Recorded Octo­ber 1, 2006
REALAUDIO

Unlike most broad­casts, this pro­gram is intended pri­mar­ily for rhetor­i­cal pur­poses, not for the pur­poses of fac­tual doc­u­men­ta­tion. (Some sources for fur­ther research are sug­gested at the end of this descrip­tion.) High­light­ing the resur­gence of anti-Semitism, the show takes its title from the oft-heard ratio­nal­iza­tion that “the Mossad did it.” [The Mossad is the Israeli for­eign intel­li­gence ser­vice.] Echo­ing neo-Nazi, Islamist and Arab pro­pa­ganda, this ratio­nal­iza­tion is often dredged up to explain just about any mishap or tragedy. After read­ing an elo­quent and sub­stan­tive col­umn about the nature of the new anti-Semitism, Mr. Emory com­pares the venal, vicious reac­tion of peo­ple on the sub­ject of the Arab/Israeli con­flict to the way in which peo­ple behaved with regard to the O.J. Simp­son case. With regard to both sub­jects, peo­ple have been fun­da­men­tally mis­in­formed because the media have not done their job of pre­sent­ing accu­rate infor­ma­tion. Most of the pro­gram con­sists of an enu­mer­a­tion of facts con­cern­ing both the O.J. Simp­son case and the Arab/Israeli conflict—facts of which most peo­ple are fun­da­men­tally unaware.

1. The pro­gram begins with Mr. Emory’s read­ing of a thought­ful col­umn on anti-Semitism. One aspect of the new anti-Semitism is blam­ing every­thing that hap­pens in rela­tion to the Mus­lim world on “the Mossad.” This canard is rather like the old blood libel charge of Jews killing Chris­t­ian or Mus­lim babies to use their blood in the mak­ing of Mat­zoh. “The Mossad did it” is the con­tem­po­rary equiv­a­lent. The title of the pro­gram derives from this. “Hat­ing Jews on racial as well as reli­gious grounds is as old as the Roman destruc­tion of the Sec­ond Tem­ple in Jerusalem. Later in Europe, pogroms and the Holo­caust were the nat­ural devo­lu­tion of that ele­men­tal venom. Anti-Semitism, after World War II, often avoided the burn­ing crosses and Nazi rant­ing. It often appeared as a more sub­tle ani­mos­ity, fueled by envy of suc­cess­ful Jews in the West. ‘The good peo­ple, the nice peo­ple’ often were the cul­prits, accord­ing to a char­ac­ter in the 1947 film, ‘Gentleman’s Agree­ment,’ which dealt with the Amer­i­can aristocracy’s social shun­ning of Jews. A recent third type of anti-Jewish odium is some­thing dif­fer­ent. It is a strange mix­ture of vio­lent hatred by rad­i­cal Islamists and the more or less indif­fer­ence to it by West­ern­ers.”
(“The New Anti-Semitism” by Vic­tor Davis Han­son; San Fran­cisco Chron­i­cle; 9/29/2006; p. B11.)

2. “Those who ran­domly shoot Jews for being Jews—whether at a Jew­ish cen­ter in Seat­tle or at syn­a­gogues in Istanbul—are for the large part Mus­lim zealots. Most in the West explain away the vio­lence. They chalk it up to anger about the end­less tit-for-tat in the Mid­dle East. Yet pri­vately they know that we do not see vio­lent Jews shoot­ing Mus­lims in the United States or Europe. Iran­ian Pres­i­dent Mah­moud Ahmadine­jad promises to wipe Israel ‘off the map.’ He seems eager for the req­ui­site nuclear weapons to fin­ish off what an Iran­ian mul­lah has called a ‘one-bomb state’—meaning Israel’s destruc­tion would only require one nuclear weapon.” (Idem.)

3. “In response, here at home, the Coun­cil on For­eign Rela­tions rewards the Iran­ian pres­i­dent with an invi­ta­tion to speak to its mem­ber­ship. At the podium of that hal­lowed cham­ber, Ahmadine­jad, who ques­tions whether the Holo­caust took place, basi­cally dis­missed a first­hand wit­ness of Dachau by ask­ing whether he really could be that old. The state-run, and thus government-authorized, news­pa­pers of the Mid­dle East, slan­der Jews in bar­baric fash­ion. Mein Kampf (trans­lated, of course, as ‘Jihadi’) sells briskly in the region. Hamas and Hezbol­lah mili­tias on parade emu­late the style of the Nazi brown­shirts. In response, much of the West­ern pub­lic snoozes. They are far more wor­ried about whether a Dan­ish car­toon­ist has car­i­ca­tured Islam, or if Pope Bene­dict XVI has been rude to Mus­lims when quot­ing an obscure 600-year-old Byzan­tine dia­logue.” (Idem.)

4. “In the last two decades, rad­i­cal Islamic ter­ror­ists have bombed and mur­dered thou­sands in Europe and the United States. Their state sup­port­ers in the Mid­dle East have raked in bil­lions in petro-windfall prof­its from energy-hungry West­ern economies. For many in Europe and the United States, sup­port­ing Israel—the Mid­dle East’s only sta­ble democracy—or even its allies in the West has become viewed as both dan­ger­ous and costly. Israel is no longer weak, but proud and ready to defend itself. So, when its ter­ror­ist ene­mies such as Hezbol­lah and Hamas bril­liantly mar­ried their own fas­cist creed with pop­u­lar left-wing mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ism in the West, there was an eerie union: yet another sup­posed Third World vic­tim of a West­ern oppres­sor think­ing it could earn a pass for its mur­der­ous agenda.” (Idem.)

5. “We’re accus­tomed to asso­ci­at­ing hatred of Jews with the ridiculed Nean­derthal right of those in sheets and jack­boots. But this new venom, at least in its West­ern form, is mostly a left-wing, and often an aca­d­e­mic, enter­prise. It’s also far more insid­i­ous, given the left’s moral pre­ten­sions and its influ­ence in the pres­ti­gious media and uni­ver­si­ties. We see the unfor­tu­nate results in fre­quent anti-Israeli demon­stra­tions on cam­puses that con­flate Israel with Nazis, while the media have pub­lished fraud­u­lent pic­tures and slanted events in south­ern Lebanon. The dan­ger of this post-anti-Semitism is not just that Jews are shot in Europe and the United States—or that a drunken celebrity or dem­a­gogue mouths off. Instead, ever so insid­i­ously, rad­i­cal Islam’s hatred of Jews is becom­ing nor­mal­ized. The result is that the world’s politi­cians and media are talk­ing seri­ously with those who not merely want back the West Bank, but rather want an end to Israel alto­gether and every­one inside it.” (Idem.)

6. This descrip­tion also fea­tures another equally thought­ful col­umn by Vic­tor Davis Han­son pub­lished in the San Fran­cisco Chron­i­cle dur­ing the Lebanon War. “The reac­tions and media cov­er­age com­ing out of the West regard­ing this lat­est war in the Mid­dle East are as bewil­der­ing as they are instruc­tive. Rep. John Din­gell, D-Mich., for exam­ple, recently said, ‘I don’t take sides for or against Hezbol­lah or for or against Israel.’ Mean­while, the West­ern news agency Reuters, respond­ing to scrutiny by blog­gers, with­drew wire pho­tos taken by a free­lance pho­tog­ra­pher of a smoky and burn­ing Beirut. Reuters had failed to catch the freelancer’s doc­tor­ing of the pho­tos to empha­size unduly the dam­age from Israeli bombs. And the Asso­ci­ated Press notes that ini­tially reported Lebanese claims of 40 ‘civil­ians’ killed by Israeli air strikes at Houla, Lebanon, in fact, were mistaken—and that the lat­est reports have low­ered the death toll to one. In Qana, where the Israeli mil­i­tary had hit an apart­ment build­ing (and were quickly cen­sured by Euro­pean states­men), the num­ber of civil­ian fatal­i­ties reported also kept decreas­ing as reports were scru­ti­nized. Plus, we have learned that sev­eral hours lapsed between the drop­ping of the bombs and the fatal col­lapse of the build­ing, rais­ing fur­ther ques­tions about the rela­tion­ship between the bomb­ing and the fatal­i­ties that fol­lowed. Finally, based on pho­tographs from the scene, the onsite res­cue appeared staged for reporters.”
(“Worry About the West—Not Israel” by Vic­tor Davis Han­son; San Fran­cisco Chron­i­cle; 8/10/2006; p. B9.)

7. “These dis­crep­an­cies sug­gest we have lit­tle idea what actu­ally hap­pened on the ground there—other than that Qana has been a favored missile-launching site against Israel as a recent deadly aer­ial assault from there on Haifa attests. There is a depress­ing pat­tern here. The sources for West­ern erro­neous reports and faked pic­tures always seem to exag­ger­ate the dam­age to Lebanon—but never to Israel. Like­wise, West­ern news agen­cies rarely list a pre­cise num­ber of Hezbol­lah losses, instead lump­ing them in with civil­ian fatal­i­ties. Does that mean that some­one who launches a mis­sile in Levis and sneak­ers is not a com­bat­ant? In addi­tion, the his­tory and nature do not mat­ter to many in the West. Know­ingly or not, news out­lets con­tinue to spread Hezbollah’s pro­pa­ganda. One won­ders if West­ern­ers remem­ber or know that, until, Sept. 11, Hezbol­lah had killed more Amer­i­cans than had any other ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tion. Most ignore, as well, that Hezbol­lah pre­cip­i­tated this cri­sis by kid­nap­ping and killing Israeli sol­diers, and launch­ing mis­siles against Israel’s cities.” (Idem.)

8. “In retal­i­a­tion, the Israeli Defense Forces use pre­ci­sion bombs to tar­get com­bat­ants and try to avoid civil­ian casu­al­ties (though the lat­ter is nearly impos­si­ble against an enemy who doesn’t wear uni­forms and uses non-combatants as ‘human shields’). In con­trast, every ran­dom mis­sile launched by Hezbol­lah is intended to hit a civil­ian tar­get. One one side of this con­flict is a true democ­racy that was attacked. On the other are ter­ror­ists who hijacked the sov­er­eign gov­ern­ment of Lebanon, insti­tuted theo­cratic rule over a third of the country—and started a war. Hezbol­lah, of course, has been enabled in large part thanks to Iran­ian petro-dollars and intim­i­da­tion. But the nature of Hezbollah’s patrons doesn’t seem to mat­ter to many West­ern­ers, either. Those now call­ing for ‘dia­logue’ with the ‘major play­ers’ ignore that Iran promises to wipe out Israel. The French for­eign min­is­ter was quick to praise the regional role of theo­cratic Iran as ‘sta­bi­liz­ing.’ Then there’s Hezbollah’s other patron, Syria, a coun­try that bru­tally occu­pied Lebanon, har­bors ter­ror­ists and is sus­pected of being behind the assas­si­na­tion of Lebanese reformist Prime Min­is­ter Rafik Hariri.” (Idem.)

9. “So, what then does mat­ter to so many West­ern­ers about this war? Our fear, of course. We want to avoid messy com­pli­ca­tions like stir­ring up another Sept. 11 ter­ror­ist attack or Madrid bomb­ing, spik­ing oil prices to over $80 a bar­rel, or tread­ing on polit­i­cally incor­rect ground by crit­i­ciz­ing the ‘other’ of the for­mer Third World. The West­ern press—usually so care­ful to con­demn hate speech—is utterly silent about Arab racism. But a Euro­pean paper recently pub­lished a car­toon por­tray­ing Israeli Prime Min­is­ter Ehud Olmert as a Nazi, secure that no rabbi would issue threats that could cost the edi­tors their heads.” (Idem.)

10. “Still, when this is all over, we should not worry about the sur­vival of Israel. For weeks, pun­dits have been lec­tur­ing how canny and adept Hezbol­lah has proved—and how a clumsy Israel could only respond by destroy­ing Lebanon’s infra­struc­ture. Yet, when the dust set­tles, the world will learn that Lebanon out­side Hezbollah’s domain is not destroyed. And, one hopes, those who have suf­fered in the Hezbollah-controlled south will reex­am­ine their sup­port for a ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tion that has brought them—and itself—to near ruin. Instead, far more wor­ri­some is the moral cri­sis in the West itself. If so many of its politi­cians, intel­lec­tu­als and media will not or can­not fathom moral dif­fer­ences in this war, they will hardly be able to see them any­where else.” (Idem.)

11. Mr. Emory com­pares the expe­ri­ence of cov­er­ing the Israeli/Palestinian con­flict to cov­er­ing the O.J. Simp­son case. Peo­ple are stri­dently, viciously polar­ized on both issues and fun­da­men­tally misinformed—misinformed BECAUSE THE MEDIA UPON WHICH THEY DEPEND FOR THEIR INFORMATION ARE NOT PROPERLY INFORMING THEM. Although the pub­lic is not, for the most part, aware of it, there was a moun­tain of excul­pa­tory evi­dence in the O.J. Simp­son case, as well as enough evi­dence to indict, and per­haps con­vict, Mark Fuhrman, the detec­tive who con­ducted the ille­gal search of O.J.’s prop­erty. In the next para­graph, we will exam­ine some of that evi­dence.
Note that this is, as the title states, a fire­side chat. It is an infor­mal talk. Mr. Emory did not source his dis­cus­sion of the OJ case. For the over­whelm­ing major­ity of the infor­ma­tion, use the search func­tion to locate old pro­grams about the case. They are all avail­able on the archive page main­tained by WFMU.

12. Mr. Emory enu­mer­ated a num­ber of essen­tial facts about the O.J. Simp­son case that the media did not (for the most part) com­mu­ni­cate. The media did not tell peo­ple: that a report was sub­mit­ted to pros­e­cu­tor Mar­cia Clark a week or so after the killings indi­cat­ing that Mark Fuhrman had a sex­ual inter­est in Nicole Brown Simp­son and may well have had an affair with her; that Mark Fuhrman was the head of a white suprema­cist group within the Los Ange­les Police Depart­ment called WASP (“White Anglo-Saxon Police­men”); that O.J. and Nicole Simp­son were receiv­ing death threats from white suprema­cist groups (includ­ing some affil­i­ated with the Los Ange­les Police Depart­ment); that Judge Lance Ito’s wife was the high­est rank­ing female mem­ber of the LAPD; that Ito’s wife had been Fuhrman’s watch com­man­der and had to dis­ci­pline Fuhrman when he wrote “KKK” on the Mar­tin Luther King Hol­i­day on the sta­tion house cal­en­dar; that Ito’s wife later claimed she had no rec­ol­lec­tion of Fuhrman and that, there­fore, Judge Ito had no con­flict of inter­est; that Fuhrman lied on the stand dur­ing the pre-trial hear­ings about where he was and what he was doing on the night of the killings; that Nicole wasn’t liv­ing in fear of O.J.—she had a pizza party at O.J.’s a few weeks before the killings; that all of the prin­ci­ples in the case had links to “orga­nized vice’; that Nicole appears to have been work­ing as a call girl for Heidi Fleiss’s ring (the call girl oper­a­tion of “the Hol­ly­wood Madam”); that Ron Gold­man was openly gay and had no pas­sion­ate inter­est in Nicole; that Ron Gold­man may well have been work­ing as a gay pros­ti­tute and that he was receiv­ing death threats from his jeal­ous gay lover; that Michael Nigg—a defense witness—was mur­dered shortly before he was to tes­tify; that Casimir “Butch Casey” Sucharski—a reputed orga­nized crime asso­ciate of O.J.’s from his play­ing days was mur­dered shortly after being writ­ten about in the Buf­falo News; that Cowl­ings and Robert Kar­dashian (O.J.’s friend and attor­ney) were under inves­ti­ga­tion by a grand jury for pos­si­ble involve­ment in the largest sports-betting ring in Cal­i­for­nia; that Cowl­ings was a dri­ver and body­guard for Joey Ippolito, a major South­ern Cal­i­for­nia orga­nized crime fig­ure; that Nicole tes­ti­fied in her divorce tes­ti­mony that the New Year’s eve inci­dent was the only time O.J. had been vio­lent with her; that Duane Garrett—a Bay Area AM radio talk show host—reported that O.J. had approached by Edward J. DeBar­tolo, Jr. (the owner of the San Fran­cisco 49’ers) and offered mil­lions of dol­lars to become the first black NFL fran­chise owner; that O.J. (accord­ing to Gar­rett) turned the offer down because of the alleged orga­nized crime con­nec­tions of DeBar­tolo; that Gar­rett began receiv­ing death threats shortly after he made the report; that roughly a year after mak­ing the report, Gar­rett went off the Golden Gate Bridge (an alleged sui­cide); that the Mez­za­luna restau­rant (at which Ron Gold­man worked and which was man­aged by Nicole’s boy friend) was well known to have been an orga­nized crime front; that Ron Goldman’s father is alleged in a book pub­lished in Swe­den to be a money-launderer for orga­nized crime; that Denise Brown (Nicole’s sis­ter) was dat­ing Tony “the Ani­mal” Fiatto (a for­mer mob enforcer turned Fed­eral infor­mant); that there is abun­dant, irrefutable evi­dence that the LAPD fal­si­fied evi­dence to frame O.J.; that the Los Ange­les County grand jury would not indict O.J.; that wit­nesses who saw the real killers were intim­i­dated into silence; that knowl­edge­able inside sources allege that the killing of Ron and Nicole was videotaped—the ulti­mate snuff flick.

13. Per­haps the most dis­turb­ing aspect of the O.J. case was the per­ver­sion of the judi­cial process and the estab­lish­ment of legal prece­dents that fun­da­men­tally under­mine cen­turies of Anglo-Saxon legal tra­di­tion. The Cal­i­for­nia leg­is­la­ture passed a spe­cial law, vir­tu­ally in secret, which allowed Nicole’s “diary” to be intro­duced as evi­dence. The vol­ume was not, how­ever, a diary but a thought jour­nal that was main­tained for her ther­a­pist. It included her dreams and fan­tasies. With that rul­ing, Cal­i­for­nia law (and poten­tially U.S. law) reverted to the Salem Witch Tri­als. In the civil case, one of the prin­ci­pal fac­tors decid­ing the case for the plain­tiffs was the intro­duc­tion of some crudely forged pic­tures of O.J. wear­ing “Bruno Magli shoes.” One set of the forged pic­tures showed O.J. wear­ing what pur­port to be “gray” Bruno Magli shoes. Bruno Magli has never made a gray shoe! This evi­den­tiary trav­esty was allowed to stand because O.J.’s coun­sel was pre­vented from exam­in­ing the evi­dence against his client! Mr. Emory hasn’t done much pro­gram­ming about the breach of civil lib­er­ties imple­mented by some of the legal maneu­ver­ing around the “war on ter­ror.” The dam­age occurred a long time ago.

14. As with the O.J. Simp­son case, the vast major­ity of peo­ple have a fun­da­men­tally dis­torted view of the Israeli/Arab con­flict. Although anti-Semitism plays a role in this dis­tor­tion, eco­nom­ics and the polit­i­cal power derived from petro­leum wealth has more to do with this. (For more about this, see FTR#’s 560, 561, 564, 565, 566, 567.) Ques­tion: Do the Arabs have oil? Ques­tion: Does Israel have oil? Ques­tion: Is oil (arguably) the most impor­tant source of wealth and power in the indus­trial world? Ques­tion: the last time you filled up your gas tank, did you fill it up with mat­zoh ball soup, or gaso­line? Ques­tion: are the Pres­i­dent and Vice-President of the United States rab­bis or petro­leum indus­try CEO’s from the state of Texas? Answer these cor­rectly, and you will be in a posi­tion to under­stand the depth of the dis­tor­tion that dri­ves what Vic­tor Davis Han­son terms “the new anti-Semitism.”

15. Most peo­ple view­ing the Arab/Israeli con­flict do not under­stand that: the Pales­tin­ian cause and its lead­ers are affil­i­ated with geno­cide and fas­cism through­out its his­tory; that the gen­e­sis of the Nazi/Palestinian axis derives from the Ottoman Empire’s impe­r­ial dynamic of sup­port­ing the Hus­seini clan against the Hasemite and Nashashibi clans; that Haj Amin al-Husseini (the first leader of the Pales­tin­ian national move­ment) began his pro­fes­sional life as an offi­cer in the Turk­ish army dur­ing World War I (which was com­mit­ting geno­cide against the Chris­t­ian Arme­ni­ans and per­pe­trat­ing a bru­tal, atrocity-ridden counter-insurgency cam­paign against Arab insur­gents); that the British adopted the same pro-Husseini impe­r­ial dynamic as the Turks when they assumed stew­ard­ship of that part of the Ottoman Empire; that Hus­seini began per­pe­trat­ing pogroms against Jews liv­ing in Pales­tine decades before the state of Israel came into being; that Hus­seini later became an SS offi­cer, recruited three Balkan Mus­lim Waf­fen SS divi­sions for the Third Reich and also worked for Impe­r­ial Japan; that the League of Nations (and the British) endorsed a 23/77 per­cent divi­sion of Pales­tine between, respec­tively Jews and Arabs; that the British (in the run-up to the Sec­ond World War and in an attempt to curry favor with the Arabs) first reduced, and then negated, their com­mit­ment to the Bal­four Dec­la­ra­tion grant­ing the Jews a Mid­dle East­ern home­land; that the 1948 U.N. res­o­lu­tion estab­lish­ing the state of Israel also called for the estab­lish­ment of a Pales­tin­ian state (which nei­ther the Arabs nor the Pales­tini­ans made any attempt to estab­lish); that the Saudis are the pri­mary financier of the Pales­tin­ian cause; that the Saudis (despite being an orig­i­nal mem­ber of the United Nations) have never acknowl­edged the Uni­ver­sal Dec­la­ra­tion of Human Rights—the legal and philo­soph­i­cal foun­da­tion of the United Nations; that Saudi Ara­bia issued a com­pet­ing “Uni­ver­sal Dec­la­ra­tion of Mus­lim Rights” which (in effect) said that only Mus­lims had rights; that the major­ity of Pales­tini­ans left their homes at the request of their lead­ers so that the Jews could be wiped out when the Arab armies were pro­vided with a clear field of fire; that (under the statutes of inter­na­tional law) Israel’s occu­pa­tion of the West Bank is not illegal—no sov­er­eign state claims the ter­ri­tory as its own (the Pales­tini­ans are not, and never have been, a sov­er­eign state); that the U.N. res­o­lu­tions call­ing for Israel to with­draw from the West Bank are rec­om­men­da­tion (not enforce­ment) res­o­lu­tions and, as such, are fun­da­men­tally dif­fer­ent from enforce­ment res­o­lu­tions; that the 2000 peace res­o­lu­tion rejected by Yasser Arafat called for the estab­lish­ment of a com­mon mar­ket to be shared by Israel and the Pales­tini­ans; that (prior to Israel’s with­drawal from the Gaza Strip) a group of wealthy Amer­i­can Jews con­tributed mil­lions of dol­lars to buy some hydro­ponic veg­etable grow­ing facil­i­ties and ware­houses to give to the Pales­tini­ans as a good-will ges­ture; that those facil­i­ties had gen­er­ated between 10 and 20 per­cent of Israel’s agri­cul­ture exports; that those hydro­pon­ics facil­i­ties would have pro­vided the Pales­tini­ans with 24,000 good jobs; that the Pales­tini­ans destroyed those facil­i­ties almost imme­di­ately upon re-occupying the Gaza Strip; that (fol­low­ing Israel’s war of inde­pen­dence in 1948) the Arab nations eth­ni­cally cleansed most of their own Jew­ish pop­u­la­tions; that the num­ber of Jews so cleansed (about 900,000 by best esti­mates) exceeds the orig­i­nal num­ber of Pales­tini­ans cleansed by the Israelis (about 660,000 accord­ing to the best avail­able sta­tis­tics); that most of the eth­ni­cally cleansed Mid­dle East­ern Jews set­tled in Israel where (known as “the Mizrahi”) they con­sti­tute the foun­da­tion of the Israeli polit­i­cal and elec­toral right-wing, that gay mem­bers of the IDF (the Israel Defense Force) receive full spousal ben­e­fits for their domes­tic partners.

16. As noted at the begin­ning of this broad­cast and in FTR#565, Mr. Emory doesn’t have the time or money (and con­se­quent stor­age space) to archive mate­r­ial on the Israeli/Palestinian cri­sis. And, as noted in the begin­ning of this broad­cast, the pro­gram is a fire­side chat, intended for rhetorical/philosophical pur­poses, not archival ones. Inter­ested lis­ten­ers should pur­sue doc­u­men­tary sources for them­selves. A great deal of mate­r­ial can be gleaned from the Spit­fire web­site, includ­ing the book Cairo to Dam­as­cus by John Roy Carl­son (avail­able for down­load on the Spit­fire web­site.) Be sure to exam­ine the descrip­tion for that show at: http://www.spitfirelist.com/Books/CairotoDamascus.html. Some of the early his­tory of the Israeli/Palestinian con­flict can be accessed in FTR#519. The book The Secret War Against the Jews by John Lof­tus and Mark Aarons chron­i­cles some of the clan­des­tine his­tory of the for­ma­tion of Israel and the Arab/Israeli con­flict. The vol­ume From Time Immemo­r­ial by Joan Peters con­tains impor­tant (but very tedious) demo­graphic analy­sis of the devel­op­ment of the Arab/Israeli conflict.