Log in

View Full Version : Al Qaeda's Neo-Nazi Connections



AmericanZionist2004
4th March 2004, 02:30
A long article but every bit as informative.


Originally posted by "Jewish Press"


Al Qaeda`s Neo-Nazi Connections

Posted 2/25/2004
By William Grim

On the surface there would seem to be little to
unite the Aryan racialists of the neo-Nazi
movement with the terrorists of radical Islam.
To the neo-Nazis, Muslims are almost all
members of ``inferior`` races; and to the Islamic
terrorists, the neo-Nazis are almost without
exception either atheists or members of fringe
quasi-Christian sects.

But the reality is that there has been close
cooperation between Muslim extremists and
Fascists ever since the founding of the Nazi
movement in the 1920`s. For all of their
differences, Muslim extremists and Nazis have
always been united by a common group of
beliefs and goals: hatred of Judaism (and
conventional Christianity), hatred of
democracy, and a desire for the destruction of
Israel and the United States.

A little background is in order. During
World War II the rabidly anti-Semitic Grand
Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al-Husseini,
pledged his unequivocal support to Adolf Hitler
and the National Socialist movement. The
Grand Mufti was put on the Nazi payroll in
1937 after he met with Adolf Eichmann in
Palestine. In fact, when the Grand Mufti had to
flee the Middle East in 1941 after the failure of
the pro-Nazi coup in Iraq, he was welcomed to
Berlin by Hitler and provided with high-power
transmitters in order to broadcast pro-Nazi
propaganda to the Middle East.

The Grand Mufti also organized an all-
Muslim unit of the SS for Hitler and was
instrumental in forming the pro-Nazi Muslim
Hanschar brigades in Yugoslavia. After the
war and his conviction for war crimes by the
Nuremberg Tribunal, the Grand Mufti fled to
Egypt where, as part of the ODESSA network
of former SS operatives, he maintained close
ties to former high-ranking Nazis who were
now engaged in gun-running operations to
Arab countries fighting the fledgling State of
Israel.

One such ex-Nazi gunrunner was Major
General Otto Ernst Remer (1912-1997), known
as the ``Godfather of the neo-Nazi movement.``
Remer had a major part in thwarting the
Generals` Plot against Hitler in July 1944.
Hitler rewarded Remer by putting him in
charge of his protection detail. In the chaos of
the immediate post-war period, Remer escaped
de-Nazification and returned to Germany.

In 1949 Remer and his associates founded
the Sozialistische Reichspartei in Lower
Saxony, but the party was banned in 1952 as a
neo-Nazi political organization. Remer then
settled in Egypt where he began his close
friendship with the Grand Mufti and also
became security adviser to Gamal Abdel
Nasser.

Remer, along with his associate Alois
Bunning (who was Eichmann`s assistant in the
SS), operated his gunrunning company, the
Orient Trading Company, out of Damascus for
many years. In the 1980`s, when the statute of
limitations expired for the crimes he was
alleged to have committed, Remer retired and
returned to Germany where he became a close
adviser to Michael Kuehnen, the most
important neo-Nazi leader of the postwar
period in Germany.

It should be pointed out that National
Socialism had a profound impact on the
political philosophies of many radical Islamic
political organization, particularly the Muslim
Brotherhood (founded in Egypt in 1928),
Nasser`s Young Egypt movement, the Social
Nationalist Party of Syria founded by Anton
Sa`ada, and the Ba`ath Party of Iraq. One of the
main leaders of the 1941 pro-Nazi coup in Iraq
was Khairallah Tulfah, the uncle and guardian
of Saddam Hussein. When Saddam failed in
his attempt to assassinate the Iraqi leader
Abdel Karim Qassim in 1959, he fled to Egypt
where he was given protection by Grand Mufti-
protégé Nasser and ODESSA-connected former
Nazis. The rest, as they say, is history.

The Third Position

The rise of Al Qaeda and the explosion of
neo-Nazi activity in Germany and elsewhere
coincided with the breakup of the USSR in the
early 1990`s and the political vacuum created
by the absence of the former Soviet behemoth.
Neo-Nazis in both Europe and the United
States began making overtures to Islamic
terrorists and even to Louis Farrakhan`s
Nation of Islam movement. The resulting
admixture of Nazi and Islamicist ideologies is
something that is termed the ``Third Position.``

Simply put, adherents of the ``Third
Position`` oppose both communism and
capitalism, the latter category subsuming
Israel, the United States and all other
democratic countries which are believed to be
under the control of ``International Jewry.`` To
this end, the socialist portion of Nazi beliefs is
emphasized (as opposed to Hitler`s reliance on
corporatism), but the core belief in anti-
Semitism is left unaltered. Like the original
Nazis, the Third Positioners are eager to form
alliances with Muslim (and black) extremists
who share their anti-Semitic beliefs.

In Germany, the neo-Nazi leader Gottfried
Kuessel has maintained close ties to
Farrakhan`s Black Muslims, and Karl-Heinz
Hoffmann, thought to have been involved in
the murder of Jewish publisher Shlomo Levin
as well as the Oktoberfest bombing of
September 26, 1980, in which 13 persons were
killed and over 200 injured, has long
maintained ties with Arafat`s PLO and even
moved his paramilitary training camp to
Lebanon in 1980 with PLO assistance.

In France, the neo-Nazi leader Robert
Faurisson maintains close ties with Ahmed
Rami, the former broadcaster of the now-
defunct Radio Islam, a viciously anti-Semitic
station that operated out of Stockholm for a
number of years. And for some time, Sweden`s
neo-Nazis have provided skinheads for use as
Rami`s bodyguards.

Much of the coordination of neo-
Nazi/Muslim terrorist activities is done in the
United States. Since overt Nazi activity is
outlawed in Germany and many other
European countries, neo-Nazis and Islamic
extremists have taken advantage of America`s
First Amendment protection of almost all
political activity. In fact, the headquarters
today of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche
Arbeiterrpartei is in Lincoln, Nebraska. The
Internet and electronic banking make
communication and the transfer of funds
instantaneous. Even when the transfer of
funds needs to be done in person, American
law permits every individual to enter or leave
the country with $10,000 in cash or negotiable
securities without reporting it.

The First Gulf War in 1991 was a
catalyzing event in the development of neo-
Nazi and Islamic terrorist relations. Early in
1991, the German neo-Nazi leader Michael
Kuehnen contacted the Iraqi Embassy in Bonn
and offered to train and equip a squadron of
neo-Nazi mercenaries to assist Saddam in the
coming war against the alliance led by the
United States. Indeed, when Kuehnen was
arrested for the last time by German police in
April of 1991 (Kuehnen died shortly afterwards
of AIDS), included among the documents found
in his apartment was a copy of a draft treaty
between the ``Anti-Zionist League`` and the
``Government of Iraq.``

Another German neo-Nazi leader, Heinz
Reisz, appearing live on Hessian state
television on January 25, 1991, gained a great
deal of notoriety by proclaiming, ``Long live the
fight for Saddam Hussein, long live his people,
long live their leader, God save the Arab
people.``

Although upwards of as many as 500 neo-
Nazi mercenaries, formed into a so-called
Freedom Corps, were sent to Iraq in 1991, their
military effect was negligible at best.
Eyewitness accounts say that most of the
mercenaries did little other than parade
around Baghdad in SS uniforms. The members
of the ``Freedom Corps`` fled Iraq after the first
night of Alliance bombing. Regardless of the
ignominious military performance of the neo-
Nazis in Iraq in 1991, this was an important
event because it led to greater ties and
cooperation among American right-wing
extremists, European neo-Nazis and Islamic
terrorists.

Oklahoma City

Domestic terrorism in the United States
also rose greatly in the aftermath of the first
Gulf War. Timothy McVeigh, himself a veteran
of that conflict, stunned the world by his
bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in
1995 in Oklahoma City. But the evidence
suggests that the neo-Nazi/Islamic terrorist
network played a significant role in this act of
terrorism.

First, the choice of a terrorist target in
Oklahoma is very telling. Although Oklahoma
is a conservative southern state that has a
reputation for patriotism and sends an
unusually high percentage of its young people
into the military, it is also one of the bastions
of the neo-Nazi movement in the United States.
In 1991, the Oklahoma Klan leader Dennis
Mahon led a rally in support of Saddam
Hussein in Tulsa. And Oklahoma is also home
to Elohim City, a neo-Nazi paramilitary
compound that has served as a training ground
for right-wing extremists for the past thirty
years. Groups associated with Elohim City
have included The Order, Covenant Sword and
Arm, White Aryan Resistance and the Aryan
Republican Army. The latter group included
Timothy McVeigh among its members.

Extremists residing at Elohim City
received military-style training from a number
of sources. One of the trainers there was
Andreas Carl Strassmeir of Germany, a neo-
Nazi and the son of Guenter Strassmeir, a chief
aide of disgraced former German chancellor
Helmut Kohl. The elder Strassmeir is widely
regarded as the architect of Kohl`s
reunification plan that merged the former East
Germany with the Federal Republic in
1991.And Guenter`s father was one of the
original members of the Nazi Party in the early
1920`s.

Andreas Strassmeir is important to this
story because he not only became a close friend
and confidant of Timothy McVeigh, but also
because he is regarded by many investigators
as John Doe #2, the unknown person assisting
McVeigh and Terry Nichols at the scene of the
Oklahoma City bombing who was seen by a
number of eyewitnesses.

In addition to training various neo-Nazi
and militia groups, Strassmeir was involved in
a number of very curious activities. According
to an FBI report dated May 10, 1995,
``Additional documents reveal that at one time
Strassmeir was attempting to purchase a 747
aircraft from Lufthansa; however, the reason
for the purchase is not reflected in the
documents.``

In 1995 it would not have been
unreasonable for an FBI investigator to give
Strassmeir`s attempted purchase of a Boeing
747 mere passing notice. In light of 9/11,
however, Strassmeir`s aborted airliner
purchase gives one pause and raises the real
possibility that 9/11 type attacks were being
planned as far back as 1995 by insiders in the
neo-Nazi/Islamic terrorist network. (And flying
a privately owned jet or one operated by remote
control would save the problem of hijacking
airliners en route.) Strassmeir left the United
States shortly after the bombing and currently
resides in Berlin.

Mutual Enemies, Mutual Interests

The many points of contact between the
neo-Nazis and the Islamic terrorists and their
mutual targets of large public buildings
demonstrate what I would like to term the
``Strangers on a Train`` scenario of current
terrorist activity. In the Alfred Hitchcock movie
of that name, two men unknown to each other
meet on a train and start talking. Each needs
to dispose of a person. They agree to kill each
other`s intended victim, thereby eliminating
the element of motive from the ensuing police
investigations. In a similar manner, evidence of
late tends to support the idea that Al Qaeda is
farming out terrorist work -- which is why
American investigators have been so interested
in the remote area of South America where
Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay border each
other.

It is there that wealthy German ex-Nazis,
Islamic terrorists, Basque and IRA terrorists
on the lam as well as narco-terrorists are
known to be in steady contact. The possibilities
for Mafia-style terrorist ``contracts`` are
virtually unlimited.

It may come as something of a surprise to
some when they realize just how well funded
the various neo-Nazi organizations are.
Authorities have known for years that a Swiss
banker by the name of Francois Genoud has
been funding neo-Nazi activities throughout
the world. Genoud first gained prominence as
the financial adviser to the Grand Mufti of
Jerusalem. He is alleged to have funded neo-
Nazi activities through the use of confiscated
Jewish funds that were deposited in Swiss
banks by the Nazis. Genoud funded the legal
defense of Eichmann during his trial in 1961.
And most chilling of all, Genoud was closely
associated with the Palestinian terrorists who
murdered Israeli athletes at the Munich
Olympics in 1972.

Another Swiss financier of neo-Nazi and
Islamic terror is Ahmed Huber, (nee Albert
Huber), a former journalist who converted to
Islam. Swiss authorities raided Huber`s
suburban home outside of Berne on November
8, 2001, when U.S. officials identified him as
one of the chief financial operators for Al
Qaeda. Huber had been very active with the Al
Taqwa (literally ``Fear of God``) international
banking group, an Islamic terrorist front
organization that had been funding the
activities of Hamas and other Muslim
extremists. According to a report released by
Germany`s Bundesamt fuer Verfassungsschutz
(``Office for the Protection of the
Constitution``), Huber ``sees himself as a
mediator between Islam and right-wing
groups.``

Huber and others of his ilk have found
that Holocaust denial organizations provide
the ideal venues for coordinating the efforts of
the neo-Nazis and the Islamic terrorists.
Indeed, Holocaust denial is the one area in
which the beliefs of the neo-Nazis and Islamic
terrorists coincide completely. And given the
levels of post-9/11 security, international
Holocaust denial conferences now have greater
importance for planning and coordination
among the neo-Nazi/Islamic terrorist networks.

This is due to the unfortunate fact that
Holocaust denial organizations have the patina
of scholarly respectability. Groups such as the
Santa Barbara, California-based Institute for
Historical Review produce glossy quasi-
academic-style journals complete with
footnotes and bibliography and well-designed
and user-friendly websites. Holocaust denial
groups sponsor international meetings that
allow representatives of neo-Nazi and Islamic
terrorist groups to meet because they narrowly
fall within guidelines in most Western
countries allowing for the free exchange of
``ideas.`` And with the current embrace of anti-
Semitism by most leftist academics (in addition
to their traditional anti-Americanism), there is
now often very little difference between the
symposia sponsored by officially recognized
Middle Eastern Studies organizations in
America and Europe and those organized by
Holocaust denial groups.

While American forces continue to identify
and destroy Al Qaeda`s ability to conduct
terrorist activities on its own, we must become
more vigilant to the increasing possibility of
``terror by hire`` as neo-Nazi and other right-
wing extremists step up to fill the void.

The next 9/11-style terrorist attack may
not be attempted by a keffiya-wearing Arab
terrorist spouting quotations from the Koran,
but by an IRA terrorist whose services were
purchased by a left-wing European intellectual
attending a Middle Eastern Studies caucus of
some leftist academic group during an annual
conference in Omaha or Chicago or San
Francisco.

William Grim is an American writer living
in Germany. He can be contacted at
[email protected] Read more by and
about him at williamegrim.tripod.com.

Link to Article (http://jewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=3433)

Redalias
4th March 2004, 02:39
Hi AmericanZionist,

Do you think Palestinians are human beings? If so and as such do you think they are entitled to such things as life, liberty and the right to self determination? Why do Zionists deny them these things?

Thanks.

synthesis
4th March 2004, 03:38
It's an informative article, and although I recognized the basic premise, it was nice to see such a large amount of evidence supporting it. The majority of it was refreshingly free from political rhetoric.

There was only one part of it that I found to be absolutely ridiculous.


And with the current embrace of anti-Semitism by most leftist academics

That's just laughable. Anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jews, and I would ask that you defend his claim by providing evidence in the form of words spoken or actions taken by a "leftist academic" against the Jewish. That is, unless you disagree with it.

Y2A
4th March 2004, 04:04
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 03:39 AM
Hi AmericanZionist,

Do you think Palestinians are human beings? If so and as such do you think they are entitled to such things as life, liberty and the right to self determination? Why do Zionists deny them these things?

Thanks.
Ummmmmmm his name is a joke because he's a jew, he's not really a zionist. Don't be so uptight *looks around* we already have plenty of uptight "communists" here.

Liberty Lover
4th March 2004, 04:06
That's just laughable. Anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jews, and I would ask that you defend his claim by providing evidence in the form of words spoken or actions taken by a "leftist academic" against the Jewish. That is, unless you disagree with it.

Criticism of Israel is not in itself anti-Semitic. But what leads some to justifiably view left-wing academics as anti-Semitic is the fact that they single out the Israeli state for criticism among countless other nations that are far greater abusers of human rights and that do not nearly face comparable threats to their security. Additionally, the left is constantly *****ing about the occupation of Palestine but does not seem to give a shit about Tibet, West Papua, Kurdistan, or a number of other oppressed people that have not adopted the strategy of suicide bombers nor have been offered a state on three separate occasions. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this truth is that Edward Said and his ilk do not seek the establishment of Palestine, but rather the destruction of Israel.

For those that don’t know, the French Neo-Nazi mentioned in the article, Robert Faurisson, is the author of a Holocaust denying book entitled “The myth of the six million”. It should come as no surprise to the few enlightened members of this forum that a certain self-hating Jew named Noam Chomsky wrote an introduction for this piece of hate propaganda.

Y2A
4th March 2004, 04:14
Originally posted by Liberty [email protected] 4 2004, 05:06 AM
but does not seem to give a shit about Tibet, West Papua, Kurdistan, or a number of other oppressed people that have not adopted the strategy of suicide bombers nor have been offered a state on no less than three separate occasions.
That's because those situations do not directly involve the U.S as the Israeli situation does, with the exception of maybe Kurdistan to a certain degree, and we both know that that is all that matters to these people.

Liberty Lover
4th March 2004, 04:16
Originally posted by Y2A+Mar 4 2004, 05:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Y2A @ Mar 4 2004, 05:14 AM)
Liberty [email protected] 4 2004, 05:06 AM
but does not seem to give a shit about Tibet, West Papua, Kurdistan, or a number of other oppressed people that have not adopted the strategy of suicide bombers nor have been offered a state on no less than three separate occasions.
That&#39;s because those situations do not involve the U.S as much as the Israeli situation does, with the exception of maybe Kurdistan, and we both know that that is all that matters to these people. [/b]
Exactly.

synthesis
4th March 2004, 06:00
But what leads some to justifiably view left-wing academics as anti-Semitic is the fact that they single out the Israeli state for criticism among countless other nations that are far greater abusers of human rights and that do not nearly face comparable threats to their security.

Well, in terms of unequal criticism, I think that&#39;s something that everyone with an agenda does. That doesn&#39;t make it right, but you can&#39;t say, for example, that there aren&#39;t regimes out there more deserving of criticism than Cuba.

On a more logical note, I think a lot of the anti-Israeli sentiment comes from the fact that so much money is sent there to buy military equipment that kills so many civilians. I think it&#39;s justifiable that people - especially leftists concerned about the state of education - wouldn&#39;t want to spent &#036;11,000,000,000 in tax dollars annually financing the murder of innocent people.

There is also the "two sides" argument. The American media is incredibly biased towards Israel, and I think a lot of people - Chomsky and Blum stand out - want to provide the other side of the story to anyone who wants to listen. So much energy is devoted towards portraying Israel as the reluctant defendant, I believe it&#39;s important to expose all the things that government does that aren&#39;t exactly ethical.

Liberty Lover
4th March 2004, 06:55
On a more logical note, I think a lot of the anti-Israeli sentiment comes from the fact that so much money is sent there to buy military equipment that kills so many civilians. I think it&#39;s justifiable that people - especially leftists concerned about the state of education - wouldn&#39;t want to spent &#036;11,000,000,000 in tax dollars annually financing the murder of innocent people.

The stand alone number of people killed on each side of this conflict is extremely misleading. On the Israeli side virtually all of the dead are innocent civilians. However the number given of Palestinian dead encompasses terrorist leaders, suicide bombers, bomb makers and even collaborators killed by the Palestinian themselves. Those innocent civilians that have died were most assuredly not ‘murdered’. Their deaths were primarily the result of terrorist militia hiding among civilian infrastructure. Such a practice will inevitably lead to civilians being caught in the crossfire and killed by either Israeli or Palestinian bullets. International law places the blame for human shields killed in any armed conflict squarely on the side that is using them for protection.

The Arabs have tried three times to exterminate the Israeli state by means of conventional war and now they try by means of terrorism. Without US support for Israel they may succeed.


There is also the "two sides" argument. The American media is incredibly biased towards Israel, and I think a lot of people - Chomsky and Blum stand out - want to provide the other side of the story to anyone who wants to listen. So much energy is devoted towards portraying Israel as the reluctant defendant, I believe it&#39;s important to expose all the things that government does that aren&#39;t exactly ethical.

Not living in America I would not know what positions your media take on different issues. But I can assure you that Israel is this conflicts victim.

synthesis
4th March 2004, 07:11
The stand alone number of people killed on each side of this conflict is extremely misleading. On the Israeli side virtually all of the dead are innocent civilians. However the number given of Palestinian dead encompasses terrorist leaders, suicide bombers, bomb makers and even collaborators etc, etc, etc

Do you have any statistics for any of this?


But I can assure you that Israel is this conflicts victim.

Thanks :rolleyes:

Intifada
4th March 2004, 16:01
The stand alone number of people killed on each side of this conflict is extremely misleading. On the Israeli side virtually all of the dead are innocent civilians. However the number given of Palestinian dead encompasses terrorist leaders, suicide bombers, bomb makers and even collaborators etc, etc, etc

actually 9 in 10 palestinians killed by israel are innocent civilians. 45% are children.


But I can assure you that Israel is this conflicts victim.

:blink:

Redalias
4th March 2004, 17:39
Isreal holds a population captive which it brutalizes, humiliates and murders. Nothing is done about this because we live in a world ruled by force and deceit. Oppression, hypocrisy, cynical calculism. On the one hand you evict and murder a people stealing their land and on the other you talk about terrorists as if their crimes justified yours. The "terrorists" we know not where they are but the Isreali sate terrorists (far more resourceful and brutal) are in full view of everyone, its just that they, like James Bond, have a licence to kill.

Intifada
4th March 2004, 18:08
Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war... We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle. First and foremost, terror is for us a part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances of today
- Yitzhak Shamir

Dirty Commie
4th March 2004, 18:54
That whole article is a load of shit.
The point of the article is basicaly a summary of a book called the ODESSA file, a work of fiction, based on true events. The connection between Neo nazis and Arab fundamentalists died in the 70&#39;s
when the old German officers from wwII started to get to old or too dead to be able to keep up their movement.

LuZhiming
4th March 2004, 19:12
Hahaha, what a stupid article. There was also Zionist and Nazi collaboration in the 30&#39;s. :lol: That claim that Nasser&#39;s party was influenced from Nazi&#39;s is completely false slander. If anyone is willing to check the original source for that claim, they&#39;ll find it&#39;s from Zionist propaganda. The U.S. also worked with Nazi&#39;s, yet no one dares call Truman a Nazi.

Reality: A bunch of Anti-Semites are helping Islamists to suit their own goals. There isn&#39;t anything more, it&#39;s as simple as that.


Criticism of Israel is not in itself anti-Semitic. But what leads some to justifiably view left-wing academics as anti-Semitic is the fact that they single out the Israeli state for criticism among countless other nations that are far greater abusers of human rights and that do not nearly face comparable threats to their security.

It&#39;s really narrowminded of you to make such accusations against leftists when you ignore their arguements. Israel hasn&#39;t had a threat to its security in a long time. I wonder what would happen if Fidel Castro launched huge massacres because of the constant threat he is under. :rolleyes: Somehow I doubt people like you would be so sympathetic. Fidel has had much more threats on his country than Israel ever has.


Additionally, the left is constantly *****ing about the occupation of Palestine but does not seem to give a shit about Tibet, West Papua, Kurdistan, or a number of other oppressed people that have not adopted the strategy of suicide bombers nor have been offered a state on three separate occasions.

There is quite a large amount of leftists that want a Kurdistan. People don&#39;t even mention Western Sahara either, is it because they don&#39;t care? Actually, it&#39;s because they don&#39;t know about it. The same is true of Tibert and West Papua. Most people actually believe Tibet(Not to mention Taiwan, Eastern Turkistan, and Inner Mongolia) has been part of China for most of its history, which of course isn&#39;t true.


The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this truth is that Edward Said and his ilk do not seek the establishment of Palestine, but rather the destruction of Israel.

Actually, Edward Said didn&#39;t seem to ever want an establishment of Palestine.


For those that don’t know, the French Neo-Nazi mentioned in the article, Robert Faurisson, is the author of a Holocaust denying book entitled “The myth of the six million”. It should come as no surprise to the few enlightened members of this forum that a certain self-hating Jew named Noam Chomsky wrote an introduction for this piece of hate propaganda.

Yet again, you show how much knowledge you really have. Actually, Chomsky wrote that article in defense of the right to free speech. Watch the Manufacturing Consent documentary, before making such rash assumptions.

Devil&#39;s Advocate
4th March 2004, 19:14
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 07:08 PM

Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war... We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle. First and foremost, terror is for us a part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances of today
- Yitzhak Shamir
Can you give me the entire source and the year in which is was Yishak Shamir supposedly said that? My guess that by terror he do not mean attack on innocent civilians, but about guerilla actions against the British soldiers who were at that time occupying Israel. The Lehi(Yitzhak Shamir&#39;s organization)and the Etzel attacks on British were fiercley opposed by Ben Gurion and the leadership of the Israeli Jews at that time.


Do you have any statistics for any of this?

I think Liberty Lover&#39;s statistics come from Alan Dershowitz&#39;s book The Case For Israel.

Rasta Sapian
4th March 2004, 19:15
I agree&#33; This article does not seem to make any sense to me at all, I think that it is basically just hate propoganda&#33; :o

Islamic fundalmentalists have little or nothing to do with nazi skinheads, who pretty much hate all other races of people, judaism, muslim, buddist, etc.

If they have any ties at all it would be closer related to pagan-christianity or anarchism
still accepted by the brotherhood or the arian race&#33;

Devil&#39;s Advocate
4th March 2004, 19:26
Originally posted by Rasta [email protected] 4 2004, 08:15 PM
I agree&#33; This article does not seem to make any sense to me at all, I think that it is basically just hate propoganda&#33; :o

Islamic fundalmentalists have little or nothing to do with nazi skinheads, who pretty much hate all other races of people, judaism, muslim, buddist, etc.

If they have any ties at all it would be closer related to pagan-christianity or anarchism
still accepted by the brotherhood or the arian race&#33;
I have seen on the net certein Neo-Nazis who speak in support of Islamic Fundamentalists. What the article says about the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al-Husseini, is well known and documented. After hitler rise to power the Mufti informed the German consul in Jerusalem that "the Muslim inside and outside Palestine welcome the new regime in Germany and hope for the extension of the fascist anti-Democratic, governmental system to other countries."

As he wrote in his diary:


Our fundamental conditionfor cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world.

(My emphasis on the word "eradicate" )

LuZhiming
4th March 2004, 19:32
I have seen on the net certein Neo-Nazis who speak in support of Islamic Fundamentalists.

Nazi&#39;s themselves did not have good relations with Muslims or Arabs. The French Commander (I forget his name...) that was responsible for beating Arabs and detaining Jews in Algiers shortly after World War 2 was a Nazil collaborator. Most Neo-Nazi&#39;s particularly hate Arabs, or any people whose skin is too dark for that matter.


Our fundamental conditionfor cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world

(My emphasis on the word "eradicate" )

You do realize Hitler&#39;s original goal was to simply drive out all Jews from Germany, which was a goal the Zionists agreed with. The Zionists wanted all Jews to come to Palestine, and were literally unsupportive of Jews that fled elsewhere. Hitler once said something to the effect of: "At least the Zionists agree with us on one thing, no Jew can be a German."


Can you give me the entire source and the year in which is was Yishak Shamir supposedly said that? My guess that by terror he do not mean attack on innocent civilians, but about guerilla actions against the British soldiers who were at that time occupying Israel. The Lehi(Yitzhak Shamir&#39;s organization)and the Etzel attacks on British were fiercley opposed by Ben Gurion and the leadership of the Israeli Jews at that time.

Right, and it&#39;s just a coincidence that Israel did constantly attack civillians. :rolleyes:


I think Liberty Lover&#39;s statistics come from Alan Dershowitz&#39;s book The Case For Israel.

Could he have picked a more fraudalent and ridicolous book? :lol: Now I know where this idiot got his knowledge of Noam Chomsky from.

Osman Ghazi
4th March 2004, 19:34
The Kurds don&#39;t use suicide bombers?
That&#39;s a new one.
Does anyone here support the PKK?

Devil&#39;s Advocate
4th March 2004, 19:38
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 08:32 PM

Can you give me the entire source and the year in which is was Yishak Shamir supposedly said that? My guess that by terror he do not mean attack on innocent civilians, but about guerilla actions against the British soldiers who were at that time occupying Israel. The Lehi(Yitzhak Shamir&#39;s organization)and the Etzel attacks on British were fiercley opposed by Ben Gurion and the leadership of the Israeli Jews at that time.

Right, and it&#39;s just a coincidence that Israel did constantly attack civillians. :rolleyes:


I think Liberty Lover&#39;s statistics come from Alan Dershowitz&#39;s book The Case For Israel.

Could he have picked a more fraudalent and ridicolous book? :lol: Now I know where this idiot got his knowledge of Noam Chomsky from.
Is it the official policy of the Israely government to attack civilans? And on what charges do you claim the Dershowitz&#39;s book is fraudulent? Just because it&#39;s pro-Israel?

LuZhiming
4th March 2004, 19:43
Is it the official policy of the Israely government to attack civilans?

That&#39;s a misleading question. Israel does routinely allow and participate in attacking civillians. The official policy of Israel at its formation was to drive out the Arabs and bring all the Jews to Palestine.


And on what charges do you claim the Dershowitz&#39;s book is fraudulent? Just because it&#39;s pro-Israel?

The whole book is simply ignoring evidence that is to the contrary. He actually claims that there is no evidence that Israel purposely attacks civillians. Oddly enough, no Human Rights organizations seem to agree with him. He also says Israel doesn&#39;t use torture. Again, Human Rights organizations tell a different story. And then he has parts taken directly from Joan Peters&#39; book. :lol:

Devil&#39;s Advocate
4th March 2004, 20:11
That&#39;s a misleading question. Israel does routinely allow and participate in attacking civillians. The official policy of Israel at its formation was to drive out the Arabs and bring all the Jews to Palestine.

The official policy of Israel at it&#39;s formation was not driving out all arabs. Israel did not start the 1948 war&#39; the Arab states did. As for the refugees, there were many reasons for their flight. One of the reasons was the call of Arab leaders to leave the country.

The Economist reported on October 2, 1948: "Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit....It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

Time&#39;s report of the battle for Haifa (May 3, 1948) was similar: "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city....By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa."

"We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down." - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said

"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re*enter and retake possession of their country." - The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, in his book, The Arabs

"Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return." - Syrian prime minister Haled al Azm in his book The Memoirs of Haled al Azm

"The refugees were confident their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two, Their leaders had promised them that the Arab Armies would crush the &#39;Zionist gangs&#39; very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile." Monsignor George Hakim, a Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee told the Beirut newspaper, Sada al-Janub (August 16, 1948).

On April 3, 1949, the Near East Broadcasting Station (Cyprus) said: "It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees&#39; flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem."

"The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies," according to the Jordanian newspaper Filastin (February 19, 1949).

One refugee quoted in the Jordan newspaper, Ad Difaa (September 6, 1954), said: "The Arab government told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."

"The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade," said Habib Issa in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951). "He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean....Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down."

"The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. They viewed the first wave of Arab setbacks as merely transitory. Let the Palestine Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab peoples to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck, the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea."
- Kenneth Bilby, in New Star in the Near East(New York, 1950), pp. 30-31



The whole book is simply ignoring evidence that is to the contrary. He actually claims that there is no evidence that Israel purposely attacks civillians. Oddly enough, no Human Rights organizations seem to agree with him. He also says Israel doesn&#39;t use torture. Again, Human Rights organizations tell a different story.

In every society there are murderers, rapists and other cirinimals. Those criminal elements will definitely apear in the army as well. But the question is, is the government itself deliberately attacks civilians? Is there any documentations of the Israel ordering attacks against civilians?


And then he has parts taken directly from Joan Peters&#39; book.

Could you tell me which parts of his book are taken from Joan Peters book?

Liberty Lover
5th March 2004, 02:09
There is quite a large amount of leftists that want a Kurdistan.

Why then do I not see countless “free Kurdistan” posters on my campus? Why has Blum not written a book on the plight of the Kurds? Why does A.N.S.W.E.R not stage pro-Kurdistan rallies? Why does Chomsky not call for the divestiture of Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq?



Yet again, you show how much knowledge you really have.

I have studied Holocaust denial extensively. http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...f=8&t=20285&hl= (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=20285&hl=)


Actually, Chomsky wrote that article in defense of the right to free speech. Watch the Manufacturing Consent documentary, before making such rash assumptions

Of all the people in this world being persecuted for what they say, Chomsky chooses a Nazi and proven fabricator of historical documents to write a seven-page article in defence of. Are you so Naïve as to believe that his sole interest was the “defense of the right of free speech.”? The following quotes should reveal that Chomsky’s interest was the defense of Faurisson himself, not his right to free speech.

From “Chomsky’s Preface”:

"[Faurisson is] a relatively apolitical liberal"

"As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read --largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him-- I find no evidence to support such conclusions" (In response to accusations of anti-Semitism on Faurisson’s part)

In reinforcing his position Chomsky latter stated:

"I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson&#39;s work."


Now I know where this idiot got his knowledge of Noam Chomsky from.

As I have shown above, my knowledge of Chomsky comes from the writings of the man himself. I first became aware of Chomsky’s dealings with Neo-Nazis after reading Deborah Lipstadt’s, Denying the Holocaust: The growing assault on truth and memory.


Nazi&#39;s themselves did not have good relations with Muslims or Arabs. The French Commander (I forget his name...) that was responsible for beating Arabs and detaining Jews in Algiers shortly after World War 2 was a Nazil collaborator. Most Neo-Nazi&#39;s particularly hate Arabs, or any people whose skin is too dark for that matter.

Wrong again.

The grand mufti of Jerusalem and leader of the Palestinian people, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was involved in the spreading of Nazi propaganda and the organising of Arab-German commandos who attempted to poison Tel Aviv’s water supplies. Here is a little of what he had to say: “Rise o sons of Arabia. Fight for your sacred rights. Slaughter Jews wherever you find them. Their spoiled blood pleases Allah and our religion. That will save us.” Husseini, who spend most of the war years in Berlin advising Hitler on the “Jewish question”, was declared a war criminal at the Nuremberg trials. Regardless of this he was granted Asylum in Egypt and continued to lead the Palestinians. He is now considered by Arafat and many other Arabs to be a hero of their cause. In contrast to the actions of the Arabs, the Jews of Palestine formed armed legions and fought valiantly against the Nazi menace.

These images speak for themselves.

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/

In case you needed reassurance.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_g...grand_mufti.php (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php)

Liberty Lover
5th March 2004, 02:12
This one is particularly revealing.

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/images/4-Husseini-nazi_jpg_jpg_jpg.jpg

"Amin Al Husseini inspecting his Nazi troops, the Hanzar. Here, he is showing a young Muslim recruit how to use his rifle."

Redalias
5th March 2004, 14:43
LL, I&#39;ve heard Chomsky, personally, and many other Leftists, collective and individual, speak out against the injustices suffered by the Kurds. Too, your whole line of reasoning is nonsensical for the US also has its share of blame for the plight of the Kurds.

Liberty Lover
5th March 2004, 21:30
Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 03:43 PM
Too, your whole line of reasoning is nonsensical for the US also has its share of blame for the plight of the Kurds.
Where did I say otherwise?

synthesis
6th March 2004, 10:28
Chomsky chooses a Nazi and proven fabricator of historical documents to write a seven-page article in defence of.

That isn&#39;t true, really.

From: http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/c/ftp.py?...-article-810228 (http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/c/ftp.py?people/c/chomsky.noam/nation-article-810228)

In the fall of 1979, I was asked by Serge Thion, a libertarian socialist scholar with a record of opposition to all forms of totalitarianism, to sign a petition calling on authorities to insure Robert Faurisson&#39;s "safety and the free exercise of his legal rights." The petition said nothing about his "holocaust studies" (he denies the existence of gas chambers or of a systematic plan to massacre the Jews and questions the authenticity of the Anne Frank diary, among other things), apart from noting that they were the cause of "efforts to deprive Professor Faurisson of his freedom of speech and expression." It did not specify the steps taken against him, which include suspension from his teaching position at the University of Lyons after the threat of violence, and a forthcoming court trial for falsification history and damages to victims of Nazism.

[...]

Thion then asked me to write a brief statement on the purely civil libertarian aspects of this affair. I did so, telling him to use it as he wished. In this statement, I made it explicit that would not discuss Faurisson&#39;s work, having only limited familiarity with it (and, frankly, little interest in it). Rather, I restricted myself to the civil-liberties issues and the implications of the fact that it was even necessary to recall Voltaire&#39;s famous words in a letter to M. le Riche: "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."


Faurisson&#39;s conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book "Peace in the Middle East", where I describe the holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history"). But it is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy.

I later learned that my statement was to appear in a book in which Faurisson defends himself against the charges soon to be brought against him in court. While this was not my intention, it was not contrary to my instructions. I received a letter from Jean-Pierre Faye, a well-known anti-Fascist writer and militant, who agreed with my position but urged me to withhold my statement because the climate of opinion in France was such that my defense of Faurisson&#39;s right to express his views would be interpreted as support for them. I wrote to him that I accepted his judgment, and requested that my statement not appear, but by then it was too late to stop publication.

Liberty Lover
6th March 2004, 10:37
I liked this one better:

http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/c/coh...rtners-in-hate/ (http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/c/cohn.werner/partners-in-hate/)

Redalias
6th March 2004, 14:37
Originally posted by Liberty Lover+Mar 4 2004, 05:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Liberty Lover @ Mar 4 2004, 05:16 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by Liberty [email protected] 4 2004, 05:06 AM
but does not seem to give a shit about Tibet, West Papua, Kurdistan, or a number of other oppressed people that have not adopted the strategy of suicide bombers nor have been offered a state on no less than three separate occasions.
That&#39;s because those situations do not involve the U.S as much as the Israeli situation does, with the exception of maybe Kurdistan, and we both know that that is all that matters to these people.
Exactly. [/b]
LL asks:


Where did I say otherwise?

You didn&#39;t so much say it as subscribe it.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 05:14 AM

Liberty [email protected] 4 2004, 05:06 AM
but does not seem to give a shit about Tibet, West Papua, Kurdistan, or a number of other oppressed people that have not adopted the strategy of suicide bombers nor have been offered a state on no less than three separate occasions.
That&#39;s because those situations do not involve the U.S as much as the Israeli situation does, with the exception of maybe Kurdistan, and we both know that that is all that matters to these people.
Exactly.

Redalias
6th March 2004, 14:41
Quote thingies got a little screwed, sorry about that.

Anyway, I think it says alot about Chomsky when with all his enemies the best thing they can come up with to attack the man is this preface nonsense.

Don't Change Your Name
6th March 2004, 16:52
Well this nazis are opportunists who support Palestinian people just because of their conflict with the Jews. Of course that if their new fuhrer appears and kills all the Jews then he will go and kill them anyway. everything for the "Aryan" race.

LuZhiming
6th March 2004, 21:27
The official policy of Israel at it&#39;s formation was not driving out all arabs. Israel did not start the 1948 war&#39; the Arab states did. As for the refugees, there were many reasons for their flight. One of the reasons was the call of Arab leaders to leave the country.

The policy of Zionism even before the formation of Israel was to drive out the Arabs. Try to see what you can find on Theodor Hertzl for one of many sources. The 1948 War could have likely had deeper reasons that you dare to go into: Out of Palestine, the 60% majority were only offered 40% of the land at most, and the minority Jewish population of 40%, got 60%. That conflict could have had a bit to do with that. It could have also had to do with the fact that the Zionists had been driving out Arabs on a massive scale since the 30&#39;s. The Arabs still may have been distrustful and angry at the fact that they were originally promised all of that land in 1915.


The official policy of Israel at it&#39;s formation was not driving out all arabs. Israel did not start the 1948 war&#39; the Arab states did. As for the refugees, there were many reasons for their flight. One of the reasons was the call of Arab leaders to leave the country.

The Economist reported on October 2, 1948: "Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit....It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

Time&#39;s report of the battle for Haifa (May 3, 1948) was similar: "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city....By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa."

"We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down." - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said

"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re*enter and retake possession of their country." - The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, in his book, The Arabs

"Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return." - Syrian prime minister Haled al Azm in his book The Memoirs of Haled al Azm

"The refugees were confident their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two, Their leaders had promised them that the Arab Armies would crush the &#39;Zionist gangs&#39; very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile." Monsignor George Hakim, a Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee told the Beirut newspaper, Sada al-Janub (August 16, 1948).

On April 3, 1949, the Near East Broadcasting Station (Cyprus) said: "It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees&#39; flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem."

"The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies," according to the Jordanian newspaper Filastin (February 19, 1949).

One refugee quoted in the Jordan newspaper, Ad Difaa (September 6, 1954), said: "The Arab government told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."

"The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade," said Habib Issa in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951). "He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean....Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down."

"The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. They viewed the first wave of Arab setbacks as merely transitory. Let the Palestine Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab peoples to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck, the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea."
- Kenneth Bilby, in New Star in the Near East(New York, 1950), pp. 30-31

All of those quotes prove is that the Arab states told Palestinians to leave. There is only one incident in there of a Palestinian refugee claiming to leave because of the recommendations of Arabs, and that is reliable, yet the many which have been reported of Palestinians claiming they were driven away are ignored. Very odd indeed.

What is extremely amusing, is how all the declassified Israeli documents on the subject, which completely back my point, are for some reason ignored and forgotten.....


In every society there are murderers, rapists and other cirinimals. Those criminal elements will definitely apear in the army as well. But the question is, is the government itself deliberately attacks civilians? Is there any documentations of the Israel ordering attacks against civilians?

Certainly the orders to crush the First Intifada would fit the above statement, after all, that was almost nothing but peaceful demonstrations and civil disobedience. The entire war on Lebanon was in most part killing civillians, whether you believe it was on accident or not. But if you want to give this arguement, I will laugh in your face: There isn&#39;t much proof of Palestinian terrorist leaders giving orders to their men to kill Israeli civillians either, although one would be resorting to absurdity to argue that those men didn&#39;t allow targetting of civillians.


Could you tell me which parts of his book are taken from Joan Peters book?

Try, almost the entire first two chapters. They are almost blatant reproductions.


Why then do I not see countless “free Kurdistan” posters on my campus?

It&#39;s pure ignorance.


Why has Blum not written a book on the plight of the Kurds?

The only Blum I can imagine you speaking of is William Blum, who hasn&#39;t wrote a book on the plight of the Palestinians either.


Why does Chomsky not call for the divestiture of Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq?

Chomsky has never claimed to be a Middle East expert. He hasn&#39;t called for the creation of a Palestinian state either actually, his books are specifically about the facts. He writes about Israel&#39;s refusing of peace treaties, atrocities against Palestinians, defiance of international law, etc. He doesn&#39;t write in his books about wanting a Palestinian state. He does the same for Kurds. He has reported Turkish atrocities against the Kurdish population, but not demanded a state.


Of all the people in this world being persecuted for what they say, Chomsky chooses a Nazi and proven fabricator of historical documents to write a seven-page article in defence of. Are you so Naïve as to believe that his sole interest was the “defense of the right of free speech.”? The following quotes should reveal that Chomsky’s interest was the defense of Faurisson himself, not his right to free speech.

From “Chomsky’s Preface”:

"[Faurisson is] a relatively apolitical liberal"

"As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read --largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him-- I find no evidence to support such conclusions" (In response to accusations of anti-Semitism on Faurisson’s part)

In reinforcing his position Chomsky latter stated:

"I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson&#39;s work."

I must have missed the part where he said: The holocaust probably didn&#39;t happen. Many have been denying Israeli atrocities against Palestinians, yet no one is calling them "racists" and "anti-Palestinian." No one ever called the New York Times "anti-Armenians" for its denial of Turkish atrocitites, when Turkey was a favorable ally of the U.S.


The grand mufti of Jerusalem and leader of the Palestinian people, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was involved in the spreading of Nazi propaganda and the organising of Arab-German commandos who attempted to poison Tel Aviv’s water supplies. Here is a little of what he had to say: “Rise o sons of Arabia. Fight for your sacred rights. Slaughter Jews wherever you find them. Their spoiled blood pleases Allah and our religion. That will save us.” Husseini, who spend most of the war years in Berlin advising Hitler on the “Jewish question”, was declared a war criminal at the Nuremberg trials. Regardless of this he was granted Asylum in Egypt and continued to lead the Palestinians. He is now considered by Arafat and many other Arabs to be a hero of their cause. In contrast to the actions of the Arabs, the Jews of Palestine formed armed legions and fought valiantly against the Nazi menace.

I am not denying that racist had roles with the Nazi&#39;s. But I am disputing this belief that there is some soft of natural good relations between Nazi&#39;s or Neo Nazi&#39;s and Arabs, it couldn&#39;t be further from the truth. And the Jews of Palestine did not fight "valiently" against anyone until after Hitler decided to eradicate all Jews. They were in full support of Hitler when he just wanted to drive out the Jews from Germany, because they wanted all Jews to come to Palestine.

Devil&#39;s Advocate
7th March 2004, 07:02
The policy of Zionism even before the formation of Israel was to drive out the Arabs. Try to see what you can find on Theodor Hertzl for one of many sources. The 1948 War could have likely had deeper reasons that you dare to go into: Out of Palestine, the 60% majority were only offered 40% of the land at most, and the minority Jewish population of 40%, got 60%. That conflict could have had a bit to do with that. It could have also had to do with the fact that the Zionists had been driving out Arabs on a massive scale since the 30&#39;s. The Arabs still may have been distrustful and angry at the fact that they were originally promised all of that land in 1915.

What you must remember is how useful is this land. For example, 95% of China&#39;s population live in the eastern part of the country("Inner China" ) even though that area is less than a half of the country. The western part of China is nothing but desert and mountains. If you look at the land allocated to Israel by the UN, you&#39;ll see Israel was given two chunks, a northern one and a southern one. The southern chunk, which is bigger than the northern one, is mostly a desert(the Negev). So most of what the Israelis got was hard to settle. Israel&#39;s national Water transportation device is called "The Movil ha&#39;arzi". The movil began to work at 1,964. Until that device started transporting water to the Negev, the water there came from the rain. To this day there are not a lot of people living in the Negev area. Also, the Arabs israeli at that time were led by Haj Amin El Husseini, who have been proven to have actively participated in the Holocaust. To you really think that his reason for attacking Israel was the reason you gave, or simply that he wanted to finish what he and Adolf failed to do in the 40&#39;s?

As for the reason to the Arab hostility toward the Zionist project, the leftist scholar Nathan Weinstock brilliantly explains that the reasons for the hostility was not the alleged attempt of the Zionists to drive out all Arabs, but the fact that Zionism was threat to the Apartheid practiced against Jews in Muslim countries:

http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/weinstock.htm

If you don&#39;t know, until recently Weinstock was an anti-Zionist. In the 70&#39;s he published the book "Zionism: False Messiah." Today, after his views on the subject totally changed, he forbid his publisher form publishing his book.


All of those quotes prove is that the Arab states told Palestinians to leave. There is only one incident in there of a Palestinian refugee claiming to leave because of the recommendations of Arabs, and that is reliable, yet the many which have been reported of Palestinians claiming they were driven away are ignored. Very odd indeed.

False. In the first quote form The Economist, the writer says that the "most potent of the factors [for the evacuation of the Arabs form Haifa] were" the calls made by the Arab leaders to leave the country. It also mentions that the Arab Higher committee(AHC)led by Haj Amin El-Husseini, treated the arab who did not answer their calls to leave as renegades, which means violence migt will be used against them.

The second quote about Haifa pretty much says the same thing. The quote from Edward Atiyah says that one of the reasons that the Arabs left Israel was their belief in the promises of the Arab leaders, that there will be no problem in destroying the Jewish so they should not fear from a long exile. the same is thing by the Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop. Even Benny Morris admits many left the country because of the orders of their leaders.

About deportations, i won&#39;t deny those have happened, especially considering the fact that Yitzhak Rabin himself has admit that he himself ordered the evacuation of certein cities. However, this were not parts of the a plan to drive the Arabs out but rather a cause of a war in which Israel defended itself. On march 1,948, "Tochnit Daled"(Tochnit means Plan and Daled is the equivalent in the Hebrew alphabet of the letter D)was formed. The plan gave permission to local military leaders to destroy villages and deport their population in case it was not possible to permanently control the village or that the village population was showing resistence to the Israeli forces. But if a village that was conquered was not showing any resistence, a garrison was formed to run the village affairs and keep the civilian population there. In European classical warfare, once an enemy territory is conquered, a garrison is formed by the conquering army to run the conquered territory, prevent the return of the enemy&#39;s forces and rebellions from the locals. Since the number of Jews living in Israel at that time was only about 600,000, despite the mobilizations during the war, there were not enough soldiers to provide a garrison for every settlement conquered, and therefore plan Daled was formed.

Those deportation occured in order to secure an Israeli victory during the war, not because of some Zionist plan which predated the formation of Israel. While those deportations were a Tragedy, Israel had to it, because an Arab victory would have meant the eradication of every Jew in Israel. The Israeli Arabs were haeded by Husseini, which the materials about him that i and Liberty Lover gave document his anti-semitism and involvement. In 1,947 he declared:

"I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers&#33; Murder the Jews&#33; Murder them all&#33;"

If i&#39;m not mistaken, being a Mufti, Husseini had the religious authority among Muslims to declare a Jihad(holy war), meaning that the faithful muslims would have to carry his orders. What would have happened to Jews in Israel once the Mufti got his hand on them?

I believe that once a certein nation is threatened with Genocide, that nation is justified in using extreme measures in order to prevent it&#39;s Genocide.


Certainly the orders to crush the First Intifada would fit the above statement, after all, that was almost nothing but peaceful demonstrations and civil disobedience. The entire war on Lebanon was in most part killing civillians, whether you believe it was on accident or not. But if you want to give this arguement, I will laugh in your face: There isn&#39;t much proof of Palestinian terrorist leaders giving orders to their men to kill Israeli civillians either, although one would be resorting to absurdity to argue that those men didn&#39;t allow targetting of civillians.

During the first four years of the uprising, more than 3,600 Molotov cocktail attacks, 100 hand grenade attacks and 600 assaults with guns or explosives were reported by the Israel Defense Forces. The violence was directed at soldiers and civilians alike. Between December 9, 1987, and the signing of the Oslo accords (September 13, 1993), 160 Israelis were killed, including 100 civilians. Thousands more were injured. As for the Lebanon war, at that a time a Palestinian "state inside state" was blooming there. Katyusha missiles were fired against Israelis at the north. The Palestinian state inside Lebanon had 15-18,000 terrorists, Katyusha rockets, mortars, and hundreds of T-34 tanks. That was a serious threat to Israel which had to be dealt with. Civilians were hurt, but in every war in a populated civilians get hurt, delibirately and undelibirately. If Israel allegedly attacked Lebanese civilians on porpuse, what were their motivations?

About the original article, i&#39;ll have to agree with LuZhiming on this one. It seems that it&#39;s purpose was to demonize Arabs and muslims rather than making any real point.

EDIT: you said:


And the Jews of Palestine did not fight "valiently" against anyone until after Hitler decided to eradicate all Jews. They were in full support of Hitler when he just wanted to drive out the Jews from Germany, because they wanted all Jews to come to Palestine.

ALL of the Jews in Israel? Were there any surveys among the Jews which showed a vast support for Hitler&#39;s policy? Or are you simply generalizing? Was it Ben-Gurion or Husseini who "welcome(d) the new regime in Germany" and hoped for "the extension of the fascist anti-Democratic , governmental system to other countries"? Yes, the Zionists wanted all Jews to come to Israel, but just because they hoped the Jews will come to Israel does mean they wished to see their brothers in other countries persecuted. And even if all the Jews "were in full support of Hitler" until he decided to exterminate the Jews, it&#39;s still better than actively participating in the extermination of the Jews, as Husseini did.

EDITED AGAIN: there is some more evidence i would like to add against the claims of a zionist plan to drive out the Arabs:

"The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war." - General Glubb Pasha, in the London Daily Mail on August 12, 1948

Evidence that Arab Higher Committee(AHC)threatened to harm the Arab who did not answer their calls to leave the country:

"One morning in April 1948, Dr. Jamal woke us to say that the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), led by the Husseinis, had warned Arab residents of Talbieh to leave immediately. The understanding was that the residents would be able to return as conquerors as soon as the Arab forces had thrown the Jews out. Dr. Jamal made the point repeatedly that he was leaving because of the AHC&#39;s threats, not because of the Jews, and that he and his frail wife had no alternative but to go."

- Commentary Magazine (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/)