." (Article 71). "A convicted person shall have the right of appeal provided for by the laws applied by the court" (Article 73). "In no case shall persons condemned to death be deprived of the right of petition for pardon or reprieve. No death sentence shall be carried out before the expiration of a period of at least six months" etc. etc. (Article 75). Moreover, the Convention makes special provisions for "protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power" (Article 68). This reflects an even older principle of enlightened international legislation, that acknowledges the right of occupied peoples to use force against their occupier. Based upon the principles of the Hague International Convention of 1907 and confirmed in the Nuremberg Tribunal, this determination was essential to forestall Nazi claims that partisans, Ghetto fighters, and other underground resistance forces in the territories occupied by Germany had allegedly been "terrorists": though unarmed civilians should never be harmed, resistance to an occupation, including violent resistance, is legitimate. This too is an implication of the idea that the occupier's might does not make him right, and that every human being has the right to fight for his or her political freedom. Political Assassination Going through articles 47-78 of the Geneva Convention, it is difficult to find a single article which has NOT been breached by Israel as an occupying force. Article 49, for example – "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" – implies the illegality of Israel's settlements. However, the assassination of Sheik Yassin reflects a new level of barbarism on Israel's part. Yassin's killing is a crime on several different levels. Killing an unarmed person is a crime. Killing an old helpless person in a wheel-chair is a despicable crime. But Yassin's murder (together with 8 other innocent Palestinians) is far from just killing an old man in a wheel-chair. Such war crimes, committed by the occupier to "protected" occupied persons – the casual killing of elderly, children, women, invalids, mentally ill, and other unarmed, innocent, harmless and defenceless "protected" civilians – have been the daily bread of Palestinians for years now. But Yassin's assassination, the assassinating of a religious and a political leader, is a crime of a very special kind. Assassinations are clearly prohibited by Article 23b of the Hague Regulations, 1907. Even the American policy bans political assassinations. A political or religious leader (at least a leader of a voluntary movement, like Yassin actually was) stands for his direct supporters, and also for all the political or religious entity he is part of. He is singled out not as an individual, but as a symbol and a representative of his masses, be it political supporters, religious believers, or, as in Yassin's case, both. Yassin was targeted as a symbol of the Palestinian people's religion, culture, society, and institutions. Remember that Hamas is not just a terror organisation, as the US and Israel want us to think, neither is it just a political party; Hamas runs an entire network of schools, clinics and social welfare, in a society impoverished to the point of starvation by decades of exploitation and years of strangulation. The issue is not liking or disliking Yassin's religious conviction; nor it is the fact that Israel itself had encouraged and supported the rise of Hamas in the 1980s, hoping to weaken Arafat's PLO. The crux of the matter is what Israeli political sociologist Lev Grinberg called "a symbolic genocide": "Because the world will not permit total annihilation, a symbolic annihilation is taking place instead." The message of this atrocity is this: Israel's war is not aimed at disabling the armed forces of the enemy, but at its annihilation, at least symbolically. Yassin was a religious leader, but no saint. He resisted the occupation, which was his basic right. On the other hand, he supported a cease fire, and just a few weeks ago he offered to take civilians out of the circle of violence, an offer dismissed by Sharon's government. He surely instigated violence, he may have been responsible for terrorism. He may have shared Hitler's concept of war, rather than the Britannica's. If this was the case, he could and should have been arrested and put to trial. People are innocent unless the opposite is established in court. Killing a person without a trial – not a person carrying a bomb, not an armed person in combat – is terrorism, is barbarism. When those who claim to fight off terrorism and barbarism become barbarian terrorists themselves, they lose their own claim to justice. Israel arrested Yassin in the past; it didn't even try to this time. Perhaps for lack of evidence, perhaps because of the Israeli army's contempt for the rule of law. But above all, Yassin's killing was meant to change the rules of the game: to signalize that the aim of this war is to annihilate the enemy, not just to defeat it, and that from now on, everything is possible. To this end, killing helpless Yassin in his wheel-chair, heading home after a night of prayer, was a much more effective message than, say, killing the armed and uniformed layman Arafat. The message is: Israel has no moral nor legal boundaries whatsoever. Israel can target elderly and invalids, political leaders and religious clerics. If we can kill Yassin, says Jerusalem, we can kill everyone; No judge, no morality, no convention and no law can stop our missiles ... Under the Bushites – whose ancestors had no scruples doing business with Hitler – Israel has become the spearhead in reviving the ideology defeated in World War II. Within a few years, Israel turned from an arrière garde fighting outdated wars for outdated causes into the avant garde of barbarism, followed closely by the USA. The whole arsenal of barbarism of Israel's occupation – the physical, tactic, strategic, linguistic, and ideological arsenal – is doing its way from Gaza to Baghdad, from Megido Prison to Guantanamo Bay, from the Jerusalem Post to the Washington Post. 'A Constitutive Event' Following the assassination, Israeli military echelons quoted in Ha'aretz (23.3.04) called it "a constitutive event," one that would make History. Indeed. Unless a global reaction against this barbarism emerges – not an Al-Qaeda type of reaction, which shares this very barbarism, but something like the recent Spanish example; unless we renew the struggle for the legacy of the Allies who won World War II, and get rid of all those responsible for the barbarisation of the human kind, Israel's assassination of Sheik Yassin may enter history as the moment in which Hitler's concept of war for annihilation, of contempt for the basic convictions and conventions of humanity, celebrated its triumph, shared and imposed by the axis of Sharon, Bush and Bin Laden."

[Jews insist upon dictating what Christians may think (note the Jewish Thought Police and Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ). And, surprise! They dictate what Muslims may think too! All that matters is Jews: in Jewish eyes, that's a good Christian and Islamic religion. The new "Islamic Progress Institute" is going to be a bunch of Zionist Jews hiding in the wings who dangle drugged Muslims onstage like marionettes. JTR reader comment: "Aside from the absolute ludicrousness of uber-Zionist Pipes forming an Islamic organization, I guess this means it is now fair for gentiles the world over to openly call for a Real Reformation in Jewish religion and culture?"]
Neocons Seek Islamic 'Reformation',
by Jim Lobe, antiwar-com, April 8, 2004
"One thing that can be said about U.S. neo-conservatives is they do not lack for ambition. "We need an Islamic reformation," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz confided on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq last year, "and I think there is real hope for one." Echoing those views one year later, another prominent neo-conservative, Daniel Pipes of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum (MEF), recently declared that the "ultimate goal" of the war on terrorism had to be Islam's modernization, or, as he put it, "religion-building." Such an effort needs to be waged not only in the Islamic world, geographically speaking, added Pipes, who last year was appointed by President George W. Bush to the board of directors of the US Institute for Peace (USIP), but also among Muslims in the West, where, in his view, they are too often represented by "Islamist (or militant Islamic)" organizations. Pipes is currently seeking funding for a new organization, tentatively named the "Islamic Progress Institute" (IPI), which "can articulate a moderate, modern and pro-American viewpoint" on behalf of US Muslims and that, according to a grant proposal by Pipes and two New York-based foundations obtained by IPS, can "go head-to-head with the established Islamist institutions." Daniel Pipes "Through adroit media activity and political efforts," says the proposal, "advocates for a supremacist and totalitarian form of Islam in the United States – such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) – have effectively established themselves as the spokesmen for all Muslims in the country." "This situation is fraught with dangers for moderate Muslims as well as for non-Muslims," the proposal continues, adding, "Islam in America must be American Islam or it will not be integrated; there can be no place for an Islam in America that functions as a seditious conspiracy aimed at wiping out American values, undermining American interfaith civility, and, in effect, dictating the form of Islam that will be followed in America." Leaders of the three groups named by Pipes strongly deny his characterizations of their views, and stress that they, like Catholic, Protestant and Jewish groups in the United States that promote the interests of their members are neither more nor less radical or chauvinistic in their political or theological views than their non-Muslim counterparts."

[Another Jewish bigot frames himself as a scholar. The Jewish Lobby is so powerful it is opening up propaganda attacks on many fronts -- everything from attempts to ban and/or censor The Passion of the Christ to trashing Islamic resistance to Israel and Zionist-dominated America as "anti-Semitism." Even the Chronicle for Higher Education gets twisted into a Jewish/Israeli propaganda factory. Islamic "anti-Semitism" is a new phenomenon, DIRECTLY RELATED TO RACIST ISRAEL AND ZIONIST DOMINANCE OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY. Hey, Kressel. How about listing all the rabbis citing the Talmud to classify non-Jews as subhumans. Check this web site for the documentation.]
The Urgent Need to Study Islamic Anti-Semitism,
By NEIL J. KRESSEL, The Chronicle for Higher Education, March 12, 2004
"For many decades, social scientists of every disciplinary stripe have placed themselves in the forefront of the battle against bigotry. On the basis of that record, one might expect to find psychologists, sociologists, and others hard at work studying the dynamics of Jew-hatred in the Muslim world. But that is far from the case. These days, more than a few leading Muslim clerics routinely denounce Jews with dehumanizing rhetoric. For example, in April 2002, Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi of Egypt, one of the most important Sunni clerics, described Jews in his weekly sermon as "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs." Sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, the imam of the most important mosque in Mecca, similarly sermonized that the Jews are "the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs." The imam further advised Arabs to abandon all peace initiatives with Jews and asked Allah to annihilate them. Many leaders of Muslim countries enthusiastically greeted former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's similarly racist ranting. Yet social scientists have essentially remained mum concerning a problem that President Bush, in a speech in November, has placed high on the world agenda. "Europe's leaders, and all leaders," he said in London, "should strongly oppose anti-Semitism, which poisons public debates over the future of the Middle East." The image of the president of the United States pressing ahead in the battle against bigotry while social scientists lag far behind is, to say the least, unusual -- especially when one considers the mountains of research that have addressed past anti-Semitism and racism in Europe and the United States. An examination of PsycINFO, a leading online index of psychological studies, shows 458 entries on anti-Semitism since 1940, 99 of which have appeared during the past 10 years. But not a single one deals directly with hatred of Jews by Muslims or Arabs in the contemporary world. At most, a few psychologically oriented authors, like Mortimer Ostow, have touched tangentially on Muslim anti-Semitism in studies focusing on Jew-hatred in other contexts, and a few political historians, like Bernard Lewis and Robert Wistrich, have offered some social-scientific speculation on the topic. An analysis of Sociological Abstracts tells much the same story. Since 1963, 130 entries in the database have dealt with anti-Semitism, but none center on the hatred of Jews among Arab Muslims or others in the broader Muslim world. The failure of social scientists to confront this dangerous form of contemporary bigotry is particularly curious in light of the past prominence of sociologists and psychologists in the study of anti-Semitism ... Why have social scientists neglected the study of Muslim anti-Semitism? Some say there is no need to study the phenomenon, and that the charge itself is merely a sneaky ploy to fend off criticism of Israel. For example, the columnist Norman Solomon purports to explain the "strategy" used by supporters of Israel: "To quash debate, just smear, smear, smear. Instead of trying to refute critiques of Israeli policies, it's much easier to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism -- a timeworn way of preventing or short-circuiting real debate on the merits of the issues." Sheikh Tantawi, of Egypt's Al-Azhar University, offers a more extreme form of the argument, holding that "the charge of anti-Semitism was invented by the Jews as a means of pressuring the Arabs and Muslims, and with the aim of implementing their conspiracies in the Arab and Muslim countries. It should be disregarded." While the question of where legitimate criticism of Israel ends and anti-Semitism begins can be a tricky matter, whether one looks at bombings or rhetoric it is clear from a review of recent events that much Muslim hostility to Jews is old-fashioned bigotry, plain and simple."

Cleric lists Quran's 20 'bad traits' of Jews. Says this explains why they were driven out of home countries,
World Net Daily, April 6, 2004
"A leading Muslim cleric who once issued a fatwa declaring Jews "apes and pigs" says the Quran lists 20 bad traits of Jewish people. Sheikh 'Atiyyah Saqr, former head of the Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, responded March 22 to the question in an IslamOnline.com chat room, "What, according to the Quran, are the Jews' main characteristics and qualities?" Al-Azhar, in Cairo, is Sunni Islam's most important institution. The sheikh listed one positive trait of the Jews and then 20 bad traits, reports the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI. The bad traits, he said, are fabricating; listening to lies; disputing and quarreling; hiding the truth and supporting deception; rebelling against the prophets and rejecting their guidance; hypocrisy; wishing evil on people; feeling pain at others' happiness and feeling happiness at others' afflictions; rudeness and vulgarity; murder of innocents; mercilessness and heartlessness; breaking promises; cowardice; and miserliness. In discussing these bad traits, Sheikh Saqr wrote, "We would like to note that these are but some of the most famous traits of the Jews as described in the Quran. They have revolted against the divine ordinances, distorted what has been revealed to them and invented new teachings which, they claimed, were much more better than what has been recorded in the Torah. "It was [because of] these traits that they were not warmly received in all the countries where they tried to reside. Instead, they were either driven out, or lived in isolation' ... Saqr then lists the following 20 "bad traits" of the Jews, as they appear in the Quran: 1. "They used to fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah ... 2. "They love to listen to lies ... 3. "Disobeying Almighty Allah and never observing His commands. ... 4. "Disputing and quarreling ... 5. "Hiding the truth and supporting deception ...6. "Rebelling against the Prophets and rejecting their guidance ... 7. "Hypocrisy ... 8. "Giving preference to their own interests over the rulings of religion and the dictates of truth. Allah says [to the Jews] ... 9. "Wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them ... 10. "They feel pain to see others in happiness and are gleeful when others are afflicted with a calamity ... 11. "They are known for their arrogance and haughtiness ... 12. "Utilitarianism and opportunism are among their innate traits ... 13. "Their rudeness and vulgarity is beyond description ... 14. "It is easy for them to slay people and kill innocents ... 15. "They are merciless and heartless ... 16. "They never keep their promises or fulfill their words. Almighty Allah says ... 17. "They rush hurriedly to sin and compete in transgression ... 18. "Cowardice and love for this worldly life are undisputable traits [of the Jews] ... 19. "Miserliness runs deep in their hearts ... 20. "Distorting Divine Revelation and Allah's Sacred Books."

THE JEWISH WAR WITH ISLAM (AND ARABS), pt. 3

Jewish Tribal Review