As the storm of war approaches By Caroline B. Glick http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1006/glick100606.php3
The clouds of the coming war are converging upon Israel. But the Jewish State’s political and military leaders refuse to look up at the darkening sky.
The Russian bear has awakened after fifteen years of hibernation. Under the leadership of former KGB commander President Vladimir Putin, Russia is reasserting its traditional hostility towards Israel.
On Tuesday, Russian military engineers landed in Beirut. Their arrival signaled the first time that Russian forces have openly deployed in the Middle East. In the past Soviet forces in Syria and Egypt operated under the official cover of “military advisors.” Today those “advisors” are “engineers.” The Russian forces, which will officially number some 550 troops, are tasked with rebuilding a number of bridges that the IDF destroyed during the recent war. They will operate outside the command of the UNIFIL.
Mosnews news service reported on Wednesday that the engineers will be protected by commando platoons from Russia’s 42nd motorized rifle division permanently deployed in Chechnya. According to the report, these commando platoons are part of the Vostok and Zapad Battalions both of which are commanded by Muslim officers who report directly to the main intelligence department of the Russian Army’s General Staff in Moscow. The Vostok Battalion is commanded by Maj. Sulim Yamadayev who Mosnews refers to as a “former rebel commander.”
With the deployment of former Chechen rebels as Russian military commandos in Lebanon, the report this week exposing Russia’s intelligence support for Hizbullah during the recent war takes on disturbing strategic significance.
According to Jane’s Defense Weekly the Russian listening post on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights provided Hizbullah with a continuous supply of intelligence throughout the conflict.
Much still remains to be reported about the impressive intelligence capabilities that Hizbullah demonstrated this summer. But from what has already been made public, we know that Hizbullah’s high degree of competence in electronic intelligence caused significant damage to IDF operations. Now we learn that Moscow stood behind at least one layer of Hizbullah’s intelligence prowess.
Moscow’s assistance to Hizbullah was not limited to intelligence sharing. The majority of IDF casualties in the fighting were caused by Russian-made Kornet anti-tank missiles that made their way to Hizbullah fighters through Syria. Indeed, as we learn more about Russia’s role, it appears that Russia’s support for Hizbullah may well have been as significant as Syria’s support for the terror organization. And now we have Chechens in Lebanon.
Russian backing of Hizbullah, like its support for Syria and Iran has been matched by its extreme, Cold War-esque hostility towards Israel. On Tuesday, Channel 2 reported that for the past few months Putin has been obsessively demanding that the government transfer proprietary rights and control to the Russian government over the Russian Compound, which has served as a police station since the British Mandate, and other Russian historical buildings in central Jerusalem.
Putin’s demand, which has no legal foundation or diplomatic precedent, exposes startling disrespect for Israeli sovereignty. According to Channel 2, Russian diplomats have been raising this obnoxious demand at the start of every meeting they have had with Israeli officials for the past several months. This most recently reported slap in the face joins a long list of diplomatic crises that Russia has fomented in the past few months.
In just one example, last month the Russians cancelled the Russia-Israel trade fair in Tel Aviv on the eve of its opening. Russian businessmen who had already arrived in Israel and were unable to get flights home the day of the announcement, were ordered by the Russian embassy to remain in their hotel rooms until they returned to the airport for the first available flight to Russia.
Then there is Russia’s unstinting support for Iran’s nuclear weapons program. During the latest of his frequent visits to Teheran, Tuesday Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced, yet again, that Russia opposes all international sanctions against Iran. Indeed, since Iran’s nuclear program was exposed three years ago, Russia has acted as Iran’s defender against every US attempt to galvanize the international community to take action to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capabilities.
In 1967 Russia played a central role in fanning the flames of war in Syria. In the months that preceded the Six Day War, Moscow fed Damascus a steady diet of false intelligence indicating that Israel was planning to invade. In the summer of 1973, the Soviets also encouraged Syria to join Egypt in invading Israel.
Whether or not Russia is interested in fomenting the next war, its intentions are less relevant than how Russia’s extreme positions are interpreted by the Arabs. Judging by Syrian President Bashar Assad’s recent bellicose speeches, it appears that Damascus believes that Russia will support Syria if it goes to war against Israel. In his latest address regarding Syria’s willingness to go to war if Israel doesn’t fork over the Golan Heights forthwith in “peace negotiations,” Assad made clear his belief that whatever its level of intensity, a Syrian war against Israel could well advance his interests.
Russian influence is also evident in Assad’s “peace” rhetoric. His protestations of willingness to conduct negotiations with Israel are taken directly from the Soviet playbook. As the reactions the speech elicited from leaders of the pro-Syrian camp in the Israeli Left like Maj. Gen. (ret.) Uri Saguy, Education Minister Yuli Tamir, Ha’aretz columnist Yoel Marcus, and MK Azmi Bishara made clear, all that is needed to manipulate Israeli public opinion regarding Syrian intentions is a hollow and disingenuous Syrian announcement: If we abide by all of Damascus’s demands, (something Damascus will never allow us to do), then Syria will give us “peace,” and if we don’t, then the responsibility for the war that will ensue will be our own.
What is Israel doing to meet these gathering threats?
First we have our elected leaders. They contend with the growing threats by denying them, giving in to them and attempting to change the subject. The Olmert-Livni-Peretz government had no public reaction to the Russian-Chechen deployment in Lebanon. As far as the Israeli government is concerned, this issue, like the fact that Hizbullah has returned to its pre-war positions and that UNIFIL forces are doing nothing to prevent its rapid rearmament, should be of no interest to the public.
According to Channel 2, Olmert is now leaning towards capitulating to Russia’s demands and transferring proprietorship over the Russian Compound to the Russian government during his upcoming visit to Moscow.
As to Syria, rather than crafting a Syria policy, the government argues about the desirability of giving Syria the Golan Heights now or later. Above and beyond all else, as Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Amir Peretz proclaim, from the government’s perspective, the best way to deal with the growing military threats is to ignore them and destroy Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.
Our political leaders are not the only ones involved here. It is the IDF’s duty to sound the alarm bells and contend with these threats. But the IDF is doing no such thing. Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz claims that he is devoting all of his time to rebuilding the IDF after what he refers to as its “mediocre” performance in Lebanon. Practically speaking, however, Halutz is not contending with the threats. In an interview with Yediot Ahronot on Sunday, Halutz discounted the Syrian developments and maintained his position that we won the war in Lebanon and are feared by Hizbullah.
Far from contending with the IDF’s “mediocrity,” Halutz is prolonging it. The IDF’s “mediocre” land campaign in Lebanon was led by Deputy COS Maj. Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky, Operations Directorate Chief Maj. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot and Brig. Gen. Tal Russo who oversaw the IDF’s special operations. Rather than contend with these officers’ demonstrated mediocrity, Halutz has promoted them. Eisenkot was appointed the new commander of Northern Command, and Russo will be promoted to major general and replace Eisenkot as head of Operations. Furthermore, Maj. Gen. Iddo Nehushtan who commands the Planning Directorate supports opening negotiations with Syria. Halutz promoted Nehushtan to his position after he led the IDF’s failed media campaign during the conflict.
Halutz has repeatedly stated that he will resign if he feels that his authority is no longer accepted by the army. Yet, the primary officers who have felt the brunt of his authority – Armored Brigade 7 commander Col. Amnon Eshel and Maj. Gen. Yiftach Ron-Tal – are the most prominent officers who have forthrightly attempted to point out the reality of the IDF’s defeat.
It is clear why Halutz behaves this way. If he were to sound the alarm bells about the rising dangers in the north, he would have to admit that he failed in his command of the war. Similarly, if he were to bring new blood into the ground forces’ chain of command, he would be effectively admitting that Kaplinsky, Eisenkot, Russo, and he as their commander, led the war irresponsibly. Indeed, the only way that Halutz can keep his job is by not contending with the dangerous military realities that have arisen as a result of the IDF’s defeat in the war against Hizbullah this summer.
It is this policy of denial that motivated Halutz to fire Maj. Gen. Ron-Tal from the service on Wednesday night for Ron-Tal’s statement of the obvious: The year the IDF devoted to training its forces to expel the 9,500 Israeli civilians from Gaza and northern Samaria last summer came at the expense of training for war against Israel’s enemies. It was also this policy of denial that motivated Halutz to bar Eshel from promotion for two years after Eshel pointed out how incompetently Division 91 Commander Brig. Gen. Gal Hirsh commanded his forces in Lebanon.
Halutz accused Ron-Tal, who has been on paid leave pending his retirement for the past seven months, of bringing politics into the IDF for his statement that the IDF’s single-minded devotion to the government’s controversial political program harmed its war-fighting capabilities, and for his call for Halutz and Olmert to resign. Yet, during his tenure as Chief of Staff, Halutz has been slavish in his public devotion to the government’s political preference for using the IDF to fight the Israeli residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza over preparing for war against Israel’s enemies.
Any objective observer of the developments in our region understands that the storm of war is rapidly approaching us. With Moscow’s blessing, the Palestinians, Hizbullah, Syria and Iran are steadfastly preparing for battle.
There is no doubt that Israel can weather the coming storm. But to do this, we must have political and military leaders who are willing to recognize its inexorable approach. Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider “must reading.” Sign up for the daily JWR update. It’s free. Just click here. JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post.
Mass Venezuela opposition rally
|By Greg Morsbach
BBC News, Caracas
Tens of thousands of people have marched through the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, in support of the main opposition candidate, Manuel Rosales. Mr Rosales will face President Hugo Chavez in December’s presidential poll. The march, which filled the main avenues of the city centre, was the biggest opposition rally Venezuela has seen since early 2004. Then, protesters made an unsuccessful bid to oust Mr Chavez from power in a recall referendum. Chance to unite Young and old took to the streets to throw their weight behind the campaign of Mr Rosales, a middle-class Social Democrat who governs the state of Zulia, on the Colombian border. Many claimed that they were seeking liberty and democracy and that made Mr Rosales their only option: “The problem of the opposition is that before we had a lot of candidates and people couldn’t make up their minds whom to support,” one woman said. “Right now we have just one candidate and I believe that we have a better shot if we have just one candidate against Chavez.” For some it was simply a day out to enjoy the sunshine, but for most it was a chance to listen to a speech by Mr Rosales, who declared that Venezuela was “at a crossroads”. Mr Rosales condemned what he called the cheque book diplomacy of Mr Chavez, accusing him of giving away Venezuela’s oil wealth to foreign powers. If Mr Rosales can keep up this kind of pressure against his rival, the election results may not necessarily be a foregone conclusion. But for now, Mr Chavez still enjoys a clear lead in opinion polls because of a sense of loyalty that poor and working-class voters feel towards him.
Readers of David Horowitz’s excellent book Unholy Alliance are well aware of the peculiar relationship between the political Left and radical Islam. It is a relationship compounded by the Left’s incessant mongering of the myth of “Hitler’s Pope”—a myth that, as a rabbi and historian, I am determined to expose.Many readers of the New York Times no doubt believe that Pope Pius XII was “Hitler’s Pope,” because John Cornwell’s bestselling book told them that, and it’s been reaffirmed by Garry Wills, Daniel Goldhagen, and other Left-leaning writers since. It’s been said so often in fact that most well-read liberals know it for a certainty. The only trouble is: it isn’t true.
Not only does it contradict the words of Holocaust survivors, the founders of Israel, and the contemporary record of the New York Times, but even John Cornwell, the originator of the phrase “Hitler’s Pope,” has recanted it saying that he was wrong to have ascribed evil motives to Pius and now found it “impossible to judge” the wartime pope.
But there’s something else that has been ignored nearly all together. Precisely at the moment when Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church in Rome (and throughout Europe) was saving thousands of Jewish lives, Hitler had a cleric broadcasting from Berlin who called for the extermination of the Jews.
He was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the viciously anti-Semitic Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who resided in Berlin as a welcome guest and ally of the Nazis throughout the years of the Holocaust.
As I point out in my book, The Myth of Hitler’s Pope, the outrageous calumny directed against Pope Pius XII has not only besmirched the reputation of a man who did more than any other religious leader to save Jewish lives, it has deflected attention from the horrible truth of Hajj Amin al-Husseini—who continues to be a revered figure in the Muslim world.
It is possible to trace modern Islamic anti-Semitism back along a number of different historical and intellectual threads, but, no matter which one you choose, they all seem to pass, at one point or another, through the hands of Hajj Amin al-Husseini—Hitler’s Mufti.
In late March 1933, al-Husseini contacted the German consul general in Jerusalem and requested German help in eliminating Jewish settlements in Palestine—offering, in exchange, a pan-Islamic jihad in alliance with Germany against Jews around the world. It was not until 1938, in the aftermath of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s infamous capitulation to Hitler at Munich, that Hajj Amin al-Husseini’s overtures to Nazi Germany were officially reciprocated. But by then the influence of Nazi ideology had already grown significantly throughout the Arab Middle East.
Several of the Arab political parties founded during the 1930s were modeled after the Nazi party, including the Syrian Popular Party and the Young Egypt Society, which were explicitly anti-Semitic in their ideology and programs. The leader of Syria’s Socialist Nationalist Party, Anton Sa’ada, imagined himself an Arab Hitler and placed a swastika on his party’s banner.
Though he was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, al-Husseini moved his base of operations (and pro-Nazi propaganda) to Lebanon in 1938, to Iraq in 1939 (where he helped establish the strongly pro-German Rashid Ali al-Gaylani as prime minister), and then to Berlin in 1941.
Adolf Eichmann’s deputy Dieter Wisliceny testified at the Nuremberg Trials that Hajj Amin al-Husseini “was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures.” At Auschwitz, al-Husseini reportedly “admonished the guards running the gas chambers to work more diligently.”
After the defeat of the Axis powers, Hajj Amin al-Husseini escaped indictment as a war criminal at Nuremberg by fleeing to Egypt, where he received political asylum and where he met the young Yasser Arafat, his distant cousin, who became a devoted protégé—to the point that the PLO recruited former Nazis as terrorist instructors. Up until the time of his death, Arafat continued to pay homage to the Grand Mufti as his hero and mentor.
This unholy legacy continues. Hajj Amin al-Husseini has inspired two generations of radical Islamic leaders to carry on Hitler’s war against the Jews, which is why today, as was true 60 years ago, it is not the Catholic Church that is the great threat to the survival of the Jewish people; it is Islamofascism.
Grand Mufti with Hitler
Muhammed Amin al-Husseini [many spelling variations] was born in 1893 (or 1895), the son of the Mufti of Jerusalem and member of an esteemed, aristocratic family. The Husseinis were one of the richest and most powerful of all the rivalling clans in the Ottoman province known as the Judaean part of Palestine.
Amin al-Husseini studied religious law at al-Azhar University, Cairo, and attended the Istanbul School of Administration. In 1913 he went to Mecca on a pilgrimage, earning the honorary title of “Haj”. He voluntarily joined the Ottoman Turkish army in World War I but returned to Jerusalem in 1917 and expediently switched sides to aid the victorious British. He acquired the reputation as a violent, fanatical anti-Zionist zealot and was jailed by the British for instigating a 1920 Arab attack against Jews who were praying at the Western Wall.
The first Palestine High Commissioner. Sir Herbert Samuel arrived in Palestine on July 1, 1920. He was a weak administrator who was too ready to compromise and appease the extremist, nationalistic Arab minority led by Haj Amin al-Husseini. When the existing Arab Mufti of Jerusalem (religious leader) died in 1921, Samuels was influenced by anti-Zionist British officials on his staff. He pardoned al-Husseini and, in January 1922, appointed him as the new Mufti, and even invented a new title of Grand Mufti. He was simultaneously made President of a newly created Supreme Muslim Council. Al-Husseini thereby became the religious and political leader of the Arabs.
The appointment of the young al-Husseini as Mufti was a seminal event. Prior to his rise to power, there were active Arab factions supporting cooperative development of Palestine involving Arabs and Jews. But al-Husseini would have none of that; he was devoted to driving Jews out of Palestine, without compromise, even if it set back the Arabs 1000 years.
William Ziff, in his book “The Rape of Palestine,” summarizes:
Al-Husseini represented newly emerging proponents of militant, Palestinian Arab nationalism, a previously unknown concept. Once he was in power, he began a campaign of terror and intimidation against anyone opposed to his rule and policies. He killed Jews at every opportunity, but also eliminated Arabs who did not support his campaign of violence. Husseini was not willing to negotiate or make any kind of compromise for the sake of peace.
As a young man, al-Husseini worked with a native Jew, Abbady, who documented this comment:
In 1929, major Arab riots were instigated against the Jews of Palestine. They began when al-Husseini falsely accused Jews of defiling and endangering local mosques, including al-Aqsa. The call went out to the Arab masses: “Izbah Al-Yahud!” — “Slaughter the Jews!” After the killing of Jews in Hebron, the Mufti disseminated photographs of slaughtered Jews with the claim that the dead were Arabs killed by Jews.
In April, 1936 six prominent Arab leaders formed the Arab Higher Committee, with the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini as head of the organization, joining forces to protest British support of Zionist progress in Palestine. In the same month, riots broke out in Jaffa commencing a three-year period of violence and civil strife in Palestine that is known as the Arab Revolt. The Arab Higher Committee led the campaign of terrorism against Jewish and British targets.
Using the turmoil of the Arab Revolt as cover, al-Husseini consolidated his control over the Palestinian Arabs with a campaign of murder against Jews and non-compliant Arabs, the recruitment of armed militias, and the raising of funds from around the Muslim world using anti-Jewish propaganda. In 1937 the Grand Mufti expressed his solidarity with Germany, asking the Nazi Third Reich to oppose establishment of a Jewish state, stop Jewish immigration to Palestine, and provide arms to the Arab population. Following an assassination attempt on the British Inspector-General of the Palestine Police Force and the murder by Arab extremists of Jews and moderate Arabs, the Arab Higher Committee was declared illegal by the British. The Grand Mufti lost his office of President of the Supreme muslim Council, his membership on the Waqf committee, and was forced into exile in Syria in 1937. The British deported the Arab mayor of Jerusalem along with other members of the Arab Higher Committee.
According to documentation from the Nuremberg and Eichmann trials, the Nazi Germany SS helped finance al-Husseini’s efforts in the 1936-39 revolt in Palestine. Adolf Eichmann actually visited Palestine and met with al-Husseini at that time and subsequently maintained regular contact with him later in Berlin.
In 1940, al-Husseini requested the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right:
While in Baghdad, Syria al-Husseini aided the pro-Nazi revolt of 1941. He then spent the rest of World War II as Hitler’s special guest in Berlin, advocating the extermination of Jews in radio broadcasts back to the Middle East and recruiting Balkan Muslims for infamous SS “mountain divisions” that tried to wipe out Jewish communities throughout the region.
At the Nuremberg Trials, Eichmann’s deputy Dieter Wisliceny (subsequently executed as a war criminal) testified:
With the collapse of Nazi Germany in 1945, the Mufti moved to Egypt where he was received as a national hero. After the war al-Husseini was indicted by Yugoslavia for war crimes, but escaped prosecution. The Mufti was never tried because the Allies were afraid of the storm in the Arab world if the hero of Arab nationalism was treated as a war criminal.
From Egypt al-Husseini was among the sponsors of the 1948 war against the new State of Israel. Spurned by the Jordanian monarch, who gave the position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to someone else, Haj Amin al-Husseini arranged King Abdullah’s assassination in 1951, while still living in exile in Egypt. King Tallal followed Abdullah as king of Jordan, and he refused to give permission to Amin al-Husseini to come into Jordanian Jerusalem. After one year, King Tallal was declared incompetent; the new King Hussein also refused to give al-Husseini permission to enter Jerusalem. King Hussein recognized that the former Grand Mufti would only stir up trouble and was a danger to peace in the region.
Haj Amin al-Husseini eventually died in exile in 1974. He never returned to Jerusalem after his 1937 departure. His place as leader of the radical, nationalist Palestinian Arabs was taken by his nephew Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini, better known as Yasser Arafat. In August 2002, Arafat gave an interview in which he referred to “our hero al-Husseini” as a symbol of Palestinian Arab resistance.
Some of the links are dead but a lot of info in the live ones
A picture was taken in 1943 of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, reviewing Bosnian Muslim Fundamentalist troops – a unit of the “Handzar [Scimitar] Division” of the Nazi’s Waffen SS which he personally recruited for Hitler.
April 5, 2004Chuck Morse’s latest book, “The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism, Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini,” provides the clearest, most incisive history of how Islamo-fascism and Jihad terrorism have become the dominant political philosophy in the Arab world. It is the untold story of how Nazism took root in the Islamic world through the untiring efforts of the mufti of Jerusalem, whose aim it was to destroy the Jews in Palestine. Morse writes:
The Nazi Holocaust appears to have kicked into high gear on Nov. 25, 1941, during a Berlin meeting between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini (1895-1974) and the Nazi Fuhrer of Germany, Adolf Hitler. At that well-documented meeting, Hitler promised al-Husseini, the Palestinian pan-Arab leader, that after securing a dominant military position in Europe, he would send the Wehrmacht, the Nazi war machine, on a blitzkrieg across the Caucasus and into the Arab world under the guise of liberating the Arabs from British occupation.
It should be noted that merely two months after the Hitler-Husseini meeting, the infamous Wansee Conference took place in which the Nazis produced their plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe.
Although Husseini spent the war in Germany, he managed to flee the advancing Allied forces and made his way to Cairo. While the captured Nazi leaders were tried at Nuremberg, Husseini escaped judgment and became the major force in transferring Hitler’s program of genocide to the Arab world.
During the war, he had recruited Bosnian Muslims to serve in Nazi-Muslim SS Hanshar brigades which slaughtered Jews and Christian Serbs in Nazi-occupied Yugoslavia. Memory of that slaughter was one of the reasons why the Serbs went after the Bosnian Muslims 50 years later.
After the war, Husseini established working links between Nazis and Arabs in the Muslim world. He also got rid of anyone who stood in his way. That is why moderate Arabs are so rare. Husseini killed most of them.
He began his public career after World War I, when moderate Arab leader Emir Feisal signed an agreement with Chaim Weizmann recognizing the Balfour Declaration, which facilitated the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Feisal believed that a Jewish Palestine would help the newly liberated Arab world develop into modern states with prosperous economies. But Husseini refused to accept a Jewish Palestine, and he instigated pogroms to force the Jewish settlers out. The first pogrom took place in 1920. Morse writes:
In 1921, shortly after the launching of the 1920 pogrom and for reasons that will forever remain shrouded in mystery, Sir Herbert Samuel, a British Jew who had been appointed as British High Commissioner of the Palestine Mandate that same year, appointed al-Husseini as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
Despite vigorous opposition to this appointment, Husseini proceeded to instigate violence against the Jews in Palestine and spread hatred of Jews throughout the Arab world, brutally purging any Arab who opposed him. In 1937, Husseini met with Adolf Eichmann in Palestine and became a full-fledged paid Nazi agent. In 1941, Husseini moved on to Baghdad where he helped organize the pro-Nazi Rachid Ali officers’ coup against the British government in Iraq. When the coup failed, Husseini fled to Rome and then to the Third Reich.
One of the Iraqi coup plotters was Gen. Tufah Khariallah, uncle, guardian, mentor and future father-in-law of Saddam Hussein. The mufti was also a mentor to Yasser Arafat, who is believed to be Husseini’s nephew.
Overlooked in the history books is the fact that about 100,000 European Muslims fought on the Nazi side in World War II. They included two Bosnian Muslim Waffen SS Divisions, an Albanian Waffen SS Division in Kosovo and Western Macedonia, the Waffengruppe der-SS Krim, formations consisting of Chechen Muslims from Chechnya, and other Muslim formations in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Bosnian Muslims, who were in the Croatian pro-Nazi Ustasha, were especially brutal toward the Christian Serbs. In 1943, a report on Ustasha activities stated:
The Ustasha terror began in Mostar. The Ustashi, the majority of them local Mohammedans, are arresting, looking, and shipping off Serbs or killing them and throwing the bodies in the Neretva River. They are throwing Serbs alive into chasms and are burning whole families in their homes. Outside of Zagreb the strongest Ustasha hotbed is Sarajevo. The Muslims committed unbelievable barbarities for they murdered women and children even with scissors.
After reading this book you will have no trouble understanding the origin of Islamo-fascism and Jihad terrorism. The author has packed the book with detailed documentation as well as photographs showing Husseini inspecting his Nazi-Muslim troops. Morse shows how Husseini’s legacy of hate and murder, and his aim to destroy Israel, have been carried forth by Arafat and his murderous Palestinian terrorists right to the present. The book is available through Amazon.com.
|Islamic terrorism linked to Nazi fascists|
Copyright © 2006 Spero
Source: The author is attorney and writer Raymond S. Kraft, who lives in California.
Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.
The U.S. was in an isolationist, pacifist, mood, and most Americans and Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war, or the Asian war.
Then along came Pearl Harbor, on December 7, 1941, and, in outrage, Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.
France was not an ally; the Vichy government of France aligned with its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally; it was an enemy, and Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally; it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.
America’s allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it.
All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.
America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its military after WWI and throughout the depression; at the outbreak of WWII, there were army units training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn’t have guns, and cars with “tank” painted on the doors because they didn’t have tanks. And a big chunk of our navy had just been sunk and damaged at Pearl Harbor.
Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600,000,000 in gold bullion in the Bank of England that was the property of Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler. Actually, Belgium surrendered one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day anyway just to prove that they could. Britain had been holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping losses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking that the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later and turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.
Russia saved America’s butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the U.S. got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.
Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than 1,000,000 soldiers. More than a million.
Had Russia surrendered, then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would have won that war.
I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And we are at another one.
There is a very dangerous minority in Islam (assisted through complacence by the majority—ed.) that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so.
The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs — they believe that Islam, a radically conservative (definitely not liberal!) form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.
There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East — for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win — the Inquisition, or the Reformation.
If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil, and the U.S., European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC — not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.
You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs.
You want the dollar to be worth anything? You had better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.
If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.
We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We cannot do it nowhere.
And we cannot do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle now at the time and place of our choosing, in Iraq.
Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things.
(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist.
Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians.
(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys there, and the ones we get there we won’t have to get here, or anywhere else. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.
World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a “whimper” in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for 14 years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 — a 17 year war — and was followed by another decade of U.S. occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again … a 27-year war. World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year’s GDP – adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12,000,000,000,000 dollars, WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.
The Iraq war has, so far, cost the U.S. about $160 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 1/2 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed out on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably greater — a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.
Americans have a short attention span, now, conditioned I suppose by 60-minute TV shows and two-hour movies in which everything comes out okay.
The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.
The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It will not go away if we ignore it.
If the U.S. can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an “England” in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless we prevent them. Or somebody does.
We have four options
1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran’s progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).
3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.
4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.
Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Shar’ia, an America that resembles Iran today.
We can be defeatist peace-activists as anti-war types seem to be, and concede, surrender, to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them.
The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn’t cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German Imperialism (WWI), Nazi Imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism (the 40-year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle, commonly called the Vietnam War, but itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.
The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.
It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV.
Remember, perspective is everything, and America’s schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.
The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.
World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a 10-year occupation and the U.S. still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50,000,000 people, maybe more than 100,000,000 people, depending on which estimates you accept.
The U.S. has taken a little more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 Killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion, to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII, the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.
But the stakes are at least as high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Shar’ia (Islamic law).
I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty, and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.
Three hundred thousand Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem? The U.S. population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let’s multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for another country to help liberate America?
“Peace Activists” always seem to demonstrate where it’s safe, in America. Why don’t we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?
The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but, if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.
If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. And American Liberals just don’t get it.
Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California.
Flashback: Beginning of the Final World War
By Abid Ullah Jan
Forst Publushed The Frontier Post – Pakistan
**** FLASHBACK **** November 11, 2001The optimists, who await an end to the post September 11 crisis, would end up as much disappointed tomorrow as the pacifists are today. Those who exaggerate the fear of “fundamentalist” Islam but underestimate the resistance in the Muslim world would soon realize that not only the world is not as it was; the war also is not as simple as they perceived it to be.
Out of a multiple fear of American wrath, Indian attack, economic embargo, and international isolation, we let the world feast on our Afghan brothers. However, we forgot that we might not even get enough time to digest the showering dollars for which we have sold our conscience, our dignity and unknowingly our existence as a state? The highly disguised intentions of Blair and Bush have turned our hasty decision to join the “coalition” into a time bomb, ticking to detonate with horrible consequences in the near future. The chickens of our instant surrender are already gradually coming home to roost.
It is now dawning on us that we are the pawns in the anti-Islam coalition. People ask, what other alternatives we had at our disposal? Instead, we must ask about the consequences of our meek surrender, which instantly nullify all the expected benefits. Lets look at a brief list of consequences at national level: democracy has been indefinitely postponed; the US may bomb us but we may not criticize it; dissent and protest have no place in the rewritten human rights; we must stop “terrorism” in Kashmir, or face the consequences (Joe Biden, Chairman Senate Foreign Relations Committee); Washington mulls “neutralizing” Pakistan nuclear facilities (the Statesman October 28); Pakistan’s nuclear weapons at risk from the US and Israeli plans to destroy (The New Yorker Magazine, November 5); US Special Unit ‘Stands by to Steal Pakistan’s Atomic Warheads’ (The Telegraph, October 29); Pakistan is flooded with refugees with no end to the war in sight; instead of its enemies, Pakistan’s war machine is in action against its own citizens; illegal and unconstitutional detentions are on the rise; and “Pakistan is in danger of falling apart,” (William Dalrymple, The Guardian, October, 23).
Some might question, if these are the fruits of cooperation, how could we afford the horrible consequences of defiance? The answer is: with or without cooperation we are the next victim anyway. We have simply given the US a time out to take us one by one. Remember the origins of World War II, when appeasement was based on the illusion that Hitler only wanted to reverse the wrongs, which Germany felt had been done to her. The West assumed that if the German claims were granted, peace in Europe would follow.
We have also wrongly assumed that the US is after Al-Qaida alone. Now it is out to dislodge the Taliban and set a stage for attacking Iraq and “neutralizing” Pakistan. This is just the beginning. To justify our decision made out of fear, we might justify the US terrorism as retribution of the September 11 attacks, but in fact there is no calculus of injustice. If the US is behaving unjustly, it should stop. It does not help its case to contend that others are acting “even more” unjustly. If the September 11 event is a crime, then the principles of justice must be followed in meting out punishment. Inventing another category called war and making it the special province of the US is not the answer. If Bush and Blair postulate that the principles of justice are suspended whenever they are at war, then every state can throw off the shackles of justice and do whatever it wants, including deliberately killing thousands who were not responsible for the initial injustice. Jumping into coalition with the US was a comfortable alternative. However, the unfolding events show that we have to reconsider our options for in this war there is very little room for mistakes and the situation could well lead to the final world war.
The Muslim world’s policy of appeasement is similar to what Britain and France embraced in vain in the 1930s in a bid to reach a peaceful understanding with Germany. Just like the forced retirement of some senior military officials in Pakistan, Anthony Eden, Chamberlain’s foreign secretary, who did not agree to give Hitler a free hand was replaced by Lord Halifax who fully supported the British policy of appeasement. In February 1938, Hitler invited the Austrian Chancellor, Kurt von Schuschnigg, to meet him at Berchtesgarden. Just like the US demands to give Pakistan’s nuclear facilities and fate in the “safe” American hands, Hitler demanded similar concessions from Austria. The then “fundamentalist” Schuschnigg refused and was replaced by Arthur Seyss-Inquart, the leader of the Austrian Nazi Party – “moderate” by the Nazi standards. On 13th March, Seyss-Inquart invited the German Army to occupy Austria.
Just like the present suggestions to transform Afghanistan into a UN run state (UN being an extension of the State Department), Hitler began demanding control of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. In an attempt to solve the crisis, the heads of Germany, Britain, France and Italy met in Munich. On September 29, 1938 the Munich Agreement was signed to transfer to Germany the Sudetenland. Just like Pakistan and other Muslim states’ unwillingness to defend the cause of Afghan brothers, when Eduard Benes, Czechoslovakia’s head of state, protested at this decision, Neville Chamberlain told him that Britain would be unwilling to go to war over the issue of the Sudetenland.
Just like some initial positive response to Musharraf’s quick surrender, some people in Britain also appreciated the Munich Agreement because it appeared to have prevented the German wrath. Just like, the US changing objective from war on terrorism to war on the Taliban, Germany also seized the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 after getting a nod from the Munich Agreement. The policy of most Muslim heads of state on Afghanistan is no different than what Chamberlain expressed in a radio broadcast on September 27, 1938. He said: “How horrible, fantastic, incredible, it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country.” Churchill had the time to admit in 1948 that for the West “to leave its faithful ally Czechoslovakia to her fate was a melancholy lapse from which flowed terrible consequences.”
The present Muslim governments may not even get sufficient time to admit their folly of not calling a spade a spade when the US began military intervention from Afghanistan and tried to dominate the whole Muslim world. Just like our liberal columnists and Pakistan TV spreading the myth of American might and consequences of provoking American wrath, the Chamberlain government nurtured the fear of war in the British public, so that it will accept the appeasement policy. Like today’s’ twisted reporting by BBC and CNN, after Munich, the British public opinion was the victim of joint Anglo-German propaganda.
Just like the present Anglo-American alliance and our leaders busy in pleasing Uncle Sam, British politicians actively worked before World War II to bring closer their country with Hitler’s Germany. In January 1938, Neville Henderson, Britain’s ambassador to Germany, told Von Ribbentrop, the German Foreign minister: “I would view with dismay another defeat of Germany which would merely serve the purposes of inferior races.” In September 1939, as he spoke in front of a group of Lords, the duke of Westminster, known as an anti-Semite and an admirer of Germany, stated that he opposes the mutual shedding of the Britain and German blood, ” the two races which are the most akin and most disciplined in the world. (See, The Chamberlain-Hitler Deal by Clement Leibovitz, Les Editions Duval, Alberta, Canada, page 283, 496)
In Europe, Islamophobia has replaced Anti-Semitism and American appreciation has taken the place of German admiration. Just like the Muslim states’ missing opportunities to get united and enter into formidable alliances, Chamberlain and the other western heads of Government sabotaged the possibility to reach an agreement with Soviet Union to a common struggle against Hitler. Just like our misconceptions that it is only Iraq or Afghanistan that the US intends to force into submission, even after the invasion of Poland, France and Britain managed “the phoney war”, with the hope that, after Poland, Hitler would turn his troops towards the Soviet Union. Too lately they realised that Hitler’s intention was to conquer all of Europe, if not the entire world.
Documents published in 1969, including the full protocol of the conversations between Chamberlain and Hitler prove that Chamberlain thanked the Fuhrer “for his clear presentation of Germany’s position.” The beginning of the ultimate tragedy of human history is similar to World War II in many ways. The beginning then was best expressed by Chamberlain as an “Anglo-German understanding” for “the two pillars of European peace and buttresses against Communism” (Sept. 13, 1938, in a letter to King George VI). The beginning today is an Anglo-American understanding against Islam, labelled as fundamentalism, extremism and terrorism in a sequence of correlations. We tend to ignore that Hitler’s “final solution” was no different than the US “infinite justice.”
The Muslim leaders’ policy of giving free hand to the US today derives naturally from their collective mindset, concerned above all of what they consider the pre-eminent threat to the security of their personal interests. For the Western leaders, the “green menace” involves as much fundamental threat to the most sacred tenets of capitalism and colonialism as the “red menace” involved. Their giving a free hand to the US for the fear of Islam is similar to the freedom handed out to Hitler as a direct overt choice of fascism over communism, which consistently rejected direct proposals by the Soviet Union to act against Germany’s aggression. Just like the US exploitation of the UN, the free hand to Hitler permitted consistent violations of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Just like the imminent genocide in Afghanistan due to bombing and starvation, the free hand to Hitler did all of this in the full knowledge of the most organized and violent repression of the human rights in history.
The European nations might console themselves with the idea that the US is out there to eradicate the threat posed by Islam, forgetting that the US is out to eradicate every resistance to the kind of domination it wants over the world. If we do not stand to say no to the US injustice now, then when? If appeasement has led to an escalation of disasters in the past, can it do otherwise in the future? Do we wait until its our turn to face the US onslaught? Our struggle now is not a struggle against a country, whose yearning for security could be satisfied or denied. We should refrain from assisting the US in killing innocent people who are not involved in any crime – nor have they been proven guilty. To postpone the ultimate tragedy of human history, we must stop all cooperation with the US, not because we are anti-American, but because such killing is wrong. We should stop it even if it meant there would be no US or Western assistance, or we might be attacked like Afghanistan.