LET ME BE CLEAR

JUST TO PUT a sharper and more proper point on the stick that drives home the point by highlighting a few rhetoricals...

Why is my utter disdain of and rugged resistance to this wildly constructed totalitarianism called Islam a "prejudice" whereas my dislike of, say, communism or nazism (which are quite similar in ideological make-up when we sort the lies from the subterfuge), would be a political opinion? Why am I expected to automatically approve of any belief system supposedly grounded in the supernatural? Why is my reliance on reason considered inferior to their "faith" even when that faith orders great numbers of them to hate and kill all "infidels" and all of them to various other methods of aggression against said infidel?

Clearly, there are too damn many frightened little children running around this world in grown-up clothes ready to throw a tantrum if someone spoils their favorite fairy tale. The Muslims are by far the most pernicious contenders in this category.

I am not "prejudiced" against Islam. I detest it as a matter of conviction.

Educate yourselves America before it's too late, and remember, there are a myriad of strategic reasons why multiculturalism and the politically corrupted will seek to smother the truth in sickly sweet-smelling lies at every turn. But the bottom line America is fiscally and morally bankrupt. Global players are wrestling for strategic domination, and our leadership dances with our enemies and pacifies our attackers by acting like puppets, especially the Left. But realize that the Right is complicit, as well. Just educate yourself. Be certain of your sources as the BIG LIE is in vogue, but the truth is out there, and it's probably already in your heart. Knowledge will keep it there.

But the hour is getting late, said the joker to the thief...

Confused? Well, begin here with the Geert Wilders free speech case now going on in the Netherlands.

SMOKING OUT THE LEFT

EVER THOUGHT YOU NEEDED 25 proofs that show why Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party were more perceptively a leftist movement, and not the vast right wing conspiracy that we often hear tossed around the bustling marketplace of ideas these days? Probably not. Probably never occurred to most of those who spend their time trying to paint American constitutionalists with the same brush that Hitler painted his Germany that perhaps the dear Left has been projecting yet again, and as such, is dead wrong about as many things which produce true liberty as does the right, yes, the right, even if we can't agree on ALL the finer details...

But don't dismay, here is that list.

THE ENGINE OF ARAB IMPERIALISM

Adapted from an amalgam of JW commentators...

Mohammad Khatami said on Saturday that failure of the socialist and nationalist movements have led world people to embrace Islam. So here you have it: The Islamic leadership's own words. Islam—it's not just a religion.

There is much deception and self-deception with Islam. Islam is an imperialist rationalization system which resulted in the Arab Empire, the Ottoman Empire and the colonialism that resulted in Islamic presence in Slavic regions of Europe, in India, Indonesia, Thailand, etc. When are they leaving Kosovo? When are they giving Constantinople back to the Greeks? The Arabs were and are at present extensively involved in the African Negro slave trade. So the question we must ask ourselves is this: when are Islamic Imperialists going to apologize for and cease their exploitation and destruction of the many indigenous cultures and peoples across this huge swath of the planet?

Practically every other group that has engaged in Imperialist-Empire activity have apologized for their Imperialist rationalization systems that permitted the subduing and exploitation of others. It's time for the Arabs (and Turks) to apologize for their Imperialist systems, and stop glossing over and rewriting history (as all imperialists do) to sanitize their Imperialism to show everyone its essential "tolerance".

The truth is that Islam is, at its core, the Engine of Arab Imperialism. Islam should be studied as an Imperialist rationalization system.

Early on the Muslim Brotherhood embraced Socialism as a "vehicle" for spreading Islam and a system of governance for Islamic rule. The SS General's students were of the founders of the popular modern movement which advocated against it and chose to turn to more pure Islam which is believed to be a perfect form of Religion and Government in and of itself. This is part of the reason why those among us should constantly write elected officials protesting them allowing a Foreign Govt [Saudi] to build mosques and support their STATE RELIGION which is also setting up centers for future Islamic Rule in America. The process is a clear violation of US Constitution and a direct subversive act against the Government of the United States. It is NOT a freedom of religion nor a freedom of speech issue. The mosques are being set up for future Islamic rule. Islam IS Government.

The principals of Hitlerian-Gobbles style propaganda, the "spiritual terror" tactics of "a barrage of lies and intimidation" against any critic while at the same time lauding moderate "weaklings" (as Hitler called them), also includes never admitting any wrong and constantly accusing others of the tactics one engages in in an overall "big lie" strategy (as per Gobbles) . The methods of "spiritual terror" (lies, slander, law suits, stunts) and physical terror (cartoon rage) are no accidents in the Islamic world. People like the psychotic in Iran, as well as other demented Muslims, are well acquainted with Mein Kampf and the theories of Goebbels. We should harbor no doubt of it.

The fact that Mein Kampf is as popular as the Quran in the Mideast is a good reason to take a close look at Hitler's book. It is also time to study the propaganda methods of Goebbels, especially Goebbels' ideas on the intimidation of opposition, and the manipulation of "the masses".

FISHING FOR A PERFECT SOLUTION

The following essay by Rachel Neuwirth and titled "A Win-Win Solution To the Arab-Israeli Conflict" was written as a win/win solution to the so-called Palestinian problem, but it simply does not take into account the Mohammedan precept of annihilating the Jews from the face of the earth wherever they find them. And since such is the case, no amount of logic or cajoling will suffice in convincing the Arab nations in the Camp of Islam to abandon its prime directive. The only anecdote to this crisis is to soundly defeat and eradicate this ideology no less than Naziism was squashed less than a century plus ago. The Muslim populations must be disabused of their diabolical ideology, forever. Islam, after all, does mean "submission" in Arabic.

Let's say it again: Muslims only recognize 3 types of peace with infidels—death, conversion to islam, or dhimmitude (which is offered only to Jews, Christians and Zorastrians who fearfully acknowledge that Mohammed is the Muslim's prophet and also concede other Islamic ideas).

Israel has a very ignorant, very timid, very confused, very bad government. It has had such governments for quite a while. In this it is little different from the rest of the civilized Western world, failing to come to grips with a problem that was foreseen, and analyzed, long ago, by a very few specialists in Islamic matters, most notably that soft-spoken small and steely woman, Bat Ye'or.

But for its own sanity, and the safety not only of its people but to help get other Infidels thinking about their situation, the government of Israel has a duty to raise the issue of Al-Hudaibiyya and force declarations on the matter from Arab states. The very phrase a “final peace settlement” rings hollow to anyone familiar with the tenets of Islam. For there can never be a “final peace settlement” between Moslems and non-Moslems. The model for treaties is the agreement made between Muhammad and the Meccans in 628 A.D., the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya.

It was supposed to be a “truce” treaty that would last 10 years. It lasted scarcely 18 months, when Muhammad, feeling that his forces had grown sufficiently, breached the agreement on a pretext, and attacked the Meccans. As Majid Khaddui notes in War and Peace in Islam, this Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya became the model, and the basis, for all future “treaties” with Infidel peoples and polities.

And it has another duty. That duty is to raise the even larger question: what does Islam inculcate, what do Muslims believe, about the permanence of any Infidel state, anywhere? Yes, we know the answer. But not everyone does. And everyone among the Infidels everywhere—in Thailand, and in India (where some may think that sacrificing Kashmir will lead the Muslims of Pakistan and India to cease their attacks, when it will do nothing of the sort), and in the Philippines, and in France and Germany and Great Britain and Spain and the Netherlands and Belgium and Norway (in the grim grip not of Thor's sons but of Quislingettes, of the unshakeably pro-"Palestinian" variety) and Sweden (more or less ditto).

The Spanish need to know what the Moroccans in their midst think, what they think when they hear the word "Al-Andalus." And the Portuguese. And those living in southwest France, right up to Poitiers. The Italians need to understand what will happen to Sicily. The Greeks, the Serbs (no, they don't need to be reminded, they know), the Croats, the Slovenes, the Rumanians, the Bulgarians, even the Hungarians, need to know what, in Islamic terms, their former status under Ottoman Muslim rule means for their status, in Muslim eyes, today.

And what about the rest of us, living as we fondly believe, in places that were never part of Dar al-Islam? What we, in North America and Australia and other places fail to realize, is that the whole word belongs to Islam, and it is only a matter of time and tactics, in the Muslim view. While some Muslims have comically tried to backdate their connection to various places—claims that Muslims settled long ago in Australia, or were on the boat with Columbus, have already been tellingly made, and while Infidels joke about it, that kind of thing is not quite a joke for the Muslim masses, steeped deeply in a crazed view of history, easily susceptible to any tall tale or conspiracy theory, a susceptibility made much greater than among most non-Muslims today because Islam, more than any other belief-system called a religion, inculcates the habit of mental submission, to not merely the will, of Allah, but to the whim of Allah, who does whatever he wants, breaks every rule

And since Israel are not behaving as proper dhimmi—their only choice is to start behaving as proper dhimmi—if they want to live. Their land is Muslim booty and to be distributed as the Muslims see fit. Or else, join the dead. This is the Muslim way, and the Saudis with their Wahhibi evangelism are primary instigators, and have no intention in "solving" the problem.

Here is Ms. Neuwirth's well-meaning but rather naive essay:

A true solution requires confronting two fundamental issues: 1. Current proposals, including the Road Map, are totally unworkable and should be abandoned. 2. An entirely fresh approach is required that is free of imposed constraints. The purpose of this essay is first to briefly challenge the entrenched mindset and then advance a win-win solution for both Jews and Arabs.

Before proposing the proper solution it is necessary to first demonstrate the falsity and futility of some of the main arguments intrinsic to the Oslo Accords and to the Road Map.

Demonstrably false argument #1: Israel should trade 'land for peace' to create yet another Arab country.

There are 22 Arab countries and only one Jewish country. The land-rich Arabs already occupy over 5 million square miles and land-poor Israel, including all of its territories, comprises only about 10,000 square miles. The Arab areas are thus 500 times larger than Israel and the Arabs already possess 99.8% of the total land. The so-called West Bank and Gaza areas combined total 2,300 square miles and comprise a miniscule 0.046% of the entire Arab empire - and to seize this speck of land the Arabs are adamant and willing to fight and die forever! Only a mind, hopelessly out of touch with reality, can seriously suggest that the Arabs need still more land, carved out of Israel, to create yet another country.

Demonstrably false argument #2: The 'Palestinians' are a separate people who deserve their own country.

There are no authentic 'Palestinian' people and there never was. Even the name of Palestine is a historic fraud perpetrated by the Romans, to permanently erase the original name of Judea, following the Jewish revolt against Rome of two thousand years ago. As recently as the 1940's the name 'Palestinian' clearly meant a Jew in the land of Israel and Arabs were simply called Arabs. After Israel's rebirth the local Arabs appropriated that now-available title for themselves and created a new identity.

This was done for purely hostile political purposes to undermine Israel's legitimate right to its biblical homeland. In all of history there never was a Palestinian nation, or country, or people, or language, or religion, which was distinct from the existing Arab counties in that region. Repeated attempts to rewrite history must never be allowed to corrupt the truth. To fully expose the 'Palestinian' hoax in modern times one should read Joan Peter's critically acclaimed book, From Time Immemorial - The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine.

Demonstrably false argument #3: We can have a viable 'Palestinian' state in the so-called West Bank and Gaza next to a viable Israel.

Proponents of the Road Map offer NO development plan whatsoever. Any genuine plan must include a comprehensive environmental impact study covering: population growth; water resources; agriculture resources; economic development; social and political considerations; et cetera, with projections extending through at least the next century. Proponents offer NO plan because it is impossible to design any plan that enables both peoples to live viably in so tiny an area along with normal population growth. Below are projections for population growth in Israel and the territory of the proposed Palestinian state, based on current growth rates:

Inside Israel. Assuming continuation of their current growth rates for the next hundred years, Israel's Jews at 1.5% per year become 28 million and Israeli Arabs at 3% per year become 23 million. That totals 51 million Jews and Arabs living on less than 8,000 square miles with a density of 6,500 per square mile. The Israeli Arabs have double the Israeli birth rate and are already 23% of the total population and gaining. They remain mostly hostile and will soon be able to gain political control and they already hold about 10% of the Knesset seats. Israel will thus be unable to remain permanently Jewish and the Israeli Arabs will always be seeking to advance their Arab identity in conflict with Israel.

Inside the territories. At their present high growth rates the Palestinian Arabs, inside the West Bank and Gaza, growing at 3-4% per year become 120 million in 100 years. Including all the Palestinian refugees, who could migrate in from outside, would add another 47 million. Thus there are a potential total of 167 million Arabs in the projected Palestinian state in 100 years in an area of only 2,300 square miles for an astronomical density of 72,500 per square mile.

Many fail to appreciate the awesome power of compound growth until it is too late. These are only projections but long before those numbers are reached the area will explode in misery and conflict based on a crushing burden of population overload, aside from any political conflict. It is totally impossible for that many people to survive, much less thrive, in such a tiny area. That should be obvious to all.

Demonstrably false argument #4: Arab possession of their 22 countries and 5 million square miles is legitimate and not to be challenged.

Just how did the Arabs come to control such vast territories? They got it the old fashioned way—by conquest! Before Mohammed, 1,400 years ago the Arabs lived in the Arabian Peninsula. Mohammed founded Islam and with it the zeal for jihad to conquer and convert, often by force. During the period following Mohammed the Arabs conquered vast areas in North Africa, southern Europe, the Middle East and parts of Asia and spread Islam far and wide. Today Arabs directly control 5 million square miles and 22 sovereign states, while non-Arab Islamic countries control nearly another 5 million square miles.

The Arabs often claim that they were the original inhabitants in the land of Israel. Actually Arab invaders did not enter the land of Israel until about the year 638 C.E. while Jews had established their first commonwealth under King David, with Jerusalem as their capital, over 1,600 years earlier. Archaeologically, the entire land of Israel gives testimony to the ancient Jewish presence, but there is no evidence of any ancient Arab settlers presence. And most of those 22 Arab States, including Iraq and Jordan, were first created by England, France or Italy during the past century to further their imperial interests, and with no historical justification.

In summary, advocates of these senseless schemes seriously propose to: invent a people that never was; seize land from Jews having virtually no land; transfer that Jewish land to those with too much land and unrelenting murderous hatred; and then let them all grow in numbers and suffocate together inside of a coffin-size territory - all in the name of peace and justice! That is what passes for thinking in this insane world. The Road Map guarantees a lose-lose outcome - we need a win-win outcome.

The true basis for a lasting peace:

A far-sighted Arab-Jewish agreement was arrived at 85 years ago but was never fully implemented. This still-legal agreement provides the basis for a solution today and should become widely publicized and supported.

In 1919, following the end of World War I, an international Paris Peace Conference was convened by the victorious Allies to settle international questions. Delegations attended from around the world including an official Arab and Zionist delegation. The Arab delegation was led by Emir Feisal I, who agreed that the entire Palestine territory of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 would become the Jewish national home and expressed that position in separate letters to Zionist leaders Dr. Chaim Weizmann and Felix Frankfurter. In return for Arab support the Zionists promised economic and technical assistance to the local Arabs and the Allied powers agreed to grant eventual sovereignty to many of the Arab peoples in the region that were previously under control of the former Turkish Ottoman Empire.

This conference, and a subsequent one at San Remo Italy, amicably settled the issues among the parties with voluntary, legally binding, international agreements. In 1922 the League of Nations assigned Britain as the Mandatory to faithfully carry out these agreements. It was British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill who unilaterally divided Mandatory Palestine into an exclusively Arab sector (Trans Jordan) and a Jewish sector. The Arabs received 76% of the original territory, comprising 35,000 square miles, located east of the Jordan River. That left the Jewish sector with only 10,000 square miles out of their original 45,000 square miles, which was still less than 1% of the combined Arab areas of 5 million square miles. That remaining Jewish sector is today contested with the 'Palestinians' claiming the 'West Bank' and Gaza to create, in effect, a second Palestinian state. (Jordan is mostly Palestinian.) It was the British, in 1919, who began to undermine their own Mandate and to instigate the Arabs against Jews.

The Ariel Center for Policy Research in Israel has a policy paper no. 147 titled, "Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel and Palestine Under International Law" by Howard Grief, author of the forthcoming book. It ably summarizes the post-World War I settlement of the Palestine question and its subsequent betrayal by the British government entrusted with implementing it.

A few extracts from the executive summary will indicate its importance:

"Under this settlement, the whole of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan was reserved exclusively for the Jewish People as the Jewish National Home, in recognition of their historical connection with that country, dating from the Patriarchal Period. ... The Palestine aspect of the global settlement was recorded in three basic documents that led to the founding of the modern State of Israel: ... The British Government repudiated the solemn obligation it undertook to develop Palestine gradually into an independent Jewish state. ... The US aided and abetted the British betrayal of the Jewish People by its abject failure to act decisively against the 1939 White Paper despite its own legal obligation to do so under the 1924 treaty. The UN Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947 illegally recommended the restriction of Jewish legal rights to a truncated part of Palestine. ... Despite all the subversive actions to smother and destroy Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty to the entire Land of Israel, they still remain in full force by virtue of the Principle of Acquired Rights and the doctrine of Estoppel that apply in all legal systems of the democratic world."

It has been argued, by scholars of international law, that the agreements of the international Paris Peace Conference of 1919, and their formal assignment to Britain as the Mandatory by the League of Nations, continue to be legally binding on all parties under international law. In addition to Jewish legal claims based on the 1922 law a case can be made that it is also morally binding and that England is guilty of bad faith and for having engaged in deliberate sabotage of that agreement. A most promising beginning for Arab-Jewish relations in the Middle East was deliberately undermined by England and this part of history must be brought to bear upon the present conflict. Israel has a right to make full land claims under that 1922 Mandate by the League of Nations. The Arabs should also be made aware that it was England that instigated them against the Jews in pursuit of British imperial interests and to the disadvantage of both Arabs and Jews.

Significantly, Arab support for a Jewish state was clearly manifested at the Paris Peace conference of 1919. This should also be part of the legally binding Arab obligations to acceptance of a Jewish state with full rights. Emir Feisal I, son of Hussein, Sheriff of Mecca led the Arab delegation to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Excerpts of two letters from Emir Feisal to Zionist leaders Dr. Chaim Weizmann and to Felix Frankfurter indicate their friendly relations and high hopes for Jewish - Arab cooperation. Also note in the following text the term 'Palestine' clearly refers to the Jewish national home and not to any Arab entity or people.

From Emir Feisal to Dr. Weizmann:

"His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish People, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following Articles:"

Article IV: "All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlements and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development."

From Emir Feisal to Felix Frankfurter:

"... We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in race, having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of the powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together."

"We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home."

"People less informed and less responsible than our leaders and yours, ignoring the need for cooperation of the Arabs and the Zionists have been trying to exploit the local difficulties that must necessarily arise in Palestine in the early stages of our movements. Some of them have, I am afraid, misrepresented your aims to the Arab peasantry, and our aims to the Jewish peasantry, with the result that interested parties have been able to make capital our of what they call our differences."

What remains now is for all parties to courageously and boldly cast off the mindless schemes of Oslo and the Road Map and return to the sanity and statesmanship of the 1919 agreement. Those Arabs who have an acquired identity as 'Palestinian' should be given a far better alternative option than to be buried alive inside a non-viable illegal micro-state carved out of the Israeli heartland.

The Win-Win solution...

Contrary to popular belief, the Arab-Israeli conflict has a reasonable solution. An orderly resettlement elsewhere of the so-called Palestinian Arabs would solve this long-standing 'intractable' problem. To propose this solution today elicits automatic rejection by almost everyone and perhaps even anger and hostility at its very mention (although attitudes may finally be changing). This is because the minds of many have been so thoroughly conditioned, with layer upon layer of repeated falsehoods, such that open-minded reconsideration is almost impossible. But resettlement could become the basis of a win-win solution for both sides.

For example Saudi Arabia comprises some 750,000 square miles. It has a very low population density of only 33 per square mile vs. 1,000 for Israel including the territories. A modest 4% of Saudi Arabia, some 30,000 square miles, should be set aside for a new Palestinian state. That state would be 13 times the size of the present Palestinian area proposed under the Road Map and would now have ample space for natural growth. All of the intractable problems facing both Jews and Arabs, arising under the present schemes, would be eliminated. The Palestinians could now construct their own state with full political independence, self-rule and full dignity. The sources of friction between them and Israel would now be removed along with all the immense human and material costs associated with the current conflict.

Palestinians could begin using their legitimate 'right of return' to exit the territories, and the refugee camps, and migrate back to their ancestral home in Arabia and thereby also be closer to Mecca and Medina. A fraction of the countless billions spent on weapons by the Arab governments could fund the cost of establishing new settlements for the Palestinians. Israel would be free of Arabs, and the Palestinians would be free of Israel. The deep wounds of both peoples would now have a chance to heal.

In early 2004 a poll by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion shows 37% willing to emigrate in return for a home, a job and $250,000. And this is before a far better deal has been offered, including true self-rule, peace and security, plus their own ample territory. What if 'Palestinians' were offered a homeland territory, drawn from lands donated by one of the more spacious Arab countries, one expressing continuous concern, love for, and outrage at the treatment of these very same folk?

Israeli Arabs could play a constructive role in this because of their higher level of education and their experience living as full citizens in democratic Israel. They would become the managerial and entrepreneurial class and provide valuable assistance and leadership for fellow Palestinians who were stagnating in refugee camps inside other Arab countries. This crime was committed by their own brother Arabs, who refused to allow them to settle.

Once the migration starts toward a far better future the movement could well accelerate voluntarily because the first ones to relocate would receive the best 'ground floor' opportunities and the last ones to move would get what remains. Today there are tens of millions of people on the move around the world in search of better living conditions, so relocation is a long established and viable option for everyone.

Another important advantage is that Israeli-Palestinian interaction would be limited to the selling of Arab homes in the territories and an orderly exit. No more frustratingly complex agreements as with Oslo where Israel honors all commitments and Arabs violate all commitments, and even U.S. assurances often prove worthless. The less need for Israel to depend on agreements with Arabs, Europeans and even Americans the better.

Part of the problem are those Arab governments who deliberately keep the Israel-Palestinian conflict alive to divert attention from their own corrupt regimes. Also, western governments still pander to their corrupt Arab clients for purely expedient reasons. But new progressive voices are emerging among Arab intellectuals and even among some Moslem clerics that call for Arab societal reform, and who also recognize Jewish rights in the land of Israel. These voices need to be encouraged and enlisted in this quest for sanity.

What is also needed is Saudi cooperation and active support. The Saudis have long been responsible for promoting anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, and anti-American hatred along with funding terror and the teaching of a hateful form of Islam. With their 'royal' family of thousands of princes living lavishly, off of oil income and the labor of foreign workers, they are a cesspool of corruption that even Osama bin Laden finds offensive.

It is time to demand that the Saudis make a major contribution to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. They caused much of the problem and they must now assist with the solution. It is time for the Bush administration to make the Saudis 'an offer they can't refuse' and have them realize they have a direct interest in providing 'land for peace'.

For too long many people have labored under a collective mindset resembling a bad dream where big lies become entrenched wisdom and truth is constantly strangled. Unless we change direction there will be dire consequences extending well beyond the peoples of the region. Those who still have minds and morals intact now have an obligation to think clearly and with sanity and support this approach to finally resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.

__________________

Rachel Neuwirth is a Los Angeles-based analyst on the board of directors of the West Coast Region of the American Jewish Congress and the chairperson of the organization's Middle East committee.

This article appeared as a guest commentary in MichNews.com July 26, 2004 and is archived here. Contact the author.

NAZI ROOTS OF MODERN RADICAL ISLAM

The following was written by Tom Knowlton:

The recent "Letter to the American People" allegedly authored by Osama bin Laden is a virtual ideological manifesto for Islamic extremists. It serves to outline the perceived grievances of radical Muslims against Israel and the West.

The letter claims, "It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses," dating the conflict between Jews and Arabs back to the Biblical conflict between Abraham's two children: his eldest son, Ishmael (from who Arabs are believed descended), and his younger son, Isaac (from who Jews are believed descended). Some Muslims believe that Isaac usurped Ishmael's birthright.

Likewise, prominent imams such as Abu Qatada, Omar Muhammad Bakri, and Abu Hamza regularly echo this claim that Arabs and Jews have been bitter enemies from the dawn of time. However, if one examines the history of the Middle East, there is very little evidence of constant warring and animosity between Jews and Arabs.

In fact, when the city of Jerusalem fell to Christian Crusaders in 1099, the defenders of the holy city had been a combined force of Jews and Muslims. After the Crusaders captured the city, they massacred Muslim and Jewish citizens alike and left the survivors to flee Jerusalem. Not until the Muslim hero Saladin defeated the Crusaders in 1187, did the Jewish population even begin to return to Jerusalem.

Jerusalem's Jewish community continued to prosper under the Muslim Nahmanides in 1267. But the community's true renaissance occurred during the 15th and 16th centuries, when a large influx of Jews were welcomed into Jerusalem by the Ottoman Empire after being expelled from Spain.

For four centuries under Ottoman rule, Arab and Jewish neighborhoods peacefully coexisted. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the region came under British mandate. The early days under the British also saw relatively peaceful coexistence continuing and manifesting itself in the form of Arab and Jewish neighborhoods springing up in the "garden neighborhoods" of Talpiot, Rehavia and Beit Hakerem.

However, after over 700 years of peaceful coexistence, the true start of the Arab-Israeli conflict can be dated to 1920 and the rise of one man, Haj Amin Muhammad Al Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem. As grand mufti, al Husseini presided as the Imam of the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, the highest Muslim authority in the British mandate.

History shows Al Husseini to be a brutal man with aspirations to rule a pan-Arabic empire in the Middle East. He rose to prominence by actively eliminating those Jews and Arabs he considered a threat to his control of Jerusalem's Arab population, and he heavily utilized anti-Jewish propaganda to polarize the two communities.

In 1920 and again in 1929, Al Husseini incited anti-Jewish riots by claiming the Jews were plotting to destroy the Al Asqa mosque. The riots resulted in the massacre of hundreds of Jewish civilians and a virtual end to the Jewish presence in Hebron.

The 1936 Arab revolt against the British is believed to have been at least partially funded by Nazi Adolf Eichmann, and Al Husseini again ordered armed Arab militias to massacre Jewish citizens.

When British authorities finally quelled the rebellion in 1939, Al Husseini fled to neighboring Iraq and helped to orchestrate a 1941 anti-British jihad. As in Jerusalem, the British successfully put down the rebellion and Al Husseini fled to Nazi Germany.

Al Husseini found the Nazis to be a strong ideological match with his anti-Jewish brand of Islam, and schemed with Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy to create a pro-Nazi pan-Arabic form of government in the Middle East.

Dr. Serge Trifkovic documents the similarities between Al Husseini's brand of radical Islam and Nazism in his book The Sword of the Prophet. He noted parallels in both ideologies: anti-Semitism, quest for world dominance, demand for the total subordination of the free will of the individual, belief in the abolishment of the nation-state in favor of a "higher" community (in Islam the umma or community of all believers; in Nazism, the herrenvolk or master race), and belief in undemocratic governance by a "divine" leader (an Islamic caliph, or Nazi führer).

The Nazis provided Al Husseini with luxurious accommodations in Berlin and a monthly stipend in excess of $10,000. In return, he regularly appeared on German radio touting the Jews as the "most fierce enemies of Muslims," and implored an adoption of the Nazi "final solution" by Arabs. After the Nazi defeat at El Alamein in 1942, Al Husseini broadcast radio messages on Radio Berlin calling for continued Arabic resistance to Allied forces. In time, he came to be known as the "Fuhrer's Mufti" and the "Arab Fuhrer."

In March 1944, Al Husseini broadcast a call for a jihad to "kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion."

On numerous occasions, Al Husseini intervened in the fate of European Jews, most notably blocking Adolph Eichmann's deal with the Red Cross to exchange Jewish children for German POWs.

Moreover, Al Husseini personally recruited Bosnia Muslims for the German Waffen SS, including the Skanderberg Division from Albania and Hanjer Division from Bosnia. The Hanjer (Saber) Division of the Waffen SS was responsible for the murder of over 90 percent of the Yugoslavian Jewish population.

SS leader Heinrich Himmler was so pleased with Al Husseini's Muslim Nazis that he established the Dresden-based Mullah Military School for their continued recruitment and training. In 1944, Hanjer commandos parachuted into Tel Aviv and poisoned drinking wells in Jewish communities in an effort to stir up ethnic tensions.

After the fall of Nazi Germany, Al Husseini fled to Cairo, Egypt in 1946 rather than face war crime charges for his actions in Yugoslavia. But he continued his operations.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Al Husseini worked closely with a pro-fascist group in Egypt called Young Egypt. In 1952 Gamal Abdul Nasser, a prominent member of Young Egypt, was among military officers who seized control of the Egyptian government from King Fu'ad. Al Husseini is reported to have been responsible for bringing Otto Skorzeny, the Nazi commando once labeled by the OSS as "the most dangerous man in Europe," into the employ of the Nasser government.

Similarly, Al Husseini had a strong influence over the founding members of both the Iraqi and Syrian Ba'ath party. Strong evidence exists that al Husseini was instrumental in the arranging of Nazi war criminal Alois Brunner's employment as an advisor to the Syrian general staff.

However, al Husseini's central role in the creation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964 is perhaps his most indelible mark on the Middle East today.

The radical Imam was the spiritual mentor of the first chairman of the PLO, Ahmed Shukairi, and saw that much of his ideology was instilled in the organization. More importantly, Al Husseini used his extensive connections to recruit financial supporters for the PLO throughout the Arab world.

Almost 30 years after al Husseini's death in 1974, the Palestinian people still revere him as a hero and embrace his radical theology. The "Arab Fuhrer's" close Nazi association and virulent anti-Semitism is perhaps the reason that Hitler's Meinf Kampf is ranked as the sixth all-time bestseller among Palestinian Arabs.

Several of his descendants remain active in Palestinian affairs today.

Al Husseini's grandson, Faisal Husseini, was part of the PLO since 1964 and served as minister without portfolio in the Palestinian National Authority, with responsibility for Jerusalem until his death in May 2001.

The radical imam's nephew, Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa el Husseini, has been a major player in Palestinian terrorism for almost 40 years. He was the guiding force behind the merging of the Fatah faction into the PLO. In 1990, Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa el Husseini was responsible for the Palestinian community's support of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

Most Mideast observers today recognize the younger Al Husseini by the secular name he adopted as his own in 1952, Yasser Arafat.

By the late 1980's many of the PLO's radical Muslim financiers had become disillusioned with the increasingly secular nature of the Palestinian movement. Yasser Arafat's support of Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s strongly angered and prompted many of these extremists in the Persian Gulf states to reduce or all together withdraw their financial backing of the PLO.

An astute emerging Sunni terrorist, Osama bin Laden, capitalized upon Arafat's political misstep and transformed his al Qaeda organization into the prime recipient of financial support from Sunni Muslim radicals. That funding has enabled bin Laden to wage terrorist attacks on western and Israeli interests for over a decade. His most recent "Letter to the American People" echoed al Husseini's propaganda claim that "the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al Aqsa mosque."

The is little doubt that throughout history the Arabs and Jews have encountered the kind of friction that comes from any two distinct religious or ethnic groups sharing the same geography. However, that history has largely been one of relatively peaceful coexistence.

The divergence from that pattern occurs in 1920 with the rise of a virulent anti-Semitic mufti of Jerusalem whose ideology embodied more similarities to that of Nazi Germany than to the historical Islam of Saladin or the Ottoman Turks.

The wave of extremist Islam that has plagued the world in the latter days of the 20th century and into the opening days of the 21st, has little to do with ancient history or Islam. The cause lays largely at the feet of Haj Amin Muhammad Al Husseini, who utilized murder and anti-Semitism to consolidate his power over his fellow Arabs and further his personal quest to be caliph of the pan-Arab world.
_______________

The above article still seems to whitewash most of the harsher notes Islamic dominion has ALWAYS belted out to its dhimmi brothers, and buys into the line that Saladin was the most gracious warrior-philosopher in history until Mahatmas Ghandi appeared on the scene, but otherwise provides some interesting information to concerned readers.