The Israeli/Palestinian conflict as not being one over land, but over Islamic doctrine

by James Stephens

February 26, 2010

Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch makes vital points  in this analysis of the phenomenon which is Mosab Hassan Yousef.

In the opinion of 4international this is one of the most important factors in the situation in the Middle East, an Arab who turns decisively against Islam.

We on 4international are not at all against Arabs, we are against the backward and reactionary political ideology cum religion of Islam, and if Arabs are going to have any future, especially Arab women, then they have to make a decisive break with Islam.

But this means facing up the the reactionary Fascist ideology which underpins Islam.

There are those Jews and others, I know one in Southern Spain, who continually claim that Islam is OK, it is just that there are extremists, and then of course this person says there are extremists in all religions.

But what will this person do now about Mosab Hassan who has broken from Islam. Will he attack him?

This is why this analysis by Spencer is so important, and also important is the comment which we place at the end, which was one of many good comments on Jihadwatch, url provided by us for you to visit yourself. Sorry it is 2 comments, I cannot omit the comment by Sean, and he has an url which I intend to visit, but it is the comment by 4infidels which gets to the very heart of the issue

[Begin analysis by Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch here]

Even a moderate Muslim who reads the Koran must read that the Jews are the sons of apes and that the infidels must be killed”

Mosab Hassan Yousef is the son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, a West Bank Hamas leader. Mosab Hassan Yousef is a convert to Christianity. In this interview he speaks about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as not being one over land, but over Islamic doctrine, which is intransigent and can never allow for the existence of an Infidel polity, much less a Jewish State, on what Muslims consider to be Islamic land. He speaks about the problem being rooted in the Qur’an.

This is what we have said here many, many times, and so it should come as no surprise to longtime Jihad Watch readers, or to anyone who is fully informed about the motives and goals and beliefs of the jihadis. But it will come as a total surprise to the learned analysts who dominate the discourse in Washington, and they will dismiss it out of hand. “Israel’s spy in Hamas (Part II),” by Avi Issacharoff for Haaretz, February 26 (thanks to Mladen Andrijasevic):

[…] “Many people think the terrorists’ motivation is the Israeli occupation, the corruption, but all that is just the backdrop. It is not the root of the problem. The occupation is like the rain that falls on the soil in which the seed has been planted, but it is not the seed itself. The root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not lie in security or politics: It is a war between two gods, two religions. Between the God of the Torah and the God of the Koran. The Koran teaches that this is Waqf land – a sacred endowment which must not be given up. The Torah taught the Jews that this is their land and must not be given up.”It follows that there will be no peace in the Middle East. Israel’s problem is not with Hamas or with any other organization, nor with the interpretation Hamas reads into the Koran. It is with the god of the Koran. After all, even a moderate Muslim who reads the Koran must read that the Jews are the sons of apes and that the infidels must be killed. The Palestinians must stop blaming Israel, or the West, for all their problems. If they want true freedom, they must free themselves from their God.”

You sound completely pessimistic. What about a Palestinian state?

“That is not a solution. Today we do not have a leadership worthy of ruling, not Hamas and not Fatah. The Palestinians move between the corrupt leadership of Fatah, and the Hamas leadership, which sends them all to die. Besides, Hamas cannot make peace with the Israelis. That is against what their God tells them. It is impossible to make peace with infidels, only a cease-fire, and no one knows that better than I.

“The Hamas leadership is responsible for the killing of Palestinians, not Israelis. Palestinians! They do not hesitate to massacre people in a mosque or to throw people from the 15th or 17th floor of a building, as they did during the coup in Gaza. The Israelis would never do such things. I tell you with certainty that the Israelis care about the Palestinians far more than the Hamas or Fatah leadership does. Israel withdrew from Gaza, and instead of the place being built up and cultivated, look what happened there. We need to take a break from these leaders. And I call on the government of Israel: Never accede to Hamas demands, not even about Gilad Shalit. They will not hurt him – he is too important to them. Even if it goes on for 10 years, Israel must not give in and release all those people from prison.”

Important comment by Sean

sean | February 26, 2010 8:12 AM | Reply“Islam is the only religion which is more obsessed with unbelievers than it is with its own followers. Muslims define their own identity solely in opposition to the Kuffar. Islamic accomplishments are so negligible that they have no positive cultural features with which they can identify. Hence the unceasing and implacable aggression toward civilized peoples and envy of their accomplishments. The development and deliberate cultivation of hatred is such a central feature of Islam that there is nothing that we Kuffars can do, or not do, that would make our univited guests hate us any less or any more.

Rage is so intrinsic to Islam that external events are irrelevant. Hatred of non-Moslems is the pivot of Islamic existence. Muslims are bound together by a shared and carefully nurtured animosity to ‘The Other’ developed from earliest childhood, which ignites a permanent fire of tension between Moslems and non-Moslems. Ever since Jihadists started immigrating into the West, we have become all too familiar with concepts such as ‘Killing the unbelievers wherever you find them’ and the tribal polarities of Dar al-Harb versus Dar al-Islam , Ummah versus Kuffar etc.

Very little of the Koran is devoted to how to be a Muslim, the religion of Islam. Instead, the majority of the Koran is about kafirs, non-Muslims. Kafirs are the worst of the creation. Allah hates kafirs and plots against them. Kafirs can be tortured, murdered, robbed, raped and enslaved. The Koran is fixated on kafirs, as was Mohammed.”

Second important comment by 4infidels. This comment is of extreme importance

How long until mainstream American Jewish organizations tell him to tone down his message, that their mission includes interfaith dialogue, and that they are officially committed to the two-state solution? “My gosh, he sounds Islamophobic and we can’t be associated with someone like that!”

Do you think that the Jewish newspapers and JTA will even cover this important interview or will they continue to do PR for J-Street and the Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations with whom they are “engaged in dialogue?”

I’m sure Pres. Obama could inform him that while he condemns the violence, Hamas has “legitimate grievances.”

Funny how Mosab Yousef comes to the same conclusions that this website has regarding Islam and the nature of “the conflict.”


February 25, 2010

This is the analysis by DEBKAfile of the way that Arabs, Islam followers, and antisemites are preparing to make war on Israel and to end the Jewish Homeland

[Begin analysis here]

The secret transfer of the mobile surface-to-surface Syrian-made Fateh-110 (range 250km) missile to Hizballah sparked the prediction Friday, Feb. 5 from an unnamed US official that cross-border arms smuggling from Syria into Lebanon outside state control was “very dangerous”  and “paved the way to war similar to Israel-Hizballah conflict of 2006. debkafile’s military sources report that Israel warned Syria through at least two diplomatic channels against Hizballah using this lethal weapon, which is capable of reaching almost every Israel city.

Our sources disclose: Syria pulled the wool of Israel’s eyes for the transfer by openly training Hizballah in the use of SA-2 and SA-6 surface-to-surface missiles. Israel had warned it would deem their passage into Lebanon Syrian casus belli by Syria.

The Fateh-110 is still more lethal, accurate and dangerous than the SA-2 and SA-3. it confronts Israel now with a Hizballah armed with a solid-fuel propellant, road-mobile, single-stage, short-range ballistic system weighing three tons with a half-ton warhead and a range of 250 kilometers. It is not deployed in surface batteries but fired from mobile launchers, which the solid propellant renders capable of firing at speed with little advance preparation, before returning to the fortified underground silos Hizballah has sunk in mountain areas across Lebanon.
These features make the Fateh-110 a very tough target for Israeli bombers to strike.
According to our intelligence sources, Israel posted warnings against Hizballah using the weapon through US Middle East envoy George Mitchell who called on president Bashar Assad in Damascus on January 20 and ,even more emphatically, through Spanish foreign minister Miguel Moratinos who arrived in Syria on Feb. 3 after talks in Jerusalem. The message he carried was that if Hizballah ventured to fire the Fateh-110, Israel was determined to hit back at strategic and military targets inside Syria.
This warning instantly prompted the war rhetoric which emanated from Assad and his foreign minister Walid Moallem. Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, known for his undiplomatic, blunt style, responded by warning Syria that it stood to lose the next war and the Assad family would lose its grip on power in Damascus.
Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and defense minister Ehud Barak are presumed to have endorsed the first part of Lieberman’s comment as representing their own view. But the minister added the personal threat on Syria’s leaders on his own initiative.

Those who we hear blaming Israel for the Dubai Assasination and hiding this reality are very simply antisemites. Antisemitism is what it is ALL about. Same old story!


February 25, 2010

I am mystified by the assasination of this Hamas antisemite in Dubai but I am not at all mystified by how the antisemites of this world are doing all they can to blacken the name of Israel and the great force of this antisemitic cam`paign-

Hamas terrorist al-Mabhouh; Israel blamed

The action of the Irish Foreign Minister should be noted. This is a report from the Israel National News website

“I intend to meet the Israeli foreign minister in Brussels to underline our deep concern about the fake use of passports in Dubai and to seek reassurance and clarification on this very serious issue,” said Irish Foreign Minister Michael Martin. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband also is expected to raise the issue with Lieberman.

The assassination also weighs heavily on trade relations between Israel and the UAE, which has no formal diplomatic ties with the Jewish State.

Austria is also concerned because of reports that pre-paid chips made in its country were used in seven mobile phones used in the elimination of al-Mabhouh.

In Gaza, Hamas rejected Dubai police statements that Hamas was to blame for faulty security that allowed information about al-Mabhouh’s arrival to be leaked to Israeli intelligence agents.

We on 4international and our Irish members always in these cases point out the following.

During the Holocaust the Irish ruling elite of De Valera and Fianna fail did  not one single thing to rescue one single Jew from the Holocaust.

Moreover deValera when he heard of the death of the fiend Hitler went along to sign a condolence message to the Germans.

So Martin who is from the same party, and Fine Gael and labour were even worse, has nothing at all to say to Israel in the present day about anything.

Also the issue of wbho killed this terrorist Hamas brute is not one bit important when placed beside the reality of what he was doing in Dubai, and why he was being allowed freedom to organize the arms for Hamas to kill Jews.

You see it is how you approach these things.

If you get all bothered about who killed this brute, and ignore that he was engaged in war against the Jews, then that labels you in my book as an antisemite.

This is the DEBKAfile analysis

…certain European elements and Iran are urging Dubai and the United Arab Emirates to go all the way and bring Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Mossad director Meir Dagan to trial before the international court at The Hague. They would be accused of ordering the Mabhouh liquidation, thereby committing an act of terror, namely a war crime, on foreign soil.
debkafile’s intelligence sources report that Tehran is behind the emirates’ change of tone after their officials previously avoided directly implicating Israel. Monday too, they “discovered” another six or seven suspects in addition to the eleven previously cited.
According to our sources, Iran is intent on keeping the Mabhouh affair alive by pumping out a stream of sensational “discoveries” and innuendo in order to tar Israel as a practitioner of terrorism. Teheran’s Iranian campaign of vilification will climax Wednesday, Feb. 24, when defense minister Gen. Ahmadi Vahidi visits Qatar to rebuke its rulers on their handling of the assassination as overly tame.
The Iranian minister will ask how the emirates can expect security when they give Israeli agents free rein and permit the Americans to post interceptor missiles on their soil. Putting their trust in foreigners will not make them safe, Vahidi will argue, and advise the emirs instead to take up Iran’s offer of mutual defense pacts based entirely on regional forces.
Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman responded to the EU decision after meeting British foreign secretary David Miliband and the Irish foreign minister: “There is no proof Israel is involved in this affair, and if somebody had presented any proof, aside from press stories, we would have reacted. But since there are no concrete elements, there is no need to react.”

debkafile’s sources note that careful inspection of the CCTV clip the Dubai police released to GNTV Monday tracks a group of unidentified characters moving around in a suspicious manner, interacting, checking in and out of airport and hotels, switching disguises, shadowing Mabhouh and taking a room on the same floor as his at the Al-Bustan Rotana luxury hotel.  
Nothing on the tape links the suspects to any country or organization; neither does it show any group member moving from surveillance to killing mode.

Read the following report by a source not very friendly to Israel, especially the final paragraph which points to why Israel would send so many to assasinate one person:

In the past few days the Dubai Chief of Police released CCTV footage of a hit team that took the life of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh on January 19, 2010. This footage has sparked an international man hunt for the 11 people identified by their passport photos.

Mabhouh was a senior member of Hamas and one of its founders. He was thought to be heavily involved in the 1989 kidnapping and murder of two Israeli Soldiers, Avi Saparotas and Ilan Saadon. Mabhouh held the position of chief weapons importer to Hamas. Mabhouh has negotiated weapons deal with the Iranians to supply Hamas with long-range missiles, the deadliest weapons in Hamas’s arsenal.

The last moments of Mabhouh’s life were tracked by UAE authorities. 17 members are believed to comprise Mahbouh’s hit team. The hit team arrived in Dubai Airport 19 hours before the killing. They arrived separately from different destinations, checked in to different hotel rooms, paid for their purchases in cash, used disposable cell phones, never had telephone contact with each other but called a suspicious number in Austria. As soon as Mabhouh landed at UAE he was shadowed by members of the team. Other members of the team dressed as Tennis Players followed him to his hotel and then inside the elevator to his floor. One member checked in to a room opposite that of Mabhouh. Mabhouh took a walk around the city and came back to his hotel room around 8:30 pm. It is believed that 4 members of the team were laying in wait for him at his hotel room and ambushed him. There were conflicting reports as to whether Mabhouh as suffocated or electrocuted. After the killing, the team was able to fly out of Dubai. Since the murder, Hamas has pointed an accusatory finger at Mossad, the Israeli Intelligence Agency. Hamas believes that the Israelis assassinated Mabhouh along with perhaps some other unnamed intelligence services.

If we hypothesize that Mossad had indeed carried out the assassination certain questions come to mind.

1) Why were 17 team members sent to assassinate one man in a city like Dubai, 11 of whom were roaming the city shadowing him? Are 11 people really needed to shadow one person?

2) Why were the 11 constantly changing disguises within view of the cameras of CCTV? Surely it would draw more suspicion not less, to the team than if they simply behaved naturally. 11 different faces would surely not raise suspicion with Mabhouh with in a short span of less than 19 hours, there was no need for the elaborate pageantry of changing costumes, especially when the team knew that cameras were tracking their every move. It seems that the assassins were trying to leave a trail of evidence and draw the attention of the authorities once they had left the country.

3) At one point the female suspect looked up at the camera and smiled. The suspect, if a professional would most likely be aware that she was on camera, why would she give the camera a full frontal view of her face?

4) The passports used by the team in some cases were of real people. The passports were not stolen, rather their identity was used with a different picture and in some cases different passport numbers. At least 3 of the people are Olim, or new immigrants to Israel from Great Britain and 4 more are also Israeli citizens. Why would the Mossad use the identity of Israeli citizens in an operations of this magnitude, not only providing a direct link to Israel but also endangering its own citizens, possibly putting them on Hamas hit lists?

5) Why were two Palestinians arrested in connection with the assassination by Jordanian Authorities? What was their involvement? Were they helping Mossad or Perhaps another entity?

6) Finally, since the split between the Palestinian groups Fatah and Hamas, the two entities have been at war with each other. Weapons that Mabhouh was smuggling into Gaza would most likely be used against Fatah as well. Fatah also had an interest in the death of Mabhouh.

The Mossad has not been free of errors of late, 2 Israeli citizens were arrested a few years ago on suspicion of stealing passports in New Zealand. However, this operation seems to be even sloppier. Simply too many people were involved in the hit to escape undetected. An agency of the caliber of Mossad must know of the closed circuit cameras through out Dubai and yet the alleged Mossad agents allowed the cameras to obtain full views of their faces. Mabhouh was trailed so closely that he even bumped one of the assassins on the way from the airport. The passports were real names of real Israeli citizens, forging a direct link to Israel. spy agencies usually like to conduct assassinations without traces, especially to their own country. Unless the Mossad has become completely incompetent of late; it seems almost too easy to accuse it.

“Questions about the Dubai Assasination…”

Fifth Christian killed in a week in north Iraq

February 22, 2009

On the same theme we continue with another reprint from Jihadwatch, this time about the position of Christians in post US invasion of Iraq. But this time we want our readers to study the comments below as well for the key issues that they raise

[Begin analysis by Jihadwatch of killing of Christians by Muslims]

Persecution in Iraq, persecution in Egypt, both jihad-motivated, and Obama and other Western leaders are worried about “Islamophobia.” “Fifth Christian killed in a week in north Iraq,” from AFP, February 20 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

MOSUL, Iraq (AFP) – Iraqi police said they found a Christian shopkeeper shot to death in the restive northern city of Mosul on Saturday, the fifth Christian killing in a week thought to be related to March elections.Adnan al-Dahan, a 57-year-old Syrian Orthodox, was found with bullet wounds to his head in the northern Mosul district of al-Belladiyat, police and his relatives said.

Dahan had been kidnapped from his grocery shop last week in the neighbourhood of Al-Habda, also in northern Mosul, according to a police officer who did not want to be named….

Dahan was the fifth Christian to have been killed during the past week in Mosul, which is located about 350 kilometres (220 miles) north of Baghdad and has a Christian population of between 2,000 and 3,000….

In late 2008, a systematic campaign of killings and targeted violence killed 40 Christians and saw more than 12,000 flee Mosul.

(That was written by Robert Spencer)

Please read these comments

Comment 1

America’s 9/11 POTUS, besides as a ‘war-president’, ran on faith. Not withstnding, he spat on Americans from a mosque, on 9/17, covering up for his Al-Saud family & friends:
.. then again, sae POTUS spat on Americans with the ‘Guest worker’ program after pocketing campaign contributions from corporations sucking illigal-immigrant blood.
You see, Americans and faith come right after votes. With Americans hardly thinking beyond late-night TV, helped Bin-Ladens escape. So, news like the above, should not be a surprise.

Comment 2.

What’s amazing about this is the silence around it in its complete and total absence from the national consciousness. Don’t know about it; don’t need to worry about it.

*** 8:7 ***

Somebody should start a website with a running scorecard ticker tracking the % complete of Islamization in various nations. Lebanon is pretty much gone, things are wrapping up nicely in Malay and Thai, solid progress in northern Nigeria and the southern Philippines, a new nation in norther Waziristan, and Islamic Emirate, I think, and we have that other new Moslem Nation in Kosovo, lovingly ushered in by the globo-socialist crowd. We need put a stock ticker on these Moslems for they are Action Jacksons, forceful men.

*** 92:8 ***

Which will tip in to Shaira first, Sweden France or Belgium? And don’t forget those crazy Italians. And the Spaniards hath drank this cuppeth beforeth.

Comment 3

(This by the always brilliant Hugh)


From an Agence France-Press story last week:

Christians In Iraq: “We Don’t Want Our Rights. We Just Want To Be Alive.”

Three Christians killed in north Iraq

By Mujahid Mohammed (AFP)

MOSUL, Iraq — A Christian was killed in the restive city of Mosul on Tuesday, the third in as many days, as community leaders warned of rising violence against the minority ahead of Iraq’s March 7 general election.

Christian leaders in Mosul, north of Baghdad, have criticised the security forces for “standing by and watching” as attacks against their community increase in the run-up to the parliamentary poll.

On Tuesday, a gunman emerged from a car in the north of the city and fired at two Christian students with an automatic weapon, according to a police officer who did not want to be named.

The shooter fled together with two other men in the car.

The officer said that Zia Toma, a 21-year-old engineering student, was killed and Ramsin Shmael, a 22-year-old pharmacy student, wounded. Both young men were Assyrian Christians.

“We don’t want elections, we don’t want representatives, we don’t want our rights, we just want to be alive,” said Baasil Abdul Noor, a priest at Mar Behnam church in Al-Arabi neighbourhood where the shooting occurred.

“It has become a nightmare. The security forces should not be standing by and watching. We hold them responsible, because they are supposed to be protecting us, and protecting all Iraqis.”

Also in Mosul on Tuesday, two policemen were killed and nine other people wounded as a car bomb hit a police forensics bureau, emergency services said.

Tuesday’s murder of the student came after gunmen in Mosul killed two shop owners from Iraq’s Christian minority in separate attacks, prompting community leaders to criticise the security forces.

Greengrocer Fatukhi Munir, an Assyrian Catholic, was gunned down inside his shop in a drive-by shooting late on Monday, and armed assailants killed Rayan Salem Elias, a Chaldean Christian, outside his home on Sunday.

“I condemn this organised campaign against Christians,” said Yahya Abid Mahsoob, human rights committee chair of the provincial council of Nineveh, of which Mosul is the capital.

“We (the provincial council) call upon the local and central government to take all precautions to protect Christians.”

Others have expressed concerns that Christians could be targeted in violence ahead of the elections seen as a key test of reconciliation in Iraq, which has been wracked by sectarian hostilities since the 2003 US-led invasion.

“The Christian minority has become an issue in the elections, as it always is before elections,” said Hazem Girgis, a deacon at an Orthodox church in the town centre.

“We are terrified… and the security forces are not able to offer us any security,” said Girgis.

Attacks occur on a regular basis in Mosul and surrounding Nineveh province, which is among Iraq’s most violent areas.

Human Rights Watch warned in November that minorities including Christians in the north were the collateral victims of a conflict between Arabs and Kurds over who controls Iraq’s disputed northern provinces.

In late 2008, a systematic campaign of killings and targeted violence killed 40 Christians and saw more than 12,000 others flee Mosul

Comment 4

It was during the Bush Administration that a policy was put into place which agreed with the new Iraqi goverment that the Christians should not be allowed to leave Iraq.

Now under the present administraton that policy continues.

During the civil war, back in 1993-4, that broke apart Yugoslavia the USA brought thousands and thousands of Bosnian moslems into the USA. And today those Bosnians bring more and more of their relatives here!

And still today this government INSISTS on bringing into the USA, more and more moslems from any islamic country around the world.

Is it possible that we who support this site could ask our Congressmen to help to free the Iraqi Christians and bring THEM to the USA? The future of Christians in the Iraq is very dim.

They would be asset in our fight against islamics in this country!!

comment 5

(and this is not the least important comment)

Whereever the US troops are sent, a great catastrophe befells Christians there, whether it is Beirut 1983, or Kosovo 1999, or Iraq 2003. What a disaster. Ever since the Democrat primary voters had committed a horrible blunder in 1976 by rejecting the great Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson and nominating the Slimy Smiley Jimmy Carter for presidency instead, this country has been afflicted by a severe case of BL, or Bad Leadership.
Just 2 years ago, this country got its one and only chance in 32 years to break the Carter curse by electing an even greater man than the late Sen. Jackson was, Rudy Giuliani. The Republican primary voters topped the Democrats’ blunder by swiftly ditching Rudy in favor of the Insane McCain and Rev. HolyBee (Mike Huckabee), who, as the governor of Arkansas, had pardoned more than twice as many criminals as his 2 predecessors combined. He let rapists loose to kidnap, rape, torture and murder women. He let incorrible violent criminals loose to murder cops.
The result is Obamus Carterus. The BL continues, with no end in sight.

Islamic supremacists murder another Copt in Egypt, outside building Muslims feared would be used as a church

February 22, 2010

We continue our coverage of the suppression of the ancient Coptic religion in Muslim Egypt by printing this coverage of another murder of a Copt, this time apparently by the Egyptian state police, who had taken over a Coptic place of worship

[Begin coverage of issue by Jihadwatch]

Will the Islamophobia never end? “Another Copt Killed as Alleged Shooters Plead Not Guilty in Egypt,” from Compass Direct News, February 16:

ISTANBUL, February 16 (CDN) — Three men accused of killing six Coptic worshipers and a security guard pleaded not guilty on Saturday (Feb. 13) as the Coptic community mourned the loss of yet another victim of apparent anti-Christian violence.The three men allegedly sprayed a crowd with gunfire after a Christmas service in Nag Hammadi on Jan. 6. In addition to the seven that were killed, nine others were wounded. The killings were the worst act of anti-Coptic violence since January 2000, when 20 Copts were killed in sectarian fighting in Al-Kosheh.

Defendants Mohammed al-Kammuni, Qorshi Abul Haggag and Hendawi Sayyed appeared Saturday in an emergency security court in Qena, a city 39 miles (63 kilometers) north of Luxor.

In front of the packed courtroom, the three men said little at the hearing other than to enter their plea before Judge Mohammed Adul Magd, according to one attorney present at the hearing. The men are charged with premeditated murder, public endangerment and damaging property.

Numerous Muslim attorneys volunteered to defend them for free as seven attorneys representing the interests of the victims looked on. The next hearing is set for March 20.

Even as the men entered their pleas, the Coptic community mourned the loss of yet another Christian, this one shot dead by police. On the evening of Feb. 9, Malak Saad, a 25-year-old Coptic carpenter living in Teta in Menoufia Province, was walking outside a meeting hall that police had seized from Christians when he was shot through his chest at close range. He died instantly.

Scant details are known about the shooting. Police surrounded the entire village and closed it to all reporters. In a statement, officials at the Interior Ministry said the Saad was killed by mistake when a bullet discharged while a police guard was cleaning his weapon. The Interior Ministry said the shooter has been detained and will be tried in a military court. Such courts are traditionally closed to the public.

One of Saad’s cousins, who requested anonymity, disputed the Interior Ministry’s version of the incident. He said that the guard had used the bathroom inside the meeting hall and had come outside of the building when he exchanged a few words with Saad and shot him at close range. The bullet went completely through Saad’s chest.

The building in question had been Coptic-owned for 16 years, but two days prior to the shooting, police seized it after a group of Muslims started a rumor that the owners planned to convert the hall into a church building.

Disputes over worship venues are common in Egypt. Copts and other Christians are extremely restricted in opening or even maintaining houses of worship because of complex government statutes. Anti-Christian elements within Egyptian society often use the statutes to harass Christians, Christian leaders said….


Sharia forbids dhimmis to build new houses of worship or repair old ones. Even though Egypt is not a Sharia state, that is what is behind these “complex government statutes.”

(written by Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch)

Pakistan: Taliban behead 3 Sikhs for refusing to convert to Islam

22 February, 2010

Today we cover an article on Jihadwatch concerning the beheading of 3 young Sikhs by Muslims in Pakistan, and also following a comment by Hugh on Jihadwatch which deals with the real dhimmi issue within Islam, and how this is an issue which is hidden by those very dangerous people in the West, and in the Western media, who talk as if Islam was a “religion of peace” only spoiled by some indeterminate number of extremists

[Begin article on Jihadwatch]

A sizeable number of Sikhs lived in the tribal belt, particularly Aurakzai Agency, till the Taliban imposed jiziya or religious tax on them in 2009,” in accordance with Qur’an 9:29. “Three Sikhs beheaded by Taliban in Pak,” from the Economic Times, February 22 (thanks to all who sent this in):

NEW DELHI: In what threatens to cast a shadow on the upcoming Indo-Pakistan talks scheduled for February 25, three Sikh youths were beheaded by the Taliban in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) region after they allegedly refused to convert to Islam. Their severed heads were dumped at a gurudwara in Peshawar.

The Sikh youths — identified as Jaspal Singh, Sarabjit Singh and Baronat Singh — had gone to realise the money owed to them by some people in the FATA region adjoining Afghanistan, when they were abducted by the Taliban militia. They were allegedly told by the Taliban to embrace Islam or face death. When the Sikh youth refused, their heads were chopped and sent to the Bhai Joga Singh Gurudwara in Peshawar.

A sizeable number of Sikhs lived in the tribal belt, particularly Aurakzai Agency, till the Taliban imposed jiziya or religious tax on them in 2009. Most members of the community, faced with increasing pressure from the Taliban to convert to Islam, have since fled to cities across Pakistan

[Begin comment by Hugh here]

We are all waiting expectantly, waiting for the anguished outcry, and fierce denunciation of this, from Pakistan, from CAIR, from the O.I.C.

And how curious it is to note how the report in the Indian paper matter-of-factly mentions the Jizyah: “till the Taliban imposed jiziya or religious tax on them in 2009.” Yet, it appears not to make much of a difference in the behavior of the Indian government, surprisingly supine at times about the menace that Islam so clearly poses to all non-Muslims — Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, and even the handful of Jews — in India, as it does everywhere else.

Still, it’s better than no mention of the Jizyah, which is what you get in the American and other Western coverage of how the Taliban treated Hindus and Sikhs. Mention was made, fleeting mention, of Hindus being required to wear yellow identifying dress, but I do not recall ever seeing anything in the mainstream press about the imposition of the Jizyah.

In fact, I don’t recall seeing the word “Jizyah” ever in any of the thousands of stories about Muslim-non-Muslim conflict, not once, in the New York Times, or the Washington Post, or any British publications. Why not? Why is it so impossible to inform non-Muslim readers about the legal status of non-Muslims under Muslim rule? Antoine Fattal, a Lebanese Christian, wrote a whole book about it. The American government has yet to see fit to have that book translated from the French. Why? What is it spending its hundreds of billions in that “war on terror” on? More cash for Muslims, so as to keeep them happy so they won’t join the Taliban, or Al Qaeda, or a thousand other groups? Nothing left over to pay for a translation or two?


by James Stephens

February 16, 2002

There are certain definite components within Islam, as we have showed, that led tyhe Arabs to make a bee line for Hitler´s nazis.

There is a graphic piece of film that shows the Arab Palestinian leader, Hajj Amin el Husseini, striding in to a conference with Hitler, not breaking step as he gives the Nazi salute, then sitting down with Hitler. Hajj Amin is dressed in Arab dress. It is shorty, but decisive.

It is necessary to know the history of this man, but this history has been very carefully hidden by the Left who are antisemites and oppose Israel.

The following is a good report

The Nazi Roots of Modern Radical Islam

By Tom Knowlton

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

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

Likewise, prominent imams such as Abu Qatada, Omar Muhammad Bakri, and Abu Hamza regularly echo this claim that Arabs and Jews have been bitter enemies from the dawn of time.

However, if one examines the history of the Middle East, there is very little evidence of constant warring and animosity between Jews and Arabs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several of his descendants remain active in Palestinian affairs today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please visit the above link, have a look at the pictures which show the close connection between Hajj Amin and the Nazis, thus the Holocaust. We will come at this from another direction later. The report above does not quite give the true picture of just how fundamental Hajj Amin el Husseini, this Arab from Palestine, was in the Holocaust.

But what is most important not to miss as you scroll down some of these pictures is Arafat at the funeral of Hajj Amin in the 1970s.

This provides the vital link with the Holocaust.

Remember also that Mahmoud Abbas, present leader of Fatah and the PA, was the 30 years sidekick of Arafat. That is the Arafat who was behind the suicide murderers who invaderd Israel like a plague of rats from the West Bank et al in the 90s.

Remember also another link here, Abbas was trained by the antisemitic Soviet Stalinists of the 60s and 70s, those who made the (stalinist) theory that the Zionists were Nazis, and also it was from here that Abbas wrote his doctorate thesis which was an opus on Holocaust Denial.

This above stated fact re Abbas brings us in to the present “Left” hatred of Israel and support for Islam despots, as in their backing almost religious style of the present “Palestinians”, as in the Fascist exponents of Islam in Iran at this very moment.


by James Stephens

February 15, 2010

It would be very wrong to overlook the work of Snouck Hurgronje in understanding Islam historically

The following is an extract from:


Lectures on Its Origin, Its Religious and Political Growth, and Its Present


C. Snouck Hurgronje

Professor of the Arabic Language in the University of Leiden, Holland


This extract from the above weighty tome by Hurgronje explains some of the idealist (as opposed to materialist) roots of Islam

[Begin first extract from Hurgronje here]
Allah, who had given him power, soon allowed him to use it for the
protection of the interests of the Faithful against the unbelievers.
Once become militant, Mohammed turned from the purely defensive to the
aggressive attitude, with such success that a great part of the Arab tribes
were compelled to accept Islâm, “obedience to Allah and His Messenger.” The
rule formerly insisted upon: “No compulsion in religion,” was sacrificed,
since experience taught him, that the truth was more easily forced upon
men by violence than by threats which would be fulfilled only after the
resurrection. Naturally, the religious value of the conversions sank in
proportion as their number increased. The Prophet of world renouncement
in Mecca wished to win souls for his faith; the Prophet-Prince in Medina
needed subjects and fighters for his army. Yet he was still the same

Parallel with his altered position towards the heathen Arabs went a
readjustment of his point of view towards the followers of Scripture.
Mohammed never pretended to preach a new religion; he demanded in the name
of Allah the same Islâm (submission) that Moses, Jesus, and former prophets
had demanded of their nations. In his earlier revelations he always points
out the identity of his “Qorâns” with the contents of the sacred books of
Jews and Christians, in the sure conviction that these will confirm his
assertion if asked. In Medina he was disillusioned by finding neither Jews
nor Christians prepared to acknowledge an Arabian prophet, not even for the
Arabs only; so he was led to distinguish between the _true_ contents of the
Bible and that which had been made of it by the falsification of later
Jews and Christians. He preferred now to connect his own revelations more
immediately with those of Abraham, no books of whom could be cited against
him, and who was acknowledged by Jews and Christians without being himself
either a Jew or a Christian.

This turn, this particular connection of Islâm with Abraham, made it
possible for him, by means of an adaptation of the biblical legends
concerning Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael, to include in his religion a set of
religious customs of the Meccans, especially the hajj.[1] Thus Islâm became
more Arabian, and at the same time more independent of the other revealed
religions, whose degeneracy was demonstrated by their refusal to
acknowledge Mohammed.

[Footnote 1: A complete explanation of the gradual development of the
Abraham legend in the Qorân can be found in my book _Het Mekkaansche Feest_
(The Feast of Mecca), Leiden, 1880.]

All this is to be explained without the supposition of conscious trickery
or dishonesty on the part of Mohammed. There was no other way for the
unlettered Prophet, whose belief in his mission was unshaken, to overcome
the difficulties entailed by his closer acquaintance with the tenets of
other religions.

In the following extract from Hurgronje we see a palgiarizing of Judaism especially, and the key role of Muslim Armies in this new faith

[Begin second extract from Hurgronje here]

When Mohammed, taking his stand as opposed to Judaism and Christianity,
had accentuated the Arabian character of his religion, the Meccan rites of
pagan origin were incorporated into Islâm; but only after the purification
required by monotheism. From that time forward the yearly celebration of
the Hajj was among the ritual duties of the Moslim community.

In the first years of the strife yet another duty was most emphatically
impressed on the Faithful; _jihâd, i.e._, readiness to sacrifice life and
possessions for the defence of Islâm, understood, since the conquest of
Mecca in 630, as the extension by force of arms of the authority of the
Moslim state, first over the whole of Arabia, and soon after Mohammed’s
death over the whole world, so far as Allah granted His hosts the victory.

For the rest, the legislative revelations regulated only such points as had
become subjects of argument or contest in Mohammed’s lifetime, or such as
were particularly suggested by that antithesis of paganism and revelation,
which had determined Mohammed’s prophetical career. Gambling and wine were
forbidden, the latter after some hesitation between the inculcation of
temperance and that of abstinence. Usury, taken in the sense of requiring
any interest at all upon loans, was also forbidden. All tribal feuds with
their consequences had henceforward to be considered as non-existent, and
retaliation, provided that the offended party would not agree to accept
compensation, was put under the control of the head of the community.
Polygamy and intercourse of master and female slave were restricted; the
obligations arising from blood-relationship or ownership were regulated.
These points suffice to remind us of the nature of the Qorânic regulations.
Reference to certain subjects in this revealed law while others were
ignored, did not depend on their respective importance to the life of the
community, but rather on what happened to have been suggested by the events
in Mohammed’s lifetime. For Mohammed knew too well how little qualified he
was for legislative work to undertake it unless absolutely necessary.

This rough sketch of what Islâm meant when it set out to conquer the world,
is not very likely to create the impression that its incredibly rapid
extension was due to its superiority over the forms of civilization which
it supplanted. Lammens’s assertion, that Islâm was the Jewish religion
simplified according to Arabic wants and amplified by some Christian and
Arabic traditions, contains a great deal of truth, if only we recognize the
central importance for Mohammed’s vocation and preaching of the Christian
doctrine of Resurrection and judgment. This explains the large number of
weak points that the book of Mohammed’s revelations, written down by his
first followers, offered to Jewish and Christian polemics. It was easy for
the theologians of those religions to point out numberless mistakes in the
work of the illiterate Arabian prophet, especially where he maintained that
he was repeating and confirming the contents of their Bible. The Qorânic
revelations about Allah’s intercourse with men, taken from apocryphal
sources, from profane legends like that of Alexander the Great, sometimes
even created by Mohammed’s own fancy–such as the story of the prophet
Sâlih, said to have lived in the north of Arabia, and that of the prophet
Hûd, supposed to have lived in the south; all this could not but give them
the impression of a clumsy caricature of true tradition. The principal
doctrines of Synagogue and Church had apparently been misunderstood, or
they were simply denied as corruptions.

The conversion to Islâm, within a hundred years, of such nations as the
Egyptian, the Syrian, and the Persian, can hardly be attributed to anything
but the latent talents, the formerly suppressed energy of the Arabian race
having found a favourable soil for its development; talents and energy,
however, not of a missionary kind. If Islâm is said to have been from its
beginning down to the present day, a missionary religion,[1] then “mission”
is to be taken here in a quite peculiar sense, and special attention must
be given to the preparation of the missionary field by the Moslim armies,
related by history and considered as most important by the Mohammedans

The last extract from Hurgronje touches upon the real kernel within Islam which is Fascism. the present pope of Rome touched upon this in his Regensburg lecture, Septyember 2006, then withdrew

[Begin last extract from Snouck Hurgronje here]

Thus, in Islâm, a whole system, which could not even pretend to draw its
authority from the Sunnah, had come to be accepted. It was not difficult
to justify this deviation from the orthodox abhorrence against novelties.
Islâm has always looked at the world in a pessimistic way, a view expressed
in numberless prophetic sayings. The world is bad and will become worse and
worse. Religion and morality will have to wage an ever more hopeless war
against unbelief, against heresy and ungodly ways of living. While this
is surely no reason for entering into any compromise with doctrines which
depart but a hair’s breadth from Qorân and Sunnah, it necessitates methods
of defence against heresy as unknown in Mohammed’s time as heresy itself.
“Necessity knows no law” is a principle fully accepted in Islam; and heresy
is an enemy of the faith that can only be defeated with dialectic weapons.
So the religious truths preached by Mohammed have not been altered in
any way; but under the stress of necessity they have been clad in modern
armour, which has somewhat changed their aspect.

Moreover, Islâm has a theory, which alone is sufficient to justify the
whole later development of doctrine as well as of law. This theory,
whose importance for the system can hardly be overestimated, and which,
nevertheless, has until very recent times constantly been overlooked by
Western students of Islâm, finds its classical expression in the following
words, put into the mouth of Mohammed: “My community will never agree in an
error.” In terms more familiar to us, this means that the Mohammedan Church
taken as a whole is infallible; that all the decisions on matters practical
or theoretical, on which it is agreed, are binding upon its members.
Nowhere else is the catholic instinct of Islâm more clearly expressed.

A faithful Mohammedan student, after having struggled through a handbook of
law, may be vexed by a doubt as to whether these endless casuistic precepts
have been rightly deduced from the Qorân and the Sacred Tradition. His
doubt, however, will at once be silenced, if he bears in mind that Allah
speaks more plainly to him by this infallible Agreement (_Ijmâ’_) of the
Community than through Qorân and Tradition; nay, that the contents of both
those sacred sources, without this perfect intermediary, would be to a
great extent unintelligible to him. Even the differences between the
schools of law may be based on this theory of the Ijmâ’; for, does not the
infallible Agreement of the Community teach us that a certain diversity
of opinion is a merciful gift of God? It was through the Agreement that
dogmatic speculations as well as minute discussions about points of law
became legitimate. The stamp of Ijmâ’ was essential to every rule of faith
and life, to all manners and customs.

All sorts of religious ideas and practices, which could not possibly be
deduced from Mohammed’s message, entered the Moslim world by the permission
of Ijmâ’. Here we need think only of mysticism and of the cult of saints.

Some passages of the Qorân may perhaps be interpreted in such a way that we
hear the subtler strings of religious emotion vibrating in them. The chief
impression that Mohammed’s Allah makes before the Hijrah is that of awful
majesty, at which men tremble from afar; they fear His punishment, dare
hardly be sure of His reward, and hope much from His mercy. This impression
is a lasting one; but, after the Hijrah, Allah is also heard quietly
reasoning with His obedient servants, giving them advice and commands,
which they have to follow in order to frustrate all resistance to His
authority and to deserve His satisfaction. He is always the Lord, the King
of the world, who speaks to His humble servants. But the lamp which Allah
had caused Mohammed to hold up to guide mankind with its light, was raised
higher and higher after the Prophet’s death, in order to shed its light
over an ever increasing part of humanity. This was not possible, however,
without its reservoir being replenished with all the different kinds of oil
that had from time immemorial given light to those different nations. The
oil of mysticism came from Christian circles, and its Neo-Platonic origin
was quite unmistakable; Persia and India also contributed to it. There were
those who, by asceticism, by different methods of mortifying the flesh,
liberated the spirit that it might rise and become united with the origin
of all being; to such an extent, that with some the profession of faith
was reduced to the blasphemous exclamation: “I am Allah.” Others tried to
become free from the sphere of the material and the temporal by certain
methods of thought, combined or not combined with asceticism. Here the
necessity of guidance was felt, and congregations came into existence,
whose purpose it was to permit large groups of people under the leadership
of their sheikhs, to participate simultaneously in the mystic union. The
influence which spread most widely was that of leaders like Ghazâlî, the
Father of the later Mohammedan Church, who recommended moral purification
of the soul as the only way by which men should come nearer to God. His
mysticism wished to avoid the danger of pantheism, to which so many others
were led by their contemplations, and which so often engendered disregard
of the revealed law, or even of morality. Some wanted to pass over the gap
between the Creator and the created along a bridge of contemplation; and
so, driven by the fire of sublime passion, precipitate themselves towards
the object of their love, in a kind of rapture, which poets compare with
intoxication. The evil world said that the impossibility to accomplish this
heavenly union often induced those people to imitate it for the time being
with the earthly means of wine and the indulgence in sensual love.

Characteristic of all these sorts of mysticism is their esoteric pride.
All those emotions are meant only for a small number of chosen ones. Even
Ghazâlî’s ethical mysticism is not for the multitude. The development of
Islâm as a whole, from the Hijrah on, has always been greater in breadth
than in depth; and, consequently, its pedagogics have remained defective.
Even some of the noblest minds in Islâm restrict true religious life to an
aristocracy, and accept the ignorance of the multitude as an irremediable

Throughout the centuries pantheistic and animistic forms of mysticism have
found many adherents among the Mohammedans; but the infallible Agreement
has persisted in calling that heresy. Ethical mysticism, since Ghazâlî, has
been fully recognized; and, with law and dogma, it forms the sacred trio of
sciences of Islâm, to the study of which the Arabic humanistic arts
serve as preparatory instruments. All other sciences, however useful and
necessary, are of this world and have no value for the world to come. The
unfaithful appreciate and study them as well as do the Mohammedans; but,
on Mohammedan soil they must be coloured with a Mohammedan hue, and their
results may never clash with the three religious sciences. Physics,
astronomy, and philosophy have often found it difficult to observe this
restriction, and therefore they used to be at least slightly suspected in
pious circles.

“Two religions may not dwell together on the Arabian Peninsula.”

By James Stephens

February 15, 2010

Please find in the Christian or Jewish Bible anything approaching the following

[Start quotes from Quran here]

47:4- “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), strike off their heads; at length; then when you have made wide Slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.”

9:123- “Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you.”

2:191- “Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out.”

8:12- Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”

[End quotes from Quran here]

It is a fact that the original “non believers” as far as Islam is concerned were the Jews. Again it is necessary to understand this historically, especially the facts concerning the very early origins of Islam.  The great work by Mitchell G Bard gives outline understanding of this early period:

[Begin outline by Bard here]

Muhammad was born in Mecca approximately 570 C.E. and was a member of the Quraysh tribe. As with Moses and Jesus, we know little about his childhood. His parents died when he was young, and he never learned to read or write. When he was 12, he visited Syria and had his first exposure to Jews and Christians and apparently developed a respect for these “People of the Book.” At 25, Muhammad married a widow named Khadija who was involved in trade and got him involved in it as well.

During one trading journey when he was about 40, Muhammad had an encounter with the angel Gabriel revealed to him special revelations. Different opinions exist on whether Mohammed miraculously read or just repeated the revelations, which said he was to become the messenger of God. Following his prophetic experience, Mohammed returned to his wife and began spreading the teachings he learned.

Afterward, Muhammad began to develop a code of behavior that he said had come from Allah, or God. Some of the revelations included that the world would end, that God would judge humans mercifully if they submitted to His will, and that people should pray to show their gratitude to God.

The people who accepted Muhammad’s teachings came to be known as Muslims and their religion Islam, Arabic for “surrender [to the will of Allah].” Muhammad was regarded as the last and most perfect prophet. During the two centuries after Muhammad’s death, the laws of Islam were codified in the Shariah, and Muhammad was regarded as the last and most perfect prophet. The word of God was revealed to him through the angel Gabriel and recorded in the Arabic language in the Koran (or Qur’an).

The principles of Islam were developed over time and, as was the case with earlier men professing to be prophets, not everyone was willing to accept Muhammad’s claim to be God’s messenger. Muhammad was attacking the way of life of the more powerful families in the Quraysh tribe, and they were not happy about it. In addition to having to persevere the criticism of his views, he also suffered terribly when his wife and uncle died in the same year.

In 622, Muhammad left Mecca for an oasis then known as Yathrib. This trip became known as the hejira, the flight from persecution in Mecca. The term has also come to mean leaving a pagan community for one that adheres to the laws of Islam. In his new home, which was later renamed Medina, Muhammad became a mediator, arbitrating disputes between tribes.

Interestingly, Medina also had a sizeable Jewish community, which had probably moved there after being expelled from Palestine by the Romans. Muhammad respected the Jews, and his early teachings appeared to borrow from Jewish tradition. The Jews began to distance themselves from Muhammad, however, when he became critical of their not recognizing him as a prophet.

Once it was clear the Jews would not accept him, Muhammad began to minimize or eliminate the Jewish influence on his beliefs. For example, he shifted the direction of prayers from Jerusalem to Mecca, made Friday his special day of prayer, and renounced the Jewish dietary laws (except for the prohibition on eating pork). Originally, he said the Arabs were descendants of Abraham through his son Ishmael, but in the Koran Abraham’s connection to the Jews is denied, with Muhammad asserting that Abraham is only the patriarch of Islam, not Judaism as well, because he “surrendered himself to Allah.”

One of the immediate consequences of Muhammad’s frustration was the expulsion of two Jewish tribes from Medina and the murder of all the members of a third Jewish tribe (except for the women and children, who were sold into slavery). But even worse for the long-term treatment of the Jews were a number of inflammatory statements about Jews that Muhammad made that appear in the Koran — which, over the years, stoked Arab/Islamic anti-Semitism.

Muhammad slowly began to build his power base both by the persuasiveness of his faith and the old-fashioned way: by marrying women from important families to gain political advantage. He came to control the oases and markets, which forced other traders and tribesmen to negotiate with him. When he finally returned to Mecca, it was at the head of an imposing army that forced the residents to capitulate.

Muhammad died in 632, and it was left to his followers to carry on the traditions he had begun. His followers developed Islam, just as the followers of Moses and Jesus developed Judaism and Christianity over time.

More flesh is placed on this by the really excellent analysis found in Eretz Yisroel website

[Begin analysis of this history by Eretz Yisroel]

Although the fact is little publicized, more than one historian has affirmed at the Arab world’s second holiest city, Medina, was one of the allegedly “purely Arab” cities that actually was first settled by Jewish tribes.1

And like the 16th Century English Protestants who financed their endeavors through the plunder of Catholic monasteries in England, the roots of Islamic anti-Semitism might be found in the initial plunder of Jewish settlements, and the imposition of a “poll tax” to fund Arab campaigns.

Bernard Lewis writes:

The city of Medina, some 280 miles north of Mecca, had originally been settled by Jewish tribes from the north, especially the Banu Nadir and Banu Quraiza. The comparative richness of the town attracted an infiltration of pagan Arabs who came at first as clients of the Jews and ultimately succeeded in dominating them. Medina, or, as it was known before Islam, Yathrib, had no form of stable government at all. The town was tom by the feuds of the rival Arab tribes of Aus and Khazraj, with the Jews maintaining an uneasy balance of power. The latter, engaged mainly in agriculture and handicrafts, were economically and culturally superior to the Arabs, and were consequently disliked…. as soon as the Arabs had attained unity through the agency of Muhammad they attacked and ultimately eliminated the Jews.2

In the last half of the fifth century, many Persian Jews fled from persecution to Arabia, swelling the Jewish population there.3 But around  the sixth century, Christian writers reported of the continuing importance of the Jewish community that remained in the Holy Land. For the dispersed Arabian Jewish settlers, Tiberias in Judea was central. In the Kingdom of Himyar on the Red Sea’s east coast in Arabia, “conversion to Judaism of influential circles” was popular, and the Kingdom’s rule stretched across “considerable portions of South Arabia.”

The commoners as well as the royal family adopted Judaism, and one writer ports that “Jewish priests (presumably rabbis) from Tiberias … formed part the suite of King Du Noas and served as his envoys in negotiations with Christian cities.”4

According to Guillaume,

At the dawn of Islam the Jews dominated the economic life of the Hijaz [Arabia]. They held all the best land … ; at Medina they must have formed at least half of the population. There was also a Jewish settlement to the north of the Gulf of Aqaba…. What is important is to note that the Jews of the Hijaz made many proselytes [or converts] among the Arab tribesmen.5

The first “Palestinian” or Judean refugees — the Jews — had resettled to become prosperous, influential Arabian settlers.

The prosperity of the Jews was due to their superior knowledge of agriculture and irrigation and their energy and industry. Homeless [Jewish] refugees in the course of a few generations became large landowners in the country, [the refugees who had come to the Hijaz when the Romans conquered Palestine] controllers of its finance and trade…. Thus it can readily be seen that Jewish prosperity was a challenge to the Arabs, particularly the Quraysh at Mecca and … [other Arab tribes] at Medina.

The Prophet Muhammad himself was a member of the Quraysh tribe, which coveted the Jews’ bounty, and

when the Muslims took up arms they treated the Jews with much greater severity than the Christians, who, until the end of the purely Arab Caliphate, were not badly treated.6

One of the reasons for “this discrimination” against the Jews is what Guillaurne called “the Quran’s scornful words” regarding the Jews7 The Jews’ development of land and culture was a prime source of booty in the Arabian desert peninsula. Beginning at the time of the Prophet Muhammad and Islam8 from the expulsions, depredations, extortion, forced conversions or murder of Jewish Arabians settled in Medina to the mass slaughter of Jews at Khaibar — the precedent was established among Arab-Muslims to expropriate that which belonged to the Jews. Relations between the Prophet Muhammad and the Jews were “never … easy”:

They had irritated him by their refusal to recognize him as a prophet, by ridicule and by argument; and of course their economic supremacy … was a standing irritant.9

It appears that the first “instigation” by the Prophet Muhammad himself against the Jews was an incident in which he had “one or two Jews … murdered and no blood money was paid to their next of kin.”

… Their leaders opposed his claim to be an apostle sent by God, and though they doubtless drew some satisfaction from his acceptance of the divine mission of Abraham, Moses, and the prophets, they could hardly be expected to welcome the inclusion of Jesus and Ishmael among his chosen messengers.10… the existence of pockets of disaffected Jews in and around his base was a cause of uneasiness and they had to be eliminated if he [Muhammad] was to wage war without anxiety.11

Because the Jews preferred to retain their own beliefs,

a tribe of Jews in the neighborhood of Medina, fell under suspicion of treachery and were forced to lay down their arms and evacuate their settlements. Valuable land and much booty fell into the hands of the Muslims. The neighboring tribe of Qurayza, who were soon to suffer annihilation, made no move to help their co-religionists, and their allies, the Aus, were afraid to give them active support. 12

The Prophet Muhammad’s pronouncement: “Two religions may not dwell together on the Arabian Peninsula.”13 This edict was carried out by Abu Bakr and Omar 1, the Prophet Muhammad’s successors; the entire community of Jewish settlements throughout northern Arabia was systematically slaughtered. According to Bernard Lewis, “the extermination of the Jewish tribe of Quraiza was followed by “an attack on the Jewish oasis of Khaibar.”14

Messengers of Muhammad were sent to the Jews who had escaped to the safety and comfort of Khaibar, “inviting” Usayr, the Jewish “war chief,” to visit Medina for mediations.

Usayr set off with thirty companions and a Muslim escort. Suspecting no foul play, the Jews went unarmed. On the way, the Muslims turned upon the defenseless delegation, killing all but one who managed to escape. “War is deception,” 15 according to an oft-quoted saying of the Prophet.16

The late Israeli historian and former President, Itzhak Ben-Zvi, judged the “inhuman atrocities” of the Arabian communities as unparalleled since then:

… the complete extermination of the two Arabian-Jewish tribes, the Nadhir and Kainuka’ by the mass massacre of their men, women and children, was a tragedy for which no parallel can be found in Jewish history until our own day …. 17

The slaughter of Arabian Jews and the expropriation of their property became Allah’s will. According to the Koran,

… some you slew and others you took captive. He (Allah] made you masters of their [the Jews’] land, their houses and their goods, and of yet another land [Khaibar] on which you had never set foot before. Truly, Allah has power over all things.18

Guillaume reports that the anti-Jewish attack at Khaibar was fiercely fought off, but “though the inhabitants fought more bravely here than elsewhere, outnumbered and caught off their guard, they were defeated.”19 Those who somehow survived constituted the formula for Islam’s future successes. Some of the Jews, “non-Muslims” or infidels, “retained their land,” at least until Muslims could be recruited in sufficient numbers to replace the Jews. Meanwhile, the Arabian Jews paid a fifty-percent “tribute,” or tax, for the “protection” of the new plunderers. As Professor Lewis writes, “The Muslim victory in Khaibar marked the first contact between the Muslim state and a conquered non-Muslim people and formed the basis for later dealings of the same type.”20

Thus the Jewish dhimmi evolved [the protected ones] — the robbery of freedom and political independence compounding the extortion and eventual expropriation of property. “Tolerated” between onslaughts, expulsions, and pillages from the Arab Muslim conquest onward, the non-Muslim dhimmi-predominantly Jewish but Christian too — provided the important source of religious revenue through the “infidel’s” head tax. He became very quickly a convenient political scapegoat and whipping boy as well.


by James Stephens

February 15, 2010

4international stands for the liberation of mankind from every kind of lie and one of the greatest lies peddled by all sorts of reactionaries, including antyisemites, even “Jewish” antisemites today, is that Islam is a religion of peace, and therefore stands alongside Judaism as a religion of peace, which itself stands along with Christianity also as a religion of peace. With this kind of “thinking” the mind is sent on a whirl, but that is the purpose, of course – total confusion. The alternative is to study these religions for what they really are, and to follow especially the historical path of these religions, in this sense ideologies, often politically explicit ideologies. In our endeavours to separate from such utter rubbish one name which springs to mind immediately is John Bostom, whose work is carried by Jihadwatch, which we support, and also carried by Atlas Shrugs, which we also support, and whose website is blocked in Spain by a neo francoist system of censorship called “Canguro”.

The following by John Bostom is for study and elucidation of this vital subject: What is “Islam”?

Details of the work are

Published: February 4, 2008 –

Islamofascism? Hitler, Muhammad, and Islam

[Begin analysis by Bostom here]

Diana West has summarized how the prevailing usage of the term “Islamofascism” obfuscates critically relevant truths:

“Islamofascism” is a made-up word that draws a politically correct curtain over mainstream, traditional Islam, in effect shielding the religion and its tenets from scrutiny when considering what drives our jihadist enemies – as they are the first to declare.


My discussion introduces a doctrinally and historically relevant context if the currently much abused term “Islamofascism” is to be understood and employed appropriately, acknowledging the direct nexus between Islam, pre-modern despotism, and modern totalitarian ideologies.


Islam, Nazism, and Totalitarianism 

During an interview conducted in the late 1930s (published in 1939), Carl Jung, the Swiss psychiatrist and founder of analytical psychiatry, was asked “…had he any views on what was likely to be the next step in religious development?” Jung replied, in reference to the Nazi fervor that had gripped Germany, 

We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Muhammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future. 

Albert Speer, who was Hitler’s Minister of Armaments and War Production, wrote a contrite memoir of his World War II experiences while serving a 20-year prison sentence imposed by the Nuremberg tribunal. Speer’s narrative includes this discussion, which captures Hitler’s racist views of Arabs on the one hand, and his effusive praise for Islam on the other:  


Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire. Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” 

A similar ambivalence characterized Nazi Germany’s support for Arab Muslim causes in the World War II era. For example, in December 1937, Hitler even proposed omitting his “racial ladder” theory – which denigrated the Arabs – from a forthcoming Arabic translation of Mein Kampf. And a Berlin Foreign Ministry spokesman, during a November, 1942 press conference reported in the New York Times, took “great pains” to assure Arabs that Nazi anti-Semitic policies were directed at Jews exclusively. The spokesman elaborated:  

The difference between Germany’s attitude toward Jews and Arabs has been clearly shown in the exchange of letters between the former Prime Minister of Iraq, Rashid Ali, and the German Institute for Racial Problems. We have never said the Arabs were inferior as a race. On the contrary, we have always pointed out the glorious historic past of the Arab people.   

Although now, inexplicably, almost ignored in their entirety, writings produced for 100 years between the mid-19th through mid-20th Centuries, by important scholars and intellectuals, in addition to Carl Jung – for example, the historians Jacob Burckhardt, Waldemar Gurian, and Stoyan Pribichevich, philosopher Bertrand Russell, Protestant theologian Karl Barth, sociologist Jules Monnerot, and most notably, the renowned 20th Century scholar of Islamic Law, G.H. Bousquet – referred to Islam as a despotic, or in 20th Century parlance, totalitarian ideology.  

Being imbued with fanaticism was the ultimate source of Muhammad’s great strength, and led to his triumph as a despot, according to the 19th Century Swiss historian Burckhardt: 

Muhammad is personally very fanatical; that is his basic strength. His fanaticism is that of a radical simplifier and to that extent is quite genuine. It is of the toughest variety, namely doctrinaire passion, and his victory is one of the greatest victories of fanaticism and triviality. All idolatry, everything mythical, everything free in religion, all the multifarious ramifications of the hitherto existing faith, transport him into a real rage, and he hits upon a moment when large strata of his nation were highly receptive to an extreme simplification of the religious. 

Burckhardt emphasizes that the Arabs, Muhammad’s henchmen, were not barbarians and had their own ingenuities, and spiritual traditions. Muhammad’s successful preaching among them capitalized upon an apparent longing for supra-tribal unification, “an extreme simplification.” Muhammad’s genius “lies in divining this.” Utilizing portions of the most varied existing traditions and taking advantage of the fact that “the peoples who were now attacked may also have been somewhat tired of their existing theology and mythology,” Muhammad

…with the aid of at least ten people, looks over the faiths of the Jews, Christians, and Parsis [Zoroastrians], and steals from them any scraps that he can use, shaping these elements according to his imagination. Thus everyone found in Muhammad’s sermons some echo of his accustomed faith. The very extraordinary thing is that with all this Muhammad achieved not merely lifetime success, the homage of Arabia, but founded a world religion that is viable to this day and has a tremendously high opinion of itself.  

Burckhardt concludes that despite this achievement, Muhammad was not a great man, although he accepts the understandable inclination,  

…to deduce great causes from great effects, thus, from Muhammad’s achievement, greatness of the originator. At the very least, one wants to concede in Muhammad’s case that he was no fraud, was serious about things, etc. However, it is possible to be in error sometime with this deduction regarding greatness and to mistake mere might for greatness. In this instance it is rather the low qualities of human nature that have received a powerful presentation. Islam is a triumph of triviality, and the great majority of mankind is trivial…But triviality likes to be tyrannical and is fond of imposing its yoke upon nobler spirits. Islam wanted to deprive distinguished old nations of their myths, the Persians of their Book of Kings, and for 1200 years it has actually prohibited sculpture and painting to tremendously large populations. 

University of Notre Dame historian Waldemar Gurian, a refugee, who witnessed first hand the Communist and Fascist totalitarian movements in Europe, concluded (circa 1945) that Hitler, in a manner analogous to the 7th Century precedent of Muhammad as described by Burckhardt, had been the simplifier of German nationalism. 

A fanatical simplifier who appeared as the unifier of various German traditions in the service of simple national aims and who was seen by many differing German group – even by some people outside Germany – as the fulfiller of their wishes and sharer of their beliefs, with some distortions and exaggerations – such, as long as he had success, was Adolf Hitler.  

Based upon the same clear understandings (and devoid of our era’s dulling, politically correct constraints), Karl Barth, like Carl Jung (cited earlier), offered this warning, also published in 1939:  

Participation in this life, according to it the only worthy and blessed life, is what National Socialism, as a political experiment, promises to those who will of their own accord share in this experiment. And now it becomes understandable why, at the point where it meets with resistance, it can only crush and kill – with the might and right which belongs to Divinity! Islam of old as we know proceeded in this way. It is impossible to understand National Socialism unless we see it in fact as a new Islam [emphasis in original], its myth as a new Allah, and Hitler as this new Allah’s Prophet.  

Both philosopher Bertrand Russell, in 1920, and sociologist Jules Monnerot three decades later (in 1953), viewed the 20th Century’s other major strain of totalitarianism, emergent Bolshevism and established Soviet-style Communism, as in Monnerot’s  words, “The Twentieth-Century Islam.” Russell wrote presciently in his 1920, Theory and Practice of Bolshevism, that,

Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world.

By 1953, Monnerot (in his Sociology and Psychology of Communism) saw the “absolute tyranny” of Soviet Communism as “comparable to Islam,” for being both “a secular religion [emphasis in original] and as a universal State [emphasis in original].” He elaborated, in particular, on this concordance between the triumphal emergence of the Islamic and Soviet empires, as follows:

This merging of religion and politics was a major characteristic of the Islamic world in its victorious period. It allowed the head of State to operate beyond his own frontiers in the capacity of commander of the faithful (Amir-al-muminin); and in this way a Caliph was able to count upon his docile instruments, or captive souls, wherever there were men who recognized his authority. The territorial frontiers which seemed to remove some of his subjects from his jurisdiction were nothing more than material obstacles; armed force might compel him to feign respect for the frontier, but propaganda and subterranenan warfare could continue no less actively beyond it.


Religions of this kind acknowledge no frontiers. Soviet Russia is merely the geographical centre from which communist influence radiates; it is an ‘Islam’ on the march, and it regards its frontiers at any given moment as purely provisional and temporary. Communism, like victorious Islam, makes no distinction between politics and religion…

In a brilliant, dispassionate contemporary analysis, Ibn Warraq describes 14 characteristics of “Ur Fascism” as enumerated by Umberto Eco, analyzing their potential relationship to the major determinants of Islamic governance and aspirations, through the present. He adduces salient examples which reflect the key attributes discussed by Eco: the unique institution of Jihad war; the establishment of a Caliphate under “Allah’s vicegerent on earth,” the Caliph – ruled by Islamic Law, i.e., Sharia, a rigid system of subservience and sacralized discrimination against non-Muslims and Muslim women, devoid of basic freedoms of conscience, and expression. Warraq’s assessment confirms what G.H. Bousquet concluded (in 1950) from his career studying the historical development and implementation of Islamic Law:
Islam first came before the world as a doubly totalitarian system. It claimed to impose itself on the whole world and it claimed also, by the divinely appointed Muhammadan law, by the principles of fiqh [jurisprudence], to regulate down to the smallest details the whole life of the Islamic community and of every individual believer… the study of Muhammadan Law (dry and forbidding though it may appear)… is of great importance to the world of today. 

But already in the mid-19th Century, Burckhardt, expanding upon his characterization of Islam’s founder, Muhammad, as a despot, described the theocratic polity he created as a particularly extreme religious despotism, created (and expanded) via jihad, which sought to invalidate the pre-Islamic past of its new votaries, by shaming that heritage. 

All religions are exclusive, but Islam is quite notably so, and immediately it developed into a state which seemed to be all of a piece with the religion. The Koran is its spiritual and secular book of law. Its statutes embrace all areas of life…and remain set and rigid; the very narrow Arab mind imposes this nature on many nationalities and thus remolds them for all time (a profound, extensive spiritual bondage!) This is the power of Islam in itself. At the same time, the form of the world empire as well as of the states gradually detaching themselves from it cannot be anything but a despotic monarchy. The very reason and excuse for existence, the holy war, and the possible world conquest, do not brook any other form.


The strongest proof of real, extremely despotic power in Islam is the fact that it has been able to invalidate, in such large measure, the entire history (customs, religion, previous way of looking at things, earlier imagination) of the peoples converted to it. It accomplished this only by instilling into them a new religious arrogance which was stronger than everything and induced them to be ashamed [emphasis in original] of their past.

Historian Stoyan Pribichevich’s 1938 study of the Balkans “World Without End” demonstrates how Burckhardt’s conception of Islamic despotism applied to Ottoman rule. Pribichevich  provides these illustrations, beginning with his characterization of the Ottoman Sultans:

Each was a blood descendant of Osman [d. 1326, founder of the Ottoman dynasty]; the commander of all armed forces; the Caliph, the religious chief of all Moslems; the Padishah or King of Kings with the power of life and death over even his own cabinet ministers; the indisputable executor of the Prophet’s will – the Shadow of God on Earth

Although the Sultan had a Council composed of ranking dignitaries, headed by an erstwhile “Prime Minister,” the Grand Vizier who advised him, Pribichevich notes:


But like the Janissaries [military slaves taken from the families of the subjugated Christian populations while adolescents, and forcibly converted to Islam, as part of the Ottoman devshirme levy system] they were Kuls, slaves whose lives and properties belonged to the master. Cases occurred where a Grand Vizier was put to death at a mere whim of the Sultan.

Thus Pribichevich concludes, regarding the Ottoman Sultanate, “Of all known dictators the Sultans were the most dictatorial.”

And Pribichevich goes on to explain how this dictatorial Ottoman Sultanate operated within the overall context of Islam’s religio-political totalitarian system, consistent with Bousquet’s observation (from 1950), based upon the latter’s analysis of Islamic Law:

Then, Islam was a totalitarian religion. The Koran regulated not only the relationship of man to God, but all aspects of political organization, economics, and private conduct. Although the Sultan was the sole legislator, his laws, the sheri [Shari’a], were expected to conform to the sacred text. Now, for the proper interpretation of the Prophet’s phrases, there was a body of learned priests and jurists, the Ulemas. While no born Moslem could become a member of the Janissaries, no ex-Christian was ever allowed to enter the sacred corporation of the Ulemas. These theologians were not the slaves of the Sultan, but their opinions nevertheless were only advisory. So, the whole exotic structure of the Ottoman state can be summed up this way: the Koran was the empire’s Constitution; the Sultan, its absolute executor; the Janissaries, the soldiers and administrators; and the thinking Ulemas, a sort of Supreme Court.

Finally, investigative journalist John Roy Carlson’s 1948-1950 interviews of Arab Muslim religious and political leaders provide consummate independent validation of these Western assessments. Perhaps most revealing were the candid observations of Aboul Saud, whom Carlson described as a “pleasant English-speaking member of the Arab League Office.” Aboul Saud explained to Carlson that Islam was an authoritarian religio-political creed which encompassed all of a Muslim’s spiritual and temporal existence. He stated plainly, 

You might describe Mohammedanism as a religious form of State Socialism…The Koran give the State the right to nationalize industry, distribute land, or expropriate the right to nationalize industry, distribute land, or expropriate property. It grants the ruler of the State unlimited powers, so long as he does not go against the Koran. The Koran is our personal as well as our political constitution. 

And after interviewing Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna himself, who “preached the doctrine of the Koran in one hand and the sword in the other,” Carlson observed: 

It became clear to me why the average Egyptian worshipped the use of force. Terror was synonymous with power! This was one reason why most Egyptians, regardless of class or calling had admired Nazi Germany. It helped explain the sensational growth of the Ikhwan el Muslimin [Muslim Brotherhood]

Part Two will further elaborate on the connection between Nazi and Islamic anti-Semitism.

The chances of the UN Security Council imposing a fresh round of penalties against Iran are nil

The main thing about the present iranian Islamist Government is the same as we covered in relation to Hitler and the nazis when they were almost defeated in 1944 and 1945

This was the time when their thirst for Jewish Killing was at its strongest.

The same could very well apply to people like Ahmadinejad. The more desparate he becomes, the more certain is it that he will use a Nuclear bomb against israel, if he can.

Thus the Obama moves on pygmy sancions, even if they were huge sancions, may mean only that it is more certain that iran will strike to create a massive killing of Jews.

And they have signposted this killing, on many many occasions

The antisemites in the west say only once, and that was misquoted by MEMRI. Not true. It has been a recurrent theme-

Allow us on 4international to cover the DEBKAfile analysis of this new and for Jews dreadful situation, a situation around which all the antisemites in Europe grow more strident intheir hatred for Jews and their Homeland

[begin analysis here]

DEBKAfile Special Report February 9, 2010, 12:24 PM (GMT+02:00)

Air force chiefs listen to Khamenei

Tuesday, Feb. 9, Tehran followed through on its leaders’ promise to start home-processing of uranium up to 20 percent grade, in open defiance of a UN ban.  Adding insult to injury, UN inspectors were invited to Natanz to witness the event, which was charged with echoes of the threat sounded by Iran’s spiritual ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the day before:  “The Iranian nation with its unity and God’s grace will punch the arrogance [of Western powers] on the 22nd of Bahman (Feb. 11) in a way that will leave them stunned!”
This declaration climaxed the series of “scientific and military” achievements to which president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad laid claim in the last ten days: The launching of a space capsule carrying a small zoo by the new Kavoshgar-3 carrier on Feb. 3; the inauguration of production lines for “advanced drones capable of precision bombing,” on Feb. 8; Iran’s attainment of the ability to enrich uranium up to 20 percent grade – all capped now with the spiritual ruler’s ominous remark.

Some of the claims are dismissed by certain informed circles in the West as empty boasts, part of the extremist Islamist regime’s war of propaganda against the world or its campaign to still domestic fears of a US or Israeli attack.
Yet debkafile’s military sources say certain points cannot be lightly dismissed:
1. While some boasts are indeed unfounded – like the one that Iran has developed an interceptor against air and missile attack more advanced the S-300 system withheld by Russia – most of Tehran’s claims with regard to military, missile and nuclear advances have been borne out as resting on solid achievement.
2.  The fact that Khamenei issued his apparently wild threat in the presence of the commanders of the Iranian Air force – and just three days before its promised execution – indicates he must have something serious up his sleeve and is building up the drama.
Some Iran-watchers in the West believe he is talking about blood on the streets of Tehran during the coming opposition protest rallies. But others do not rule out Iran’s first nuclear test.
Foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki contributed to the heightened tension generated by the war-mongering from Damascus in the last ten days. He pledged that if Israel attacked Syria or any other Arabs, Iran would come to their aid.
Manifesting deep-seated racism, he commented contemptuously: “The Jews are mad and Israel is a nation led by lunatics.”

He was contemptuous too about a possible US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities: The Americans will fail here too, said the Iranian foreign minister, just as they failed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

US defense secretary Robert Gates hinted at a change of tune after meeting French president Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris Monday Feb. 8: He said he hoped “strong international sanctions on Iran will forestall the need for a military strike designed to end the country’s chances of developing a nuclear weapon.”
debkafile’s Washington sources note that this was Gates’ first mention of a possible resort to military action (which Barack Obama has never eschewed) for ending Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon.

He has always been staunch opponent of military action and preferred sanctions.
But he knows perfectly well that the chances of the UN Security Council imposing a fresh round of penalties against Iran are nil. China made it clear that it will not come on board for stiffer sanctions and, at the Munich conference, sided solidly with Tehran, urging “the parties concerned” to “step up diplomatic efforts and exercise greater patience and flexibility with Iran.”

DEBKAfile is right, and especially about the historically reactionary role of the Stalinists in the leadership and Government of China


Until fairly recently the actual existence and certainly major role of the Arab from Palestine area Hajj Amin el Husseini has been relatively unknown.

Writing in the early years Joseph Alexander Norland does  deal with Hajj Amin.

Then followed vital research by Jared Israel on Emperors New Clothes, then by Gil White.

Even this has been surpassed by the research by two historians and researchers in Germany, subject of this article. Their reseach shows that the Nazi who invented the death gas wagons in the Holocaust, Rauff, was sitting in place behind Rommel in the fateful Desert War.

There is much history behind this that in time we will understand.

1. Why were the Arabs drawn to Hitler like moths to a light?

2. Looking at the continuum of the life of Hajj Amin it seems that it was inevitable that he would make that journey to Berlin in November 1941, a couple of months before the Wannsee Conference, which placed the wheels of the Holocaust in action.

3. But he Hajj Amin was no figure head, he was active, at least the equal to Hitler and Heydrich, the superior of Eichmann

4. Without doubt Hajj Amin, this Arab from palestine, this relative of Arafat, this mentor to Arafat, was involved very directly in this story

Start by reference to Alan Dershowitz’s article debunking AhmediNajad’s Holocaust myths on Huffington Post.

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 sympathize[d] with the Nazis and Fascists in their agony and trials at the hands of Jewish intrigues and international financial pressure.”

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. Husseini famously posed with Hitler for a photograph that was proudly displayed in the homes of many Palestinians. 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.

the two German researchers, Mallman and Cuppers, are dealt with in this extract:

The most important book to read on the Palestinians, the Arabs and the Nazis has, unfortunately, not yet been translated into English. Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers’ Halbmond und Hakenkreuz. Das “Dritte Reich”, die Araber und Palästina, translated Crescent Moon and Swastika: The Third Reich, the Arabs, and Palestine was published September, 2006.

Dr. Klaus-Michael Mallman, the author of many books on Germany and the Holocaust, is Privatdozent für Neuere Geschichte at the University of Essen. Martin Cuppers is a researcher at the Forschungsstelle Ludwigsburg, and has published an important book on the command staff and office of the Reichsfuhrer SS, the Head of the SS, Heinrich Himmler.

Here is a summary of the argument of the book, translated from a long summary in German:

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 al-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 Hamas and which appears in publications of the Iranian state publishing house, and is daily broadcast by Hezbollah TV al-Manar to all world, actually originates neither from Islamic extremists nor from recent events. It was the common coin of Nazi radio broadcasts to the Arabs between 1939 and 1945 in order to win Arab hearts and minds to the German cause. 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 in 1941 that “the Fuhrer already held an outstanding position among the Arabs because of his fight against the Jews.”

It continues

Despite the initial Nazi tolerance of Jewish emigration from Germany to Palestine, the Nazi government eventually expanded their Holocaust plans to include the destruction of the Jews in the Near East. Studies undertaken by SS Einsatzgruppe [Special Taskforce] F already were listing Jewish dwellings in Palestine to be confiscated as accommodations for German troops once the Afrika Korps arrived in Palestine. Starting from the summer of 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 SS-Obersturmbannführer Walter Rauff and he had a whole staff with him, experienced in the murder of Jews, experts from the RSHA, the Head Office for Reich Reich Security. 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 Mallmann and Cuppers, the main Nazi ally locally was the Arab National Movement, and especially the Palestinian national movement, under the guidance of the exiled Amin al-Husseini Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and uncle of the later Palestinian president Yassir Arafat.

There is also a video onthis site.

There is one slight point to disagree with on this site. Before the video it says that much of this information is well known. Actually it is not known at all, because the antisemites, especially of the pro fascist left, have striven to hide it.

That is the truth!


You hear it argued that Israel, or the Jews, came in to the Middle East and dispossessed the Arabs who were living there. This is the argument essentially of antisemites.

Why do we insist that they are antisemites?

1. Israel did not dispossess any Arabs, and Jews did not before Israel was founded. Jews in fact bought land from Arabs, and these Arabs were only too happy to sell, because the Jews naturally were paying top dollar for a commodity which they badly needed

2. The land of Palestine on which the Jews wished to set up their Homeland was totally under-populated

3. Since when did colonialists buy the land from people who were totally happy to sell. I thought colonialists simply and always just took the land.


But a further clue is contained in our recent article. When Karl Marx visited Jerusalem in 1852 what he described was the position of Jews as dhimmis. They were at the very bottom of the barrel according to the observations of this fair observer.

And Mark Twain and others noted that the land was underpopulated and undeveloped.

Later we will show that the advent of Jews from Europe and elsewhere led to a massive increase in the numbers of Arabs in Palestine.

Then the Arabs do not forget were given as a present, not a shot was fired in anger, the 78 per cent of that area known as Palestine. This created Jordan, a Palestine Arab state for sure.

If these Jews were colonialists they were singularly unsuccessful at same!

1. They parted (actually the British left them with no choice) a full 78 per cent of their hopes

2. Their intervention led to an increase in Arabs of many times the original

This is all very strange and does not at all fit the narrative of the antisemites of many stripes, that the horrible Jews were colonialists.

Then there was the pivotal moment in history, the Holocaust.

Those antisemites who argue thus  in reality and simultaneously are Holocaust deniers.

Could the real issue be the following:

The Jews were persecuted by the Romans

The Jews were persecuted by the Church of Rome which allied with the Roman Imperialists, then forged the way of antisemitism on its own

The Jews AND Christians were persecuted by the powerful Islam, Even as the Christians fought the Islamist Imperialists they still persecuted the Jews, feature of the Crusades, feature of the Catholic war against the Moors.

So that is the imprint laid down by centuries of historical persecution. the Jews were a people who just had to be kept in their place of being persecuted.

Perhaps this is what lies at the root of Jew hatred in our modern period.

And the biggest affront to these persecutors of the Jews is the Jews actually having a country of their own and the will and genius to be able to defend it, both economically (capitalism) and militarily.

A very powerful argument along these lines was provided by Francisco Gil White´s ruminations on the issue of Jews as “dhimmies” in the Muslim world.

Calling his article

“The Refugee Question”

Gil White gives an insight in to why antisemitism suddenly veered from caricatures of the wandering Jew, crooked nose et al, in to a fierce hatred of Israel

Gil White is on Arutz Shiva, August 21 2003

Gil White also writes on

The Refugee Question

Critics of Israel from the moderate (my former position) to the most extreme portray it as an example of colonialism: European settlers push out the native population turning them into homeless refugees. And sure, they say, those Europeans were themselves victims of genocide, but do two wrongs make a right?

There are two problems with this view. First, it incorrectly portrays the makeup of the people who constitute most of the Jewish population in Israel. And second, it incorrectly describes the causes and nature of the Palestinian refugee problem.

We will deal with these points in the following two sections.

Is Israel a European “Settler State”? That is the commonly held view, but the truth is quite different.

In fact, “following the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, practically all the Yemenite, Iraqi, and Libyan Jews and major parts of the other Oriental Jewish communities migrated to Israel.”[1] These are the Mizrachim, or ‘ Oriental Jews’, who used to live in North Africa and the Middle East, from Morocco to Iraq. As I document below, these Jews became more than half of all Jews in Israel.

Why did the Mizrachim end up in Israel?

The Mizrachim didn’t simply ‘migrate’ to Israel. Here is an excerpt from historian Howard Sachar that paints a picture of the environment in which these ‘ Oriental Jews’ lived in the two decades leading up to the exodus of 1947-49:

“One particularly successful Axis technique of winning favor among the Arabs had its basis in ideology… the Arabs were reminded of the enemies they shared in common with the Nazis… Nazi German diplomats evinced no hesitation whatever in publicizing the Nazi anti-Jewish campaign. Hardly a German Arabic-language newspaper or magazine appeared in the Middle East without a sharp thrust against the Jews. Reprints of these strictures were widely distributed by the
[Jerusalem] Mufti’s Arab Higher Committee. Upon introducing the Nuremberg racial laws in 1935, therefore, Hitler received telegrams of congratulation and praise from all corners of the Arab world…. Throughout the Arab Middle East, a spate of ultra-right-wing political groupings and parties developed in conscious imitation of Nazism and Italian fascism.”[2]

Why was there so much ideological affinity between the Muslims in North Africa and the Middle-East, and Hitler’s Nazi Germany?

The usual explanation is that the Muslims were following the dictate, ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ France and Britain had colonized the Middle East. Hitler was opposed to France and Britain. And so, the argument goes, Muslim leaders allied with Hitler in a marriage of convenience.

But a strategic marriage of convenience does not explain the enthusiasm with which the Nazi hatred of Jews was greeted by Arab Muslims. The historical status of Jews in Muslim lands, however, does help explain this enthusiasm.

Many claim that the status of Jews in the Arab world was not like that of Jews in Europe (i.e., it was supposedly better), and therefore Arabs did not have anti-Semitic attitudes until Zionists came to Palestine. In truth, Jewish life in the Arab world was characterized by institutionalized racism.[3]

In the Muslim lands, over the centuries, Christians and Jews lived as dhimmi people. One often hears that dhimmi status ‘protected’ Christians and Jews, because Muslims considered them ‘people of the book’ – that is, the Bible. But the question is: protected from what?

As it turns out, from complete extermination at the hands of the same Muslims.

Muslims took control of the Middle East through jihad – religious wars of conquest. In general, local people who refused to convert to Islam were commonly slaughtered. But Christianity and Judaism were perceived as religions of which Islam was the culmination. If the leaders of conquered Christians and Jews signed a dhimma (agreement) their people could be spared. The alternative to signing was death. So the dhimma was a forced agreement, a ‘contract’ of surrender. Jews and Christians were protected from jihad, at least in theory, as long as they adhered to the terms of this ‘agreement’.

Since dhimmis were, by definition, people who refused to convert to Islam, their existence had to be a living expression of the inferiority of Judaism and Christianity. This inferiority was codified in the rules of the dhimma, such as:

* dhimmi people had to cede the center of the road to Muslims;
* the only animal they could ride was a donkey;
* they could not testify against a Muslim in court;
* they could not build houses taller than those of Muslims;
* they could not build new places of worship;
* they had to pray quietly so as not to offend the ears of passing Muslims;
* a dhimmi man could not so much as touch a Muslim woman, but a Muslim man could take Jewish or Christian women as wives;
* a dhimmi could not defend himself if physically assaulted by a Muslim;
* dhimmis could not bear arms;
* dhimmis had to pay a special tax every year and were treated in humiliating fashion when paying it;
* in public, dhimmis had to wear distinctive clothing, intentionally designed to be humiliating;
* at least in the 9th century, dhimmis had to nail wooden images of devils to their doors;
* Et cetera….

Beyond institutionalized inequality and constant humiliation, the dhimma also meant unrelieved insecurity. Why? Because the dhimma was a treaty of surrender by a people conquered in jihad (holy fighting) and its maintenance was conditional. A Jew or Christian perceived by Muslims as violating the dhimma could be severely punished. Moreover, the dhimma itself could be cancelled at any time, subjecting the entire community to a renewal of jihad.

Consider this example: If a Jew or Christian prospered, an envious Muslim might use force or legal maneuvers to seize his wealth. Resistance could be treated as a violation of the dhimma, placing the entire dhimmi community in mortal danger. A Muslim official could rule that the dhimma was void or religious fanatics could rouse a Muslim mob, and the Jews or Christians could be slaughtered en masse.

Ordinary Muslims were brought up to believe in the justice of “dhimmitude” and therefore the poorest Muslim could feel superior to the richest Christian or Jew. This scorn for the ‘lowly’ dhimmi people strengthened the ties between Muslim ruling classes and the Muslim poor.

Why did Zionism, the movement for a Jewish state in Palestine, elicit fury in many Arabs from its very beginnings? To understand this, one must look at the world from a traditionalist Arab/Islamic point of view.

The Arab upper classes saw “dhimmitude” as the cement of the social fabric, helping guarantee the loyalty of ‘the street’. Many ordinary Arabs perceived in the lowly status of Jews – that is, in “dhimmitude” – a confirmation of their own worth. And there was special contempt for the Jews, perhaps because, unlike the Christian case, no Jewish states existed to compete with Islamic states.

Jews had been dhimmi people in the Middle East and North Africa for more than a thousand years. By way of contrast, Black people were enslaved in the Americas starting ‘only’ about 400 years ago. And yet consider the ferocity with which many white Americans responded to the abolition of slavery (lynchings were common in the post-Civil War South). If one views a person as one’s natural inferior, then attempts at equality can be perceived as an affront and an abuse.

Why did millions of Arabs all over North Africa and the Middle East, who never met a Zionist, hate them? There are two reasons. First, they did not act like proper dhimmis. Second, the Zionist Jews carried the dangerous contagion of modern ideas. Of course, there were differences among them. “The Jews” are not some monolithic group. But many brought to the Middle East the ideas of liberal democracy, secular education and female equality – even socialism. These ideas not only challenged aspects of Arab culture, but, if allowed to spread, could destroy the power of ruling elites throughout the Arab world (in 1900 and today as well).

So, the immigrant Jews were challenging “dhimmitude”, a key part of the social fabric, and also had dangerous ideas.

This helps explain why the Mufti of Jerusalem, Nasser, Arafat, Hamas, etc. have not merely called for defeating Israel and/or extracting political concessions, but rather have always agitated for Israel’s total destruction. The existence of a Jewish State in the Middle East is seen as an offense to the natural order of Allah-proclaimed Jewish inferiority – and as a source of ideas that challenge the traditional Middle Eastern practices and power-relations. Arab leaders use both these perceived offenses to mobilize popular support from the Arab ’street’.

This also explains some otherwise odd facts. For example, the Mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, organized a murderous attack against Jewish civilians in 1920. It was directed primarily at members of the ‘Old Yishuv’. These were not recent Jewish immigrants. Their families had been in Palestine for over 2000 years.[4] In 1929, Mufti-organized Arabs slaughtered Jews in Hebron and other towns. Although Palestinian leaders speak of the Hebron massacre as a heroic act of resistance to Zionism,[5] in fact, it was a terrorist pogrom, and directed largely at indigenous Palestinian Jews, not recent immigrants.[6]

The context of “dhimmitude” explains why so much terrorist violence was directed against non-immigrant Jews in Palestine. By presenting themselves as equal to Muslims, the Zionists had cancelled the dhimma; therefore, jihad could resume. Since the dhimma was an agreement that applied to the entire community, all Jews were now subject to jihad slaughter.

Thus, what was misperceived by Westerners as an irrational outbreak of communal hatred was in fact a continuation – albeit in modern dress – of an ancient cultural interaction: the lynching of dhimmis, much like the lynching of ‘ uppity’ Black people in the post-Civil War U.S. South.

This explains why many North African and Middle-Eastern Muslims welcomed Nazi anti-Semitism. The German Nazi ideology coincided with their view of what should be done to ‘uppity Jews.’ To read more about “dhimmitude” in the Islamic world, visit this excellent resource:

“Murder the Jews! Murder them all!” Bad as the situation became for Jews in Muslim countries with the approach and explosion of World War II, the 1948 war in Palestine (the Israeli War of Independence) made things infinitely worse. The surrounding Arab states declared war – en masse – against the tiny strip of land that proclaimed itself the new State of Israel in 1948.[7] Hostility towards the Jews of the Mizrachi Diaspora got much worse as a result.

The Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Saudi armies and Iraqi and Palestinian irregulars did not invade Israel because it had attacked or threatened those countries, but because Israel had chosen to exist. By doing so, it had cancelled the dhimma on a grand scale.[8]

When the dhimma is cancelled, jihad resumes. Thus, in 1947, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini issued a fatwa: “I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!”[9]

Arab leaders were just as violent in addressing the non-Arab world. Unlike today, they did not claim they were the victims. They made no effort to win over world opinion, because they expected to wipe out the Jews quickly. In their public statements, they boasted of the mayhem that was to come. Thus, Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, promised: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”[10]

They made no effort to convince the world they were responding to a Jewish attack. In addressing the UN Security Council in April 1948, Jamal Husseini, spokesperson for the Mufti’s Arab Higher Committee, said: “The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight.”[11]

When the Jews announced the formation of a state of Israel, the Arab armies and paramilitaries attacked Jewish communities – that is, they attacked civilians. Since they made no pretense that they were acting in self-defense, their attack was illegal under international law; its only rationale was that the attackers hated Jews and refused to accept the existence of a Jewish state. Launching a war because one dislikes the other side and wants to destroy it is the very definition of a war of aggression. And in international law, launching a war of aggression is itself a war crime, for it makes possible all other war crimes.

The return to a state of jihad made the situation of Jews living in Arab countries extremely dangerous even if they had nothing to do with the Zionist movement, which was European in origin.

As sociologist Shlomo Swirski writes in Israel: The Oriental Majority:

“…the military confrontation between the Jews in Palestine and the Palestinian Arabs and the armies of the Arab states in 1947-49 created an impossible climate for the Jews living throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Within a short period of time, they evacuated en masse to the new state of Israel. Whole communities were transplanted – most of the 130,000 Jews of Iraq, the 45,000 Jews of Yemen, and the 35,000 of Libya – as well as substantial parts of other communities, from Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia in the west to Iran in the east. From 1948 to 1956, a total of some 450,000 Jews arrived in Israel from Asia and Africa, compared to 360,000 Jews from Europe and America.”[12]

So the Oriental Jews didn’t simply migrate to Israel; they fled the countries where their ancestors had lived for a hundred generations or more.[13] They lost virtually everything they owned.

The numbers cited above are staggering. As hundreds of thousands of Oriental Jews fled, countries that once had large Jewish communities became virtually Judenfrei. And according to a Library of Congress study, “By the early 1970s, the number of Israelis of African-Asian origin outnumbered European or American Jews.”[14] In 1985, the Oriental Jews were “the majority of the Israeli Jewish population – 43.3% – of first and second-generation Israelis…[including non-Jews]”[15] In fact, “until the recent Russian immigration, the majority in Israel was the 900,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries, and their millions of children… Mizrachim are still today 50% of the Jewish population.”[16]

Thus, the general perception that Arabs are the only refugees produced by the Arab-Jewish conflicts since 1947 is simply wrong. The difference is that Jewish refugees who fled to Israel – and who had everything taken from them in the process – became Israeli citizens (or citizens of other countries). By way of contrast, Palestinian refugees were refused citizenship by every Arab state except Jordan.

And this means that…

The Arab States, Not Israel, Are Responsible For The Palestinian Refugee Problem Why didn’t the Arab states let these Palestinians be citizens? To what end?

Answer: to keep the refugees as a festering political sore that could – and still can – be used against the State of Israel. Whether the policy towards these refugees is cruel or benign, the attitude is the same: they are denied citizenship so they can be maintained as a political issue, to put Israel on the defensive.

Consider the examples of Lebanon and Syria. The following quotes are from the Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, which is strongly biased in favor of Arab leaders’ view of the Palestinian conflict. That bias makes their words especially credible on this point:

“Many Palestinian refugees in Lebanon still live in squalid camps… After more than half a century in exile, their situation remains precarious. Without citizenship, or even the same options as guest workers from Egypt or Sri Lanka, the Palestinians cannot work in many occupations. Nor do they receive assistance from the cash-strapped Lebanese government. In some cases, residents are unable even to repair damaged houses because they cannot ‘import’ building materials into the camps.

“Because Beirut refuses to accept the de facto resettlement of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, the refugees have never been granted citizenship or residency rights by the Lebanese government, which wants to keep the pressure on Israel to permit the refugees’ return. This policy, however, has caused hardship for many Palestinians.”[17]

So Lebanon plays politics with the unfortunate lives of these Palestinians. According to Washington Report, the Syrian government’s policy is more benign, but it has the same political objective:

“Circumstances for Palestinians just across the border in Syria are remarkably different. According to Angela Williams, director of UNRWA in Syria, the key reason is the Syrian government’s official policy of hospitality toward the refugees. ‘They are not faced with the kind of restrictions they have in Lebanon,’ Williams explained.

“‘Palestinians have the same access as Syrians to government services, education, government hospitals and employment. Here they can even purchase one parcel of domestic property for their own use.’

“The extension of rights to Palestinian refugees in Syria stems from the government’s philosophy that, rather than standing in the way of political aspirations, improved living conditions help to build up Palestinians’ ability to achieve a final settlement and return home when they are able. Although they don’ t have citizenship, cannot vote and cannot purchase farmland, [my emphasis – FGW] Palestinians are fully integrated into Syrian society.”

How can one be “fully integrated” into a society in which one cannot vote, be a citizen, or, if one is a farmer, start a farm? The answer is that one cannot, and that makes sense, because the Syrians want the Palestinians to ” achieve a final settlement and return home.” Syria’s somewhat more benign policy follows their philosophy that a healthy and well-educated (but all the same, politically-in-limbo and second-class) Palestinian is a sharper geopolitical weapon.

We may contrast these attitudes with those of the Israeli government. Israel’ s 1948 Declaration of Independence includes the following: “WE APPEAL – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the up-building of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”[18]

UN Resolution 194, which was acceptable to the Israelis, stated in point 11 that “…refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property…” This resolution was unanimously rejected by the Arabs.[19]

The perception, common in some circles, that the Israelis are to blame for the Palestinian refugee crisis will therefore not withstand historical scrutiny. I summarize the relevant facts:

1) The post-World War II military confrontations between Jews and Arabs began when the 1947 UN partition plan “was immediately opposed by the [Palestinian] Arabs who… attacked Jews throughout Palestine as the British withdrew.”[20]

2) The surrounding Arab states followed through with an unprovoked and simultaneous declaration of war on Israel in 1948.

3) The anti-Semitism of the Arab states, heightened by the war against Israel, is what made the living conditions of the Mizrachi Diaspora so dangerous that they fled en masse to Israel. Thus, the Arab states caused a Jewish refugee crisis that the Israeli state then proceeded to absorb. 4) The Arabs lost the 1948 war with Israel. The resulting Palestinian refugees were not given citizenship by the Arab countries that had created the refugee crisis by attacking Israel (the exception is Jordan).

The above list speaks for itself. One has to argue against it in order to lay the blame for the Palestinian refugee crisis on the Israelis.

Conclusion: Let Us Reassess If Hajj Amin al Husseini, the Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, organized the Arab Higher Committee as his instrument of anti-Semitic violence; if the Mufti was an enthusiastic leader of Hitler’s Final Solution; if veterans of the Mufti’s Arab Higher Committee founded Fatah… (see Part II)

If Arafat, the supreme leader of Fatah, boasts that he was Hajj Amin’s foot soldier; if Arafat’s Fatah, more radical even than the PLO, took over the PLO, an organization that already called for the utter destruction of Israel… (see Part II)

If the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process created the Palestinian Authority out of Arafat’s PLO; if Yasser Arafat, right after signing the Oslo ‘Peace’ Accords, said it was a covert strategy of jihad against Israel; if other prominent Palestinian leaders have echoed this statement, even calling the ‘Peace’ Process a Trojan Horse… (see Part III)

If the al-Aqsa Intifada was planned well in advance, as the Palestinian Authority Communications Minister himself boasted; if the Tanzim, the main militia in Arafat’s Fatah, carries out attacks against Israeli civilians; and if it got the al-Aqsa Intifada started; if the terrorists in the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades – a salaried component of Fatah – are “the deadliest Palestinian militia” … (see Part III)

Then, what follows?

That the murderous racism of Palestinian leaders is not a recent aberration, nor does it result from Israeli provocations.

Arafat’s Fatah has been a millenarian Islamist and terrorist organization from the beginning. Any contrary appearance is the product of propaganda by the likes of Michael Elliot and Time magazine and the rest of the mainstream media. (see Part I)

We are witnessing the rewriting of history in real time. My own recent naivet? stands in evidence: the bolder the lies involved in the rewrite, the less people notice. This is a principle Goebbels, Hitler’s minister of propaganda, and Hitler himself, understood well.

Of course, one could say that the facts presented here – though they complete the picture – do not erase other facts, for example, that Israel has responded militarily by sending troops into the occupied territories. This is true: such facts remain. What may change, however, is the interpretation we give to them, if the documentation presented here changes our view of the forces that the Israelis have been fighting.

Terrible things happen in war. That is why launching a war of aggression is itself considered a crime. And of course, the worst wars are those intended not simply to conquer, but to eradicate another people: for example, as in the mission to liquidate Israel and purge the Jews.

This hatred and drive to exterminate another people is a recurrent theme in Arab hostility towards Jews in Israel and elsewhere, and constantly finds expression in revealing turns of phrase that betray the legacy of “dhimmitude”. The ‘lowly Jews’, is how a high Iraqi official refers to them.[21] Or, as the Arab killers cried as they slaughtered Jewish men, women, and children in Hebron in 1929: “Palestine is our land and the Jews, our dogs.”

This jihad – this holy war – against the Jews, which has been waged non-stop by Arab leaders since the founders of the Zionist movement dared to challenge the dhimmi status of Jews in the Middle East, is not the responsibility of the Zionists or of the state they founded. Israel has a right to exist and flourish.

The honor of ending this war – this jihad – which causes so much suffering on both sides – rests primarily with Arabs, who are in the best position to do something. The first step would be to reject the leadership of the ideological descendants of Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, who even in death, dominates his people’s political life and distorts their aspirations, leading them down a path of intolerance and war. The peoples of the Middle East deserve better. They deserve peace.

I consider my current position now to be truly pro-Palestinian, because I am completely opposed to Yasser Arafat and his politics of murder and hate, which have brought so much suffering to the Palestinians, the people whose interests he claims to look after. And because I see a future of hope for the unfortunate Palestinians. Should Palestinians call forth a different kind of leader, different from Arafat and the Mufti of Jerusalem past, they would give to the Middle East the future that they, the Arab people, and the Jewish people, deserve.

“El respeto al derecho ajeno, es la paz” [To respect the right of another, that is peace.] – Benito Juarez (Oaxacan Indian, and former President of Mexico)

[1] “Oriental Jews”, Encyclop?dia Britannica [Accessed September 17, 2002]
[2] Sachar, Howard Morley – A History of Israel : From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time / Howard M. Sachar. 1982, c1979. (pp.195-196)
[3] To read about the dhimma, which institutionalized racism against Christians and Jews in Arab lands, visit:
[4] “…the disturbances during the al-Nebi Musa celebrations in April 1920, were limited to Jerusalem. A large angry crowd of Arabs surged through Haffa Gate into the narrow alleyways of the Old City and attaacked Jews whom it encountered along the way. There were also attempts by Arabs to assault Jews in the newer sections of Jerusalem.” — Shapira, A. (1992). Land and Power. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.110.
[5] In his statement “Palestine Between Dreams And Reality”, Dr. George Habash, then General Secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, states that: “Our people did not understand the purposes of the first wave of Jewish pioneers to our country. But when the Jews set about buying up the land, our people… ignited a series of struggles, beginning with pickets and demonstrations, through the Buraq Uprising (the 1929 confrontation over Jewish attempts to seize control of part of Jerusalem adjacent to the so-called Wailing Wall), down to the strike and Revolt of 1936.” ( Clearly, Habash is proud of the 1929 disturbances. Indeed, he presents them as an anti-colonial struggle. Notice, also, that he refers only to the peaceful means of “pickets and demonstrations.”

Now let’s see how historians describe the event: “The [1929] riots were accompanied by militant Arab slogans such as: ‘The law of Muhammad is being implemented by the sword’; ‘Palestine is our land and the Jews, our dogs’; ‘We are well armed and shall slaughter you by the sword.’ There were also brutal acts by Arabs for the apparent sake of cruelty, such as the killings in Hebron, where small children were tortured by their murderers before being murdered. The dread that the Arabs were planning to annihilate the entire Jewish community – men, women, and children – in one concentrated burst of violence surfaced for the first time in the wake of the August 1929 disturbances… For the first time, the Jewish community in Palestine found itself caught up in a wave of violent disturbances that swept with a fury through Jewish settlements and neighborhoods throughout the length and breadth of the country. The danger now appeared to threaten the very survival of the entire Jewish community.” – Shapira, A. 1992. Land and Power. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, (p.174)
[6] “The 1929 troubles constituted a crossroads… The hardest hit localities had been Hebron and Safed, mixed towns were Jews had lived together with Arabs for many generations… Moreover, the communities in those two towns were of the ‘old Yishuv’: deeply religious, non-Zionist Jews. They did not carry weapons or know how to protect themselves; nor did they believe their neighbors would harm them. In the aftermath of the riots, the surviving remnants of the old Jewish community in Hebron left the town. The Jews who were evacuated from Gaza during the riots never returned there.” – Shapira, A. (1992). Land and Power. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, (p.176).
[7] To get an idea just how tiny, we have added links to two maps. One compares Israel to the countries of the Middle East and North Africa. The other map shows that including Gaza and the West Bank, Israel is almost as big as Vancouver Island. Compared to the Arab world: Compared to Vancouver Island:
[8] “The Zionist militias gained the upper hand over the Palestinians through skill and pluck, aided considerably by intra-Arab rivalries. Israel’s declaration of independence on May 14, 1948, was quickly recognized by the United States, the Soviet Union, and many other governments, fulfilling the Zionist dream of an internationally approved Jewish state. Neither the UN nor the world leaders, however, could spare Israel from immediate invasion by the armies of five Arab states — Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Transjordan (now Jordan) – and within a few days, the state’s survival appeared to be at stake.”
[9] Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter (eds.). Myths and Facts 1982; a Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (Washington DC: near east report, 1982), p. 199
[10] Howard M Sachar, A History of Israel (New York: Knopf, 1979), p. 333
[11] Security Council Official Records, S/Agenda/58, (April 16, 1948), p. 19
[12] Swirski, Shlomo. 1989. Israel: The Oriental Majority. London & New Jersey: Zed Books Ltd. (pp. 3-4)
[13] For a more personal account of the plight of the Mizrachim, go to
[14] “ISRAEL A Country Study,” Federal Research Division Library of Congress. Edited by Helen Chapin Metz. Research Completed December 1988 ( Consult the chapter titled “POPULATION.”
[15] Swirski, Shlomo. 1989. Israel: The Oriental Majority. London & New Jersey: Zed Books Ltd. (p.3)
[16] “A Mizrahi Perspective on the Current Middle East Crisis”, by Loolwa Khazoom (
[17] “Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon and Syria Face Different, Uncertain Futures”. Dec 2000, Vol. 19 Issue 9, p26; Washington Report on Middle East Affairs; by Fecci, JoMarie
[18] Text of the Israeli Declaration of Independence:
[19] “The Palestinian Refugees”, by Mitchell Bard (
[20] “on November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to divide British-ruled Palestine into two states, one Jewish and the other Arab. This decision was immediately opposed by the Arabs who, under the ostensible leadership of Hajj Amin al-Husayni, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, attacked Jews throughout Palestine as the British withdrew.” – “Israel”, Encyclop?dia Britannica ( [Accessed September 23, 2002].



Article 7 by Norland was all about what really happened in 1967, and is an affirmation of the deep roots which the Jews have in especially Judea and Samaria.  In a word it is all about the stirring up of antisemitism by the Arabs. We quote this outstanding study of 1967 in full:

Israel is in possession of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha) as a consequence of the 1967
defensive war that Israel was forced into.  The areas of Judea/Samaria and Gaza were occupied
from 1948 to 1967 by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, but no calls for “Palestinian sovereignty”
were heard during that period.  Since Jordan and Egypt have renounced their claims to these
territories, Israel has the strongest claim to Yesha.


The 1967 War is discussed and documented so extensively that only a brief summary is needed to
establish the foregoing argument.


Israel’s war against Jordan as a defensive war may be established by recalling that on the day the
Israeli war against Egypt started, Israel warned King Hussein explicitly not to intervene on the side of
Israel’s enemies.  This statement is substantiated by an official Israeli document sent to King Hussein
on June 5, 1967, via a UN official, General Odd Bull.  The document is available from the site of the
Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs,


On the morning of 5 June 1967, Prime Minister Eshkol transmitted through
the Chief of Staff of UNTSO a message to King Hussein asking Jordan to
refrain from hostilities. Text:


We are engaged in defensive fighting on the Egyptian sector, and we shall
not engage ourselves in any action against Jordan, unless Jordan attacks
us. Should Jordan attack Israel, we shall go against her with all our


According to Gilbert, p. 385, This message was also conveyed by two other channels: the
Israeli/Jordanian Mixed Armistice Commission and the US Embassy in Tel Aviv.  The fact that
Jordanian forces opened fire, shelling Jerusalem, and then began to advance, proves the defensive
nature of Israel’s war on Jordan beyond any doubt.


The case against Egypt is based, first, on the casus belli created by Nasser when he closed the
straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping on May 22, 1967.  This is confirmed by
Nasser’s speech
On 23 May 1967, Egypt announced that the Straits of Tiran had been closed
and warned Israeli shipping that it would be fired upon if it attempted to
break the blockade. The next day, Egypt announced that the Straits had
been mined. Text of speech by President Nasser announcing the closure of
the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, 23 May 1967:


Yesterday the armed forces occupied Sharin ash-Shaykh. What does this
mean? It is an affirmation of our rights, of our sovereignty over the Gulf
of Aqaba, which constitutes Egyptian territorial waters. Under no
circumstances can we permit the Israeli flag to pass through the Gulf of


On May 23, the closure of the straits of Tiran was condemned by
President Johnson
in these words:


The United States considers the gulf to be an international waterway and
feels that a blockade of Israeli shipping is illegal and potentially
disastrous to the cause of peace. The right of free and innocent passage
of the international waterway is a vital interest of the entire
international community.


Even had the closing of the Straits of Tiran been the only cause of Israel’s war on Egypt, it would

have been enough to justify the war as one of self-defense.  In fact, this closure was accompanied by a

long series of other belligerent steps.  On May 17, 1967, Nasser ordered the withdrawal of the UN
buffer presence (UNEF, or United Nations Emergency Force) which was placed in the Sinai after the
1956 War.  This was preceded by deploying Egyptian troops in the Sinai starting May 13, 1967, and
by threats of annihilation against Israel.  For Israel, the military pact among Egypt, Syria, Jordan and
Iraq, with the explicit objective of annihilating Israel, amounted to a noose, especially when the pact
members started moving troops towards Israel’s borders.  Finally, Nasser resumed the murderous
infiltration of the terrorist Fidayin, an act that was among the prime causes of the 1956 War.  During
the week of April 24, 1967, for example, Egyptian-controlled terrorists sabotaged a main road leading
to Beersheba.


The following chronology is culled from Gilbert, Ch 21-22, and demonstrates the foregoing narrative.


May 13, 1967 – Nasser moves large numbers of troops into the Sinai.
May 16, 1967 – Nasser demands the withdrawal of UNEF; UN’s Secretary General, U Thant agrees
immediately.  Withdrawal completed by May 19, 1967.
May 22, 1967 – Nasser closes the Straits of Tiran, generating an unambiguous casus belli.  (On March
1, 1957, Israel announced that closing the straits would be considered casus belli.)
May 25, 1967 – Egyptian armoured units moved to Sinai.


May 26, 1967 – Nasser declares,
“our basic objective will be to destroy Israel”.


May 30, 1967 – During his visit to Cairo, King Hussein joins the Syrian-Egyption pact against Israel.


Israel was now surrounded on three sides.
May 31, 1967 – Iraqi troops move to Egypt to support a possible war. (On June 4, Iraq joined the pact
of Egypt/Syria/Jordan.)


Israel’s case against Syria is based on Syria serving as a launching pad for Palestinian-Arab terrorists
and on Syria’s continual harassment of Israeli settlements in the valley below the Golan Heights.  So
intense did the shelling become, that the civilian population had to pass many a night in underground
shelters.  A favourite tactic of the Syrian-controlled terrorists was mining roads, as in the incident on
May 8, when an Israeli car hit a mine on the road to Tiberias.  Gilbert, Ch 21, describes the situation
as follows:


The first three months of 1967 were marked by repeated Syrian artillery
bombardments and cross-border raids on the Israeli settlements in the
north. Israeli air raids against Syrian positions on the Golan Heights
would result in a few weeks’ quiet, but then the attacks would begin
again. On 7 April 1967 Syrian mortars on the Golan Heights began a barrage
of fire on kibbutz Gadot… More than 200 shells were fired before Israeli
tanks moved into positions from which they could reach the Syrian mortars.
As the Israeli tanks opened fire, the Syrian artillery did likewise.
Firing quickly spread along the border to the north and south of Gadot.
Then Israeli warplanes – Mirage fighter-bombers purchased from France –
flew over the Syrian border and over the Golan Heights, strafing several
Syrian strongholds and artillery batteries. Fifteen minutes later Syrian
warplanes – Soviet MiG-21s – took on the Israeli planes in aerial combat.
Within a few minutes, six MiGs had been shot down and the rest chased
eastwards to Damascus… One Israeli plane was shot down.


Following the Gadot clash, Fatah renewed its campaign inside Israel, using
the Syrian border as a conduit. On April 29 a water pipeline was blown up,
and a few days later mines were laid on the main road leading north from
Tiberias, damaging an Israeli army truck.


Israeli control of Judea, Samaria and Gaza are a direct consequence of the defensive war that Israel
was forced into in 1967.  In the course of a meeting in Rabat, 28 October, 1974, the
Arab Summit


adopts a resolution recognizing the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.
This in fact meant that the former occupiers of Judea/Samaria and Gaza (Jordan and Egypt,
respectively)  officially renounced their claims over these territories.  When Germany lost WW I to
the Allies, she lost Alsace-Lorraine to France.  When Germany lost WW II, she lost East Prussia.


The 1967 war is a key point in time in this narrative.
There is thus a purpose in delving right in at this particular moment in time. But it a continuum and we insist on seeing it as a continuum, the motive force being Jew Hatred, hatred of the Jewish people, antisemitism, the oldest hatred and most vicious hatred known to man, the hatred which is the default position for man in crisis.
As dialectical materialists we do see each manifestation of antisemitism as linked to the particular crisis in the class forces which make up society, and it so happens that in our period the class forces are the class relations of capitalism.
This is why Leon Trotsky in his many analyses of Fascism, Hitler Mussolini et al, always drew the discussion back to the historical crisis in capitalism and the historical crisis in leadership.
Since 1967 is a particular moment it must therefore be seen as a moment in this continuum.
As stated above in the analysis by Norland the Arabs had manouvred by the month of May in 1967 to have Israel surrounded on 3 sides and their intent was without doubt, to wipe Israel off the map.
I am certain there were those around who refused to see this, who provided a cover for the Arabs like Nasser.
There is a direct parallel to the present day when there are those on radio and television talk shows who are insisting that iran has got peaceful intentions.
This is quite remarkable when a slightest investigation using any search engine will bring up hundreds of direct and meaningful attacks on Israel, where the right of Israel to exist is constantly denied, andf where the two main creations of the Islamist revolutionary Guards, Hasbullah and Hamas, have written in to their constitutions the destruction of Israel.
Such people who use these arguments and who deny the intent of Iran are quite simply antisemites.


It is not really that difficult a concept to grasp. “Palestine” is a region of the world and “Palestine” has never been a state, Arab or otherwise 

So if you doubt this cast your eye down this historical list, which is quite exhaustive and historically accurate, and state where you see evidence for a palestine State at any time in history,including since the Arab invasion all those centuries ago:

What, one may ask, was the history of Palestine before 1920? wasn’t it a Palestinian-Arab state since 
the 7th Century?  To substantiate the thesis that Palestine never was a state, suffice it to review the 
Palestinian-Arab version of history, from the Arab invasion until WW I.  This history, given in the 
Palestinian site, 
Palestine Remembered, 
is quoted below if full, so that the arguments of “selective 
quoting” and “quoting out of context” cannot be raised. 
638 – Arabs under the Caliph ‘Umar capture Palestine from Byzantines. 
661-750 – 
Umayyad caliphs rule Palestine from Damascus. 
Dynasty descended 
from Umayya of Meccan tribe of Quraysh. Construction of Dome of the Rock 
in Jerusalem by Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik (685-705). Construction of al-Aqsa 
mosque in Jerusalem by Caliph al-Walid I (705-715). 
750-1258 – 
‘Abbasid caliphs rule Palestine from Iraq. 

Dynasty, founded by

Abu al-‘Abbas al-Saffah, who is descended from ‘Abbas, uncle of the 
969 – Fatimid dynasty, claiming descent from the Prophet’s daughter Fatima 
and her cousin ‘Ali, 
rule Palestine from Egypt. 
They proclaim themselves 
caliphs in rivalry to the ‘Abbasids. 
1071 – Saljuqs, originally from Isfahan, capture Jerusalem and parts of 
Palestine, which remains officially within the ‘Abbasid Empire. 
1099-1187 – Crusaders establish the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. 
1187 – Kurdish general Saladin (Salah al-Din who was born in Takrit 
northern Iraq, the birth place of Saddam Hussein too), son of Ayyub, the 
sultan of Mosul, defeats Crusaders at Hittin in northern Palestine and 
recaptures Jerusalem. 
The Ayyubid dynasty rules Palestine from Cairo. 
1260 – 
Mamluks succeed Ayyubids, ruling Palestine from Cairo; 
Mongols at Battle of ‘Ayn Jalut near Nazareth. 
1291 – Mamluks capture final Crusader strongholds of Acre and Caesarea. 
1516-1917 – 
Palestine incorporated into the Ottoman Empire with its 
capital in Istanbul. 
1832-1840 – Muhammad ‘Ali Pasha of Egypt occupies Palestine. Ottomans 
subsequently reassert their rule. 
1876-1877 – Palestinian deputies from Jerusalem attend the first Ottoman 
Parliament in Istanbul, elected under a new Ottoman Constitution. 
1878 – First modern Zionist agricultural settlement of Petach Tiqwa 
established (click here to learn more about Zionist [sic] and its impact 
on the Palestinian people). 
1882-1903 – First wave of 25,000 Zionist immigrants enters Palestine, 
coming mainly from eastern Europe. 
1882 – Baron Edmond de Rothschild of Paris starts financial backing for 
Jewish settlement in Palestine. 
1887-1888 – Palestine divided by Ottomans into the districts (sanjaks) of 
Jerusalem, Nablus, and Acre. The first was attached directly to Istanbul, 
the others to the wilayet of Beirut. 
1896 – Theodor Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian Jewish journalist and writer, 
publishes Der Judenstaat, advocating establishment of a Jewish state in 
Palestine or elsewhere. 
1896 – Jewish Colonization Association, founded in 1891 in London by 
German Baron Maurice de Hirsch, starts aiding Zionist settlements in 
1897 – First Zionist Congress in Switzerland issues the Basle Program 
calling for the establishment of a “home for the Jewish people in 
Palestine.” It also establishes the World Zionist Organization (WZO) to 
work to that end. 
1901 – Jewish National Fund (JNF) set up by fifth Zionist Congress in 
Basle to acquire land for WZO; land acquired by JNF to be inalienably 
Jewish, and exclusively Jewish labor to be employed on it, click here to 
read to Zionist [sic] apartheid & racist quotes. 
1904-1914 – Second wave of about 40,000 Zionist immigrants increases 
Jewish population in Palestine to about 6% of total. Since the inception 
of Zionism in [sic] claimed that Palestinian was an empty country, click 
here to read our rebuttal to this argument. 
1909 – Establishment of the first kibbutz, based exclusively on Jewish 
labor. Tel Aviv founded north of Jaffa. 
1914 – World War I starts. 

What, one may ask, was the history of Palestine before 1920? wasn’t it a Palestinian-Arab state since 

the 7th Century?  To substantiate the thesis that Palestine never was a state, suffice it to review the 

Palestinian-Arab version of history, from the Arab invasion until WW I.  This history, given in the 

Palestinian site, 

Palestine Remembered, 

is quoted below if full, so that the arguments of “selective 

quoting” and “quoting out of context” cannot be raised. 

638 – Arabs under the Caliph ‘Umar capture Palestine from Byzantines. 

661-750 – 

Umayyad caliphs rule Palestine from Damascus. 

Dynasty descended 

from Umayya of Meccan tribe of Quraysh. Construction of Dome of the Rock 

in Jerusalem by Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik (685-705). Construction of al-Aqsa 

mosque in Jerusalem by Caliph al-Walid I (705-715). 

750-1258 – 

‘Abbasid caliphs rule Palestine from Iraq. 

Dynasty, founded by 

   The above historical review is from a very antisemitic site called palestine Remembered. Norland advised to consult the iniquitous “Mission Statement” of said organization and it does not disappoint. 

For example a sample is the following:


We noticed in The map in an earlier article that the original Jewish Homeland, set down in what to the British was the elastic concept of “Palestine”, was soon carved up, Transjordan was created for the Arabs of “Palestine” on fully 78 percent of that elastic land of Palestine, or more accurately out of the land promised to the Jews as their Homeland.

So is Jordan then not “Palestine”? and how many “Palestines” do the Arabs actually want, considering that they have already got is it 21 complete and sovereign states thanks to the largesse of such nice Western people as the American Mr Wilson!

In article 5 Norland deals with this very problem:

In an earlier article, Myths of the Middle East, October 11, 2000,
Joseph Farah
states bluntly:
What makes a separate people? Religion, language, culture, garb, cuisine,
etc., etc. The Arabs in Palestine speak the same language, practice the
same religion, have the same culture, etc., etc., as all the other Arabs.
There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct
Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine
governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from
Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.
Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands.
Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.


During the British Mandate, “Palestinian” was virtually synonymous with “Palestinian-Jewish”, as in
“Palestine Zionist Executive”, “Palestine Symphony Orchestra”, “Palestine Post”, etc.  On the other
hand, the Arabs of Palestine and “Transjordan” used “Arab”, as in “Arab Higher Committee”, “Arab
Legion”, “Arab Liberation Army”, “Arab Rebellion of 1936-39”, “Arab National Guard” – almost
never “Palestinian”.  In the rare case when “Palestine” was used, it was accompanied by “Arab”, as in
“Palestine Arab Executive” and “Palestine Arab Party” – not “Palestinian Arab Executive”, etc.  The
“Palestine National Congress” may be cited as a counter-example, however, this body advocated that
Palestine come under Syrian sovereignty: it considered Palestine to be southern Syria.


After WW I, as Britain and France carved up the Middle East, they created the states and/or the
boundaries of Iraq, Transjordan, Syria/Lebanon, Palestine and Arabia, and the Arabs in these areas
found themselves in different states, even though they were essentially one people.


It is also instructive to note that neither the text of the Mandate nor the King-Crane report of 1919
(which apologists for the Palestinian Arabs quote routinely) make any reference to a “Palestinian
people” or a “Palestinian nation”; rather, the terms used are such terms as “the non-Jewish population
of Palestine”.


If the Palestinian-Arabs are indeed indistinguishable from other Arabs as this piece contends, then the
argument of “self-determination” is invalid, as is the call for a sovereign state in Judea, Samaria and


For the sake of discussion, assume, however, that the Palestinian-Arabs are a “nation”.  In that case,
one can argue that Jordan is their country, as the Israeli representative to the UN, Joseph Tekoah,
stated in the
UN assembly
way back on 13 November, 1974:


42.  Geographically and ethnically Jordan is Palestine. Historically both
the West and East banks of the Jordan river are parts of the Land of
Israel or Palestine. Both were parts of Palestine under the British
Mandate until Jordan and then Israel became independent. The population of
Jordan is composed of two elements — the sedentary population and nomads.
Both are, of course, Palestinian. The nomad Bedouins constitute a minority
of Jordan’s population. Moreover, the majority of the sedentary
inhabitants, even on the East Bank, are of Palestinian West Bank origin.
Without the Palestinians, Jordan is a State without a people.


43. That is why when, on 29 April 1950, King Abdullah inaugurated the
commemorative session of the Jordanian Parliament he declared: “I open the
session of the Parliament with both banks of the Jordan united by the will
of one people, one homeland and one hope”.


44. On 23 August 1959, the Prime Minister of Jordan stated: “We are the
Government of Palestine, the army of Palestine and the refugees of


45. Indeed, the vast majority of Palestinian refugees never left
Palestine, but moved, as a result of the 1948 and 1967 wars, from one part
of the country to another. At the same time, an approximately equal number
of Jewish refugees fled from Arab countries to Israel.
46. It is, therefore, false to allege that the Palestinian people has been
deprived of a State of its own or that it has been uprooted from its
national homeland. Most Palestinians continue to live in Palestine. Most
Palestinians continue to live in a Palestinian State. The vast majority of
Palestinian Arabs are citizens of that Palestinian State.


47. “Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan”, declared on 9 December
1970 the late Dr. Kadri Toukan, a prominent West Bank leader and former
Foreign Minister of Jordan.


48. Mr. Anwar Nuseibe, another Palestinian West Bank personality and a
former Jordanian Defence Minister, stated on 23 October 1970:
“The Jordanians are also Palestinians. This is one State. This is one
people. The name is not important. The families living in Salt, Irbid and

Karak maintain not only family and matrimonial ties with the families in

Nablus and Hebron. They are one people.”


50. Even if the appellation “Palestinian” were confined to the West Bank,
there is today, as already indicated, an overwhelming preponderance of
Palestinians of West Bank descent in the population of the East Bank, as
well as in the Jordanian Government. For instance, Queen Alia, Prime
Minister Rifa’i, more than half of the Cabinet Ministers and of the
members of Parliament, the Speaker of the Parliament, the Mayor of Amman,

all hail from the West Bank. 

Nablus and Hebron. They are one people.”



Article 5 of the previously mentioned opus by Joseph Alexander Norland poses the questions who really are these ubiquitous “Palestinians”, and are they really a separate nation (Ubiquitous in the sense that they are honoured by the Oirish bogmen “elite” of Fianna Fail who rule the fair and verdant land, on to Mr Zapatero (otherwise known in Spain as Mr Bean) who dons the “Palestinian” head gear every chance he gets grinning inanely in to the nearest camera at hand, on down to Mr Rahoy who yesterday suggested that the ills of Spain and the world may be caused by a jewish masonic cabal!!! What intellectual giants today rule over us!

These explorations by Norland are thus relevant:

The most convincing substantiation of the statement asserting that the Palestinians are an integral part
of the Arabs and not a distinct nation, is the PLO Charter itself, available from many web site, such as
that of
Yale Law School.


The text of the PLO charter reads:


Article 1.Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is
an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and
the Palestinian people are
an integral part of the Arab nation.
Article 14.  The destiny of
the Arab nation,
and indeed Arab existence
itself, depend upon the destiny of the Palestine cause. From this
interdependence springs the Arab nation’s pursuit of, and striving for,
the liberation of Palestine. The people of Palestine play the role of the
vanguard in the realization of this sacred (qawmi) goal.


Another Palestinian-Arab terrorist organization, the
echoes this view:
The strategic vision of the PFLP is based on the following:
1. liberation from Israeli occupation
2. construction of a democratic society
recognition that the Palestinian people are an integral part of the
Arab Nation


A much-quoted passage from an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive
committee member Zahir Muhsein underscores this point.  The following quotation is from an article
entitled “Palestinian people do not exist”, by
Joseph Farah


, July 11, 2002:
Way back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an
interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee
member Zahir Muhsein. Here’s what he said:


“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian
state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of
Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between
Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and
tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian
people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence
of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined
borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I
can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However,
the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even

a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.” 

A very different people in spirit and knowledge from those who had gone into captivity

We continue our analysis of the historical association of the Jews with the land of “Palestine”, but more accurately with Judea, which nestles now in what is called “the occupied territories”. Called that by antisemites, sometimes conscious antisemites, sometimes just ignorant ones!

Chapter 21

HG Wells, A Short History of the World, 1922

AND now we can tell of the Hebrews, a Semitic people, not so important in their own time as in their influence upon the later history of the world. They were settled in Judea long before 1000 B.C., and their capital city after that time was Jerusalem. Their story is interwoven with that of the great empires on either side of them, Egypt to the south and the changing empires of Syria, Assyria and Babylon to the north. Their country was an inevitable high road between these latter powers and Egypt.    1
  Their importance in the world is due to the fact that they produced a written literature, a world history, a collection of laws, chronicles, psalms, books of wisdom, poetry and fiction and political utterances which became at last what Christians know as the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible. This literature appears in history in the fourth or fifth century B.C.    2
  Probably this literature was first put together in Babylon. We have already told how the Pharaoh, Necho II, invaded the Assyrian Empire while Assyria was fighting for life against Medes, Persians and Chaldeans. Josiah King of Judah opposed him, and was defeated and slain at Megiddo (608 B.C.). Judah became a tributary to Egypt, and when Nebuchadnezzar the Great, the new Chaldean king in Babylon, rolled back Necho into Egypt, he attempted to manage Judah by setting up puppet kings in Jerusalem. The experiment failed, the people massacred his Babylonian officials, and he then determined to break up this little state altogether, which had long been playing off Egypt against the northern empire. Jerusalem was sacked and burnt, and the remnant of the people was carried off captive to Babylon.    3
  There they remained until Cyrus took Babylon (538 B.C.). He then collected them together and sent them back to resettle their country and rebuild the walls and temple of Jerusalem.    4
  Before that time the Jews do not seem to have been a very civilized or united people. Probably only a very few of them could read or write. In their own history one never hears of the early books of the Bible being read; the first mention of a book is in the time of Josiah. The Babylonian captivity civilized them and consolidated them. They returned aware of their own literature, an acutely self-conscious and political people.    5
  Their Bible at that time seems to have consisted only of the Pentateuch, that is to say the first five books of the Old Testament as we know it. In addition, as separate books they already had many of the other books that have since been incorporated with the Pentateuch into the present Hebrew Bible, Chronicles, the Psalms and Proverbs for example.    6
  The accounts of the Creation of the World, of Adam and Eve and of the Flood, with which the Bible begins, run closely parallel with similar Babylonian legends; they seem to have been part of the common beliefs of all the Semetic peoples. So too the stories of Moses and of Samson have Sumerian and Babylonian parallels. But with the story of Abraham and onward begins something more special to the Jewish race.    7
  Abraham may have lived as early as the days of Hammurabi in Babylon. He was a patriarchal Semitic nomad. To the book of Genesis the reader must go for the story of his wanderings and for the stories of his sons and grandchildren and how they became captive in the Land of Egypt. He travelled through Canaan, and the God of Abraham, says the Bible story, promised this smiling land of prosperous cities to him and to his children.    8
  And after a long sojourn in Egypt and after fifty years of wandering in the wilderness under the leadership of Moses, the children of Abraham, grown now to a host of twelve tribes, invaded the land of Canaan from the Arabian deserts to the East. They may have done this somewhen between 1600 B.C. and 1300 B.C.; there are no Egyptian records of Moses nor of Canaan at this time to help out the story. But at any rate they did not succeed in conquering any more than the hilly backgrounds of the promised land. The coast was now in the hands, not of the Canaanites but of newcomers, those Ægean peoples, the Philistines; and their cities, Gaza, Gath, Ashdod, Ascalon and Joppa successfully withstood the Hebrew attack. For many generations the children of Abraham remained an obscure people of the hilly back country engaged in incessant bickerings with the Philistines and with the kindred tribes about them, the Moabites, the Midianites and so forth. The reader will find in the book of Judges a record of their struggles and disasters during this period. For very largely it is a record of disasters and failures frankly told.

(I believe that Wells is referring to the Judean Hills, which is also contained in the maps which the British Army used in its campaign into Palestine in 1918 (then not a state or country but a roughly defined geographical area, sometimes used, sometimes not. They did not talk at all about taking Palestine but of taking the hills of Judea. Judea…the land of the Jews, and now this is called the “he occupied Territories etc)

  For most of this period the Hebrews were ruled, so far as there was any rule among them, by priestly judges selected by the elders of the people, but at last somewhen towards 1000 B.C. they chose themselves a king, Saul, to lead them in battle. But Saul’s leading was no great improvement upon the leading of the Judges; he perished under the hail of Philistine arrows at the battle of Mount Gilboa, his armour went into the temple of the Philistine Venus, and his body was nailed to the walls of Beth-shan.   10
  His successor David was more successful and more politic. With David dawned the only period of prosperity the Hebrew peoples were ever to know. It was based on a close alliance with the Phoenician city of Tyre, whose King Hiram seems to have been a man of very great intelligence and enterprise. He wished to secure a trade route to the Red Sea through the Hebrew hill country. Normally Phœnician trade went to the Red Sea by Egypt, but Egypt was in a state of profound disorder at this time; there may have been other obstructions to Phœnician trade along this line, and at any rate Hiram established the very closest relations both with David and with his son and successor Solomon. Under Hiram’s auspices the walls, palace and temple of Jerusalem arose, and in return Hiram built and launched his ships on the Red Sea. A very considerable trade passed northward and southward through Jerusalem. And Solomon achieved a prosperity and magnificence unprecedented in the experience of his people. He was even given a daughter of Pharaoh in marriage.   11
  But it is well to keep the proportion of things in mind. At the climax of his glories Solomon was only a little subordinate king in a little city. His power was so transitory that within a few years of his death, Shishak the first Pharaoh of the twenty-second dynasty, had taken Jerusalem and looted most of his splendours. The account of Solomon’s magnificence given in the books of Kings and Chronicles is questioned by many critics. They say that it was added to and exaggerated by the patriotic pride of later writers. But the Bible account read carefully is not so overwhelming as it appears at the first reading. Solomon’s temple, if one works out the measurements, would go inside a small suburban church, and his fourteen hundred chariots cease to impress us when we learn from an Assyrian monument that his successor Ahab sent a contingent of two thousand to the Assyrian army. It is also plainly manifest from the Bible narrative that Solomon spent himself in display and overtaxed and overworked his people. At his death the northern part of his kingdom broke off from Jerusalem and became the independent kingdom of Israel. Jerusalem remained the capital city of Judah.   12
  The prosperity of the Hebrew people was short-lived. Hiram died, and the help of Tyre ceased to strengthen Jerusalem. Egypt grew strong again. The history of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah becomes a history of two little states ground between, first, Syria, then Assyria and then Babylon to the north and Egypt to the south. It is a tale of disasters and of deliverances that only delayed disaster. It is a tale of barbaric kings ruling a barbaric people. In 721 B.C. the kingdom of Israel was swept away into captivity by the Assyrians and its people utterly lost to history. Judah struggled on until in 604 B.C., as we have told, it shared the fate of Israel. There may be details open to criticism in the Bible story of Hebrew history from the days of the Judges onward, but on the whole it is evidently a true story which squares with all that has been learnt in the excavation of Egypt and Assyria and Babylon during the past century.   13
  It was in Babylon that the Hebrew people got their history together and evolved their tradition. The people who came back to Jerusalem at the command of Cyrus were a very different people in spirit and knowledge from those who had gone into captivity. They had learnt civilization. In the development of their peculiar character a very great part was played by certain men, a new sort of men, the Prophets, to whom we must now direct our attention. These Prophets mark the appearance of new and remarkable forces in the steady development of human society.


The return from Babylon is listed as 538

I draw attention to the following comment from Wells and emphasise it:

The people who came back to Jerusalem at the command of Cyrus were a very different people in spirit and knowledge from those who had gone into captivity. They had learnt civilization. In the development of their peculiar character a very great part was played by certain men, a new sort of men, the Prophets, to whom we must now direct our attention. These Prophets mark the appearance of new and remarkable…

Wells as far as I understand was not a religious person in any sense. What he points to above is actually the formation of a nation, rather more than a tribe, a nation of people who were bound together by their oral and now written history

This istouched on by another valid source, in this case religious:

The people of Judah were horribly distressed. They lost their home, their city, their pride, their Temple, the Ark of the Covenant, and they were taken as prisoners to Babylon, the homeland of idolatry. But God raised up great men to remind them of Jeremiah’s prophesies, that they would only be there for 70 years. Babylon would not be their home:

Jer 29:10-14 “For thus says the LORD: After seventy years are completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform My good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place. For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you, says the LORD, and I will bring you back from your captivity; I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you, says the LORD, and I will bring you to the place from which I cause you to be carried away captive.”

They would return and the temple would be rebuilt, and the Messiah would still come. Daniel and Ezekiel sought to keep the true faith alive.

The Decree of Cyrus

By 538 BC. Babylon had passed into history and the Medo-Persian Empire took its place. Cyrus the Persian issued a decree to allow the Jews to go back to their land, and with the blessing of The Persian Empire.The Jews were hardly moved. Babylon was their home. Only a portion returned (Neh 7) and only 74 of the Levites, who were supposed to be known for their dedication to the things of God.


The first move back to Palestine was led by Zerubbabel, of the house of David. He was the only one of royal blood to pay any attention to the decree of Cyrus (Ezra 2). When he returned, he found just rubble. No temple, torn down walls, and a mixed breed of corrupt Jews (Samaritans) living there. In 536 BC. he laid the foundations for a new temple, built an altar and worshipped the Lord. The prophets Haggai and Zechariah helped urge the Jews on. They finished the work on the Temple in 516 BC. (exactly 70 years).

Ezra and Nehemiah 

58 years later (458 BC) more Jews returned (Ezra 7) under the leadership of Ezra. 12 years later, Nehemiah, received permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and to govern Judea. He arrived in 444 BC. Despite much opposition, Nehemiah completed this seemingly hopeless task in 52 days. Then a revival followed. Ezra and Nehemiah canonized the books of the Old Testament. They read aloud to the people and gave interpretation. About 40 years later, the prophet Malachi condemned the people for slipping back into their sinful ways.

For example, the book of Psalms, which has been frequently recited and memorized by Jews for centuries, says:

  • “By the rivers of Babylon we sat down and wept when we remembered Zion.” (Psalms 137:1)
  • “For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How shall we sing the LORD’s song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning . If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy. Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Raze it, raze it, even to the foundation thereof; O daughter of Babylon, that art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that repayeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” (Psalms 137:3-9) (King James Version, with italics for words not in the original Hebrew)

The people of Judah were horribly distressed. They lost their home, their city, their pride, their Temple, the Ark of the Covenant, and they were taken as prisoners to Babylon, the homeland of idolatry. But God raised up great men to remind them of Jeremiah’s prophesies, that they would only be there for 70 years. Babylon would not be their home:

Jer 29:10-14 “For thus says the LORD: After seventy years are completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform My good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place. For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you, says the LORD, and I will bring you back from your captivity; I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you, says the LORD, and I will bring you to the place from which I cause you to be carried away captive.”

They would return and the temple would be rebuilt, and the Messiah would still come. Daniel and Ezekiel sought to keep the true faith alive.

The Decree of Cyrus

By 538 BC. Babylon had passed into history and the Medo-Persian Empire took its place. Cyrus the Persian issued a decree to allow the Jews to go back to their land, and with the blessing of The Persian Empire.The Jews were hardly moved. Babylon was their home. Only a portion returned (Neh 7) and only 74 of the Levites, who were supposed to be known for their dedication to the things of God.


The first move back to Palestine was led by Zerubbabel, of the house of David. He was the only one of royal blood to pay any attention to the decree of Cyrus (Ezra 2). When he returned, he found just rubble. No temple, torn down walls, and a mixed breed of corrupt Jews (Samaritans) living there. In 536 BC. he laid the foundations for a new temple, built an altar and worshipped the Lord. The prophets Haggai and Zechariah helped urge the Jews on. They finished the work on the Temple in 516 BC. (exactly 70 years).

Ezra and Nehemiah 

58 years later (458 BC) more Jews returned (Ezra 7) under the leadership of Ezra. 12 years later, Nehemiah, received permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and to govern Judea. He arrived in 444 BC. Despite much opposition, Nehemiah completed this seemingly hopeless task in 52 days. Then a revival followed. Ezra and Nehemiah canonized the books of the Old Testament. They read aloud to the people and gave interpretation. About 40 years later, the prophet Malachi condemned the people for slipping back into their sinful ways.

What all of this means is that with the Jews we are talking about a people who are a nation, and as such the oldest nation on the earth.

That this nationality or nationhood is very much interlinked with their religion, which also has a secular side, in that it is written down in a rational form. As Wells says, the Jews came back from babylonian captivity as a conscious political force.

We now turn to the issue of Jerusalem

For example, the book of Psalms, which has been frequently recited and memorized by Jews for centuries, says:

  • “By the rivers of Babylon we sat down and wept when we remembered Zion.” (Psalms 137:1)
  • “For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How shall we sing the LORD’s song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning . If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy. Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Raze it, raze it, even to the foundation thereof; O daughter of Babylon, that art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that repayeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” (Psalms 137:3-9) (King James Version, with italics for words not in the original Hebrew)

So we have established that the Jews are a very ancient nation.

That they are tied together by their history which even if you are an honest secular person must acknowledge the truth of this.

That this religion is inextricably linked to the earthly struggle of a people.

That the issue of exile from Jerusalem is a big factor.

That the longing to return there from exile, bringing to mind my own irish people exiled by economic circumstances of The famine, to return to green ireland.

As expressed in the Psalm above

“How shall we sing the LORD’s song in a strange land?”

We have also noted that none other than karl Marx was very alive to the to him strange devotion that these people the Jews had to Jerusalem.

here I define a jew as simply being anybody who thinks of themselves as a Jew, no more complicated than that, because it is the historical knowledge and material reality which is carried in to the present, thus (possibly) in to the future, if antisemitism with modern methods do not succeed in wiping this oldest nation out.

I approach all of this from the very firm foundation of dialectical materialism. But I recognize that it wouldbe the height of idiocy to dismiss religion as a motive force in men´s history.

We may already have done enough to show that in the consciousness of men today, jews, that the link with jerusalem is secure in history. All talk of Khazars and such like is the talk of antisemites, that is of a type of human who hates jews, and who wish to deny the real material history of the Jews.

But at this point it may be interesting to see where have the “Palestinians” come out of…


The original Palestine which the League of Nations was originally setting aside for the Jewish nation is on the site of Eli hertz

The writer says:

Of course, I would insist that the original demarcartion is still relevant, the one that looks like this:

Oh, you think that map above is a Zionist propaganda trick? Well, here’s a Pal. version:

The writer above means the original land of Palestine set out for the Jews. But that was before Churchill, who is wrongly thought of as a friend of the jews, began to cut in to the land set aside for the Jews.

Taken from

Next we see how the land was divided up and the Jews with the creation of transjordan, later the independent state of present day Jordan, was carved out of it.

It seems that in the hands of the British Government who were given the mandate to create a Jewish Homeland that palestine was a very elastic concept.

Eli Hertz writes:-

The Line Has Already Been Drawn and is Backed by International Law!

On September 16, 1922, the final [not yet, Eli] geographical area of Jewish Palestine was drawn by the League of Nations for the Jewish National Home.

From the League of Nations Report:

PALESTINE [Eretz-Israel]

“Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30′ E. and 35° 30′ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: –

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

West. – The Mediterranean Sea.”

So that is how the Jews essentially lost the 78 per cent that was granted to the Arabs of palestine in the first land grab by the Arabs and britain from the Jews.

So surely what was left shown above in thge map by Eli Hertz would belong to the Jews for them to aty last settle on.

Not quite! These are the Jews who are seeking a Homeland. So if you understand antisemitism you will see that even this (pitiful) 100 minus 78 percent leaving 22 per cent is going to be hacked in to again.

But even that half of 22 per cent does not satisfy the antisemites of this world.

It goes on and on.

We will look at the various manipulations of Britain which robbed the jews and sided with the Arabs.


Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed
that the Mandatory
should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally
made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty,
and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in
Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people;
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as
the Mandatory for Palestine; …


Article 2.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such
political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the
establishment of the Jewish national home,
as laid down in the preamble,
and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for
safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of
Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
Article 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the
purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine
in such economic, social and other matters as may affect
the establishment
of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in

and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to

assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organisation, so long as its organisation and constitution are
in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such
agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty’s
Government to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist
in the establishment of the Jewish national home.


Article 5.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory
shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of,
the Government of any foreign Power
Article 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and
position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced,
facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall
encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency. referred to in Article
4, close settlement by Jews, on the land,
including State lands and waste
lands not required for public purposes.
Clearly, the Jewish claim on Palestine is not only recognized, but specific measures are stipulated as
to how to ensure that the right is transformed into a reality, especially with regard to immigration,
settlement and soliciting help from world Jewry.  In contrast, there is no reference whatever to
political rights of any other group, such as Arabs.  In fact, in the entire mandate text there is no
reference to “Palestinians”, only to “non Jews”.
Of course, the “International community” was well aware of non-Jewish residents in Palestine, and,
indeed, ensured that their “civil and religious rights” be enshrined in the text but no political rights,
such as sovereigny, are mentioned.  It was not deemed unjust to expect the Arabs to accept a Jewish
National Home in a tiny corner of the Middle East, when huge Arab lands had just been liberated by
the Allies from the Ottoman yoke, and when three new Arab kingdoms (Iraq, Transjordan and Saudi
Arabia) were in the process of being born.  This point of “injustice” was addressed many times by
Churchill, Balfour and Col. Richard Meinertzhagen.
The bottom line regarding this point is that the “international community” and Britain in particular
undertook the creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, and hence there is no justification for

creating a second Palestinian-Arab state on part of this land. 

assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organisation, so long as its organisation and constitution are

in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such

agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty’s

Government to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist

in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

Article 5.

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory

shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of,

the Government of any foreign Power

Article 6.

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and

position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced,


facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall

encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency. referred to in Article

4, close settlement by Jews, on the land,

including State lands and waste

lands not required for public purposes.

Clearly, the Jewish claim on Palestine is not only recognized, but specific measures are stipulated as

to how to ensure that the right is transformed into a reality, especially with regard to immigration,

settlement and soliciting help from world Jewry.  In contrast, there is no reference whatever to

political rights of any other group, such as Arabs.  In fact, in the entire mandate text there is no

reference to “Palestinians”, only to “non Jews”.

Of course, the “International community” was well aware of non-Jewish residents in Palestine, and,

indeed, ensured that their “civil and religious rights” be enshrined in the text but no political rights,

such as sovereigny, are mentioned.  It was not deemed unjust to expect the Arabs to accept a Jewish

National Home in a tiny corner of the Middle East, when huge Arab lands had just been liberated by

the Allies from the Ottoman yoke, and when three new Arab kingdoms (Iraq, Transjordan and Saudi

Arabia) were in the process of being born.  This point of “injustice” was addressed many times by

Churchill, Balfour and Col. Richard Meinertzhagen.


The bottom line regarding this point is that the “international community” and Britain in particular

undertook the creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, and hence there is no justification for

creating a second Palestinian-Arab state on part of this land.


[It must be remembered that this area of land, Palestine, including present day Jordan which was in the intention of the League of Nations leaders to give to the Jews was a tiny piece of land when it is compared to the total land area which the Arabs were to be given.

This must be understood in the context of Islam and its urgent need to expand and conquer the world.]

Very few people today understand these questions even from the simple geographical level and in that ignorance antisemitism is promoted