Sorry for being repetitious, but PLEASE read "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters.

She examines in painful detail the incredible legend of lies that has been told for more than seven decades about the so-called "palestinians" and their miseries.

The MAs (Moslem Arabs) learned their craft from Goebbels (y'mach sh'mo): tell a lie often enough, big enough and loudly enough and eventually *most people will believe it*.

(On other sites you can find the quotes from Hitler, y'mach sh'mo) endorsing this technique.)

Oh: "y'mach sh'mo" in Hebrew means, 'May his name be erased'.

Flooding in Germany, that'll teach Mercedes to forget Israel exists.

Pay back! From the Man Upstairs. How dare they ignore The Promised Land.

Ibn Saud's descendants are in trouble--apparently, that much-ballyhooed defense briefing last week is beginning to take hold:

[Link: www.timesonline.co.uk...]

Link courtesy of InstaPundit.

The Arabs really got off scot-free for their support of the Axis. The term "Islamofascist" is much more accurate than most people think.

Yehoshua:

Yes, the Arabs and the Left have certainly mastered "The Big Lie." No matter how often or how throughly they're refuted, we still hear (in no particular order):

1. There was a massacre at Jenin.
2. Arafat is an elected leader.
3. People become terrorists because of "desperation" and poverty.
4. Any war against Iraq will be because of oil.
5. America had it coming on 9/11 because of our (cursed word) "hegemony." (See today's USA Today)
6. Bush stole the election.
7. Islam is a religion of peace.
8. The West Bank is occupied.
9. Americans back Israel because the media is controlled by Jews (Ted Turner, for instance).
10. We have no proof Sadaam has WMDs.

I could go on and on of course. I'm just too disgusted to.

This raises a point that seems to be almost universally ignored. One of the Palestinian plaints is that they should not be made to suffer for Europe's sins against Jews.

Leaving aside other considerations--such as land use and occupation before 1948--it is too often forgotten that to the extent that the Arabs took sides during World War II, they were pro-Nazi. The Jews of Palestine--at the time, the only people to call themselves "Palestinians"--enthusiastically supported the Allied war effort. They didn't have much of a choice, of course.

The third reich never died, it just moved to Palestine. Anyone want to start a poster campaign, using actual footage, to counter the "dying to live" crap?

I'd do it, but I'm photoshopically inept, and a coward.

Travel tip to the ibn Saud family: better book those reservations now 'cause seats on Swissair are filling fast!

Here's to the Hashemite Restoration...a.t.

There is a whole chapter on Arab ties with the Nazis (and another on Communists) in The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs by David Pryce-Jones (1989, republished in 2002). I'm in the middle of reading it now. To a certain degree it made sense for Arab nationalist leaders to ally with the Axis enemies of their British and French colonial rulers, but their enthusiasm for exterminating the Jews was disgusting even by the standards of that bloody era. (Israel also allied itself with South Africa and Taiwan when both were considered 'pariah states' until each achieved its own democratic transformation.) Pryce-Jones's book, with its incessant accounts of a long-term, violent, power-challenge dialectic in Arab political culture, is so depressing that it makes me less optimistic about the possibility of ever building a democracy in Iraq (although I still have hopes for Iran).

It's like Hitler gave us a last kick in the ass from beyond the grave. Nazi Intelligence supplied money and guns to the Mufti and Ibn Saud, who used part of them to stage a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq in 1941. The Saddam Hussein who leers at us today is the direct descendant of that deed.

These documents are extremely interesting --- just a few points:

1) Note that Ribbentrop referred to an existing "Jewish National Home" in Palestine, and that was in 1942, mind you. The damn Nazis were more charitable on the subject than Noam Chomsky is!

2) Note the whole exchange between Al-Husseini and Ribbentrop, and a little light bulb will come on. Why do Muslims have the right to destroy Israel and occupy all of Palestine? BECAUSE THE DAMN NAZIS PROMISED IT TO THEM!

3) Read the 1943 love letter from Heinrich Himmler to Al-Husseini. Now let's help to save the planet by doing some recycling. Replace "National Socialist movement" with "Berkeley City Council" and this message would make a nice "Happy Ramadan" card for Yassir Arafat.

I'm sure the Nazis were so grateful that they promised to exterminate the Arabs last.

It's interesting how the Haj's efforts on behalf of the Nazi's helped foment not one but two
future crisis. Not only did he inspire the 1920,
1929, & 1936 uprisings (so much for civil disobedience; eh) & provided rhetorical &
other support to Hitler; in places like Hungary
& the Middle East. but his specially selected
all Muslim Handschar SS Division, was engaged
in Bosnia; whose reopened social crisis in the 90s, was a major hindrance to our acknowledge
ment of Al Queda. In addition, after the War &
the 'Attempted Arab liberation crusade,' (the
1948 war) he settled in Egypt, where retired
German intelligence & financial experts, like
Otto Skorzeny (Hitler's commando) Hjalmar
Schacht (Hitler's banker) Alois Brunner, Eichmann's deputy) helped train Nasser's
famed Moukbarat. which in turn gave tips
to the uncle's nephew's special projects; the
fedayeen (the predecessors to the Al Aqsa
Brigades & Black September)

Please do not read the Joan Peters "From Time Immemorial" without substantial corrective investigation. It is a piece of n)ericans, including people like Saul Bellow, who should know better. Israeli scholars are appalled that such a travesty of scholarship would get a respectful hearing. They rank its veracity on the level of The Protocol of the Elders of Zion. It is mythology, not history or political science. There are devastating criticisms to make about Arab/Muslim ideologies (as distinct from true Islam, which historically treated Jews and Christians better than we treated them) without having to resort to what amounts to pious reading, what Christians call preaching to the converted.

as distinct from true Islam, which historically treated Jews and Christians better than we treated them

I don't quite agree with that statement. In certain time periods and places you can argue that it's true, but the lot of the dhimmi has never been very good. From what I've read, at its best it compares with being a black in the Reconstruction-era South.

How many moooooslums does it take to pave a glass desert?

that was a trick question

"bernard h"

That wouldn't be short for BNK, would it?

The above-mentioned grand mufti blessed moslem SS-units "Handjar" in Bosnia in 1942, famous of wild anti-Serb pogroms in Croatia. I wonder why moslems should be immune of any mistreatment they really deserve.

Mandela is flying in to observe Barghouti's trial.
----------------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,7748 39,00.html

In a major embarrassment to Israel, Nelson Mandela has agreed to observe the trial of a Palestinian leader formally indicted yesterday on charges of murder and terrorism.

A lawyer for Marwan Barghouti, a member of the Palestinian legislative council and secretary general of the Fatah movement in the West Bank, revealed he had been in South Africa last week to invite the former president to the trial.

"He said he was enthusiastic about coming," Khader Shkirat said. He quoted South Africa's most famous political prisoner as saying: "What is happening to Barghouti is exactly the same as what happened to me. The government tried to de-legitimise the African National Congress and its armed struggle by putting me on trial."

Got any references of papers critiquing Joan Peters' book? Do the Israeli scholars denouncing it include the ones who wrote books about the terrible atrocities the Jews perpetrated on the Arabs in 1948, including a massacre (near Haifa I think) that never happened?

How many moooooslums does it take to pave a glass desert?

It's nice to know that racism is alive and well on both side of this issue. I wouldn't feel American if I wasn't regularly exposed to jingoism during a mutual appreciation session about how racist the Nazis and the Arabs/Muslims were/are.

Charles--Chilling. But, did you notice that in the infamous first cartoon, if you put a checkered shmatta on his head, he's a dead ringer for Arafat?

How many moooooslums does it take to pave a glass desert?

It's nice to know that racism is alive and well on both side of this issue. I wouldn't feel American if I wasn't regularly exposed to jingoism during a mutual appreciation session about how racist the Nazis and the Arabs/Muslims were/are.
-----------------------------

Ahhh, the difference is that moooooslums are bigots, and I simply conclude that 2+2=4, and have a self preservation instinct. That's OK, cuz you can ride on my instinct's coat tails into the future, where you will continue to be free and witty. In the mean time, I'll just continue my wartime jingo.

He said he was enthusiastic about coming

Why, Nelson, why? Oh, wait...

#6:
The third reich never died, it just moved to Palestine. Anyone want to start a poster campaign, using actual footage, to counter the "dying to live" crap?

There are 3 or 4 parodies posted

If BNK is trolling this thread, I think he's doing it under the nick "vile jew."

I have no idea why I keep screwing up the links!
Parody forum is at
[Link: www.littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Sgt. Allah's Blood Thirsty Terrorist Band is here

Madiba really disappoints me sometimes.

I still haven't forgiven him for kissing Arafat.

Mandela believes that you can make a country rich by theft. He is a communist.

He supports Arafat because Arafat is a communist.

You will note that since Mandela's communists have taken over the country that South Africa is in decline.

For communists it is not results that count but struggle. Arafat is struggling so he is a "brother".

It's nice to know that racism is alive and well on both side of this issue. I wouldn't feel American if I wasn't regularly exposed to jingoism during a mutual appreciation session about how racist the Nazis and the Arabs/Muslims were/are.

Nice non sequitur mr. BS Detector (appropriate name). It never occurred to me that Islam was a *race*. Wouldn't the more accurate term be, er .. religionist? Since it's now no longer okay to bash a religion like Islam, I assume the liberals from now on will refrain from bashing Christianity? Right? Bueller?

By the way, is it me or are liberals the only ones who ever use the word, "Jingoism?" Do they even know what that word means?

Wayne

Shouldn't Mandela be observing one of his wife's trials? He was recently pleading the case of a Libyan terrorist saying the prisoner should be moved to an African prison because 'he was lonely'. This was the Libyan convicted with bombing the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie. Stupid leftist.

Re #29 add to South Africa's woes its peoples inability to see that babies are not consenting adults. Something you never heard coming from the "old" South Africa.

Not being familiar with the book in question (From Time Immemorial), I did a bit of online searching.
One of the more useful summaries of the Peters controversy is
here (hope the link works). I am no friend to anti-Zionists and Palestinian apologists; nonetheless, it seems that Peters has done us no favors in writing a book so fundamentally flawed.

What I would like to know is whether the documents cited are legit -- I would guess so, from what I know of German doings in the '30s and '40s, but Peters' misuse of other historical evidence unfortunately casts doubt on anything cited by her, no matter how valid.

What is the origin of this document? Anybody?

Here's a charming story from the Jerusalem Post about the latest Palestinian "peace rally." Not exactly surprisingly, I guess:

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

Perhaps Mandela is just excited to share his "necklacing" techniques with Arafat.

To be frank, the reason why Mandela supports Arafat and not Israel is because Israel did business with the apartheid government of South Africa, whereas Arafat (and Qadaffi and the like) always publically supported the ANC. They professed friendship to black South Africans.

Now, of course it must be noted that the Arab boycott against Israel was very much in effect in those days and Israel did not have the luxury of picking and choosing who it could deal with. It dealt with apartheid South Africa because apartheid South Africa would deal with her.

But I can't exactly blame Mandela for not being a Zionist. Same goes for Desmond Tutu (although the fact is that a truly moral person would not support Arafat and his murderous ways, period).

#4

Donna,

I agree with everything you said with one exception......Bush did steal the election. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have Bush than Gore by a long shot, but it was stolen. For the record, I was a McCain man. I think McCain would have started kicking ass immediately and take names later.

Mandela's decision to "observe" the trial was just the kind of public relations stunt I feared would happen when Israel announced it was going to try Barghouti. However, Neil Lochery has an interesting take on why the Israelis may be trying him and exactly what they have in mind long-term...

[Link: www.unitedjerusalem.org...]

If true, I can only pray this calculated risk is more successful than Oslo.

BTW, I still remember Mandela humiliating Ted Kapo on Nightline about a month after he was released from prison. Kapo asked Mandela why he supported the PLO and Mandela harpooned him with the "common struggle against oppression" bullshit. The TV audience cheered. It's no wonder the Palestinians and left-wing press have picked up on the apartheid paradigm.

I don't think that Israel can win in this trial regardless of the outcome.

If they find him guilty, the world will again argue unfair, cheaty cheaty, and if they do not convict him, oh boy, what a disaster.

Israel cannot deal with Barhouti or any other Palestinian leader who has not been utterly defeated.

They need to learn a lesson from Oslo. Do not resurrect terrorists, because, they are after all, terrorists.

Rittenhouse, that left apologist blog log, the New
York Review of Books, The Observer, In these
Times, those are the objective observers, which
determine the validity of Joan Peter's
conclusions. Even the Capitalism magazine series; which Rittenhouse depends on, is
heavily based on those same sources

BigDog -

I knew there was something about you that I liked. I think we may be the only McCain supporters on LGF (note past posts calling him a "wimp") and I agree that there would have been much more ass-kicking going on right now if he were prez.

Hey, a dictatorship of six thousand cousins is as close as the arab world has ever gotten to democracy!

I disagree with bernard about Peters's From Time Immemorial. I actually read it from cover to cover. She relies on primary source materials, including Ottoman census data, and her conclusions are completely defensible based on the data. She has been attacked by the likes of Finkelstein and Chomsky, which only reinforces my good opinion of her.

So, unless a critic is going to claim that Peters fabricated the source material, (s)he will have to show me where the data and documents do not support Peters's thesis before I'll take the criticism seriously.

This Barghouti business is foolish, IMO.

The point in trying him, istead of blowing his head off when first apprehended is, what? -saving him as a future leader for the pals post arafat?

Great, replace one murderer with another.

As upsetting as the Mandela visit to Israel is on the surface, the fact is, it will harm Nelson Mandela more than Israel. His wife was convicted of tactics that can only be described as terrorism and it was Mandela's prison separation which gave him the standing to say he rejected her methods. Now he is making a trip out of his own country to support another vicious terrorist through his own accord. The historical record will be that Israel conducted a fair trial but Nelson Mandela revealed his true leanings.

I too have read The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs by David Pryce-Jones. I re-read it after 9-11. If his premise is true, that honor and shame, not rational discourse, are the cultural foundations of Arab culture(s), then I suppose no amount of negotiation will ever satisfy the Arabs vis-à-vis Israel. Only by conquering Israel will Arab honor be regained. When Arafat rejected the Camp David II attempt by Clinton (more shame than honor), it came to me as no surprise.

Another interesting interpretation of the Arabs may be found in the memoirs of the wife of the famous 18th century Arabist, linguist and explorer Richard Burton. In essence, if I may paraphrase in southern idiom….”they would climb a tree to tell a lie even though the truth sounded better on the ground”. Again, why negotiate with someone who tells you one thing to your face and then returns to his “constituents” and says the opposite?

Lastly, this is a fabulous book: A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East -- by David Fromkin. Fromkin points out that all the boundaries in the Middle East were carved out, more or less, by the European powers prior to and just after the First World War. Is it not surprising that Arafat hails from Egypt (but then Hitler was from Austria)? The plans to overthrow the House of Saud and place back on the throne a Hashimite have historical precedence. But then, do we really want to be responsible for the next series of dystopias that result from the effort. #15 may be on to something.

Multiple Mufti and Nazi links, including the link pointed out here on LGF, "Muftism and Nazism: the World War II Collaboration Documents, can be seen originally posted at Politics Watchtower on August 10, 12:21 am Eastern Time.

Creepy stuff...the line that really made my blood run cold was in the Mufti's letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Hungary: "it would be indispensable and Infinitely preferable to send them to other countries where they [the Jewish refugees] would find themselves under active control, for example, in Poland". "Active control"--what a delicate turn of phrase to describe what happened at Auschwitz...

I can see Joel's point (#8) about the Arabs supporting the Axis to get back at Britain (the Croats in Yugoslavia did the same thing to hurt the Serbs). It doesn't let them off the hook for their rabid hatred of the Jews (as Joel also pointed out); as well, you have to wonder why the Arabs didn't consider the possibilty of the Nazis turning The Final Solution against them, once the Jews were out of the way. You also have to wonder how sincere the Nazis really were in their support "of the suffering Arab countries presently subjected to British oppression". Despite their common blood hatred of the Jews, I can't see the Nazis viewing the Arabs as anything more than convenient stooges for waging proxy war and causing headaches for Britian. Hitler's promise (as recorded in the Mufti's diary) of support once Germany captured the Caucasus rings rather hollow when you notice that the promise was made in November 1941 (when things were starting to come unglued for the Germans on the Russian Front).

Mandela isn't the only "freedom fighter" who supports violent islamist seperatists.

The Dalai Lama does so as well.

He sympathizes with islamic seperatists of Xinjiang province in China who wish to establish a country by the name of "turkistan" (or something like it) and probaly supports islamic cells in Kashmir too.

I'd like to note that "militants" of Xinjiang are affiliated with al-Qaeda, yet their organizations do not appear on the US list of terror organizations because of political reasons.

I have heard others attack Joan Peters' book in general but have never seen a point by point refutation. Her description of Jewish history in Israel and Arab lands since the fall of the 2nd Temple, and the expulsion of Jews from those countries in 1949 is corroborated by many historians who work with primary documents. Her description of the Mufti/Nazi collaboration is corroborated by the type of material Charles has here, which has long been known by students of the era.

The only part of her thesis which could be attacked at this point is her estimate of how many Palestinian Arabs lived there before the first big wave of Jewish immigration in the 1800s. She claims that most "Palestinians" moved into the area in response to the Jews working the land and creating prosperity in what had been a backwater, rather than having deep historical ties. Again, I haven't seen a detailed refutation of this anywhere in print or on the web.

Not that most Amazon.com reviewers are professional historians, but it is an education reading 62 mostly literate reviews of From Time Immemorial.
[Link: www.amazon.com...]

One person points out that " in one of the 1914 issues of National Geographic the population of Jerusalem is given as 40,000 Jews, 13,000 Christians (half of whom were Europeans), and only 7,000 Muslim."

Another says "criticisms by all "New Historians" .....have been effectively shredded by Efraim Karsh's book Fabricating Israeli History."

Another says "The concept of "in-migration" of Arabs to Jewish settled areas of Palestine is one I had not previously encountered. As a result, to verify Ms. Peters' results, I obtained a copy of "A Survey of Palestine", prepared by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (1945-6). I found that Ms. Peters citations were exactly accurate. Although it is very easy to dismiss something you have never heard before as a fabrication, original research, like that done by Ms. Peters, can be checked."

Amy #44,
I too read Peters book, although it was some time ago now. Some of the sources she was using, as I recall, were reports from British officials concerning illegal immigration from Syria into Mandate Palestine. These officials observed large numbers of these immigrants throughout the '20s and '30s and reported it, but the British authorities made little or no effort to stop it.

The low population density of 19th Century Palestine is not a myth of Peters' invention. Many people noticed it, including Mark Twain on his "Innocents Abroad" tour. Part of this was due to the effects of war, I suppose. Egypt had invaded the Levant in the 1830s fighting the Ottomans, withdrawing only in 1841. The land was also ravaged by feuding Beduin tribes.

We might consider the question of what would happen to the Palestinian Arabs if they ever got their wish and managed to destroy Israel and extirminate its Jewish population. Syria regards the area as part of Greater Syria. Egypt has coveted the area "From Time Immemorial" and tried to conquer it as recently as the 1830s, not to mention 1948. A Palestinian state would likely be immediately attacked and overrun by Syria and Egypt, who would then fight between themselves for control and probably suck many other Arab states into the war. Judging by events in Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world, the Palestinians would more-or-less be extirminated themselves by massacres by their "Brother Arabs" and the other ill effects of Middle Eastern warmaking methods.
Michael Lonie

The Dalai Lama had a mutually influential meeting with Jewish leaders 12 years ago, described here:
[Link: www.amazon.com...]

This is a wonderful book by the way, a funny travelogue, personal journal, reportage, and sociological study of contemporary USA Jewry all rolled into one.

I doubt the DL cares for Palestinian or Arab terrorists, but it would make sense for him to ally with any group repelling the Chinese, since they have been driving his people out of Tibet, torturing and imprisoning them.

If you want to bust more negative propaganda about Israel, here are some facts from a speech by Chaim Herzog (Israel's 6th president) to the UN, on Israel's trade with South Africa.
full text is here
[Link: www.herzog.org.il...]
but I am posting an excerpt because of the atrocious white-on-black type on the website:

".....perhaps even more hypocritical than the spurious arguments about Zionism is the condemnation of Israel for having relations with South Africa. On this issue, the only difference between Israel and those who attack it is that while Israel openly acknowledges the existence of such relations, they deny their own.

The fact is that most of the world maintains links with South Africa, but only Israel is singled out for doing so. According to the monthly newspaper of the United Nations Associations: "The list of nations which currently trade with South Africa is as long as, and in many cases, identical to the roll-call of states which have proclaimed their hostility to the Apartheid regime."

According to international statistics, Israel's trade with South Africa constitutes a mere two fifths of 1 percent of South Africa's $14 1/2 billion foreign trade - infinitely smaller than the share of many Arab and some African countries.

The question of who carries on the remaining 99 3/5 percent of South Africa's trade is a question rarely asked. Investment figures illustrate the absurdity even more blatantly. Of the $19 billion foreign investment in South Africa, Europe's share came to $13 billion. In addition, Africa invested $572 million and Asia $400 million. Israel's total investment in South Africa is in the thousands of dollars and comes to about one tenth of 1 percent of the investment in South Africa of Asia alone.

While the present exercise in selectivity and double standard continues, Israel cannot remain silent. Most black African countries have done business with South Africa, and many have received considerable aid form South Africa. Mauritius receives 50,000 South African tourists each year, Mozambique sends workers to South African mines while its economy is entirely dependent on services from Pretoria, and South African government ministers visited some sixteen African countries in 1975-1976. According to the July 1977 "Direction of Trade" report of the International Monetary Fund, the African countries account for 8 percent of South Africa's trade, or over $1 billion.

International statistics also indicate a 13 percent increase in trade between the Communist bloc and South Africa, while the Soviet Union's huge diamond output is marketed through the South African concern of De Beers. In addition, the Soviet bloc supplies large quantities of arms to South Africa. On November 4, 1977, after commenting on South Africa's own arms industry, CBS News pointed out:

There is also another means of supply: the Communist Bloc. These pamphlets (said the CBS correspondent in Johannesburg, holding up Soviet arms catalogues ) are samples of up to 50 percent of imports for private sale now come from Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union....

A few days later the Washington Post (November 8), in a dispatch from Johannesburg, confirmed the Soviet involvement in arms trading: "It is estimated that the bloc supplies up to half of South Africa's private weapons, such as Soviet-made Baikal shotguns and Czech Brno automatic rifles. They are displayed in arms shops next to American-made Colt pistols."

But it is the Arab states who are most vulnerable to the dictum that "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones." While they all profess sincere support for black Africa and condemn Israel for its ties to Pretoria, the Arab states themselves carry on a flourishing and ever-increasing trade with South Africa.

They have announced an oil boycott against the Republic but in fact continue the flow of oil surreptitiously. The Lebanese newspaper al-Hadaf wrote, on April 24, 1976: " (The Arabs) met with maximum success in their attempts to conceal the fact that South Africa is receiving Arab oil, reciprocating African support for the Arabs...(with) the flow of oil to Black Africa's major...enemy." Also in 1976, the United Nations published a document entitled "World Energy Supplies: 1950-1974" which reveals that oil supplies from Iraq, Qatar and Kuwait totaled 10 percent of South Africa's oil imports in 1974. These figures are of course merely those that have escaped the information blackout imposed by the Arab governments as reported by al-Hadaf . South Africa's Prime Minister, John Vorster, himself stated openly that his relations with Israel would not "harm South Africa's relations with its Arab oil suppliers."

....The royal family of Kuwait controls considerable investments in South Africa through its holdings in the Lonrho (London and Rhodesia) Corporation, holdings which cost more than 40 million sterling and amount to nearly 23 percent of the corporation's stock.

Arabs have offered to underwrite the very Bantustans which they consistently condemn at the United Nations. According to the Sunday Express of South Africa (June 15, 1975), "Arab financial interests have offered loans of more than R100 million (rands) to homeland governments in South Africa." Egypt appears to have steadily strengthened its relations with South Africa, including negotiations with a South African tour operation TFC to take tourists to Egypt, secret trips to Cairo by South African government officials and educational links between the two governments.

President Julius Nyeree of Tanzania himself was constrained to complain about the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of trade between the Arab states and South Africa in which they exchange oil for gold. Reporting on the soaring price of gold bullion, the New York Times (November 4, 1977) remarked: "Today the hungriest market for gold is the oil-rich Middle East, which last year absorbed almost 16 million ounces, or one-third the total mine output." The Metal Bulletin (on June 14, 1977) was even more specific, naming Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Yemen as among the Middle Eastern countries which provided the main thrust for gold demand....Direct shipments to these countries amounted to 500 tons of gold, one-third of the global supply."

As a result of this relationship, many leading Africans have begun to re-evaluate their attitudes towards the Middle East. On September 2, 1977, the Kenya Daily Times cited reports "that Arabs are buying South African gold like hotcakes, thus helping to sustain that country's abominable policy of apartheid...Arabs who sought and continue to woo our support have become business partners in building the South African economy." The newspaper went on to comment: "Research has revealed that Black Africa gained much more from Israel before the Yom Kippur War in terms of trade, technical assistance and training of personnel than they have gained from Arabs' petrodollars." The promise of financial aid to offset the African nations' rising oil bills "turned out to be a big bubble that fizzled away," said the Kenyan newspaper.

In the Daily Times of Nigeria (July 27, 1977) a correspondent reported that "Arab oil still finds its way to South Africa. Arms and armament meant for some Arab countries still find their way to South Africa." And in the Sunday Times of Nigeria on April 10, 197, under the headline WE SHOULD RE-OPEN DIPLOMATIC TIES WITH ISRAEL, a Correspondent wrote: "It is disgusting to see that we are prepared to go to any length with the Arabs even when they supply oil to South Africa. Or do we pretend not to know that the Arabs still sell oil to the apartheid administration in Pretoria?"

We have witnessed the same hypocrisy in relations to arms supplies. A brief glance at the latest issue of The Military Balance reveals that South Africa's large armed forces are equipped with modern weapons including sophisticated tanks, artillery, aircraft, destroyers and submarines. Israel's alleged sale of patrol boats to South Africa is minuscule by comparison with the hardware flowing from the Republic's major Western arms suppliers.

Yet none of these countries has been singled out for a special resolution of condemnation as the United Nations has done in relation to Israel. Indeed, Israel's critics appear already to have forgotten Jordan's sale of British-made fighter aircraft and missile systems to South Africa in 1974. They have also ignored the fact that when the Security Council declared a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa in the fall of 1977, Israel announced that it would act in accordance with that resolution.

But it would, in any case, be utterly absurd to imply acquiescence in its political, social or economic policies. If it did, every nation in the world would find itself in an awkward, embarrassing and untenable situation. Leaders of the United States confer regularly with their counterparts in the Soviet Union and China and carry on an expanding trade, while East and West Germany have met to consult on their future relations without any implication that they agree with each other's systems of government. On the contrary, these leaders have demonstrated that dialogue and persuasion can lead to progress and change, and attitude which appears infinitely more mature than the continued obstinate refusal of Arab representatives to meet with their Israeli counterparts.

The specious singling out of Israel for its relations with South Africa therefore serves no one and no purpose but the fruitless campaign of political warfare to which the Arab states are addicted. "

A critique of Peters' book. I don't know what to make of it though.

[Link: www.capitalismmagazine.com...]

#54: Yehudit: Wow. Just wow.

Somehow, this stuff has got to start being part of the general public's awareness. Same with #51 and #52.

You've just convinced me to spring the $65 for the AIPAC (American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee) on Monday night.

This history is also found in a Polish book, the Third Reich and the Arab East, by Lukasz Hirszowicz, English ed., 1966. Hirszowicz deals with the same sorces and goes into the career of Rashid Ali el-Kelani, the Quisling who founded the Iraqi Baath party and who wound up working for the Nazis in Germany. You see, the Islamonazis have more in common with the original thing than just the eagle emblem Saddam Hussein used to exhibit behind his desk.