Tuez les Juifs partout où vous les trouverez. Cela plaît à Dieu, à l’histoire et à la religion. Cela sauve votre honneur. Dieu est avec vous. (…) [L]es Allemands n’ont jamais causé de tort à aucun musulman, et ils combattent à nouveau contre notre ennemi commun […]. Mais surtout, ils ont définitivement résolu le problème juif. Ces liens, notamment ce dernier point, font que notre amitié avec l’Allemagne n’a rien de provisoire ou de conditionnel, mais est permanente et durable, fondée sur un intérêt commun. Haj Amin al-Husseini (mufti de Jérusalem, discours sur Radio Berlin, le 1er mars 1944)
Je ne suis pas un expert du Moyen-Orient, mais je me demande pourquoi les personnes qui considèrent si unilatéralement Israël comme le problème principal de la région ne se posent jamais la question de savoir comment le conflit du Moyen-Orient se serait développé s’il n’avait pas été influencé par les fascistes, les antisémites et les frais exilés du nazisme. Karl Rössel
Au lendemain d’un des plus atterrants rapports de l’ONU sur une intervention militaire israélienne …
Et en attendant le prochain sur l’intervention de l’OTAN en Afghanistan …
Orchestration des émeutes anti-juives de Palestine de 1920/1921 et du pogrom d’Hébron de 1929, subventionné par Hitler comme les Frères musulmans pour sa révolte palestinienne de 1936-1939 qui massacra des centaines de soldats britanniques, juifs et opposants palestiniens, participation à un coup d’Etat fasciste manqué en Irak, fuite à Berlin en 1941 en tant qu’invité personnel du Fürher, recrutement de milliers de musulmans bosniaques pour les Waffen SS, intervention auprès des nazis pour empêcher la fuite en palestine de milliers de juifs européens, collaboration avec les nazis pour un projet de solution finale en Palestine, incitation au meurtre de juifs sur Radio Berlin …
Le brillant CV du Moufti de Jérusalem sous le nazisme avait tout, on le voit, pour intéresser le commissaire d’une exposition allemande rappelant les nombreuses complicités du monde arabe avec les Nazis.
Et faire reculer la directrice bien-pensante germano-camerounaise du Centre multiculturel de Berlin où elle devait se tenir …
The Mufti of Berlin
Arab-Nazi collaboration is a taboo topic in the West.
September 24, 2009
One widespread myth about the Mideast conflict is that the Arabs are paying the price for Germany’s sins. The notion that the Palestinians are the « second victims » of the Holocaust contains two falsehoods: It suggests that without Auschwitz, there would be no justification for Israel, ignoring 3,000 years of Jewish history in the land. It also suggests Arab innocence in German crimes, ignoring especially the fascist past of Palestinian leader Haj Amin al Husseini, who was not only Grand Mufti of Jerusalem but also Waffen SS recruiter and Nazi propagandist in Berlin. When a German journalist recently tried to shed some light on this history, he encountered the wrath of the Arab collaborators’ German apologists.
Karl Rössel’s exhibition « The Third World in the Second World War » was supposed to premier on Sept. 1 in the « Werkstatt der Kulturen, » a publicly funded multicultural center in Berlin’s heavily Turkish and Arab neighborhood of Neukölln. Outraged by the exhibition’s small section on Arab complicity in Nazi crimes, Philippa Ebéné, who runs the center, cancelled the event. Among the facts Ms. Ebéné didn’t want the visitors of her center to learn is that the Palestinian wartime leader « was one of the worst and fanatical fascists and anti-Semites, » as Mr. Rössel put it to me.
The mufti orchestrated the 1920/1921 anti-Jewish riots in Palestine and the 1929 Arab pogroms that destroyed the ancient Jewish community of Hebron. An early admirer of Hitler, Husseini received Nazi funding—as did Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood—for his 1936-1939 Palestinian revolt, during which his thugs killed hundreds of British soldiers, Jews and also Arabs who rejected his Islamo-Nazi agenda. After participating in a failed fascist coup in Iraq, he fled to Berlin in 1941 as Hitler’s personal guest. In the service of the Third Reich, the mufti recruited thousands of Muslims to the Waffen SS. He intervened with the Nazis to prevent the escape to Palestine of thousands of European Jews, who were sent instead to the death camps. He also conspired with the Nazis to bring the Holocaust to Palestine. Rommel’s defeat in El Alamein spoiled these plans.
After canceling the exhibition, Ms. Ebéné clumsily tried to counter the impression that she had pre-emptively caved to Arab pressure. As a « non-white » person (her father is Cameroonian), she said, she didn’t have to fear Arabs, an explanation that indirectly suggested that ordinary, « white, » Germans might have reason to feel less safe speaking truth to Arabs.
Berlin’s integration commissioner, Günter Piening, initially seemed to defend her. « We need, in a community like Neukölln, a differentiated presentation of the involvement of the Arabic world in the Second World War, » Der Tagesspiegel quoted him as saying. He later said he was misquoted and following media criticism allowed a smaller version of the exhibit to be shown.
Mr. Rössel says this episode is typical of how German historians, Arabists and Islam scholars deny or downplay Arab-Nazi collaboration. What Mr. Rössel says about Germany applies to most of the Western world, where it is often claimed that the mufti’s Hitler alliance later discredited him in the region. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the Mideast, Nazis were not only popular during but also after the war—scores of them found refuge in the Arab world, including Eichman’s deputy, Alois Brunner, who escaped to Damascus. The German war criminals became trusted military and security advisers in the region, particularly of Nazi sympathizer Gamal Nasser, then Egypt’s president. The mufti himself escaped to Egypt in 1946. Far from being shunned for his Nazi past, he was elected president of the National Palestinian Council. The mufti was at the forefront of pushing the Arabs to reject the 1948 United Nations partition plan and to wage a « war of destruction » against the fledgling Jewish state. His great admirer, Yasser Arafat, would later succeed him as Palestinian leader.
The other line of defense is that Arab collaboration with the Nazis supposedly wasn’t ideological but pragmatic, following the old dictum that « the enemy of my enemy is my friend. » This « excuse » not only fails to consider what would have happened to the Jews and British in the Mideast had the Arabs’ German friends won. It also overlooks the mufti’s and his followers’ virulent anti-Semitism, which continues to poison the minds of many Muslims even today.
The mufti « invented a new form of Jew-hatred by recasting it in an Islamic mold, » according to German scholar Matthias Küntzel. The mufti’s fusion of European anti-Semtism—particularly the genocidal variety—with Koranic views of Jewish wickedness has become the hallmark of Islamists world-wide, from al Qaeda to Hamas and Hezbollah. During his time in Berlin, the mufti ran the Nazis’ Arab-language propaganda radio program, which incited Muslims in the Mideast to « kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion. » Among the many listeners was also the man later known as Ayatollah Khomeini, who used to tune in to Radio Berlin every evening, according to Amir Taheri’s biography of the Iranian leader. Khomeini’s disciple Mahmoud Ahmadinejad still spews the same venom pioneered by the mufti as do Islamic hate preachers around the world.
Muslim Judeophobia is not—as is commonly claimed—a reaction to the Mideast conflict but one of its main « root causes. » It has been fueling Arab rejection of a Jewish state long before Israel’s creation.
« I am not a Mideast expert, » Mr. Rössel told me, but « I wonder why the people who so one-sidedly regard Israel as the region’s main problem never consider how the Mideast conflict would have developed had it not been influenced by fascists, anti-Semites and people who had just returned from their Nazi exile. »
Mr. Rössel may not be a « Mideast expert » but he raises much more pertinent questions about the conflict than many of those who claim that title.
Mr. Schwammenthal is an editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.
The U.N.’s Anti-Antiterror Report
A biased ‘finding’ on Gaza could also apply to Afghanistan.
September 23, 2009
When it comes to the U.N. and Israel, our thoughts often turn to those East German Olympic judges during the Cold War: Their bias was so transparent it could almost pass without notice. But a new report from a U.N. « fact finding mission » about January’s war in the Gaza Strip marks a new low, employing logic and arguments that will be felt wherever the West confronts terrorism.
The Goldstone report—named after principal author, South African jurist Richard Goldstone—is a creature of the U.N.’s Human Rights Council, which in its three short years has condemned Israel more often than the U.N.’s other 191 member states combined, according to Hudson Institute scholar Anne Bayefsky. Mr. Goldstone’s report devotes the bulk of its 575 pages to denouncing Israel for what it calls « a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population. » For this, it adds, Israeli soldiers could be individually liable for criminal prosecution in international courts, while Israel itself is held guilty of « a crime against humanity. »
To arrive at these conclusions, Mr. Goldstone and his fellow panelists were forced to make some astonishing claims of fact. For example, they assert that the Gaza police force was a « civilian » agency, though it merged with Hamas’s own paramilitary « Executive Force » after Hamas took over Gaza in 2007. The report also says it could not « establish the use of mosques for military purposes or to shield military activity, » despite widely available real-time video evidence to the contrary.
The argument seems to be that Hamas can surround its combatants with civilians, and for Israel to strike back is a war crime. The report holds Israel culpable for pursuing a strategy essential in war, which is to break the enemy’s will to fight. By this logic, FDR and Churchill could have been charged because the bombing of German industries and cities killed civilians in World War II.
The U.N. also holds Israel accountable as Gaza’s « occupying power, » never mind that former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon uprooted all of Gaza’s Jewish settlements in 2005. As for the « blockade » it accuses Israel of inflicting on the Strip, one wonders why Egypt, which has also sealed its border with Gaza, doesn’t come in for similar condemnation.
The report treats Israel as the aggressor in the conflict, though the Israeli government sat still for more than three years as Hamas transformed Gaza into a terrorist enclave while firing rockets at Israeli towns and cities. At exactly what point, if any, does Mr. Goldstone believe Israel is entitled to self defense? His co-panelist, international law professor Christine Chinkin, offered a clue in January when she wrote that Hamas’s rocket attacks on Israeli civilians did not « amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self defense. »
The Goldstone report includes some pro forma condemnation of Hamas’s behavior, but Hamas leaders quickly endorsed the findings because they know they have nothing to fear from the International Criminal Court or any other special tribunal. Hamas violates the laws of war as a matter of daily routine, not least in the murder of Palestinian dissenters. The U.N. report can only hurt a Western nation like Israel that cares about world, or at least American, opinion.
If it is taken seriously, the Goldstone logic could (and eventually will) be applied to NATO tactics in Afghanistan, where civilians are also sometimes killed in the course of anti-Taliban operations. This may well be a U.N. goal—the preamble in a process that could lead to, say, Director Leon Panetta in the dock at the Hague.
As for the Obama Administration, it has rightly made it clear that it will not allow the report to reach the level of the Security Council, much less the International Criminal Court. But having now joined the Human Rights Council—a point the President underscored, to applause, in his speech yesterday at the U.N.—it now has an obligation to police that body and call it out on its charades, lest it become complicit.
At the U.N., Terrorism Pays
It was my duty as defense minister to stop Hamas rockets.
September 25, 2009
This week the United Nation’s Human Rights Council produced a 600-page report alleging that Israel carried out war crimes in Gaza. The Goldstone Report—named for its chief investigator Richard Goldstone—also asserts that Israel’s motives for its operation against Hamas nine months ago were purely political. I am outraged by these accusations. Let me explain why.
It is the duty of every nation to defend itself. This is a basic obligation that all responsible governments owe their citizens. Israel is no different.
After enduring eight years of ongoing rocket fire—in which 12,000 missiles were launched against our cities, and after all diplomatic efforts to stop this barrage failed—it was my duty as defense minister to do something about it. It’s as simple and self-evident as the right to self-defense.
While such logic eluded Mr. Goldstone and his team, it was crystal clear to the thousands of Israeli children living in southern Israel who had to study, play, eat and sleep while being preoccupied about the distance to the nearest bomb shelter. When I accompanied then-presidential candidate Barack Obama on his visit to the shelled city of Sderot, he said « If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing. » Too bad the Human Rights Council wasn’t listening.
Whenever we are forced to defend our own lives, it is our obligation to do so in a way that ensures that the lives of innocent civilians on the other side are protected. This duty becomes extremely difficult when we have to face an enemy that intentionally deploys its forces in densely populated areas, stores its explosives in private homes, and launches rockets from crowded school yards and mosques. In Gaza, we reached out to the civilians via millions of leaflets, telephone calls and text messages urging them to leave areas before we acted.
So when the Goldstone mission gathers testimony from local residents in Hamas-ruled Gaza, but forgets to ask them whether they happened to notice any armed Palestinians during the Israeli operation, or didn’t realize that its impartially chosen witnesses happened to be known Hamas operatives according to Israeli intelligence, I begin to question the methodology of such a « fact-finding » effort.
Although I am incensed by the Goldstone Report, I must admit that I was not surprised. It is, more than anything else, a political statement—not a legal analysis.
This shameful document was produced by the Human Rights Council, a body whose obsession with Israel has led it to produce more resolutions condemning Israel than all other countries combined. By its lights, the evils of Israel far outweigh those of countries like Burma, Sudan and North Korea.
In its blind zeal to demonize Israel, the council has produced a document that undermines every other democracy struggling to defend itself against terrorism. The message broadcast by this report to the new world order? Terrorism pays.
Yet, an accusation, however ludicrous, is still an accusation, and it mustn’t remain unanswered.
If the U.N. or anyone else has complaints, they should direct them towards the Israeli government. I have in-depth knowledge about the extent of the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) efforts to reduce civilian casualties, and I am convinced that the actions our government took are equal to or exceed actions taken by the armed forces of any other democratic nation. Strikes against extremely valuable Hamas targets were aborted in mid-operation due to the unexpected presence of civilians.
Hundreds of thousands of warnings of impending IDF activity were provided to the population by leaflet, radio, telephone and text messages. Humanitarian supplies were allowed to flow into Gaza despite the fact that Hamas shelled the convoys and confiscated the aid they carried.
Israel is not perfect. As much as we as a society try to uphold the IDF’s ethical code, mistakes sometimes happen and deviations from procedure occur. Whether we like it or not, Israel is one of the most scrutinized countries in the world. And when we are told that things may not be right, we check it out and, when necessary, prosecute those involved. We are now pursuing two dozen criminal investigations regarding events that occurred in Gaza. We don’t need the Human Rights Council, Richard Goldstone, or anyone else to teach us how to maintain the democratic principles which are our lifeblood.
As sobering as the thought may be, terrorists will welcome this report. It has made their work much easier, and the work of their potential victims more difficult.
I believe that the time has come for us to put an end to this calculated erosion of common sense. The nations that share democratic values must not allow themselves to be handcuffed by the abusive application of lofty ideals. Democracies should be concentrating on defending themselves from extremism—not from accusations by kangaroo courts.
Mr. Barak is Israel’s defense minister.