Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Labour & Anti-Semitism.

There's a certain amount of Crosby related apophenia here. Not everything that Jezb ut-Tahrir fucks up is a plot orchestrated by Sir Lynton.
You may be right.
But once they knew they had Shah there was clearly a deal of preparation and timing strategy to work through; the vermin on twitter have been laying the ground-work for this reveal for a considerable time.
 
Is this an ironic comment? If not, do you want proof that the Mufti was the eminence grise behind the Holocaust or proof that Bibi claimed that he was

Assuming you mean the Mufti, they're crap. If you are looking for primary documents about Netanyahu, here's the video.

[]www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ju1w-iDR0o
I was asking about the Mufti and whether N had any proof, I've seen the vid thanks. Just thought you'd know. Obviously not. My bad.
 
Is this historically verifiable? (you know with primary documents and all that) or is it just hearsay?

No, a lot of effort went into building a case against him over a variety of things, if they'd have had the documents it would have been in there. (they had a case -never got heard for geopolitical reasons)
 
No, a lot of effort went into building a case against him over a variety of things, if they'd have had the documents it would have been in there. (they had a case -never got heard for geopolitical reasons)
Interesting stuff. I'm a bit of a History buff and have (after just a little googling) came across this. (Bernard Lewis is a History Professor at Princeton Uni speciality in Islam and its interactions with the West)....Havent gone as far as seeing the peer reviews of Bernards work, but Princeton is usually the bedrock of academic vigour (usually). I'll just put it out there and others can decide for themselves.

Bernard Lewis says that, in addition to the old goal of Arabia being free of the presence of Jews, the Mufti “aimed at much vaster purposes, conceived not so much in pan-Arab as in pan-Islamic terms, for a Holy War of Islam in alliance with Germany against World Jewry, to accomplish the Final Solution of the Jewish problem everywhere.” According to SS-Hauptsturmführer Dieter Wisliceny who knew the Mufti well,

The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and advisor of Eichmann and Himmler in execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz . . . The Mufti had repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he was maintaining contact, above all to Hitler, Ribbentrop, and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry. He considered this as a comfortable solution of the Palestinian problem.

Perhaps the “Nazis needed no persuasion or instigation,” as el-Husseini was later to claim, but the foremost Arab spiritual leader of his time did all he could to ensure that the Germans did not waver in their resolve. He went out of his way to prevent any Jews to be allowed to leave Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, which were initially willing to let them go: “The Mufti was making protests everywhere—in the Office of the (Foreign) Minister, in the antechamber of the Secretary of State, and in other departments, such as Home Office, Press, Radio, and in the SS headquarters.” In the end, Eichmann said, “We have promised him that no European Jew would enter Palestine any more.” In 1943, he wrote to the Hungarian foreign minister:

If there are reasons which make their removal necessary, it would be indispensable and infinitively preferable to send them to other countries where they would find themselves under active control, for example, in Poland, in order to protect oneself from their menace and avoid the consequent damage.
Netanyahu, the Mufti and Hitler | Chronicles Magazine

I then went to Lewis's wiki page to see if he was an "Islamaphobe" and found this....(pretty much not imo).

Views on Islam[edit]
Lewis presents some of his conclusions about Islamic culture, Shari'a law, jihad, and the modern day phenomenon of terrorism in his text, Islam: The Religion and the People.[40] He writes of jihad as a distinct "religious obligation", but suggests that "it is a pity" that people engaging in terrorist activities are not more aware of their own religion:

Muslim fighters are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged unless they attack first; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities or their resumption after a truce; and to honor agreements. ... At no time did the classical jurists offer any approval or legitimacy to what we nowadays call terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism as it is practiced nowadays."[41]

In Lewis' view, the "by now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century" with "no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition."[42] He further comments that "the fanatical warrior offering his victims the choice of the Koran or the sword is not only untrue, it is impossible" and that "generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century."[43]
 
Interesting stuff. I'm a bit of a History buff and have (after just a little googling) came across this. (Bernard Lewis is a History Professor at Princeton Uni speciality in Islam and its interactions with the West)....Havent gone as far as seeing the peer reviews of Bernards work, but Princeton is usually the bedrock of academic vigour (usually). I'll just put it out there and others can decide for themselves.

Bernard Lewis says that, in addition to the old goal of Arabia being free of the presence of Jews, the Mufti “aimed at much vaster purposes, conceived not so much in pan-Arab as in pan-Islamic terms, for a Holy War of Islam in alliance with Germany against World Jewry, to accomplish the Final Solution of the Jewish problem everywhere.” According to SS-Hauptsturmführer Dieter Wisliceny who knew the Mufti well,

The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and advisor of Eichmann and Himmler in execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz . . . The Mufti had repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he was maintaining contact, above all to Hitler, Ribbentrop, and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry. He considered this as a comfortable solution of the Palestinian problem.

Perhaps the “Nazis needed no persuasion or instigation,” as el-Husseini was later to claim, but the foremost Arab spiritual leader of his time did all he could to ensure that the Germans did not waver in their resolve. He went out of his way to prevent any Jews to be allowed to leave Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, which were initially willing to let them go: “The Mufti was making protests everywhere—in the Office of the (Foreign) Minister, in the antechamber of the Secretary of State, and in other departments, such as Home Office, Press, Radio, and in the SS headquarters.” In the end, Eichmann said, “We have promised him that no European Jew would enter Palestine any more.” In 1943, he wrote to the Hungarian foreign minister:

If there are reasons which make their removal necessary, it would be indispensable and infinitively preferable to send them to other countries where they would find themselves under active control, for example, in Poland, in order to protect oneself from their menace and avoid the consequent damage.
Netanyahu, the Mufti and Hitler | Chronicles Magazine

I then went to Lewis's wiki page to see if he was an "Islamaphobe" and found this....(pretty much not imo).

Views on Islam[edit]
Lewis presents some of his conclusions about Islamic culture, Shari'a law, jihad, and the modern day phenomenon of terrorism in his text, Islam: The Religion and the People.[40] He writes of jihad as a distinct "religious obligation", but suggests that "it is a pity" that people engaging in terrorist activities are not more aware of their own religion:

Muslim fighters are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged unless they attack first; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities or their resumption after a truce; and to honor agreements. ... At no time did the classical jurists offer any approval or legitimacy to what we nowadays call terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism as it is practiced nowadays."[41]

In Lewis' view, the "by now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century" with "no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition."[42] He further comments that "the fanatical warrior offering his victims the choice of the Koran or the sword is not only untrue, it is impossible" and that "generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century."[43]
In Netanyahu’s mufti-Holocaust allegation, echoes of his father’s maverick approach to history
 
Interesting stuff. I'm a bit of a History buff and have (after just a little googling) came across this. (Bernard Lewis is a History Professor at Princeton Uni speciality in Islam and its interactions with the West)....Havent gone as far as seeing the peer reviews of Bernards work, but Princeton is usually the bedrock of academic vigour (usually). I'll just put it out there and others can decide for themselves.

Bernard Lewis says that, in addition to the old goal of Arabia being free of the presence of Jews, the Mufti “aimed at much vaster purposes, conceived not so much in pan-Arab as in pan-Islamic terms, for a Holy War of Islam in alliance with Germany against World Jewry, to accomplish the Final Solution of the Jewish problem everywhere.” According to SS-Hauptsturmführer Dieter Wisliceny who knew the Mufti well,

The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and advisor of Eichmann and Himmler in execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz . . . The Mufti had repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he was maintaining contact, above all to Hitler, Ribbentrop, and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry. He considered this as a comfortable solution of the Palestinian problem.

Perhaps the “Nazis needed no persuasion or instigation,” as el-Husseini was later to claim, but the foremost Arab spiritual leader of his time did all he could to ensure that the Germans did not waver in their resolve. He went out of his way to prevent any Jews to be allowed to leave Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, which were initially willing to let them go: “The Mufti was making protests everywhere—in the Office of the (Foreign) Minister, in the antechamber of the Secretary of State, and in other departments, such as Home Office, Press, Radio, and in the SS headquarters.” In the end, Eichmann said, “We have promised him that no European Jew would enter Palestine any more.” In 1943, he wrote to the Hungarian foreign minister:

If there are reasons which make their removal necessary, it would be indispensable and infinitively preferable to send them to other countries where they would find themselves under active control, for example, in Poland, in order to protect oneself from their menace and avoid the consequent damage.
Netanyahu, the Mufti and Hitler | Chronicles Magazine

I then went to Lewis's wiki page to see if he was an "Islamaphobe" and found this....(pretty much not imo).

Views on Islam[edit]
Lewis presents some of his conclusions about Islamic culture, Shari'a law, jihad, and the modern day phenomenon of terrorism in his text, Islam: The Religion and the People.[40] He writes of jihad as a distinct "religious obligation", but suggests that "it is a pity" that people engaging in terrorist activities are not more aware of their own religion:

Muslim fighters are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged unless they attack first; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities or their resumption after a truce; and to honor agreements. ... At no time did the classical jurists offer any approval or legitimacy to what we nowadays call terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism as it is practiced nowadays."[41]

In Lewis' view, the "by now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century" with "no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition."[42] He further comments that "the fanatical warrior offering his victims the choice of the Koran or the sword is not only untrue, it is impossible" and that "generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century."[43]
Seems to have forgotten the Golden age of sicily under the normans
 
What have I started!! I just hope iRobot never gets to find out about the theories of David Irving
 
Last edited:
I have yet to verify Bernard Lewis work (and this is a brief article and as such must miss out a lot of detail). Like I said he dont come across as an "Islamaphobe"
I read some of his stuff years ago. I got the impression he was a bog-standard Foreign & Colonial Office Orientalist - "Johnny Arab is a fine fellow, in his proper place of course, old chap".

And while I initially thought that he might be one of those people who you could learn something from, even as you disagreed with his paradigm, I came across him saying something about the Armenian genocide which made me think otherwise (irritatingly, I can't remember what it was now).
 
I read some of his stuff years ago. I got the impression he was a bog-standard Foreign & Colonial Office Orientalist - "Johnny Arab is a fine fellow, in his proper place of course, old chap".

And while I initially thought that he might be one of those people who you could learn something from, even as you disagreed with his paradigm, I came across him saying something about the Armenian genocide which made me think otherwise (irritatingly, I can't remember what it was now).
I thought Ed Said has seen off all the Orientalists in the West? (that was a joke btw). Thanks for the reply, I'll bare that in mind when I investigate him.
 
Bernard Lewis is a joke

Interesting, so he coined the term "Clash of Civilisations" All good stuff and worth knowing, but the veracity of his research on the Mufti and Hitler/Nazi regime is the main point of research here. On that I'm still in the dark until I've seen more proof one way or the other (can't go too deep now as I'm at work)
 
It wasn't only the Mufti who was keeen to butter up Adolf. Avarham Stern, leader of LEHI (the Stern Gang) wanted to do a deal with the Nazis to further their struggle against the British Empire:


Stern insisted that the struggle against the British remain independent of any political linkage, even to Jabotinsky's Revisionist party. He also vehemently opposed tempering the resistance in any way, and thus, in August, 1940, when the Irgun decided to suspend their attacks on the British during World War II, Stern formed a radical splinter opposition group, known as Lehi, an acronym for “Lohamei Herut Yisrael.” He maintained that, even in the face of the Nazi threat, it was the British who posed the major threat to the Jews; doubting the Allies could win the war, he even advocated an alliance with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, believing these ties would assist the nationalist effort in Eretz Yisrael.

Taken fromAvraham Stern | Jewish Virtual Library

Stern was killed in 1942 but his group carried on the struggle against the British control of Palestine all through the war.

Yitzhak Shamir, who was one of the leaders of the group after Stern's death (and in 1942, the organiser of the assasination of Lord Moyne - the minister responsible for British colonies in the Middle East) went on to be leader of Likud and seventh Prime Minister of Israel
 
Last edited:
Interesting, so he coined the term "Clash of Civilisations" All good stuff and worth knowing, but the veracity of his research on the Mufti and Hitler/Nazi regime is the main point of research here. On that I'm still in the dark until I've seen more proof one way or the other (can't go too deep now as I'm at work)

Stop making it sound as if you'e about to peer-review the bloke when you're going to do a bit of google-trawling.
 
A Labour MP has just come out with something antisemitic.

Why do you think the views of the right are relevant to that?
Because right wing travellers like you are exploiting anti-semitism for political gain. Which in itself is what?

Anti-semitism and various prejudices, bigotry and so on go on all the time. When you are completely silent. Never seen you personally post about racism, anti-semitism, bigotry, of any sort.

Then you use this idiotic series of statements by washed up Labour politicians to score points. You use anti-semitism as a political tool. Really cheap and nasty. The Labour party are such scumbags, they really are...
 
Because right wing travellers like you are exploiting anti-semitism for political gain. Which in itself is what?

Anti-semitism and various prejudices, bigotry and so on go on all the time. When you are completely silent. Never seen you personally post about racism, anti-semitism, bigotry, of any sort.

Then you use this idiotic series of statements by washed up Labour politicians to score points. You use anti-semitism as a political tool. Really cheap and nasty. The Labour party are such scumbags, they really are...
To be fair he has a nasty line in Islamaphobia too while making out it's fair comment cos he once stepped out with a Muslim girl
 
It's definition is not an issue.....

Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think it's disingenuous to pretend there aren't problems with the term and what it means to different people. You boil it down to a simple 'Jewish people are entitled to Palestine Yes/No', but it is surely more complex than that, given the conditions that produced Zionism in the first place. The roots of Zionism are less to do with biblical fundamentalism and more to do with antisemitism in Europe leading many to believe that they had to establish a homeland elsewhere, their fears being more than vindicated in the end by the actions of the Nazis.

While I think it is a disgrace the way Israeli leaders invoke the Holocaust to deflect criticism of their actions, it is surely still correct to invoke it when speaking of the formation of the state of Israel. The Zionists may have far less of a point now about the state of antisemitism in Europe, but they most certainly had a point both in the late 19th century when the movement began and in the late 1940s when Israel was created. It is possible to acknowledge this while still placing yourself full-square behind the Palestinians and their fight for justice. There is a range of possible opinion about how to move forwards from now, but none of the realistic ones involves the forced relocation of Jewish settlers and their descendants from what is now the state of Israel. Accepting that they will be part of the future in the area is surely the only sensible first step for anyone advocating the Palestinian cause.
 
I think it's disingenuous to pretend there aren't problems with the term and what it means to different people. You boil it down to a simple 'Jewish people are entitled to Palestine Yes/No', but it is surely more complex than that, given the conditions that produced Zionism in the first place. The roots of Zionism are less to do with biblical fundamentalism and more to do with antisemitism in Europe leading many to believe that they had to establish a homeland elsewhere, their fears being more than vindicated in the end by the actions of the Nazis.

While I think it is a disgrace the way Israeli leaders invoke the Holocaust to deflect criticism of their actions, it is surely still correct to invoke it when speaking of the formation of the state of Israel. The Zionists may have far less of a point now about the state of antisemitism in Europe, but they most certainly had a point both in the late 19th century when the movement began and in the late 1940s when Israel was created. It is possible to acknowledge this while still placing yourself full-square behind the Palestinians and their fight for justice. There is a range of possible opinion about how to move forwards from now, but none of the realistic ones involves the forced relocation of Jewish settlers and their descendants from what is now the state of Israel. Accepting that they will be part of the future in the area is surely the only sensible first step for anyone advocating the Palestinian cause.
What about the forced relocation of Jewish settlers & their descendants from the west bank?
 
With all the usual caveats, given that this is taken from Wikipedia and I haven't read Mein Kampf myself, it does rather seem that by 1925 the idea of killing a good many Jews had already occurred to AH.



Full(er) quote from AH that puts it in a bit more context:-

If at the beginning of the War and during the War twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, th sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain. On the contrary: twelve thousand scoundrels eliminated in time might have saved the lives of a million real Germans, valuable for the future. But it just happened to be in the line of bourgeois 'statesmanship' to subject millions to a bloody end on the battlefield without batting an eyelash, but to regard ten or twelve thousand traitors, profiteers, usurers, and swindlers as a sacred national treasure and openly proclaim their inviolability. We never know which is greater in this bourgeois world, the imbecility, weakness, and cowardice, or their deep-dyed corruption. It is truly a class doomed by Fate, but unfortunately, however, it is dragging a whole nation with it into the abyss.
Mein Kampf: The Right of Emergency Defense
 
Stop making it sound as if you'e about to peer-review the bloke when you're going to do a bit of google-trawling.
LOL, I said I was GOING TO READ some peer reviews, I can't peer review a Historian, my degree is in Photography, not much use here.

Oh and I work for an Educational Institution and have full access to the Janet Server (and the rest).

Been finding some interesting stuff, quite contradictory, Hitler helping the Zionists populate Israel against the Britsh, the Mufti having real influence in Germany but practically unknown in the Muslim world (then and now) Hitlers fondness for Islam, the Vatican culpability in the Holocaust (more than the Mufti, truth be told) But far to much to do it justice here so will duck out of this conversation
 
Last edited:
Is this an ironic comment? If not, do you want proof that the Mufti was the eminence grise behind the Holocaust or proof that Bibi claimed that he was

Assuming you mean the Mufti, they're crap. If you are looking for primary documents about Netanyahu, here's the video.

[]www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ju1w-iDR0o

A lot of what's said about al-Husseini is based on his stay in Germany, of which not many records remain, so taking any of it at face value would be a little bit like doing the same with the Hitler Diaries.
There's no doubt the man was a rabid Judaeophobe, but the idea of "burning them" would violate the religion he purported to represent.
 
A lot of what's said about al-Husseini is based on his stay in Germany, of which not many records remain, so taking any of it at face value would be a little bit like doing the same with the Hitler Diaries.
There's no doubt the man was a rabid Judaeophobe, but the idea of "burning them" would violate the religion he purported to represent.
I've read considerable chunks of this in Foyles...quite impressed.
Islam and Nazi Germany's War: Amazon.co.uk: David Motadel: 9780674724600: Books
 
I have yet to verify Bernard Lewis work (and this is a brief article and as such must miss out a lot of detail). Like I said he dont come across as an "Islamaphobe"

Bernard Lewis pretty much writes for two different audiences. His academic stuff is written in a much more circumspect manner than his "pop history" stuff, which tends to be spun to a philo-Semitic and (later) a pro-Zionist audience. He dwells on atrocities under the various Muslim kingdoms, often excluding the achievements of the same kingdoms.
 
Bernard Lewis pretty much writes for two different audiences. His academic stuff is written in a much more circumspect manner than his "pop history" stuff, which tends to be spun to a philo-Semitic and (later) a pro-Zionist audience. He dwells on atrocities under the various Muslim kingdoms, often excluding the achievements of the same kingdoms.
I knew you'd know! :)

Seems he's quit influential, have not found any links (yet) but Princeton is renowned for its Christian Seminaries, do you know of any links to him and the Christian Right?
 
Back
Top Bottom