Connect with us

Middle East

Neonazism of Europe and Fascism in the Arab World

Published

on

How did Europe manage to drag Arabs to the wrong side of history – a confusion, pride, shame and denial – all which resurfaces again, 75 years after. How is this possible that the ‘never-again’ takes place today? Do we fake our surprise? How expensive is our European denial, and Monarchist Arabs claim of innocence?

Haj Amin Al-Husseini was instrumental in ushering in National Socialism within the Arab World and in contributing to tens of thousands of deaths both directly and indirectly during the WWII. He has influenced men from Adolf Eichmann, Abdul Nasser to Yasser Arafat (to whom he was related) and was directly supported by Adolph Hitler. During his life, al-Husseini was responsible for briefly overthrowing the Iraqi government in 1941, creating Nazi SS divisions comprised of Muslims, representing and spreading National Socialism within the Arab World, fostering and implementing a radical departure within Arab-Jewish relations from peaceful co-existence to that of mass killings (eliminating ninety percent of all the Jews within the Balkans alone), and being responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Jews. Additionally, he had successfully fused National Socialism, Islamic fundamentalism, and Pan-Arabism into a hybrid that exists to this day.

The Nazi connection to Islamic extremism is a topic little known and understood in modern society. As the West attempts to understand the long simmering blood feud between Arab and Jew, little is spoken of the role that Haj Amin al-Husseini played in escalating the conflict through his collaboration with the Third Reich.

Early Life

Haj Amin al-Husseini was born in 1895 in Jerusalem, which at the time was a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire. After attending the Al-AzharUniversity in Cairo for a year, he left to join the Ottoman Army at the outbreak of World War One. He achieved the rank of officer and was stationed among various ports near the Black Sea, primarily in the Greek Christian city of Smyrna. While there is little documentation to suggest that Husseini was directly involved with the subsequent Turkish genocide against the Christian Armenians, there can be no doubt that at the very least, he was consciously aware of the extermination program as much of the genocide was perpetrated within the areas where he was stationed. It was during these formative years of his youth that he began to embrace a fundamental pan Arab view of autonomy concerning not only Palestine, but later to include the entire Arab Peninsula. Throughout his life, this fundamental belief experienced various incarnations as Husseini struggled to deal with what he referred to as the “Jewish Question,” finally culminating by advocating Jewish extermination during World War Two and after.

Haj Amin al-Husseini’s rise to power

After being convicted by the British authorities for inciting a campaign of violence against Jewish settlers in 1920, he was suddenly pardoned by the British High Commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel, who was attempting to control the widespread violence against the Jews by pacifying Husseini and appointing him the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (regardless of the fact that the Palestinian leadership had always voted for the position and that Husseini had finished a distant fourth). He was also given control of the Supreme Muslim Council that was created by the British to provide a voice concerning political matters within the British mandated rule of Palestine. Husseini would use this position by ridding himself of any opposition concerning his views toward the expulsion and eradication of Jews within Palestine. Throughout the decade of the 1920’s, Husseini carried out several anti-Jewish pogroms against Jewish communities in Jerusalem, Motza, Hebron, Safed, Haifa, Tel Aviv, Jaffa, as well as those living in the countryside. Husseini ordered that slaughtered Jewish settlers should have their corpses disguised and then photographed as slain Arabs to further instigate and enflame Arab opinion. During these pogroms, Husseini organized and chaired the All-Islamic Conference in which he further consolidated his power and prestige within the Arab world. It was through this recognized entity throughout the Muslim world that Husseini would justify his position of authority to the Germans as being representative of Arab sentiment.

The birth of National Socialism within the Arab World

The election of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in 1933 galvanized the Arab world; this in turn further accelerated and cemented Husseini’s influence. Using the new Nazi regime’s rise to power and subsequent infrastructure as a template, Husseini played a decisive role in creating pro-Nazi parties within the Arab world, most notably in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco and indirectly helping in the creation of the Social Nationalist Party in Syria. The emulation went far beyond just simple admiration as pan-Arab partied began to model themselves after the Nazi infrastructure. A young and powerful Abdul Gamal Nasser was heavily influenced by Husseini. Later to become one of Israel’s greatest enemies, Nasser belonged to the Green Shirts who went so far as to adopt the Nazi party motto, “One Folk, One Party, One Leader.” Consequently, National Socialism had a far more prevalent role in creating today’s Arab nationalist parties and subsequent governments. Sami al_Joundi, the founder and father of the Syrian Ba’ath Party, influential both in Syria and later Iraq wrote, “ We were racists. We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in reading Nazi literature and books that were the source of the Nazi spirit. We were the first who thought of a translation of Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Anyone who lived in Damascus at that time was a witness to the Arab inclination toward Nazism.”

Further evidence as to the enormous popularity that Hitler’s policies were prevalent within the Arab world were the congratulatory telegrams sent to Hitler concerning his election to Chancellor, the first sent by foreign sources outside of Germany. It is at this point that Husseini first exclaims his desire to emulate and support Nazi policies toward the Jewish race, as evident by his message to the German Council in Jerusalem, “the Muslims inside and outside Palestine welcome the new regime of Germany and hope for he extension of the fascist, anti-democratic, governmental system to other countries.” Further giving display to his admiration of Hitler was the creation by Husseini of a Palestinian youth organization called the “Nazi Scouts.”

Contact between Husseini and leading Nazi figures

The time was fast approaching when a greater level of cooperation would be initiated between that of the Arab world, and that of the Nazi Germany. The first known contact between Husseini and a Nazi official was in 1936 when Husseini met with Francois Genoud, a prominent Swiss banker who represented much of the Third Reich’s financial endeavors outside of Germany. This was a position awarded him by Hitler himself, who made Genoud an honorary member of the Nazi Waffen SS as well as receiving the decoration of the Gold Badge. During World War Two, Genoud provided financial assistance to Husseini and his Berlin sponsored government in exile in order to continue his anti-Jewish propaganda campaign that was disseminated throughout the Muslim world. While this was Husseini’s first contact with a Nazi official, this was in no way his first contact with a representative of a fascist government; that “honor” belonged to the Italian Foreign Minister Count Galeazzo Ciano, who gave millions of dollars to Husseini for the sole purpose of poisoning the water wells in Tel Aviv.

Contact between Husseini and Nazi officials began to escalate after his first initial meeting with Genoud. On July 15, 1937, six days before his personal role in inciting riots against the local Jewish populace, Husseini met with the Nazi Ambassador Doehle, the German consul in Jerusalem. Doehle reported his meeting with Husseini, telling his superiors in Berlin that,” The Grand Mufti stressed Arab sympathy for the new Germany and expressed the hope that Germany was sympathetic toward the Arab fight against Jewry and was prepared to support it.” The riots though, continued unabated, so much so that the British sent Lord Peel, as the head of a fact finding commission, to interview all the various parties embroiled in this Jewish-Arab conflict, hoping to provide the British government with a better model to govern Palestine. One of these interviews was with Husseini, who made it very clear to Peel that his primary, if not sole, goal was the establishment of an all Arab Muslim state and the total eradication of four hundred thousand Jewish settlers. This transcribed interview with Peel directly contradicted the contemporary Arab nationalist belief that Zionists were attempting to evict all the Arabs from Palestine. The Peel commission recommended a partition between the Jewish and Arab settlements, an action that Husseini did not accept, expressing his vehement antagonism not only against those Jews in Palestine but also against those Arab moderates who agreed in principle with the Peel Commission’s findings and recommendations. Waves of assassinations resulted in the wake of Husseini’s anger against those within his own camp who openly disagreed with him.

Husseini’s influence on Nazi policy concerning the Jewish question

By this time, Husseini had attracted the attention of Nazi SA 0bergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich, who sent both Hauptschanfuehrer Adolf Eichmann and his assistant Nazi SS Oberscherfuehrer Herbert Hagen to Palestine as his personal envoys to meet with Husseini. While there is little documentation surviving regarding the nature of their meeting, it is already apparent as to the strength of Husseini’s persistence and personality in influencing Nazi policy concerning their dealings with the Jewish population. This is evident because of Eichmann’s meeting with the Zionist Feivel Polkes. Polkes, who, in his meeting with Eichmann, argued for the increased Jewish immigration from Germany into Palestine, an idea that was openly discussed and even supported by high-ranking members of the Nazi hierarchy at the beginning of the war. Eichmann though, who met with Husseini afterward, reveals Husseini’s influence by arguing against such immigration measures by filing reports of Nazi influence within the Palestinian populace. This was certainly not the last time Husseini would be able to influence Eichmann, nor for that matter, Nazi decisions concerning the fate of the Jews. Husseini’s growing importance to the Nazis resulted in Nazi Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the head of the Nazi Abwehr Intelligence Division, putting Husseini on the Nazi payroll.

The revolt in Iraq

By 1939, the British had tired of Husseini’s influence and violent reprisals against British rule and stripped away Husseini’s various political titles, eventually deporting him from Palestine. Husseini fled to Lebanon and solicited additional Nazi support. This resulted in sending his personal assistant Doctor Said Imam to Berlin. Accompanying Imam was a personal letter to the Nazi leadership offering support and “disseminating National Socialist ideas within the Arab-Islamic world.” To further bolster his loyalty to the Nazi cause, Husseini traveled to Iraq to participate in the Nazi backed coup conducted by the pro-Nazi Iraqi National Party. In 1941, Husseini formed the Iraqi Committee of Seven, which included the top leaders of the planned pro-Nazi government. In the months leading up to the coup, Husseini was instrumental in arranging the meeting between coup planners and the Nazi officials Joachim Ribbentrop, the Nazi Foreign Minister, and Franz von Papen, the Nazi ambassador to Turkey. As Nazi successes on the battlefield filled newspaper headlines across the world in 1941, Husseini sent his personal envoy, Uthman Kamal Hadded, on a secret mission to Berlin with a letter from Husseini. At the beginning of the letter, Husseini immediately presents himself as the only qualified and legitimate leader of the Arab world. In the letter, Husseini makes clear his alignment with German racial policy particularly concerning the Jews: “His excellency is well aware of the problem faced by this country, which has suffered from the deceitful actions of the English. They attempted to place an additional obstacle before the unity and independence of the Arab states by abandoning it to world Jewry, this dangerous enemy whose secret weapon…finance, corruption, and intrigue…were aligned with British dangers…Full of unvanquished faith, the Arabs of Palestine fought with the most elementary mutual hatred of the English and the Jews….

After the pro-Nazi coup was launched successfully on April 1, 1941 (though in power for only a month), Husseini wrote Hitler again, asking that Hitler “recognize the right of the Arabs to solve the Jewish question…in the same manner as in the Axis countries.” The coup though failed, largely as a result of a British backed insurrection. This action infuriated Husseini and resulted in him publicly blaming the fall of Iraqi “nationalism” on the shoulders of the ancient Jewish community that resided within Iraq for millennia, tracing back its lineage to the time of Judah’s captivity by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. The result of Husseini’s allegation was six hundred dead Jews and the looting and destruction of Jewish shops and homes. This pogrom is known to Sephardic Jews as the Fahud.

Husseini meets with Benito Mussolini

As the Nazi backed provisional government collapsed, Husseini fled to Berlin, stopping on the way to meet with the Italian Fascist Dictator, Benito Mussolini, during which they discussed their mutual hatred for the Jews. During his stay, Mussolini gave him one million Lira for expenses. At this point, the Axis powers viewed Husseini as their most trusted conduit, not only to the Middle East but also to the Muslim world in general. His arrival into Berlin was heralded with the pomp and circumstance usually given to those of head of state. He continually met with high-ranking Nazi officials and while awaiting a first meeting with Hitler, he wrote that “to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy.”

Husseini meets with Adolf Hitler

After meeting with SS leader Heinrich Himmler and Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, who prepared him in his request for an interview with Hitler, Husseini drafted fifteen different documents concerning a joint declaration that he desired both Hitler and Mussolini to issue publicly in support of Arab nationalism and cooperation with the Axis powers. In the fateful meeting between Hitler and Husseini, which occurred on November 25th of 1941, Hitler told him the Jews were his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti’s requests for a declaration in support of the Arabs, telling him the time was not right. Husseini then offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches….The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely….the Jews….”

Hitler replied: “Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine, which was nothing other than a center, in the form of a state, for the exercise of destructive influence by Jewish interests. Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle…. Germany’s objective [is]…solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere…. In that hour the Mufti (Husseini) would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world.” The Mufti thanked Hitler profusely.

Germany was involved in a life and death struggle against Russia and Great Britain (which Hitler referred to as two citadels of Jewish power) and was actively involved on all fronts; the fact that Operation Barbarossa was so consuming made Hitler hesitant to send any badly needed troops to the Arab world. Hitler though did promise one thing which pleased Husseini greatly, that once the war against Russia and Britain was won, Germany’s objective would then be the destruction of the Jewish elements residing in the Arab sphere under the protection or control of British power. In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world.

Husseini creates S.S. divisions and is the sole mouthpiece for Nazi propaganda within the Muslim world

After meeting with Hitler, Husseini was filled with new purpose, that of the promise of Nazi intervention to restore Palestine as a sovereign state and he eradication of the entire Jewish population. In May of 1942, Husseini began a series of radio broadcasts to the Arab world via Bari radio. The Bari station was equipped with an extremely powerful radio transmitter, which was located on the southern tip of Italy, its signal reaching a large segment of the Arab world. Beginning in 1942, as the German army began to suffer tactical setbacks under the command of Erwin Rommel at El Alamein, Husseini began to increase his inflammatory dialogue. He broadcast his plans to set up concentration camps outside of Nablus as soon as the Nazis were victorious in driving Allied forces out of Northern Africa and the Middle East. One such famous quote from his broadcasts is: “Arise. O sons of Arabia, fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. Their spilled blood pleases Allah, our history and religion. That will save our honor.”

In addition to the radio broadcasts and other conduits available to the dissemination of propaganda (leaflets, booklets, publications, etc) Husseini was given the responsibility by SS leader Heinrich Himmler in recruiting and maintaining SS divisions comprised of Muslims. Husseini broadcast messages into Nazi occupied Russia, exhorting local Muslims to join various Nazi sponsored military units. He was given this authority to create and raise these divisions as a result of a meeting with Gottlob Berger, the chief recruiter for the Schutzstaffel SS. Berger stated at the onset “a link is created between Islam and National Socialism on an open, honest basis. It will be directed in terms of blood and race from the North, and in the ideological-spiritual sphere from the East.” The creation of these units were known as Hanzar Brigades and resulted in the addition of several Einsatzgruppen divisions to the Axis cause. These Hanzar units were responsible for the extermination of ninety percent of the Jewish population within Bosnia as well as similar actions within Croatia and Hungary. As each of these divisions became active, they received speeches upon ceremonial activation by Husseini exhorting them that the “Jews are the worst enemies of the Muslims.” Himmler also established a school in Dresden to train mullahs who would then be placed directly under the control of Husseini. At the end of the war, there were over one hundred thousand European Muslims recruited to fight in specially designed Nazi brigades.

Husseini’s role with the Holocaust

His role in the Final Solution was also well known to the Nazi Hierarchy. On several occasions, Husseini directly intervened to stop any attempt to either help the Jews or hinder or delay their destruction. When Red Cross officials attempted to negotiate the exchange of four thousand Jewish children from Poland, Husseini directly intervened by writing to von Ribbentrop who then forwarded the letter to Adolf Eichmann, who was at the time contemplating agreeing to the Red Cross request. Instead, the children were sent to Auschwitz. Husseini also wrote to the foreign ministers of both Romania and Hungary requesting they also stop emigration attempts in trying to resolve the Jewish question without resorting to extermination. In both cases, Romania with two thousand Jews, and Hungary with one thousand Jews, relented and sent their Jewish allotments in question to extermination camps. Husseini went so far as to actually castigate those Germans who had shown either an unwillingness or wavered in abiding by Nazi racial policies. This is evident by his brazen letter to the Nazi foreign minister von Ribbentrop in which he admonished Ribbentrop in not following Nazi directives concerning the extermination of Jews. Even when Rudolf Kastner, of the Jewish Rescue and Relief Committee in Budapest (later to be tried in Israel for collaborating with the Nazis) contacted Eichmann in an attempt to allow Jews to emigrate to Palestine, he received a response from Eichmann in which the reply was, “I am personal friend of the Grand Mufti. We have promised him that no European Jew would enter Palestine anymore.”

As the war progressed, Husseini escalated his attempts to influence those in command in the Nazi hierarchy to exterminate Jews in ever growing numbers. On a visit to Auschwitz, he was said to have urged the German guards to work more diligently in exterminating the Jews. In a document presented to the United Nations in 1947, Husseini’s correspondence with the Hungarian Foreign Minister was made public requesting the deportation of Hungarian Jews to Poland. The document contained the following notation: “As a sequel to this request 400,000 Jews were subsequently killed.” Dieter Wisliceny, Adolf Eichmann’s deputy, testified during his trial in Nuremberg that Husseini was “one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and advisor 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.”

There is speculation as to how great Husseini’s influence was on Nazi efforts to eradicate the Jewish “problem.” Historians do know that two months before the Wansee Conference, Husseini wrote in his diary “I am resolved to find a solution for the Jewish problem, progressing step by step without cessation. With regard to this I am making the necessary and right appeal, first to all the European countries and then to countries outside of Europe.”

In his own memoirs, published before he died, Husseini wrote that “Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of the Jews. The answer I got was” ‘The Jews are yours.’”

The assimilation of Nazis within the Arab world at the end of WW II

After fleeing Germany at the end of the war, Husseini was instrumental in ferrying certain Nazis to various locations within the Arab world as well as helping in the placement of these figures who would be beneficial to the various respective Arab governments who could use their services in promoting their own nationalistic endeavors against the newly created state of Israel. This was known as Project Odessa. Husseini was to ferry key Nazi figures fleeing from war crimes charges into key positions within the Arab world, primarily Egypt and Syria who were the main antagonists advocating the destruction of Israel and attempted to do so several times within the span of Husseini’s life, most notably during the Six-day war in 1967 and in the Yom Kippur War in 1973.

In 1962, Al-Husseini would lead the Islamic World Congress for the last time, retiring shortly thereafter. Before leaving office, the Congress, while under the leadership of Husseini, drew up a resolution that was eerily similar to that of the invective spewed forth by Nazi officials two decades earlier. The resolution called for the ethnic cleansing of all Jews within the Arab World and to establish a Middle East that was “Judenrein” (free of Jews).

On July 5th, 1974, Husseini died, passing the torch to a new protégé, his nephew, Yasir Arafat who in a later interview called his diabolical uncle “a great hero.” Throughout the years Arafat has gone on record several times in praising the “virtues” of his uncle. That Husseini groomed Arafat for this role of leadership within the newly created PLO is of no question. Husseini placed him in command of arms procurement for his militia as well as arranging for Arafat to fulfill the role of a leader, grooming him for the necessary tenacity required to fill the vacancy that Husseini would leave behind.

In light of the historical record, which shows indisputably Husseini’s role in the Holocaust, one wonders as to the absurdity prevalent within the Arab world in denying not only allegations of wrongdoing through their idealistic and nationalistic leaders but also the very Holocaust itself. The historical record though is clear. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the one man who could claim to be the spokesman and ideological leader of the Arab world, was an accomplice to mass murder.

National Socialism and its integration within Arab foreign policy

Since the end of World War Two, National Socialism has continued to steadily influence political and ideological thought in the Muslim world. The first such signs were apparent during the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961 when Arab newspapers, providing coverage of the trial for their readers, were openly sympathetic to Eichmann’s cause, going so far as to complain that the only fault visible to them was the inability of Eichmann to complete the Final Solution. At the same time was General Gamal Abdul Nasser, who after seizing power in 1952, incorporated literally dozens of former officials from the Nazi hierarchy, including notorious S.S. members such as Otto Skorzeny, Obersturmbannführer of the Waffen S.S. and also labeled at one time by the OSS as the most dangerous man in Europe; and Joachim Daumling, the former chief of the Gestapo in Dusseldorf, who completely rebuilt the Egyptian intelligence services.

Financial connections between Arab extremist organizations and former Nazis

Husseini spent much of the post-war period funneling money to extremist Islamic groups whose views corresponded with his own, money that had been pilfered from Jews at the hands of the Nazis. This money was used in a variety of ways, from supporting terrorist organizations, to producing his propaganda. The Swiss Nazi banker, Francois Genoud, aided him heavily in this endeavor. Genoud was an unrepentant Nazi until his death in 1996 at the age of 81; in the midst of investigations into his support for terrorist organizations. Genoud was instrumental in supplying Husseini with funds throughout Husseini’s post war life, primarily because of his creation and involvement in the Arab Commercial bank in 1958. The bank offered loans to Arabic nationalist groups that fought against or attacked Israel. Genoud was so adamantly anti-Semitic that he actually ordered his bank to manage the fighting fund of the Islamic Algerian independence movement. Genoud was highly influential in transporting key Nazi figures into the Arab World through the Odessa project which was created and funded by Genoud, who oversaw the transfer of millions of marks into his accounts which were then used to finance Odessa and Husseini’s own endeavors. The principal source of the finances that made this possible originated from the personal holdings, property, and belongings from Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Additionally, Genoud acquired the rights to the published writings of leading Nazi figures such as Joseph Goebbels, Martin Bormann, and that of Hitler. His acquisition came as a result of becoming personally involved with the families of each. The primary reason however, in his support for Husseini and Islamic extremism, was a conversation he had with Major Herman Bernhard Ramcke, during which he learned of Martin Boormann’s account of the many conversations with Hitler in the last three years of his life. These written accounts were later handed to him in full by SS Captain Hans Reichenberg, resulting in Genoud publishing them several years later. Genoud wrote the preface, claiming, “Hitler wanted the people of the Third World to carry on the work of the Thousand Year Reich.” Genoud was also instrumental in the hijacking of a Lufthansa 747 in Bombay by Islamic terrorists who demanded five million dollars for the Organization for the Victims of the Zionist Occupation. It was Genoud who carried the ransom letter, though at the time, his complicity was not known. In 1962, Genoud moved to Algiers where he became the director of the Arab People’s Bank, yet another institution that he used to transfer over fifteen million dollars belonging to the National Liberation Front to Swiss bank accounts. For this action he was arrested in Algiers but later rescued by the Egyptian President Abdel Nasser, who was well versed in the ideological trappings of National Socialism, due in no small part to the influence of Husseini. Throughout Husseini’s public career, Genoud served as his personal financial advisor.

Genoud was not Husseini’s only Nazi contact. The American H. Keith Thompson, an influential Nazi activist, has readily admitted to helping Husseini in his post-war activities by stating that he “did a couple of jobs for him, getting some documents from files that were otherwise unavailable.” Another collaborator was Youssef Nada who served with Husseini during the war as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood party. The Muslim Brotherhood party directly supported the operations set forth by Husseini and Nazi Military Intelligence, who in 1936, recruited Nada and others to link up with the Young Egypt Party, whose membership included Gamal Nasser and Anwar Sadat. The Young Egypt Party was an exact carbon copy of the Nazi Party, going so far as to use translated Nazi slogans and call themselves the “Green Shirts.” Youssef Nada, who worked closely with Nazi intelligence, until recently was the director of the al-Taqwa bank, an institution that the U.S. Treasury has condemned for laundering money and financing al-Qaeda as well as having connections to various extremist Islamic organizations.

Key Nazi figures within various Arab governments

In the several decades following the conclusion of World War Two, thousands of Nazi fugitives, collaborators and sympathizers flooded into the Arab World, particularly Egypt. The Egyptian President made it very clear that he desired the propagation of these Nazi’s into the Egyptian hierarchy, “We will use the services of those who know the mentality of our enemies.” Among the many Nazis who fled (or were invited) to Egypt was Franz Bartel, the Gestapo head of Katowice, Poland who subsequently ran the “Jewish Department” of the Egyptian War Office, Standartenfuhrer Baumann, who was instrumental in the liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto and who now was an integral part of the Palestinian Liberation Front, also based in Egypt. Various Nazi medical personnel, such as Doctor Herbert Heim and Doctor Willerman who committed atrocities under the guise of “medial experimentation” at Mauthausen and Dachau, were also welcomed within the Arab world. Nasser particularly sought those Nazis from the realm of Jewish anti-propaganda. Nasser established an Institute for the Study of Zionism in Cairo in 1959, which employed former key figures in Goebbel’s Ministry of Propaganda, including Luis Heiden, who translated Hitler’s Mein Kampf. into Arabic, which was then issued to every officer in the Egyptian army. Nasser, was impressed with the success of the integration of Nazis within the military infrastructure of Egypt and ordered Colonel Muhammad al-Shazli, his attaché in London in 1962, to contact prominent Nazi sympathizers in London such as Colin Jordan and John Tyndall and discuss the funding and financial support of the National Socialist Movement in Jordan.

The assimilation of the tenets and adherents of National Socialism within the Arab world continues to reverberate through the decades. In 1976, the Saudi representative in the United Nations denied the claims of a historical Holocaust in a speech to the United Nations Security Council and laid the creation of such a “myth” as the result of Zionist media. Exactly one year later, the Saudi government gave twenty five thousand dollars to the American Neo-Nazi William Grimstad to write a book detailing a collection of quotes concerning anti Semitic behavior throughout the centuries called Anti-Zion. In the 1980’s, Inamullah Khan, the director of the World Muslim league located in Pakistan, paid thousands of dollars for this Nazi-influenced book to be sent via mail to every member of the United States Congress and the Senate, as well as every British MP in Parliament. Mein Kampf has been a best seller within the Palestinian territories as well as having been published across the Arab world and other Islamic countries; currently it is on the bestseller list in Turkey. In Lebanon, there are several translations in circulation, all under the watchful eye of Syrian leadership. The translation of Mein Kampf is primarily handled by Luis al-Haj who wrote the introduction: “We made a point to deliver Hitler’s opinions and theories on nationalism, regimes, and ethnicity without any changes because they are not yet outmoded and because we, in the Arab world, still proceed haphazardly in all three fields.” Clearly the link between Islamic extremism and National Socialism has been shown time and time again by not only the leaders of the Arab world but in the simple beliefs of their constituents. Fatma Abdallah Mahmoud, writing for the Egyptian government daily Al-Akhbar, wrote on April 29th, 2002, “Hitler himself, whom they accuse of Nazism, is in my eyes no more than a modest ‘pupil’ in the world of murder and bloodshed. He is completely innocent of the charge of frying them in the hell of his false Holocaust!!” The entire matter, as many French and British scientists and researchers have proven, is nothing more than a huge Israeli plot aimed at extorting the German government in particular and the European countries in general. But I, personally and in light of this imaginary tale, complain to Hitler, even saying to him from the bottom of my heart, ‘If only you had done it, brother, if only it had really happened, so that the world could sigh in relief [without] their evil and sin.’

Today, the Arab run cable channel Al-Manar, is disseminating and propagating anti-Semitic material into France, Germany and other countries with sizeable Arab populations. The broadcasting of the twenty-nine part series “Al Shatat” deals with the prevalent Islamic belief that the WorldTradeCenter bombing was the result of an Israeli Intelligence Services operation. After the French Prime Minister pressed for charges in order to block the broadcasts from airing in France, the heads of Al-Manar immediately sought help from the German Ministry in keeping the controversial program alive. This action in turn caused Udo Steinbach, head of the Deutsche Orient-Institut in Hamburg, to comment about the “lingering effects of the sympathy traditionally evinced for Germany in the whole region.”

Of particular interest since 9/11, is Adolf Hitler’s own vision for his attack on New York City, as accounted by Albert Speer in his biography, in which he recounts Hitler describing New York’s skyscrapers turning into “gigantic burning torches, collapsing upon one another, the glow of the exploding city illuminating the dark sky.”

Recent connections between Arab countries and Neo-Nazis

In recent years, especially since the 9/11 attacks on American soil, there has been increased communication between Neo-Nazis and their Islamic counterparts, united in a single goal, that of the elimination of International Jewry. In 2005, the offices of a prominent neo Nazi (as well as a convert to Islam), Ahmed Huber was raided by Swiss police at the request of the United States government because of the American accusations that Huber was instrumental in providing financial assistance to Osama Bin Laden. At times, neo-Nazis have offered more that financial support. During the beginning of the first Gulf War, German neo-Nazis created an anti-Zionist brigade called the “Freedom Corps” that paraded around Baghdad in SS uniforms. Jorg Haider, who also governs the Austrian province Carinthia, runs an organization linked to this attempt, entitled the Freedom Party, composed of former Nazis as well as younger neo-Nazis. The Freedom Party has continuously downplayed or rejected Nazi atrocities and German war guilt. In 2000, Colonel Muammar Ghaddafi of Libya, deposited twenty five million dollars into a bank in Carinthia under Jorg Haider’s control. The “gift” was meant to alleviate sanctions imposed on Austria by the European Union in response to the Freedom Party being integrated into Austria’s governing coalition. This was not Ghaddafi’s first encounter with neo-Nazis; in 1982, the Italian neo-Nazi Stefano delle Chiaie, who had committed several bombings in Rome and Milan wrote to Ghaddafi, “Libya can, if it wants, be the active focus, the center of national socialist renovation [that will] break the chains which enslave people and nations.” Neo Nazis have since appeared in newspapers across the Arab world, their writings reaching a much larger audience than in the West.

There is no question as to the substantial influence that National Socialism has had on Arab nationalism. I believe that history shows that the main conduit for the spread of National Socialism was Haj Amin al-Husseini and that the following decades have seen the rise of Islamic extremism, which can be directly attributed to National Socialism and its many adherents. Part of this blame is to be placed at the feet of the Superpowers, primarily the United States and the Soviet Union; both countries began adhering to their respective foreign policies during the Cold War. This included ignoring the influx of Nazi officials and other sympathizers during the last stages of the war as well as the decades after 1945. Several of these figures that escaped into the Middle East were able to cut deals with the United States in return for the exchange of information concerning Nazi funded weapons programs. Lax security measures also played an important part in allowing thousands of Nazis to escape, not only to the Middle East but also to locations all over the world. It was not until the 1980’s that bank accounts and other financial institutions were examined by the West in attempting to recover funds that were attributable, directly or indirectly, to power brokers within the Arab world.

Ironically, it is the Arab World, which so strenuously denies that the Holocaust ever took place. It is a denial that is based not only on ignorance concerning the historical record, but also concerning their own role in the Holocaust. Ex-Nazi officials aided their governments and the various institutions of their military, and their own recognition of Husseini’s role in World War Two has been placed in a decidedly supportive light. Additionally, Israel is now looked upon as being synonymous with Nazi-like oppression in their dealings with their neighboring Arab countries, a horribly misconstrued role reversal in which the past Nazi aggression is now looked upon as being somewhat justifiable in their past persecution of the Jewish race. This can only be directly attributed to the symbiosis of National Socialism and Islamic extremism, in which the truth is considered expendable, a trait that both ideologies seem to share. There is only one weapon that can be use to combat this deadly symbiosis and that is education; an objective understanding of history and what role National Socialism has played in the formation of foreign policy in Arab countries, especially with that of Israel. Until then, the tenets of National Socialism have found a comfortable home indeed within the Middle East and in other Islamic countries.

First published under the title: “Haj Amin al-Husseini and Nazi Racial Policies in the Arab World” by the LAMED.

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

US intelligence report leaves Saudi Arabia with no good geopolitical choices

Published

on

The Biden administration’s publication of a US intelligence report that holds Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman responsible for the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi creates a fundamental challenge to the kingdom’s geopolitical ambitions.

The challenge lies in whether and how Saudi Arabia will seek to further diversify its alliances with other world powers in response to the report and US human rights pressure.

Saudi and United Arab Emirates options are limited by that fact that they cannot fully replace the United States as a mainstay of their defence as well as their quest for regional hegemony, even if the report revives perceptions of the US as unreliable and at odds with their policies.

As Saudi King Salman and Prince Mohammed contemplate their options, including strengthening relations with external players such as China and Russia, they may find that reliance on these forces could prove riskier than the pitfalls of the kingdom’s ties with the United States.

Core to Saudi as well as UAE considerations is likely to be the shaping of the ultimate balance of power between the kingdom and Iran in a swath of land stretching from the Atlantic coast of Africa to Central Asia’s border with China.

US officials privately suggest that regional jockeying in an environment in which world power is being rebalanced to create a new world order was the key driver of Saudi and UAE as well as Israeli opposition from day one to the 2015 nuclear accord with Iran that the United States together with Europe, China, and Russia negotiated. That remains the driver of criticism of US President Joe Biden’s efforts to revive the agreement.

“If forced to choose, Riyadh preferred an isolated Iran with a nuclear bomb to an internationally accepted Iran unarmed with the weapons of doom,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Washington-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and founder of the National Iranian American Council. Mr. Parsi was summing up Saudi and Emirati attitudes based on interviews with officials involved in the negotiations at a time that Mr. Biden was vice-president.

As a result, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel appear to remain determined to either foil a return of the United States to the accord, from which Mr. Biden’s predecessor, Donald J. Trump, withdrew, or ensure that it imposes conditions on Iran that would severely undermine its claim to regional hegemony.

In the ultimate analysis, the Gulf states and Israel share US objectives that include not only restricting Iran’s nuclear capabilities but also limiting its ballistic missiles program and ending support for non-state actors like Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, and Yemen’s Houthis. The Middle Eastern states differ with the Biden administration on how to achieve those objectives and the sequencing of their pursuit.

Even so, the Gulf states are likely to realize as Saudi Arabia contemplates its next steps what Israel already knows: China and Russia’s commitment to the defence of Saudi Arabia or Israel are unlikely to match that of the United States given that they view an Iran unfettered by sanctions and international isolation as strategic in ways that only Turkey rather than other Middle Eastern states can match.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE will also have to recognize that they can attempt to influence US policies with the help of Israel’s powerful Washington lobby and influential US lobbying and public relations companies in ways that they are not able to do in autocratic China or authoritarian Russia.

No doubt, China and Russia will seek to exploit opportunities created by the United States’ recalibration of its relations with Saudi Arabia with arms sales as well as increased trade and investment.

But that will not alter the two countries’ long-term view of Iran as a country, albeit problematic, with attributes that the Gulf states cannot match even if it is momentarily in economic and political disrepair.

Those attributes include Iran’s geography as a gateway at the crossroads of Central Asia, the Middle East and Europe; ethnic, cultural, and religious ties with Central Asia and the Middle East as a result of history and empire; a deep-seated identity rooted in empire; some of the world’s foremost oil and gas reserves; a large, highly educated population of 83 million that constitutes a huge domestic market; a fundamentally diversified economy; and a battle-hardened military.

Iran also shares Chinese and Russian ambitions to contain US influence even if its aspirations at times clash with those of China and Russia.

“China’s BRI will on paper finance additional transit options for the transfer of goods from ports in southern to northern Iran and beyond to Turkey, Russia, or Europe. China has a number of transit options available to it, but Iranian territory is difficult to avoid for any south-north or east-west links,” said Iran scholar Alex Vatanka referring to Beijing’s infrastructure, transportation and energy-driven Belt and Road Initiative.

Compared to an unfettered Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE primarily offer geography related to some of the most strategic waterways through which much of the world’s oil and gas flows as well their positioning opposite the Horn of Africa and their energy reserves.

Moreover, Saudi Arabia’s position as a religious leader in the Muslim world built on its custodianship of Islam’s two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina, potentially could be challenged as the kingdom competes for leadership with other Middle Eastern and Asian Muslim-majority states.

On the principle of better the enemy that you know than the devil that you don’t, Saudi leaders may find that they are, in the best of scenarios, in response to changing US policies able to rattle cages by reaching out to China and Russia in ways that they have not until now, but that at the end of the day they are deprived of good choices.

That conclusion may be reinforced by the realization that the United States has signalled by not sanctioning Prince Mohammed that it does not wish to cut its umbilical cord with the kingdom. That message was also contained in the Biden administration’s earlier decision to halt the sale of weapons that Saudi Arabia could you for offensive operations in Yemen but not arms that it needs to defend its territory from external attack.

At the bottom line, Saudi Arabia’s best option to counter an Iran that poses a threat to the kingdom’s ambitions irrespective of whatever regime is in power would be to work with its allies to develop the kind of economic and social policies as well as governance that would enable it to capitalize on its assets to effectively compete. Containment of Iran is a short-term tactic that eventually will run its course.

Warned former British diplomat and Royal Dutch Shell executive Ian McCredie: “When the Ottoman Empire was dismantled in 1922, it created a vacuum which a series of powers have attempted to fill ever since. None has succeeded, and the result has been a century of wars, coups, and instability. Iran ruled all these lands before the Arab and Ottoman conquests. It could do so again.”

Continue Reading

Middle East

Back to Strategic Hedging and Mediation in Qatar Foreign Policy after the Gulf Reconciliation

Published

on

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt ended the land, air and sea blockade on Qatar last January. While the way how the crisis ended revealed the control of the Saudi and Emirati decision-makers on the evolution of the issue, the process of isolation by its GCC neighbors reconstructed Qatar foreign policy within a loss of trust mode and directed the Qatari decision-makers to question the country’s hedging strategy in the region. Following the reconciliation in January 2021, Qatar seems to practice its mediation policy again at the regional conflicts beside bringing back to the hedging strategy towards Saudi Arabia and Iran. 

The blockade, which lasted three years and half, since the June 2017 increased the level of distrust of the Qatari decision-makers to the regional states, and to realize the significance of strengthening Qatar’s regional security standing and international status. While economic wealth helped the country to utilize the outcomes of the blockade for political purposes, it pushed the country to establish, or strengthen, relations with alternative allies and economic partners, particularly Iran and Turkey.

Strategic hedging, as a concept developed after the Cold War period in contrast to the bandwagoning, balancing or buck-passing, has been the major foreign policy tool of Qatar as a small state aware of its security needs. It illustrated the Qatar’s aim of finding a middle ground while insuring the potential security risks of the regional actors to its national security. By hedging the risky adversaries,namely Saudi Arabia and Iran, in the region, Qatar avoided a security dilemma and minimized the risks of being threatened.The Qatar foreign policy discourse revealed not only cooperative elements but also the confrontational ones which gradually paved the way forSaudi Arabia and the allies to build a rationale to imply blockade on the country in June 2017.

Prior to the 2017 crisis, hedging strategy helped Qatar to compensate its smallness and offset the potential security threats from Iran. Qatar had signed a security cooperation agreement with Iran in December 2010 including the exchange of specialized and technical committees, expand cooperation in training and naval exercises, as well as conducting joint campaigns against terrorism and insecurity in the region. Beside cooperating with Iran at the security and economy fields, Qatar avoided to challenge Saudi Arabia and shared the common regional security worries of the GCC towards Iran. It aimed at balancing its relations between these two regional powers and at the same time remaining neutral as much as it can by employing a discourse of mediation as a foreign policy tool.

While simultaneously positioning itself alongside the GCC, Qatar decision-makers gave credits to keeping ties with Iran. Qatar allowed Turkey to open a Turkish military base in its territory even before the crisis. While already securing its national security through a US military air base, Qatar’s decision for opening a Turkish military base was highly criticized by its GCC neighbors and its removal became one of the demands of Saudi Arabia and the allies to end the blockade. Qatar’s decision to boost domestic defense capabilities was understandable to enhance its security during the crisis. Resuming its dialogue with Iran helped Qatar to maintain the peaceful development of the natural-gas fields of Qatar shared with Iran. Moreover, getting militarily, economically and politically close to Turkey allowed the country to diversify its military dependency from the US and the Europe. At the domestic sphere, the economic wealth helped Qatar to survive and keep the Qataris more attached to the regional desires of the country, during the crisis, all of which worked for breaking free from the Saudi influence on the foreign policy decisions of Qatar.

The GCC crisis was an opportunity for Iran to present itself as an alternative ally to Qatar than the GCC members which was observed in the enhancement of the Iranian export to the country as well as Iran’s decision to allow the Qatar airways to operate by Iranian airspace. In 2017, the Iranian exports to Qatar was $250 million,$225.25 million in 2018, and $214.17 million in 2019, according to the United Nations database. China also upgraded its security partnership including selling military technical exports, major importer of LNG of Qatar.

As a result ofregionally being isolated, Qatar had a break from hedging strategy in the region while callingSaudi Arabia and the allies for a diplomatic dialogue to solve their problems. The crisis raised the sense of respect to state sovereignty at Qatar foreign policy, and eventually increased the loss of trust at the perception of the Qatari decision-makers towards the GCC members. Ironically, the chronicsecurity threat perception of Qatar towards Iran was replaced with the distrust to Saudi Arabia and the Emirates at security realm.

The crisis enabled Qatar to gainmore security and influence in the region than before as a small state. As the regional conjuncture does not promise to go back to the conditions in pre-Gulf period giventhe more multifacedregional threats, Qatar became aware of the fact that it cannot rely on the GCC or the US alone military and economically. Hence, it announced the resume of its dialogues and cooperation with Iran which signaled the continuity of the hedging strategy of the Qatar foreign policy. Despite this strategy can be considered as part of escaping the possibility of new threats from Iran,it works for undermining the regional power of both Saudi Arabia and Iran through economic, diplomatic and institutional instruments.

In post-reconciliation period, it seems that Qatar manages to gain a high degree of freedom of sovereign action within the GCC. This helps Qatar to maintain its strategic interests and decide with whom to cooperate at the times of crisis or peace. Qatar is more aware of the impact of the structural features of power in domestic politics and regional security, hence pays importance to build counter alliances towards its neighbors at the same time cooperating with them, and without challenging them rhetorically or materially. The Gulf reconciliation did not weaken the Iran’s potential ally status to Qatar, in contrary, Qatar announced that it will keep Iran in the game and, moreover, willing to mediate with Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Qatar is not anymore looking for minimizing threats to its stability and survive in the multipolar dynamics of the region. The decision-makersarenow motivated to pursue the Qatar’s own strategic interests, and mediate Saudi Arabi and Iran, Iran and the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Qatarwould to like to achieve the rewards of its bilateral military and economic establishments during the blockade over the changing attitude of the Gulf neighbors towards its rights as a sovereign state beside strengthening its regional status and international standing. As the al-Ula GCC summit in January was far from directly addressing the major roots of the Gulf crisis, it is exposed to give birthto the new conflicts at the foreign policy and regional security perception of the states at different shapes, and pave the way for the Qatari decision-makers to present the country as a mediator of the region again.

Continue Reading

Middle East

A little acknowledged clause may be main obstacle to revival of Iran nuclear accord

Published

on

A little acknowledged provision of the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program explains jockeying by the United States and the Islamic republic over the modalities of a US return to the deal from which President Donald J. Trump withdrew.

The provision’s magic date is 2023, when the Biden administration if it returns to the agreement, would have to seek Congressional approval for the lifting or modification of all US nuclear-related sanctions against Iran.

Both the administration and Iran recognize that Congressional approval is likely to be a tall order, if not impossible, given bi-partisan US distrust, animosity, and suspicion of the Islamic republic.

As a result, the United States and Iran have different objectives in negotiating a US return to the accord.

The Biden administration is attempting to engineer a process that would allow it to sidestep the 2023 hurdle as well as ensure a negotiation that would update the six-year-old deal, limit  Iran’s controversial ballistic missiles program and halt Iranian support for non-state actors in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen.

A pro-longed negotiation would allow President Joe Biden to focus Congress on his domestic legislative agenda without Iran being a disruptive detraction.

Mr. Biden “needs something to get beyond 2023. So, he wants a process that would take a number of steps that could take…a number of years to accomplish. During that time, the United States could ease some sanctions… These small things along the way could happen in a process but the key is going to be to have a process that allows the Biden administration to draw this out for some time,” said former State Department and National Security Council official Hillary Mann Leverett.

An extended process would, moreover, make it easier for Mr. Biden to convince America’s sceptical Middle Eastern partners – Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates – that a return to the deal is the right thing to do.

Mr. Biden sought to reassure its partners that, unlike Mr. Trump, he would stand by the US commitment to their defence with this week’s missile attack on an Iranian-backed Shiite militia base in Syria. The strike was in response to allegedly Iranian-backed militia attacks on US targets in Iraq as well as the firing of projectiles against Saudi Arabia reportedly from Iraqi territory.

The US attack also served notice to Iran that it was dealing with a new administration that is more committed to its international commitments and multilateralism as well as a revival of the nuclear agreement but not at any price.

The administration has reinforced its message by asking other countries to support a formal censure of Iran over its accelerating nuclear activities at next week’s meeting in Vienna of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) board of governors.

The United States wants the IAEA to take Iran to task for stepping up production of nuclear fuel in violation of the nuclear accord and stalling the agency’s inquiries into the presence of uranium particles at undeclared sites.

While risking a perilous military tit-for-tat with Iran, the US moves are likely to reinforce Iranian domestic and economic pressures, in part in anticipation of the 2023 milestone, to seek an immediate and unconditional US return to the accord and lifting of sanctions.

Pressure on the Iranian government to secure immediate tangible results is compounded by a public that is clamouring for economic and public health relief and largely blames government mismanagement and corruption rather than harsh US sanctions for the country’s economic misery and inability to get the pandemic under control.

The sanctions were imposed after Mr. Trump withdrew from the nuclear accord in 2018.

The pressure is further bolstered by the fact that recent public opinion polls show that the public, like the government, has little faith in the United States living up to its commitments under a potentially revived nuclear deal.

The results suggest that neither the government nor the Iranian public would have confidence in a process that produces only a partial lifting of sanctions. They also indicated a drop of support for the deal from more than 75 per cent in 2015 to about 50 per cent today.

Two-thirds of those polled opposed negotiating restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program as well as its support for regional proxies even if it would lead to a lifting of all sanctions.

Public opinion makes an Iranian agreement to negotiate non-nuclear issues in the absence of a broader effort to restructure the Middle East’s security architecture that would introduce arms controls for all as well as some kind of non-aggression agreement and conflict management mechanism a long shot at best.

Among Middle Eastern opponents of the nuclear agreement, Israel is the country that has come out swinging.

The country’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, last month rejected a return to the deal and signalled that Israel would keep its military options on the table. Mr. Kochavi said he had ordered his armed forces to “to prepare a number of operational plans, in addition to those already in place.”

Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Gilad Erdan, suggested a couple of weeks later that his country may not engage with the Biden administration regarding Iran if it returns to the nuclear agreement.

“We will not be able to be part of such a process if the new administration returns to that deal,” Mr. Erdan said.

By taking the heat, Israel’s posturing shields the Gulf states who have demanded to be part of any negotiation from exposing themselves to further US criticism by expressing explicit rejection of Mr. Biden’s policy.

To manage likely differences with Israel, the Biden administration has reportedly agreed to reconvene a strategic US-Israeli working group on Iran created in 2009 during the presidency of Barak Obama. Chaired by the two countries’ national security advisors, the secret group is expected to meet virtually in the next days.

It was not immediately clear whether the Biden administration was initiating similar consultations with Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

In a confusing twist, Israel has attracted attention to its own officially unacknowledged nuclear weapons capacity by embarking on major construction at its Dimona reactor that was captured by satellite photos obtained by the Associated Press.

Some analysts suggested that Israel’s hard line rejection of the Biden administration’s approach may be designed to distract attention from upgrades and alterations it may be undertaking at the Dimona facility.

“If you’re Israel and you are going to have to undertake a major construction project at Dimona that will draw attention, that’s probably the time that you would scream the most about the Iranians,” said non-proliferation expert Jeffrey Lewis.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending