America: “It’s lonely at the top”

March 01, 2007

* This dispatch concerns the United States

 

CONTENTS

1. Gallup poll: Jews are strongly opposed to Iraq war
2. “It’s not America’s enemies who hate the United States most”
3. Iran’s many minorities asserting themselves against Persian domination
4. Farrakhan recommends several anti-Semitic books to his followers
5. Is Teheran targeting New York?
6. U.S. Imam sentenced to seven years in prison for helping Hamas
7. Afghan beheaded in Pakistan for being “a U.S. spy”
8. U.S. congressman visits persecuted Bangladeshi journalist
9. Professional baseball moves a step closer to becoming a reality in Israel
10. “US Jews toughest foes of Iraq war” (Jerusalem Post, Feb. 26, 2007)
11. “Hatred of America unites the world” (Sunday Telegraph, Feb. 25, 2007)
12. “US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran” (Sunday Telegraph, Feb. 25, 2007)
13. “Farrakhan ‘reading list’ includes anti-Israel books, ADL says” (Yediot Ahronot, Feb. 27, 2007)



[Note by Tom Gross]

GALLUP POLL: JEWS ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO IRAQ WAR

Ever since the Iraq war began in 2003, and even before that, several anti-war groups in Europe (and also some in the U.S.) have made assertions, often bordering on anti-Semitism, that this was a “Jewish war” and that American Jews and Israelis were prime movers behind it. (This is despite all the evidence to the contrary, including the fact that Ariel Sharon, who was then Israel’s prime minister, warned President Bush against it.)

For this reason, it is especially ironic that a thorough new Gallup poll has found that Jews are more strongly opposed to the Iraq War – and have been since before it began – than any other American religious group.

According to an analysis of Gallup polls conducted since 2005 that was released last weekend, asked if “the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq,” 77 percent of American Jews said it had, while only 21 percent believed the deployment was not a mistake. This figure is in marked contrast to the American average, where only 52 percent indicated opposition to the war and 46 percent indicated support.

The Jewish opposition to the war, according to Gallup figures, is not new. In the first two years of the war (2003 and 2004), when 52% of Americans supported the war, 61% of Jews opposed it. Even within the Democratic Party, Jewish opposition to the war was significantly greater than that expressed by non-Jewish Democrats.

According to Gallup, the two groups closest to Jews in their opposition to the war are Americans with no religion and African-American Protestants. The Gallup poll does not explain exactly why Jews oppose the toppling of Saddam more than other groups. The most likely explanation is that Jews in America (other than Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union) tend to be the most left-wing group in American society. For more on this, see my article “Puerto Ricans have moved on. Why not Jews? US presidential voting habits remain a puzzle.”

Eran Lerman, head of the American Jewish Committee’s Israel/Middle East office, told The Jerusalem Post (in Haviv Rettig’s article below) that the poll results proves “that the argument put forward by some players in America and elsewhere that the Jews pushed Bush to go to Iraq is little more than anti-Semitic rubbish.”

“There may also be the fear [among American Jews],” Lerman added, “that if this war doesn’t succeed, somebody will blame the Jews [for it].”

“IT’S NOT AMERICA’S ENEMIES WHO HATE THE UNITED STATES MOST”

In the second article below, British historian Niall Ferguson (writing in the London Sunday Telegraph), examines why the world seemingly hates America. Ferguson points out that “It’s not America’s enemies who hate the United States most, it’s people in countries that are supposed to be America’s friends, if not allies.”

According to another Gallup poll, which surveyed 10,000 Muslims in 10 different countries, wealthier, better-educated Muslims are more likely to be politically radical and anti-American.

Other findings from this poll indicate that “One in four Indians, two out of five Egyptians and one out of every two Pakistanis favor a nuclear-armed Iran. A third of Britons, half of all Indians and three quarters of Egyptians welcomed the success of Hamas in last year’s Palestinian elections.”

Ferguson concludes his piece on global attitudes to America: “For it turns out that power not only corrupts, as Lord Acton famously observed, it also tends to isolate. It’s not for nothing that they say it’s lonely at the top.”

IRAN’S MANY MINORITIES ASSERTING THEMSELVES AGAINST PERSIAN DOMINATION

The third article below reports that “America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.”

Various incidents and actions have been carried out by the Kurds in the west of Iran, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up 40 per cent of Iran’s 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis.

FARRAKHAN RECOMMENDS SEVERAL ANTI-SEMITIC BOOKS TO HIS FOLLOWERS

The fourth and final article notes that “Minister Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic and racist leader of the Nation of Islam, concluded his Saviors’ Day address by recommending to his audience several notoriously anti-Semitic and anti-Israel books.”

Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Director Abe Foxman notes: “Farrakhan may have held his anti-Semitic views in check while on the dais, but if this is what he wants people to read, then the leopard hasn’t changed his spots.”

Among the books Farrakhan recommends are “The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews”, which argues that the history of slavery in the New World was dominated by Jewish ship owners and merchants; “The Secrets of the Federal Reserve,” by Eustace Mullins, an anti-Jewish conspiracy theory propagandist; “The Synagogue of Satan,” written by nation of Islam member Ashahed Muhammad.

And finally Farrakhan recommends the recent book published by former President Jimmy Carter, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid,” which has been widely criticized as demonizing Israel.

For more on the Carter book, see the dispatch Jimmy Carter called an anti-Semite live on American TV (Dec. 6, 2006).

IS TEHERAN TARGETING NEW YORK?

A report in the latest issue (March 5, 2007) of Newsweek suggests that “Increasing tensions between Washington and Teheran have revived New York Police Department concerns that Iranian agents may already have targeted the city for terror attacks.”

These attacks could be aimed at bridges and tunnels, Jewish organizations and at Wall Street, NYPD security experts warn.

In November 2003, Ahmad Safari and Alireaza Safi, described as Iranian United Nations Mission “security” personnel, were detained by transit cops when they were seen videotaping subway tracks from Queens to Manhattan at 1:10 in the morning. The men later left New York.

Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly told Newsweek, “We’re concerned that Iranian agents were engaged in reconnaissance that might be used in an attack against New York City at some future date.”

U.S. IMAM SENTENCED TO SEVEN YEARS IN PRISON FOR HELPING HAMAS

Mohamed Shorbagi, an Imam at a mosque in the American state of Georgia, was on Tuesday sentenced to seven years, eight months in prison for providing money and logistical support to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.

Shorbagi pleaded guilty last August to providing material support to Hamas in a case in which the agreement, charges and even the plea hearing were handled in secret. (They were made public in October.)

U.S. Attorney David Nahmias said in a statement following Tuesday’s sentencing that “This case illustrates that people who illegally support foreign terrorist organizations may be found in the United States.”

The U.S. formally designated Hamas as a terrorist organization in October 1997. From that time until December 2001, prosecutors alleged Shorbagi provided financial support to Hamas, even while knowing the group had been labeled by the government as a terrorist organization.

AFGHAN BEHEADED IN PAKISTAN FOR BEING “A U.S. SPY”

Islamic extremists in Pakistan yesterday beheaded a moderate Afghan cleric they accused of spying for U.S. forces fighting insurgents in Afghanistan. The murdered cleric, Akhtar Usmani, 30, had spoken out against militancy in a Pakistani region on the Afghan border where some observers say the government has virtually handed over power to the Taliban. Usmani was found dumped beside a road in South Waziristan, while his head was placed in the middle of the road nearby. A note found with the body accused Usmani of spying for America.

Militants in North and South Waziristan have killed dozens of people they accused of being U.S. spies. In fact they were moderate Muslims and the spying accusations were almost certainly nothing but a fabricated pretext to behead them. The murder of these brave Afghani moderates is rarely mentioned in the western press.

U.S. CONGRESSMAN VISITS PERSECUTED BANGLADESHI JOURNALIST

This is a follow-up to the sixth note in the dispatch So busy attacking Israel, they forgot about these beheadings (Nov. 21, 2006).

Last Friday, Republican Congressman Steve Chabot of Ohio held a thirty minute meeting with dissident journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury at the U.S. Embassy in Bangladesh.

Choudhury is a Bangladeshi journalist who said that Bangladesh should have peaceful relations with Jews, and as a result of this statement is currently on trial in the Bangladeshi capital Dhaka on multiple counts of sedition, treason and blasphemy and could face the death penalty. Choudhury, the former editor of “The Weekly Blitz,” an English language newspaper published in Dhaka, angered authorities after he published articles saying Israel should be allowed to exist and after he criticized radical Islam.

Choudhury has faced continued persecution since 2003. He has been beaten, tortured and imprisoned for his efforts, and mobs have been allowed to attack him and bomb his newspaper office. Speaking from Dhaka, Choudhury said he was touched by the congressman’s concern for his situation.

Chabot received assurances that the charges against Choudhury would be dropped. Yet as soon as he left, the Bangladeshi authorities announced his trial would resume on March 8 and in a sign of how unfair the trial is likely to be, the Judge (Judge M. Momin Ullah) has already stated in writing that he sees no reason to acquit Choudhury.

(Journalists on this email list who wish to cover Choudhury’s case should contact Dr. Richard Benkin, who is a subscriber to this list and is trying to help Choudhury, at drrbenkin@comcast.net.)

PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL MOVES A STEP CLOSER TO BECOMING A REALITY IN ISRAEL

Israel moved a step closer to the world of professional baseball on Monday… in New York.

Former U.S. ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer, who will serve as the league’s commissioner, joined Israeli league founder Larry Baras and Dan Duquette, a former pro-manager, at a news conference to outline the six-team league’s 45-game season.

Eighty players have already been signed and another 50 have been lined up. Among the players and managers are a “Who’s Who” of Jewish baseball players from recent years, including the Mets’ Art Shamsky, the Cubs’ Ken Holtzman and Yankee Ron Blomberg. Play starts June 24.

For more on the Israeli baseball league, see the dispatch Israel to have its own baseball league (& Iran bars women from soccer matches) (May 19, 2006).

I attach four articles below.

-- Tom Gross



FULL ARTICLES

JEWS ARE MORE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE IRAQ WAR THAN ANY OTHER AMERICAN RELIGIOUS GROUP

US Jews toughest foes of Iraq war
By Haviv Rettig
The Jerusalem Post
February 26, 2007

www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894518362&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Jews are more strongly opposed to the Iraq War – and have been since before it began – than any other American religious group, according to an analysis of Gallup polls conducted since 2005 that was released over the weekend by The Gallup Organization.

Asked if “the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq,” 77 percent of American Jews said it had, while only 21% believed the deployment was not a mistake. This figure is in marked contrast to the American average, where only 52% indicated opposition to the war and 46% indicated support.

The Jewish opposition to the war, according to Gallup figures, is not new, and preceded most Americans turning against the war. In the first two years of the war (2003 and 2004), when 52% of Americans supported the war, 61% of Jews opposed it. Even before the beginning of hostilities in 2002 and early 2003, US Jews supported the war by just 49% to 48%. Americans generally supported it by 57% to 37%.

The Gallup figures also show that Jewish opposition to the war is not explainable by the high Democratic Party affiliation among Jews. Even within the Democratic Party, Jewish opposition to the war was greater than that expressed by non-Jewish Democrats. In polls taken from 2005 to 2007, 89% of Jewish Democrats opposed the war and just 8% supported it, while non-Jewish Democrats opposed the war by 78% to 20%.

“This just goes to prove that the argument put forward by some players in America and elsewhere that the Jews pushed Bush to go to Iraq is little more than anti-Semitic rubbish,” Col. (res.) Eran Lerman, head of the American Jewish Committee’s Israel/Middle East office in Jerusalem, told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.

“Traditional liberal values are deeply implanted” among American Jews, Lerman added, noting that US Jews “are anti-war generally and tend to be suspicious of the Bush administration specifically.

“There may also be the fear,” he surmised, “that if this war doesn’t succeed, somebody will blame the Jews [for it].”

The Gallup Organization itself noted that “these data show that the average American Jew – even those who are Republicans and may support the Bush administration on other matters – opposes the war.”

“Most of the Jews [in America] always believed that most of the non-Jews suspect they are not loyal to the United States,” agreed Prof. Eytan Gilboa, a political scientist at Bar-Ilan University who specializes in American Jewish-Israeli relations and has written a book on such polls.

But, he added, these Jews were usually wrong. “In fact, most of the non-Jews have thought the opposite, and I think this is still true today, [particularly] in a period when there is a distancing between American Jews and Israel, and a new generation [of young American Jews] that doesn’t know much about Israel,” he said, adding that “American Jewry’s position [on the Middle East] is complex. The Israel issue is part of it, but it doesn’t have a veto. American Jewry wants first of all to see itself as American.”

Yet, despite this, “over the last two years, Israel’s enemies have succeeded in pushing them into the corner, putting them on the defensive,” he believes. “You see accusations – not from the fringes – that the war in Iraq only took place in order to help Israel,” he said, and “the Jews are accused of dual loyalties.”

The study also found that, though Protestants as a whole were evenly divided on the war (49% for and 48% against), African-American Protestants (who were grouped with other Protestants because the study divided according to religions) opposed the war in equal measure to the Jews, with 78% opposing the war and 18% supporting.

The Jews even outpaced Americans with “no religious affiliation,” who took second-place with 66% opposed and 33% in favor. Catholics came in third with 53% opposed and 46% in favor. Mormons, meanwhile, were most supportive of the war, with 72% in favor and 27% against.

 

IT’S LONELY AT THE TOP

Hatred of America unites the world
By Niall Ferguson
The (London) Sunday Telegraph
February 25, 2007

www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/02/25/do2501.xml

Being hated is no fun. Few of us are like those pantomime villains who glory in the hisses and boos of an audience. And few people hate being hated more than Americans. I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve been asked the plaintive question: “Why do they hate us?” and another for each of the different answers I’ve heard. It’s because of our foreign policy. It’s because of their extremism. It’s because of our arrogance. It’s because of their inferiority complex. Americans really hate not knowing why they’re hated.

The best explanation is in fact the simplest. Being hated is what happens to dominant empires. It comes – sometimes literally – with the territory. George Orwell knew the feeling. As a young man he served as an assistant police superintendent in British-run Burma, an experience he memorably described in his essay “Shooting an Elephant”. Called upon to kill a rogue pachyderm that had run amok, Orwell was suddenly aware “of the watchful yellow faces behind” him:

“The sole thought in my mind was that if anything went wrong those two thousand Burmans would see me pursued, caught, trampled on and reduced to a grinning corpse like that Indian up the hill. And if that happened it was quite probable that some of them would laugh.”

Eric Blair, as Orwell was known then, could scarcely have been better prepared for his role as a colonial official. Born in Bengal, the son of a colonial civil servant, he had been educated at Eton, where boys learn not to worry much about being hated. Yet even he found the resentment of the natives hard to bear: “In the end the sneering... faces of young men that met me everywhere, the insults hooted after me when I was at a safe distance, got badly on my nerves ... [It] was perplexing and upsetting.”

That’s a feeling American soldiers in Baghdad must know pretty well. How does that old Randy Newman song go? “No one likes us – I don’t know why. / We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try.”

But who hates Americans the most? You might assume that it’s people in countries that the United States has recently attacked or threatened to attack. Americans themselves are clear about who their principal enemies are. Asked by Gallup to name the “greatest enemy” of the United States today, 26 per cent of those polled named Iran, 21 per cent named Iraq and 18 per cent named North Korea. Incidentally, that represents quite a success for George W. Bush’s concept of the “Axis of Evil”. Six years ago, only 8 per cent named Iran and only 2 per cent North Korea.

Are those feelings of antagonism reciprocated? Up to a point. According to a poll by Gallup’s Centre for Muslim Studies, 52 per cent of Iranians have an unfavourable view of the United States. But that figure is down from 63 per cent in 2001. And it’s significantly lower than the degree of antipathy towards the United States felt in Jordan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Two thirds of Jordanians and Pakistanis have a negative view of the United States and a staggering 79 per cent of Saudis. Sentiment has also turned hostile in Lebanon, where 59 per cent of people now have an unfavourable opinion of the United States, compared with just 41 per cent a year ago. No fewer than 84 per cent of Lebanese Shiites say they have a very unfavourable view of Uncle Sam.

These figures suggest a paradox in the Muslim world. It’s not America’s enemies who hate the United States most, it’s people in countries that are supposed to be America’s friends, if not allies.

The paradox doesn’t end there. The Gallup poll (which surveyed 10,000 Muslims in 10 different countries) also revealed that the wealthier and better-educated Muslims are, the more likely they are to be politically radical. So if you ever believed that anti-Western sentiment was an expression of poverty and deprivation, think again. Even more perplexingly, Islamists are more supportive of democracy than Muslim moderates. Those who imagined that the Middle East could be stabilised with a mixture of economic and political reform could not have been more wrong. The richer these people get, the more they favour radical Islamism. And they see democracy as a way of putting the radicals into power.

The paradox of unfriendly allies is not confined to the Middle East. Last week was not a good week for Americanophiles in Europe. Tony Blair announced British troop withdrawals from southern Iraq, an unfortunate signal on the eve of the American “surge”. Meanwhile, in Rome, his counterpart Romano Prodi had to resign because his coalition partners would not agree either to keep Italian troops in Afghanistan or to enlarge a US military base at Vicenza. Anti-Americanism is nothing new in European politics, to be sure, particularly on the Left. But there is something novel going on here, which extends to traditionally pro-American constituencies.

Back in 1999, 83 per cent of British people surveyed by the State Department Office of Research said that they had a favourable opinion of the United States. But by 2006, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, that proportion had fallen to 56 per cent. British respondents to the Pew surveys now give higher favourability ratings to Germany (75 per cent) and Japan (69 per cent) than to the United States – a remarkable transformation in attitudes, given the notorious British tendency to look back both nostalgically and unforgivingly to the Second World War. It’s also very striking that Britons recently polled by Pew regard the US presence in Iraq as a bigger threat to world peace than Iran or North Korea (a view which is shared by respondents in France, Spain, Russia, India, China and throughout the Middle East).

Nor is Britain the only disillusioned ally. Perhaps not surprisingly, two thirds of Americans believe that their country’s foreign policy considers the interests of others. But this view is shared by only 38 per cent of Germans and 19 per cent of Canadians. More than two thirds of Germans surveyed in 2004 believed that American leaders wilfully lied about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction prior to the previous year’s invasion, while a remarkable 60 per cent expressed the view that America’s true motive was “to control Middle Eastern oil”. Nearly half (47 per cent) said it was “to dominate the world”.

The truly poignant fact is that when Americans themselves are asked to rate foreign countries, they express the most favourable views of none other than Britain, Germany and Canada.

Back in the 1990s, Madeleine Albright pompously called the United States “the indispensable nation”. Today it seems to have become the indefensible nation, even in the eyes of its supposed friends.

There are, admittedly, a few scraps of good news in the international polls. Very few Europeans, for example, would welcome China’s becoming a serious military rival to the United States. There is overwhelming European opposition to Iran’s acquiring nuclear weapons. And there is a surprising amount of hostility towards the Palestinian radicals of Hamas in both France and Germany. But look again at some of America’s supposed allies. One in four Indians, two out of five Egyptians and one out of every two Pakistanis favour a nuclear-armed Iran. A third of Britons, half of all Indians and three quarters of Egyptians welcomed the success of Hamas in last year’s Palestinian elections.

Orwell would have understood. Just as it was the educated beneficiaries of British rule in Asia who were the most strident anti-imperialists in Orwell’s day, so the British Empire’s most natural allies – France and the United States – were anything but Anglophile. For it turns out that power not only corrupts, as Lord Acton famously observed, it also tends to isolate.

It’s not for nothing that they say it’s lonely at the top.

 

“U.S. FUNDS SEPARATIST GROUPS TO SOW CHAOS IN IRAN”

US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran
By William Lowther in Washington DC and Colin Freeman
The (London) Sunday Telegraph
February 25, 2007

America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime is accused of repressing minority rights and culture.

In a move that reflects Washington’s growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran’s border regions.

The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.

In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.

Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran’s 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.

Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA’s classified budget but is now “no great secret”, according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: “The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran’s ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime.”

Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces. Last Monday, Iran publicly hanged a man, Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, for his involvement in a bomb attack that killed 11 Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan. An unnamed local official told the semi-official Fars news agency that weapons used in the attack were British and US-made.

Yesterday, Iranian forces also claimed to have killed 17 rebels described as “mercenary elements” in clashes near the Turkish border, which is a stronghold of the Pejak, a Kurdish militant party linked to Turkey’s outlawed PKK Kurdistan Workers’ Party.

John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: “The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity.”

Such a policy is fraught with risk, however. Many of the groups share little common cause with Washington other than their opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose regime they accuse of stepping up repression of minority rights and culture.

The Baluchistan-based Brigade of God group, which last year kidnapped and killed eight Iranian soldiers, is a volatile Sunni organisation that many fear could easily turn against Washington after taking its money.

A row has also broken out in Washington over whether to “unleash” the military wing of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), an Iraq-based Iranian opposition group with a long and bloody history of armed opposition to the Iranian regime.

The group is currently listed by the US state department as terrorist organisation, but Mr Pike said: “A faction in the Defence Department wants to unleash them. They could never overthrow the current Iranian regime but they might cause a lot of damage.”

At present, none of the opposition groups are much more than irritants to Teheran, but US analysts believe that they could become emboldened if the regime was attacked by America or Israel. Such a prospect began to look more likely last week, as the UN Security Council deadline passed for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme, and a second American aircraft carrier joined the build up of US naval power off Iran’s southern coastal waters.

The US has also moved six heavy bombers from a British base on the Pacific island of Diego Garcia to the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which could allow them to carry out strikes on Iran without seeking permission from Downing Street.

While Tony Blair reiterated last week that Britain still wanted a diplomatic solution to the crisis, US Vice-President Dick Cheney yesterday insisted that military force was a real possibility.

“It would be a serious mistake if a nation like Iran were to become a nuclear power,” Mr Cheney warned during a visit to Australia. “All options are still on the table.”

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany will meet in London tomorrow to discuss further punitive measures against Iran. Sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear technology and know-how were imposed in December. Additional penalties might include a travel ban on senior Iranian officials and restrictions on non-nuclear business.

 

“THE LEOPARD HASN’T CHANGED HIS SPOTS”

Farrakhan ‘reading list’ includes anti-Israel books, ADL says
Jewish organization says Nation of Islam’s ‘racist’ leader recommended books that purport to expose ‘the truth’ about Jews; Jimmy Carter’s book on Israel-PA conflict also on reading list. ‘Leopard hasn’t changed his spots,’ Abe Foxman says
Yediot Ahronot
February 27, 2007

www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3370306,00.html

“Minister Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic and racist leader of the Nation of Islam, concluded his Saviors’ Day address by recommending to his audience several notoriously anti-Semitic and anti-Israel books,” the Anti-Defamation League said Tuesday.

“Farrakhan may have held his anti-Semitic views in check while on the dais, but if this is what he wants people to read, then the leopard hasn’t changed his spots,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.

“Minister Farrakhan’s reading list includes books that purport to expose ‘the truth’ about Jews and their control of the federal banking system or their role in the African slave trade. It’s a shame that Farrakhan had an opportunity to change his legacy, and he didn’t,” added Foxman.

The ADL said in a statement that “Toward the conclusion of his Saviors’ Day address at Ford Field in Detroit, which was described as his last major speech, Minister Farrakhan told his audience, ‘I want you to become readers’ and put these names down.’

According to the ADL, among the authors and books Farrakhan recommended were:

* The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, which argues that the history of slavery in the New World was dominated by Jewish ship owners and merchants. The book presents a multi-layered attack against the Jewish people, assaulting the integrity of the Jewish religion, the meaning of Jewish history, and the foundations of Jewish scholarship upon which the book’s own fraudulent charges are based.

* The Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins, an anti-Jewish conspiracy theory propagandist, one of the key conspiracy books claiming that the banking system in the U.S. is controlled by a few elite families (most of them Jewish). It is a key text used by anti-Semites on the far right.

* By Way of Deception by Victor Ostrovsky, a discredited book that makes unsubstantiated claims about Israel’s Mossad.

* Palestine Peace Not Apartheid by President Jimmy Carter, a biased, simplistic and distorted view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that portrays Israeli policies in dealing with Palestinians in the territories as inherently racist.

* Copies of The Synagogue of Satan, written by nation of Islam member Ashahed Muhammad, which claims that the world is being manipulated and corrupted by Satanic powers led by Jewish elites, were available for purchase at the event.


All notes and summaries copyright © Tom Gross. All rights reserved.