“…[G]iven this historical event [the Holocaust], if it is a reality, we need to question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it… “The Palestinian people didn’t commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II.”

These statements about the role of the Palestinians are demonstrably false. The truth is that the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust. The Palestinian leader at the time was Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufit of Jerusalem. As Professor Edward Said has acknowledged:

“Hajj Amin al-Husseini represented the Palestinian Arab national consensus, had the backing of the Palestinian political parties that functioned in Palestine, and was recognized in some form by Arab governments as the voice of the Palestinian people.”

Husseini was “Palestine’s national leader” and it was in that capacity that he made his notorious alliance with Hitler and played an active role in promoting the Holocaust. Here is the true story that Ahmadinejad tried to mythologize.

Shortly after Hitler came to power, the Grand Mufti decided to emulate him. He informed the German consul in Jerusalem that “the Muslims inside and outside Palestine welcome the new regime of Germany and hope for the extension of the fascist anti-democratic, governmental system to other countries.” In an effort to bring it to his own country, Husseini organized the “Nazi Scouts,” based on the “Hitler Youth.” The swastika became a welcome symbol among many Palestinians.

The mid to late 1930’s were marked by Arab efforts to curtail immigration and Jewish efforts to rescue as many Jews as possible from Hitler’s Europe. These years were also marked by escalating Muslim violence orchestrated by Husseini and other Muslim leaders. In 1936, Arab terrorism took on a new dimension. In the beginning the targets were once again defenseless Jewish civilians in hospitals, movie theatres, homes and stores. This was followed by strikes and shop closures, and then by the bombing of British offices. The Nazi regime in Germany and the Italian fascists supported the violence, sending “millions” to the Mufti. The SS, under the leadership of Heinrich Himmler, provided both financial and logistical support for anti-Semitic pogroms in Palestine. Adolf Eichmann visited Husseini in Palestine and subsequently maintained regular contact with him. The support was mutual, as one Arab commentator put it:

“Feeling the whip of Jewish pressure and influence, the Arabs sympathized with the Nazis and Fascists in their agony and trials at the hands of Jewish intrigues and international financial pressures.”

The Palestinians and their Arab allies were anything but neutral about the fate of European Jewry. The official leader of the Palestinians, Haj Amin al-Husseini, spent the war years in Berlin with Hitler, serving as a consultant on the Jewish question. He was taken on a tour of Auschwitz by Himmler and expressed support for the mass murder of European Jews. He also sought to “solve the problems of the Jewish element in Palestine and other Arab countries” by employing “the same method” being used “in the Axis countries.’ He would not be satisfied with the Jewish residents of Palestine - - many of whom were descendants of Sephardic Jews who had lived there for hundreds, even thousands, of years - - remaining as a minority in a Muslim state. Like Hitler, he wanted to be rid of “every last Jew.” As Husseini wrote in his memoirs:

“Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: “The Jews are yours.”

The Mufti was apparently planning to return to Palestine in the event of a German victory and to construct a death camp, modeled after Auschwitz, near Nablus. Husseini incited his pro-Nazi followers with the words “Arise, o sons of Arabia. Fight for your sacred rights. Slaughter Jews wherever you find them. Their spilled blood pleases Allah, our history and religion. That will save our honor.” In 1944, a German-Arab commando unit, under Husseini’s command, parachuted into Palestine and poisoned Tel Aviv’s wells.

Husseini also helped to inspire a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq and helped to organize thousands of Muslims in the Balkans into military units known as Handselar divisions which carried out atrocities against Yugoslav Jews, Serbs and Gypsies. After a meeting with Hitler, he recorded the following in his diary:

The Mufti: “The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends… They were therefore prepared to cooperate with Germany with all their hearts and stood ready to participate in a war, not only negatively by the commission of acts of sabotage and the instigation of revolutions, but also positively by the formation of an Arab Legion. In this struggle, the Arabs were striving for the independence and the unity of Palestine, Syria and Iraq….

Hitler: “Germany was resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well. Hitler. Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. The moment that Germany’s tank divisions and air squadrons had made their appearance south of the Caucasus, the public appeal requested by the Grand Mufti could go out to the Arab world.”

It is fair to conclude that the official leader of the Muslims in Palestine, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was a full fledged Nazi war criminal and he was so declared at Nuremberg and sought by Yugoslavia as a war criminal after the war. He escaped to Egypt where he was given asylum and helped to organize many former Nazis and Nazi sympathizers against Israel.

It is also fair to say that Husseini’s pro-Nazi sympathies and support were widespread among his Palestinian followers, who regarded him as a hero even after the war and the disclosure of his role in Nazi atrocities. According to his biographer,

“Haj Amin’s popularity among the Palestinian Arabs and within the Arab states actually increased more than ever during his period with the Nazis… [because] large parts of the Arab world shared this sympathy with Nazi Germany during the Second World War.”

Nor was it merely a hatred of Zionism that animated this support for Nazi ideology. The grand mufti’s “hatred of Jews…was fathomless, and he gave full vent to it during his period of activity alongside the Nazis (October 1941-May 1945).” His speeches on Berlin Radio were anti-Semitic to the core: “Kill the Jews wherever you find them—this pleases God, history and religion.” In 1948, the National Palestinian Council elected Husseini as its president, even though he was still a wanted war criminal living in exile in Egypt. Indeed, Husseini is still revered today among many Palestinians as a national hero. Yasser Arafat, in an interview conducted in 2002 and reprinted in the Palestinian daily Al-Quds on August 2, 2002, calls Haj Amin al-Husseini “our hero,” referring to the Palestinian people. Arafat also boasted of being “one of his troops,” even though he knew he was “considered an ally of Nazis.” (If a German today were to call Hitler “our hero,” he would appropriately be labeled a neo-Nazi.!)

It is a myth therefore – another myth perpetrated by Iran’s myth-maker-in-chief – that the Palestinians played “no role” in the Holocaust. Considering the active support by the Palestinian leadership and masses for the losing side of a genocidal war, it was more than fair for the United Nations to offer them a state of their own on more than half of the arable land of the British mandate. The Sudeten Germans got a lot less!

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Zionism and Israel live and thrive on lies; the bigger is the lie the more is the projected windfall.

First it was:
"A land with no people for a people with no land".

Now that the world belatedly found out that the land has a people and is seriously reconsidering its past support for a land to the landless who turned out to be racist colonists the need arises for a new mega lie.

The herd here at HNN and elsewhere did often refer to "relations" between the Palestinian leadership and the Nazi regime.

Now these “relations” has progressed into a “significant role” while the “leadership” has been supplanted and enlarged to include the “Palestinian masses” i.e. the whole Palestinian population and the “Nazi regime “ became the “Holocaust”:
” ("The Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust" ;)

Soon this will metamorphose into the “the Palestinian people did actively participate in the Holocaust ” to be crowned , at a latter timely stage, with: “The Palestinian people instigated the Holocaust and was instrumental in its execution”.

This last criminal act of the whole Palestinian people will be unearthed by presently ongoing “research”.
This particular kind of “research” is, of course, not only acceptable and allowable, contrary to other kinds, but is necessary, commendable and crucial to sustain the new LIE

So far so good and is totally expectable by and from a doctrine and a community that has lived and thrived on a LIE ; a state of affairs which neither surprises nor scares us.

The QUESTION, however, IS:
” For how long will the Judeo/Christian (Western) world, at whom this “research” is directed, accept unquestioningly this LIE?”

Past experience shows that interest in this issue, which earlier led Richard Cohen to admit the obvious (that the plantation of Israel in Palestine was a “mistake”), is revived with each conflagration in the region.

The oncoming mega conflagration will, I guess, answer the QUESTION.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

The Holocaust is a very sad, atrocious and heinous episode in human annals.
Its intrinsic viciousness goes beyond the number of victims, of diverse affiliations, it butchered.
However it is equally and shamelessly for some:
1-a good business
2- a presumption and justification for the assumption of a "free hand " and a " do, "guiltlessly", whatever you feel like doing" for its few survivors and its many beneficiaries.

It is also a true reflection of the hypocrisy, blood trading and profiteering character of these very same survivors and assorted beneficiaries.

Possibly the worst thing about the Holocaust is that its choice of victims was based on :
-the race
and/or
- the religious affiliation
of its prospective victims.

The brunt of this barbaric campaign fell on the Jews under Nazi control leading to a great deal of victims.

Ironically the community, the post mortem beneficiaries, the heirs of these very same victims and some of its survivors launched a barbaric colonization campaign of their own based on these very same principles and criteria.

The minute they could do it, the minute international conditions allowed it, they replicated the crimes of their butcher and based their own campaign on the very same criteria; namely :
1-race
2- religious affiliation

and built thereon their colony: the state of Israel.

The parallelism between Nazi Germany and Israel are flagrantly unmistakable and shamelessly pursued by the colony ie Israel.
Inter alia:
**To be a Jew was reason enough to qualify for liquidation in Nazi Germany;
**To be a Jew is reason enough to be allowed to migrate and settle in their colony of Israel.
**To have Jewish blood was reason enough to qualify for liquidation in Nazi Germany,
**To have Jewish blood is reason enough to qualify for citizenship in the colony of Israel .

In a sordid way IT IS the victim emulating his butcher the minute the possibility arose and the means were obtained ; thus being his "moral" equal.

Does that in any way reduce the viciousness of or justify the Holocaust ??
It certainly DOES NOT, nothing DOES!

Nor does the Holocaust justify nor reduce the criminality of the EQUALLY heinous crime of usurping and colonizing Palestine by its victims; both being derived from and based on the very same foul RACIST "morality”.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Raul Hilberg, author of the classic The Destruction of the European Jews, is the world's leading authority on the Nazi holocaust. A Brazilian journalist, Carlos Haag, questioned him about The Holocaust Industry. Below is Hilberg's reply:

RH: "Today he (Finkelstein) is rather unpopular and his book (The Holocaust Industry) will certainly not become a best seller, but what it says is basically true even though incomplete. It is more a journalistic account than an in depth study on the topic, which would need to be much longer.

To say that the Holocaust has been used in order to secure Palestine for the Jews is nothing new and we know how important it was in the creation of Israel. Nevertheless it will be a bitter yet necessary reminder to the community. He is also right when he argues that nobody talked about this topic in the USA: in 1968 a well known local encyclopedia asked me to write an article on the Holocaust and they only wanted me to talk about Dachau and Buchenwald because they were not interested in Auschwitz; these topics were censored. I agree with him that people overestimate the number of survivors and that the concept itself is ill-defined - it includes not only the victims of the camps - and it is true that there an exaggerated number of compensation requests are made.

There is something radically wrong in this exploitation because it is an issue that should not be used to make money and I must confess that I found the whole affair with the Swiss banks disturbing. The Jewish-American community is very prosperous and there is no reason for them to ask the Swiss for money. That seems obscene to me."



Swiss National Radio (SBC-SSR) on 31 August 2000
by Roberto Antonini

Excerpts from the interview :
Q: Professor Hilberg, you are one of the most prominent historians on the Holocaust. Your book, "The Destruction of the European Jews," is unanimously considered a masterpiece. So it would be very important for our listeners to have your comment on Professor Finkelstein¹s book, since it is pretty controversial.

Raul Hilberg: Well, to be honest I wish it were longer. It's a very small book. It may not be apparent but one needs a background to understand what it says. Consequently I think it is very useful but not very easy reading for those who are not familiar with what he is writing about.

Q: Professor Hilberg, generally speaking would you agree with Professor Finkelstein when he denounces the American Jewish organizations and some class-action suit lawyers for "extorting" money from Europe in order to let's say "make a killing"?

Raul Hilberg: I would in substance agree with what he says because I have said much the same things myself and the methods of the World Jewish Congress and some other organizations or people allied with it in his campaign I feel are detestable. I don't subscribe to them. In sum and substance I agree with what Finkelstein says.

Q: Don't you believe that this book could be dangerous, that it could be used by some anti-Semitic extremists, by some neo-Nazi groups for anti-Semitic purposes?

Raul Hilberg: Well, even if they do use it in that fashion, I¹m afraid that when it comes to the truth, it has to be said openly, without regard to any consequences that would be undesirable, embarrassing. The fact is that we have now crossed a line, we have seen an action that I personally cannot defend in terms of the tactics and also of the sums of money involved in the claims against not only the Swiss Banks but now extensively in other matters as well.


( http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&;ar=202)

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

"**To be a Jew was reason enough to qualify for liquidation in Nazi Germany;
**To be a Jew is reason enough to be allowed to migrate and settle in their colony of Israel.
**To have Jewish blood was reason enough to qualify for liquidation in Nazi Germany,
**To have Jewish blood is reason enough to qualify for citizenship in the colony of Israel .

In a sordid way IT IS the victim emulating his butcher the minute the possibility arose and the means were obtained ; thus being his "moral" equal"

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Usually Eckstein does neither deserve nor warrant a spcific rejoinder to his words.
However the shamless ignorance of his words, though I suspect he is NOT as ignorant as he likes to pretend but is on a conscious disinformation campaign , when he declaims:

" For instance, 20 countries including China, Germany, Ireland and Norway, have laws of return similar to Israel's,".
(Re: Profiteering from The Holocaust (#113961) by art eckstein on September 30, 2007 at 12:17 PM)

However the question is:
a-DID ANY of these countries *DISLOCATE,
*DISPOSSESS,
*DISFRANCHISE,
*SUBJUGATE a native population from and in their homeland then *SUPPLANTED
them with ALIENS screened , gathered and admitted on a pure
*RACIAL/RACIST basis ??

b-Does ANY of these countries
*DENY
native born people the
*RIGHT to RETURN to their homeland ??

Dare we hope for a straight forward answer!?

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

.



" Believe it or not, all history is not the history of the Holocaust. "
(Re: More recycled irrelevance (#114037)
by Peter K. Clarke on October 1, 2007 at 9:07 AM)

But, Mr Clarke, to the profiteers there from IT IS.

The Holocaust did give the "humanitarian" veneer to the Zionist racist colonialist project, that the West ( its actual perpetrator ) was only too eager to accept while, simultaneously, ridding it self of the "Jewish Problem" and establishing a fore ward base for its own imperialist designs and interests.

Dershowitz, to say nothing about small fry Friedman and smaller fry Eckstein, are hankering back to the old proven profitable way: milking the West through an appeal to its "humanitarian" outlook and, no less insistently, its guilt complex.

Hence their periodical revival, always adorned new LIES,of the horrors of the Holocaust.

The herd will never change it has profited enormously both politically and financially from the Holocaust.

It is the West , and the USA in particular, that has to reconsider their earlier naivete and policies based there on.

Now that it is plain for all to see that this horrible episode was a major foundation and justification of an equally horrendous crime Western, including American, Public opinion should insist that this charade cum blackmail should stop.

Without this travesty of forever milking the Holocaust Israel would be left with nothing except, of course, it ugly racist colonialist face.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Clarke, I disagree!

It is the fear, not from the Gestapo, but of being unveiled for what they really are: the defenders and advocates of a sordid racist colonialist project that profited enormously from shamelessly milking, and hiding behind, a human mega tragedy to perpetrate their own no less heinous mega crime..

Had it been a question of the Gestapo bursting through their doors people like Shahak, Lilienthal, Chomsky, Finkelstein, Pappe etc, etc etc would have, or would have had, as much, if not more, to fear being much more renowned that the inanities we face here.

Honourable, decent, non racist and anti racist Jews saw through Israel soon enough though some belatedly.
But all, being decent, honourable and anti racist ended by seeing Israel for what it truly is: a racist colonialist project.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

"The evidence assembled above would lead a historian to say that looking at the overall Gestalt, and the threat of annihilation which the Jews faced, the Palestinians played a significant role in the Holocaust as allies of the Nazis."

proclaims Mr. Eckstein triumphantly, having finally found his way -through scores of irrelevant and ad-hominen laced posts- to semi-address non-historian Dershowitz's assertion that

"...the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust..."

Of course, Eckstein remains addicted to trickery. Note the attempt to shift the goal posts for the gazillionth time. Instead of "significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust" he has added the weasal words "as allies of the Nazis" in a transparent attempt to imply (falsely of course) that since Palestinian leaders, or at least one of them, clearly were/was a solid Nazi ally, that this undispute fact will somehow leak credibility up-sentence to the significant role issue.

Of course, "no historian" presents a theory as an established consensus conclusion, and "no historian" at any university has time to post hundreds of comments per week on HNN, and "no historian" of the Holocaust has yet been cited on this page to prove the now FINALLY relevant hypothesis presented by Mr. E.

That hypothesis is that a historian of the Holocaust "looking at the overall Gestalt, and the threat of annihilation which the Jews faced, the Palestinians played a significant role in the Holocaust as allies of the Nazis."

So now, would the real historian of the Holocaust please stand up?

Who is this historian?

Where are his words proving Mr. E's hypothesis? Not trickily pretending to prove it. We have had newly self-fertilized cowfields of that already here. An actual Holocaust historian saying somewhere (except the Arch-Evil Wikipedia of course) that the Palestinian Arabs "played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust" ?

After 150 posts on this page, has Mr. E any credible corroboration from a real historian of the Holocaust?

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Of course not. You throw the same old BS you have flung in 30 or 40 prior posts and expect me to accept it?

I never disputed the essential factual background of your smokescreen screams about Husseini being a nasty, possibly even genocidal, pro-Nazi Anti-Semite. So were millions of drunken nobodies. The issue is significant ROLE not hypothetical potential or pedagogical value (Wiesenthal was a remarkable mental genius who had a long and massively prodigious output. God knows why he might have devoted a few weeks to Husseini among the tens of thousands he investigated.)

Go to H-Net. Ever heard of it?
Go to H-Holocaust.

Do NOT pass Wikipedia or collect $200 from AIPAC or anywhere else, on pain of going to JAIL (= forced to spend the remaining available 10% of your free time exclusively on HNN on a comment board with no one else but Omar Baker and the civility police).

Find a REAL honest (look that word up in a dictionary and learn something new while you're at it) to goodness Holocaust historian who thinks and SPECIFICALLY without added weasal words or tricky deceit that Palestinians "played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust."

OR you could (in theory) give up and shut up.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

The greed-driven lawyer who helped OJ get away with murder has moved on to new forms of hypocrisy and deception:

"The Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust" is the latest bit of ahistorical trickery from this law prof.

This is not a view supported by the historical research of any serious scholar of the Holocaust.

The mass-murder of European Jews during World War II was committed by Nazis and their collaboraters in Nazi occupied countries (including in the key early phase of the war, Stalin).

Of course, far fewer European Jews would have died had more of them had the foresight to get the heck out of the Nazis way while there was still time do so, or if Roosevelt and Churchill had not helped to block their main escape routes (which were to the West, more so than Palestine), but no serious historian would accuse FDR or Churchill or the concentration camp victims themselves of having "played a significant role" in causing the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jews in Poland and Russia in the 1940s.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

I invite you to devote 5% of the time you have already wasted on this page doing something relevant for a change by looking for specific language to support Dershowitz's claim -or your theoretical historized version thereof- written by a credible Holocaust historian. What in the name of Moses, Mohamed, or Marx Brothers, or whomever, is "slanderous" about that suggestion?

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

If anyone is providing cover for fiendish politics here it is Dershowitz.

Instead of demolishing Ahmidinejad's vile myths he devotes an article pretending to do so while actually advancing a new myth of his own.

Yes the Palestinians, or a few at least, were not innocent of involvement with the Nazis. But, despite Dershowitz's pretense, they were not major perpetrators of the Holocaust, not even close. Hussseini was branded war criminal, a well-deserved cateogorization it would seem, but what is the relevance of that to the Dershowitz fiction? So was Ariel Sharon and was banned from Israeli politics for it (until the Likudnik fiends got more power and Israel in Barak's words lost its "moral compass"). Did Sharon therefore play a "significant role" in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Kuwait by Saddam?

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

The fact that many Arab leaders were (and still are) anti-Semitic, and were pro-Nazi proves zilch about their role in the Holocaust. Helping prevent refugees from entering Palestine did contribute to total deaths (in relatively small numbers compared to the millions who perished) but is not proof of murderous motive, and the Arabs were not running Palestine at the time anyway. No serious scholar including those now entering senility says that Britain (which was running Palestine) helped perpetrate the Holocaust. Dershowitz would not dare try mixing up such baloney.


There is no excuse for his trashing of history in this junk-article. Ahmadinejad's demogagical hate-mongering is not effectively rebutted by distortions and devious propaganda. Old fashioned anti-Semitic Holocaust denial is in no way combated by propagating newly fashionable anti-Arab myths.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Eck: The shoebomber was "prepared to annihilate people en masse." Did he therefore play a "significant role" in the World Trade Center destruction?

Fried:
"A major portion of the population was devoted to al-Husseini's views"

How could you possibly know this, and what relevance does it have to their playing an actual significant role in the Holocaust ("role in" is not equal "devoted to supporting views of")?

Please stop the unfounded insults before the civility police bust you. I know as much about the salient historical facts of the Holocaust as you two. What I know or don't know about Palestinians is irrelevant to the question of what were or were not the significant causes of the Holocaust.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

You make a large number of mostly relevant assertions in your post, Mr. E. Do you have any citations to back them up? If they are compelling why did Dershowitz not bother to at least mention them?

I can see for myself on Wikipedia what a nasty character this Husayni or Husseini clearly has to have been, but a lot of the specific Holocaust-related charges against him seem to come from Nazis on trial at Nuremberg, etc. who were always following someone else's orders. I'd like to see a Holocaust historian's reasoned estimation of how many Jewish deaths under Nazi control are actually and objectively attributable to this one non-German anti-Semitic zealot. And anybody's argument about how such attribution in anyway justifies, 60 years later, robbing Palestinians of their land, blowing up whole families of them, and fighting tooth and nail so that small bands of fanatical Jews can avoid moving from the West Bank to within the internationally recognized borders of Israel.

Dershowitz, whose allegience to the truth is highly correlated with its effects on his own pocketbook, is basically blowing smoke here. Many Arabs are anti-Semitic and were pro-Nazi and still think it just fine and dandy that millions of Jewish civilians were murdered during the Second World War. It does not mean that they had beans to do with the actual killing of more than an minuscule fraction of those millions.
It does not mean that because Ahmadinejad is a dangerous anti-Semitic demagogue with Holocaust-supporting predecessors that therefore Palestinians today are genocidal latter-day Nazis. This sort of paranoid delusion has nothing to do with facts or history.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

I did my homework when I studied modern European history in college. You apparently did too, and I am not going to make adhominem assumptions to the contrary despite your quick resort to such. My point is simply that Husseini was not (nor was any other Arab leader) a (in your words) "huge figure" in the Holocaust, and that Dershowitz's claim that "the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust" is a hypocritical and despicable lie. You should ask your jerking-knee why it is so eager to help kick such ahistorical crap in our faces.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

An interesting list. I wonder if Herr Weiskopf might impart that portion of the wisdom in his head containing quotations and citations in these works supporting the claim under discussion in this thread:

"the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust."
[See paragraph 3 of the above article reproduced from that well-known fount of objectivity, frontpageMag.com]

How odd that such a historiographical breakthrough might be so buried.

Has the German government been paying hundreds of billions of Marks, Euros, or shekels in reparations to Israelis over many decades that really ought to have been paid by Arab governments?

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

"we were not discussing the causes of the Holocaust"

Maybe YOU weren't. I HAVE BEEN. And most normal readers of Dershowitz or of other writings from those who will ape his neo-con frontpage article, will also think that THAT is what the article is discussing.

"Palestinians played a significant role in Hitler's Holocaust"

=

"Palestinians played a significant role in CAUSING the DEATHS OF SIX MILLION JEWS."


Dershowitz is very blatantly here NOT neutrally discussing the Holocaust, or Holocaust denial, or the ramifications of A-jad at Columbia, or what AMERICA should do about this Iranian buffoon. Dershowitz is trying to smear Palestinians with having being significant perpetrators in the most notorious genocide of all time.

NO credible Holocaust historian that Eckstein can or cannot find supports such Likudnik crap.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Same old same old, from you Herr Doktor Cornerstone.

Truckloads of steaming irrelevancy will not prove that Arab Muftis played a "significant role" in the Holocaust. Period end of story.

In the rare event that anyone is listening (maybe the HNN civility police are), I think it is illuminating to step back for a moment and consider what this is REALLY about.

Since his improbable and regrettable rise to international prominence Ahmadinejad has been making an world-class fool of himself denying the Holocaust, among other stupidities. That portion of Dershowitz's opening sentence is the important kernel of truth upon which his propaganda sermon is based: "every reasonable person knows" that this denial is "a total lie."

Last week, Ahmadinejad went to speak at probably the most respected international educational institution he has ever entered in his life. In less polite and nuanced terms than could have been used, the president of that institution told him in front of the world what "everyone reasonable person knows" already, that A-jad has been acting like (possibly because he in some ways is) a bigoted idiot.

Like a well-practiced habitual liar caught out, A-jad quickly pulled a standard dodge: he retreated from his lie to a truth that sounds rather like, but is actually very different from, his original lie.

When we are talking, as we are here, about the president of one of the biggest and most oil-rich countries in the world, that is ruled by barbaric clerics and about to go nuclear, even small steps away from lies and towards truth do represent real progress.

The Holocaust DID happen. Those who deny it are either anti-Semitic bigots or ignorant fools or professional liars. It does not, of course, justify the injustices committed by Israelis against Palestinians. The Palestinian leaders can be faulted with many things -from condoning the terrorism of the Olympics to blowing up cafes, to never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity. But they are not responsible for the Holocaust. A fair point, despite Dershowitz's fantasizing and Herr Cornerstone's obfuscations, which of course also does not mean that Iran's theocratic tyrants should be allowed to lie and cheat their way into nukedom.

But Dershowitz has an agenda that is far different from facing down Iran's demagogue, promoting de-escalation in the Mideast, or resusitating the Israel-Palestinian peace process
killed by Arafat, Sharon, and the most incompetent American foreign policy team in a long time, if not ever, or advancing the interest of the people of the United States in national security or historical truth.

Having defended murder, Dershowitz now wants to be, or perhaps has already long been, a hired gun for the West Bank settler movement and/or its American lackeys and dupes. So, rather than celebrating the small victory of helping deflate one Holocaust myth, he cranks up his shark deception machine to help perpetuate another one. Instead of "the Holocaust didn't happen," we get: "The Palestinians are guilty of it too." Yes, those women and children blown up by Israeli missiles, the ones left to die in "searches for terrorists," Rachel Corrie bulldozed to death, somehow, we are supposed to now feel, they too were indirectly helping feed the crematoria at Auschwitz. The real crimes of Palestinians in 2002,2003, oe 2004 are not enough for those locked in a damn-the-rest-of-the-world struggle against them. The Ayrabs have to be also slandered with the genocide committed in Poland in 1942.

The one truly salient difference between Dershowitz and David Irving is that Irving is really lousy at using legalistic trickery.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Distinguished professor of modern German history Dershowitz, Grump E. Insoled Professor of Contemporary Etiquette Mutik, Visiting professor of Zionist Conspiracy Studies Baker, Public Relations Disaster professor Eckstein, and Chief Counsel Friedman:

You have all been sadly and badly fooled by Ahmadinejad’s granddad’s much older and much more powerful big brother AchDuLieberJihad, a mad German-Iranian evil scientist who has been secretly manipulating the cerebral cortexes of Holocaust scholars for years. He is 123 to the power central years old, a feat he attributes to smoking beer in a hashish pipe while facing due north by northwest 3.14 times a day. My British cousin Hart Des Knight has uncovered the shocking details. As he wrote in an e-mail just today:


Dear Pete,

As you have undoubtedly read in the latest issue of West Bank Witchhunters Quarterly, the so-called “Final Solution” of the Nazis is actually an elaborate myth concocted by anti-Austroites. The death camps were actually the First and Foremost solution of the ultimate Caliphiatofascist power central located deep beneath the Zugspitze. It turns out that Hitler was not really from Linz after all, but, as even the Merkel regime can no longer deny, grew up as the teetotaling son of a Bavarian Brewery magnate. There is much more than this, though, Pete. Last year, I unrolled a Persian carpet stored in the attic of our great-aunt Sophie in Lower Slobovia and found gobs of secret documents from the Elders of the Bier-Trinkers-Gesellshaft, a powerful group of fanatical Austriophobes with close ties to the Shah's chief Eunuch. These guys hated everything about Austria, especially its wines. In turns out they were the ones who put the anti-freeze in Austrian wine bottles. Remember that scandal?! I am trying to publish this amazing stuff on line but anti-Semaphorism has been rampant in cyber space lately and I have been stymied so far.

Of course it has been well known for years that the Nazis were primarily a captive front for these Bavarian Beer fiends. The beer hall Putz was just a distraction. And scholars long ago proved that Nazis really liked Jews, after all. Don’t forget: the swastika is actually nothing more than a re-arranged Star of David. It was the Beer fiends who masterminded the Holocaust, and have covered their tracks ever since using AchDuLieberJihad’s amazing remote-mind control inventions. It’s obvious when you think of it, actually. The amount of energy required to extract gold from teeth is more than the square-root of the Gestalt of the World Systems alchemy ratio. The SS could never have hoped to cremate six million. Here’s the shocker though: the Elders were using the corpses instead of barley in their breweries!

The Bavarian Beermasters were close allies of the Aushwitz prison guards. Every concentration camp guard got a ratio of two liters of beer a day. This is VERY important! The Bavarians were in close contact with the Persians and hatched a plot to flood the Grand Mosque in Tabriz with camel-loads of beer. As every historian knows, and even Edward Said admitted, Moslems who come in contact with fluid containing over 2% alcohol immediately morph in the heat-seeking Jihad missiles aimed at Jewish collective farms in Palestine. It bears consideration that Austrian-haters in the Bavarian brewery business were prepared to personally get smashing drunk any day of the week. That is no minor point. It is a centrally significant and significantly Gesalt-centered point, even more so today given that the group which most espoused the eliminationist rhetoric in the 1930's and 1940's is today the political parent of the DOMINANT party in the German Reichlichbesoffenbundestag.

The acclaimed historian Dershowitz has tons of knowledge and evidence but has been intimidated from voicing his unassailable opinions about beer. He wrote his article without even mentioning Franz Josef der Grosse Nichtstrausswalze is.

It all makes sense and historians are chomping at the bit to get into these unimpeachable sorceries. The German-Iranian connection had really nothing to do with Berlin to Baghdad to Beowulf express. It was all about protecting the German beer industry.


*****

STAY TUNED NOW, for the following Publique De Service announcement:


“The Likud Litmus-Test Rubber Truth Commission is hereby convened.

Calling witness Eckstein to the stand.

PR Disaster Professor Eckstein: are you now are have you ever been a drinker of beer, YES OR NO?!

Do you deny that it is easier to commit significant gestalt-o-genocide when plastered on beer than sober YES OR NO?!

Taking into account the new revelations of AchDuLieber’s attempt in early 1944 to perpetrate a mass murder of Jews using German beers at Iran’s Grand Poobah Mosque, do you think the camels were just grazing anywhere on the Persian plateau, or at a place the Bavarians chose knowing that this genocidal plan would have much support among the West Indonesian population? YES OR NO?

Do you deny that Germans like to drink their beer warm, which makes them significantly on a Gestalt basis more capable than Austrians are of loading people into railroad box cars, as the eminent study by Ick Bin Scheisskopf in Schaum und Traum (33) 4, 111-155 has inconvertibly proved ? YES OR NO?! Remember we have ways of making you talk, and no matter what you say, or how ignorant you remain of the significant role played by Bavarian brewers in the Holocaust, we will constantly remind you that Germans drink more beer than any other people, so don’t you DARE go to Wikipedia to try to prove otherwise!”

*****

Go to run and check the count of witches over at HNN (Happily Never Nonplussed),

Hart

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Scream all you want about this trivial historical footnote Husseini being a hard-core Nazi supporter. So were a small number of Jews. By the "logic" of swindler Dershowitz, whom you cannot bear to tolerate the slightest criticism of, the Jewish masses therefore "played a significant role" in the mass murder of Jews in the Holocaust. Dr. Art David Irving Eckstein, why the sick deluge of twisted deceit? Husseini, like the Jewish Nazis, was a bit player in the Holocaust. Why fib incessantly pretending otherwise?

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Right, Mutik. Dershie was just "doing his job," like those who send suicide bombers to blow up Jewish settlements on the occupied West Bank, or the ex-guards at Auschwitz. Let's let them garner millions in dirty money and pretend that they are great historians, shall we? Or are you some kind of "racist" who excuses murder by certain groups and not others?

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

"Dare we hope for a straight forward answer!?"

Of course not. Straightforward is anathema to addicted deniers and deceivers.

"Everybody" who knows that Holocaust denial is a lie also knows that Israel is a very different country with a very different history than China, Germany, Ireland and Norway. No self-respecting historian would try to lump their radically different histories into one category.

Jews lived in Palestine long before the Holocaust, and the world community and international law have long recognized the right of the Israeli state to exist, in whatever form its people choose, within the boundaries established in 1948.

The issue here, however, is the pitiful, self-aggrandizing, paranoid, and juvenile falsifying of European history in order to try to demonize Palestinians, as a way to rationalize the everlasting right of Israeli religious kooks to kill Arabs and steal their land and water outside of the internationally recognized borders of Israel.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Mr. Eckstein appears to be laboring under the eternal delusion that only he is capable of reading what Alan Dershowitz wrote in his frontpagemag article reproduced above, and that by use of misleading selective quotation, repeated ad nauseum, he can help cover up Dershowitz’s falsification of history.

The clear biographical evidence from the life and actions of Hajj Amin al-Husseini certainly suffice to demolish Ahmadinejad’s bogus claim that the Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust. But,

(a) NOT having “nothing to do with”

is NOT the same as

b) playing a “significant role” in.

And, despite Mr. Mr. E’s evident hope, the rest of us can read and are reading the later crude, false and demonizing falsehood of Dershowitz, which E keeps trying to pretend doesn’t exist: "The truth is that the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust."

I took a look at the Holocaust book of Daniel Goldhagen, which was a bestseller a few years ago. In six hundred pages, there is not a single mention of Husseini. So much for his “significant role” in the Holocaust and for Eckstein and Friedman’s rude and ill-informed adhominens about “doing homework.”

Ahmindejad is a demogogue and a liar.

Dershowitz is a demogogue, a liar, and and a greedy hypocrite.

I will leave it to any wayward reader trying to plow through their mounds of cattle manure dumped across this page to characterize those who spend their weekends here trying to act as Dershowitz’s tools.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

"Another outright lie is the idea that there are internationally recognized borders to Israel."

Who says this is a lie?
Who is calling Rand McNally, Hammond, and other Atlas-makers in America and around the world liars?

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

1. What is the difference between "essentially correct" and "correct"?

2. If Israel "does not have internationally recognized boundaries" and anyone saying it does is a "liar," why then does nearly every English language atlas I have ever seen (and I have looked at many over the decades) draw lines around an area marked as "Israel"?

3. In my 1992 Hammond Atlas these lines around Israel are exactly the same as the lines drawn around every other country in the Mideast. Hammond is a reputable and longstanding company. I don't know how it could be run by liars, or who can credibly claim that it is. If you are not supporting Susan's dubious assertion in this regard, what is your point?

4. I am not making any claims about the precise language of Resolution 242 and I am not saying that there has been a final set of agreements on a Palestinian state, and thus its boundaries, and I am certainly not saying anything as stupid as "private companies and individuals" determine international boundaries. I do think that Atlas-makers draw lines that are generally recognized by most buyers of those Atlases. In the case of Hammond and its competitors, that means most English-speakers in the world. I have never heard of any public complaints about these Mideast borders being made to Atlas publishers. Have you?

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Webster's: "order of magnitude = a range of magnitude extending from some value to ten times that value"

In other words, "an order of magnitude of, I believe, 10 times" is redundant.

Try using a dictionary.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

No, it's called exposing kindergarden hypocrites who ritually accuse others of their own worst faults.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

And here is a summary of what it does NOT say, and what no halfway credible real historian has ever maintained, despite the incessant and childish pretense to the contrary on this page:

"THE TRUTH IS THAT THE PALESTINIAN LEADERSHIP, SUPPORTED BY THE PALESTINIAN MASSES, PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN HITLER'S HOLOCAUST."

Dershowitz does not give a hoot about America's dependence on Mideast oil, its failed Mideast policies under the current administration, the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb, or the challenges of working out the Israeli-Palestinian peace which Brezinksi in his new book apparently thinks was a major failed opportunity under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. ALL the Harvard lawyer (pronounced liar) wants to do in his D+ history essay here is to badmouth the Palestinians by making up lies about their role in the Holocaust. All Mr. E wants to do is to pull one pitiful sleight of hand trick after another to avoid facing this reality.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Wrong, I read Goldhagen, for example. I disagreed with much of his book, but it was undeniably historically valid in focusing on Germans' and not Arabs' role in the Holocaust.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

"Palestinian Arabs...played a not insignificant role [in the Holocaust] That is a fact that is well established."

In which history book?

Actually, this is a lie often repeated in many shoddy guises on this page which does NOT mean it constitutes a fact.


No straw is too pitiful for you to grasp to avoid facing the reality that a prominent Jewish anti-Palestinian fearmongerer has commited flagrant hypocrisy, mouthing a Holocaust lie in an article denouncing Holocaust lies.

Your latest lame straw-grasping attempt, to claim that the Palestinians were "in a role akin to other allies of the Nazis, which they clearly were" is as full of holes as all its predecessors.

First of all, "akin to other allies of the Nazis" is NOT identical to "significant." There were Nazi sympathizers around the world in the 1940s. Not all of them were unloading box cars at Auschwitz day and night for months on end. Secondly, when it comes to the Holocaust, the significant allies of the Nazis were the "Quislings" and other collaborators in Nazi-occupied terrorities where large numbers of Jews were being rounded up for deportation and extermination. The Mideast ranks way below Poland (3 million), Ukraine (900,000) or Hungary (450,000) in this regard, according to
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/victimstoc.html

Indeed the whole Mideast is not even listed at ALL in their table, though I suppose it might arguably contend with Norway (900) or Luxembourg (1000).

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

At a minimum, 5 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust.

At a maximum, 5 thousand died mainly due to Husseini.

By what definition is 1/10 of one percent (e.g. 5,000,000 / 5,000) "significant"?

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

"What is claimed is that they played a not insignificant role."

Not quite. This IS what is claimed:

"...the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role..."

You are scrounging around with dozens of ways of pretending that Dershowitz didn't lie.

They don't and won't wash.

He is a hypocrite and a liar and the proof is in black and white in the aricle, no matter how many times you try to pretend he said something less outrageously stupid and wrong.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

I seem to recall our having a prior HNN discussion on the question of borders or no borders (for Israel) which ended inconclusively due to the sabotage of a insult-oriented third poster, but it remains unclear to why this is even an issue.

I would agree with you that theoretically maps might show clear lines for borders that are actually in an indefinite status, but until recently there was no discernable suggestion, in practice, that this might be the case for Israel. The consistent impression from BOTH the atlases and the mainstream press for a great many years has not been ambiguous: namely that the UN AND AMERICA BOTH recognized the 1848 line as the official boundary, and lands beyond that were considered as territories under occupation since the '67 war, pending a final settlement. A revisionist dissent to this clear and consistent depiction has been detectable in cybersphere since the neo-con surge post 9-11, but by no means can this possibly justify routinely branding the mainstream view as a "lie"!

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

5,000 / 5,000,000

not the inverse

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

On what basis then has every American presidential administration for the past 30-40 years declared Israeli settlements beyond the 1948 line to be illegal?

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

NF: You should get out of here and find an agent to book you as a comedian

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

How many European Jews would have reached Palestine and avoided the Holocaust had Arabs welcomed them?

Far fewer than 5-6 million, certainly.
And far fewer than might have reached America (in addition to the 150,000 or so who DID successfully escape to America) had America been more open to them.

Did America therefore "play a significant role in Hitler's Holocaust?"

Before addressing this challenging division problem, try to remember that you are actually an American (in theory at least) even if your real allegiance seems much more likely to have been given to the Republic of Comic Clowns.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

The case was closed 50 posts ago. Neither this source, nor any other credible one, claims that that Husseini, or any other Arab, or even very Arab who ever lived in toto, played a "significant role in the Holocaust."

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Based on consultation of irrefutable sources, I have come the conclusion that you are basically correct regarding the US position on settlements legality being inconsistent from one presidential administration to another. There is also a diversity of interpretations by specialists in international law on questions of boundaries and settlements. Meanwhile, the borders that are drawn in atlases as though they were international-recognized boundaries would be better termed internationally-recognized PROVISIONAL boundaries.

I stand, however, by my original position in this thread, that the prime beneficiaries of deliberately misleading articles designed to deliberately demonize Palestinians, are those strongly favoring the construction and expansion of Israeli settlements outside that "Green Line" boundaries, however one choose to interpret their legality.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Yes, Volume 2, page 706. You said that already.
And all the names on the prior 705 pages "played significant roles" too? Churchill, Chamberlain, FDR, all genocidal co-perpetrators?

Wiesenthal, Wiesel, Primo Levi, Anne Frank all "significant" contributors, along with illiterate Arabian nomads, to the rounding up, transport, concentration, and mass-killing of Jews in Poland, Ukraine, and Russia?

I think you'd better turn off your computer and look under your bed quickly before the significant Holocauster there comes after you with his deadly Swastika embossed Koran.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Your "view" is not relevant, NF. What is relevant is how many Jews were blocked from reaching Palestine by Arabs in the late 1930s and early 1940s. I went through the basics on this about 40 posts ago, so this is a recap:

1. Arabs had many motives for not wanting large numbers of 1930s Jewish refugees on their doorstep. Genocidal intent was not the leading motive.

2. The Brits controlled Palestine in the 1930s and '40s and they had many motives for their actions, beyond catering to the most anti-Semitic of the Arabs.

3. Palestine had less than half a million Jews in the mid 1930s (Marrus, "The Unwanted", page 184). Many times that number of Jews lived then in America. In the words of the title of the famous book by Mary Antin, America, not Palestine, was the "Promised Land" for most East European Jews desirous of emigrating.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Case closed: You have proved nothing in your many Lukidnik-servile posts here.

As I said already and quite recently above, OBVIOUSLY, a mere entry of an individual the Holocaust Encyclopedia is no proof whatever that individual or his ethnic group "played a major role in Hitler's Holocaust." Dershowitz's sloppy and bigoted smear against the Palestinians is not repeated in any credible history text on modern Europe that I have ever seen or that you will ever find. The only non-negligible role of the Arabs in the mass-slaughter of the Holocaust was the very indirect one of helping encourage Britain to block the minority of Europe's Jews who might have otherwise reached Palestine in the late '30s thus avoiding death or deprivation in the Nazi camps. That is the same role, as I have said many times here -without effect on resident thick skulls- as that played by the rest of the world at that time which basically closed its doors to refugees generally, and to Eastern Europeans, Jews in particular.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

You have packed a record number of ad-hominem lies into one post.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Find Husseini in Hilberg or any other general history of the Holocaust, and ALSO find where such an authorative history rates him OR ANY ARAB as playing "A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN HITLER'S HOLOCAUST", not a significant role as a Palestinian leader or a brutal murderer, or skilled camel herder, or devoted family man or whatever other deceitful garbage might pour out with the unending subterfuges you dredge up from Kindergarden mentalities, but "A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN HITLER'S HOLOCAUST," and you might have a (very slender) leg to stand on.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Obviously you are dead wrong as usual, Mr. F. 1930s Arabs did not want Jews coming in to an area where they had dominant group in for many centuries. They did so out of their own perceived self-interest, selfish and bigoted or otherwise. They did not do so out of some great premeditated sacrificial desire to help the Nazis rid Poland of its Jews.

Native Americans violently resisted the takeover of their lands by English colonists. This does not mean that they played a significant role in helping the French King in his simultaneous wars against Britain.

So-called insurgent groups in Iraq blow up Cheney-Bush's sitting duck American troops with booby trap bombs on an almost daily basis. This does not mean that they are playing a significant role in the recent resurgence of the Taliban against American forces in Afghanistan.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

More recycled irrelevance of the very predictable and juvenile sort.

Whether Husseini was an important figure in Jerusalem does not depend on whether I have read about him on Wikipedia or some other source.

Whether Huesseini was an important figure in Jerusalem or is still today a key role model for Palestinians has no bearing on how much influence he had on the policies and practices of Nazi Germany to exterminate Eastern European Jewry in the 1930s and '40s.

Clearly there is no end here to the slavish devotion to any statement, no matter how hypocritical or false, that demonizes Palestinians, Arabs, or Moslems. What does such fanatical Likudnik-like thinking have to do with the challenges AMERICA faces with Ahmadeinjad? None. We have here another classic case of unAmerican paranoia running rampant.

No matter what the herd here rants about, no matter what day jobs they are forsaking thereby, this statement of Dershowitz remains a deceitful and hypocritical falsehood:


"The truth is that the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust."

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

You lie, by the way, in saying that I called a Jewish lawyer a murderer. Welcome to the liars club of Amadinejad, Dershowitz, Eckstein and Friedman. It is a damn good thing that America still has freedom of speech and religion. It is a great protection against pathological bogus-religious-based lying.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

"You do not like Israelis settling on land you would grant to Palestinian Arab rule...From that conclusion, you conclude that Palestinian Arabs played no significant role in what occurred during WWII."

For the sake of your health, NF, please discontinue the use of powerful hallucinogenic drugs. For a moment there we had an intelligent discussion going, but then Eckstein came back from day job to dump his latest sludge pot of lies about me into the thread and this has discumbobulated your brain. Powerful main altering drugs are not a wise antidote, however.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Yes, I heard of Herr Wiesenthal, Herr Unwürdigedoktor Grab-und-Eckstein, and mentioned him here (#114003) already. He was brilliant at tracking down Nazis, mighty and petty. Where did he say "that the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust"?

Oh, nowhere? Quelle Surprise.

Don't you think that Wallerstein, not Weisenthal, requires your attention now after devoting 20+ posts to a juvenile defense of Dershowitz's historical mythmaking and hypocrisy?

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

The "real focus" of this discussion is Dershowitz's hypocrisy and the herd's fanatical devotion to such hypocrisy.

As the president of Columbia noted, the Holocaust is one of the best documented events in history. When people (Ahmadinejad and Dershowitz) tell stupid lies about it, it makes them (and their paranoid supporters) look ridiculous.

Of course, the Grand Mufti was a Big Cheese in the sands of Araby. And a diehard Nazi collaborator. Millions of petty criminals, hucksters, mental lightweights, and neighborhood bullies around the world also jumped on the Nazi bandwagon with him, and were big shots in their respective little ponds. They did not all play a "significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust." A few did. Most played a small role or no role. Believe it or not, all history is not the history of the Holocaust.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

You are either very stubborn or suffering some serious mental problem, Mr. F.

You have been trying to support, over and over here, using many different euphemisms, the outrageously bigoted statement of Dershowitz that "the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust." This is an absurd claim and it is your unshakeable support for that absurdity that is historically incorrect.

The Palestinians helped block an escape route for Jewish refugees. They did not play a significant role in the rounding up and killing of Jews. Most countries of the world had very strict policies against refugees in the 1920s, '30s. '40s. Most countries in the world did not "play a significant role" in the Holocaust. That is why most countries in the world do not pay reparations to Holocaust survivors.

You really ought to ask yourself why are so unwilling to admit that Dershowitz committed an outrageous hypocrisy in this article, decrying Holocaust myths while at the same time fomenting one.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

1. "Palestinian Arabs consciously followed as their leader a man who clearly did have genocidal intent and acted on that intent. And, he was part of a movement which clearly had that intent and was and remains proud of it."

None of your or Eckstein's many posts here provide any credible evidence for this new claim. I do not expect you will find much. The Holocaust became widely known in its full gory details only after the war. Most of the Germans who later claimed "not to know" what was going on were engaging in selective memory failure, but I doubt many Arabs in the Mideast were telepathically reading the minds of Hitler, Eichmann, Himmler, etc, in 1939. The word genocide was only coined after the fact. At the time, most people, including most Jews expected something like a bad version of the Russian pogroms. Nasty and murderous and wholly without justification, but nothing like what happened in the death camps of 1940-44.

2. You are now trying to defend Dershowitz's character. A very tough road to hoe. Why not defend Ahmadinejad too? I will not assume racism, ala Mutik, but this seems inconsistent at the least. In any case the character of a writer is really only relevant to the extent it colors his writing (if even then). In this case there is a clear correlation between the unscrupulous greed of defending a very wealthy murderer and the reckless hypocrisy of telling a lie about a subject in an article decrying lies about that subject. I very much doubt that this correlation is coincidental. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that lawyers are REQUIRED to defend those criminals who are most well-endowed with funds and most desperate to use those funds to conjure up any conceivable form of trickery so as to mask otherwise blatantly obvious guilt. The lawyers have no obligation to do that. They have a right to do it, and the rest of us have the right to free speech in making comments about such despicable behavior.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

But your analogy doesn't work because the two "robbers" were thousands of miles apart. Husseini was in Germany with the Nazis part of the time, and he is surely complicit in the Holocaust, but as a very minor player. The main contingent of the "second robber," though, the Palestinian masses, were incapable of getting anyway remotely close to the scene of the crime. Jews were not being rounded up and put into railcars in Jerusalem.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Eckstein, What source tells you the Nazis had any serious plans for occupying Palestine?

Has it ever occurred to you, in your extensive studies of 20th century European history, and very polite assumptions about other people's studies of 20th century European history,

(a)that the Nazis might have have a few other things on their minds besides trying to reincarnate themselves so they could hide under your bed 65 years later and jump out at you, and kill you and every other Jew they could, or

(b) that there were 20 times many Jews coming under their control anyway by 1941, as a byproduct of Barbarossa, as lived in all of Palestine?

I won't argue about who is the bigger liar, A-jad or Dershie. It is difficult for mere mortals to judge such astronomical heights. It is clear who is the bigger hypocrite with regard to the Holocaust and the Columbia appearance.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Where did I ever, on this page, or any HNN page EVER say anything remotely akin to "Palestinian Arabs were always innocent"? Many of them have been guilty of many crimes and I have said so here many times. Playing a significant role in putting 5 million or more East European Jews to death in Poland, East Germany and Austria in the Holocaust is not one of those crimes they are guilty of. That is what I have said consistently here while you and Eckstein do your Kindergarden dances of tricks and evasions. Sorry boys, you won't get the lollipop that says Palestinians are as bad as Nazis. That is just a painting on a poster, not a real piece of candy.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

It was your lame analogy. How could I lie about it? I never denied that Husseini was guilty as hell, even if some details are questionable. But he is not the Palestinian masses, and his guilt says nothing about his significance to what happened in Auschwitz.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

It is not that bad, Mr. B. The small fry here are not milking or blackmailing anybody in their little Kindergarden sandbox. What seems to be happening is that they are existentially frightened. They really believe deep inside that if they ever admit that there might be a moral failing or flaw in someone who is claiming to defend Jews, even if he actually isn't or is doing so only with deceit and demagogery, or is acting only in the interests of the most fanatical and extreme fringe of the Israeli-Jewish spectrum, that then the Gestapo will be through the door and haul them off. If they let someone else here on a comment board, of a dissenting view, have the final word on such a subject, then their defenses will fail, the Nazis will storm the last redoubt of their self-conceived Warsaw Ghetto and they will be doomed.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Yes Friedman, a different significant role. Namely, an INsignificant role. The Brits were not going to open up the borders of their Palestine mandate and let London go up in flames in order to instead drop everything and convoy millions of Jews out of Poland and the old Russian Pale through the Carpathian mountains and the Balkans and across the Mediterranean even if the Grand Mufti of Schmufti had begged them to do so. Only a wide-ranging international policy of asylum for refugees (actually established after WW II) might have made a difference (once Hitler was allowed to arm, take Austria, and Czechoslovakia etc) to that fate of the Holocaust victims. Even such a radical shift towards accommodating refugees e.g. in the late 1930s, might not have made a tremendous difference to what happened in the Holocaust Those new post 1945 pro-refugee laws and policies did not prevent genocide in Cambodia, Rwanda, or Dafur.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Not so easy, NF. The lads who hold up signs saying Death to America in Tehran and then befriend American reporters are "advocating" mass murder, but aren't really. You can't get inside Husseini's mind of 70 years ago. You can only judge his apparent actions, which are condemnable to be sure: hobnobbing with the Nazis, spreading anti-Semitism, helping the 5000 children not be saved, etc. But they do not amount to genocide or a significant role therein. I am not citing new facts because new facts are not germane here. What is germane is the definition of Holocaust and genocide. The Arabs are not guilty of it, even if some of them might have wished for it.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

The Brits were on the side of the good guys. But some times good guys blunder. And sometimes bad guys can be bad and yet of negligible relevance.

I think if you study it closely (might mean less Bat Y'eor and more Hilberg or Marrus), and stay off the hallucigens, you will find that once the Brits and French let Hitler re-arm and expand in violation of his treaty obligations, there was little they could do to save LARGE numbers of people under Nazi control, and once Hitler went after Russia in '41 the regions under such control quickly included the location of most of Europe's Jews which as we know were not the Nazis favorite people. But the once the Holocaust really got started, in 1941-42, it was still the Brits much much more than the Arabs, the Laplanders, the Basques or any other group on the fringes of the war, who might have done something to reduce it a bit. Again, though, nobody, except a real honest to goodness West-Banker like Mutik here, accuses the Brits of significant complicity in the Holocaust. Neglect yes. Negligence and immoral indifference yes. But not co-perpetration. Trying to make out that the Palestinians played a significant role in the Holocaust is a bit like convicting Jimmy Carter of committing adultery in his heart. Murderous threats are bad but not the same as murderous intentions and certainly not the same as murder itself.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

You have resorted to your old lingo which conflates religion, religious affliation and race, Mr. B. Not a helpful move in a discussion that revolves around precisely calculated and artfully worded deceptions.

Some people are more fearful and more prone to lie in response to such fearfulness than others. I think that is what is going on this board.

The Holocaust Industry, Zionism, and Israel is a topic for another day. The herd here are not ringleaders in that area. Their penchant is for no-holds barred motormouth defending of Likudnik- politically-correct speech, not settler expansionism per se.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

It is not very germane to the topic of the page, but if you have professional pride in being, or having been, a lawyer, you ought to be particularly outraged at the despicable behavior of Dershowitz in the OJ case. He was NOT helping some poor indigent person defend himself. He was not helping a wrongly accused person clear his name. He was not helping give someone in a unclear case the benefit of the doubt. He was not doing any of the normal and honorable things which lawyers can do and do. Instead, he was choosing to take time off from his other duties in order to very quickly pocket an obscene amount of money (more than a honest lawyer like you, perhaps, might earn in many years of hard work) in return for helping an obvious murderer cheat and lie his way out of justice.
It was clever lawyering, and shrewd business-dealing, but this is about the last person that any decent upstanding U.S. citizen needs to tolerate trashing and lying about history, and trying to warp American foreign policy. He is not a good historian. He is a clever liar.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

I am not "changing the subject" just because you didn't understand me.
The question is the role of Palestinians in the genocide of Jews in World War II.
Their only role of ANY significance was opposition to the possibility of Jews moving to Palestine to escape the Nazis. The British-French appeasement bears DIRECTLY on this, at least according to my interpretation, because MOST Jews in East Europe had low chances of survival once Hitler was fully appeased, in full command of re-armed Germany that had absorbed Czechoslovakia and Austria and was poised for its main mission, attacking Russia for Lebensraum, and as it turned out, killing most of the Jews who were in its path. Their was no greatly significant Arab role in the Holocaust possible after about 1940 because most East European Jews by then had no hope of getting anywhere near Palestine. So even if the Palestinian's main motive was genocide (which it was not) and even if they had been able to operate on it by being in charge of Palestine instead of the British (which they were not) there was not a significant number of Jews left to block the escape routes.
It might have been tens of thousands, maybe, but this still amounts to less than one percent of Holocaust victims.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Apparently Mr. E., you lack -among other things- a fundamental understanding of the difference between history and counterfactual history.

HAD the Nazis taken over Palestine it is certainly likely -at least based on the in this case probably reliable information from Dershowitz above- that a mini-Holocaust of sorts would have occurred there and that Husseini and other Palestinians WOULD HAVE played a significant role in that massacring and/or ethnic cleansing.

You seem to think that this possible alternate history of a significant Arab role in a hypothetical Mideastern genocide somehow proves actual significant Arab causation of the actual European genocide during the Second World War.

God help the young minds who find themselves exposed to and twisted by your confusion in the classroom.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

You are right, Eckstein, I did not read your long earlier post purporting to summarize findings from this book.

I did not read it then (though I have skimmed it now) because, like most of the rest of your outpourings on this page, it amounts to a smokescreen.

Dershowitz did not say: HAD the course of the war developed differently, the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, WOULD HAVE played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust that WOULD HAVE EXTENDED TO THE MIDEAST.

He said: "The Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust."

What a pity for the students barraged with such endless deceit and trickery.

Your Bin Laden claim is the gazillionth example of such. Nowhere I have said that Husseini was or might have been "a nice guy after all."

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Eckstein, your endless lies are becoming tiresome. (Yet again. Yet another page for Iwo Jima dad to not be proud of).

The issue is NOT "Palestinian complicity with the Nazis" or any one of your umpteen other tricks that might work on Friedman but not on me.

The issue is the following deliberate and flamingly hypocritical myth of Dershowitz (and your paranoid BS shoveling on behalf of covering it up):

"The truth is that the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust."

WHERE ECKSTEIN, WHERE? is there a credible historian of the Holocaust ready to endorse THIS STATEMENT, not some trick replacement of yours, but THIS STATEMENT?

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Okay Friedman. You have either a reading problem or a deficiency of morals or both. I am actually surprised that you would stoop or slip so low. It is one thing to fight, fight dirty, and fight like a mad dog, in support of anyone no matter how unsavory who is on your side against a group you perceive as your undying enemy. It is quite another thing to defend someone who besmirches your profession out of a complete lack of scruples. I suppose I probably would want the best available defense if I were to kill my wife, but that is not the issue. There is nothing more to say.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Artie, if you had been paying attention in class instead of ranting away, you would have noticed that I already answered your question many posts ago. Yes, of course, the evidence available on Wikipedia suffices to disprove A-jad's “The Palestinian people didn’t commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II.”

However: neither the evidence nor any of your dodges prove Dershowitz's smear:

"The truth is that the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust."

Write that sentence down now in your notebook, Artie, and read it for once. Then write 20 times on the blackboard: "This statement is a myth."

Why should I have ever had heard of this Palestinian bogeymen hiding under your bed before now, and why should I care about him? He is not mentioned in Goldhagen, or Marrus's "Unwanted", and gets by all indications scarcely a brief mention in any authoritative Holocaust history. One or two paragraphs in a one thousand page encylcopedia hardly suffices to prove a "significant role."

And, no, I don't now for sure how much West Bank settlers or their supporters contribute to frontpagemag, but it is hardly a slander to assume that Dershie is not writing for them for free.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Eckie, Stop being rude. I have answered your Nazi drill sargent style questions already. Yes, A-jad is a mythmaking liar.

So is Dershie. And you are a tool of the latter. He is in for the bucks. What are you in it for?

I don't know anything about chemical warfare in Tel Aviv in 1944. (I will perhaps read about it one day in the American Historical Review which is not run by Likudnik liars.) Israeli history is not my main avocation. I do know something about European history and the Holocaust and that it did not take place in Palestine.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

You should be ashamed of yourself pretending not to know about one of the most famous criminal trials of all time.

I do see via Wikipedia that OJ hired a whole bunch of greedy unscrupulous sharks, not just Dershie. The key difference though is that these other murder-defenders apparently have not had the gall to ALSO work as hired guns for Likundik-fanatics and lie about history in order to try to pervert American foreign policy. They just took their dirty money quietly.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

You pathological lying accelerates, Eckstein. I did not deny "the Tel Aviv attack of 1944" happened. Amongst your 40 or 50 deception-based prior posts, I missed your apparent citations regarding it, and thus I said I had not heard of it before.

In the question of (1) Palestinian significance to the Holocaust, the most important area of relevant knowledge is the Holocaust, not the Palestinians. Knowledge of the Palestinians would be foremost in importance if the question were (2) the significance of the Holocaust to the history of Palestine.

The latest set of Dershowitz-Myth apologia here revolve around trying pretend (1) is really (2).

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

I haven't read every one of your posts here Mr E because NONE of the 40+ on this page have been relevant to my original point, that Dershowitz's article is a disgraceful hypocrisy, because he decries Holocaust myths while advancing this one:

"The truth is that the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust."

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

In your #114146 above, you have finally managed to do what Eckstein has danced his ass off avoiding, namely to address the preposterous (to anyone who has studied the Holocaust in some detail, as I have) conceit that the Palestinians played a "major role in it." I am pressed for time and cannot go into detail, but have given many reasons in the many other posts on this page why no genuine Holocaust scholar (which Dershowitz by no stretch of the imagination is) has ever tried to make this kind of extreme claim.

A generally accepted rule of thumb, however, might be to call "significant" anything that explains 10% or more of a numerical question. And genocide is above all a question of numbers. 20 or 30 dead can be mass murder, but genocide means killing or going along ways towards killing an entire people, e.g. millions of them. Accepting 5 Million Jews killed in the Holocaust as a indisputable minimum (we are ignoring here as a tacit and justifiable simplication, the millions of non-Jews also murdered), significant factors and perpetrators would be those that were responsible or mostly responsible for half a million deaths or more. This is the sort of grim calculus used by Holocaust scholars. The 5,000 Jewish children or the maybe as many 50,000 maximum refugees blocked from Palestine by the Brits (not Arabs) are nowhere near the 500,000 threshold of significance. You can quibble about the exact estimate of course, nobody has precise figures, but now that you know what an order of magnitude means, you should be able to appreciate that the maximum possible responsibility of Palestinians is an order of magnitude too low. 55,000 is barely a tenth of 500,000. If, for instance, you prefer the more generally accepted figure of 6 million Jews killed, then the Palestinian role fades from great insignificance to slightly greater insignificance.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Susan: Only once in a blue moon does a member of the dominant gender enter these food fights. Welcome.

You may have noticed that we are light years away from a classroom here. I would certainly recommend Wikipedia and the like only with great caution in a class.

Such web resources are fast. It might have taken me half an hour to plow through books to find a table of Holocaust dead by country, for example. I happen to recall from prior reading of history books thouugh that those numbers are only round estimates to begin with and that 3 million for Poland, for example, which Wikipedia (or actually the Jewish Holocaust site) gives cannot be far off from the historical consensus. So I used the web.

N. Friedman - 10/5/2007

Peter,

So your answer to my request is?

N. Friedman - 10/4/2007

Peter,

Prove your assertion with sources that refute those of Professor Eckstein.

From what I can see, all you are doing is taking the view that you do not like Israelis settling on land you would grant to Palestinian Arab rule, but which, thus far, would not satisfy Palestinian Arabs even if Israel ceded the land. From that conclusion, you conclude that Palestinian Arabs played no significant role in what occurred during WWII.

To me, that is not historical. It is ideology in search of a happy ending. But, unfortunately, there is no happy ending here.

The reality is that the party that rules the Palestinian Arabs, Hamas, has no plan ever to resolve the dispute and would sabotage any plan. Such is a matter of ideology that derives, in no small part, from the ideas which have had sway in the Palestinian Arab community. In particular, the ideas of al-Husseini are particularly important. They influenced Hamas and, I might add, they substantially influenced Arafat, who viewed al-Husseini as a hero, not to mention blood relative.

Now, you think it a fiction that Palestinian Arabs were substantially influenced by Nazi ideology. That, however, is not true. It is not true for reasons that include the role of al-Husseini but also vis a vis the role of Germany in the general region, for example, during WWII, as described by Bernard Lewis.

As he explained, with reference more to Iran that applies generally to the manner of political rule in pretty much the entire region:

The second phase, the crucial one, is Vichy, when the French government surrendered in Syria and in Lebanon, a crucial Arab country, and half of the Middle East came under German control. They were able to extend from there into Iraq, which is where the Ba'ath Party's foundations were laid. The Ba'ath Party has no roots in the Arab or Islamic past. It is the Nazi party.

Later, when the Germans left and the Russians came, it wasn't too difficult to switch from the Nazi model to the Soviet model. It only needed minor retouching.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/4/2007

The Palestinians were allies of the Nazis.

1. Their pressure kept thousands of Jews from escaping from Europe so that these people--including thousands of children--ended up dead.
2. THE Palestinian leader in this period, the spiritual, religious and political leader of the Palestinian people (as even Edward Said acknowledges), was Amin al-Husseini. Husseini was a minion of SS Reichsfuhrer Himmler, worked in close contact with him for three years, organized three SS Divisions of Muslims for him, and broadcast genocidal messages against the Jews daily from Germany into Palestine. Husseini is one of only two non-Germans indicted as a war criminal at the Nuremburg Holocaust trials. The Palestinian populartion still adores him.
3. The SS Einsatzgruppe Egypt, the regiment of SS murderers who rode with Rommel, had made practical arrangements, through Husseini, to employ the Palestinians in a Holocaust in Palestine should Rommel break through. The Palestinians population was ready to do it.
4. Husseini organized the parachuting of sabateurs into Palestine in spring 1944 armed with German chemicals to poison the water-system of Tel Aviv and kill tens of thousands of Jews. The sabateurs were part of the Palestinian national movement. As it happened, the British caught them, but that doesn't change the basic situation.
5. The Palestinians, allies of the Nazis, were a significant factor in the overall Holocaust gestalt. Not central but significant. These are the facts. This isn't demonization, these are facts.

The only demonization going on here is Clarke's obsessive demonization of Dershowitz. Clarke made wild charges against Dershowitz when the fact was that Clarke had never even *heard* of Amin al-Husseini before this conversation and had to look him up on...Wikipedia. Clarke publicly doubted that the Nazis intended to invade Palestine or had plans to annihilate the Jews there with Palestinian help--until this was shown to him. He denied the Husseini poison plot of 1944--saying he'd wait until there was a reference to it in the American Historical Review (i.e., by non-Jews). He knows nothing of this period--and, of course, he has also admitted that he doesn't bother to read the information we provide him. Nevertheless, he has opinions.

Clarke also has made wild and totally unsupported charges of financial corruption against Dershowitz (in the pay of the Settlers in writing the piece we are discussing), and even against myself (I'm supposed to be in the pay of AIPAC). That is his answer to information that makes him uncomfortable.

The question of why Clarke concentrates so obsessively on Dershowitz (whom he depicts as a greedy Jewish lawyer) and not on the foul creature Ahmedinejad who is simply an outright liar when he proclaims the Palestinians innocent in the Holocaust: well, as one blogger here indicated (and it was not me or Friedman), this is really a matter for a psychologist.

N. Friedman - 10/4/2007

Peter,

A number of points. The US has not consistently taken the position that settlements are illegal.

The anti-settlement position is premised on the view that the Geneva Convention of 1949 prohibits an occupying power from flooding an occupied territory with its own citizens. Such was, in fact, the position of the Carter Administration.

By contrast, President Reagan's administration had a different position. His administration specifically stated that the settlements are legal but that further settlements should be deferred for practical reasons. So far as I know, that was the position of the US government under President Clinton and the current President Bush.

The argument in favor of legality is premised on this argument, as explained by Eugene Rostow, who was among the actual authors of UN 242.

The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to "close settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory. It was provided that local conditions might require Great Britain to "postpone" or "withhold" Jewish settlement in what is now Jordan. This was done in 1992. But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, "the Palestine article," which provides that "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments...."

N. Friedman - 10/4/2007

Peter,

With due respect, the mainstream view is that Israel does not have a recognized boundary. The legal framework that exists is the framework created by UN 242, which is pretty explicit about the need for the parties to come to terms on secure and recognized boundaries.

N. Friedman - 10/3/2007

Peter,

The point here is that, as a matter of International Law, Israel's only recognized boundaries are with Egypt and with Jordan. By the way, the recognized boundary with Jordan runs along the river, not the Armistice Line.

The 1948 boundary is an Armistice Line. It is not a recognized boundary.

I am not saying that map-makers are wrong to view an Armistice Line as if it were a boundary. I am just saying that it is not a recognized boundary, no matter what an Atlas shows.

My suggestion is that you confuse the concept of a boundary, which is what the Atlas shows, with a "recognized" boundary, which is a legal concept.

N. Friedman - 10/3/2007

Peter,

Since when do private companies and individuals determine what are a country's internationally recognized boundaries.

The fact is that Israel's boundaries, other than with Egypt, are not set. And, by the parties to whom it matters the most, they remain in dispute.

I might add that, in fact, Israel does not have, in the legal sense, internationally recognized boundaries. A read through UN documents, beginning with UN 242, confirms that such is the case.

So, Susan Cohen is essentially correct. And, if you think that Atlas makers determine what is recognized, you are mistaken. The one thing that might be said is that there is a push by some powers - mostly European nations - to declare the Armistice Line a recognized boundary. But, that is prospective, not currently the boundary, and if the boundary is not recognized by those actually involved, it is a meaningless thing. And, thus far, it is meaningless.

N. Friedman - 10/3/2007

See Re: Speaking of "total lie" by Howard Lewis Binstock (October 3, 2007 at 5:28 AM).

Howard Lewis Binstock - 10/3/2007

It occurs to me, gentlemen, that Mr. Clarke has a considerable amount of antipathy toward Mr. Dershowitz and, quite frankly, it wouldn't matter what the topic was, Mr. Clarke would find some way to challenge the authenticity of Mr. Dershowitz's writing on every and all conceivable levels.
As a behavioral scientist let me assure you and reassure you, one and all, that the less said to Mr. Clarke vis-a-vis this article and/or any thing pertaining to Mr. Dershowitz the more there will be a semblance of reasonable and academic accord. In fact, I assumed in joining this site that it tended more toward academic discourse and very little regarding personal attacks.

art eckstein - 10/3/2007

The Palestinians were allies of the Nazis.
They formed part of the Gestalt of 1936-1945, in which the Jews were threatened with annihilation. (Those who know Middle Eastern history will know why I have chosen the date 1936.)
The Palestinians did everything they could to help the Nazis, and they wanted to do a lot more.
Their political pressure blocked the escape of large numbers of Jews from the claws of the Nazis in Europe. This is very important.
Amin Husseini their political and spiritual leader, who enjoyed enormous mass support (as even Edward Said acknowledges), advocated and participated in the genocide in Europe, broadcast daily advocacy of genocide to the Palestinians, helped organize three SS Divisions of Muslims at the behist of Himmler, SS Divisions that committed many atrocities in Europe, and Husseini was indicted as a major war criminal at Nuremburg.
Meanwhile, the Palestinians were in contact with SS Einsatzgruppe Egypt, especially through Husseini, and if the Afrika Korps had gotten to Palestine all preparations were made (in good part through Husseini) for the Palestinians to engage in mass murder of Jews alongside the Nazis in SS Einsatzgruppe Egypt.
In 1944 Husseini organized, with Palestinian support, a plot to kill tens of thousands of Jews in Tel Aviv, which was aborted only by British action.
Amin al-Husseini, the political and spiritual leader of the Palestinians, who enjoyed enormous popular suport (AND STILL DOES), was one of only two non-Germans indicted for war crimes at Nuremberg.

In short, the Palestinians played a significant role in the Holocaust and were part of the Gestalt. (Significant does not mean "central", since the Holocaust was obviously organized by the Germans-- a confusion in the mind of Clarke which N.F. has pointed out--but they played a significant role in what was going on.) So Dershowitz is far more right than wrong, whereas Ahmedinejad, who asserts Palestinian innocence and uninvolvement, is an outright liar.
(Yet Clarke reserves his fire, his hatred, his wild accusations, for Dershowitz.)

The historical significance of all this, the historical significance of all our conversation here, has been laid out by Mr. Friedman:

"It bears consideration that Israel's enemies among Palestinian Arabs were prepared to annihilate Jews en masse. That is no minor point. It is a significant point, even more so today given that the group which most espoused the eliminationist rhetoric in the 1930's and 1940's is the political parent of the DOMINANT party among TODAY'S Palestinian Arab political parties."

Meanwhile, Clarke has strong opinions but no knowledge and no evidence. He began his wild accusations against Dershowitz without even knowing who Amin al-Husseini WAS!! He had to find out who Husseini was from WIKIPEDIA when the name was instantly brought up by those who actually know something about this period of history.

N. Friedman - 10/2/2007

Peter,

The word "cause" is one of those odd things. There are Aristotle's four causes, where the word is used in a very broad sense - actually four different ways. No doubt one of Aristotle's four causes includes your sense of the word. That, however, is not what either Art or I had in mind.

I would not use the word "cause" to describe anything Art or I asserted about the role of Palestinian Arabs in the Holocaust, even if we might, in some instances, have chosen our words poorly. Palestinian Arabs caused enough trouble and certainly wanted to cause Jews to be wiped from the world, but the Holocaust was planned - a type of cause, by Aristotle's approach - and directed - also captured by Aristotle's four causes - and provided the basic material - another of Aristotle's four causes - witht the aim for the killing - another of Aristotle's four causes - set by the Nazis.

Palestinian Arabs shared the short hand aim - as in annihilating Jews - but it was not their plan, not their direction, not their administration, etc., etc.. That required imagination which they sorely lacked. They were merely foot soldiers in the project, so to speak, as allies of the Nazis and for their own purposes.

Neither Art nor I placed Palestinian Arabs in a causal role for the Holocaust. We said they played a significant role, which is a different thing. The Palestinian Arabs are responsible for the deaths they caused, not for the Holocaust. They, however, played a significant role in the Holocaust but, by no stretch of the imagination, caused it.

My view remains that you do not really understand the meaning of the word "significant," confusing it with the word "central" or "primary." All that is claimed is that the role of Palestinian Arabs in the Holocaust is significant.

One can play a significant role in something without causing it. By way of simple example, I played a significant role in my client winning a recently decided 15 million dollar law suit. However, by no stretch of the imagination did I cause the client to win. My client won because (i.e. the cause) my client did nothing wrong and because the other party could not, for that reason, prove its case. My significant role was to show that the expert witness's testimony did not prove what he claimed was so - which was, in fact, the case.

For what it is worth, the Holocaust is something primarily out of European history, not Middle Eastern history. All that is claimed is that Palestinian Arabs played a significant role in the project to destroy European Jewry. But, the project was clearly a Nazi project.

N. Friedman - 10/2/2007

Peter,

You throw at me that the distinction between "role in" and "supporting views." Then, however, you throw in a gem, which makes a complete mockery of what you alleged about my argument. You wrote: "What I know or don't know about Palestinians is irrelevant to the question of what were or were not the significant causes of the Holocaust." But, of course, we were not discussing the causes of the Holocaust. So, what you wrote is aside from the point and not something anyone on this page had asserted, so far as I know.


For the record, the fact that Palestinian Arabs were supportive - as in, very, very supportive - of al-Husseini's views is admissible evidence for purposes of showing that Palestinian Arabs played a significant role in the Holocaust. In the law, "admissible evidence" is evidence that makes a proposition to be more probable or less probable. In this case, such evidence makes the proposition that Palestinians played a significant role in the Holocaust more probable.

And again: "significant" does not mean central. So, the assertion is not that Palestinian Arabs played a central role in the Holocaust. The assertion is that they played a significant role in the Holocaust.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word "significant" means:

1 : having meaning; especially : SUGGESTIVE
2 a : having or likely to have influence or effect : IMPORTANT ; also : of a noticeably or measurably large amount b : probably caused by something other than mere chance

I cannot imagine how a person could deny that Palestinians, who sided with the Nazis, made a hero of al-Husseini (which, by the way, is well-documented), worked hard to deny Jewish refuge (also well documented), etc., etc., did not play a significant role in what happened in the Holocaust.

I think, frankly, that you have confused the word "significant" with the word "central."

Peter,

My response to your rant appears here.

art eckstein - 10/2/2007

N.F. and I are engaged in a coversation with Clarke in which we are providing information to this ignorant person. Clarke here actually admits that he does not even read my postings! Yet he then goes on to make accusations that I am making things up!

On this thread this has happened at two crucial points: with the information I provided from Cupper and Mallman, and now with the information I provided from Haber and Segev. Specific and scholarly information which Clarke didn't feel it was encumbant upon to look at before calling me not merely a liar but a pathological liar.

This is shameful and shameless behavior, and a shameful and shameless admission, on Clarke's part.

The sad thing is that Clarke isn't fazed by his own misconduct and doesn't see how it makes him look: not merely ignorant but careless in his reading and irresponsible in his accusations.

Clarke: were the Palestinian leadership and people allies of the Nazis in World War II or not? YES OR NO?

If your answer, in the face of all the information N.F. and I have provided to your total ignorance--you never even heard of Amin al-Husseini before you began making your accusations of lying!!-is "YES", then this is an admission that Dershowitz was far more right than wrong in his article.

If your answer is "NO", then you show yourself incapable of absorbing information, and/or you now know the truth but you are incapable of acknowledging it.

Herr Clarke, take your pick.

Joseph Mutik - 10/2/2007

This page shows how fascists of all kinds keep in the spotlight by inciting Jewish rage against fascist (left and right) lies about the Jews and the Holocaust.
The red fascist accuses Dershowitz and calls him a murderer for the OJ acquittal when the reality was that, mainly, the brilliant defense of the late Johnnie Cochran produced OJ's acquittal. As far as I remember Dershowitz was only a consultant on appeal matters, during the trial, but we all know that an appeal wasn't necessary for this trial. But why not blame the Jew?!
The Islamofascist falsely accuses The Jews of profiteering when the real profiteers were the Swiss, Germans and in general a lot of Europeans. The reparations an pensions the Germans paid to the Jews add up to less than 15% of the assets owned by the Jews in Germany before WWII (without putting a price on the Jewish lives lost during the holocaust). The Jews deposited in Swiss banks tens of billions (if not hundreds) of dollars and the settlement achieved during the 1990s set up a fund of about $2 to $3 billion for the elderly survivors of the holocaust. Who is the real profiteer here?
Thats all about spewing lies and accusing the Jews for defending themselves verbally, in writing or practically!

art eckstein - 10/2/2007

Wow.

Clarke's answer to the information about the Tel Aviv attack of 1944 is simply to deny it happened, though it is well attested, because it is very embarrassing to him. I gave specific and respectable references. The scholars I cited, Segev and Haber, are not Likudniks but from the Israeli left. Instead, Clarke says he'll wait until he sees the story in the American Historical Review vs. "Likudniks". His real point is: these sources are Jews, I don't trust Jews as a source, I'll wait until a "real American" talks about the Tel Aviv attack in 1944. Wow.

This strategy of denial when presented with evidence that is embarrassing to Clarke--It's what he also tried with me regarding the Nazi plans for the invasion of Palestine, and he got embarrassingly trounced. It's what he tried from the start, at a time when in invincible ignorance, he had not even heard of Amin al-Husseini (he had to learn about him from Wikipedia!!), and yet he dared to assert an opinion on issues about which he knew nothing.

And his answer to my pointing out in the thread above, yet again, that he has have no evidence that Dershowitz wrote the article we are discussion--or any other article-- for money from the Settlers and as a hired gun: NO EVIDENCE: NONE: is simply to reassert his slander. On what basis? That Dershowitz is a greedy Jewish lawyer and not--to recall again that famous comparison of Clarke's--a "real American"? His whole approach here from Dershowitz the greedy on to Segev and Haber the "Likudnik liars" is founded merely on one large anti-semitic trope.

Were the Palestinians--the leadership and the mass of the Palestinains--allies of the Nazis during WWII? YES OR NO?

If Clarke's answer is "Yes," that is important and shows that Dershowitz was far more right than wrong.

If Clarke's answer, in the face of all the specific evidence N.F. and I have provided, is "No"--then Clarke will once more look ridiculous.

Clarke, if you wish to be intellectually honest, those are your two choices.

art eckstein - 10/2/2007

Wow.

Your answer about theTel Aviv attack of 1944: simply deny it happened, though it is well attested, because it is very embarrassing to you. I gave specific and respectable references. The scholars I cited, Segev and Haber, are not Likudniks but from the Israeli left. But with your reference to the American Historical Review vs. "Likudniks", your real point is: these are Jews, I don't trust Jews as a source, I'll wait until a "real American" talks about the Tel Aviv attack in 1944. Wow.

This strategy of denial when presented with evidence that is embarrassing to you--It's what you also tried with me regarding the Nazi plans for the invasion of Palestine, and you got embarrassingly trounced. It's what you tried from the start, at a time when you, in invincible ignorance, had not even heard of Amin al-Husseini and yet you dared to assert an opinion on issues about which you knew nothing.

And your answer to my pointing out that you have no evidence that Dershowitz wrote the article we are discussion--or any other article-- for money from the Settlers and as a hired gun NO EVIDENCE: NONE: is simply to reassert your slander. On what basis? That Dershowitz is a greedy Jewish lawyer and not--to recall again that famous formulation of yours--a "real American"? Your whole approach here from Dershowitz the greedy on to Segev and Haber the "Likudnik liars" is founded merely on one large anti-semitic trope.

Were the Palestinians--the leadership and the mass of the Palestinains--allies of the Nazis during WWII? YES OR NO?

If the answer is "Yes," that is important and shows that Dershowitz was far more right than wrong.

If your answer, in the face of all the specific evidence N.F. and I have provided, is "No"--then you will look ridiculous.

Clarke, if you wish to be intellectually honest, those are your two choices.

N. Friedman - 10/1/2007

Peter,

This responds to your comment noted as Dershowitz's everlasting disgrace by Peter K. Clarke (October 1, 2007 at 11:19 PM).

Your problem, Peter, is that you know almost nothing about the Israel or its history. Consider: before a day or so ago, you had, by your own admission, never even heard of the leader of the Palestinian Arabs. How can you make assertions with the smugness you employ if you have never even heard of the person who was one of the disputant's main leader?

Worse still: Rather than taking time off to learn something, you plough forward, relying for your opinion on Wikipedia. But, nothing about the Arab Israeli conflict on Wikipedia can be relied up, much less taken at face value, whether pro-Israeli or pro-Arab. Nothing, as in zilch. It is not a useful source because people on both sides use the site for propaganda purposes. So, you are relying on propaganda, not facts, to form opinions regarding topics you have never studied.

The best I can say for you is that you do not even know what you do not know. That makes you fit in with Rumsfeld who is famous for that remark.

Turning to your libel against Dershowitz, I have yet to see what Dershowitz has done wrong. He is a professor of law. He is also a practicing attorney. In the OJ case, he was consulted because he is an expert on the law. That seems to trouble you. I have no idea why. I do not think you know why either. The best I can tell is that you believe that the accused do not deserve lawyers.

I hope, for your sake, that if you ever get in trouble that you dish the wig long enough to hire a lawyer. You will learn that lawyers play a very useful role in the system.

Regarding the OJ trial, it is my impression - my expert legal position - that he won his case because the government's case was poorly presented. In other words, serious mistakes were made in the presentation of the case, mistakes which the defense was able to use to paint a question of reasonable doubt. I recall one of the jurors saying that a racist can never be trusted to tell the truth. That opinion came from the fact that the government allowed its star witness to paint himself as a lover of African Americans. And, frankly, given the extent of the government's mistake, the result was not a big surprise.

In the case of Dershowitz the human being, he evidently has quite a few interests. Among his interests is Israel. He has written extensively about Israel.

His writings about Israel (e.g. The Case for Israel) have received very good reviews from leading newspapers. I have read the noted book, which is an interest book that addresses issues in an unusual manner.

In any event, Dershowitz does not make up facts. In fact, I did some fact checking of what he wrote in his book. People are free to disagree with him about the interpretation of facts he presents but he does not make up facts. Most people who disagree with him do so without resorting to libel. Might you learn a lesson?

One other point about Dershowitz. He is not a Likud supporter. His position is diametrically opposed to the Likud position. That you do not know the difference shows, once again, that you know very little about Israel or, for that matter, Dershowitz. So, why do you persist in defaming him?

But, even if he were a Likudnik - as you accuse him without knowing -, that is not a disreputable position. It is merely a position that you disagree with, assuming, to be generous, that you actually have some idea about the positions held by the Likud. Somehow, given your ignorance about everything else in issue here, I doubt you know the positions held by the Likud.

No one I know of has any good idea at present how to end the conflict. It would appear that the two approaches thus far tried - i.e., the negotiation approach and the unilateral approach - are dead ends. That may be because this is a conflict with no solution at this time, if ever. I do not know but I find your smugness about a topic you demonstrate again and again you have not studied to be rather disgraceful. In fact, were I you, I would be embarrassed to have written some of the trash you have posted on this page.

art eckstein - 10/1/2007

1. Why do you say that Dershowitz is in their pay at all? What is your evidence for this? And if you HAVE no evidence, then you have thrown this slander around over and over. Have you no conscience?

2. Do you accept this statement of Dershowitz? This is his summation:

It is a myth therefore – another myth perpetrated by Iran’s myth-maker-in-chief – that the Palestinians played “no role” in the Holocaust. The active support by the Palestinian leadership and masses for the losing side of a genocidal war is a fact.

YES OR NO?

Take into account more information that is new to you--about the Mufti's attempt in early 1944 to perpetrate a mass murder of Jews at Tel Aviv (using German chemical poisons). And do you think the parachutists were just dropped anywhere in the Mandate, or at a place the Mufti chose where he knew this genocidal plan would have much support among the Palestinian population? YES OR NO.

art eckstein - 10/1/2007

And then there's this:

In 1944, the Grand Mufti sent a squad of terrorists to parachute into Mandatory Palestine. The details of their mission were first revealed in the 1983 book 'The Quest for the Red Prince' by Michael Bar-Zohar, a biographer of Ben-Gurion and Labor Party Knesset Member, and Eitan Haber, a journalist who became Yitzhak Rabin's closest aide and speechwriter when Rabin became prime minister.

According to Bar-Zohar and Haber, the five parachutists were armed with maps of Tel Aviv, canisters of "a fine white powder," and instructions from the Mufti to dump the German-made chemicals into the Tel Aviv water system. The British policemen who discovered the men, hiding in a cave in Jericho, sent the mysterious substance to a laboratory for analysis. The laboratory report stated that each container held enough poison to kill 25,000 people.

This event is confirmed in Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate. Trans. Haim Watzman. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2001, p. 463. Segev is a fiercely anti-Settler dove, Clarke--just like Eitan Haber.

Or are you going to argue that because this planned mass murder by the Mufti was aborted by British soldiers, it counts for nothing because it is "counterfactual history"?

N. Friedman - 10/1/2007

Peter,

You are making quite an accusation about Dershowitz. I, frankly, have no idea what you are talking about. It is my impression that neither do you. I await with bated breadth to learn his sins in the OJ case, a case he played a peripheral, advisory role. But, no doubt you will enlighten me with your expertise about my profession and how an attorney works in that profession.

I can't wait. But, I warn you, this is a topic I know not just a bit about but a whole lot - 25 years of experience handling complicated cases.

art eckstein - 10/1/2007

And of course N.F. is correct that the Palestinians played a significant role in preventing Jews from escaping from Nazi Europe to Palestine.

That doesn't mean that other allies of the Nazis didn't play a significant role as well. But the facts about the Palestinians during WWII are facts.

art eckstein - 10/1/2007

The Palestinians were allies of the Nazis. DO YOU DENY IT? Husseini their political and religious leader broadcast genocidal messages against the Jews daily to them from Nazi Germany. Did this decrease his popularity? On the contrary, it increased it! Husseini organized tens of thousands of Muslim SS troops directly for Heinrich Himmler, troops who perpetrated many atrocities. Husseini is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews including thousands of Jewish children, against whom he personally intervened to prevent them escaping from the the Nazis claws. The SS Einsatzgruppe Egypt was in good contact with Husseini and, were Rommel to be successful, were prepared to use him to instigate a Holocaust in Palestine against the Jews living there, to be done with Palestinian partners. Do you think they were fooling themselves about this? Hitler had already declared Husseini "the Fuhrer of the Palestinians." And Edward Said himself says that Husseini "represented the Palestinian national consensus and had the backing of the Palestinian political parties that functioned in Palestine."

Dershowitz is far more right than wrong, and HERE is the real myth: Amedinejad's statement :

…[G]iven this historical event [the Holocaust], if it is a reality, we need to question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it… “The Palestinian people didn’t commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II.”

Is this statement true, or not. YES OR NO?

Clarke, I realize that you will need to answer this question with all the humility necessary for someone who knows so little about this entire subject that you'd never even heard of Amin al-Husseini before this very conversation.

And yet you keep make slanderous accusations: I'm a liar, Dershowitz is being paid by the Settlers, or maybe hopes to get it (i.e., you have no evidence of such payments and once again don't know what you are talking about), where's the proof that the Nazis intended to invade Palestine (i.e., I was making that one up too). You admitted you make these accusations without even reading what I wrote! Yet, shamelessly, you press onward with your vile tone. (No facts, of course.) You know, Clarke, you've already been spanked and in public in front of everyone by the Webmaster for your uncivil conduct. That happened just a couple of weeks ago. One would have thought you'd learned your lesson.

N. Friedman - 10/1/2007

Peter,

The significance lies in Palestinian Arabs acting to prevent Jews from finding refuge. How blind can you be? That was a considerable factor in what became of those who sought refuge.

N. Friedman - 10/1/2007

Peter,

Dershowitz did what a lawyer is supposed to do in representing a client - rich or poor. You must be smoking something. Were you charged with a heinous crime, somehow I bet you would want the best available defense. Dershowitz did nothing remotely wrong in representing the very guilty OJ.

N. Friedman - 10/1/2007

Art,

And you did not mention that which Palestinian Arabs did to deny refuge to Jews. That is not a small detail to be left out. It complicated matters for large numbers of Jews who met their undesired demise.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/1/2007

Let's see. You admit ou didn't read my long explication of Cupper and Mallmann. But then you sneeringly demanded evidence of the plans for the Nazi occupation of Palestine, as if I hadn't given that evidence? And you have the effrontery not just to shrug off this buffoon behavior on your part, to continue on with baseless accusations?

Well, what can one expect from someone who early on accused Dershowitz of being in the pay of West Bank settlers when he wrote this essay--or maybe he HOPED to be--on the basis of absolutely no evidence, just plain slander?

Really, man--don't you have concern for how you look?

You have never presented one single fact to bolster your own argument--it's as if you are allegic to evidence, not only that you don't even think of bringing your own, but you ignore and revile the real facts that others provide. What a performance.

The issue is Palestinian complicity with the Nazis. It was a complicity led by Husseini. Husseini--someone you'd never HEARD of when you accused Dershowitz of lying for money!!--we have more than amply proven. But Husseini was not some ordinary person. He was the recognized political and spiritual leader of the Palestinians. And every night he was beaming to them his genocidal speeches. Did that make him unpopular with the Palestinians? NO-- he and his speeches were immensely popular with the Palestinians. They LOVED what he was doing and saying. But beyond this, the SS Einsatzgruppe Egypt was making their plans for the Holocaust in Palestine, these were detailed plans, the SS knew a lot about Palestine, they knew the Palestinians would help them, they knew this because besides their own contacts, they knew Husseini, knew he would lead them, knew they would follow. By 1942 Husseini had been recognized by Hitler as "the Fuhrer of Palestine." The plans of the SS Einsatzgruppe Egypt, and the Palestinian part in those plans, are a historical fact.

And all this was IN ADDITION to what Husseini was doing in Europe, to prevent Jews from escaping the clutches of the Nazis--including 5,000 Jewish children, his association with Eichmann, his organizing of three SS Divisions of Muslims (which committed many atrocities) at the behest of Himmler himself.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/1/2007

Your argument, Clarke, is that equivalent to saying that if the 9/11 attacks had aborted, that shows that Osama was a nice guy after all and so we can't use his plans for 9/11 as evidence of anything, because, after all, this would be "counterfactual history."

Maybe now I've presented it in a simple enough way so that you can understand the importance of Cupper's and Mallmann's evidence.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/1/2007

You sneeringly asked for evidence that the Nazis planned to take over Palestine, assuming there was none, and as if I hadn't already provided it, chapter and verse. Of course, I already had-as I reminded you, making you look like a fool.

Underterred, unashamed, as if you hadn't done this, Mr. Clarke, you then demanded that I show Palestinian complicity with the Nazis, I provide it above: not only what actually happened in Europe, but also what the SS Einsatz Gruppe Egypt was planning and knew WOULD happen with the Palestinians' cooperation if Rommel won--thanks especially to Husseini. So now you say to the latter evidence, well, this is counterfactual history. No--this is History, these were the genocidal plans of the SS in the Middle East and esp. in Palestine, and these plans involved the Palestinians as the main Nazi allies, and these plans were NOT based on idle speculation or pie-in-the-sky about the Palestinians but based on existing contacts with the Palestinians (i.e, this is evidence of the conscious complicity of the Palestinians with Nazi plans for a Holocaust in the Middle East). Or is your argument that the SS Einsatzgruppe Egypt didn't know what it was talking about? This information is from Nazi archives.

N. Friedman - 10/1/2007

Art,

What you write is true and important but, to Peter, it does not matter because Palestinian Arabs did not march people to death camps. That, to him, is the only guilt that matters, perhaps because such allows him to ignore other significant contributions to what occurred to Jews in WWII.

To Peter,

The fact remains that you did change the subject to an argument about France and Britain appeasing Germany and to my supposed citation to Bat Ye'or whom you confused with Bernard Lewis.

As Art says and I previously said, Palestinian Arabs allied with Nazi Germany. And, all of Nazi Germany's allies bear more significant responsibility for what happened than the enemies of Nazi Germany. And, Palestinian Arabs certainly played a significant role, as described by Art and me again and again - with you at least appearing, whatever you really understand about our argument, not to get the point about what we wrote.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/1/2007

The French and the British were not allies of the Nazis. The Palestinians, led by Husseini, were. This was as true in Europe as in the Middle East. In Europe we have Husseini, THE Palestinian leader, working directly for Himmler and helping to create three SS divisions of Muslims, and also as a friend and confident of Eichmann (whom he'd known since 1936). Meanwhile, in the Middle East the SS Einsatzgruppe Egypt was preparing to use the Palestinians as their main allies in inflicting a Middle Eastern Shoah upon the Jewish residents there. The SS knew they had Palestinian support, the Palestinians knew Husseini advocated genocide, the SS knew that Husseini was massively popular, and Hitler had personally designated as "The Fuhrer of Palestine."

The daily broadcasting from Nazi Germany, in which Husseini played a very prominent role, is the origin of the racist, genocidal propaganda that now pollutes the Arab world via organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood (from which Hamas descends)--an organization which was in close contact with the Nazis.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/1/2007

Omar:

Can Arabs buy land, and can Muslims build mosques, in Israel? Yes.

Can Israelis buy land, or Jews build synagogues, in the PA or Gaza? No.

Is it Hamas (and Fateh) ideology that ANY Jew is good to kill--man, woman, child, no matter what their politics might be, their age, their nationality? Yes. This is proven by the suicide bombings which intentionally target civilians, including children and which are a moral disgrace which Omar supports. (One sign at Columbia showed a photo of a 15-year old Jewish girl: "I too would have liked to speak at Columbia, like Ahmedinejad, but I was blown up on a bus while going to school, by a Palestinian terrorist financed by Iran.")

And...who is the racist again?

Omar trots out his endlessly repeated ridiculous tripe, which he knows to be inaccurate.

N. Friedman - 10/1/2007

Peter,

I do not deny the role of Britain and France in appeasing the Nazis. But, that was not the focus of the issue here. That is you changing the subject.

And, I do not recall citing Bat Ye'or here. I recall citing Bernard Lewis. I cite to Bat Ye'or the topic where she is a recognized expert, namely, on the interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims under Muslim rule. But, that has nothing to do with this discussion.

Stop saying dumb things. Try addressing what I wrote.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/1/2007

As I demonstrated from Cuppers and Mallman above, and repeat further down below, the SS Einsatzgruppe Egypt, which rode with Rommel, was preparing to institute the Holocaust in Palestine, was dependent on and confident of the support of the Palestinians for the mass-murder, and were depending upon Husseini as the major Nazi ally in the Middle East to lead in the mass-murder. Hitler had already promised Husseini that he could be "Fuhrer of Palestine."

You can't discuss this, Peter, if you don't know the facts.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/1/2007

Clarke writes: Eckstein, What source tells you the Nazis had any serious plans for occupying Palestine?

Answer: Cuppers and Mallmann, the thesis of whose book I described in great detail in one of the posts above. This book describes the SS Einsatzgruppe Egypt, which as with Rommel, a regiment of SS killers similar to the Einsatzgruppen that shot about a million Jews in Russia; the SS Einsatzgruppe Egypt was intended by the Nazis to institute the Holocaust in Palestine, had already marked out Jewish property to be used as headquarters, and Cuppers and Mallman emphasize not only counted on the Palestinian population to help them in the new Shoah, but counted particularly on Husseini to lead that population in the massacre.

You know, Clarke, if you ever bothered to READ the factual information I provide, you wouldn't be asking questions that make you look like a fool.

N. Friedman - 10/1/2007

Peter,

Was the ordinary WWII era German in any way responsible for what their leaders did? If so, in what way?

I note: I do not claim that Palestinian Arabs were Nazis. I claimed that the bear significant responsibility based on their actions, responsibility that goes along with allying with a mass murderer and providing what assistance they could in the project.

I do not think it matters what people thought in their hearts of hearts. What matters is what they did, namely, assist the Nazis to the extent they were able and help block access to those who might have found refuge.

N. Friedman - 10/1/2007

Peter,

I do not recall claiming that the Brits had an obligation to transport people to safety. I obviously would not expect them to do such a thing at their own peril. But, I also would not expect them to block those seeking to help themselves find refuge.

There were, in fact, things that could be done without the risk you note. For example, they did not have to block those seeking to escape. Such could have saved a not insignificant percent of those at risk. Perhaps, one hundred thousand or more people might have escaped. Perhaps, more might have escaped.

Now, I reiterate: placating Arab demands was at the heart of why Britain did what it did, namely, block refuge. And, Palestinian Arabs, allies of the Nazis, bear significant responsibility by playing the role of agitator that was significant in causing the British to block access.

Now, as for people escaping by perilous means, I have relatives who escaped from Poland by crossing Russia into China. So, people will go to great lengths to help themselves, if given the chance. That is something that Britain bears responsibility for - again, not as much as the Nazis but responsible nonetheless. But, the Brits are, since they fought the Nazis, less guilty than the Palestinian Arabs, who allied with the Nazis.

N. Friedman - 10/1/2007

Peter,

I have not made the accusation you now state. I said that Palestinian Arabs played a significant role in blocking refuge that might have saved some of those who were killed. And, I said that the leader of Palestinian Arabs advocated in favor of such people being killed and that Palestinian Arabs knew that and evidently cheered such advocacy.

All told, that means that Palestinian Arabs played a significant role. It does not, however, mean that they played the same role as the Nazis. It means they played a different, albeit, significant role.

N. Friedman - 10/1/2007

Peter,

How about addressing what I claim rather than changing the topic.

I noted the obvious, namely, that the content of al-Husseini's advocacy was well known to Palestinian Arabs. In simple English, Palestinian Arabs knew full well that al-Husseini was advocating mass murder. And, in simple English, the available evidence is that Palestinian Arabs thought such to be a perfectly fine thing to advocate.

Please, if you disagree, address what I wrote in the paragraph immediately above. And, for a change, cite some facts that make what I say more or less probable.

N. Friedman - 10/1/2007

Peter,

Again, you are not addressing Art's point. What you are saying is that the Germans had additional, more important matters of barbarity on their plate such that Arab desires were a lesser priority. That does not address the question of Arab complicity with the Nazis. It addresses only the importance, as seen by the Nazis, of Arab priorities.

But, that does not make Palestinian Arabs insignificant to what happened. As I said, the main point here is that Palestinian Arabs played the role of helping to prevent Jews from escaping the Nazis. Such was done by doing what Palestinian Arabs could do to prevent Jewish refuge in the place designated under International Law for Jews to have refuge. That means they played a significant role, whether or not you choose to admit it.

N. Friedman - 10/1/2007

Peter,

That al-Husseini was advocating the mass murder of Jews was known to Palestinian Arabs, beyond all doubt. Stop lying.

N. Friedman - 10/1/2007

Peter,

Point one. Art Eckstein has already provided evidence on this point. That al-Husseini was popular among Palestinian Arabs is beyond all doubt. That he was advocating that Jews be killed everywhere is beyond all doubt. That Palestinian Arabs knew that he was so advocating is beyond all doubt. And that Palestinian Arabs cheered to such advocacy is beyond all doubt.

I have not claimed that Palestinian Arabs knew how many Jews were being killed. On the other hand...

Al-Husseini apparently did know numbers, as shown at least by Bernard Lewis. And, that Palestinian Arabs knew that Jews were being killed in large numbers, so far as I know - although it is not what I claimed and does not really matter to my point -, had to have been true. It was no secret that Jews had been attacked by the Nazis in parts of the Arab world, not to mention elsewhere. There were Arabs who helped the Nazis but there were also some Arabs who helped Jews. So, such was clearly a topic of conversation among Arabs. Such, to my knowledge, has been well documented.

In any event, when two groups join forces in an endeavor, they both share, by any normal standard of morality, some responsibility for each other's actions, whatever the reasons for them joining together. And, Palestinian Arabs played a significant role although obviously not the role played by Germans. Rather, Palestinian Arabs were allied to Germans and supported the program that led to Jews being unable to find refuge in the place which, according to International Law, Jews were entitled to find refuge. That means that Palestinian Arabs played a significant role.

Point two. I am defending Dershowitz here against what amounts to idiotic accusations that have nothing much to do with his character and everything to do with the problem that you do not like the facts that he has reported.

I do not know Dershowitz so I do not know his character other than the fact that he is a lawyer who does what lawyers are supposed to do, namely, advocate for people accused of serious crimes. I trust that you do not know him either and that what you really claim is that you do not like the fact that he is discussing facts you would prefer remain buried.

According to you, he is guilty of being a lawyer who defended someone who is guilty. In other words, what you are doing is attacking him for being a lawyer who does what lawyers are supposed to do. Recall, Peter, that I am also a lawyer - and a damn good one, I might add. I do not take kindly to spurious attacks on my profession.

Now, if you have something serious to say about his character - other than the fact that he is a lawyer -, let us hear about it. Otherwise, address the facts that he raises and that Art and I raise. They are not addressed by pointing out that Palestinian Arabs were not in Germany killing Jews. No one claims that Palestinian Arabs are as responsible as Nazis. What is claimed is that they played a significant role, since there was an alliance and since the leader of Palestinian Arabs was devoted to the cause and because Palestinian Arabs did what they could for that cause in order to advance their own agenda that stood to gain from what the Nazis were doing. And, to reiterate: the role of Palestinian Arabs was to help block Jews from finding refuge in the place afforded by International Law for Jews to find refuge. That blockage helped seal the fate of very large numbers of people.

N. Friedman - 10/1/2007

Peter,

For the umpteenth time, how do you know, since you have not studied the matter, what is and is not significant with respect to the role of Arabs?

What I see is you merely mimicking a mindset that renders the actions of Palestinian Arabs as always innocent, even when they consciously worked with the Nazis. In this case, Palestinian Arabs were not innocent. They were complicit with mass murderers.

N. Friedman - 10/1/2007

Peter,

Have you now noticed that you are merely repeating what I am saying but then concluding that such is not a significant role.

I repeat: I never claimed that Palestinian Arabs were as guilty as the Nazis. Neither did Dershowitz. What is claimed is that the role of Palestinian Arabs was significant, which it was by any normal standards of measuring what is and is not significant.

In the criminal system, two people set out to rob a bank. One sits in the car and only has the motive to steal some money. The other robber, however, also intends to kill a person in the bank that he hates and then, during the course of the robbery, kills that person. Both bank robbers are later caught and charged with murder and, under the law, both are guilty of murder - one for committing the murder and the other for committing what the law calls "felony" murder. And, the role of both - the driver and the actual robber - are significant with respect both to the robbery and the murder. With this in mind, providing support to a genocidal project, like providing support to a murder, makes one complicit with the party actually committing genocide. It does not make one as blameworthy but it certainly makes one blameworthy. And, the contribution is significant since, in the case of Palestinian Arabs, their behavior - and that of their leader - helped to prevent hundreds of thousands of people from escaping the Nazis to the very place designated under International Law for Jews to have refuge.

A. M. Eckstein - 10/1/2007

Give it up, Clarke. Husseini was important enough to rate his very own entry in The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, and he was important enough to rate an entire separate study devoted just to Husseini by Simon Wiesenthal the Nazi-hunter--a study that Wiesenthal stands behind to this day.

That is simply NOT true of "millions of petty crooks, hucksters, mental lightweights, and neighborhood bullies who jumped on the Nazi bandwagon." Husseini was not an ordinary person, he was important to Himmler, he was an intimate of Eichmann, he was the most important Arab ally for the SS Einsatzgruppe Egypt which was preparing the Holocaust for Palestine, and he had massive support among the Palestinians, whom he constantly told over Nazi radio to murder all the Jews they could-- so they knew perfectly well what he stood for and what he wanted. And they loved it.

Which means that Dershowitz is far more historically correct than A-jad. Big surprise.

N. Friedman - 10/1/2007

Peter,

Evidently, if one disagrees with Peter, one is a member of the "herd," whatever that is supposed to mean. It sounds to me as if your prejudices are sneaking out once again.

Regarding Dershowitz, he is an attorney. Evidently, he is a really, really good one. He occasionally defends people who are charged with very, very serious crimes - and, no doubt, in most instances his clients (as with any other defense attorney) are very, very guilty. Strange as it may seem to you, in the United States, even the very, very guilty are entitled to legal counsel - and even first rate legal representation. You might try reading the U.S. Constitution including its amendments.

In this case, you might start with the Sixth Amendment, which reads:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Note the language set out above in bold and which I now repeat: "to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." And note that such applies [i]n all criminal prosecutions, not just those where the defendant is wrongly accused.

To sum up your view... Your position is that lawyers who defend those accused with - and even guilty of - crimes are somehow disreputable, notwithstanding that such lawyers are doing the very thing contemplated by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I take it, since I trust (and, in fact, I am pretty certain) that you would hire a lawyer and, if possible, a first rate attorney to defend you if you were accused of a serious crime, even if you were guilty of that crime, that your attack on Dershowitz amounts to hypocrisy and a mere ad hominem attempt to distract attention from what Dershowitz writes. And, this is because you do not like the facts he points to, facts that do not correspond to your world-view.

I already explained the role played by al-Husseini and by the Palestinian Arabs. To reiterate: Palestinian Arabs were allies of the Nazis and helped to prevent Jews from escaping from the Nazis and finding refuge in the very place which International Law specifically provided for Jews to have refuge. That is significant, since large numbers of people might well have escaped by moving to such place of refuge. In the case of al-Husseini, he was a cheerleader for the Nazis and believed in their cause, including the annihilation of Jewry. And, he was the, not a, leader of the Palestinian Arabs.

That all creates a complicit relationship, as complicit as the other allies of the Nazis. And that is true whether the man on the street had genocidal intentions or national self-preservation in mind. In the end, Palestinian Arabs supported those who not only had genocidal intent but who acted on that intent. And, Palestinian Arabs consciously followed as their leader a man who clearly did have genocidal intent and acted on that intent. And, he was part of a movement which clearly had that intent and was and remains proud of it.

N. Friedman - 10/1/2007

Peter,

I am baffled. You have not even tried to address what I wrote.

Note that I stated at the outset that the Arabs had their own reasons for doing what they did. You then claim I am wrong and then note that the Arabs had their own reason for doing what they did. In other words, you repeated what I said.

But again: the bottom line here is that they, with their own motives, allied with the Nazis and the leader of the Palestinian Arabs was an active cheerleader for genocide, which was, frankly, known at the time, most especially to those associated with al-Husseini. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood was consciously pro-Nazi in attitude and intent - as in intent to annihilate the Jews. And, they were not a small group. They were a very large group. And, in any event, al-Husseini was not just a leader favored by the Brotherhood. He was the - as in the head honcho - leader of the Palestinian Arabs.

Once again, Peter, nothing I have said here is remotely incorrect. And, once again, you have said nothing to undermine anything I have said here.

art eckstein - 10/1/2007

Simon Wiesenthal, the greatest of all the post-war Nazi hunters, thought Husseini *significant* enough to write a special study devoted to Husseini alone; this was in 1948: The Grand Mufti: Agent Extraordinary of the Axis. In 2004 Wiesenthal was still recommending this work as a book which young people in Austria should study.

None of Clarke's blather should distract us from what should be the REAL focus of discussion, which is, rightly, the questions raised by Dershowitz:

(1) Ahmedinejad's profound ignorance or outright lies about Palestinian "innocence" in the Holocaust; combined with the self-contradictory situation that (2) Amin al Husseini, who advocated the Holocaust, and participated directly in it, is an adored figure among the Palestinians.

One of my colleagues, a famous senior scholar of German history with three well-received books, is currently writing on the Nazi wartime broadcast origins of much of the propaganda of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas (a branch of the Brotherhood) today. Husseini was the major Arab figure in those Nazi broadcasts.
The 2006 book by Cupper and Mallman, in German and through work in German archives, have already pointed down that road.

(This is separate from, e.g., Husseini helping to organize three SS divisions of Muslims, working on this direclty with Himmler. units which committed many atrocities in the Balkans.)

art eckstein - 10/1/2007

Ever hear of Simon Wiesenthal, Herr Clarke? As in the Simon Wiesenthal Centers [i.e., for the Study of the Holocaust]?

Simon Wiesenthal wrote an entire special study of Husseini, in 1948: Grand Mufti -- Grossagent der Achse (Grand Mufti -- Axis Agent Extraordinary of the Axis). In 2004 Wiesenthal was still recommending this volume for the education of Austrian young people. It was he who found Husseini's letter to Ribbentrop in 1943.

art eckstein - 9/30/2007

N. F. has it exactly right.

The REAL focus of discussion, and it should be horrified discussion, should be: (1) Ahmedinejad's profound ignorance or outright lies about Palestinian "innocence" in the Holocaust; combined with the self-contradictory situation that (2) Amin al Husseini, who advocated the Holocaust, and participated directly in it, is an adored figure among the Palestinians.

Only in the Middle East.

Joseph Mutik - 9/30/2007

Clarke, don't you like lawyers or only don't like Jewish lawyers? From your message one can conclude that an American Jewish lawyer can't defend someone in a U.S. federal or state court. By the way, OJ has been acquitted by a jury of 12 grown up people.
Your no contest plea on racism is the right one and normal. Only a racist can call a Jewish lawyer, doing his legal job, a murderer.

N. Friedman - 9/30/2007

Peter starts out by accusing Dershowitz as if Peter were an authority on the topic.

But, upon being challenged, Peter has to admit learning about al-Husseini - a central figure in Arab contact with the Nazis, not to mention the central leader of the Palestinian Arabs - from Wikipedia. Having never read about al-Husseini disqualifies Peter's opinions from the outset since al-Husseini was obviously an important figure.

Further, Peter relied on Wikipedia for his opinion. So far as the Middle East is concerned, Wikipedia is a waste of breadth. MEMO TO PETER: Wikipedia is unreliable when it comes to the Middle East because everything about the Middle East is controversial.

Then, Peter makes Goldhagen his authority on Arab interest in the Holocaust. That, of course, is a non-starter. That was not Goldhagen's topic.

Correcting the record:

This is a fairly straightforward matter. Those responsible for what occurred to Jews in WWII included the actors, namely, the Nazis and their allies. And, among those responsible, obviously the Germans were by far the most responsible, since it was their project. Their allies were responsible, depending on their actions, to a lesser extent. After the Nazis' allies, others who denied refuge and turned a blind eye bear a degree of responsibility but not to the extent of the Nazis and their allies.

The role of Palestinian Arabs was that of ally to the Nazis. Palestinian Arabs helped to help frustrate the effort of Jews to find refuge in the place which was, according to International Law, to be a place of refuge for Jews, namely, Mandate Palestine. And that is the responsibility of Palestinian Arabs.

Peter is correct - even a broken clock is right twice a day - that the primary motive of most Palestinian Arab people on the street was not genocidal. Then again, I doubt that the average German on the street had genocidal intent either.

However, the leader Palestinian Arabs supported, al-Husseini, clearly did have genocidal intent and Palestinian Arabs vociferously supported him. That, to me, makes them very complicit.

I might add, al-Husseini remains an adored figure among Palestinian Arabs. And, the fact that he was complicit with and supported genocide does not bother Palestinian Arabs even now, so far as can be discerned.

art eckstein - 9/30/2007

final sentence: Maybe this helps explains why Husseini rates a separate entry in The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust.

art eckstein - 9/30/2007

I would just add that it is obvious that a separate entry in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust for Husseini (pp. 705-707) far overshadows Husseini's non-appearance in a book focused solely on Germans, such as Goldhagen's, and that only a Dummkopf would argue the opposite.

Oh, by the way: besides SS Division Handschar (13th SS Mountain Division), Husseini in March 1944 was also involved in the creation of SS Division Skanderbeg (21st SS Mountain Division), made up of Albanian Muslims, which committed many atrocities in Albania, including against Albanian Jews. Husseini also helped organize 23rd SS Mountain Division Kama, which fought in Bosnia and had only a short history, but bloody enough so that several officers were later hung as war criminals. In helping set up these three Muslim SS divisions, Husseini was working on a project designed by Himmler himself and at his behest.

Maybe this h

N. Friedman - 9/30/2007

Peter,

I know what you said. I read it the first time.

The Italians also did not have genocidal intent but they were, quite obviously, complicit in what the Nazis did - and are criticized for it, as you know full well. The Palestinian Arabs had their own motives and were complicit as well. That is a fact, whether or not you - you have not read a thing about the topic other than Wikipedia - accept it.

The Brits cut off refuge in order to help their own interest in the Arab regions which was threatened, in considerable degree, by Jewish immigration which was causing an upheaval among Palestinian Arabs. That was a central cause of Britain cutting off Jewish migration to their official legal place of refuge.

Show me I am wrong about this. Show me that such did not lead to the death of very large numbers of Jews. Obviously, I am correct.

Again, Peter, you are way off base.

art eckstein - 9/30/2007

The U.S.A. wasn't led by a friend and ally of Hitler; in the end, the U.S.A. played a crucial role in overthrowing Hitler. The Palestinians were led by a friend and ally of Hitler, and that man had enormous support for his terrible actions. The Palestinians are not innocent here. It is Ahmedinejad, not Dershowitz, who is the liar. Put the focus where it belongs.

art eckstein - 9/30/2007

Hussein was the political and spiritual leader of the Palestinians--so says Edward Said--and he was an ally of Hitler. Hussein was recognized as their leader and spokesman by the Palestinians, and by Arab governments--so says Edward Said--and he was an ally of Hitler. He was an ally of Hitle to such an extent that he formed his own SS Division (!) which engaged in many atrocities; he did what he could to make sure that as many Jews as possible--including children-- died under Nazi hands and did not escape; he made continual pro-Nazi and viciously anti-semitic broadcasts to the Middle East for the Nazis and in the hope of causing massacres; according to Cupper and Mallmann he was crucially supportive of the SS Einsatzcommando Egypt which had the intention of bringing the Shoah to the Middle East; he was officially condemned as a war criminal at Nuremburg for his actions in Europe; and he has his own separate entry in The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. The recent research of Cupper and Mallmann also indicates Husseini had enormous popular support among the Palestinains in his pro-Hitler and genocidal position. He still does.

There is thus nothing wrong with saying that Hussein was a significant figure, or that it is significant that he had the support of the Palestinian people in the things he did. He wasn't Hitler, or Himmler, or Eichmann; but he knew and met with Hitler and Himmler, and he was a friend and confidante of Eichmann's, he was active in mass murders, and wanted to do much more. He was no passer-by. Dershowitz is correct to point all this out. Yes, of course the Nazis perpetrated the Holocaust, not the Palestinians. But the Palestinians were not innocent here, they did what they could to help the Nazis, knowing and approving what the Nazis were doing, and they were led by a person who was so involved in the Holocaust that he became an officially designated war criminal at Nuremburg.

The only liar here is Ahmedinejad who claims that the Palestinians weren't involved in the Holocaust.

art eckstein - 9/30/2007

Herr Clarke, you are making yourself look completely silly and self destructive. You have no argument to offer.

Amin Hussein is significant enough to have his own separate entry in The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (actually, it runs 2 pages).

Case closed.

art eckstein - 9/30/2007

Herr Clarke, HE IS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO HAVE HIS OWN ENTRY IN THE HOLOCAUST ENCYCLOPEDIA.

I think that beats out Goldhagen, who is only interested in Germans, and so, once more, having come up with an inappropriate source which you trumpeted several times, your response instead of admissiion is to spew forth more venom in response.

N. Friedman - 9/30/2007

Peter,

Yes. The US obviously played a significant role, but far less than did Palestinian Arabs.

Permitting a few hundred thousand people to go where they might have been allowed refuge, in the very place set up by International Law for Jews to have refuge, was obviously a very significant matter, by any stretch of the imagination. The US, while it played a significant role, was not a place promised for Jewish refuge. So, the role of Palestinian Arabs was, in my view, more important.

art eckstein - 9/30/2007

Herr Clarke,

You make a big deal of the fact that Husseini does not appear in Goldhagen, who is interested only in Germans. But Husseini DOES have his own entry in The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust:

Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Edition 1990, Volume 2, Pages 706 and 707, entry Husseini, Hajj Amin Ali.

One of the editors of the encyclopedia is the eminent historian Christopher Browning, of the University of North Carolina.


Here's a nice quote from the entry for Husseini:

It so happened that Husseini made his contribution to the Axis war effort in his capacity as a Muslim, rather than as an Arab leader, by recruiting and organizing in RECORD TIME, during the spring of 1943, BOSNIAN MUSLIM BATTALIONS in Croatia comprising some TWENTY THOUSAND MEN, These MUSLIM VOLUNTEER units, called Hanjar (Sword), were put in WAFFEN-SS fought Yugoslav partisans in Bosnia, and carried out police and security duties in Hungary. THEY PARTICIPATED IN THE MASSACRE OF CIVILIANS IN BOSNIA and VOLUNTEERED TO JOIN IN THE HUNT FOR JEWS IN CROATIA... The Germans made a point of publicizing the fact that Husseini had flown from Berlin to Sarajevo for the sole purpose of giving his blessing to the Muslim army and inspecting its arms and training exercises.

So, once more, we can say: case closed.

N. Friedman - 9/30/2007

Peter,

You should learn how to read.

N. Friedman - 9/30/2007

Peter,

Again, the issue was the role of Palestinian Arabs in cutting off refuge to Jews. Again, the world had set aside historic Palestine as the place where Jews were supposed to be able to find refuge. Palestinian Arab actions - advocacy and violence - helped lead to Britain cutting off refuge to Jews in historic Palestine, as was called for by International Law. And, Palestinian Arabs sided with the Nazis. These, notwithstanding what you write, are matters of considerable consequence.

I would place the number a lot higher, likely far, far more than all the Arabs who died fighting with Israel. In fact, a whole lot higher - on an order of magnitude.

N. Friedman - 9/30/2007

Peter,

The role was significant. It just was not central.

N. Friedman - 9/30/2007

Peter,

According to the dictionary, "significant" means, inter alia, ". important; of consequence."

Palestinian Arabs were allied with the Nazis. That is a fact. That, by itself, is enough for their role to be significant - just as Italy's role was significant.

Your citation to "victims" is irrelevant. As I said, the role of Palestinian Arabs was to cut off refuge in historic Palestine - the place the world had set to be the place of refuge for Jews - and to advocate the destruction of Jewry. That, frankly, is significant.

You, by contrast, have not read about the role of Arabs. You have read about the role of Germans, which is a different matter. They obviously bear the central responsibility, as the main actors.

Palestinian Arabs advocated for the destruction of Jewry. And, their leader - as in their main leader - was part and parcel of the horrors, as no serious person denies. As a result at least in part, a large number of Jews - far more than all the Arabs who have died fighting Israel, died.

art eckstein - 9/30/2007

N. F. describes the situation exactly.

Remember, while all the hideous events I described above were going in with Nazis, Arabs and Palestinians in the Middle East, as they jointly prepared to bring the Shoah to the Middle East, Husseini was AT THE SAME TIME busy in Europe, organizing his own entire SS Division of Muslims which committed many atrocities, and preventing as much as he could the escape of Jews from the Nazis, as demonstrated by a primary document posted by N.F.--an act which was certainly "significant" to, e.g., the 5,000 Jewish children who died as a result of Husseini's efforts. All of this is all part of one (as the Germans say) Gestalt.

Yes, N.F. has it right, and Dershowitz gets it far more right than A-jad the Ignorant:

Husseini, the leader - as in THE MAIN LEADER, not some minor person - of the Palestinian Arabs, indeed, their official spokesman and spiritual and religious guide, was a major direct supporter of and direct collaborator in actions with the Nazis, not someone of no importance who was accused merely of talking with the Nazis. His virulent pro-Nazi opinions were broadcast continually by Nazi radio and were influential in the Arab Middle East (as Cupper and Mallmann show) and in addition, on account of his actual actions (not opinions) in Europe, he was officially designated as a war criminal by the Nuremburg War Crimes Commission, and every effort was made to hunt him down. And yet, at the same time and to this date, he is a hero to Palestinian Arabs.

N. Friedman - 9/30/2007

Peter,

Clearly, you have not read what anyone here, including Dershowitz, has written. No one - I repeat, no one - here claims that Palestinian Arabs are guilty in the sense that Germans were.

What is claimed is that they played a not insignificant role. In fact, by the dictionary definition, the role played was significant. See Re: over and over.

art eckstein - 9/30/2007

N. F. describes the situation exactly.

Remember, while all the hideous events I described above were going in with Nazis, Arabs and Palestinians in the Middle East, Husseini was AT THE SAME TIME busy in Europe, organizing his own entire SS Division of Muslims which committed many atrocities, and preventing as much as he could the escape of Jews from the Nazis, as documented by a primary document posted by N.F. (an act which was certainly "significant" to, e.g., the 5,000 Jewish children who died as a result of Husseini's efforts). It's all part of one (as the Germans say) Gestalt.

Yes, N.F. has it right, and Dershowitz gets it far more right than A-jad the Ignorant:

Husseini, the leader - as in THE MAIN LEADER, not some minor person - of the Palestinian Arabs, indeed, their official spiritual and religious guide, was a major direct supporter of and direct collaborator in actions with the Nazis, not someone of no importance who was accused merely of talking with the Nazis. His virulent pro-Nazi opinions were influential in the Arab Middle East (as Cupper and Mallmann show) and in addition, for his actual actions (not opinions) in Europe, he was officially designated as a war criminal by the Nuremburg War Crimes Commission, and every effort was made to hunt him down. And yet, at the same time and to this date, he is a hero to Palestinian Arabs.

N. Friedman - 9/30/2007

Peter,

While you read Dershowitz way out of context, what he states about the role being significant is not incorrect.

Playing a significant role is not the same thing as playing the central role. According to the online dictionary, something is significant if it is "important; of consequence." Clearly, the role of Palestinian Arabs was significant, as the word is actually defined.

Consider: all the parties who denied refuge to Jews during WWII obviously played a significant role in their demise. That includes Palestinian Arabs regarding historic Palestine, which was a central place where Jews could have found refuge.

Historic Palestine was, moreover, the place which International Law had set aside for Jews to take refuge. It was in considerable part due to Palestinian Arab violence and objections that Britain refused Jews refuge in historic Palestine as should have occurred under the Palestine Mandate.

And, the demise of Jews was the intent of the central leader of the Palestinian Arabs who did all he could to see to it that, to the extent such was possible, Jews would all be killed.

In your book, that may be of no consequence. But, that speaks to your prejudices, which you have expressed repeatedly.

N. Friedman - 9/30/2007

CORRECTION:

DELETE: And again: the leader - as if the main leader, not some minor person - of the Palestinian Arabs was a major supporter of Nazis, not someone of no importance who was accused merely of talking with the Nazis.

SUBSTITUTE: And again: the leader - as in the main leader, not some minor person - of the Palestinian Arabs was a major supporter of Nazis, not someone of no importance who was accused merely of talking with the Nazis.

N. Friedman - 9/30/2007

Peter,

Talking about calling people names, you, who have read nothing on the topic, argue as if you an expert.

Moreover, you claim that Dershowitz, who actually has read about the topic is equivalent to the Holocaust denying, genocide advocating Ahmadinejad.

Again, Peter, this is not a complicated matter. No one is claiming that Palestinian Arabs were, during WWII, the Nazis. What is claimed is that they played a not insignificant role. That is a fact that is well established, whether or not you choose to believe it.

And again: the leader - as if the main leader, not some minor person - of the Palestinian Arabs was a major supporter of Nazis, not someone of no importance who was accused merely of talking with the Nazis. Rather, he was a war criminal of the first order but, at the same time and to this date, a hero to Palestinian Arabs. And Palestinian Arabs supported him at the time. And, Palestinian Arab violence helped - as in had the consequence of cutting off the ability of refugees to escape their fate at the hands of the Nazis - cause the deaths of horrendous numbers of humans - in this case, Jews -, far more than all the Arabs who died fighting with the Israelis.

That does not make Palestinian Arabs guilty in the sense that the Nazis were. It, however, places them in a role akin to other allies of the Nazis, which they clearly were.

N. Friedman - 9/30/2007

Peter,

The sum total of your knowledge on the subject comes from wikipedia. If you disagree with some of us who have read on the topic, cite some sources that back up your position. Otherwise, I take it that you are practicing at the art of BS.

N. Friedman - 9/30/2007

Art,

That is being charitable. It is called, in my book, dissembling.

art eckstein - 9/30/2007

He can't dispute the facts, N.F, which destroy his case. So he picks on some tiny point of English expression.

I believe this is known as "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel."

art eckstein - 9/30/2007

1. Goldhagen is concerned with GERMANS, not with Husseini. His point is to condemn all Germans.

2. Husseini after the war was *an international official war criminal for his role in the Holocaust*. He wasn't Himmler, no. But he wasn't a passerby, either.

3. The book ON the Palestinians, the Arabs and the Nazis is soon to be translated into English: Klaus-Michael Mallmann, Martin Cüppers Halbmond und Hakenkreuz. Das "Dritte Reich", die Araber und Palästina.Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft; Auflage: 2., durchges. Aufl. (September 2006).

Here is a summary of what it says:



The Nazis prepared to extend the Holocaust into Palestine and in preparation for doing so they infected the Arabs with their ideology, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, and the forces around Amin Husseini, in order to have allies.

"The Jew is the enemy and to kill him pleases Allah. “- This statement, which is formulated a bit more rhetorically, in the Charter of the Palestinian government party Hama and which appears in in publications of the Iranian state publishing house, and is daily broadcast by Hezbollah TV al-Manar into all world, actually originates neither from Islamic extremists nor it is the result of recent events. It was the common coin of Nazi radio broadcasts to the Arabs between 1939 and 1945, in order to win the hearts and minds of the Arabs. Meanwhile German Middle East experts endeavored in Germany to convince the Nazi government of
"the natural alliance" between National Socialism and Islam. Experts such as the former German Ambassador in Cairo, Eberhard von Stohrer, reported to Hitler 1941 that "the Fuhrer already held an outstanding position among the Arabs because of his fight against the Jews."

Nazi propaganda with the Arabs had considerable success. Cüppers and Mallmann quote many specific documents from the Nazi archives on this. Against the common perception, according to which Germany only became involved in the Middle East via (originally) support for the Israeli state, Cuppers and Mallmann show, what an important shaping influence national socialism had on the Arab national movement.

The German invasion of the Middle East never happened because Rommel was defeated, but that does not mean that the Nazis exerted no influence. From the late 1930s the planning staffs dealing with external affairs in the Central Reich Security Office (RSHA, Reichssecuritathauptamt: originally under the monstrous Gestapo-chief Reinhard Heydrich) sought influence in the Arabian peninsula. The dream was a pincer movement, one from the north via a defeated Soviet Union, one from the south via the Near East and Persia, in order to separate Great Britain from India and to control completely the oil-rich Middle East. That was the plan, and the will not lacking, but the counterffensive of the Red Army before Moscow in 1941/1942 and at Stalingrad in 1942/1943, and the defeat of the German Africa Corps with El Alamein, finally defeated the plan. These victories also prevented the arrival of the Holocaust in the Near East, riding with the German armed forces--something which, however, was intended.

Despite the initial Nazi tolerance of Jewish emigration from Germany to Palestine, the Nazi government eventually expanded their plans to include the destruction of the Jews in the Near East . Studies undertaken by SS,"Einsatzgruppe [Taskforce] F “, already was listing Jewish dwellings in Palestine to be confiscated as accomodations for German troops. Starting from summer 1942 an "SS Einsatz Gruppe Egypt" was established, “after the model of the mass-murder Einsatzgruppen active on the East Front, which had already murdered hundreds of thousands of Jews; The one established in Egypt was led by the SS-Obersturmbannführer Walter Rauff and of a whole staff, experienced in the murder of Jews, experts from the RSHA, the Central Reich Security Office. Their order: To continue „the destruction of the Jews begun in Europe with the energetic assistance of Arab collaborators“ in the Near East.

ACCORDING TO CUPPER AND MALLMAN THE MAIN NAZI ALLY LOCALLY WAS THE ARAB NATIONAL MOVEMENT UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE EXILED AMIN HUSSEINI- Mufti of Jerusalem and uncle of the later Palestinian president Yasir Arafat. Its task was the spreading of pro-Nazi proaganda intended to mobilize local collaborators with the Nazi army and Nazi policies. The latter task, spreading support for Nazi polcies, was not a failure. Partly because of the attraction of the alleged anti-imperialism of the Nazis, which was directed against the mandate power of Great Britain, partly because of the dream of the resurgence of a vast Arab-Islamic realm, the Middle East elite became what Hitler celebrated as „prophets against the Jews “. Already at that time the so-called Palestinian question provided the crucial link, hatrred of the Jews provided the crucial link, between the two different forces.

The military successes of the Africa Corps eventually came to an end, stopped by the British in August/September 1942. But a lasting Nazi propaganda achievement was to place the Jewish settlement in Palestine in the center of Arab political mobilization and at the same time with a burning Islamic anti-imperialism. The central idea was that the destruction of the Yishuv (the Jewish population in Palestine) was the condition for the release of the Arab world from foreign rule. "Hear, O noble Arabs! “, reads one German pamphlet spread in Tunisia in 1943, „Free yourselves from the Englishmen, the Americans and the Jews! Because the Englishmen, Americans, the Jews, and their allies are the largest enemies of the Arabs and Islam!"

Messages such as these were spread by a far-reaching network of Nazi agents and collaborators and met with a positive response in nationalistic and Islamic circles, from an elite which would eventually run entire Arab states.

Thus agents of Nazi foreign propaganda in Egypt not only maintained close relations with the Muslim Brotherhood (from which Hamas descends), but also with "the free officers", a clandestine group from which the later presidents Abdel Nassir and Anwar alp Sadat originated. ARAB TERRORISTS IN PALESTIN WERE ALREADY BEING SUPPLIED WITH WEAPONS FROM NAZI GERMANY IN THE MID-1930S, when the Grand Mufti Husseini was leading them; the Nazi intent was to weaken Jewish and British mechanisms of power. In all parts of the Arab world similar groups, such as those in Iraq in 1940-1941 (with Husseini again present) pushed for action and gratefully received the material and ideological support from Nazi Germany.

With the defeat of El Alamein it was clear that the German military invasion of the Middle East would not materialize. The Nazi government therefore concentrated the German policy on mobilizing "the Arab resistance “. In this way the advance of the Allied armies could be hindered (though not stopped). The connection of all this too the Jews however embodied itself in the everyday consciousness of the masses. „What do the Americans want? They want to help the Jews “, was the type of propaganda the Nazis were spreading at that point. "Take up weapons, where you find them. Do damage to the cause to the enemy, wherever you can."

Cupper and Mallman write: “The remarkable similarity between Nazi propaganda broadcast into the Middle East and the treatises of today's terrorists is not accidental;" the one is the ancestor of the other. Cüppers and Mallmann show that virulent Arab anti-semitism is older than the founding of the state of Israel in 1948 and for the first time they demonstrate what part Nazi Germany had in its propagation.

N. Friedman - 9/30/2007

Peter,

This is a first. You got something correct!!!

N. Friedman - 9/30/2007

Omar,

Actually, the noted countries displaced large populations. In fact, a whole lot more people - by an order of magnitude of, I believe, 10 times - were displaced by them than Israel's creation displaced.

Try reading a book.

N. Friedman - 9/30/2007

Peter,

Husseini was not a minor figure. He was the main leader of the Palestinian Arabs. And, the issue is not screaming. The issue is that he played a role, as did the Palestinian Arabs who supported him and still support him.

art eckstein - 9/30/2007

Dershowitz's point is simple, is stated simply, and is historically incontrovertible. It is stated as the first sentence of his summary paragraph:

"It is a myth therefore – another myth perpetrated by Iran’s myth-maker-in-chief – that the Palestinians played “no role” in the Holocaust."

art eckstein - 9/30/2007

The answer is that Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, the Ukrainian Republic, the Byelorussian Republic, Romania, and Bulgaria do not allow an automatic "right of return" to the millions of Germans who lived in those areas for hundreds of years but who were kicked out or fled in 1945 when, having backed the Nazis, they were defeated by the Red Army.

Sound familiar? And all that property that was once held by all those Germans is now occupied and enjoyed by someone else: a Pole, a Czech, a Slovak, a Ukrainian, etc. And those millions of German refugees who fled did not originally have a good time in western Germany because no one really wanted them. Though they have now adjusted, as the Palestinians have not. But the fact that the Palestinians haven't adjusted doesn't entitle them to treatment different from the millions of Germans who eventually did adjust.

Neither Pakistan nor India allows a "right of return" to (respectively) Hindus or Muslims who fled in 1947. The number involved is about 14 million in 1947, i.e., about 18 times the number of Palestinians involved in the Nakbah; or, counting the Jews who fled or were kicked out just like the Palestinians who fled or were kicked out, it is nine times the numbers involved in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute in 1948-1956. NONE of them can return either.

Furthermore, no Muslim state allows an automatic "right of return" to Jews who fled or were kicked out after 1948. And all the property that those Jews once held is now occupied and enjoyed by some Muslim Arab--every piece of it, land, houses, etc.

In fact, the MAJORITY of the current Israeli population is of Middle Eastern descent--the MAJORITY of the current Israeli population are refugees or the descendants of refugees from Middle Eastern countries. Omar knows this, because he has been told this, repeatedly. He keeps up his "European colony" line purely for propaganda purposes, not because it is accurate, because he knows it appeals to the "third worldism" of leftists such as Clarke.

So there was a population exchange. There was a property exchange. Just like with India and Pakistan. But MORE Jews were kicked out of Muslim countries than Palestinians who suffered in the Nakbah--about 100,000 more; And more propertty was lost than the Palestinians lost. So, the Arabs came out ahead. Perhaps one can argue that all that Jewish property in Muslim lands, unfairly seized by some Muslim or Arab and enjoyed by some Muslim or Arab right as we speak, should rightfully go to the Palestinians. I believe that the Israeli government would have no objection to this.

art eckstein - 9/30/2007

Can Arabs buy land, and can Muslims build mosques, in Israel? Yes.

Can Israelis buy land, or build synagogues, in the PA or Gaza? No.

Is it Hamas (and Fateh) ideology that any Jew is good to kill--man, woman, child, no matter what their politics might be, their age, their nationality? Yes. This is proven by the suicide bombings which intentionally target civilians, including children and which are a moral disgrace which Omar supports. (One sign at Columbia showed a photo of a 15-year old Jewish girl: "I too would have liked to speak at Columbia, like Ahmedinejad, but I was blown up on a bus while going to school, by a Palestinian terrorist financed by Iran.")

And...who is the racist again?

Omar trots out his endlessly repeated ridiculous tripe, which he knows to be inaccurate. For instance, 20 countries including China, Germany, Ireland and Norway, have laws of return similar to Israel's, Omar--we've talked about this many times before. Israel is simply not unusual in this respect. So his accusation here is no longer merely unforgiveable ignorance on his part. etc., etc.

art eckstein - 9/30/2007

Do you deny that Husseini played a role in the killing of thousands of Jewish children by the Nazis in Europe? Or that he was instrumental in organizing the SS Division Handschar that committed many atrocities for the Nazis in the Balkans?

What is your explanation for the fact that Husseini was declared *an official international war criminal* in 1946? Was this a plot of the Jews against an innocent Palestinian?

Are the pictures of Husseini and Hitler warmly together, and Husseini and other Nazi bigwigs warmly together, of Husseini inspecting his SS Muslim troops--remember, this is the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, spiritual leader of all Palestinian Muslims and this is what he is doing,--are these fakes?

Joseph Mutik - 9/30/2007

Mr. Clarke opens his blame the Jews message by accusing a Jewish lawyer for fulfilling the legal right to counsel for a black man accused of a crime.
Mr. Clarke, we are not in the 1930s deep south, the U.S. of A. passed civil rights legislation during the 1960s, even if you don't like it! Blacks and Jews are allowed in the USA to use 99% (I guess) of the country clubs, hotels etc.
For a racist is normal to blame a Jew for exercising his profession and also use this as an argument in a non related Jewish subject!

N. Friedman - 9/29/2007

Art,

I believe you will find that France also helped al-Husseini escape prosecution.

In Clark-World, Palestinian Arabs are not judged by the same standards as Europeans. Were they so judged, one would have to ask how al-Husseini's supporters were any different than the various other supporters of the Nazis. That would lead to a lot of embarrassing questions which Peter would prefer remain under cover.

Peter,

While Palestinian Arabs are not as blameworthy as Nazi Germans, there is considerable blame that goes in that direction, since Palestinian Arabs supported al-Husseini and since they did all they could do to keep fellow human beings from finding refuge from the Nazis, which certainly caused enormous numbers of deaths.

art eckstein - 9/29/2007

1. Here's yet another example of absolutely wild and unsupported accusations from Clarke, who still has never learned that around here he actually has to have facts:

"Having defended murder, Dershowitz now wants to be, or perhaps has already long been, a hired gun for the West Bank settler movement and/or its American lackeys and dupes."

Wow. Any EVIDENCE that Dershowitz is being paid by the West Bank settler movment and/or its American lackeys and dupes, Herr Clarke? Has long BEEN paid? Perhaps WANTS TO BE paid?
No--you have nothing but irresponsible slander, just thrown around. Really disgraceful.

Having shown to have been historically wrong about the Palestinians, and having thrown out crazy accusations on the basis of his historical ignorance about THAT, and this having been demonstrated to him, is Herr Clarke chastened? No, not in the least! Instead he now comes up with this NEXT wild and unsupported accusation. Just an amazing performance.

2. Dershowitz's real point specifically about Palestinian support for the Nazis and involvement in the Holocaust can be found, where it rhetorically should be, in the first sentence of his summation paragraph:

"It is a myth therefore – another myth perpetrated by Iran’s myth-maker-in-chief – that the Palestinians played “no role” in the Holocaust." That's what he's saying. He goes on to say that given Palestinian backing of the Nazis, the U.N. was generous to them in 1948. That's an interesting argument, but as far as Dershowitz's main point about about Palestinian support for the Nazis during WWII, it is in the quoted sentence just above.

art eckstein - 9/29/2007

Dr. Weiskopf's point, Herr Clarke, is that Dershowitz is far more correct than you are, and that the latest German research demonstrates this. Now, above, you are trying desperately to back out of the wrong accusation you made. Husseini was not a huge player, no--he wasn't Himmler or Eichmann. He was not unimportant either. And remember, people such as Omar are PROUD of Husseini's contribution to the Holocaust.

Admit Husseini made such a contribution. That's why Husseini was *an official internationally wanted war criminal* after the war, Herr Clarke! You think that was an accident? Or perhaps a plot of the Jews against poor little Amin? If Wisliceny isn't lying (and you offered a totally wrong reason why Wisliceny would lie, Herr Clarke), Husseini had influence on Eichmann (who had visited Palestine for the Nazi Govt in the mid-1930s, which is when they got to know each other).

You know, Herr Clarke, you really shouldn't get involved in topics about which you know nothing. And especially when you start off by throwing around the word "lie", the problem is you demonstrate that you are historically ignorant.

Michael Weiskopf - 9/29/2007

Gentlemen:

I suggest you consult the following works:

Klaus Gensicke Der Mufti von Jerusalem und die Nationalsozialisten. Eine politische Biographie Amin el-Husseinis.
FSL nr. 11 Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft; Auflage: Vollst. überarb. u. aktualis. Neuausg. (2007)


Jobst Knigge Deutsches Kriegsziel Irak: Der deutsche Griff auf den Nahen Osten im Zweiten Weltkrieg: Über Kaukasus und Kairo zum Öl des Orients. Pläne und Wirklichkeit.
Kovac, J; Auflage: 1 (Juni 2007)

Klaus-Michael Mallmann, Martin Cüppers Halbmond und Hakenkreuz. Das "Dritte Reich", die Araber und Palästina.Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft; Auflage: 2., durchges. Aufl. (September 2006)

These are available from amazon.de.

You might also consult www.nationeuropa.de for books which will illustrate, with great pride, the assistance given by the Mufti to his friends in the Reich.

Hochachtungsvoll,
Dr. Michael weiskopf

art eckstein - 9/29/2007

So you think I'm making all this up, do you?

Wisliceny certainly wsan't seeking to avoid hanging by blaming everything on Husseini; (a) he didn't blame everything on Husseini, who was not above him in any official hierarchy, and didn't give him orders, and (b) he didn't escape hanging. It is more plausible that Wisliceny had no reason to lie.

There is a classic work on the subject. It is Lukasz Hirszowicz' The Third Reich and the Arab East (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1968). Based on very extensive research in the German and British archives, as well as on a knowledge of Arabic and the then available sources. Husseini is a major figure in this book. Why don't you read it, Peter? Then we can talk.

Husseini was part of the Nazi death-machine. Was he a huge figure in it? No. Was he responsible for thousands of deaths--all the evidence suggests he was. That is not just me, Peter: he was an internationally officially wanted war criminal (let me repeat this to you: *an officially wanted war criminal*) who managed to find refuge in an Arab country. Latest work suggests he also played a role in getting fugitive ex-Nazis refuge in Arab countries.

Next time, as N.F. says, do your homework before making wild accusations.

art eckstein - 9/29/2007

We've been through this in detail about a year ago, Peter. You are simply wrong.

El Hajj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and spiritual leader of all Palestinian Muslims, fled to Nazi Germany after helping to organize a pro-Nazi coup in Baghdad in April 1941. The coup eventually was overturned by the British, but not before a progrom that led to the deaths of several hundred Baghdad Jews.

One in Germany, al-Husseini hobnobbed with Hitler and Himmler. (There are photos.) He was asked by Hitler to organize a Muslim SS Division and then did personally take the lead in organizing an SS Division of Muslims, Division SS Handschar (Hanzar; Scimitar) that fought in the Balkans and committed many many atrocities against civilians. (There are photos of him with his Nazi-uniformed Muslim SS soldiers.) Dieter Wisliceny, Eichmann's second in command, testified at his own trial at Nuremburg in 1946 that Husseini also visited Auschwitz and approved, and that he was a friend and adviser of Eichmann. It is the case that Husseini visited concentration camps of Jews nearer to Berlin. He made many propaganda broadcasts for Hitler advocating massacre of Jews. He personally intervened to prevent 5,000 Jewish children from being released from the Theresiendstadt concentration camp in a deal with the Allies for trucks, so that they ended up in the death camps. In his memoirs he indicates he was fully aware of the Final Solution, approved it, and intended to apply the Final Solution in Palestine itself and had contracted with Hitler and Himmler to do it. All this was documented in the Allied War Crimes Trial at Nuremburg, and after the war Husseini was formally declared a criminal wanted for war crimes committed for Germany. This had to do with the Jewish children and the formation of the SS Division Handschar. He escaped Europe and eventually refuge in Egypt, where he lived to a ripe old age.

Our friend Omar, although confronted with all this information, did not deny it, but has instead steadfastly called himself a supporter of Husseini and has called down the blessings of Allah upon him.

Dershowitz was perfectly correct. Next time, Peter, learn the facts before you start making accusations.

N. Friedman - 9/29/2007

Peter,

I think you are reading more into Dershowitz than he intends.

For the record, the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs was more than an innocent observer. Intent clearly existed and, like all other people, you are judged by some of what your leadership says and does. Husseini hung out in Nazi Germany. He said a lot of vile things.

What follows is a letter by al-Husseini:

Rome
June 28, 1943

His Excellency
The Miniater of Foreign Affairs for Hungary

Your Excellency:

You no doubt know of the struggle between the Arabs and Jews of Palestine, that It has been and what it Is, a long and bloody fight, brought about by the desire of the Jews to create a national home, a Jewish State in the Near East, with the help and protection of England and the United States. In fact, behind it lies the hope which the Jews have never relinquished, namely, the domination of the whole world through this Important, strategic center, Palestine. In effect their program has, among other purposes, always aimed at the encouragement of Jewish migration to Palestine and the other countries of the Near East. However, the war, as well as the understanding which the members of the Three-Power Pact have of the responsibility of the Jews for its outbreak and finally their evil Intentions towards these countries which protected them until now - all these are reasons for placing them under such vigilant control as will definitely stop their emigration to Palestine or elsewhere.

Lately I have been informed of the uninterrupted efforts made by the English and the Jews to obtain permission for the Jews living in your country to leave for Palestine via Bulgaria and Turkey.

I have also learned that these negotiations were successful since some of the Jews of Hungary have had the satisfaction of emigrating to Palestine via Bulgaria and Turkey and that a group of these Jaws arrived In Palestine towards the end of last March. The Jewish Agency, which supervises the execution of the Jewish program, has published a bulletin which contains Important information on the current negotiations between the English Government and the governments of other interested states to send the Jews of Balkan countries to Palestine. The Jewish Agency quoted, among other things, its receipt of a sufficient number of immigration certificates for 900 Jewish children to be transported from Hungary, accompanied by 100 adults.

To authorize these Jews to leave your country under the above circumstances and in this way, would by no means solve the Jewish problem and would certainly not protect your country against their evil influence - far from it! - for this escape would make it possible for them to communicate and combine freely with their racial brethren in enemy countries in order to strengthen their position and to exert a more dangerous influence on the outcome of the war, especially since, as a consequence of their long stay in your country, they are necessarily in a position to know many of your secrets and also about your war effort. All this comes on top of the terrible damage done to the friendly Arab nation which has taken its place at your side in this war and which cherishes for your country the most sincere feelings and the very best wishes.

This is the reason why I ask your excellency to permit me to draw your attention to the necessity of preventing the Jews from leaving your country for Palestine; and if there are reasons which make their removal necessary, it would be indispensable and infinitely preferable to send them to other countries where they would find themselves under active control, for example, in Poland, in order thereby to protect oneself from their menace and avoid the consequent damages.

Yours, etc.

As I said, Lewis shows that al-Husseini was aware that Jews were been slaughtered en masse. In fact, al-Husseini advocated for such and, as Lewis shows, he knew how many people were being killed.

So, this is not a minor matter, as you suggest. He was clearly hip-deep in the matter and he clearly had the support of Palestinian Arabs. He is still a hero among Palestinian Arabs, notwithstanding the information which has come to light. He knew full well what he was doing, notwithstanding your sly assertions.

Again: I do not claim Palestinian Arabs are in the same order of guilt as Germans. However, they are akin to European peoples who wanted to and succeeded in denying refuge to Jews. And, their alliance with the Nazis also requires serious criticism, no matter the motive of driving off the British. This was not making a deal with the devil to get rid of a worse devil. It was making a deal with the devil to get rid of an undesired circumstance - but not to get rid of a devil. So, criticism is certainly in order, notwithstanding what you think.

N. Friedman - 9/29/2007

Peter,

In fact, scholarship does show that the leadership of the Palestinian did have very close connections with the Nazis. Such has been commented on in detail by, among others, Bernard Lewis. And, in fact, the leadership had the support of the masses. That is certainly a fact.

What is not supported is that the Palestinian Arabs played the most important role in what happened to Jews during WWII. Obviously, they did not. But, they played a role that was very far from insignificant.

On the best case scenario, the position taken by Palestinian Arabs and the attendant violence resulted, among other things, in Britain denying entry of refugees who might have otherwise lived. That is several hundred thousand people who needlessly died.

That, in itself, places the Palestinian Arabs in the same light as many of the European states which denied refuge. European states are severely faulted for such moral failure. Why should Palestinian Arabs get a free pass when European states which did the same thing have been severely criticized for such a moral failing?

And, the leader - al-Husseini -, according to Bernard Lewis, seems to have known, as events were unfolding, how many Jews were being killed in Germany - since he divulged accurate information about the numbers of people being killed before they were known outside Germany. And, it might be added, that he advocated for killing Jews en masse.

Which is to say, this is a case where you need to do more homework. You might begin, in this case, with Bernard Lewis' famous work Semites and Anti-Semites. It provides information about al-Husseini's knowledge of the number of people being massacred.

Also, in an article written in The American Scholar, Lewis notes that al-Husseini wanted to ally with the Nazis - not the other way around - :

Now that the German archives are open, we know that within weeks of Hitler’s coming to power in 1933, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem got in touch with the German consul general in Jerusalem, Doctor Heinrich Wolff, and offered his services. It is interesting that the common image of the Germans pursuing the Arabs is the reverse of what happened. The Arabs were pursuing the Germans, and the Germans were very reluctant to get involved. Dr. Wolff recommended, and his government agreed, that as long as there was any hope of making a deal with the British Empire and establishing a kind of Aryan-Nordic axis in the West, it would be pointless to antagonize the British by supporting the Arabs.

But then things gradually changed, particularly after the Munich Conference in 1938. That was the turning point, when the German government finally decided that there was no deal to be made with Britain, no Aryan axis. Then the Germans turned their attention more seriously to the Arabs, responding at last to their approaches, and from then on the relationship developed very swiftly.

In 1940 the French surrender gave the Nazis new opportunities for action in the Arab world. In Vichy-controlled Syria they were able for a while to establish an intelligence and propaganda base in the heart of the Arab East. From Syria they extended their activities to Iraq, where they helped to establish a pro-Nazi regime headed by Rashid Ali al-Gailani. This was overthrown by the British, and Rashid Ali went to join his friend the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in Berlin, where he remained as Hitler’s guest until the end of the war. In the last days of Rashid Ali’s regime, on the first and second of June 1941, soldiers and civilians launched murderous attacks on the ancient Jewish community in Baghdad. This was followed by a series of such attacks in other Arab cities, both in the Middle East and in North Africa.

Bernard Lewis, The American Scholar - Volume 75 No. 1 Winter 2006 pp. 25-36.

Before you criticize, do some homework!!!