NETANYAHU BOMBSHELL: Palestinian leader led Holocaust


Photo: Five SS officers on the staff of Adolf Eichmann who were involved in the extermination of Slovakian Jewry. In the photo Dieter Wisliceny (second from the right); Viktor Nagler (center); Viktor Hahn; Guedler (first name unknown); Franz Matz. – Ghetto Fighters House Archives

 

Intro to: NETANYAHU BOMBSHELL …

Intro by John R. Houk

Posted 11/2/15

In conjunction with the post “Genocidal Jew-Hater Amin al-Husseini,” I found an email notification in my Gmail account I wish I would have read earlier. The email was sent on October 27 from Historical and Investigative Research (HIR) and was in response Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech placing the blame for the Holocaust on then Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini inspiring Adolf Hitler.

Unsurprisingly in the Antisemitic climate so pervasive in the world today, Netanyahu has received irascible hostility for his thoughts. By the way in case you have had your head in the sand, Netanyahu’s thoughts on Arab-Muslim Jew-hatred are the result of the latest round of attacks by Arabs who call themselves Palestinians against Israeli Jews with knives. The knife attacks were first incited by PA President Mahmoud Abbas with Hamas having no problem in joining in the indiscriminate targeting of Jewish men, women, and children, young and old.

The HIR article linked to in the email was posted on October 23 right the time of Netanyahu’s speech to the 37th Zionist Congress in Jerusalem. Here is the HIR teaser in the email that then links to the October 23 article:

NETANYAHU BOMBSHELL: Palestinian leader led Holocaust

Sent by HIR

October 27, 2015

Part 1 | Is this true?

Historical and Investigative Research – 23 Oct 2015
by Francisco Gil-White

___

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a speech to the World Zionist Congress, stated that Hajj Amin al Husseini, the founding father of the Palestinian movement, had convinced the Nazis to exterminate the European Jews. We examine here the evidence relevant to this claim.

___

According to my own opinion, the Grand Mufti [Hajj Amin al Husseini], who has been in Berlin since 1941, played a role in the decision of the German Government to exterminate the European Jews, the importance of which must not be disregarded. He had repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he has been in contact, above all before Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry. He considered this as a comfortable solution of the Palestine problem. In his messages broadcast from Berlin, he surpassed us in anti-Jewish attacks. He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and has constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard say that, accompanied by Eichmann, he has visited incognito the gas chamber at Auschwitz.

Nuremberg testimony of
SS Hauptsturmfuehrer
Dieter Wisliceny
(Adolf Eichmann’s right-hand man)

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY

This is what I’m going to do. I going to cross post the article and the documentary. The documentary is about 15 minutes long and HIR links to the VIMEO version. There are more video parts that I am not going to cross post, but if you want to be educated on the true nature of the Jew-hating movement inspired by Haj Amin al-Husseini. The article has the video at the top so I am going to actually begin with that. I’m going to use the Youtube version because it is more compatible with all more blog platforms.

 

JRH 11/2/15

Please Support NCCR

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

VIDEO: THE NAZIS AND THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT

 

Posted by Changeling9au

Published on Jul 30, 2013

!!IMPORTANT UPDATE 28th Oct 2015!! With Netanyahu’s recent comments pertaining to this history, and the media’s and “experts’ ” hysterical reactions to them, a lot of fog has been generated. Carve through the fog here – http://www.hirhome.com/israel/nazis_palestinians_2.htm

For a better version of this video: https://vimeo.com/69991225

See also https://www.youtube.com/user/FACESHIRHOME

Documentation, chapters, and videos at: http://www.hirhome.com/colapso/colapso.htm  [Spanish Language]

See also: http://www.hirhome.com/israel/nazis_palestinians.htm  for an analysis of the likely reason why Youtube are blocking this video in Israel, as well as an analysis of Wikipedia’s whitewash of Haj Amin Al Husseini.

See also: http://www.hirhome.com/israel/netanyahu_bar_ilan_husseini_nazis.htm  for an analysis of Netanyahu’s speech at Bar Ilan University, and why he was forced to make it.

In short, it’s an attempt to placate those who are aware of the history documented in this video. It is likely also an attempt by Netanyahu to kind of cover his back and avoid charges of Treason – http://www.hirhome.com/israel/netanyahu_bar_ilan_husseini_nazis2.htm

Traces the history of PLO/Fatah, now better known as the ‘Palestinian Authority,’ the organization that will govern a future Palestinian State. The video shows how PLO/Fatah emerged from the German Nazi Final Solution. Hajj Amin al Husseini, father of the Palestinian Movement, creator of Fatah, and mentor to Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, was co-director with Adolf Eichmann of the death camp system that exterminated between 5 and 6 million European Jews in WWII.

JRH 8/2/15

Please Support NCCR

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

THE NETANYAHU BOMBSHELL:

Founder of Palestinian movement instigated the Holocaust

Part 1 – Is this true?

Historical and Investigative Research – 23 Oct 2015
by Francisco Gil-White

__

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a speech to the World Zionist Congress, stated that Hajj Amin al Husseini, the founding father of the Palestinian movement, had convinced the Nazis to exterminate the European Jews. We examine here the evidence relevant to this claim.

__

Read also: The Nazis and the Palestinian Movement

According to my own opinion, the Grand Mufti [Hajj Amin al Husseini], who has been in Berlin since 1941, played a role in the decision of the German Government to exterminate the European Jews, the importance of which must not be disregarded. He had repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he has been in contact, above all before Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry. He considered this as a comfortable solution of the Palestine problem. In his messages broadcast from Berlin, he surpassed us in anti-Jewish attacks. He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and has constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard say that, accompanied by Eichmann, he has visited incognito the gas chamber at Auschwitz.

Nuremberg testimony of
SS Hauptsturmfuehrer
Dieter Wisliceny
(Adolf Eichmann’s right-hand man)
[11]

Photo: May 17, 1947 – Other Arab States Support Iraq Revolt

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently stated that the father of the Palestinian movement, Hajj Amin al Husseini, convinced the Nazis to exterminate the European Jews. Here is a brief summary of what happened, published by the Jerusalem Post on 21 October 2015:

“In a speech to delegates at the 37th World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem on Tuesday, the premier claimed that Hitler’s original intentions were solely to expel the Jews.

According to Netanyahu, the Fuhrer changed his mind at the insistence of the Palestinian Arab leader at the time, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who argued that the expulsion of the Jews would result in their arrival en masse to Palestine, which at the time was under British Mandatory rule.”[1]

This has created a storm. Immediately, authorities of all sorts were quoted in the media stating that Netanyahu’s claims were outrageous and untrue. I will examine the outraged reactions in a future piece. Here, I examine Netanyahu’s claim in light of the available historical evidence, so that readers may form an opinion as to whether they are true.

For context, I begin with a short summary of what is not in dispute.

First, Hajj Amin al Husseini is the father of the Palestinian movement, and mentor to such figures as Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, the current leader of this movement.

Second, Husseini organized several mass terrorist attacks against the Jews in British Mandate Palestine. The first was in 1920. Then, after the British made him the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, he used that position to launch new terrorist attacks in 1921, 1929, and 1936-39. The last was called the ‘Arab Revolt’ and Husseini and allies waged it with weapons supplied by Adolf Hitler.

Third, after he left the Mandate in 1939, Husseini went to Iraq to organize a pogrom against the Iraqi Jews that destroyed the Jewish community there (the Farhud).[2]

Fourth, Husseini traveled to Italy and then to Berlin, where he was received with full honors and sat down for a high-profile chat with none-other than the Führer himself. The Nazi film (included in the documentary shown at top right) and a Nazi memorandum of this meeting both survived.

An especially relevant excerpt from that memorandum is the following:

“The Führer then made the following statement to the Mufti, enjoining him to lock it in the uttermost depths of his heart

1. He (the Führer) would carry on the battle to the total destruction of the Judeo-Communist empire in Europe.

2. At some moment which was impossible to set exactly today but which in any event was not distant, the German armies would in the course of this struggle reach the southern exit from Caucasia.

3. As soon as this had happened, the Führer would on his own give the Arab world the assurance that its hour of liberation had arrived. Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power…” [3]

So Husseini got assurances from Adolf Hitler that the German Nazis would exterminate the Jews in British Mandate Palestine. This is what the father of the Palestinian movement most wanted.

Fifth, Husseini spent the rest of the war in the German-occupied sphere and played an important role in Nazi propaganda inciting Muslims on the German radio to murder Jews.

Sixth, he recruited and supervised the formation of large SS divisions made up of Bosnian and Albanian Muslims that participated in the massacres of the Yugoslav chapter of the Holocaust (photographic evidence for these latter activities is abundant, and may be found on the internet [Blog Editor: Many of those photos can be found on the HIR webpage. I’m not posting those numerous photos]).

All of the above points are uncontroversial, and for those not specifically footnoted here you may consult the relevant documentation in a different HIR article.[4] You may also consult the documentation put together by The Nation in the 1947 article reproduced at right.

So what is the great brouhaha in the media all about? It is about the following two questions:

1) Did the Nazis, as Netanyahu claims, initially mean to expel the Jews, rather than kill them all?

2) Did Hajj Amin al Husseini, as Netanyahu claims, convince the Nazis to abandon the expulsion programme for a death camp system that would kill every Jew?

There is very little controversy on the point that the Nazis initially meant to expel the European Jews.

At the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, the Attorney General expressed in his opening statements that “At the beginning, when the Nazis were still sensitive to the reaction of world opinion, the solution took the form of forced emigration.” After summarizing at some length that very policy, he states: “The pressure on Jews to emigrate was not discontinued after the outbreak of war.” In fact, “it was only as the invasion of the Soviet Union drew near that the Germans went over to ‘the final solution’ in the new sense, that is, utter physical extermination.” The Attorney General interprets Hermann Goering’s instructions to Heydrich, issued on 31 July 1941, as marking the change to a policy of extermination, but these instructions state explicitly that Goering was giving Heydrich special powers “ ‘In order to complete the mission imposed on you in the order of 24 January 1939, to solve the problem of the Jews by means of emigration or evacuation’ ” (my emphasis). This was the middle of the summer of 1941, and still they were talking about expulsion. It was not until 27 October 1941 that Himmler “issued a decree forbidding any emigration of Jews from the areas of German rule.”[5]

Thus it seems that, until the fall of 1941, to the Nazis ‘Final Solution’ still meant pushing most of the Jews out. As explained in another HIR article on this question,[5a] a number of historians have concluded precisely this from the bulk of the evidence.

For example, 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]

It is true that a great many Jews were being killed on the Eastern front, and these deaths of course must be counted in what is called the Shoa (or ‘Holocaust’), but, according to these historians, “until the autumn of 1941” there wasn’t as yet a decision to kill all of the European Jews in death camps. Husseini arrived in Berlin in “the autumn of 1941” (November 1941, to be precise). Husseini thus arrived right on time to argue powerfully in favor of what became the Wannsee Conference decision to kill every last living European Jew. This agrees nicely with Netanyahu’s claims.

But, in fact, the evidence is even more agreeable than this to Netanyahu’s claims.

At his trial, Adolf Eichmann confessed that he made an early trip to British Mandate Palestine in 1939 to see if the Jews could be sent there. Another objective of his trip, he confessed, was to meet with ‘Grand Mufti’ Hajj Amin al Husseini.[10a] So Husseini had ample opportunity to argue influentially in favor of total extermination well before November of 1941, for he was in contact with the very Nazi leaders who wanted to send the Jews to Palestine much earlier than that (something that is obvious, anyway, from German Nazi shipments of weapons to Husseini’s terrorists during the so-called ‘Arab Revolt’ of 1936-39). Nothing necessarily hinges, therefore, on Husseini’s arrival in Berlin, or on the exact date of the first killings to be labeled ‘Holocaust,’ as many seem to think.

Finally, according to Dieter Wisliceny, right-hand man to Adolf Eichmann, Husseini did contribute to the Nazi decision to create a death camp system, precisely in the manner that Netanyahu claims.

After the war, and prior to his execution for crimes against humanity, Wisliceny was asked to comment on the testimony of one Eng. Andrej or (Endre) Steiner. During the war, according to Steiner’s testimony, Wisliceny had stated that the Mufti Husseini had played an important role convincing the Nazis to opt for extermination. Wisliceny confirmed the testimony. This was all summarized by State Attorney Bach at the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem:

[Excerpt from the Eichmann trial transcript begins here]

 

State Attorney Bach: This is our document No. 281. Mr. Steiner first tells us that Wisliceny described his talks with Eichmann, why Palestine cannot be considered as the destination for emigration: “When I asked him why, he laughed and asked whether I had never heard of the Grand Mufti Husseini. He explained that the Mufti has very close contact and cooperation with Eichmann, and therefore Germany cannot agree to Palestine being the final destination, as this would be a blow to Germany’s prestige in the Mufti’s eyes.”

 

Then he goes on: “At this further conversation Wisliceny gave me more details about the cooperation between Eichmann and the Mufti. The Mufti is a sworn enemy of the Jews and has always fought for the idea of annihilating the Jews. He sticks to this idea always, also in his talks with Eichmann” – and here we have one of the points about which Wisliceny has reservations – “who, as you know, is a German who was born in Palestine. The Mufti is one of the originators of the systematic destruction of European Jewry by the Germans, and he has become a permanent colleague, partner and adviser to Eichmann and Himmler in the implementation of this programme.”

 

Here Wisliceny adds: “I have read these descriptions and find them correct, except for this, that Eichmann was born in Palestine, and that the Mufti was a permanent partner of Himmler’s; this is not what I said.”[11]

 

[Excerpt from the Eichmann trial transcript ends here]

Wisliceny, an eyewitness to the relationship between the Mufti Husseini and Eichmann, agreed to everything that Steiner had said except for the bit about Eichmann having been born in Palestine and about his relationship with Himmler. So Wisliceny agreed that “The Mufti is one of the originators of the systematic destruction of European Jewry by the Germans”—in other words, that he had played an important role in the decision to set up the death camp system.

Those who disagree with Netanyahu cannot simply express ‘outrage’ and claim, in the abstract, that Netanyahu is wrong. No matter that they consider themselves great ‘authorities’ invested with institutional prestige. No matter that they claim to speak for Yad Vashem, or ‘Holocaust survivors,’ or the ‘Jewish people’ or ‘real’ or ‘serious’ historians—or any other category of presumed scientific or moral authority which they hope will seem like a big enough stick to beat Netanyahu with. The sources are the sources. If Netanyahu’s detractors wish to disagree with the sources that support his claims, they must speak directly to their content and make a specific argument. That is the sport of historical interpretation. We’ll be waiting.

In closing, I will add that I find the moral arguments brandished to attack Netanyahu especially interesting. And they are most revealing, I believe, about a number of things, including who really has influence over media content, and which forces are ultimately responsible for shaping Israeli politics. I shall have much to say about this in a future piece, soon to come.

Read also:

How did the ‘Palestinian movement’ emerge? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US. http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

The CIA protected Adolf Eichmann, architect of the Holocaust
Has the US ruling elite been pushing a pro-Nazi policy? http://www.hirhome.com/israel/eichmann.htm

PLO/Fatah’s Nazi training was CIA-sponsored http://www.hirhome.com/israel/cia-fatah.htm

The Collapse of the West: The Next Holocaust and its Consequences http://www.hirhome.com/colapso/colapso.htm

Footnotes and Further Reading:

[1] “Palestinian mufti convinced Hitler to massacre Europe’s Jews, Netanyahu says”; Jerusalem Post; 21 October 2015. http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Palestinian-mufti-convinced-Hitler-to-massacre-Europes-Jews-Netanyahu-says-427592

[2] Black, E. (2010). The Farhud: Roots of the Arab-Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust. Washington DC: Dialog Press. http://www.farhudbook.com/

[3] Author: Germany. Auswärtiges Amt. Title: Documents on German foreign policy, 1918-1945, from the archives of the German Foreign Ministry. Akten zur deutschen auswärtigen Politik. English Publisher: Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1949- Description: Book v. fold. maps. 24 cm. [Series D, Vol. XIII no. 515] http://www.hirhome.com/israel/muftihitler.htm

[4] “How did the ‘Palestinian movement’ emerge? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; from UNDERSTANDING THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

[5] SOURCE: The Trial of Adolf Eichmann, Sessions 6-7-8. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-006-007-008-05.html

[5a] “The Nazis and the Palestinian Movement: Documentary and discussion”; Historical and Investigative Research; 26 July 2013; by Francisco Gil-White http://www.hirhome.com/israel/nazis_palestinians.htm

[6] Paulsson, G. S. (1995). The ‘Bridge over the Oresund’: The Historiography on the Expulsion of the Jews from Nazi-Occupied Denmark. Journal of Contemporary History, 30(3), 431-464. (p.442)

[7] Jersak, T. (2000). Blitzkrieg revisited: A new look at Nazi war and extermination planning. The historical journal, 43(2), 565-582 (p.571)

[8] Paulsson, G. S. (1995). The ‘Bridge over the Oresund’: The Historiography on the Expulsion of the Jews from Nazi-Occupied Denmark. Journal of Contemporary History, 30(3), 431-464. (p.442)

[9] Simpson, C. (1995). The Splendid Blond Beast: Money, Law, and Genocide in the Twentieth Century. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. (p.77)

[10] Marrus, M. R., & Paxton, R. O. (1982). The Nazis and the Jews in occupied Western Europe, 1940-1944. Journal of modern history, 54, 687-714. (p.687)

[10a] Here follows what Eichmann stated on the question of an early meeting with Hajj Amin al Husseini:

[Prosecution lawyer] Q. You have told us of your programme to “put soil under the feet” of the Jewish people. I assume that this was not your personal invention. Could you tell us who were the righteous men who conceived this programme: Heydrich, Himmler, Streicher, Rosenberg – which one of them?

[Eichmann] A. As far as I know, at that time, when I tried to sell this idea within the Service, no one else expressed it.

Q. Only you?

A. At that time, in any event, I did not hear it from anyone else and I also know that this idea was, at that time, ridiculed and scoffed at by some. My impetus came from Adolf Boehm’s book, and there I recognized the root of all evil in the homelessness of this people, and I made no bones about it, within my official sphere of service.

Q. And a clear expression of the need to give this people a homeland, you gave, for instance, in the report about your journey to Palestine in 1939, correct?

A. This is not my report. I have said so myself, and it was confirmed recently in testimony by the person who had then been the superior in command of both myself and the author.

Q. That is not correct, but let me refer only to what you have stated. You have said, in your interrogation, that this report had been corrected by you in your handwriting. This appears on page 341 and 342 of your Statement, where you said that the report had been shown to you before being passed on. Is that correct?

A. I corrected it, but only the spelling, as one can easily find out.

Q. Your journey was designed among other things, to establish contact with Hajj Amin al-Husseini, isn’t that correct?

A. The purpose was, first, to get to know the land and its people, and secondly, to establish contact with all kinds of persons.

Q. I am talking about Hajj Amin al-Husseini.

A. If this were possible, yes, that too, of course.

Q. One of the objects of your journey was to establish contact with Hajj Amin al-Husseini, is that correct? “Yes” or “no”?

A. Yes, that too.

SOURCE: The Trial of Adolf Eichmann, Session 90. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-090-01.html

[11] http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-050-07.html

For the Rudolf Kastner testimony, also confirmed by Wisliceny at Nuremberg,see the reproduction of the relevant pages, below, of:

Pearlman, M. (1947). Mufti of Jerusalem: The story of Haj Amin el Husseini. London: V Gollancz. (pp.71-73)

Photo: Mufti of Jerusalem: The story of Haj Amin el Husseini

_______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Any comment text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor

How Historical and Investigative Research (HIR) came to be…

SHORT SUMMARY

Historical and Investigative Research was created to make important documentation available to the general public, because the academic system is rife with politically biased censorship when it comes to examining the foreign policy of the United States.

Francisco Gil-White found out about this censorship the hard way, when, as a result of his discovery of the vastly important research done by Jared Israel and other journalists at Emperor’s Clothes, he began investigating the official and media representation of the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia, and the relationship of the US government to terrorist forces in that country. Without ever complaining that Gil-White had made a single error of documentation, Gil-White’s employer, the University of Pennsylvania psychology department, began harassing the young assistant professor, making it clear that it didn’t want him doing this kind of research. But Gil-White ignored this and continued his work, casting his eye now also on the Arab-Israeli conflict, for there appeared to be some interesting similarities in the demonization of Serbs and Jews. In time, he published a documentation of PLO origins, showing that this organization traced its roots to the German Nazi Final Solution (the most complete documentation on this is here), which explained why it was chartered to exterminate the Israeli Jews.

After this, Gil-White was threatened with the loss of his job unless he ceased doing this kind of investigative work. Francisco Gil-White has now been fired from the University of Pennsylvania despite READ THE REST

Netanyahu in a Rock and Hard Place Gamble?


John R. Houk

September 10, 2015

I have typically been a supporter of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In part because Netanyahu has stood up to America’s Leftist-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama. That drove BHO and his Leftist minion Democrats nuts. I am still okay with that. I am on the Historical and Investigative Research (HIR) email list. I finally took the opportunity to read an August 31 email from HIR which highlighted some disturbing news about Iran, Judea/Samaria, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and unfortunately Benjamin Netanyahu.

This email provides an understanding of a possible reason Netanyahu may face some hostility from the further Right Wing of his Conservative base. In summary the more Conservative faction is a bit upset their Prime Minister that Iran has a path to acquire nuclear WMD which will be used against Israel but still supports the idea (at least publically) for the existence of Palestinian State in which the PA leadership is receiving clandestine financial and military aid from Iran. The more Conservative Israel Right is seeing a big load of hypocrisy from Benjamin Netanyahu.

It is my humble opinion though that Netanyahu is dealing with the realities of a rock and a hard place.

The rock is Israeli Leftists promoting the concept of land for peace under the delusion it will bring peace to the Jewish State of Israel. The hard place is President Barack Hussein Obama trying to court Muslim favor a la idiotic Jimmy Carter that sold out the Shah-ruled Iran (See Also HERE) to the psycho-Shi’ite Ayatollah-rule. As if exchanging the despotism of the Shah (American Leftist, CIA-Mossad Impact, Neocon Perspective, U.S.-British Oil Interests, Pro-Shah Perspective and fsmitha.com Perspective) for the despotism of the Ayatollah’s (See Also HERE) would be better for America and global peace. The Carter concept was erroneous in the late 1970s and the Obama concept is just as ludicrous in 2015 and beyond.

Obama is willing to throw Israel under the bus either under the delusion of peace in our time (can you say Neville Chamberlain?). OR Obama is embarking on a more nefarious agenda of disrupting the current global power structure which includes weakening the USA, to usher in a more Left Wing globalist power structure paradigm. Either way Obama sells out both America and our closest ally in the Middle East – Israel.

I am still convinced Netanyahu is the best man for the job in Israel. He is simply being forced into a geopolitical game in which Netanyahu is waiting to see who the next U.S. President will be, with the hope the new President understands the danger of a nuclear armed Iran and proceeds accordingly.

On the other hand, if Netanyahu’s geopolitical gamesmanship fails between Obama and Israel’s Jewish Left then followed by Iran actually acquiring nuke WMD resulting in a Palestinian State carved out of Israel’s heritage with Iran as hegemonic master and the new Palestinian State the new client. The next domino would be the destruction of Israel and a second modern Holocaust so devastating that Hitler’s final solution look like a picnic.

JRH 8/10/15

Please Support NCCR

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

An important Israeli politician, Moshe Feiglin, has reposted on his Facebook Page an Arutz 7 article written by Rob Muchnick, his US director, asking the question:

Will the Israeli government give Judea and Samaria to Iran?

Email sent by Professor Francisco Gil-White

Sent from Historical and Investigative Research

Sent August 31, 2015 9:46 PM

The article makes reference to HIR’s short documentary film: PLO/Fatah and Iran: The Special Relationship (on Vimeo, on YouTube), which tells the story documented in an earlier HIR piece. This is exciting, because it is the beginning of political awareness on this crucial issue.

Here is Moshe Feiglin’s post:

I wholeheartedly support this very important article from our US Director, Rob Muchnick.

Please read it and demand that Bibi answer the questions that Rob poses.

Dear Friends,

I wish to ask you a question.

Will the Israeli government — the government of the Jewish State — give Judea and Samaria to Iran?

That may seem impossible.

First, because our prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, daily warns that Iranian leaders wish to destroy us.

Second, because the media, although they discuss the connection between Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, never mention the deeper ties that bind Iran and PLO/Fatah (better known as the ‘Palestinian Authority’).

And what is not in the news goes to sleep in the mind.

But a few days ago, Iran’s official news agency brought this connection back into view by reporting that PLO/Fatah and Iran have signed an “all-out cooperation agreement.”

PLO/Fatah will cooperate fully with Iran!

As a recent documentary reminds me, such cooperation is nothing new. (1) (2)

In the Second Intifada, the Iranian ayatollahs were running PLO/Fatah’s deadliest terrorists, the Al Aqsa Martyrs, and mobilized them to ensure that Mahmoud Abbas became Yasser Arafat’s replacement. At the same time, Iran also sent the Karin a freighter with 50 tons of weapons to the PLO/Fatah. Thankfully, this ship was intercepted by Israel.

But the relationship is older.

In 1979, when the Iranian Islamist regime came to power, the New York Times reported on its front page that PLO/Fatah had been architect of that revolution:

• Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas armed and trained Ayatollah Khomeini’s troops;

• Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas were invited, before any others, to celebrate with Khomeini in Teheran; and then

• Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas helped created the Iranian security services and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

As they celebrated in Teheran, Arafat declared that PLO/Fatah and Iranian aims were identical: the violent destruction of the Jewish people and State.

Meanwhile, Mahmoud Abbas explained to Arab reporters how it would be done:

First, promise peace. Then, gain some territory. And last: annihilate Israel. Abbas called it the ‘Plan of Phases’; the media called it the ‘Peace Process.’

So far, all goes according to plan. But will they conclude it?

Will we let them?

Join me, as Israeli citizens and Jews worldwide, in demanding from our prime minister answers to these questions:

Why is PLO/Fatah still in Israel?

Will our government give Judea and Samaria to Iran?

(1) http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/plo-iran2.htm

(2) https://vimeo.com/130162877

Please go to Moshe Feiglin’s Facebook page and show your support by sharing, and by clicking “like” on his posting.

________________________

[Blog Editor: Below are the cross posts of Notes one and two. Instead of Vimeo I’ll be using the Youtube version]

PLO/Fatah and Iran: The Special Relationship

By Francisco Gil-White

May 25, 2010

Revised and improved, 8 September 2010

Historical and Investigative Research

Vimeo video link: WILL ISRAEL GIVE YESHA (‘WEST BANK’) TO IRAN?

Youtube Link: WILL ISRAEL GIVE YESHA (‘WEST BANK’) TO IRAN?

Published by FACESHIRHOME

Published on Jun 19, 2015

PLO/Fatah, now better known as the “Palestinian Authority,” will govern a Palestinian State in the militarily strategic territories of Judea and Samaria (or “West Bank”) if the Middle East “peace process” concludes with a “Two-State Solution.” Given that Iranian leaders daily promise the destruction of Israel, most people assume that PLO/Fatah has nothing to do with Iran. It would be absurd, they implicitly reason, for Israeli leaders to give strategic territory to an Iranian proxy. And yet, it is a historical fact that PLO/Fatah helped install Ayatollah Khomeini in power and helped create the current Iranian Islamist regime. It has maintained a close relationship with this regime ever since. This short film documents that relationship.

Short Preface

The Obama administration, like any government, routinely makes public statements about its intentions, values, and policy imperatives. For example, the Obama administration claims publicly to be enemy of Iran[1] and friend of Israel. In fact, the US government claims that “‘concerning policy, we have done everything that we can that is in Israel’s security – and long-range interests.”[2]

But what if PLO/Fatah, also known as the ‘Palestinian Authority,’ is a proxy of Iran?

The US government pushes very hard for Israel to give strategic territory to PLO/Fatah in exchange for a promise of ‘peace.’ So if PLO/Fatah is helping Iran destroy Israel, the US government’s behavior is quite interesting.

About the future PLO/Fatah state, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu states: “I think it’s important to make peace with the Palestinians. And I’m prepared to negotiate that peace right away. …They should have their own independent country.” Consistent with this, Netanyahu is rushing to give PLO/Fatah its independent state, and has even put Jerusalem on offer. But Netanyahu has also said: “We should be assured that this country [the future PLO/Fatah state] is not used as a staging ground for Iranian-sponsored terrorist attacks on us.” So if PLO/Fatah is a proxy of Iran, the Israeli government’s behavior is also quite interesting.[3]

One should then ask: What in the world are the US and Israeli governments doing?

This must be answered, because PLO/Fatah, like Hamas and Hezbollah, is indeed part of an Iranian offensive to destroy Israel.

We will show here that PLO/Fatah has always been and continues to be very closely allied with Iran.

PLO/Fatah’s role in Ayatollah Khomeini’s coup

The regime that still rules Iran was inaugurated by Ayatollah Khomeini (see pictures, top right), a ferocious Islamist terrorist who led the 1979 Iranian Revolution to depose the previous ruler, the Shah of Iran. With whom did the Ayatollah Khomeini want to celebrate, right away and before sharing the joy with anybody else?

With Yasser Arafat, then head of PLO/Fatah.

It was just two weeks after the Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran and took power that the New York Times reported how Yasser Arafat had accepted an invitation to visit Teheran. Why so soon? Why so much deference? Because the Ayatollah Khomeini was grateful: “Palestinian sources said that Mr. Arafat’s group had sent arms to the [Iranian] revolutionary forces in the last four months and had trained Iranian guerillas since the early 1970s.”[4] Only four days later Arafat was already in Teheran, celebrating the Iranian theocratic Islamist revolution, and promising to help export it everywhere. Wrote the New York Times: “Bantering and grinning, the guerrilla leader declined to furnish details about support the PLO had given to various Iranian guerrilla organizations.”[5]

Fact: PLO/Fatah played a key role in the Iranian revolution, arming and training Khomeini’s troops.

Naturally, PLO/Fatah expected the favor to be repaid, and the Iranians rushed to state that they would honor their debts. The Globe and Mail reported:

[Quote from Globe and Mail begins here]

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said yesterday that Iranian guerrillas would fight alongside Palestinian forces against Israel.

… Mr. Arafat, the first prominent visitor to Iran since the revolution, said the Palestinian and Iranian aims were identical. “We will continue our efforts until the time when we defeat imperialism and Zionism,” he said.

A close aide of Ayatollah Khomaini, Deputy Premier Ibrahim Yazdi, also attended the inauguration of the PLO office and referred to the identity of the two causes and the large number of Palestinian sacrifices in the PLO’s struggle against Israel.

… The son of Ayatollah Khomaini, Seyyed Ahmad Khomaini, a Moslem clergyman who also spoke at the inauguration of the new PLO office, pledged Iran would continue its revolutionary struggle until all Islamic countries had been set free.

The bearded, black-turbanned Seyyed Khomaini said: “We will continue our struggle until we free all Islamic countries and hoist the Palestinian flag together with ours.”[6]

[Quote from Globe and Mail ends here]

Soon after this Arafat bestrode the world stage as the indispensable best friend of Khomeini, negotiating the safety of the Americans held hostage in the US Embassy in Teheran at the request of …(drum roll)… the US government.[6a]

This makes it rather obvious that the PLO was very powerful in Iran.

In fact, the New York Times wrote in November of 1980 that “The P.L.O. currently enjoys close ties with some of the Iranian revolutionary leaders who rose to power with the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini,” including the Defense Minister Mustafa Chamran and the leader of the Revolutionary Guards Abu Sharif. “Like Yasir Arafat,” wrote the New York Times,“both Abu Sharif and Mustafa Chamran are fervent advocates of exporting Iran’s Islamic revolution to the rest of the Middle East – in particular, to the conservative states of the Arab Gulf” (emphasis added). The Times also explained that PLO/Fatah had played a role in the creation of the Revolutionary Guards (for it trained Abu Sharif) and in creating the new Iranian secret police: SAVAMA (because Sharif and Chamran “relied heavily on their P.L.O. contacts” in setting it up). The Times added:

“The current head of the P.L.O. network in Iran is Hani al-Hassan, alias Abu Hassan, a Jordanian citizen who belongs to Arafat’s inner circle of advisers. Before he was sent to Teheran, Abu Hassan served as deputy chief of Fatah’s security department. He enjoys a remarkable entree to Khomeini and other key members of the Iranian regime — so much so that one Western diplomat suggests that the P.L.O. envoy should be counted as one of the most influential men in Teheran.”[6b] [(HIR) emphasis added]

The picture is clear.

1) PLO/Fatah played a key role in the creation of the Iranian Islamist terror state.

a) It armed and trained Khomeini’s troops for his revolution.

b) It helped create the all-important Revolutionary Guards.

c) It helped create the Iranian secret service SAVAMA.

2) The idea of spreading Iranian Islamist terror everywhere was closely associated with “the PLO’s struggle against Israel.”

a) Iran pledged itself to assist PLO/Fatah against Israel.

b) PLO/Fatah pledged itself to export the Iranian Islamist Revolution.

For years now PLO/Fatah has been represented not only as unlinked to Iran, but also as a secular organization, to be distinguished from the ‘fundamentalists’ and ‘Islamist’ Iranian terror proxies of Hamas and Hezbollah. Most people accept this, and that is a testament to how a media barrage can alter the perception of history. It is obvious, however, that if Yasser Arafat’s ideology was to spread the Iranian Revolution, then he was an Islamist. Historian Howard Sachar, writing in 1982, agreed with how the New York Times represented things back then: “from the outset… the Fatah’s reputation depended largely upon the success of its Moslem traditionalist approach of jihad against Israel.”[6c]

Not just any kind of jihad: Iranian jihad.

PLO/Fatah’s alignment during the Iran-Iraq war

To understand just how intimate the relationship between the Islamist Iranian government and PLO/Fatah, one must take into account that such a strong alliance with the Iranian Shiites angered almost every Arab government that was supporting PLO/Fatah. One cannot imagine that they were pleased to hear Arafat announce his goal of exporting the Iranian revolution to the Gulf States (see above), because this would mean deposing the governments in the Gulf States. And yet Yasser Arafat remained close to his friend Khomeini.

A month after the Iran-Iraq war broke out in late 1980, the Arab governments had sided with Iraq and the situation had become politically dangerous for Arafat. So much so that Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states cracked down on their Palestinian populations. “The reason,” reported the Globe and Mail, “is that the authorities are suspicious of Palestinian ties to the militant Shiite Moslems in Iran, who have vowed to export their Islamic revolution.” And it observed: “Palestinian opinion, while reflecting the PLO’s reluctance to choose sides in a war between its two allies, appears much more pro-Iranian than that of conservative Gulf governments” (emphasis added).[7]

That was October 1980. In December, this was the situation:

[Quote from Washington Post begins here]

Dependent on fellow Arab governments for virtually everything — physical protection, diplomatic backing, arms, money — Arafat has had to watch helplessly as the Persian Gulf war split his benefactors into antagonistic blocs with the PLO caught uncomfortably in the middle.

More damaging was the way the PLO’s much advertised independence crumbled under the arm-twisting pressures of the two camps. When the showdown came before last month’s divided Arab summit meeting, Arafat and the PLO were forced by Syrian President Hafez Assad, leader of the pro-Iran axis, to join a boycott of a summit whose aim was to organize a long-term strategy for the Palestinians’ crusade against Israel.[8]

[Quote from Washington Post ends here]

I would call this remarkable. Even though the PLO was dependent on Arab states for everything, when these states got together to plan a long-term strategy for the PLO’s fight with Israel, the PLO sides with Iran. It was “uncomfortable,” sure, but it sided with Iran.

In March 1981 Arafat had a sympathetic meeting with Iraqi Shiites allied with Iran, as reported by Tehran’s news service.[9]

‘Estrangement’ leads to renewed love

But this could not last. As observed above, the PLO’s entire infrastructure was based in the Arab states. Soon the PLO was forced to take a more pro-Arab position. And then, as the Iran-Iraq war was ending with the cease-fire in 1988, the prelude to the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process was getting into high gear. This process quite suddenly represented the terrorist PLO/Fatah as a moderate organization that wanted to make peace. So to keep matters propagandistically consistent, Iran just had to accuse Arafat of ‘treason’ against the Palestinian cause, while Arafat just had to pronounce himself in public against Iranian terrorism.

Thus, for example, when a bomb exploded in Tel Aviv in 1996, the Egyptian news agency MENA reported that Arafat was blaming the Iranians: “Nabil Abu Rudaynah, adviser to Palestinian President Yasir Arafat, …accused foreign, non-Palestinian, elements in the region of being behind these terrorist incidents to wreck the peace process. He specifically accused Iran…”[10] Shortly before that, Arafat had claimed that two Palestinians working for Iran had tried to assassinate him.[11] This is how a story of ‘estrangement’ between Arafat (formerly Khomeini’s best friend) and the Iranian regime was built.

But was it true?

Just one year later, the Palestinian daily Al Quds reported that a top PLO/Fatah leader had come back from Iran with a renewed relationship. What’s an assassination attempt between friends? But in fact this made perfect propaganda sense, because the newly elected Iranian president Mohammad Khatami was supposed to be an Iranian Gorbachev pushing liberal reforms, and Arafat was ‘making peace’ with Israel. Under this guise, an open friendship could resume.[12]

In 2002 the Second Intifada, a series of hair-raising terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, was raging. This was Arafat’s — that is to say, PLO/Fatah’s— war. Not even the mainstream Western media, so often a cheerleader for Arafat, was denying that most of the violence was due to the activities of Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a Fatah terrorist group. Here is the Times of London, in April 2002: “A new group directly linked to Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement through its Tanzim military wing, the [Al Aqsa Martyrs] brigades are behind the majority of recent shootings and suicide attacks against Israelis.”[14] And here is The Australian, in September of 2003:

 

[Quote from The Australian begins here]

 

Israeli officials said documents captured last year in a massive military raid on the West Bank after a series of suicide bombings inside Israel showed the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which carried out many of the attacks, was an arm of Fatah, Arafat’s political organisation. They also said the documents proved the Palestinian Authority’s intelligence apparatus, also headed by Arafat, was involved in planning terror activity.

 

Israeli officials said the documents showed Arafat had personally authorised fund transfers for such activity. ‘Arafat views terrorism as a legitimate tool for obtaining the Palestinian national goal,’ said one official.[15]

 

[Quote from The Australian ends here]

 

In the Second Intifada, behind PLO/Fatah, was Iran. Here is the Christian Science Monitor, writing in January 2002 under the headline: “Palestinian ties to Iran, Hizbullah look firmer”:

 

[Quote from the Christian Science Monitor begins here]

 

… [T]he once-frosty relationship between Iran and Arafat appears to have thawed since the outbreak of the [second] intifada in September 2000. Iran, which opposes Israel’s very existence, is a staunch backer of the intifada, opening its hospitals to wounded Palestinians, training fighters, and rallying support for the uprising.

 

In April last year, Tehran hosted a conference for 34 Arab and Islamic countries and organizations. All the hard-line Palestinian groups were there as well as Hizbullah. But also attending was a representative of the Palestinian Authority, Salim Al Zeenoun, who admitted that the Oslo Accords had turned out to be a “sandcastle of illusion.”

 

Two months later, Arafat sent a telegram to Iranian President Mohammed Khatami to congratulate him on his re-election.

 

“We look to all the people of the Islamic world, foremost among them the Muslim Iranian people and their faithful leadership, to support, aid, and assist [Palestine],” Arafat said. He also asked Iran to “work fast to end this bloody and savage war which the Israeli government has been waging for eight solid months.”

 

Israel says that the military alliance between Iran and Arafat and the scheme to smuggle a shipload of [Iranian] weapons to the Palestinian Authority [the famous Karine A incident] was born at around this time. [13]

 

[Quote from the Christian Science Monitor ends here]

 

So PLO/Fatah, once installed inside Israel thanks to the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process, began functioning as a terrorist proxy of Iran.

 

At the same time, however, the road was being prepared for Mahmoud Abbas to posture as the anti-terror ‘peacemaker.’ Notice what The Australian wrote in September 2003:

 

“Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas resigned last month after Arafat refused to hand over control of the security forces Abbas said he needed to make Hamas and Islamic Jihad halt their suicide bombings.”[15]

 

So, yes, the terrorist activity is all being directed by Arafat, but when Abbas takes over there will be peace, became the media message. In fact, the mainstream Western media went quite out of its way to laud Mahmoud Abbas (alias Abu Mazen) as a supposed arch moderate.

 

Only one problem with this. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades — the most violent Palestinian terrorists, and the ones most involved in the Second Intifada that Iran was sponsoring — in fact preferred Abbas to their own Tanzim boss Barghouti as a replacement for Arafat when the latter died. An Associated Press wire dated December 2004 reports that:

 

“Abbas already has been nominated as Fatah’s presidential candidate, so Barghouti must run as an independent. But as a leading Fatah member, he would likely undermine Abbas’ prospects… Zakaria Zubeidi, the 29-year-old West Bank leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, a violent group linked to Fatah, said he would back Abbas. ‘Barghouti … should resign from Fatah,’ he told The Associated Press.”[16]

 

It is already clear that Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades was linked to Iran, because Iran was sponsoring the Second Intifada, which was being waged especially by the brigades. In fact, only two months earlier, with Arafat still alive, the Daily Telegraph had reported: “Israel believes that much of the Fatah-affiliated armed faction, calling itself the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, has now come under Iran’s sway, especially in the West Bank.” Who were they directly working with? None other than Hezbollah, the Iranian proxy Fatah is supposedly so different from: “Scores of Palestinian attacks, accounting for roughly a third of the 98 Israelis killed so far this year, are believed to have been orchestrated by the Lebanese Hizbollah movement.” Arafat did not deny this, though he tried to give it a different spin: he claimed to be upset, and accused Iran of trying to “infiltrate Fatah.”[17]

 

The upshot is that nobody was denying that Iran was heavily involved with the PLO/Fatah terrorists, the same terrorists who pushed for Mahmoud Abbas becoming the new PLO/Fatah leader.

 

Oh wait. Somebody would deny the link between PLO/Fatah and Iran. Guess who? The Israeli government.

 

As Frontpage magazine explained in 2007:

 

“Iran’s direct connection to Hamas is openly discussed and widely acknowledged. Where Fatah is concerned, the issues are more complex; but the link has been established. In March, Brig. Gen. (res.) Shalom Harari, a Senior Research Scholar with the Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, wrote an Issue Brief for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs in which he noted: ‘There is a growing strategic alliance between Iran and the radical Palestinian forces in the territories. Iran is involved in supporting both the Islamic factions and Fatah, as well. Today, at least 40 percent of Fatah’s different fighting groups are also paid by Hezbollah and Iran.’

 

Corroborating Harari’s analysis, Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant, head of the IDF Southern Command, wrote an Issue Brief for the JCPA one month later in which he observed: ‘A few years ago, Fatah’s Al Aqsa Brigade in Judea and Samaria was bought out by Iran.’ Checks with various security and intelligence sources have provided additional confirmation of this information. Iranian funding of Fatah is not direct, but comes through the conduit of Hezbollah and goes in the main to Al Aqsa Brigades.

 

The government of Israel… maintains that Al Aqsa, although originally a spin-off from Fatah, is no longer part of Fatah and no longer answers to Abbas. This spin makes it possible to continue to promote Fatah as potentially moderate, in spite of Al Aqsa’s very radical connections. Experts refute this scenario, however. Said one security source who provided background information: ‘Abbas is formally the commander of Al Aqsa…he has little to do with them to ensure deniability…but privately supports Al Aqsa. US money to PA security agencies go to Al Aqsa people as well. Indeed, Abbas has ensured that most of the Al Aqsa people are on the payroll.’”[17a]

 

The Israeli government goes out of its way to pretend that Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is not part of Al Fatah, thus supporting Abbas, who pretends that he has nothing to do with them in order “to ensure deniability” for Al Aqsa’s murders of Israeli civilians. The Israeli government is covering for those who murder Israeli citizens. We have already seen above how absurd the Israeli government’s position, for Abbas owes his position to Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades: they were the ones lobbying for him—marching in the streets, in fact—and intimidating his competition.

 

 

So PLO/Fatah (or the ‘Palestinian Authority’) is allied with Iran to destroy the State of Israel.

 

But the US government wants PLO/Fatah to inherit strategic Israeli territory. And the Israeli government is cooperating. What are they doing?

 

What are the US and Israeli governments doing?

 

It is now probably a good idea to review HIR’s First Principles, in order to do some hard thinking about US geopolitics.

 

ARGUMENT A.

Premise 1. The way to do better geopolitics is to have a more accurate representation of the intentions and capabilities of other players in the international system.

 

Premise 2. The Government of the United States, the most important geopolitical player, has the strongest motivation to do better geopolitics.

 

Therefore: The Government of the United States works very hard to obtain a better understanding of the intentions and capabilities of other players in the international system.

 

Fact: CIA director George Tenet said in the year 1998 that the budget on that year had been a little under 27 billion. Recently, a US Intelligence official said in a press conference that the yearly budget was now 44 billion. But the truth is that nobody knows for sure, because the budget for US Intelligence is a state secret.

 

Hypothesis: The Government of the United States has very good information—definitely better than my own—on which to base its geopolitical decisions.

 

ARGUMENT B.

 

Premise 1. The Government of the United States, for many years running, has been the most powerful in the world.

 

Premise 2. Idiots don’t become the most powerful people in the world.

 

Therefore: The Government of the United States is not run by idiots.

 

Hypothesis: If the Government of the United States behaves in ways that seem idiotic to me, then a) there is something I don’t yet understand; or b) this government has different values than my own. Or both. (And I have yet to accept this, which is why I think the behavior is idiotic.)

 

ARGUMENT C.

 

Premise 1. The true preferences of someone are revealed in his/her expensive behaviors.

 

Premise 2. Saying “My intentions are X” is not expensive but cheap.

 

Therefore: Speech acts (e.g. public and official declarations) don’t necessarily convey information about the true intentions of a government.

 

Hypothesis: If the Government of the United States consistently, year after year, spends billions of dollars and achieves always similar results, and if these results contradict the government’s publicly declared intentions, the publicly declared intentions must be deliberate deceptions.

 

US Intelligence knows perfectly well everything that I have documented in this article. And it knew it long before I did. Hence, the US Government is applying very strong pressure on Israel to create a ‘Palestinian State’ run by PLO/Fatah on strategic Israeli territory knowing full well that PLO/Fatah is allied with Iran to destroy Israel.

 

Is this consistent with other expensive US Government behaviors? It is.

 

As we have documented on HIR, the entire history of US foreign policy toward Iran, despite the loud public condemnations, is one of consistent and dramatic assistance to Iran’s long-term goals.[19]

 

On the basis of this evidence we may conclude that when President Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel states to a group of rabbis that “ ‘concerning policy, we have done everything that we can that is in Israel’s security — and long-range interests,’ ” the Obama administration is lying.[2] If the US government is lying, then we must consider the alternative hypothesis: that the US Government — not the American people, but the US Government — is an enemy of Israel.

 

Does this make sense?

 

It is certainly consistent with HIR’s detailed investigation of US foreign policy toward the Jewish people and state since the 1930s, which shows conclusively that — contrary to popular belief — the US ruling elite has always worked hard to undermine Israeli security.[21]

 

Israeli leaders are cooperating with this process, because they have not yet expelled PLO/Fatah from Israel. On the contrary. Though they pretend to drag their feet, they are engaged in an on-again, off-again process with PLO/Fatah that (let’s face it) is designed to give it everything it wants, in exchange for… Well, for nothing, because PLO/Fatah has not laid down its arms and does not intend to.

The Israeli government is also much better informed than I am, and likewise knew everything I have reviewed here long before I did. After all, the documentation I use is publicly available, and one of the main targets of Israeli intelligence-gathering is, naturally, PLO/Fatah.

 

So what are Israeli leaders doing? It is an important question.

 

Any effort to begin answering this question must examine what certain important Jewish leaders did in the prelude to, and during, World War II. HIR has much documentation on this topic, but two articles in particular offer a good place to start.

 

First, to examine the behavior of (soon-to-be) Israeli leaders during the Holocaust, please read:

 

► “The responsibility of the mainstream (Labor Zionist) Israeli leaders during the Shoah (‘Holocaust’)”; from THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH SELF-DEFENSE: An HIR series; Historical and Investigative Research; 21 February 2007; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/leaders4.htm

 

Then, to examine the behavior of a string of Israeli prime ministers, consistent with the history documented above, please read:

 

►”Leaders Lied, Jews died: Why have Israeli leaders been lying to their fellow citizens about the PLO/Fatah?; Historical and Investigative Research; 10 July 2007; by Francisco Gil-White (with the editorial assistance of Ted Belman)
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/leaders_lied.htm

 

If History is indeed repeating itself, then the Jewish people is in great peril, for when the causes recur, so do the consequences. And if the Jewish people is in peril, then so are ordinary people all over the West, because 2500 years of Western history show conclusively that periods of Jewish persecution coincide with periods of savage oppression against non-Jews (a recent and dramatic example is the 20th c. Holocaust).
www.hirhome.com/colapso/colapso_eng.htm

 

Footnotes and Further Reading

 

[1] Last Friday it was reported that “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is pushing for another round of United Nations sanctions against Iran.”  Here, the US government is projecting that Iran is the bad guys and that the US will work to undermine Iran.

 

SOURCE: “Obama the appeaser; The transnational dove has left a vacuum that Iran is filling”; The Washington Times, May 21, 2010 Friday, B, COMMENTARY; Pg. 3, 777 words, By Jeffrey T. Kuhner SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

 

[2] A week ago, President Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel stated to a group of rabbis that “‘concerning policy, we have done everything that we can that is in Israel’s security – and long-range interests. Watch what the administration does.’ ” Here, the US government is projecting that Israel is the good guys and will work to strengthen Israel.

 

SOURCE: “US ‘screwed up’ message on Israel, Emanuel tells rabbis. Officials deny administration changing view on Israeli nuclear policy”; The Jerusalem Post, May 16, 2010 Sunday, NEWS; Pg. 1, 1197 words, HERB KEINON, JTA contributed to this report.

 

[3] Interview With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; CNN; July 7, 2010 Wednesday; NEWS; International; 5805 words; Larry King
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/netanyahu_eng.htm#_ftn9

[4] “The PLO announced today that its chairman, Yasser Arafat, had accepted an invitation to visit Teheran soon. It also said that followers of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had seized the former Israeli diplomatic mission in Teheran, and the PLO had accepted an offer to turn it into a Palestinian embassy.

 

Wafa, the Palestinian press service, reported that the Ayatollah’s forces had contacted Mr. Arafat by telephone yesterday and proclaimed their solidarity and gave their thanks.

 

Palestinian sources said that Mr. Arafat’s group had sent arms to the revolutionary forces in the last four months and had trained Iranian guerillas since the early 1970s.”

 

SOURCE: P.L.O. Is Cool to Dayan Remarks; Statements Given Prominence; By MARVINE HOWE Special to The New York Times. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Feb 15, 1979. p. A12 (1 page)

 

[5] “An exultant Yasir Arafat, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, proclaimed here today that the Iranian revolution had ‘turned upside down’ the balance of forces in the Middle East.

 

‘Today Iran, tomorrow Palestine,’ he said.

 

Mr. Arafat received a pledge from Ayatollah Khomeini that the Iranians would ‘turn to the issue of victory over Israel’ after Iran had consolidated its strength, the Teheran radio reported.

 

…Bantering and grinning, the guerrilla leader declined to furnish details about support the PLO had given to various Iranian guerrilla organizations, saying:

 

‘It is enough that we are here, and no matter how much we have helped we cannot offer as much back as the Iranian people have offered us. It is enough for us to be among the Iranian people.

 

Asked whether the Palestinian movement felt ‘stronger’ since the Iranian uprising, he said:

 

‘Definitely. It has changed completely the whole strategy and policy in this area. It has been turned upside down.’ ”

 

SOURCE: Arafat, in Iran, Reports Khomeini Pledges Aid for Victory Over Israel; Visit a Sign of Iran’s Sharp Turn; ARAFAT, IN TEHERAN, PRAISES THE VICTORS; By JAMES M. MARKHAM Special to The New York Times. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Feb 19, 1979. p. A1 (2 pages)

 

[6] “Four more generals executed; PLO, Iran will fight Israel, Arafat says”; The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Feb 20, 1979. p. P.10

[6a] “Grand Theater: The US, The PLO, and the Ayatollah Khomeini: Why did the US government, in 1979, delegate to the PLO the task of negotiating the safety of American hostages at the US embassy in Tehran?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 10 December 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/plo-iran.htm

[6b] “The P.L.O. currently enjoys close ties with some of the Iranian revolutionary leaders who rose to power with the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. One of the most intriguing delegates at the Fatah conference in Damascus at the end of May, for example, was Arbas-Agha Zahani whose nom de guerre is Abu Sharif. He was then the head of the Ayatollah’s Revolutionary Guards, or Pasdaran Enghelab, a post he resigned in a power play in June that was designed to weaken the position of the relatively ”moderate” President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr. (Abu Sharif was subsequently reappointed deputy chief of the Pasdaran Enghelab.) Abu Sharif rose to a position of influence thanks to the patronage of the present Iranian Defense Minister, Mustafa Chamran. Like Yasir Arafat, both Abu Sharif and Mustafa Chamran are fervent advocates of exporting Iran’s Islamic revolution to the rest of the Middle East – in particular, to the conservative states of the Arab Gulf.

 

Abu Sharif’s links with Arafat, Abu Jihad and other key figures in the P.L.O. leadership date back to the early 1970’s, when he attended a guerrilla training course at a Fatah camp in Lebanon. After the downfall of the Shah, Abu Sharif and Mustafa Chamran relied heavily on their P.L.O. contacts for help in setting up a new secret police to replace the Sha’s notorious Savak. A special P.L.O. unit, whose members had received intelligence training in the Soviet Union, was dispatched to Teheran to assist in rooting out ‘counterrevolutionaries.’ Abu Sharif repaid his personal debt to the P.L.O. by successfully lobbying — with the backing of, among others, one of the Ayatollah’s grandsons — for a big Iranian contribution to the Palestinian war chest and for the dispatch of more than 200 Iranian ‘volunteers’ to fight with the P.L.O. in southern Lebanon

The current head of the P.L.O. network in Iran is Hani al-Hassan, alias Abu Hassan, a Jordanian citizen who belongs to Arafat’s inner circle of advisers. Before he was sent to Teheran, Abu Hassan served as deputy chief of Fatah’s security department. He enjoys a remarkable entree to Khomeini and other key members of the Iranian regime — so much so that one Western diplomat suggests that the P.L.O. envoy should be counted as one of the most influential men in Teheran.” [(HIR) emphasis added]

 

SOURCE: “TERROR: A SOVIET EXPORT”; New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Nov 2, 1980. pg. A.42; by Robert Moss

 

NOTE: though the PLO supposedly rooted out “counterrevolutionaries” to help create the Ayatollah’s new secret service, exiled Iranians were pointing out that the new SAVAMA was almost identical in all its personnel to the old CIA-created SAVAK. This would make sense if the Islamist Iranians and PLO/Fatah all answered to the same (US) master. Otherwise it is very strange.

 

[6c] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (pp. 698)

[7] MANAMA BAHREIN — MANAMA, Bahrain (AP) – Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states have tightened restrictions on an estimated 400,000 Palestinians since the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war, diplomatic sources say.

 

A ban on political gatherings by Palestinians has been imposed and strict visa requirements are being rigidly enforced. The reason is that the authorities are suspicious of Palestinian ties to the militant Shiite Moslems in Iran, who have vowed to export their Islamic revolution.

 

Other sources said that Yasser Arafat, head of the Lebanon-based Palestine Liberation Organization, has reassured Persian Gulf governments that his guerrilla movement would never upset the stability of the oil- rich area and ordered his representatives in Gulf capitals to remain neutral in the Iran-Iraq conflict. “The PLO has been treading a delicate path of neutrality between Iraq and Iran and that has not been easy,” one Arab diplomat said. “Iraq, and all other Arab powers, insist that the PLO must put its political cards on the table and declare its unchangeable commitment to the Arab cause against that of the (non-Arab) Persians.” At the same time, Iranian leaders are reported to have asked the Palestinians to support Iran in return for their support of the guerrilla movement.

 

Palestinian opinion, while reflecting the PLO’s reluctance to choose sides in a war between its two allies, appears much more pro-Iranian than that of conservative Gulf governments.” [(HIR) emphasis added]

 

SOURCE: “Gulf states tighten hold on Palestinians”; The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Oct 23, 1980. p. P.14

 

[8] “War, arab Feuding Leave Arafat, PLO in Disarray; Gulf War and Arab Feuding Leave Arafat and PLO in Disarray”; The Washington Post, December 14, 1980, Sunday, Final Edition, First Section; A1, 1487 words, By Loren Jenkins, Washington Post Foreign Service

[9] “Arafat’s Meeting with Iraqi Da’wah Party Delegation”; BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, March 3, 1981, Tuesday, Part 4 The Middle East and Africa; A. THE MIDDLE EAST; ME/6663/A/8; , 395 words.

 

TEXT:

 

BBC Summary of World Broadcasts
March 3, 1981, Tuesday
Arafat’s Meeting with Iraqi Da’wah Party Delegation
SOURCE: Tehran in Arabic for abroad
 1430 gmt 1 Mar 81
Excerpt from abroad
SECTION: Part 4 The Middle East and Africa; A. THE MIDDLE EAST; ME/6663/A/8;
LENGTH: 395 words

 

A delegation representing the Da’wah Islamic Party in Iraq met with Brother Yasir Arafat the Chairman of the PLO Executive Committee and member of the delegation commissioned to study the issue of the war that has been imposed on Iran by the Iraqi regime, at noon today.

 

The spokesman for the Iraqi Da’wah Islamic Party briefed Brother Arafat on the measures of suppression, oppression and banishment that have been carried out by the infidel Tikriti regime against the Iraqi Mujahidin. The spokesman, who supported his statement with pictures, statistics and documents, added that during the past year alone, Saddam’s regime had killed and executed 100,000 Iraqi strugglers. The spokesman added that the Iraqi regime’s suppressive measures have escalated to the extent that even women, children and old men are not spared. They, too, have been subjected to tyranny, injustice, imprisonment and execution.

 

The spokesman stressed that the stance of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran did not represent the stance of the Government and people of Iran alone, but also the claims of more than 60,000 exiled Iraqis and the claims of the help- less Iraqi people. Speaking to Brother Arafat, the Iraqi spokesman added: We ask you, as a true revolutionary, not to deal with us in terms of international political principles and international relations; we call upon you to help our voice of truth be heard through- out the world and to pressure Saddam’s bloody infidel regime to change its position on the oppressed Iraqi people and end the war he has imposed on both of the Muslim peoples in Iraq and Iran.

 

Then one of the Iraqi mujahidin spoke and said to Brother Arafat: O Brother Abu Ammar, I am a struggler and revolutionary just as you are, and my duty is to fight at your side against the Zionist regime and for the liberation of Palestine and not to be exiled by Saddam’s regime to Iran after a period of torture. Then the struggler showed the marks that remained on his body after being tortured by the Iraqi regime to Brother Arafat, and said that the torture carried out by Saddam’s gang against the Iraqi mujahidin was much more than that carried out by the Zionist entity against the Palestinian combatants. Seeing and hearing all this, Brother Arafat could not prevent his tears of sympathy for the Iraqi brothers from falling. . .

 

[10] “PALESTINIAN REACTION; Arafat’s adviser accuses Iran of sheltering terrorism”; BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, March 5, 1996, Tuesday, Part 4 The Middle East; THE MIDDLE EAST; AFTERMATH OF TEL AVIV BOMBING; EE/D2553/ME, 326 words

[11] “ ‘SABOTAGE’ ATTEMPT; Two pro-Iran Palestinians reported arrested for plotting to kill Arafat”; BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, February 21, 1996, Wednesday, Part 4 The Middle East; THE MIDDLE EAST; ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN AFFAIRS; EE/D2541/ME, 79 words

[12] “Bethlehem: Brig-Gen Abu Khalid al-Lahham, who recently returned from Iran, said that Hojjat ol-Eslam Mohammad Khatami is considered a close friend of Palestine and the Palestinian people, as well as a personal friend of President Yasir Arafat. Moreover, he called him the Iranian Napoleon and described him as Iran’s saviour.

 

In an exclusive interview, Lahham said… the new Iranian leadership will strive to refute its image of exporting revolution and interfering in the internal affairs of other people.

 

On the internal level, the new leadership will engage in building a free economy and will allow freedom of thought and faith and the formation of political parties.

 

Lahham, who arrived in Iran 10 days before the elections on an assignment by President Yasir Arafat, added that the new leadership will support the Palestinian people with all their leaders and inclinations, including the peace process, but it will fight to defend its role and presence as a major Middle Eastern state. The Palestinian people will be able to ask for Iran’s support”

 

SOURCE: “Arafat adviser visits Iran, brings message of support for Palestinians”; BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, June 12, 1997, Thursday, Part 4 The Middle East; THE MIDDLE EAST; ISRAEL; ME/D2943/MED, 428 words

 

[13] “Palestinian ties to Iran, Hizbullah look firmer”; Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), January 18, 2002, Friday, WORLD; Pg. 08, 1353 words, Nicholas Blanford Special to The Christian Science Monitor

[14] “A bitter taste for vengeance”; Sunday Times (London), April 7, 2002, Sunday, Features, 2938 words, Marie Colvin in Ramallah

[15] “Arch-terrorist or hero of peace: Arafat’s enduring image”; The Australian, September 25, 2003 Thursday All-round Country Edition, WORLD-TYPE- FEATURE-BIOG- YASSER ARAFAT; Pg. 8, 1079 words, Abraham Rabinovich

[16] Barghouti Seeking Palestinian Presidency, Associated Press Online, December 1, 2004 Wednesday, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 836 words, MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH; Associated Press Writer, RAMALLAH, West Bank

[17] “Israel believes that much of the Fatah-affiliated armed faction, calling itself the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, has now come under Iran’s sway, especially in the West Bank.

 

Scores of Palestinian attacks, accounting for roughly a third of the 98 Israelis killed so far this year, are believed to have been orchestrated by the Lebanese Hizbollah movement.

 

The Shia group pioneered the use of suicide bombings in the 1980s, kidnapped westerners and successfully drove the Israeli army out of south Lebanon in 2000. Hizbollah is now a political party in Lebanon.

 

‘Hizbollah is a finger of Iran’s hand,’ the senior Israeli security source said. ‘In the past year we can see increasing Iranian influence in Palestinian attacks on Israel.

 

‘The same people sometimes receive money both from Arafat’s headquarters and from Hizbollah. If the attack succeeds in causing fatalities, they get a bonus from Hizbollah.’

 

Another security source said Hizbollah rewards Palestinian cells to the tune of $5,000 (pounds 2,900) for each Israeli killed.

 

Israel regards Teheran as its mortal enemy, and has every interest in presenting Iran as a dangerous state sponsor of international terrorism. But on the issue of penetrating Fatah, Israel is in unusual agreement with Palestinian leaders.

 

Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian ‘president’ who has been confined to his Ramallah headquarters for more than three years, said this week that Hizbollah was trying to infiltrate Fatah.

 

He said Iran was financing radical Islamist groups, and denounced Iran’s spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei.

 

He said: ‘Khamenei is working against us. He is giving money to all these fanatical groups. Khamenei is a troublemaker.’ ”

 

SOURCE: “Iran ‘in control of terrorism in Israel’; Hizbollah, described as a ‘finger of Teheran’s hand,’ is said to be paying $5,000 for every Israeli killed.” Anton La Guardia reports from Tel Aviv; THE DAILY TELEGRAPH (LONDON), October 15, 2004, Friday, 803 words, by Anton La Guardia

 

[17a] “The Fatah–Iranian Connection”; Frontpage June 8, 2007; By Arlene Kushner.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28658

 

[18] The Israeli soldiers were under orders to protect civilians (apparently no matter the cost, because they defended themselves, at first, with non-weapons such as paint-ball guns). It was only after one of the wounded Israeli soldiers was thrown from the upper deck and the lethal weapons of the soldiers were taken from them by the attackers, that their fellow soldiers opened fire to protect them. The result was that some of the attackers died.

 

The images of the brutal attack against the Israeli soldiers—a blood curling lyinching (sic)—are available to the public.
http://www.vimeo.com/12555636

[19] “Will the US attack Iran?: An alternative hypothesis”; Historical and Investigative Research; 23 February 2006; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/attack_iran.htm

[20] “How did the ‘Palestinian movement’ emerge? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US”; from UNDERSTANDING THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT: An HIR Series, in four parts; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

[21] “Is the US an ally of Israel?: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm

________________________

Netanyahu in a Rock and Hard Place Gamble?

John R. Houk

September 10, 2015

_______________________

Will the Israeli government give Judea and Samaria to Iran?

 

PLO/Fatah and Iran: The Special Relationship

 

HIR About Page:

 

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. Today he teaches at ITAM, in Mexico City. 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.

 

About the HIR Method

 

Support HIR

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