Report: NIF, EU, UN Drive Ferocious Campaign to Quash Israel’s Nationality Law


I am a bit disturbed and perturbed that Left-Wing Jews are shooting themselves in the foot by working against shoring up the Jewish identity of Israel by propagandizing Israel’s public with typical lies about the new Nationality Law.

 

Apparently Leftists of all nations are supportive of the Multiculturalism that destroys the national identity and culture of all nations. I would not be surprised if Jews in America also supportive of a Leftist agenda to suppress the Jewish national identity in the Land of the Jews.

 

JewishPress.com has the story of how Israel’s Left is destroying their own nation.

 

JRH 8/7/18

Please Support NCCR

***********************

Report: NIF, EU, UN Drive Ferocious Campaign to Quash Israel’s Nationality Law

 

By JNi.Media

26 Av 5778 – August 7, 2018

JewishPress.com

 

Rabin Square Rally against the Nationality Law, August 4, 2018

 

In the week before the Saturday night rally in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square against Israel’s new Nationality Law, the organizers issued frequent announcements to the media, signed by the “headquarters of the struggle against the Nationality Law.”

 

According to the website Mida, the group behind the “struggle” is Anu (Us in Hebrew), a leftist NGO supported by the New Israel Fund, the European Union, UNESCO, and the Shoken fund, to name a few.

 

Anu is also behind an online funding campaign to raise money for the rally and the continued fight against the new law.

 

To remind you, the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, enacted July 19 by a majority of 62 to 55 with 2 abstaining, establishes the constitutionality of the three historic Zionist principles: the free return of the Jews to the land of our fathers; the free settlement of Jews everywhere in Israel; and the miraculously revived Hebrew as the official language of the Jewish State. Calling these principles racist and part of an apartheid policy is tantamount to attacking the very existence of a Jewish State.

 

But the Anu-supported “Struggle Headquarters” describes the new Basic Law (meaning it is constitutional) in a distorted way, with clear post-Zionist attitudes woven between the lines.

 

For one thing, the Struggle Headquarters does not distinguish between Israeli minorities who committed to military service and those who do not, presenting the protest as being shared by “Druze, Jews and Arabs.” This despite the yawning gap between the position of a large number of Israeli Arabs, who identify themselves as “Palestinians” and pray for the destruction of Israel, and the overwhelming majority of the Druze, who are proud of their country and fight for it in the battlefield.

 

The Struggle Headquarters propaganda maliciously misrepresents the law, using a false comparison between two Border Guard officers, one a Jew, the other a Druze, and stating that “the Nationality Law states explicitly: They are not brothers! They are not equal!”

 

The new law does no such thing, of course. It certainly does not violate the civil rights of Druze citizens, nor does it violate the equality between Jewish and Druze citizens.

 

The Struggle Headquarters intentionally lies to the public, suggesting the new law “officially cancels the principle of civil equality” and “justifies inequality in the distribution of national resources,” both utterly baseless claims.

 

They also claim the law “cancels the recognition of Arabic as an official language,” when the Nationality Law, which crowns Hebrew as the Jewish State’s official language, also explicitly uphold the special status given to the Arabic language.

 

Along with the above distortions, the Struggle Headquarters is also infected with post-Zionism: “The government, deliberately, violates the international right of minorities to national self-determination as minority groups,” the campaign declares, but fails to explain what is the basis for this so-called “international right.” That’s because no such right exists.

 

Minority rights, as applying to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples, are an integral part of international human rights law, designed to ensure that a specific group which is in a vulnerable, disadvantaged or marginalized position in society, is able to achieve equality and is protected from persecution. The concerns of international legal conventions on minority rights are not to prevent nation-states such as England, Denmark, France or Israel from remaining so, but to prevent the genocide of minorities in places like the former Yugoslavia or east Africa. In countries with a Western democratic tradition, minority rights are usually protected by affirmative action quotas.

 

And yet, the literature disseminated by the Struggle Headquarters say Israel must provide “national self-determination” to Israeli Arabs, many of whom identify themselves as “Palestinians.” This is a concept that promotes eliminating the uniqueness of the Jewish national identity of the State of Israel.

 

This post-Zionist outlook joins similar statements made by Druze former General Amal Assad, one of the leaders of the struggle against the Nationality Law, who believes the Jews do not have a unique right to the Land of Israel, as he put it recently on his Facebook page: “Where did you get the nerve to determine that the country belongs to the Jews? What is the foundation of the claim of the Jewish right and ownership of the land?”

 

Last week, it was the same Assad who caused the collapse of a meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu and the heads of the Druze community, when he declared that Israel is on its way to becoming an “apartheid state.”

 

THE LEADER

 

One of the prominent figures in the “struggle against national law” is Dr. Ricki Tessler, a faculty member at the Hebrew University’s School of Education and chair of the Academic Forum on Civics Education. Tessler is the spearhead in the campaign to eliminate national-Zionist values from the teaching of civil studies, in favor of “universal” values ​​that correspond to the values ​​of a state of all its citizens.

 

In an interview with the Knesset TV channel, Tesler expressed her rage at the fact that the country’s civil studies books teach that “the government can make decisions because it is the majority,” protesting: “Where will all this lead us?”

 

In other words, Tessler is enraged by the most basic principle of democracy: majority rule.

 

ANU AND THE NIF

 

Anu is a federation of lefwing [sic] organizations, including Agenda, heavily sponsored by the New Israel Fund (80% of its budget came from NIF).

 

Agenda’s board included NIF’s Executive Director in Israel, Rachel Liel; MK Daniel Ben-Simon (Zionist Union); and former Israel TV news director and current mayor of the Druze town of Daliat al-Carmel, Rafik Halabi, who is one of the pillars of the protest against the Nationality Law; and the group’s director-general Anat Saragusti, who later ran B’Tselem US.

 

Between 2014 and 2017, Anu received more than $550,000 in grants from the NIF. The NGO also receives grants from the European Union and the UN, the specific amounts are not yet known.

 

Anu’s online guide to anti-government demonstrators across Israel.

 

Anu serves the leftist agenda, dedicating its official website and Facebook page to promoting leftwing demonstrations under the title “The People Are Fighting Corruption.” Anu provides organizational knowledge to expand the circle of participants in the demonstrations, offering an online demonstrations map, directing users to the locations of the demonstrations throughout the country, and providing updates via email on upcoming rallies.

 

To date, Anu has launched an extensive campaign to prevent the expulsion of illegal African infiltrators, spreading blatant lies such as that “the State of Israel expels tens of thousands into mortal danger”; demonstrations against the government’s natural gas outline; rallies against the demolition of illegal construction in Bedouin settlements in the Negev; and support for the Barbur Art Gallery in Jerusalem, which hosted members of extreme leftist, anti-Israel organizations in a venue that is public property belonging to the Jerusalem Municipality.

 

Among the more bizarre campaigns appearing on the organization’s website is “The struggle against brain-control crimes.” Anu claims that “university management retirees, together with subcontractors from intelligence organizations, fire electromagnetic radiation to establish remote brain control, to manage the citizens using microwave radiation.”

___________________

JNi.Media provides editors and publishers with high quality Jewish-focused content for their publications.

 

© The Jewish Press 2018. All Rights Reserved. 

 

JewishPress.com – Bringing you the news from Israel and the Jewish World

 

About Jewish Press

 

The Jewish Press is the largest independent weekly Jewish newspaper in the United States. The paper, founded by Rabbi Sholom Klass (1916-2000) and Mr. Raphael Schreiber (1885-1980), debuted as a national weekly in January 1960 and quickly won a following for its eclectic mix of Jewish news, political and religious commentary, the largest Jewish classifieds and special features — including puzzles, games and illustrated stories —  for young readers.

 

For over five decades now The Jewish Press has championed Torah values and ideals from a centrist or Modern Orthodox perspective. The paper has been a tireless advocate on behalf of the State of Israel, Soviet Jewry, and agunot (women whose husbands refuse to grant them a religious divorce), and has taken the lead in urging a greater communal openness in addressing domestic violence and other social ills.

 

Known for its editorial feistiness, The Jewish Press was politically incorrect long before the phrase was coined. The paper over the years has been home to colorful and thought-provoking writers like Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis, Dr. Morris Mandel, Louis Rene Beres, Steven Plaut, Marvin Schick, Rabbi Dovid Goldwasser, Phyllis Chesler, Rabbi David Hollander, Paul Eidelberg, the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, as well as former editor Arnold Fine and current senior editor Jason Maoz.

 

In 2011, the JewishPress.com website and related Internet properties were relaunched as an independent, daily online newspaper, with breaking news and in-depth articles on Israel, the Jewish People and the world. The Internet edition is managed by Stephen Leavitt.

 

READ THE REST

 

No Palestinians – No Palestinian State


Palestine Never Existed stamped on flag

John R. Houk
© December 22, 2014
 
It is my opinion that Israel should straight out annex Judea-Samaria (what the hate-Israel crowd calls the occupied West Bank) and invite the Arabs who cannot accept the existence of a Jewish State to leave Israel.
 
I get more and more vehement in this opinion of annexing Israel’s own land due the representatives of the fake Palestinian people constantly clamoring for their own sovereign state based on the myth there always has been a Palestinian people and that the Jews lost any to right to exist on their ancient homeland long-long ago.
 
I caught up to a Times of Israel article notifying readers that representatives of the Palestinian Authority (PA) had submitted (12/17/14) a unilateral resolution to the United Nations giving Israel until 2017 to get out of Judea-Samaria in order for a sovereign Palestinian State can be formed. The longer the Israeli government fails to acquire their own ancestry the more difficult it will be to do so. Israel has procrastinated so long that I’d have to say the entirety of Europe as embodied by the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) have abandoned the Jewish State to the PA’s hate-Israel agenda. The EU (Court) has even legitimized the Jew-hating Islamic terrorist organization Hamas by wiping the staining truth of terrorism from its description.
 
When will the way-too-tolerant comprehend that encapsulating Israel with a sovereign nation of vicious Jew-haters will not bring peace but rather more than likely begin a war will engulf the entire world into another World War? My GOD! Just LOOK at English translations of pro-Palestinian nationhood media that fills their listeners full of Jew-hatred and that Israel’s existence will be terminated just like prophet Mo terminated the Arabian Jews of Banu Quraiza and Khaybar (See Also HERE and HERE).
 
It may sound politically incorrect but more Jewish refugees were expelled from Muslim nations after the 1948 Israel war of independence than actual Arabs that fled at the behest of the invading Arab armies or out of fear of becoming a war casualty. The invading Arab armies DID NOT come to create a Palestinians State, rather the invasion’s purpose was to divvy up and annex their own slices of land they hoped to own from the defunct British Mandate for Palestine. A Mandate by the way set up as a future home for Jews after WWI as defined by the 1917 Balfour Declaration. Note World War I ended in 1918 and Hitler’s Final Solution for European Jews was not officially discovered until the end of World War II in 1945. After the Final Solution count it was discovered nearly 6 MILLION Jews were murdered for their faith.
 
In order to perpetuate the Islamic Supremacist concept that once conquered for Allah the land is to remain Islamic perpetually, various Arab nationalists began stirring up Jew-hatred to prevent the formation of a Jewish State in the ancient Jewish homeland. A small parcel of land by Muslim domination standards neglected under old Ottoman Turkey rulership and was made largely revitalized by Jewish immigrant Western European know-how in agriculture, science and economics. By the way, a revitalization that was beneficial to the few indigenous Arabs that worked as near feudal peasants for the relatively smaller Arab landowner even if many were absentee.
 
The British tried in vain to get local Arabs to follow a path of state-building similar to that of the Zionists once they envisioned the division of western Palestine in the 1920s.
 
But the failure – in fact, the refusal of Palestinian Arabs to develop as a society under the tutelage of the British – had been an enduring feature of indigenous Arabs in Palestine for generations.
 
… Professor Kenneth Stein of Emory College, a scholar of land tenure systems under the Ottoman Turks and the British Mandate, points to the lack of social cohesion, coupled with a long history of unscrupulous money lenders, real estate brokers, and dishonest village leaders (mukhtars) robbing Palestinian villagers of their lands well before the arrival of the first Zionist:
 
“By 1947, Palestinian Arab society had become highly susceptible to insecurity and flight. Indeed, a combination of reasons caused hundreds of thousands of Arabs to leave Palestine after November 1947, not the least of which was the internal societal changes that led to slow disintegration of communal bonds. Although Palestinians became refugees in [the] 1947-48 period, the origins of their social collapse can be partially attributed to the fractious nature of Arab society and its steady dissolution over the previous century.”5
 
… Aryeh Avneri, who traced the demographic history of western Palestine over the centuries in his book Claim of Dispossession: Jewish Land Settlement and the Arabs. Indeed, the Arab narrative, which speaks of perpetual residence in Palestine for 1,300 years, does not stand up to scrutiny. For 250 years the population remained almost static – rising from 205,000 Muslims, Christians, and Jews in 1554 to only 275,000 in 1800. Other historic documents from 1830 onward demonstrate that an increase in Arab immigration was registered with the influx of the first Zionist settlers in 1880, yet the population still ebbed and flowed.
 
… Describing the Arabs in Palestine in the 19th century, Avneri calls them “a tiny remnant of a volatile population which had been in constant flux as a result of unending wars … (Arab and Jewish Refugees – The Contrast; By Eli E. Hertz; MythAndFacts.org; 2007)
 
By the time the British Mandate for Palestine was drawing to an end with a United Nations Partition Plan further dividing land between Jews and Arabs including the City of David holy first to Jews – Jerusalem, the Arab States that had formed sovereign nations under the direction of Britain and France had put away their petty squabbles long enough to be unified on one matter. That one matter was kill the Jews in their own homeland and divide what was out of the spheres of influence the invading armies managed to carve out. After all, Arab Muslims outnumbered Jews that made an effort to reestablish their national homeland.
 
Before the end of the British Mandate Jews were forced to form underground militias for self-protection. Some of those militias developed the image of being terrorists because of the brutal and vicious manner of revenge reprisals when Jews were attacked by Islamic Supremacist Arab Nationalists.
 
These Jewish militias united to confront the invading Arab armies of the newly declared independent Israel in 1948. Still the Jewish forces were very outnumbered by the united Arab invading armies.
 
A combination of Israeli determination and the mutual mistrust existing between the objectives of each Arab nations sending an invasion force resulted largely in an Israeli victory ended by armistices rather than peace treaties. The only invading army able to claim success was Transjordan’s (now Jordan) Arab Legion. The Arab Legion’s key to success was that army’s Officer Corps was primarily British led particularly its Commander in Sir John Bagot Glubb, Lieu.-General (Glubb Pasha).
 
Except for the Arab Legion, the invading armies were defeated roughly displacing 600,000 Arabs who had visions of returning to their homes Judenfrei. It is quite interesting that about a million Jews were expelled (See Also HERE) from Muslim nations between the late 1920s through about 1970. About 600,000 of those expelled Jews occurred around the 1948 Israeli War of Independence.
 
It is the descendants of these displaced Arabs in 1948 and later when Israel took back East Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria (renamed the West Bank by Jordan after formal annexation in early 1950s) while Jordan refused Judea-Samaria Arab into that nation. Jordan was simply following the example of other Arab nations NOT allowing repatriation of fellow Arabs thus creating refugees.
 
Again it is ironic that the roughly 800,000 Jews out of a million refugees expelled from Muslim nations settled in Israel and peacefully assimilated into the Jewish State of Israel.
 
AND YET an Arab refugee problem created by Islamic Supremacist Muslim Arabs refused to do their duty and repatriate and assimilate their created refugee problem. It is ironic that after 1948 the Arabs living in the Jordanian annexed West Bank (really Judea-Samaria) were NOT EVER given full Jordanian citizenship rights.
 
The Arab League forbade any Arab country from accepting these refugees or settling them in normal housing, preferring to leave them in squalid camps. Former UNRWA Director Ralph Galloway stated in 1958: “The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die.” (The Refugee Issue; By Rabbi Shraga Simmons; Aish.com)
 
The Arab nations surrounding Israel had an agenda in creating an Arab refugee problem. These Arabs were to be used as a tool for continued Arab invasions to officially create a fabricated Palestinian State. A state by the way I don’t believe the then Arab Legion organization had any real intention of creating a sovereign state for Arab calling themselves Palestinians. Just like the 1948 Arab invaders had no intention of creating another Arab State.
 
Arab nations continued to invade tiny Israel up to 1973, losing every time. This is when the Arab League nations realized they’d need to find another way to terminate Israel. The new agenda was to defeat Israel from within. The Arab Legion gave a new name to the Arab refugees and called them Palestinian nationals – a people occupied by oppressive Israel.
 
The Arab Legion and later Palestinian terrorist organizations (sadly legitimized into PA) also tweaked the disinformation strategy by revising history that Palestinians have lived as a people in the Holy Land for over a thousand years – unlike the Jews. Since a significant amount of the Arab population immigrated to the then Ottoman controlled Levant more closely associated with an Ottoman version of a province which we can call Syria. Indeed, the newest Islamic terrorist organization now calling itself the Islamic State (IS) hooked their original name to the acronym ISIS or ISIL depending on whose translation one goes by. The acronym in English stood for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The name confusion comes designating an English translation for the last Arab word in the acronym. Without translating the last world acronym comes out as the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham. Sham was difficult to translate so it sometimes became Syria and sometimes Levant. (For more clarity on the meaning of the ISIS acronym go HERE)
 
A significant amount of the refugee descendants come from as much first and second generation immigrants as the immigrant Jews that came and bettered living conditions in the region. Ship these descendants of immigrants back to their region of origin which today are the legacies of European carved out Muslim nation-states.
 
So, just for clarity’s sake let me state one more time: ANNEX JUDEA-SAMARIA and escort Jew-hating Arabs (even if it is both Muslim and Christian Jew-haters) to other Jew-hating Middle Eastern nations. AND trust me, if any follower of Islam considers themselves devoted to the Quran there is an element of Jew-hatred even if it is hid unwittingly with the moniker of Moderate Muslim. AND it is also a sad truth that Christians living in Muslim nations have received the same Jew-hating propaganda for centuries even though (or perhaps because of) their own Christian existence has been molded by the Sharia rules of the dhimmi (See Also HERE) which forces a Christian to admit and submit that Islam is a superior way of life. The Jew-friendly Christians today are Evangelical and Charismatic-Pentecostal Christians that tend to view Israel’s existence as at least one sign of a returning Jesus Christ who will establish the Kingdom of God on earth.
 
Admittedly this kind of Jew-friendly Christian does not necessarily fill Jews with trusting confidence. Jews view Evangelicals as proselytizing Christians. And both secular and religious Jews don’t really appreciate the proselytizing when they have managed to survive even a thousand years of too oft violent persecution from Christians.
 
In my case I am more than willing to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Jews; however it is my opinion that Jews will return en masse to God through Jesus when the Lord returns for His own – the Jew first and then the Gentile.
 
JRH 12/22/14

Please Support NCCR

_____________________________
A Few Extra Sources I looked at for this Essay:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jewish Refugeespalestinefacts.org
 
 

Reality Check


Omar Barghouti - evil BDS dude 2

Intro to ‘Reality Check’

By Editor John R. Houk

© January 29, 2014

 

The essay “Reality Check” exposes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS Movement) as an anti-Semitic movement. The irony of BDS is the amazing amount of Jews and Christians that support it. BDS essentially claims the land more properly called Judea-Samaria (aka West Bank) is to be ignored as part of Jewish heritage and is to be reconstituted as an independent Arab nation called Palestine. Hence Israeli control of the area originally stolen by Jordan in 1948 and recaptured in 1967 is a land of military occupation. The BDS Movement goal is to get nations, corporations, companies, universities, NGOs and individuals to withdraw any investment whether financial or in donation to Israel until Israel complies with the perception that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) end the so-called occupation of Judea-Samaria. Arab Muslims – especially the ones that call themselves Palestinians – not only desires the IDF to leave Judea-Samaria but also for the Jewish State of Israel to end. If you have ever paid attention to Palestinian education and media that means exterminating Jews and turning Israel into a Palestinian State with all Jews exterminated or deported.

 

The essay focuses on one of the founders of the BDS Movement. This is Omar Barghouti, a Muslim born in Qatar (Wahhabi/Muslim Brotherhood affinity) and an apparent citizen of Egypt who actually earned degrees from Tel Aviv University while simultaneously preaching and teaching hate of Jewish Israelis.

 

The essay author focuses on responses to Barghouti’s recent speech at UCLA promoting BDS and questioning the right of Jews to exist in Israel. One response is from Roberta Seid, PHD and Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller. Seid is a pro-Zionist supporter of Israel and Seidler-Feller is a volatile BDS promoting Leftist Jew (meaning a self-loather). The responses penned by these are “Omar Barghouti at UCLA: A speaker who brings hate” and “Omar Barghouti at UCLA: No to BDS, no to occupation”. As you will read Seidler-Feller’s title is a bit deceptive.

 

JRH 1/29/14

Please Support NCCR

******************************

Reality Check

 

By Ari Bussel

Sent: Jan 28, 2014 at 9:07 PM

 

“I have often wondered what Jews or decent people could have done to push back against the anti-Semitic propaganda of 1930s Germany,” says my friend, Dr. Roberta Seid, the historian and scientific advisor of Stand With Us.

 

Seid was describing an event at my alma-mater, UCLA, where the speaker, Omar Barghouti, co-founder of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, was “on the road again with his anti-Israel show and its pack of bigotry and lies.”

 

I wholeheartedly recommend Seid’s opinion piece, “A Speaker who Brings Hate.”  It is a must reading for anyone who has never attended an anti-Israel event, Barghouti being one of the more poignantly memorable of the pack, albeit not an exception by any measure.

 

Standing stubbornly against Seid’s piece is UCLA Hillel’s Rabbi, our very own Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller.  I must admit I was misled for a second, as I read the opening sentence:  “BDS is poison and Omar Barghouti is its purveyor.” I should have known, even before reading his piece, that this is the same Rabbi Chaim I have known for years, for a leopard does not change his spots.

 

Oh, Rabbi Chaim is good, very good indeed.  Mid-way through, he repeats the Chorus line:  “BDS is poison and Omar Barghouti is a classic anti-Semite.”  And then he highlights his own achievements, for there is money to be made, long-time supporters he cannot do without:  “What was genuinely disturbing and compelled my verbal protest and walkout,” said Rabbi Chaim, “was Barghouti’s denial of Jewish peoplehood.”  I have news, Rabbi Chaim, our enemies almost without exception deny our very right to exist.

 

Seidler-Feller then reached the crescendo, showing his magnificent colors, like the feathers of an expanded peacock’s tail:  “We who love Israel and care about her survival have spoken out neither forcefully enough nor lovingly against the occupation” (sic – should have been with a capital “O”) … “we, the Jews, cannot rule over another people.”  And he ends:  “Indeed, BDS is poison, but so is the occupation.  Wisdom, morality, and loyalty to Israel and Judaism demand that we say no to both.”

 

Rabbi Chaim so easily neglects the wisdom of our Bible, teaching that words have meaning and can transform things into being, as God Himself did when He named all creatures during Genesis.  Using the word “Occupation” is both misleading and hazardous, yet Rabbi Chaim uses it so freely, carelessly, and advocates we stand up in protest to fight for its eradication.

 

Our real obligation is altogether different, because the Jewish people who live in Israel look at Israel and see a society composed of many diverse elements, but definitely not a homogeneous society.  Among these is a substantial number of Muslim Arabs.  Israelis have lived by the credo that they are equal citizens, with all rights except the obligation of military service.

 

What we must ensure, as Jews and people who were created in the image of God, is to behave unto others, the foreigner in our midst, the widow and the orphan, the same way we want to be treated ourselves.

 

Redefine “Occupation” as “living in Israel as part of Israeli society,” and suddenly the BDS-Seidler-Feller worldview collapses.  No more fantasies of a “Palestine” with “Al-Quds its eternal capital.”  No more “Right of Return” of non-Jews to the area between the River and the Sea.  No more wishful thinking of exterminating the Jews and eliminating their presence in their homeland.

 

It is Seidler-Feller’s frame of reference and vocabulary that are flawed.  So used to self-blame is he, using the word “Occupation,” that he cannot even see how that very approach is racist.  He wants a country with all the Arabs gone, for they, too, like him, hate the Occupation.  In this respect, Seidler-Feller is no different than those who call themselves “Palestinians.”  They want to throw the Jews to the Sea (an independent country where Israel is today, with no Jews), and he wants a country with no non-Jews.  A perfect partnership indeed.

 

I, an Israeli, a Jew and an American, take offense to your statement of paramount purpose (“Say No to Israel’s Occupation”).  But more so, I lament your position, for it is no different from that of the Jews some eighty years ago. 

 

Dr. Seid, analyze Rabbi Chaim, and you may begin to understand how the Jews of Europe accepted what was evolving before their very eyes, for “Never Again” apparently has not taken hold within our own community deep enough to withstand the test of time. Or perhaps the promise has been sadly forgotten, buried under a sea of Jewish self-hate.

 

To Rabbi Chaim, Omar Barghouti is a poison because he disturbs the good Rabbi’s make-belief world.  But Barghouti represents the world as it truly is and the true intentions of those who call themselves “Palestinians.” 

 

I direct Seidler-Feller to a non-profit organization called PMW (Palestinian Media Watch).  If he were to follow PMW’s output long enough, after the initial shock and waves of nausea have subsided, Rabbi Chaim may see that “Barghouti’s Poison” is nothing but the mainstream approach of those who call themselves “Palestinians.” There are many of them, those of ’67 and those of ’48, and many others who are along for the ride. I used to get confused but no more:  They are all “under Occupation.”

 

Lest “the ‘Palestinians’ in their own words” be dismissed as “right wing propaganda,” the following is taken from Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (January, 2014) highlighting the Palestinian’s “Culture of Hatred:”

 

Incitement and hatred toward Israel, and often Jews as well, is spread by Palestinian Authority controlled television and radio stations, public schools, summer camps, official ceremonies, official speeches and Internet outlets. It is often aimed at children and young people.

 

Several types of incitement contribute to this problem and severely undermine prospects for peace. These include:

 

1. The glorification of terrorists who have murdered Israeli civilians. The resulting hero-worship of terrorists justifies past and current attacks, while encouraging future attacks.

 

2. The denial of Israel’s existence and the delegitimization of a Jewish state in any borders, in part by denying the existence of a Jewish people and its historic, religious and cultural ties to the land of Israel.

 

3. The demonization of Jews and Israelis, including by the use of anti-Semitic motifs.

 

4. The inflammatory language of struggle against Israel and “resistance” (often employed as the Palestinian codeword for terrorism) is being widely used by the PA, despite the renewal of negotiations with Israel. The idea that Palestinians must continue the struggle until Israel is replaced by a Palestinian state is a consistent theme. [Editor: Bold print is mine]

 

For Rabbi Chaim, “The Occupation” likely refers to the West Bank (and possibly, but less likely, to Gaza).  But for the Arabs in Israel, the four million in Judea and Samaria and Gaza and another two million or so who are full-fledged Israeli citizens, the whole area is Occupied, nothing there belongs to the Jews.

 

The cat is finally out of the bag, and Rabbi Chaim does not like what he hears.  He conveniently casts aside any internal bickering in “Palestine” (who is the real leader – Hamas or PA, Iran or maybe some other factions, terrorists or tribes) and wants to believe that they (our enemies) want peace.  His soft and most sensitive soul cannot bear the severe burn by Barghouti’s revelations.  Undoubtedly, the truth hurts.

 

Our enemies systematically deny our right to exist.  They erase and contest any connection we may have to the Land of Israel:  The Bible describes events that were never in this geographic area.  The Temple Mount, an invention.  The land, stolen from its true inhabitants.  Those sneaky Jews created, imagined and fabricated what they call “The Holocaust” as a ruse to steal a land that never belonged to them.

 

Why did you walk out of Barghouti’s presentation?  I actually sat through the whole ordeal several years ago when it was at Loyola Marymount Law School (a campus headed by a Jew).  You must not miss a word and commit it all to memory (as they prohibit any recording devices), or jot it down on paper.  Regrettably, nothing has changed, if anything, the substance has only intensified and became more brazened.

 

Listen carefully.  Study.  The words are like those branding irons with numbers that will be etched onto your skin for all your days on this earth.  But you chose to leave.  How convenient.  And then you blame us, you put the responsibility on us, and you cast Barghouti as a fanatic, a liar and an anti-Semite. 

 

Barghouti’s efforts must be applauded.  He is a genius at what he does, and the BDS movement is one of the most successful in modern times, in a most sinister manner of course.  He studies for his doctorate at the “Apartheid [Tel Aviv] university in Occupied Palestine” and then spews his venom from within Israel proper.

 

He could be stopped, even in a democratic country like Israel.  After all, neo-Nazis are not allowed to spew their venom in Germany today.

 

But he is not much different in so many ways, from many Israelis in the Israeli Academia.  Some of them are called “Post Zionists,” but whatever the label, they are some of Israel’s worse detractors.

 

If Rabbi Chaim were true to his people and our history, he would have done everything in his power to stop Barghouti’s appearance at UCLA.  He does have power, this Rabbi Chaim, and alongside him stand the Jewish supporters who pour millions into his activities.  He could have mobilized the Jewish students and every person who stands for truth and justice to protest the University and its Regents from allowing such hate speech, against permitting Bargouti from entering the pathways of civilization and hallmarks of education.

 

But he chose otherwise.  Rabbi Chaim stood and strengthened Barghouti, for they both sang the same song:  The “Occupation” corrupts.  End the “Occupation.” 

 

What is the difference between them and the extent to which they interpret their positions?  Barghouti goes all out, whereas Rabbi Chaim limits his interpretation to the West Bank (and possibly Gaza).

 

Barghouti calls for BDS, whereas Rabbi Chaim likely would boycott Jewish presence and activities (theater, wineries, etc.) beyond the Green Line.  If not him personally, then many others who claim it is legitimate to boycott wines from Judea and Samaria, but add under the same breath, that BDS is “wrong, horrible, deplorable and must be fought.”

 

I know several supporters of the New Israel Fund (more correctly the Fund for the New Israel), Americans for Peace Now and J Street who think along these very lines.

 

I applaud Barghouti’s success, for it is the flip side of our miserable failure.  He fights, and we stand and strengthen his efforts.  Now he can say:  Here, even a leading figure in the Los Angeles Jewry like Rabbi Seidler-Feller supports our just call to end the Occupation!  Jews return to Europe and America, for you have no place in – and no connection to – our land!

 

Confused?  Do not be.  Next time Barghouti is in town, go listen to his very polished presentation.  Sit and weep, for you will understand how the good, gentle, sophisticated, learned Jews of Europe in the 1930s did nothing.  You will witness how the intelligent and respected leadership of American Jewry in this second decade of the 21st Century is following in these same footsteps.

 

As my European ancestors walked later to the crematoriums, their lives likely flashed in front of their eyes.  Did they realize what we do not, that they were instrumental in what befell them, for they did not stand with conviction and possess the inner strength to shout:  WE WILL NOT PERMIT OUR ENEMIES TO PREVAIL! [Editor: Bold print mine]

_________________________

Editor: As you will notice in the about paragraphs sent with the email, Ari Bussel may not have written this awesome essay. Norma Zager is brought front and center in the first paragraph which to me seems to indicate she wrote the essay rather than Ari. Maybe if I was more cognizant of which of the two attended UCLA in their past I could pin point the author better.

 

Norma Zager is an award-winning investigative journalist and author.  Her passion for Israel has driven her to dedicate the past decade writing and having a radio show about Israel.

 

This is the latest in the series “Postcards from America – Postcards from Israel,” a collaboration between Zager and Bussel, a foreign correspondent reporting from Israel.

 

Ari Bussel and Norma Zager collaborate both in writing and on the air in a point-counter-point discussion of all things Israel-related.  Together, they have dedicated the past decade to promoting Israel.

 

© Israel Monitor, January 2014

First Published January 25, 2014

 

Know your Nazi-Arab Connection to Jew-Hatred


Hajj Amin al Husseini - Adolf Hitler

 

John R. Houk

© September 16, 2013

 

I received an email from the Historical and Investigative Research (HIR). The purpose of the email is to spread information on a fifteen minute documentary “The Nazi’s and the Palestinian movement”. I have known about this information on this so-called Palestinian movement for some time. Incredulously too many Americans are completely out of touch of the Nazi-Radical Islamic cooperation that began in WWII. You have to ask, “What in the world did Aryan-Nazi Supremacists and Muslim-Arabic (of a Semitic language group) have in common?”

 

Of course the answer is JEW-HATRED. Islam has never been Jew-friendly especially since old Mo conquered Medina and began the execution of Arab-Jewish tribes of the Arabian Peninsula. Jew-hatred became elevated among Arab Muslims largely at the Nazi support of the WWII Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin al Husseini. Al-Husseini propagandized Jew-Hatred because European Jews had begun flooding back into their ancestral homeland largely with initial British help – See HERE and HERE (sadly the British transitioned to a pro-Arab stand by the time Israel proclaimed their independence in 1948).

 

So this is what is going to happen in this post. I am going to begin with the email which has two links. One to the documentary which is linked on Vimeo and the second link is to the HIR text. I am going to use a Youtube version of the Vimeo link because it is easier to post on my blogs. On the HIR text link there is a side panel which you will have to go to the website to read. I am just cross posting the text pertaining to “The Nazi’s and the Palestinian movement”.

 

JRH 9/16/13

Please Support NCCR

******************************

HIR: New Documentary: The Nazis and the Palestinian Movement

 

Sent by Francisco Gil-White

From Historical and Investigative Research

Sent: Aug 6, 2013 at 11:07 PM

 

The Israeli government is negotiating to give PLO/Fatah (the ‘Palestinian Authority’) the strategic territories of Judea and Samaria. This is only possible because ordinary Israelis, and ordinary Westerners, still don’t know about the German Nazi roots of PLO/Fatah.

 

FACES/HIR has produced:

 

1) A (short) new documentary about this question, available on Vimeo:
https://vimeo.com/69991225

 

2) An article to accompany the video (it contains all the relevant documentation): http://www.hirhome.com/israel/nazis_palestinians.htm                        

 

Please give both a wide circulation

 

HISTORICAL AND INVESTIGATIVE RESEARCH
F.A.C.E.S. (Foundation for the Analysis of Conflict, Ethnic and Social)

_____________________

VIDEO: The Nazi’s and the Palestinian movement

 

Posted by jomjomnl

Published on Aug 20, 2013

______________________

THE NAZIS AND THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT

Documentary and discussion

 

By Francisco Gil-White

26 July 2013

Historical and Investigative Research

 

Hajj Amin al Husseini is the father of the Palestinian Movement. He created PLO/Fatah (now better known as the ‘Palestinian Authority’), the organization that will govern any future Palestinian state. And he was mentor to Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, the leaders of that organization. Husseini was also, during World War II, a top Nazi leader who co-directed with Adolf Eichmann the death camp system that murdered between 5 and 6 million European Jews, also known as the Final Solution. These facts are not widely known or understood. Neither has their implication for our understanding of Israeli ruling elite behavior been properly appreciated. We present a short documentary and a discussion.

……………………………………………

Table of Contents

 

o   Introduction

 

o   The Video

 

o   Discussion

 

o   Readings relevant to this video

 

Introduction

 

For many years now, almost every day, all over the world, the Arab-Israeli conflict is headline news. And yet most people still don’t know that PLO/Fatah (now better known as the ‘Palestinian Authority’), the organization that will govern any future Palestinian state, was created by a top leader of the German Nazi Final Solution. In other words, the ‘Palestinian state’—to be carved out of strategic territory of the Jewish state—will be governed by the spawn of the man responsible for the Nazi murder of between 5 and 6 million European Jews.

 

The short documentary below explains PLO/Fatah’s history.

 

This documentary is now on Vimeo, but it was first uploaded to You Tube. In the first two days, almost with no publicity, the You Tube webpage quickly logged more than 1,500 visits. Then, on the third day, Israelis began reporting that You Tube was not allowing them to access the video. You Tube’s explanation is that when a video is blocked in this manner it can be due to only one of two reasons:

 

1)     the You Tube account-owner placed country restrictions on the video; or else

 

2)     You Tube is complying with local laws

 

We did not place country restrictions on the video. That leaves us with the second possibility.

 

But what local laws can You Tube be complying with? To my knowledge, no laws have yet been passed by the Israeli Knesset against the dissemination of historical facts.

 

Some have speculated that “we are complying with local laws” is a cover for “the Israeli government told us to block it.” Others ask: “But why would the Israeli government even want to block this video?”

 

Let us consider the following:

 

1)     PLO/Fatah—created by a leader of the Final Solution—was brought inside the Jewish state—created (supposedly) to protect the Jewish people from Final Solutions—because the Israeli government signed the 1993-94 Oslo Accord.

 

2)     But why? In 1982 Menachem Begin had already (essentially) destroyed PLO/Fatah and chased the remnant out of Lebanon to its new base in Tunis. So in 1993-94 the Israeli government was breathing new life into a defeated, moribund PLO/Fatah.

 

3)     In doing so the Israeli government gifted PLO/Fatah with its most important victory: legitimacy on the world stage, and lordship over the Arab Muslims in the strategic ‘disputed territories’ of Judea and Samaria.

 

4)     The Israeli government did all this this without informing ordinary Israelis about the roots of PLO/Fatah in the German Nazi Final Solution. Instead, it legitimized PLO/Fatah’s claim to have abandoned terrorism for ‘peace.’

 

5)     With PLO/Fatah’s entry, terrorism against Israelis immediately quintupled, and the security situation worsened for the long term because PLO/Fatah has been indoctrinating the Arab Muslims in the disputed territories into its ecstatic genocidal ideology (not precisely a secret).

 

6)     The Israeli government is still trying to sell the Israeli people—and Jews worldwide—on the idea that a sensible solution to Israel’s security woes is to give the strategic high ground of Judea and Samaria (a.k.a. the ‘West Bank’) to PLO/Fatah.

 

7)     There is a real possibility that the Israeli government will make this strategic territory judenrein (this is a German Nazi term meaning ‘cleansed of Jews’) for PLO/Fatah. They already did it in Gaza.

 

8)     During the long years since the so-called Oslo ‘Peace’ Process began, the Israeli government still hasn’t informed the Israelis about PLO/Fatah’s origins in the German Nazi Final Solution.

 

But perhaps the most important points are the following:

 

9)     This Oslo ‘Peace’ Process could have been quickly killed in its tracks if, when the US government first began bullying for it, the prime minister of Israel had simply called an international press conference to explain the origins of PLO/Fatah in the German Nazi Final Solution.

 

10)  At any point since 1993-94, by holding such a press conference, the Israeli government could have scored a major propaganda victory in favor of Israeli Jews, and in favor of ejecting PLO/Fatah from Israel. But no such press conference has yet been called.

 

On the basis of the above 10 points one may conclude that, if the information in this video becomes widely known, those running the Israeli government will have some egg on their faces. In fact, this information raises the sharpest questions about them, and about their intentions. Here then is a plausible motive for the Israeli government to block the video: to stop Israelis from asking such questions.

 

But in fact questions must be asked not merely about the Israeli government (in the narrow bureaucratic sense) but also about the Israeli ruling elite more broadly. For none of the major politicians who declare themselves opponents of the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process and its ‘Two State Solution’ have educated Israelis about the German Nazi Roots of PLO/Fatah. Why?

 

The video follows below. And below the video is a discussion about the evidence it presents, and how this evidence has been either ignored or lied about for many years.

 

The Video

 

THE NAZIS AND THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT from FACESHIRHOME on Vimeo. [SlantRight Editor: You can click the Vimeo link or watch the Youtube version above]

 

Discussion

 

Immediately after the war, Husseini’s Nazi activities were well understood, as the article from The Nation (1947) which I have posted to the right of this column attests. But then a tremendous silence about Husseini and his Nazi years developed. Certainly the media, which displays always the latest news on the Arab-Israeli conflict in its front pages, has had nothing to say about the Nazi origins of PLO/Fatah ever since PLO/Fatah was created in the 1960s. The silence in academia has been equally deafening.

 

Historian Rafael Medoff, in an article from 1996, wrote the following:

 

“Early scholarship on the Mufti, such as the work of Maurice Pearlman and Joseph Schechtman, while hampered by the inaccessibility of some key documents, at least succeeded in conveying the basic facts of the Mufti’s career as a Nazi collaborator. One would have expected the next generation of historians, with greater access to relevant archival materials (not to mention the broader perspective that the passage of time may afford) to improve upon the work of their predecessors. Instead, however, a number of recent histories of the Arab-Israeli conflict have played fast and loose with the evidence, producing accounts that minimize or even justify the Mufti’s Nazi activity.”[1]

 

What Medoff refers to above as “early scholarship on the Mufti” is early indeed. The work of Pearlman and Schechtman that he cites is from 1947 and 1965:

 

Pearlman, M. (1947). Mufti of Jerusalem: The story of Haj Amin el Husseini. London: V Gollancz.

 

Joseph B. Schechtman, The Mufti and the Fuehrer, New York, 1965.

 

After this ensued a tremendous academic silence on the Mufti Husseini. In fact, Medoff can refer us to no academic work on Husseini before 1990. His article, recall, is from 1996. The few academic mentions of Husseini that he could find from 1990 to 1996 were either completely silent on the Mufti’s Nazi years—as if they had never happened—or else they relegated a ‘summary’ of those years to a single paragraph (or even just a sentence) that left almost everything out. Some authors even claimed (entirely in passing) that Husseini’s Nazi activities had been supposedly imagined by “Zionist propagandists.”

 

But recent scholars who have studied Hajj Amin al Husseini in depth, such as Rafael Medoff, have confirmed what his early biographers had already established:

 

1)     that Husseini traveled to Berlin in late 1941, met with Hitler, and discussed with him the extermination of the Middle Eastern Jews (whom Husseini had already been killing for some 20 years);

 

2)     that Husseini spent the entire war in Nazi-controlled Europe as a Nazi collaborator;

 

3)     that Husseini helped spread Nazi propaganda to Muslims worldwide (one of his famous exhortations goes like this: “Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.”[2]);

 

4)     that Husseini recruited thousands of Bosnian and Kosovo Muslims to Heinrich Himmler’s SS, who went on to kill hundreds of thousands of Serbs, and tens of thousands of Jews and Roma (‘Gypsies’).

 

It is beyond dispute that Husseini did all that. And in fact photographic evidence of Husseini’s Nazi collaboration abounds on the internet.

 

But there has been quite an effort to whitewash Husseini’s responsibility in the German Nazi death camp system specifically—in other words, his responsibility in the Holocaust, or as the Jews more properly say, in the Shoah (‘Catastrophe’). One example of this whitewashing effort is Wikipedia’s page on Husseini.

 

Because of its emblematic nature, I shall now quote from the Wikipedia article on Hajj Amin al Husseini as I found it on 14 July, 2013 and then comment.

 

[Quote from Wikipedia begins here]

 

Al-Husseini settled in Berlin in late 1941 and resided there for most of the war.[153] Various sources have repeated allegations, mostly ungrounded in documentary evidence, that he visited the death camps of Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka and Mauthausen.[153] At the Nuremberg trials, one of Adolf Eichmann‘s deputies, Dieter Wisliceny, stated that al-Husseini had actively encouraged the extermination of European Jews, and that he had had an elaborate meeting with Eichmann at his office, during which Eichmann gave him an intensive look at the current state of the “Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe” by the Third Reich. Most of these allegations are completely unfounded.[153]

 

[Quote from Wikipedia ends here]

 

Consider first the phrase “completely unfounded” as it attaches to any part of Wisliceny’s Nuremberg testimony.

 

As part of the legal proceedings at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, two independent witnesses (Andrej or Endre Steiner and Rudolf Kasztner)—both of whom had had personal contact with Dieter Wisliceny during the war—reported to the Tribunal that in wartime conversations with Wisliceny he had said certain things about Husseini’s role in the Final Solution (the genocidal enterprise in which Wisliceny was not just anybody but a highly-placed administrator). The Steiner and Kasztner testimonies are quite similar to each other. Before his execution for crimes against humanity, Nuremberg Tribunal investigators called on Wisliceny to either confirm or deny what these two independent witnesses had said. Wisliceny did correct them on minor points but he confirmed what they had both stated concerning Husseini’s central and originating role in the extermination program (consult footnote [3] to read the Steiner and Kasztner testimonies).

 

So are these “completely unfounded” allegations? If so, that would mean:

 

1)     that in light of other, better established evidence, what Wisliceny stated is impossible; and/or

 

2)     that Wisliceny is less credible as a witness than witnesses who contradicted his statements.

 

So I ask: On the basis of what evidence do the Wikipedia editors argue that “most of these allegations are completely unfounded”?

 

At first it seems as though Wikipedia editors have provided three sources but on closer inspection it is the same footnote, repeated three times (in the space of four sentences). The footnote contains this:

 

Gerhard Höpp (2004). “In the Shadow of the Moon.” In Wolfgang G. Schwanitz. Germany and the Middle East 1871–1945. Markus Wiener, Princeton. pp. 217–221.

 

The title is incomplete. Gerhard Höpp’s article is: “In the Shadow of the Moon: Arab Inmates in Nazi Concentration Camps.” The full title makes it obvious that this article is not about Husseini, something that readers who see only the truncated title in the Wikipedia reference will not realize.

 

But, anyway, what does Höpp say—entirely in passing—about Wisliceny’s testimony concerning Husseini? He says this (and only this):

 

“Al-Husaini… is said not only to have had knowledge of the concentration camps but also to have visited them. Various authors speak of the camps at Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka, and Mauthausen. While the assumption that he visited the Auschwitz camp in the company of Adolf Eichmann is supported by an affidavit of Rudolf Kasztner, referring to a note by the Eichmann collaborator Dieter Wisliceny, the other allegations are entirely unfounded.” (p.221)

 

Recall that Höpp is Wikipedia’s thrice-cited source to ‘support’ that “most” of the following three allegations are “completely unfounded”:

 

1)     that Husseini visited death camps

 

2)     that Husseini encouraged the extermination of the Jews;

 

3)     that Husseini met with Eichmann to discuss said extermination.

 

But notice that Höpp says absolutely nothing about allegations 2 and 3.

 

And notice that, concerning allegation 1, Höpp uses the phrase “entirely unfounded” in a manner exactly opposite to the Wikipedia editors who invoke him. For the Wikipedia editors, “most” of what Wisliceny says is “completely unfounded,” whereas for Höpp it is those allegations not backed by Wisliceny’s testimony that he considers “entirely unfounded.”

 

Moreover, Höpp states:

 

“Speculation on this and other misdeeds by the Mufti appear unnecessary in view of his undisputed collaboration with the Nazis…” (p.221)

 

In other words, since we already know that Husseini was a rabid anti-Semite who himself organized mass killings of Jews before he met the Nazis, and then also with the Nazis, and discussed with Hitler the extermination of the Middle Eastern Jews, and shouted on the Nazi radio “Kill the Jews wherever you find them,” is it not a waste of time to argue back and forth whether Husseini did or did not visit this or that death camp with Eichmann?

 

But, I might add, why doubt it? And why doubt that such a man encouraged the Nazis to exterminate the European Jews and also met with Eichmann to discuss this program? (Unless, of course, such expressions of doubt are intended as an apology for the Mufti…)

 

Let us now continue with the Wikipedia article:

 

[Quote from Wikipedia continues here]

 

A single affidavit by Rudolf Kastner reported that Wisliceny told him that he had overheard Husseini say he had visited Auschwitz incognito in Eichmann’s company.[154] Eichmann denied this at his trial in Jerusalem in 1961. …Eichmann stated that he had only been introduced to al-Husseini during an official reception, along with all other department heads. In the final judgement [sic], the Jerusalem court stated: “In the light of this partial admission by the Accused, we accept as correct Wisliceny’s statement about this conversation between the Mufti and the Accused. In our view it is not important whether this conversation took place in the Accused’s office or elsewhere. On the other hand, we cannot determine decisive findings with regard to the Accused on the basis of the notes appearing in the Mufti’s diary which were submitted to us.”[157] Hannah Arendt, who attended the complete Eichmann trial, concluded in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil that, “The trial revealed only that all rumours about Eichmann’s connection with Haj Amin el Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, were unfounded.”[158]

 

[Quote from Wikipedia ends here]

 

I am confounded by Wikipedia’s choice of reliable experts. The Jerusalem court that tried Eichmann for Crimes Against Humanity concluded that “we accept as correct Wisliceny’s statement about this conversation between the Mufti [Husseini] and the Accused [Eichmann]” (the topic of which was to discuss how to exterminate the European Jews); but Wikipedia editors prefer the contrary opinion of philosopher Hannah Arendt, according to whom any claim of a relationship between Husseini and Eichmann is “unfounded.” And why do they prefer Arendt? Because she “attended the complete Eichmann trial.”

 

Didn’t the judges also attend?

 

Anyway, let’s look at Arendt more closely. To her, two independent testimonies at Nuremberg concerning Husseini’s relationship with Eichmann, later corroborated by Wisliceny, a highly-placed eyewitness, are “rumours.” This is strange. And, against this, Arendt simply accepts Eichmann’s denial. Doubly strange. Why has Eichmann earned so much respect from Hannah Arendt?

 

But more to the point: Do we have reasons to consider Eichmann a more credible witness than Wisliceny?

 

Arendt shouldn’t think so. She wrote Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil so that she could extend herself in deep ruminations about the human soul based on (odd choice) Eichmann’s strange behavior at trial, which led her to call him a “clown.” Wisliceny, by contrast, was universally considered by prosecutors as a very careful witness, who was painstaking in correcting the smallest details in the testimony he was asked to comment on.[4]

 

(And Eichmann most certainly had motive to lie in order to diminish Husseini’s role in the Holocaust relative to his own, for he was obviously proud of what he had done. Moreover, Husseini was still at large, and busy organizing the ‘Palestinian’ movement, so better not to say anything that could support a manhunt plus extradition procedures that might derail Husseini’s ongoing effort to exterminate the Jews in Israel, a project certainly dear to Eichmann’s putrefacient heart, a project that, as he sat in the witness box, no doubt swam before his mind’s eye as a pleasant future outcome to engulf those sitting in judgment of him, or their children.)

 

Let us continue:

 

[Quote from Wikipedia continues here]

 

Rafael Medoff concludes that “actually there is no evidence that the Mufti’s presence was a factor at all; the Wisliceny hearsay is not merely uncorroborated, but conflicts with everything else that is known about the origins of the Final Solution.”[159]

 

[Quote from Wikipedia ends here]

 

Rafael Medoff is expressing an opinion. Is it reasonable? Here is the full passage in Medoff’s article:

 

“With regard to the crucial question of what the Mufti knew and when he knew it, the evidence requires especially careful sifting, and earlier scholars did not always take sufficient care. Pearlman, for example, accepted as fact the unfounded postwar claim by Wisliceny that the Mufti was “one of the initiators” of the genocide. Of course, Pearlman was writing in 1946-1947, when the genesis of the annihilation process was not yet fully understood. Other accounts at that time, such as a 1947 book written by Bartley Crum, a member of the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry on Palestine, likewise accepted Wisliceny’s claim. Schechtman, writing in 1964-1965, should have known better. He made much of the fact that the Mufti first arrived in Berlin shortly before the Wannsee conference, as if the decision to slaughter the Jews was made at Wannsee, when in fact the mass murder began in Western Russia the previous summer (at a time when the Mufti was still deeply embroiled in the pro-Nazi coup in Baghdad). Schechtman eventually conceded that ‘it would be both wrong and misleading to assume that the presence of Haj Amin el-Husseini was the sole, or even the major factor in the shaping and intensification of the Nazi ‘final solution of the Jewish problem,’ which supplanted forced emigration by wholesale extermination.’ Actually, there is no evidence that the Mufti’s presence was a factor at all; the Wisliceny hearsay is not merely uncorroborated, but conflicts with everything else that is known about the origins of the Final Solution.”[5]

 

Medoff’s argument turns on a semantic point. If we agree with him that the mass killings of Jews on the Nazi Eastern front, which began before Husseini arrived in Berlin, are part of the ‘Final Solution,’ then Husseini is not “one of the originators” of the ‘Final Solution.’ But the question is not what we agree to call ‘Final Solution.’ The question is whether the Nazis had yet decided, before Husseini alighted in Berlin, to create a death camp system to kill all of the European Jews. They had not. And that decision was formalized at Wannsee, indeed shortly after Husseini arrived in Berlin.

 

 

Consider what historians say about the established chronology of changes in Nazi policy on the so-called ‘Jewish Question.’

 

Gunnar Paulsson explains that “expulsion”—not extermination—“had initially been the general policy of the Nazis towards the Jews.”[6] Tobias Jersak writes: “Since the 1995 publication of Michael Wildt’s documentation on the SS’s Security Service (Sicherheitsdienst SD) and the ‘Jewish Question,’ it has been undisputed that from 1933 Nazi policy concerning the ‘Jewish Question’ aimed at the emigration of all Jews, preferably to Palestine.”[7] Even after the conquest of Poland, writes Paulsson, “Jewish emigration continued to be permitted and even encouraged, while other expulsion plans were considered.”[8] Christopher Simpson points out that, though many Jews were being murdered, and people such as Reinhard Heydrich of the SS pushed for wholesale extermination, “other ministries” disagreed, and these favored “deportation and resettlement,” though they disagreed about where to put the Jews and how much terror to apply to them.[9] And so, “until the autumn of 1941,” conclude Marrus & Paxton, “no one defined the final solution with precision, but all signs pointed toward some vast and as yet unspecified project of mass emigration.”[10]

 

Hajj Amin al Husseini arrived in Berlin in “the autumn of 1941”—to be precise, on 9 November 1941. So yes, there had already been mass killings of Jews on the Eastern front, but for the hypothesis that Husseini had something to do with the Nazi decision to set up the death camp system in order to kill every last living European Jew (instead of sending most to ‘Palestine’), Husseini arrived right on time.

 

The last part of Medoff’s passage—the one that Wikipedia quotes—is especially problematic. He writes:

 

“Actually, there is no evidence that the Mufti’s presence was a factor at all; the Wisliceny hearsay is not merely uncorroborated, but conflicts with everything else that is known about the origins of the Final Solution.”

 

Medoff disparages the evidence we have as “hearsay.” Is it?

 

Wikipedia explains the legal definition of ‘hearsay’:

 

“information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.”[11]

 

In US law there is a famous “hearsay rule,” which says that if en (sic) eyewitness cannot present his or her testimony in court, then another’s report of the supposed testimony is inadmissible.[11a] Medoff is turning this legal tradition into a historiographical principle in order to do away with the evidence from Wisliceny. Is this a proper maneuver?

 

A historian is not subject to the caution of a court of law, which must err on the side of presumption of innocence in order to safeguard a person’s rights. But even if a historian were Medoff’s reasoning does not apply. We have two independent testimonies before the Nuremberg Tribunal, by Andrej (Endre) Steiner and Rudolf Kasztner, about their wartime conversations with Wisliceny, the topic of which was Husseini’s key role in 1) the decision to exterminate all of the European Jews and, 2) the administration of the death-camp system with Adolf Eichmann. These two testimonies, by themselves, count as ‘hearsay.’ But are they inadmissible? Actually the hearsay rule has exceptions that a judge may invoke, and having two consistent and independent testimonies could favor such an exception. But this is not even the case. Both testimonies were corroborated by Wisliceny, whose “direct experience” of the relationship between Husseini and Eichmann is well established, since Wisliceny was Eichmann’s right-hand man. In other words, Wisliceny’s testimony is not hearsay; he is an eyewitness. Medoff is wrong.

 

So:

 

1)     we do have evidence that the Mufti’s presence was a factor;

 

2)     this evidence is not hearsay because it comes from Wisliceny; and

 

3)     given what we know about Husseini’s character, deeds, and timely arrival in Berlin, Wisliceny’s claims certainly do not conflict “with everything else that is known about the origins of the Final Solution.”

 

So every word in the Medoff passage that Wikipedia quotes is false.

We continue:

 

[Quote from Wikipedia continues here]

 

Bernard Lewis also called Wisliceny’s testimony into doubt: “There is no independent documentary confirmation of Wisliceny’s statements, and it seems unlikely that the Nazis needed any such additional encouragement from the outside.”[160]

 

[Quote from Wikipedia ends here]

 

The full passage from Bernard Lewis’s work is the following:

 

“According to Wisliceny, the Mufti was a friend of Eichmann and had, in his company, gone incognito to visit the gas chamber at Auschwitz. Wisliceny even names the Mufti as being the ‘initiator’ of the policy of extermination. This was denied, both by Eichmann at his trial in Jerusalem in 1961, and by the Mufti in a press conference at about the same time. There is no independent documentary confirmation of Wisliceny’s statements, and it seems unlikely that the Nazis needed any such additional encouragement from outside.” [12]

 

So Eichmann and Husseini deny it and this is enough for Lewis… If we apply his standards to any ordinary criminal investigation we will be forced to let the main suspect go the minute he himself and/or his alleged accomplice deny the charges. Presto! This will save a lot of unnecessary police work.

 

The same can be said for his curious insistence that without “independent documentary confirmation” the testimony of witnesses can be dispensed with. But, naturally, a great many things that happen in the world are not recorded in a document. Eyewitness testimony must be considered carefully, but saying that “there is no independent documentary confirmation” of a particular piece of testimony is not the same thing as producing good reasons to doubt it. And to say, in the absence of conflicting evidence, that our null hypothesis will be to consider as true the opposite of what was testified to, why that is simply absurd.

 

The above is obvious but Lewis’s last argument—“it seems unlikely that the Nazis needed any such additional encouragement from outside”—will appeal to many as reasonable, so it deserves a more extended comment.

 

What Lewis is saying is that the Nazis decided on total extermination for reasons that were ‘endogenous’ to their ideological program. But though killing lots of Jews as part of a campaign of terror and to make lebensraum for deserving Aryan specimens on the Eastern front was certainly part of general Nazi policy, the ‘Final Solution,’ as pointed out above, was initially and for a long time a program of mass expulsion, and did not contemplate (yet) exterminating the entire European Jewish population. Getting to that point required some ‘exogenous’ prodding (“from outside”); it was not an ideological requirement.

 

Historian Thomas Marrus writes: “After the riots of Kristallnacht in November 1938, SS police boss Heydrich was ordered to accelerate emigration, and Jews were literally driven out of the country. The problem was, of course, that there was practically no place for them to go.”[13] The reason there was no place for them to go is that no country would receive them. As historian James Carroll points out:  “The same leaders, notably Neville Chamberlain and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had denounced the anti-Jewish violence of the Nazis declined to receive Jews as refugees. …Crucial to its building to a point of no return was Hitler’s discovery (late) of the political indifference of the democracies to the fate of the Jews…[14] Though one may argue that this was not really “indifference” on the part of Roosevelt et al. but a very special interest (in their doom).[15] The main point here is that, as historian Gunnar Paulsson points out: “Expulsion had initially been the general policy of the Nazis towards the Jews, and had been abandoned largely for practical, not ideological, reasons” (my emphasis).[16]

 

The Nazis were right bastards. No disagreement. But they did need some encouragement to go that far. They needed to be told, first, that they would not get rid of any Jews by pushing them out to the ‘Free World.’ And then they needed to be told, by British creation Hajj Amin al Husseini, that neither could they push them out to ‘Palestine.’ Bernard Lewis is wrong.

 

Perhaps Wikipedia would like to try again with a new set of ‘supporting’ sources? We will be waiting to examine them.

 

[SlantRight Editor: There is more reading under the headings Readings Relevant to this Video” and “Footnotes and Further Reading”.]

_____________________________

Know your Nazi-Arab Connection to Jew-Hatred

John R. Houk

© September 16, 2013

____________________________

THE NAZIS AND THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT

 

About HIR

 

Francisco Gil-White has a Masters in Social Sciences from the University of Chicago and a PhD in biological and cultural anthropology from UCLA. His PhD thesis work was in rural Western Mongolia, where he did 14 months of fieldwork studying the mutual ethnic perceptions of neighboring Torguud Mongol and Kazakh nomadic herders. Until June 2006, he was Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania (he was fired for investigating the real aims of US foreign policy). His research is broadly concerned with the evolution of the proximate mechanisms responsible for social learning and social perception and cognition. His main interests are the evolution of ethnic processes, with a special focus on racism, and particularly anti-Semitism; prestige processes; the evolution of language; the structure of narrative memory; the structure and interaction of media and political processes; the laws of history; Western geopolitics; and the political history of the West.

 

The story behind Historical and Investigative Research

 

Nuclear weapons replace depth of defense


Israel VS Arab Lands

Samson Blinded is one of those blogs you probably will not locate unless you specifically look for it. The posts at Samson Blinded are pro-Israel on the militant side of political incorrectness. The Jewish authors are not necessarily friendly to Christian Zionists as me; nonetheless the irony is I often agree with the Samson Blinded author. Below is a cross post with the theme of nuclear weaponry as a credible defense for little Israel to survive being surrounded by a sea of Jew-Hating Muslims that are actually acquiring sophisticated offensive capability thanks to both the USA and Russia.

 

JRH 2/11/13

Please Support NCCR

****************************

Nuclear weapons replace depth of defense

 

By Obadiah Shoher

Email sent: 2/8/13

Samson Blinded

 

Peace, and even neutrality, have protected no state, ever. Small irrelevant states are tolerated, but they are rolled over without remorse when military needs arise. Germany occupied Belgium, and Italy annexed almost all the lands of the Vatican. Belgium was neutral, and the Vatican was even culturally indispensable for Catholic Italy. Israel cannot hope to convince the Muslims of her peaceful intentions and enjoy peace with them.

 

Hong Kong and Switzerland provide different examples. The evil empires of Communist China and Nazi Germany tolerated them out of utter economic necessity. But Hong Kong and Switzerland were indispensable for their imperial neighbors only because the evil states were isolated from the rest of the world. Muslim oil economies are very open, and do not need Israel as their gate into the world. Muslims won’t hesitate to wipe Israel off the map.

 

Could Israel possibly rely on outside protection, such as a mutual defense treaty? No country rose to defend Poland in WWII. Protection—however unreliable—could only come from the US, but its behemoth army wouldn’t be able to deploy in Israel before the Muslims overran her forty-mile depth of defense and annihilated the Jews.

 

Whatever are the peace arrangements, Israel would have to maintain military preparedness. Israel cannot conduct a defensive war in the current borders. Arab enemies could repeatedly mobilize at Israel’s borders without attacking her; Israel could either respond by mobilizing every time and eventually ruining her economy, or gamble that the Arabs won’t attack—and only once lose the gamble.

 

A peace treaty with the Muslims won’t help. Every war violates a peace treaty. Muslims fight their brethren, and won’t hesitate to attack Israel if her military might dwindles.

 

Israel is left with two choices. One is to maintain military capability indefinitely. That path is economically unsustainable. Another is to discourage the Arabs from encroaching on Israel. For that approach to work, our threat of must remain extremely credible; bluffing does not work long in international relations. Arabs must be unable to test Israeli defenses to see how Israel would react to this or that provocation, or to look for the breach in the retaliation doctrine. Israel should treat any clearly dangerous acts as casus belli. Israel may not tolerate Muslim acquisitions of WMD, modern aircraft and air defense systems, tanks and anti-tank missiles, or mobilizations. Confronting Syria over its military upgrade now makes more sense that defending Israel from a fully revamped Syrian army a few years later. Israel won’t need to fight very often. Once the credibility of Israeli response is established, Arabs will stop provoking her.

 

Israel must maintain a credible threat, but not an expensive, economically unbearable army. How so? Nuclear retaliation is the answer. Israel should not hesitate to employ nuclear weapons. Extensive and costly bombing of Lebanon could be replaced with pinpoint strikes with 10kt nuclear microcharges. A weapon of that size won’t even destroy a medium-sized village, and would cause no fallout dangerous to Israel. Numerous nuclear mushrooms, however, would terrify our enemies.

 

Attacks by regular Arab armies should be similarly countered with 20–50kt nuclear microcharges. Even the small 20kt weapons would not endanger the Jewish cities ten to fifteen miles away from the battlefield; the populations that have been exposed to the moderate levels of radiation around Hiroshima and Chernobyl are not particularly unhealthy. Israel could emulate the depth of defense by striking deep into the enemy’s territory. Large-scale bombing raids against Damascus, Cairo, or Tehran are prohibitively expensive, but 100kt nuclear bombs offer a practical solution: large enough to damage and frighten the enemy, yet small enough to avoid exposing Israeli cities to a radiological threat. Enemies will know that they cannot succeed even if they overrun narrow Israel.

 

Would the Muslims escalate in response to the Israeli nuclear threat? Yes, unless Israel proves the escalation to be a dead-end. During the Cold War, the US answered similar challenges with a doctrine of gradual escalation. Likewise, Israel would employ nuclear microcharges against the guerrillas, their supporters, and regular armies, and small bombs against the attacking enemy’s cities. If attacked with WMD, however, Israel would immediately demolish the Dome of the Rock, employ nuclear weapons against Mecca and Medina, and drop really large bombs on the enemy’s capitals.

That sounds like madness, but MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, prevented the Cold War from becoming WWIII. Arabs won’t attack a dangerously mad Israel. A country prepared for total war will live in total peace. Besides, Israel has no choice economically other than to rely on nuclear weapons.

_____________________

Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict, by Obadiah Shoher, abandons moralizing to view Israeli-Muslim struggle in terms of raw realpolitik. FREE BOOK DOWNLOAD

 

About:

 

Google banned our site from the AdSense advertising program for “unacceptable content,” “advocating against a group,” and “sensitive content.” Yahoo/ Overture restricted our ads to a few odd keywords. Adbrite closed our account. Amazon deleted all reviews to stop the discussion. Russian ad provider Begun rejected our ads as “extremist.” Many other sites and conventional media outlets refused our ads. China blocked our site. We depend on word of mouth. Please help us to bring Shoher’s message: tell your friends about this site. Link exchange suggestions are welcome. For the link code, please visit www.samsonblinded.org/banners.php If you only add text links, ours is www.samsonblinded.org/blog

 

Why Samson Blinded? Biblical Samson, blinded by the Philistines, killed thousands of them in suicide attack. Israeli nuclear weapons are aptly called the Samson Option.

 

Obadiah Shoher is a pen name for veteran politician. Obadiah lived in the USSR, and sufficiently hated socialism to emigrate. It was quite a disappointment to find that Israeli socialism is in many respects worse. Obadiah contends that socialism, combined with quasi-liberal leftism – the infamous political correctness – spells Israeli destruction, as it has destroyed other societies before. Shoher despises Israeli ostriches who keep their heads in sand preferring not to see the uncomfortable questions: changing demography of the ostensibly Jewish state, accumulation of nuclear weapons by hostile regimes, radicalization of Islamic societies, and the economic dead end of maintaining Israeli military capability regardless of paper treaties.

 

Why the pen name? Rav Kahane’s example is one obvious reason: he was kicked out of the Knesset for “racist” opinion that Jewish state cannot have Arab majority. Security is another reason: Obadiah receives plenty of threats.

 

Write us at nospam@samsonblinded.org

 

Legal stuff in plain text: Wherever this site or its authors advocates expulsion of Arabs from the Land of Israel, annexing Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, and cruel retaliation against Israel’s enemies, it is implied that all such acts should be committed legally, by prior adopting the necessary laws. Our sole intention in regards to those acts is influencing the Knesset to adopt the necessary laws which would facilitate relocation of Arabs to Jordan, annexing the core Jewish territories, and retaliating in full force against Israel’s enemies. Neither this site, nor any of its authors advocates genocide.

 

I Believe a Clash of Civilizations between the West and Islam is Inevitable


Israel Belongs to Jews

John R. Houk

© February 22, 2012

 

Here is an essay by Obadiah Shoher that questions the theme of a Clash of Civilizations causes animosity between cultures that are divergent in what is important. Shoher believes the bloodiest wars of recent history have been wars of inter-homogenous cultures. For example WWI was the battling primarily between the Brits, France, Russians and America versus Germany, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Actually Shoher didn’t choose war and you can see why. The inter-cultural thing was between five European powers that included the Muslim Ottoman Turks. Shoher’s central theme can easily be re-worked though. After all the Ottomans were of a divergent culture that joined two European powers against the initial allies of Britain, France and Russia. The then weak Ottomans had a National Interest thing going in that if Russia prevailed on its front, the next target would be the Ottoman Empire because Russia was considered the religious spokesperson for the Orthodox Church and there were a significant amount of Greek Orthodox Christians residing in Western Turkey at the time of WWI. Not to mention it would be quite the feather in the cap of Russia if Istanbul was retaken and given its original name again; i.e. Constantinople. The Muslims would be kicked out of the Christian built Hagia Sophia that was desecrated and converted into a Mosque by conquering Ottoman Muslims in 1453.

 

Shoher’s primary example of a homogenous culture fighting amongst themselves is WWII. It was a war between Europeans that stretched the globe. Again it may be argued that Japan had an Asian culture that clashed with European culture; however if you examine Japanese history there are amazing similarities of phases that included something comparable to European medievalism and Japan was quicker to modernize their culture than other Asian cultures making Japanese Asian culture competitive with European expertise in industrialization and scientific advancement.

 

The fault I find with Shoher’s hypothesis that a Clash of Civilizations is a non sequitur to wars in his focus on the environment of people rather than that which people believe. The level of passion that people have for what they believe is where the clash occurs.

 

Here are some examples

 

The internecine religious wars of Europe were a clash between the beliefs of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.

 

Eighteenth century revolutionary wars within the American Colonies clashing with Britain and within France were clashes of New World thinking and Old World European thinking. The former established the American experiment in personal Liberty from the whims of government and the later much bloodier revolution established the evolution of Secularism over Christianity in European governments.

 

WWII like so many wars originating on a European scale was a clash between nations desiring to protect their national sovereignty from Hitler’s Nazi ideology believing that Germanic/Nordic culture was the master race desiring a European empire.

 

The Cold War was a clash between the concept of American Liberty and Capitalism with Soviet godless Communism.

 

Nazi genocide of Jews sealed the deal of a Jewish State that had been promised from 1917 that coalesced in a war of Jewish survival clashing with Islamic Supremacism in 1948.

 

There is a good global argument that European exploitation in nations that desire the rule of law to be based on Sharia Law caused a sense of non-Muslims taking resources from areas that are steeped in Islamic Supremacism. Resource exploitation is bad enough; however in the mind of the Muslim such exploitation extends to insulting the superiority of Islam over non-Muslim beliefs. Initially this European exploitation reawakened a Pan-Arab unity movement to expel European control of Muslim Middle Eastern and Muslim Maghreb (North Africa) areas. The existence of Israel was viewed as part of that European exploitation because in the mind of theopolitical Islam, once Islam has dominated an area it is blasphemy to surrender land to the control of non-Muslims even if that land is a non-threatening sliver of land in comparison to the rest of Muslim world that views itself with an Arab legacy.

 

Early Pan-Arabism was actually secular minded with Sharia Law as the foundation for the rule of law. However, in the early days of Pan-Arabism shortly after WWI and the Ottomans lost control of Muslim people that considered themselves as Arabs, there began a movement to look back on the purity and example of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed. This movement is what we describe as Radical Islam today because of the insistence to follow the dictates of the Quran, Hadith and Sira concerning lifestyle and relations with non-Muslims.

 

The irony for Pan-Arabism is that the constant invasions of independent Israel that resulted in constant losses, the secularist portion became divisive in an Arab unity movement. These constant invasions resulted in the mutual displacement of Arabs in independent Israel and Jews that had lived for centuries in the Muslim Middle East and the Muslim Maghreb. Arabs fled Israel believing the bloodlust of invading Arab armies assumed they would be returning after the Jews were wiped off the earth. Jews did not flee their Middle Eastern and Maghreb homes; rather they were expelled because of the humiliation of tiny Israel beating the snot out of the invading armies. These expelled Jews were forced to leave with the clothes on their back leaving possessions and property behind ala Nazi policy minus the Concentration Camps.

 

Shoher would have us believe that the conflict between Jewish Israel and the surrounding ocean of Muslims is a conflict based on homogeneity. I disagree. Modern Israel has a culture based on the evolution of the European rule of law which in turn is based on the influence of ancient Greece, ancient Rome and Judeo-Christianity. Israel is a secular State that is established as a safe haven for Jews that had their origins in the Land of Israel way before Mohammed was born.

 

My conclusion is there is a Clash of Civilizations between Western Culture (more so with American Culture) and Islamic Culture. It is inevitable the culture clash will lead to confrontation unless a transformation movement happens widely inside Islamic Culture or (God Forbid!) Western Culture so weakened by secularism begins to allow Islamic Cultural tenets to be infused into the West.

 

Obadiah Shoher believes that his concept that Israelis and the Arab-Muslim people are not so different because they are homogenous that a violent war will ultimately take place. He does not say this but the 21st century bloody war between Israel and Jew-hating Muslims could very well be a nuke war.

 

I DO CONCUR with Obadiah Shoher’s ultimate conclusion between Israel and the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians. The best way for peace within Israel is to transfer Arab Jew-hating Muslims out of all the land controlled by Israel. That would be Judea-Samaria dubbed the West Bank by once occupying Jordan and the retaking of the Gaza Strip to include those that launch rockets into Israeli cities.

 

I believe such a transfer exacerbate a final Clash of Civilizations. It is time to place a chink in the armor of Islamic Supremacism to end the Islamic terrorism that occurs on Western soil in the name of Allah and Mohammed’s example.

 

JRH 2/22/12

I am Huge with Israel is the Land of the Jews


John R. Houk

© January 2012

Some might wonder the reasoning of a Christian Right Winger is so committed to the existence of Israel and Jews that internally and globally support the existence of a Jewish State. Then again as part of the Christian Right you might not wonder. In this day and age every Christian (authentic, Progressive or Emerging/Emergent) needs to search their conscience and contemplate their reasons for supporting or hating on Israel.

I am obviously a part of the Christian Right that wears the moniker of a Christian Zionist. Zionists lobbied heavily for the creation of a Jewish State and ultimately for that State to be in the homeland of the heritage that God provided to Jews (Hebrews) as a Promised Land. The British plugged into the Zionist movement during WWI in battling their enemies of Germany, Austro-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire (Turkey). In the case of the Jews that enemy that mattered was the Ottoman Empire which still held a multinational empire in the Middle East. Victory over the Ottoman’s meant that Europe controlled Middle Eastern land as victors in war. Essentially the British and the French took slices of the Middle East with the League of Nations validating that control under the idealism that a Mandatory System would give Middle Eastern people their own nation. Primarily the Middle Eastern people had not known personal sovereignty for centuries due to Ottoman rule. Indeed Middle Eastern Arabs rose up in revolt against the Ottomans under the dream of freedom and sovereignty.

Many Arabs became understandably nationalistic and dreamed of a Pan-Arab nation. Unfortunately for the Pan-Arabists the Brits and the French had no intention of allowing one huge Arab nation to exist in the Middle East. Hence the Mandatory system was utilized to play on the tribalistic thinking of Muslim Arabs and offered kingdoms to Sheiks; i.e. essentially to the Muslim families that were the most supportive of the British Army fighting the Ottomans in the Middle East. (It was mostly a British effort in the Middle East during WWI even though the French was given a Mandatory as well.) By playing on the greed for power Britain and France easily carved up the Middle East.

The British Mandate for Palestine’s original intention was for a Jewish State. The British bean to rethink their National Interest position when somebody realized that the Arabs – being good Muslims – were extremely hostile to a largely immigrant Jewish crowd that with the promise of leaving European persecution. So the British tried to slow down the Jewish promise for a return to their homeland to accommodate nationalistic Pan-Arabism.

Well that is the end of my incomplete thoughts on how modern Israel began to emerge.

The point is that Zionism prevailed and Israel came into existence. The irony of the 1948 survival to claim the independence of modern Israel is that a significant amount of Zionist Jews were Left leaning and not necessarily totally observant Jews. The one commonality between Israel’s Left and Right (with the Right largely being religious Jews) was to survive as a nation to avoid the extermination that Hitler’s Nazi Germany attempted to perpetuate on Jews that resulted in nearly SIX MILLION Jewish deaths.

Now let’s be clear that Israel is a Jewish State that also has Christians, Muslims and various Islamic offshoots such as the Druze syncretic religious population. Christians, Muslims and Muslim offshoots are completely free to practice their faith openly without threat of state sanctioned persecution. The drawback is that proselytization is not allowed in Israel.

For a Christian Right person such as me, evangelism is a preeminent part of being a Christian. So question is: Why are there evangelicals that are so supportive of the Jewish State of Israel? The answer is related to the term Christian Zionism.

Let’s look at some thoughts on Christian Zionism

Here is a Jewish perspective from the Jewish Virtual Library:

Christian Zionism can be defined as Christian support for the Zionist cause — the return of the Jewish people to its biblical homeland in Israel. It is a belief among some Christians that the return of Jews to Israel is in line with a biblical prophecy, and is necessary for Jesus to return to Earth as its king. These Christians are partly motivated by the writings of the Bible and the words of the prophets. However, they are also driven to support Israel because they wish to “repay the debt of gratitude to the Jewish people for providing Christ and the other fundamentals of their faith,” and to support a political ally, according to David Brog, author Standing With Israel: Why Christians Support the Jewish State.

Despite their support for Israel, many Jews however, are uncomfortable with Christian Zionists. This discomfort is fed by Christian anti-Semitism, Christian replacement theology, evangelical proselytizing, and disagreements over domestic and political issues.

Dispensationalist Christianity, an interpretive or narrative framework for understanding the overall flow of the Bible, teaches that Christianity did not replace Judaism, but that it restored lost elements of it. The dispensationalist view of the Bible is that the Old Testament is foreshadowing for what will occur in the New Testament and, at the end, Jesus returns to reign on Earth after an epic battle between good and evil. Israel plays a central role in the dispensationalist view of the end of the world. The establishment of Israel in 1948 was seen as a milestone to many dispensationalists on the path toward Jesus’ return. In their minds, now that the Jews again had regained their homeland, all Jews were able to return to Israel, just as had been prophesied in the Bible. As described in the Book of Revelation, there is an epic battle that will take place in Israel after it is reestablished — Armaggedon — in which it is prophesied that good will finally triumph over evil. However, in the process, two-thirds of the Jews in Israel die and the other third are converted to Christianity. Jesus then returns to Earth to rule for 1,000 years as king.

Although these Christians do hope for a Messianic age, the majority of them do not wish for the deaths of thousands of Jews during Armageddon. Dispensationalist Christians believe that the Jewish people, not Christians, are the ones who were promised Israel in the Bible. In their view, Christianity did not come into existence to replace Judaism, but to restore it. This view has surpassed replacement theology as the dominant form of Christian thought regarding Israel in America today. Jews who are suspicious of Christian Zionist motives are usually unaware that many Christian supporters of Israel have abandoned replacement theology.

Aside from anti-Semitism and Christian replacement theology, many Jews are wary of the fact that many evangelical Christians simply want to convert them to Christianity or speed up the Second Coming of Christ …

Christian Zionists say Jews have no reason to distrust their motives for supporting Israel because they do not believe they can speed up the Second Coming of Christ. In the Gospel of Matthew, it is written that Jesus said about his return, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.”

Christian Zionists are also more conservative on Israel than many Jews. They favor Israel maintaining all of its settlements in the West Bank, and were opposed to the Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip. Some prominent Christian Zionists have been highly critical of Israeli government policy of giving over parts of Israel to the Palestinian people. Christian Zionists, like followers of the Israeli Right, believe that Israel should never cede any section of Israel to the Palestinians because Israel was given to the Jews by God. … (Read the entire JVL article)

It is important to understand that not all Jews are on board with Christian Zionism. The organized Christian Church has a long history of persecution against Jews. Jews are proud of their heritage whether Liberal or religious, have nearly no interest in listening to a proselytizing message from a Christian.

Part Two: Christian Zionism

 

In the previous segment we looked at the question “What is Zionism?” and simply defined it as the biblical promises and prophecies made by God to the Jewish patriarchs that their descendants would occupy the Promised Land, what the world today calls Palestine, forever. Today we are going to look at the question:

“What is Christian Zionism?”
You may never have heard of it before. Christian Zionism is a movement resulting from the Bible, mainly among Gentile Christians who share this interpretation and this vision of God being faithful to all His covenants; including the covenant He made with Abraham so long ago. We have been convinced by God to support this modern return, this latest and final return of the Jewish people to the Promised Land; by our prayers and fervent intercession and with our finances, actions and energies. (From webpage – Christian Zionism)

The above quote is from a very informative website.

I have got to post this article on Christian Zionism Defined by the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem which is re-posted at ZionismOnTheWeb.org.  This is a succinct explanation of Christian Zionism:

Christian Zionism Defined

By International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, 10/1/2006
Reproduced at
Zionism On The Web with permission from christian-zionism.org

Tens of thousands of churches, and literally tens of millions Christians in the USA have a committed belief in the importance of standing with Israel and blessing the Jewish people. The verse most often referred to as their biblical mandate is Genesis 12:3 in which God tells Abraham “I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”

Since the birth of the State of Israel in 1948 the theological error known as Replacement Theology has begun to decline and increasing is a theology of Christian Zionism that understands the importance of God’s everlasting covenant with Abraham and the nation he would birth.

However, just as the term “Zionism” has been turned into a negative word by Israel’s enemies, so “Christian Zionism” is under attack and often misrepresented in the media and in some public discourse. For this reason, the ICEJ’s articles and monographs defining and clarifying the beliefs of Christian supporters of Israel and placing their “love for Israel” within its proper biblical context are proving invaluable.

Christian Zionists

Zionism, [is] the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions, left and right, religious and secular, joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together toward these goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained. The term “Zionism” was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.” (Jewish Virtual Library).

If Zionism is the belief in the Jewish peoples right to return to their homeland, then a Christian Zionist should simply be defined as a Christian who supports the Jewish peoples right to return to their homeland. Under this broad and simple definition, many Christians would qualify no matter what their reasons are for this support. Just as Jews of all persuasions formed the Zionist movement then Christians of all persuasion can also fall within this broad definition of a Christian Zionist.

For this very reason, a myriad of answers may be given by a Christian when questioned about their support of Israel. Answers can include political, historical, and/or religious reasons. For example, see our article Why We Support Israel.

Theology of Christian Zionism

The actual theology of Christian Zionism, also known as Biblical Zionism, supports the right of the Jewish people to return to their homeland on scriptural grounds. The biblical foundation for Christian Zionism is found in Gods Covenant with Abraham. It was in this covenant that God chose Abraham to birth a nation through which He could redeem the world, and to do this He bequeathed them a land on which to exist as this chosen nation.

Christian Zionism is confirmed throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. The major and minor prophets consistently confirmed this national calling on Israel, promised her future restoration to the land after a period of exile, and spoke of her spiritual renewal and redemption bringing light to the world.

Christian Zionism differs with Replacement Theology which teaches that the special relationship that Israel had with her God in terms of her national destiny and her national homeland has been lost because of her rejection of Jesus as Messiah, and therefore the Church has become the new Israel. The Church has then inherited all the blessings promised to Israel but the judgments and curses still conveniently remain over the Jewish people.

Instead, Christian Zionism teaches from the scriptures that Gods covenant with Abraham is still valid today. There remains a national destiny over the Jewish people and her national homeland is her everlasting possession in fulfillment of Gods plans and purposes for her. The New Testament scriptures not only affirm the Abrahamic covenant, but they confirm the historical mission of Israel and that Israels gifts and calling are irrevocable.

Most Christian Zionists would agree that Israels reemergence on the worlds scene, in fulfillment of Gods promises to her, indicate that other biblically-predicted events will follow. However, Christian Zionism is not based on prophecy or end-time events. It is based on Gods promises and calling – which are irrevocable.  (The end of the article has several links to information on Christian Zionism)

Now here is my thing on being a Christian Zionist. If a Jewish person desires to know about Jesus I am more than willing to share the Gospel so that a Jewish person can KNOW Jesus – personally; however I believe evangelizing Jews is not a profitable action. The Jews – who are God’s Chosen People – will know Jesus by the Lord’s own Divine action. How that plays out, I do not have a clue.

Perhaps in the Last Days when Israel is in trouble of destruction without some kind supernatural help, the Lord Jesus Christ will reveal Himself as the King of the Jews of the line of David and as the Son of God.  Or perhaps at Christ’s return with his angels and Saints at the end of the Tribulation period when the Thousand Year Reign of King Jesus is established in which the remnant of living Gentiles and Jews who have not Believed will now know Jesus is King, the head of government of the true New World Order. Undoubtedly the power of the Lord’s return will create instant respect for the authority of Jesus to rule as the head of One World Government; however it will take a training period of One Thousand Years to allow a heart belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior.

It is after the 1000 year training period that Satan will be released from chains. Satan will work his temptation on the humans of planet earth and some will join Satan’s army. The end of the Book tells us Satan loses in that final battle and he is cast into the lake of fire with the anti-Christ and the False Prophet to exist in eternal burning with bodily consumption. Those humans committed to reject life in Christ before the Parousia and after will join Satan in the lake of fire.

By the time of the creation of the New Heavens and the New Earth with the New Jerusalem as the dwelling place of God’s presence all things will be new and there will be division of Jew and Gentile. The point being, from a Christian perspective, the Jews will discover their Messiah supernaturally and accept His Presence.

Now here is a little personal rumor history. When I was a teenager my Grandmother told me a Jewish ancestry existed in my heritage to go along with my German and English strains. Now she told me this in hush-hush terms as if she was embarrassed to share this with me. I thought it odd at the time that she spoke of my ancestors in such a hushed tone. At the time I could care less because my prime directive was to have fun and party in the small college town – Washington State – I grew up in.

As I grew older and became a Christian I thought on that day of my Grandmother’s hushed information Jewish blood in my veins. If it is true, I had a sense of pride rather than embarrassment. I understand my Grandmother’s close-to-the-vest attitude because she was a kid in the days in which a Jew was frowned upon even in America.

Whether my Jewish lineage is true or not, I could not say. I never pursued an ancestry chart, mostly because it has never been in my budget. I might try to get someone to work on that for me some day, but I don’t have time currently. At any rate the potential of a Jewish ancestry increases my position as a Christian Zionist.

JRH 1/1/12

The Invented People Desire Jewish Deaths


 

Land for Piece toon

 

John R. Houk

© December 19, 2011

 

Hamas is the Islamic Terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel. The terrorists govern the Gaza Strip only because the Israeli military fell for some land-for-peace bologna forcing Jewish settlers to leave as the IDF left Gaza. When the IDF left Hamas gained control politically in Gaza via the vote over the Fatah dominated Palestinian Authority. Hamas solidified their political control over Gaza by killing PA bureaucrats still left after the Hamas election victory essentially carving out their own fiefdom that is neither under PA authority nor Israeli authority. AND YET Israel is still responsible for supplying electricity, food and so on to a group of people that desires Israel’s destruction and a second Holocaust for Jews.

 

According to the CIA World Fact Book the estimated population of Gaza is 1,657,155 (July 2011 est.). In Gaza City a rally celebrating the 24th anniversary of the founding of Hamas garnered 350,000 supporters. The Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh proclaimed that soon the Arab peoples will build an army and forcibly take Jerusalem from Israel. Past Hamas public declarations indicate such an armed invasion will entail Jewish blood running through the streets at the hands of Muslims. When a rally of 350,000 Hamas supporters come together to celebrate an anniversary of the establishment of a terrorist organization dedicated to killing Jews the supporters of a sovereign Palestinian State on the borders of Israel should stand up and pay attention. WE should pay attention because Newt Gingrich has spoken so eloquently that these Arabs that call themselves Palestinians are an invented people AND YET their sole desire is to execute genocidal murder of a real people – Jews.

 

In the face of such blatant hostility toward America’s friend and keeper peace in the Holy Land to Jews, Christians and Muslims; why in the world is America a part of a Quartet forcing Israel to recognize an independent Palestinian State on land that is Jewish heritage? There is NO right of return of the descendants of Arabs that have tripled in population since their Arab brothers forced them to remain in refugee camps rather than taking responsibility when failed invasions to destroy Israel occurred. In losing wars these Arab refugees should have been taken in by their Arab brethren as citizens because Arab bloodlust caused their displacement. All Israel did was defend its right to exist and in the defense won war after war.

 

I know it sounds harsh but Israel should expel these Arab trouble makers who refuse to live peaceably with the Jewish State of Israel. An Arab expulsion would only be bloody with Arabs calling themselves Palestinians resisting and/or Arab nations refusing to take their brothers and sisters into their nations. If there is a bloody resistance on the part of Arabs living in Jewish land then so be it. Resistance needs a forceful response even if it means extreme prejudice in their removal. This might not bring peace to Israel; however it will bring peace within the borders of Israel.

 

NO PALESTINE STATE AND NO ARAB JERUSALEM

 

Here is another hostile threat. If Arabs insist on controlling the Temple Mount without sharing with the Jews, then bulldoze those two Mosques that are a desecration of the Jewish Temple Mount. Jerusalem is the City of David and that was long before the possibility of any Muslim myth that Mohammed flew on a horse from the Temple Mount into some Muslim heaven that Jews and Christians do not believe in.

 

I realize Jews and Christians do not see eye to eye on the Temple Mount, yet modern day Christians are more than willing to allow the Temple Mount to retain its Jewish heritage. Christians believe when Christ’s return is imminent there will be a mass conversion of Jews that discover their long awaited Messiah is indeed Jesus Christ the Son of God and the son of Mary who was of the lineage of King David. This scenario does not include usurping Muslims that were only able to build two Mosques on the Temple Mount because of military conquest and not the instruction of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (renamed Israel). Christians recognize the Jewish lineage and Muslims have corrupted the lineage by calling all the patriarchs and prophets Muslims and deviate the lineage of Abraham to go through Ishmael the son of a slave girl rather through the son of Promise Isaac from Sarah Abraham’s espoused wife. Isaac fathered Esau and Jacob as twins and Esau gave up his birthright making Jacob line of promise that for Christians culminates with Mary the mother of Jesus the Son of God.

 

And that is my two cents disqualifying the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians.

 

JRH 12/19/11

Here is a Two-State Solution I can Run With


John R. Houk

© May 24, 2011

 

In these days of President Barack Hussein Obama throwing Israel under the Arab-Muslim Jew-hating bus by demanding a Palestinian State that strips Israeli borders back to 1967 there was a lot of talk that a solution to Arab (i.e. Palestinian)/Israel conflict was a “Jordan is Palestine” solution.

 

This idea did not set well with Jew-hating Muslim nations surrounding Israel because they created a refugee problem by not taking responsibility for the displaced Arabs they created by attempting to destroy the new Jewish State in 1948.

 

The Kingdom of Jordan I believe always had a sympathetic agenda to normalize relations with Israel after the first 1948 war but pressure from surrounding Muslim nations whether actually involved in sending invasion troops or not to Israel had pressured King Abdullah I and later King Hussein into towing the hate-Jew/Israel line. That pressure always centered on the potential of the Hashemite House might lose a place to rule after being so influential even under Turkish rule. It was the Hashemite House (Modern Hashemite evolution) that cared for Meccan and Medina until the House of Saud rose up and gave the Hashemites the boot from the Muslim holy places.

 

At the end of WWI the British did not want a unified Arab world (and neither did competitor France) and so tribal fiefdoms were carved up into arbitrary Mandates, Protectorates and independent Muslim nations. Two Hashemite brothers were thus offered two carved out nations in Iraq and Transjordan. Most of the chunk of Transjordan was created from the original League of Nations British Mandate of Palestine which came into existence after the Turks were given the boot back to Turkey. Frankly I am uncertain how Iraq’s tribal areas were divided into the Iraq nation except that the Kurds were in the north; the Shias were in the east and the lesser population of Sunni Arabs to the west.

 

The Hashemite brother became King of Syria and was deposed by the French. The British then made Faisal the King of Iraq and was quite successful even the Muslims of that British carved out nation had little information of their new. King Faisal I desired to make Iraq a hegemonic power among Arabs with dreams of a Pan-Arab union government with himself as the king of the Arabs. Who knows what would have happened in this area because beginning to gain favor with his subjects in Iraq and he definitely had a following in French controlled Syria whence he had been deposed. King Faisal I died in July 1933 ending that Pan-Arab dream.

 

Faisal’s I son then became King Ghazi of Iraq and reigned from 1933 – 1939. Ghazi had the same Pan-Arab visions of his father; however he became enamored with Hitler’s Nazi Germany. It is possible Ghazi’s Nazi sympathies led him to support a coup of the Iraq military to end Iraq’s civilian government. A mysterious car accident took his life in 1939 which many felt was an assassination.

 

Ghazi’s son Faisal became King Faisal II; however he was just a kid. Faisal’s II uncle was the regent to the Iraq throne until the age of majority in 1953. While Faisal II was a minor, the Nazi sympathizers among the Iraq military embarked on another coup in Iraq that resulted in the uncle’s regency being dethroned – momentarily. Transjordan’s British trained Arab Legion and the British Royal Air Force beat down the Nazi sympathizing Iraqis reinstalled the regency and the throne of Faisal II. Faisal II came to the age of majority assuming the reigns of monarchy in 1953.  Faisal II found himself deposed in relatively short fashion via the old Third World transference of government through a coup. The July 14, 1958 coup was actually a massacre resulting in a firing squad of the Hashemite Iraq Royal family thus ending another Hashemite sphere of influence.

 

So, you can imagine the pressure King Abdullah I and later his son King Hussein placed on retaining a traditional Hashemite House. No Hashemites in the … READ THE REST at SlantRight.com