Record­ed Octo­ber 1, 2006

Lis­ten: MP3 Side 1  Side 2

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. 

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: https://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.