THE END OF PALESTINE


palestine-flag-1939

Daniel Greenfield gives out a dose of reality pertaining to a Two-State Solution between the Jewish State of Israel and the Islamic terrorism of Arabs that made up a non-existent Palestinian nation.

 

JRH 2/18/17 (Hat Tip Donald Moore – Blind Conservatives)

Please Support NCCR

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

THE END OF PALESTINE

 

By Daniel Greenfield

February 16, 2017

FrontPageMag

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam

hamas-terrorists

Palestine is many things. A Roman name and a Cold War lie. Mostly it’s a justification for killing Jews.

 

Palestine was an old Saudi-Soviet scam which invented a fake nationality for the Arab clans who had invaded and colonized Israel. This big lie transformed the leftist and Islamist terrorists run by them into the liberators of an imaginary nation. Suddenly the efforts of the Muslim bloc and the Soviet bloc to destroy the Jewish State became an undertaking of sympathetically murderous underdogs.

 

But the Palestine lie is past its sell by date.

 

What we think of as “Palestinian” terrorism was a low-level conflict pursued by the Arab Socialist states in between their invasions of Israel. After several lost wars, the terrorism was all that remained. Egypt, Syria and the USSR threw in the towel on actually destroying Israel with tanks and jets, but funding terrorism was cheap and low-risk. And the rewards were disproportionate to the cost.

 

For less than the price of a single jet fighter, Islamic terrorists could strike deep inside Israel while isolating the Jewish State internationally with demands for “negotiations” and “statehood.”

 

After the Cold War ended, Russia was low on cash and the PLO’s Muslim sugar daddies were tired of paying for Arafat’s wife’s shoe collection and his keffiyah dry cleaning bills.

 

The terror group was on its last legs. “Palestine” was a dying delusion that didn’t have much of a future.

 

That’s when Bill Clinton and the flailing left-wing Israeli Labor Party which, unlike its British counterpart, had failed to adapt to the new economic boom, decided to rescue Arafat and create “Palestine”.

 

The resulting terrorist disaster killed thousands, scarred two generations of Israelis, isolated the country and allowed Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and other major cities to come under fire for the first time since the major wars. No matter how often Israeli concessions were met with Islamic terrorism, nothing seemed able to shake loose the two-state solution monkey on Israel’s back. Destroying Israel, instantaneously or incrementally, had always been a small price to pay for maintaining the international order.

 

The same economic forces that were transforming the world after the Cold War had salvaged “Palestine”. Arafat had lost his sponsors in Moscow, but his new sugar daddy’s name was “Globalism”.

 

The Cold War had been the focus of international affairs. What replaced it was the conviction that a new world tied together by international commerce, the internet and international law would be born.

 

The demands of a clan in Hebron used to be able to hijack the attention of the world because the scope of the clash between Capitalism and Communism could globalize any local conflict. Globalization was just as insistent on taking local conflicts and making them the world’s business through its insistence that every place was connected. The terrorist blowing up an Israeli pizzeria affected stock prices in New York, the expansion prospects of a company in China and the risk of another terrorist attack in Paris. And interconnectedness, from airplane hijacking to plugging into the international’s left alliance of global protest movements, had become the  best weapon of Islamic terrorists.

 

But now globalization is dying. And its death may just take “Palestine” with it.

 

A new generation of leaders is rising who are actively hostile to globalization. Trump and Brexit were the most vocal rebukes to transnationalism. But polls suggest that they will not be the only ones. The US and the UK, once the vanguards of the international order, now have governments that are competitively seeking national advantages rather than relying on the ordered rules of the transnational safety net.

 

These governments will not just toss aside their commitment to a Palestinian state. Not when the Saudis, Qataris and countless other rich and powerful Muslim countries bring it up at every session.

 

But they will be less committed to it.

 

45% of Americans support the creation of a PLO state. 42% are opposed. That’s a near split. These historical numbers have to be viewed within the context of the larger changes sweeping the country.

 

The transnationalists actively believed that it was their job to solve the problems of other countries. Nationalists are concerned with how the problems of other countries directly impinge on them without resorting to the mystical interconnectedness of everything, from climate change to global justice, that is at the core of the transnational worldview.

 

More intense competition by Western nations may make it easier for Islamic agendas to gain influence through the old game of divide and conquer. Nations facing terrorism will still find that the economic influence of Islamic oil power will rally the Western trading partners of Islam against them.

 

But without the transnational order, such efforts will often amount to little more than lip service.

 

Nationalist governments will find Israel’s struggle against the Islamic invaders inconvenient because it threatens their business interests, but they will also be less willing to rubber stamp the terror agenda the way that transnationalist governments were willing to do. The elimination of the transnational safety net will also cause nationalist governments to look harder at consequences and results.

 

Endlessly pouring fortunes into a Palestinian state that will never exist just to keep Muslim oil tyrants happy is not unimaginable behavior even for a nationalist government. Japan has been doing just that.

 

But it will be a less popular approach for countries that don’t suffer from Japan’s energy insecurity.

 

Transnationalists are ideologically incapable of viewing a problem as unsolvable. Their faith in human progress through international law made it impossible for them to give up on the two-state solution.

 

Nationalist governments have a colder and harder view of human nature. They will not endlessly pour efforts and resources into a diplomatic black hole. They will eventually take “No” for an answer.

 

This won’t mean instantaneous smooth sailing for Israel. It will however mean that the exit is there.

 

For two decades, pledging allegiance to the two-state solution and its intent to create a deadly Islamic terror state inside Israel has been the price demanded of the Jewish State for its participation in the international community. That price will not immediately vanish. But it will become easier to negotiate.

 

The real change will be on the “Palestinian” side where a terrorist kleptoracy feeds off human misery in its mansions downwind of Ramallah. That terror state, conceived insincerely by the enemies of the West during the Cold War and sincerely brought into being by Western transnationalists after the Cold War ended, is a creature of that transnational order.

 

The “Palestinian Authority”, a shell company of the PLO which is a shell company of the Fatah terrorists, has no economy worth speaking of. It has foreign aid. Its diplomatic achievements are achieved for it by the transnational network of foreign diplomats, the UN, the media and assorted international NGOs. During the last round of “negotiations”, Secretary of State John Kerry even attempted to do the negotiating on behalf of the Palestinian Authority in the talks with Israel.

 

Take away the transnational order and the Palestinian Authority will need a new sugar daddy. The Saudis are better at promising money than actually delivering it. Russia may decide to take on the job. But it isn’t about to put in the money and resources that the PA has grown used to receiving from us.

 

Without significant American support, the Palestinian Authority will perish. And the farce will end.

 

It won’t happen overnight. But Israel now has the ability to make it happen if it is willing to take the risk of transforming a corrosive status quo into a conflict that will be more explosive in the short term, but more manageable in the long term.

 

Prime Minister Netanyahu, in stark contrast to rivals on the left like Peres and on the right like Sharon, is not a gambler. The peace process was a big gamble. As was the withdrawal from Lebanon and the expulsion from Gaza. These gambles failed and left behind scars and enduring crises.

 

Unlike the prime ministers before and after him, Netanyahu has made no big moves. Instead he serves as a sensible steward of a rising economy and a growing nation. He has stayed in office for so long because Israelis know that he won’t do anything crazy. That sensible stewardship, which infuriated Obama who accused him of refusing to take risks, has made him one of the longest serving leaders in Israeli history.

 

Netanyahu is also a former commando who participated in the rescue of a hijacked airplane. He doesn’t believe in taking foolish risks until he has his shot all lined up. But the time is coming when not taking a risk will be a bigger risk than taking a risk. Eventually he will have to roll the dice.

 

The new nationalist wave may not hold. The transnational order may return. Or the new wave may prove darker and more unpredictable. It’s even possible that something else may take its place.

 

The status quo, a weak Islamist-Socialist terror state in Ramallah supported by the United States, a rising Muslim Brotherhood terror state in Gaza backed by Qatar and Turkey, and an Israel using technological brilliance to manage the threat from both, is already unstable. It may collapse in a matter of years.

 

The PLO has inflicted a great deal of diplomatic damage on Israel and Hamas has terrorized its major cities. Together they form an existential threat that Israel has allowed to grow under the guise of managing it. The next few years may leave Israel with a deadlier and less predictable struggle.

 

“Palestine” is dying. Israel didn’t kill it. The fall of the transnational order did. The question is what will take its place. As the nationalist wave sweeps the West, Israel has the opportunity to reclaim its nation.

_____________

ABOUT DANIEL GREENFIELD

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

 

READ MORE

 

© COPYRIGHT 2017, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

 

ABOUT FPM

 

FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER

 

The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.  The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded.  Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

 

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing supporters and established programs such as READ THE REST

 

Examining Linda Sarsour Real News


hamas-finance-terrorism

John R. Houk

© January 28, 2017

 

It’s time to spread the word against Islamic Supremacists and Leftists spewing bigoted hate toward those ONLY telling the truth about what is in the Quran, Hadith and Sira of Islam.

 

For those who have Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram, we ask that you show your support for Brigitte and Ayaan, by using the hashtag #IStandWithBrigitteAndAyaan, which was started by Dave Rubin, host of The Rubin Report and an open-minded ally of true human rights.

 

 

One Islamic Supremacist to look at is Linda Sarsour. She is a Palestinian-American that grew up in Brooklyn New York. Because of heritage she is fully supportive of Jew-hating Palestinians who would rather destroy Israel and rename the whole area Palestine. A name created by the Romans to dishonor Jews and a word roughly created by the League of Nations after WWI that was an area of land formerly occupied by Turkey to create a Jewish Homeland. The League gave the British the Mandate to make that happen. Instead the British carved out a large eastern portion to reward the Hashemite Clan aid to defeat the Turks in WWI. The Hashemites called the carved out Palestinian land Transjordan. When the Hashemites joined the surrounding Arab nations to destroy Israel at its birth in 1948, the Transjordanian army (called the Arab Legion) was the only invader that came out substantially ahead.

 

The Transjordan monarch stole more Palestinian land designated for Jews and called it the West Bank because it was west of the Jordan River. The Hashemite King then officially incorporated his conquered land into his Kingdom renaming the nation Jordan.

 

The irony of the Jordanian conquest of the land called Judea and Samaria by Israel, is that British Officers ran the Arab Legion thus providing British military strategy for the Jordanian army to conquer land designated for a Jewish Homeland to Jordan. Essentially abandoning the British Mandate’s purpose.

 

But I digress.

 

The Arabs that call themselves Palestinians whom Linda Sarsour supports are essentially under the management of a group of Islamic terrorists. The larger group of terrorists is recognized by the USA as the Palestinian Authority (PA); however, the real governing entity is the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) which is a union of Arab terrorists dominated by the Fatah terrorists. Another Islamic terrorist organization called Hamas is the effectual governing entity of what a map will tell you is the Gaza Strip. Hamas doesn’t pretend to seek peace with Israel as the PLO dominated PA does, but calls for the bloody death of all Jews and the total destruction of Israel.

 

Linda Sarsour defends and promotes the concepts of a Palestine sovereign nation on Jewish land. Also as a true Muslim Apologist she makes deceptive statements to non-Muslim Americans implying Islam is peace and Sharia is the best form of law.

 

Ironically Fox News has come to Sarsour’s aid by calling her Counterjihad critics producers of Fake News:

 

 

In the days since she helped organize the massive Women’s March on Washington, the Brooklyn-born, hijab-wearing activist has been targeted on the internet by false reports that she supports Islamic State militants and favors replacing the U.S. legal system with Islamic religious law.

 

On social media, critics have circulated a photo of her holding up one finger, like a sports fan celebrating a championship, and claimed she’s giving “the ISIS one-fingered salute.” In fact, she is on record as calling the Islamic State a global cancer.

 

Other posts have falsely claimed that she supports the imposition of Islamic law on the U.S., citing, as evidence, a sarcastic tweet she made in 2015 that was actually intended to ridicule conspiracy theories about secret Muslim plots to take over the American legal system.

 

Bloggers and conservative websites also circulated a picture of her at a convention of Muslim civic leaders, standing with a group of people that included a Milwaukee activist whose brother was arrested in Israel in 1998 and convicted of giving $40,000 to a Hamas leader. The photo, they said, was proof of “ties” to Hamas.

 

“Ludicrous,” said Sarsour, who was out rallying again Wednesday night in her hometown of New York City, …

 

The online attacks, Sarsour said, were the work of “fake news purveyors” and “right-wing media outlets recirculating false information.” READ ENTIRETY (Attacks target Muslim-American activist after DC march; Deepti Hajela; Fox News; 1/26/17)

 

So, is it actually Fake News that Sarsour wants Sharia in America and is supportive of Islamic terrorists? The website The Secular Brownie examines some Sarsour tweets. Those tweets do not explicitly call for Sharia and the support of Islamic terrorism, BUT she either uses deceptive qualifiers or does not condemn Islamic terrorist attacks. The tweets expose Linda Sarsour’s true allegiance:

 

Linda Sarsour was the head of the Women’s March in the United States.  There is a great irony and contradiction in letting someone who deflects criticism from the misogynistic Saudi Arabia lead the Women’s March.  Let’s examine some tweets.

 

saraour-tweet1

 

She’s basically saying “women not having the right to drive in Saudi Arabia shouldn’t be a big deal because they get 10 weeks paid maternity leave.”  Do you not realize she’s talking about a place where the culture only values women as mothers and wives?  If the culture favored women as solely housewives/mothers don’t you think incentives for pregnancy would exist?

 

saraour-tweet-2

 

In this tweet she attempts to deflect criticism from the headscarf and women’s covering by trivializing it as a social issue. … This is for a woman to have the right to choose.  If the government is so invasive of women’s bodily expressions, wouldn’t you call that misogynistic, sexist, etc.?  As a “feminist”, how do you fail to see this?

 

saraour-tweet-3

 

… It’s similar to saying “racism doesn’t exist in the United States because Barack Obama was president.”  In some of these countries there is honor violence, and even sharia courts that punishes rape victims.  But of course, they have women leaders, therefore “no sexism.”

 

saraour-tweet-4

 

She is basically defending Sharia Law in this tweet.  Does she not realize that as an apostate, I would be subject to capital punishment in Saudi Arabia and homosexuals would be punished in some way? … Women who complained about rape needed the testimony of four witnesses in Sharia court, which they could not find, making them subject to public stoning.  Of course despite all this, Linda brags about the interest free loans in Sharia and ignores who would be marginalized in that system.

 

 

Of course Linda had to spin the narrative.

 

saraour-tweet-5

 

She’s basically saying her haters don’t want to see her succeed because she’s Arab. …

 

… Through her wording she made it seem like she was under danger and the left needed to unite against these “right wingers” (just for challenging someone’s feminist convictions.) READ ENTIRETY (Linda Sarsour’s Awkward Defensiveness Over Saudi Oppression That The Left Seems To Ignore; The Secular Brownie; 1/24/17)

 

And finally, FrontPageMag has sniffed out Linda Sarsour’s support of Islamic terrorism and Sharia either directly or by association (e.g. her husband):

 

In 2004, Sarsour acknowledged that a friend of hers as well as a cousin were both serving long sentences in Israeli jails because of their efforts to recruit jihadists to murder Jews. Moreover, she revealed that her brother-in-law was serving a 12-year prison term because of his affiliation with Hamas.

Speaking of creepy realtives, Sarsour’s husband, Maher Judeh, mourned the 1998 death of the Hamas “master terrorists” Adel and Imad Awadallah; he praised the heroism of a Palestinian Authority police officer who had carried out a shooting attack at a checkpoint in Israel; he has expressed support for the terrorist organization Fatah; and he has lauded the founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary organization.

 

 

In May 2012 Sarsour tweeted that the so-called “underwear bomber,” an Al-Qaeda operative who in 2009 had tried to blow up a Detroit-bound passenger jet in mid-flight, was actually a CIA agent participating in America’s “war on Islam.”

 

In November 2012 in Baltimore, Sarsour—ever eager to peddle her woeful tale of Islamic victimhood—spoke at a Muslim Public Affairs Council conference titled “Facing Race: Xenophobic Hate Crimes.” This is the same Council that views the murderous Jew-haters of Hezbollah as members of “a liberation movement” that is “fighting for freedom.”

 

 

In August 2015 Sarsour spoke out in support of the incarcerated Palestinian Islamic Jihad member Muhammad Allan, a known recruiter of suicide bombers.

According to CounterJihad.com, Sarsour has attended and spoken at numerous rallies sponsored by Al-Awda, a group that views Israel as a terrorist, genocidal state whose very creation was a “catastrophe” for Arab peoples.

Sarsour has also solicited donations for the Hamas-affiliated Palestine Children’s Relief Fund.

 

 

In November 2015, Sarsour was a featured speaker at the 21st anniversary banquet of the Council on American-Islamic Relations‘ [CAIR’s] San Francisco chapter. Further, she is presently scheduled to speak at upcoming CAIR banquets in February and March. Terrorism expert Steven Emerson has accurately described CAIR as “a radical fundamentalist front group for Hamas.”

Last June, Sarsour spoke at a Virginia fundraising dinner sponsored by Islamic Relief USA, whose parent group has provided financial aid to Hamas.
In September, Sarsour was a featured speaker at the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America, a Muslim Brotherhood front group that promotes Sharia Law and Islamic supremacism. The Brotherhood, it should be noted, is the parent group of both Hamas and Al-Qaeda.

In October, Sarsour spoke at an event sponsored by a chapter of the Muslim Students Association, whose national umbrella group is an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, and whose conferences routinely feature inflammatory speeches by raging anti-Semites.

 

In November, Sarsour spoke at the annual conference of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), where she lauded Muslims who “unequivocally support” the Hamas-inspired BDS campaign. AMP is a major BDS promoter, and several of its leading board members and officials were formerly members and/or supporters of Islamic extremist groups that promoted and funded the agendas of Hamas.

In December 2016 in Chicago, Sarsour spoke at the annual (jointly held) convention of the Muslim American Society (whose agendas are dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood) and the Islamic Circle of North America (which, according to Steven Emerson, “openly supports militant Islamic fundamentalist organizations, praises terror attacks, issues incendiary attacks on western values and policies, and supports the imposition of Sharia”). At that convention, Linda Sarsour posed for a picture with Salah Sarsour (no known relation), who was jailed by Israel in the 1990s because of his fundraising activities on behalf of Hamas. READ ENTIRETY (THE ANTI-SEMITE WHO ORGANIZED THE ‘WOMEN’S MARCH ON WASHINGTON’; By John Perazzo; FrontPageMag; 1/23/17)

 

Sarsour on Sharia Law:

 

Sarsour has openly supported Sharia law, a legal system that treats women much differently than men and punishes lawbreakers with flogging, amputation, and stoning.

 

In 2011, Sarsour referred to Sharia as “reasonable,” tweeting: “once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense.”

 

sarsour-on-sharia-tweet-1

 

Last April, Sarsour again took to Twitter to defend Sharia as being “misunderstood,” and “pushed as some evil Muslim agenda.”

 

sarsour-on-sharia-tweet-2

 

She has even promoted Sharia as a means of financial benefit, tweeting: “If you are still paying interest than Sharia Law hasn’t taken over America. #justsaying. READ ENTIRETY (Women’s March National Co-Chair: Sharia Law is ‘Reasonable’ ,’ Misunderstood’; By Andrew Eicher; CNSNews.com; 1/25/17 5:27 PM EST)

 

I pray you now understand the nefarious hypocrisy Linda Sarsour when she calls people like Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali wicked names and threatening with violence and removal of their vaginas.

 

Below is an email from ACT for America exposing the Islamic cruelty of Linda Sarsour.

 

JRH 1/28/17

Please Support NCCR

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

True Hatred Exposed

Sent by ACT for America

Sent 1/27/2017 1:18 PM

 

linda-sarsour-at-feminist-womens-march-1-21-17

Linda Sarsour at Feminist Women’s March 1-21-17

 

We regret to inform you of a shocking verbal attack launched against our Founder Brigitte Gabriel, and the courageous Ayaan Hirsi Ali, by an Islamic extremist named Linda Sarsour.

Although Sarsour’s disgusting verbal assault took place back in 2011, it has only now been brought to light, given her active and particularly ironic involvement in the supposed women’s rights march, which took place last weekend in Washington, D.C.

WARNING: The language and content of these comments are extremely offensive.

sarsour-vulgarity-toward-b-gabriel-ayaan-hirsi-ali-tweetSarsour vulgarity toward B. Gabriel & Ayaan Hirsi Ali Tweet

 

These comments are all the more appalling when one considers that Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a victim of Female Genital Mutilation.

Sarsour’s comments, reprehensible as they are, do not surprise anyone who knows the truth about her radical ties.

Ms. Sarsour has been an open advocate for Sharia law, and has connections to terror groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and ISIS.

In fact, Sarsour has three known relatives who have been arrested for terrorist activity!

Sarsour had come under fire for her radical ties before a spotlight was recently shined on her jaw dropping comments about Gabriel and Ali.

 

act-email-of-sarsour-tweet-on-sharia

ACT Email of Sarsour Tweet on Sharia

As usual, the anti-American fringe defended her, and mainstream media refused to cover the truth behind Sarsour’s extremist connections.

 

act-email-of-sarsour-tweet-on-sharia-2

ACT Email of Sarsour Tweet on Sharia 2

 

Here’s what the anti-American Southern Poverty Law had to say about their darling Sarsour:

 

“Islamophobes have been attacking #WomensMarch organizer @lsarsour. We stand with her against this type of hate and bigotry. #IMarchWithLinda”

 

So, what does this story tell you about groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and other anti-American outlets who attack ACT for America as a “hate group?”

It tells you that they are the true haters. They are the bigots who cower under the cloak of political correctness, and seek to enable even the most dangerous radicals.

More to it, this uncovers the nefarious alliance between the far-left and radical Islam, and shows any rational citizen that the SPLC and other anti-American groups are not genuinely interested in human rights.

Rather, they are interested in the destruction of Western Judeo-Christian civilization, and willing to align with anyone who shares their devious vision.

Here are two survivors of Islamic extremism, Brigitte Gabriel, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, fighting for true women’s rights, and this Sharia sympathizing extremist attacks them with the most vile and hateful comments imaginable.

So now the question remains, will the mainstream media cover this abomination, or sweep it under the rug to continue their politically correct narrative about radical Islam?

For those who have Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram, we ask that you show your support for Brigitte and Ayaan, by using the hashtag #IStandWithBrigitteAndAyaan, which was started by Dave Rubin, host of The Rubin Report and an open-minded ally of true human rights.

Please check our social media pages and share with us why you stand with Brigitte and Ayaan against true hatred and radicalism.

 

For Freedom,
ACT for America

__________________

Examining Linda Sarsour Real News

John R. Houk

© January 28, 2017

_____________________

True Hatred Exposed

 

ACT for America · 869 Lynnhaven Pkwy, Suite 113, #411, Virginia Beach, VA 23452, United States

New ‘Khamenei’ Book Outlines Slow, Painful Strategy to Destroy Israel


Ali Khamenei Twitter Screen Capture: “9 key questions about the elimination of Israel

Ted Belman of Israpundit cross posted an Algemeiner post this should be used in Congress to show one of many probable reasons America can’t trust the paper Iran signed to honor a nuke deal ensuring peace in the 21st century. I wonder where in history in the 20th century the world heard a similar thought.

At any rate the Algemeiner staff write about Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has written some kind of book entitled “Palestine” in which he outlines the destruction of Israel. Ironically the plan doesn’t (at least openly) refer to nuke warheads but rather to numerous tedious attacks that wear down Jews so much they simply immigrate out of Israel to find a safer life. In case don’t realize it, a small nuke warhead can be designed that does not entail the destruction of massive amounts of land. It is entirely possible to utilize a limited impact warhead strike.

JRH 8/4/15

Please Support NCCR

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

New ‘Khamenei’ Book Outlines Slow, Painful Strategy to Destroy Israel

By ALGEMEINER Staff

Posted by Ted Belman

August 3, 2015 3:43 pm

Israpundit

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei outlined his excruciating and patient strategy to annihilate the State of Israel in a new volume entitled “Palestine,” New York-based think tank the Gatestone Institute revealed last week.

Rather than wiping Israel off the map through conventional warfare, Khamenei recommends an everlasting chain of low-intensity attacks that will ultimately make life unbearable for Israelis, who would largely respond, the supreme leader hypothesizes, by packing their bags and relocating themselves out of the country.

Ultimately, the international community would address the conflict whereby some mechanism would be implemented that transforms the “cancerous tumor” of Israel and, ostensibly, the Palestinian controlled territories into another single entity under Muslim rule where the Jews who cannot prove “genuine roots” in their old home country would have to leave and the rest would have to remain as a “protected minority” in the new state of Palestine. The Gatestone Institute, which obtained a copy of the 416-page edition, did not explain the criteria necessary to prove “genuine roots.”

The supreme leader’s top three reasons for wanting to destroy the Jewish state include: its occupation of Jerusalem, its unflagging belligerence against Muslims and its intimate relationship with the “Great Satan,” the United States.

Khamenei also argues that if Jews would begin to leave Israel as a result of sustained and growing threats, the U.S. may withdraw its support for the Jewish State.

Lucky for Khamenei, President Barack Obama is already responsible for a massive rupture in U.S.-Israeli relations, the worst in a decade according to the Gatestone Institute.

In the new book, Khamenei also abhors the fact that the Jewish state was established on lands once under Muslim control — most recently, Ottoman — and he wishes to undo that wrong. Planning ahead, he also hopes to liberate large swaths of Europe, about a third of China, all of India and parts of the Philippines and Thailand. It is unclear what he would do with property once owned by Muslims in the United States that has since been sold to non-Muslims.

Khamenei’s latest iteration of his plan for Israel was published on the heels of an agreement Iran signed with world powers from China to the United States that will lift international sanctions in exchange for some restrictions on and monitoring of its declared nuclear program, which Iran largely developed in secret. The country has intercontinental missiles apparently capable of striking Israel, and past intelligence has indicated that Iran had researched fitting one of those missiles with a nuclear warhead.

Iranian leaders regularly and openly call for the destruction of Israel. The ideas outlined by the Gatestone Institute that appear in “Palestine” echoed an article linked to by the English Twitter handle widely attributed to Khamenei himself, called “9 key questions about the elimination of Israel.

______________________

© 2005-2015 by Ted Belman.Some Rights Reserved. All views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the site owner or the rest of its participants.

Vatican Demonstrates Antisemitism


PX*3033958


John R. Houk
© May 15, 2015
 
I am sure many of you politically savvy readers have already heard that the Vatican under Pope Francis’ leadership has recognized the Palestine Authority as a sovereign nation with full diplomatic relations.
 
I first found out about this from Breaking Christian News (BCN) which cross posted a partial article from Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) News.
 
I understand the Roman Catholic Church is more about the authority of Tradition than the authority of the Holy Bible as the Word of God, but come on! Throwing the Land of the Jews under the bus to a group of people whose sole reason to exist is to destroy Israel and murder Jews is either an idiotic act or an insane act:
 
Future: A world without Israel
The PA promises its people that in the future, the State of Israel will be completely erased and replaced by a State of Palestine. A Fatah member of Palestinian parliament, Najat Abu Bakr, told PA TV that the PA supports and adopts the “stages plan.” To the world, the PA claims that the Palestinians seek the West Bank and Gaza Strip, when in fact the goal is all of Israel: “It doesn’t mean that we don’t want the 1948 borders, but in our current political program we say we want a state on the 1967 borders.” [PA TV (Fatah), Aug. 25, 2008] (PA depicts a world without Israel; Palestine Media Watch)
 
And from for all intents and purposes an independent Hamas Islamic terrorist organization:
 
Vowing to destroy Israel, Hamas paraded some 2,000 of its armed fighters and truck-mounted rockets through Gaza on Sunday, marking its 27th anniversary with its biggest show of force since the end of the Gaza war this summer.
 
….
 
At the parade, a senior Hamas leader reaffirmed the Islamist movement’s founding charter’s pledge to destroy Israel.
 
“This illusion called Israel will be removed. It will be removed at the hands of the Qassam Brigades,” said Khalil al-Hayya, a top Hamas leader, referring to the movement’s armed wing.
 
 
Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007 from Fatah forces loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Both groups signed a unity deal in April but are divided over how to administer the Gaza Strip. (Hamas holds Gaza military parade, vows Israel’s destruction; By Nidal Al-Mughrabi; Reuters; 12/14/14 11:47am EST)
 
Here are two CBN News articles dated 5/14/15 and 5/15/15 which shows a Vatican decision that is in my opinion a demonstration of ANTISEMITISM.
 
JRH 5/15/15

Please Support NCCR

*********************************
Vatican Officially Recognizes ‘State of Palestine’
 
CBN News Internet Producer – Jerusalem
May 14, 2015
 
JERUSALEM, Israel — Israeli leaders expressed disappointment with the Vatican’s decision to officially recognize a Palestinian state.
 
“This move does not promote the peace process and distances the Palestinian leadership from returning to direct and bilateral negotiations,” Israel’s Foreign Ministry responded. “Israel will study the agreement and will consider its steps accordingly.”
 
One former Israeli diplomat told CBN News, “There was no need for the Vatican to jump ahead.”
 
“Given their record in World War II, they should be more careful,” he said. “The Vatican should show more responsibility and not interfere with the future of the Jewish people.”
 
Does this move by the Vatican mean the Catholic Church is taking sides against Israel? Dr. Paul Bonicelli, a professor of government at Regent University, addressed that question and more with CBN’s Efrem Graham. Click play to watch.
 

http://cbn.com/tv/embedplayernews.aspx?bcid=4236001591001

 
A statement released by the Vatican Wednesday said the decision “deals with essential aspects of the life and activity of the Catholic Church in Palestine.”
 
The treaty replaces the Palestine Liberation Organization as the address for its diplomatic interaction with the Palestinian Authority unity government, made up of Fatah in Ramallah and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
 
“We have recognized the state of Palestine ever since it was given recognition by the United Nations and it is already listed as the state of Palestine in our official yearbook,” Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said.
 
Pope Francis referred to Mahmoud Abbas as the president of the Palestinian state last year during his visit to Israel. The Pope will receive Abbas at the Vatican Saturday, a day before bestowing sainthood on two Arab nuns who lived during the Ottoman occupation.
 
Meanwhile, several American Jewish groups also expressed disappointment with the Pope’s decision. The American Jewish Committee called the move “counterproductive.”
 
“Formal Vatican recognition of Palestine, a state that, in reality, does not yet exist, is a regrettable move and is counterproductive to all who seek true peace between Israel and the Palestinians,” AJC Executive Director David Harris said.
 
“There is a reason why the U.S., the European Union and others have long agreed that statehood can only be achieved through direct, bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority,” he continued.
 
“Meanwhile, the West Bank [Judea and Samaria] is ruled by the Palestinian Authority, whose leader, Mahmoud Abbas, just marked the tenth anniversary of what was meant to be a four-year term, and Gaza is governed by Hamas, a terror organization. What and where exactly is the ‘State of Palestine’ today?” Harris queried.
 
“We are fully cognizant of the Pope’s good will and desire to be a voice for peaceful coexistence, which is best served, we believe, by encouraging a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, rather than unilateral gestures outside the framework of the negotiating table,” Harris concluded.
 
+++
What Vatican’s Move May Mean for Jerusalem’s Future
 
CBN News Middle East Bureau Chief
May 15, 2015
 
JERUSALEM, Israel — Critics say the Vatican’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state could have profound consequences for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and the future of Jerusalem.
 
In a new treaty, the Vatican switched its diplomatic recognition from the Palestinian Liberation Organization to the state of Palestine. Palestinian officials celebrated the decision.
 
“We are indeed extremely encouraged by the Vatican recognition of the state of Palestine. We also see this as a very positive development, not just politically but in moral terms, human terms, in legal terms, and it prepares for a whole new era in which Palestine will be seen by the whole world as a state,” senior Palestinian official Hanan Ashrawi said.
 
Israeli sources told CBN News they believe the Vatican’s decision will not lead the Palestinian Authority back to the negotiating table or promote the peace process. They plan to study the agreement and decide what possible steps to take.
 
Other groups like the Zionist Organization of America criticized the decision.
 
“Because what they are instructing the Palestinians is that they can accomplish their ends by being in violation of accords by pursuing unilateral accords as opposes to bilateral negotiations,” Jeff Daube, with the Zionist Organization of America, said.
 
Some say the historic diplomatic move puts the Vatican and Pope Francis in the position of supporting a corrupt and terrorist entity.
 
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is in the tenth year of a four-year term and he presides over a unity government that includes Hamas in the Gaza Strip, a terror organization sworn to Israel’s destruction.
 
The Palestinian Authority also sees Jerusalem as its future capital. That means most all of Jewish and Christian holy sites in the city would be in the hands of a Muslim Palestinian state.
 
The Vatican’s decision also adds to the diplomatic momentum to recognize a Palestinian state. The U.N. Security Council looks to be the next forum soon when France is expected to introduce a resolution to recognize a Palestinian state.
________________________
Vatican Demonstrates Antisemitism
John R. Houk
© May 15, 2015
_______________________
Vatican Officially Recognizes ‘State of Palestine’
 
And
 
What Vatican’s Move May Mean for Jerusalem’s Future
 
© Copyright 2015 . The Christian Broadcasting Network.
 

Netanyahu’s true electoral rival


J. Kerry-Israel Apartheid State w-o Palestine

 

Caroline Glick embarks on an essay that should pique the ears of Conspiracy Theorists. Unfortunately for the Left, this essay displays Conspiracy Facts that paints a picture of President Barack Hussein Obama’s crazy agenda in Foreign Policy that explains much of his actions that are failing left and right. Glick’s exposé underpinning BHO’s actions is undoubtedly based on Leftist utopianism.

 

Whether that utopianism is a real belief or a contrived belief with an even more nefarious agenda waiting in the wings is really the only thing up for debate between political pundits and Conspiracy Theorists.

 

Here are some interesting Glick essay highlights:

 

o   On March 17 Israel embarks on Parliamentarian elections that will decide if the government managed by Prime Minister Netanyahu remains or is replaced by a more Left Wing duo of Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni.

 

o   Due to Netanyahu/Obama international political dueling, the Israeli electorate is really deciding the fate of Jerusalem remaining united or split apart by a violent Islamist republic to be known as Palestine; ergo the March 17 election is really a Netanyahu vs. Obama election.

 

o   If Netanyahu pulls out a victory Glick postulates from a Secretary of State John Kerry speech before the Trilateral Commission (of all freaking Conspiracy Theory places), “Kerry libeled Israel, claiming that we would automatically and naturally become an apartheid state if we don’t give Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria to the PLO, Jew free, as quickly as possible.” (Bold text by me)

 

o   Then the Obama Administration (then) Middle East mediator Martin Indyk (See also HERE) basically damned Israel in a Yediot Aharonot interview (Ynet is associated with the Israeli news outlet):

 

“Indyk also threatened that the Palestinians will get their state whether Israel agrees to their terms of not. In his words, ‘They will get their state in the end – whether through violence or by turning to international organizations.’” (Bold italics mine)

 

o   Obama is in the process of validating a nuclear armed Iran which paints a picture of strong arming Israel government compliance. AND TRUST ME there is even more meat from the pen of Caroline Glick in this essay – READ IT!

 

JRH 2/21/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Netanyahu’s true electoral rival

 

 

By Caroline Glick

February 20th, 2015

CarolineGlick.com

 

Officially, the election on March 17 is among Israelis. Depending on how we vote, either Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will remain in office and form the next government led by his Likud party, or Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni will form a government.

 

But unofficially, a far greater electoral drama is unfolding. The choice is not between Netanyahu and Herzog/Livni. It is between Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama.

 

As the White House sees it, if Herzog/Livni form the next government, then Jerusalem will dance to Obama’s tune. If Netanyahu is reelected, then the entire edifice of Obama’s Middle East policy may topple and fall.

 

Secretary of State John Kerry made clear the administration’s desire to topple Netanyahu last spring during his remarks before the Trilateral Commission. It was during that memorable speech that Kerry libeled Israel, claiming that we would automatically and naturally become an apartheid state if we don’t give Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria to the PLO, Jew free, as quickly as possible.

 

Despite Israel’s venality, Kerry held out hope. In his words, “if there is a change of government [in Israel], or a change of heart, something will happen.”

 

Shortly after Kerry gave his Israel apartheid speech, his Middle East mediator Martin Indyk attacked Israel and the character of the Israeli people in an astounding interview to Yediot Aharonot.

 

Among other things, Indyk hinted that to force Israel to make concessions demanded by the PLO, the Palestinians may need to launch another terror war.

 

Indyk also threatened that the Palestinians will get their state whether Israel agrees to their terms of not. In his words, “They will get their state in the end – whether through violence or by turning to international organizations.”

 

Indyk made his statements as an unnamed US official. When his identity was exposed, he was forced to resign his position. Following his departure from government service he returned to his previous position as vice president of the Brookings Institution and the director of its foreign policy program. Last September, The New York Times reported that the Brookings Institute received a $14.8 million, four-year donation from Qatar, the chief financier of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

This week, Indyk was back in Israel to speak at the annual conference of the Institute for National Security Studies. There he provided us with a picture of what we can expect from the Obama administration in its remaining two years in office if Netanyahu forms the next government.

 

On the Palestinian front, Indyk warned that Israel shouldn’t be worried about the Palestinians getting an anti-Israel resolution passed in the UN Security Council. Rather, it can expect that the US will join with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council to pass a resolution “against Israel’s will” that will “lay out the principle of a two-state solution.”

 

As Indyk intimated, Israel can avoid this fate if it elects a Herzog/Livni government. Such a government, he indicated, will preemptively give in to all of the Palestinians demands and so avoid a confrontation with the US and its colleagues at the Security Council.

 

Indyk explained, “If there is a government in Israel after these elections that decides to pursue a two-state solution, then there is a way forward. It begins with coordinating an initiative with the United States. And then, together with the US, looking to Egypt and Jordan and the resurrection of the Arab Peace Initiative.”

 

As for Iran, Indyk shrugged at Israel’s concerns over the agreement that Obama is now seeking to conclude with the Iranian regime regarding its nuclear weapons program. That agreement will leave Iran as a threshold nuclear state. Indyk suggested that the US could assuage Israel’s concerns by signing a bilateral treaty with Israel that would commit the US to do something if Iran passes some nuclear threshold.

 

There are only three problems with such a deal.

 

First, as former ambassador to the US Itamar Rabinovich noted, such a treaty would likely render Israel unable to take independent action against Iranian nuclear sites.

 

Second, the US has a perfect track record of missing every major nuclear advance by every country. US intelligence agencies were taken by surprise when India, Pakistan and North Korea joined the nuclear club. They have always underestimated Iranian nuclear activities and were taken by surprise, repeatedly, by Syria’s nuclear proliferation activities. In other words, it would be insane for Israel to trust that the US would act in a timely manner to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold.

 

Third of course is the demonstrated lack of US will – particularly under the Obama administration – to take any action that could prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. So Israel has no reason whatsoever to believe that the US would honor its commitment.

 

But then, since the Obama administration believes that Herzog and Livni will be compliant with its policies, the White House may expect the two will agree to forgo Israel’s right to self-defense and place Israel’s national security in relation to Iran in Obama’s hands.

 

And this brings us to the real contest unfolding in the lead-up to March 17.

 

When Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner announced last month that he had invited Netanyahu to address the joint houses of Congress on the threat emanating from Iran’s nuclear program and from radical Islam, he unintentionally transformed the Israeli elections from a local affair to a contest between Obama and Netanyahu.

 

Obama’s response to Netanyahu’s speech has been astounding. His ad hominem attacks against Netanyahu, his open moves to coerce Democratic lawmakers to boycott Netanyahu’s speech, and the administration’s aggressive attempts to damage Israel’s reputation in the US have been without precedent. More than anything, they expose a deep-seated fear that Netanyahu will be successful in exposing the grave danger that Obama’s policies toward Iran and toward the Islamic world in general pose to the global security.

 

Those fears are reasonable for two reasons.

 

First due to a significant degree to the administration’s unhinged response to the news of Netanyahu’s speech, Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu sparked a long-belated public debate in the US regarding Obama’s strategy of appeasing the Iranian regime. Generally consistent Obama supporters like The Washington Post editorial board have published stinging indictments of this policy in recent weeks.

 

These analyses have noted for the first time that in pursuing Iran, Obama is alienating and weakening America’s allies, enabling Iran to expand its nuclear program, and empowering Iran regionally as the US does nothing to prevent Iran’s takeover of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

 

Second, it is possible that in his remarks about Iran and radical Islam, Netanyahu will manage to discredit Obama’s approach to both issues. This is possible because Obama’s approach is difficult to understand.

 

Last week, following the decapitation of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians by Islamic State, the Obama administration stood alone in its refusal to note that the victims were murdered because they were Christians. When Egypt retaliated for the massacre with air strikes against Islamic State training camps and other facilities in Libya, the Obama administration refused to support its ally. Instead it criticized Egypt for acting on its own and called for a political solution in Libya, which is now governed by two rival governments and has become a breeding ground for Islamic State terrorists who transit Libya to Sinai.

 

Following Islamic State’s massacre of the Christians, the group’s leaders threatened to invade neighboring Italy. Italy’s Prime Minister Matteo Renzi promised a strong response, and then called on the UN Security Council to do something. The Obama administration responded with coolness to a similar Egyptian call last week.

 

Hamas (which is supposedly much more moderate than Islamic State despite its intense cooperation with Libya-trained Islamic State forces in Sinai) warned Italy not to attack Islamic State in Libya, lest it be viewed in the words of Salah Bardawil as beginning “a new crusade against Arab and Muslim countries.”

 

While all of this has been going on, Obama presided over his much-touted international conference on Confronting Violent Extremism. Reportedly attended by representatives from 60 countries, and featuring many leaders of Muslim Brotherhood- linked groups like the Council on American- Islamic Relations, Obama’s conference’s apparent goal was to deemphasize and deny the link between terrorism and radical Islam.

 

In his remarks on Wednesday, Obama gave a lengthy defense of his refusal to acknowledge the link between Islam and Islamic State, al-Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups. He insisted that these groups “have perverted Islam.”

 

Obama indirectly argued that the West is to blame for their behavior because of its supposed historical mistreatment of Muslims. In his words, the “reality… is that there’s a strain of thought that doesn’t embrace ISIL’s tactics, doesn’t embrace violence, but does buy into the notion that the Muslim world has suffered historic grievances, sometimes that’s accurate.”

 

Obama’s insistence that Islamic State and its ilk attack because of perceived Western misbehavior is completely at odds with observed reality. As The Atlantic’s Graeme Wood demonstrated this week in his in-depth report on Islamic State’s ideology and goals, Islam is central to the group. Islamic State is an apocalyptic movement rooted entirely in Islam.

 

Most of the coverage of Netanyahu’s scheduled speech before Congress has centered on his opposition to the deal Obama seeks to conclude with Iran. But it may be that the second half of his speech – which will be devoted to the threat posed by radical Islam – will be no less devastating to Obama. Obama’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge the fact that the greatest looming threats to global security today, including US national security, stem from radical Islam indicates that he is unable to contend with any evidence that jihadist Islam constitutes a unique threat unlike the threat posed by Western chauvinism and racism.

 

It is hard to understand either Israel’s election or Obama’s hysterical response to Netanyahu’s scheduled speech without recognizing that Obama clearly feels threatened by the message he will deliver. Surrounded by sycophantic aides and advisers, and until recently insulated from criticism by a supportive media, while free to ignore Congress due to his veto power, Obama has never had to seriously explain his policies regarding Iran and Islamic terrorists more generally. He has never endured a direct challenge to those policies.

 

Today Obama believes that he is in a to-the-death struggle with Netanyahu. If Netanyahu’s speech is a success, Obama’s foreign policy will be indefensible. If Obama is able to delegitimize Netanyahu ahead of his arrival, and bring about his electoral defeat, then with a compliant Israeli government, he will face no obstacles to his plan to appease Iran and blame Islamic terrorism on the West for the remainder of his tenure in office.

 

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

____________________________

© All right reserved, Caroline Glick

 

About Caroline B. Glick

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

 

Forget Palestine – It’s Time for a Greater Israel


Israel speck map 2 circled

John R. Houk

© December 9, 2012

 

Dovid Efune writes about the seemingly growing isolation of the only Western style democracy in the Muslim world. Of course that isolated nation is Israel. If you look on a map the Land of Israel looks like a speck on the globe. Israel is surrounded by Jew-Hating Muslim nations that have tried to destroy Israel since its modern manifestation in 1948. It is evidence of God’s miracle that Israel has withstood, pushed back and recaptured some of its Biblical land in seemingly eternal moments of Muslim hatred to remain a free Jewish haven from persecution of Jewish people.

 

Here we are in the twelfth year of the 21st century and Israel’s detractors have expanded beyond Muslim Jew-Hatred. Western style nations as in the EU, USA, Australia and others have began lining up on the Muslims side. Not so much because of a glowing love for the despotism inherent in Muslim nations, rather the Western nations are lining up because many Muslim nations control significant portions of the world’s oil deposits. Since the European Union has become so secular that its Christian heritage has begun to vanish, geopolitics and geo-economics leads them to abandon the Jewish State of Israel and to support the Jew-Hating Muslim nations.

 

Even though academics try to downplay the fact that the USA is still the world’s preeminent hyperpower, Americans still feel an affinity to their Christian heritage and supporting Israel as an underdog against a sea of haters. Unfortunately most Americans that are supportive of Israel’s predicament are anesthetized to the Obama Administration’s agenda to support the Muslim agenda.

 

So we must ask ourselves, what is the reason that President Barack Hussein Obama would stick to the deception of land for peace to a people that hate America almost as much as they hate Jews? The USA is not as secular as the EU and Americans still consider themselves Christians even if numerous Christians are not religious Christians. So even though Leftists HATE the appellation of America being a “Christian nation,” we Americans live in a nation we consider being Christian by majority. This leads us to the possible answer for Obama’s reasoning for siding with Jew-Hating Muslims.

 

Let’s examine a bit of Obama’s past that he cannot hide yet American voters evidently refuse to consider.

 

President Barack Hussein Obama attended a Church that preached Black Liberation Theology for twenty years. While Obama attended a Church that preached hatred of White people and that God should damn America, BHO palled up with like-minded Marxists like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn and the Jew-Hating/White-Hating Nation of Islam (NOI) leader Louis Farrakhan.

 

President Bush was under the same delusion that a non-people who call themselves Palestinians rather than Arabs should have their own sovereign nation. Obama has not only followed in that delusion but has done so in such a way that isolates Israel from the West to force Israel to accept a Jew-hating nation called Palestine to come into existence.

 

Here are some facts to look at pertaining to Israel’s existence. Iran has been saber rattling against Israel’s existence since the Khomeini revolution. The problem is Iran is about to become a nuclear armed nation. A nuke armed Israel adds a little reality to Iran’s threat to Israel’s existence. Adding to Iran’s threat is the threat of Iranian client States and transnational terrorist organizations that spout Jew-Hatred.

 

Those clients are the waning Assad regime of Syria and Hezbollah and to a certain extent Hamas as well. Assad’s regime might end due to the Syrian civil war; however his regime probably will be exchanged for an equally Jew-Hating Sunni-Islamist government sympathetic to al Qaeda.

 

Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority pretends to be an agent of peace but the reality is the PA’s Jew-Hatred media and the PA’s looking the other way as Islamic terrorists murder Jews that have a legitimate claim in Judea-Samaria. The land of Judea-Samaria is the land that would be stolen to create a Palestinian State.

 

Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood tool that openly calls for Israel’s destruction from the tiny Gaza Strip (could be renamed Hamastan).

 

The Muslim Brotherhood is making a grab for the control of Egypt to make that nation the Sunni version Iran. Even with the Jew-Hatred inherent among Egyptian Muslims there is currently rioting in the streets to prevent a Sharia based Constitution.

 

European nations are again beginning to be infected with the Antisemitism that has persecuted Jewish Europeans for thousands of years that reached its high point of hatred in the Nazi Final Solution of Adolf Hitler. Frankly I blame this resurgence of Antisemitism in Europe on the Muslim immigrants that have refused to adapt to the West and are becoming more and more radicalized under the influence of purist Islam.

 

I am with Dovid Efune in supporting Prime Minister Netanyahu’s response to the United Nations General Assembly bringing a Palestinian State closer to existence: “Build, Bibi, Build”. The anti-Israel elements of the globe are working the circumstances that will result in an attack on Israel, so build more Jewish housing in the eastern half of Jerusalem. For that matter build more Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria and the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians out of the Biblical land of Israel.

 

JRH 12/9/12

Please Support NCCR

 

Promised Land - Eretz Israel

Romney: No Palestine


Palestine Lies Organization

John R. Houk

© September 23, 2012

 

President Barack Hussein Obama’s every action toward Israel has been a demonstration of setting the Jewish State up for destruction.

 

For you pro-Israel people (like me) this video leaked by the Left Wing mag Mother Jones has Romney speaking about the reality of the existence of a Palestinian State next to Israel. I am certain the original Mother Jones leak of Romney speaking at a private fund raiser was meant to embarrass Romney; however the reality is this is a demonstration of how Pro-Israel Romney is.

 

I am going to cross post the INN article where I found the video and then I am going to cross post the Youtube location of the video which has a transcript of Romney’s private fund raising speech as disseminated in the video.

 

JRH 9/23/12 (Hat Tip: Nora Mitchell – No Palestinian State!)

Please Support SlantRight 2.0 With Your Contribution.

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

Romney Explains Dangers of a Palestinian State Alongside Israel

Why say no to a Palestinian State west of the Jordan River? Ask Romney and look at the map.

 

By Arutz Sheva Staff

First Published: 9/19/2012, 7:05 AM

Arutz Sheva 7 – Israel National News

 

In a just released video, Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney stated, in a private fundraiser, what he saw as the dangers of a West Bank Palestinian State.

 

INN article placed their video – look below to view

 

“What the border would be?” asked Romney. “Maybe seven miles from Tel Aviv to what would be the West Bank.

 

“The other side of the West Bank, the other side of what would be this new Palestinian state would either be Syria at one point, or Jordan.

 

“And of course the Iranians would want to do through the West Bank exactly what they did through Lebanon, what they did near Gaza, which is that the Iranians would want to bring missiles and armament into the West Bank and potentially threaten Israel.

 

“So Israel of course would have to say, ‘That can’t happen. We’ve got to keep the Iranians from bringing weaponry into the West Bank.’”

 

The graphic illustrating this article, by Att’y Mark Langfan, illustrates Romney’s point.

 

Map Demonstrating Romney’s Point

Israel Map emphasizing Pal State Danger

___________________________

VIDEO: Mitt Romney’s remarks on Israel, Iran

 

Posted by SoetoroBarry

Sep 18, 2012

 

Following are excerpts from a series of leaked videos taken at a Mitt Romney fundraiser and published Tuesday by Mother Jones magazine. Mother Jones obtained the video, which shows Romney speaking bluntly about Israel and Iran, from a confidential source.

“I’m torn by two perspectives in this regard. One is the one which I’ve had for some time, which is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish. Now why do I say that? Some might say, well, let’s let the Palestinians have the West Bank, and have security, and set up a separate nation for the Palestinians. And then come a couple of thorny questions…

And I don’t have a map here to look at the geography, but the border between Israel and the West Bank is obviously right there, right next to Tel Aviv, which is the financial capital, the industrial capital of Israel, the center of Israel. It’s—what the border would be? Maybe seven miles from Tel Aviv to what would be the West Bank…The other side of the West Bank, the other side of what would be this new Palestinian state would either be Syria at one point, or Jordan. And of course the Iranians would want to do through the West Bank exactly what they did through Lebanon, what they did near Gaza. Which is that the Iranians would want to bring missiles and armament into the West Bank and potentially threaten Israel. So Israel of course would have to say, “That can’t happen. We’ve got to keep the Iranians from bringing weaponry into the West Bank.” Well, that means that—who? The Israelis are going to patrol the border between Jordan, Syria, and this new Palestinian nation? Well, the Palestinians would say, “Uh, no way! We’re an independent country. You can’t, you know, guard our border with other Arab nations.” And now how about the airport? How about flying into this Palestinian nation? Are we gonna allow military aircraft to come in and weaponry to come in? And if not, who’s going to keep it from coming in? Well, the Israelis. Well, the Palestinians are gonna say, “We’re not an independent nation if Israel is able to come in and tell us what can land in our airport.” These are problems—these are very hard to solve, all right? And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, “There’s just no way.” And so what you do is you say, “You move things along the best way you can.” You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem. We live with that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it. We don’t go to war to try and resolve it imminently. On the other hand, I got a call from a former secretary of state. I won’t mention which one it was, but this individual said to me, you know, I think there’s a prospect for a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis after the Palestinian elections. I said, “Really?” And, you know, his answer was, “Yes, I think there’s some prospect.” And I didn’t delve into it.”

***

“The idea of pushing on the Israelis to give something up to get the Palestinians to act is the worst idea in the world.”

***

“If I were Iran, if I were Iran—a crazed fanatic, I’d say let’s get a little fissile material to Hezbollah, have them carry it to Chicago or some other place, and then if anything goes wrong, or America starts acting up, we’ll just say, “Guess what? Unless you stand down, why, we’re going to let off a dirty bomb.” I mean this is where we have—where America could be held up and blackmailed by Iran, by the mullahs, by crazy people. So we really don’t have any option but to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.”

***

“The president’s foreign policy, in my opinion, is formed in part by a perception he has that his magnetism, and his charm, and his persuasiveness is so compelling that he can sit down with people like Putin and Chávez and Ahmadinejad, and that they’ll find that we’re such wonderful people that they’ll go on with us, and they’ll stop doing bad things. And it’s an extraordinarily naive perception.”

_________________________

Romney Explains Dangers of a Palestinian State Alongside Israel

 

© Arutz Sheva, All Rights Reserved

____________________________

 

Mitt Romney’s remarks on Israel, Iran

 

SoetoroBarry Youtube Page

 

Israel Palestinian Conflict: The Truth About the Peace Process


Here is an Israel-Palestine education moment that demonstrates who is holding up peace in the Middle East.

 

JRH 8/31/12 (Hat Tip: The Golden Report)

Please Support NCCR

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

VIDEO: Israel Palestinian Conflict: The Truth About the Peace Process

 

 

Posted by standwithus

Posted: Aug 1, 2012

Are the Palestinians an Occupied Nation?


Here is a short yet informative video that demonstrates why Israel is not occupying a land called Palestine. The essence of that reason is that Palestine as a nation or a national people have NEVER EXISTED!

 

JRH 3/14/12 (Hat Tip: HelpIslam01)

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

VIDEO: Are the Palestinians an Occupied Nation?

 

 

Uploaded by DoYouWantoKnow

Uploaded: Feb 9, 2012