08.08.2013 Views

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion -- Book - A Gentle Cynic

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion -- Book - A Gentle Cynic

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion -- Book - A Gentle Cynic

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

BOOK ONE — INTRODUCTION<br />

Lybia, and many o<strong>the</strong>r Arabic leaders, kings, monarchs, etc. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Protocols</strong> were published<br />

again in an <strong>of</strong>ficial Egyptian cultural journal at Cairo, al-Majalla in November, 1960, by Salah<br />

Dasuqi, “a senior government <strong>of</strong>ficial” — <strong>the</strong> military governor <strong>of</strong> Cairo, and later ambassador<br />

to Finland, and until recently, readers did not know <strong>the</strong> au<strong>the</strong>nticity <strong>of</strong> <strong>The</strong> <strong>Protocols</strong> had been<br />

challenged — “<strong>the</strong> sole discordant voice coming from Marxist critics who reject personal<br />

explanations <strong>of</strong> history, such as those relied upon in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Protocols</strong>.” 174/ Only one unnamed writer<br />

denied Arab reliance upon <strong>the</strong> <strong>Protocols</strong>, by quoting an Iraqi (news) broadcast on he <strong>The</strong><br />

<strong>Protocols</strong>, which said <strong>the</strong>y were “`as <strong>of</strong> questionable au<strong>the</strong>nticity,’” 175/ after reporting earlier that<br />

“<strong>the</strong> prevailing opinion at <strong>the</strong> present time is that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Protocols</strong> are a forged document.” 176/ Here<br />

again, no denial <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> content nor is <strong>the</strong> author-entity or content in question here: only <strong>the</strong><br />

authority to publish <strong>the</strong>m, which is a backhanded admission that <strong>the</strong> publication was as<br />

represented, but not approved for publication. It supposedly “represented some progress, but<br />

leaves a number <strong>of</strong> questions unanswered,” such as who “forged” <strong>the</strong> document, and what does<br />

<strong>the</strong> document represent. It is well worth noting that Mr. Lewis states that<br />

“[t]here is little to indicate that <strong>the</strong> forgers were anti-Jewish or and that <strong>The</strong><br />

<strong>Protocols</strong> were used by <strong>the</strong> Nazis to justify racist action against <strong>the</strong> Jews. On <strong>the</strong><br />

contrary, <strong>the</strong> unwary [i.e.,, <strong>the</strong> non-Jewish influenced?] reader could be left with<br />

<strong>the</strong> impression that if <strong>the</strong> <strong>Protocols</strong> were not actually fabricated by <strong>the</strong> Jews, <strong>the</strong>y<br />

never<strong>the</strong>less accurately reflect <strong>the</strong> image which <strong>the</strong> <strong>Zion</strong>ists hold <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>mselves<br />

and which <strong>the</strong>y desire to project to o<strong>the</strong>rs [i.e, to o<strong>the</strong>r Jews as well as to <strong>the</strong><br />

world].” 177/<br />

And this is exactly what Henry Ford said long ago, and for which he was compelled —<br />

supposedly — to apologize.<br />

Fur<strong>the</strong>r, in an amazingly complete concord with Nikita Kruschechev, (quoted at n. * on<br />

<strong>the</strong> Title Page <strong>of</strong> this <strong>Book</strong>), Mr. Lewis states: “Here <strong>the</strong> writer makes use <strong>of</strong> a <strong>the</strong>ory which is<br />

much used in Arabic writings <strong>of</strong> this kind — that <strong>Zion</strong>ism and anti-Semitism are one and <strong>the</strong><br />

same, that <strong>Zion</strong>ists and anti-Semites are natural allies and collaborators, and thus, whenever <strong>the</strong><br />

one or <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r was responsible for <strong>the</strong> <strong>Protocols</strong> really makes very little difference.” 178/<br />

174 ARABIC PUBLICATIONS OF THE PROTOCOLS. Lewis, Semites & Anti-Semites, Chp. 8,<br />

“War Against <strong>the</strong> Jews,” at p. 208-9, n. 15. This same Dasuqi was also “<strong>the</strong> author <strong>of</strong> a booklet<br />

[Amirika Musta c mara Sahyuniyya (Cairo, 1957)], demonstrating that <strong>the</strong> United States is a<br />

colonial dependency <strong>of</strong> Israel, and not <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r way around.” Lewis, id., at Notes, n. 15, p. 271.<br />

175 AS OF QUESTIONABLE AUTHENTICITY. See: Abdelwahab M. Elmessiri, “Arab views<br />

on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Protocols</strong>,” Foreign Affairs, (April, 1977), 55: 641-642; Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites,<br />

Chp 8, “War Against <strong>the</strong> Jews,” p. 209, n. 17.<br />

176 PROTOCOLS BELIEVED A FORGED DOCUMENT. See: Abdelwahab M. Elmessiri,<br />

Article, in al-Ahram, February 22, 1974; Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites, Chp. 8., “War<br />

Against <strong>the</strong> Jews,” at p. 209. (Underlined emphasis added).<br />

177 QUESTIONS UNANSWERED; NO RACIST INDICATIONS. Lewis, id., p. 209.<br />

178 ZIONISM & ANTI-SEMITISM ARE NATURAL ALLIES. Lewis, Semites &Anti-Semites,<br />

id., Chp. , “,” at p. 209. A very accurate observation; but consider: to which “writer” is it<br />

regarding: Mr. Lewis himself?, or <strong>the</strong> previous Arab author, Mr. Abdelwahab M. Elmessiri,<br />

quoted above? And, why does Lewis not refute this alleged similarity, ra<strong>the</strong>r than merely<br />

mention it without defense — unless it is true and he cannot deny it? (Ed.).<br />

THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION Page -55-

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!