Hamas and Iran have vowed ‘to wipe out the Jews’ just as Nazis did, AIPAC says

AIPAC sent out a fundraising letter today saying that Hamas and Iran “are vowing to wipe out the Jews” and are no different from Nazis. The only difference between then and now is that now AIPAC is standing up for the Jews and it can get meetings with the president and Congress, as Jews could not do during the Holocaust.

The letter is signed by Brian Shankman, Director of Regional Affairs & Development. Here are its first few paragraphs:

Dear Friend of Israel:

On October 6, 1943, a delegation of American rabbis arrived at the White House for a personal audience with President Franklin Roosevelt. They planned to present to the president irrefutable proof that the Nazis were conducting a wholesale annihilation of European Jews.

As they arrived at the White House, the rabbis knew that this was a decisive moment – the last chance to stop the Holocaust before the last of European Jewry was extinguished.

They were denied a meeting.

The ensuing tragedy is, of course, well known. No coordinated Allied rescue was launched. The flames consumed 6 million.

Six decades later, America is again consumed with domestic challenges, and across the globe vitriolic enemies such as Ayatollah Khameni, Iran’s supreme leader, and Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’ prime minister, are vowing to wipe out the Jews while acquiring more advanced and far reaching weapons to do so.

But today one very important thing has changed from what the delegation of rabbis faced 60 years ago.

Today we are not turned away at the door. Today we meet face to face with leaders on Capitol Hill and the White House to work to help make America, Israel and the world more secure.

But our ability to make a difference for Israel and America will only persist if we continue to act together.

  1. These people really are insane, all of a sudden they accusing others of planning genocide!? Who does that? And again we see who makes use of the holocaust.
    Amazing how these people can call themselves victims while urging war.

    The only genocide is the one aipac support in palestine and the very likely resulting genocide of the bombing plans now incited by aipac and israel.

  2. “Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’ prime minister…. vowing to wipe out the Jews while acquiring more advanced and far reaching weapons to do so.”

    FFS. What could they possibly mean wrt Gaza?

    Donkey launched homemade rockets ?

  3. Holy crap, what ahistorical nonsense. (Putting aside, of course, the All-Our-Enemies-Are-Nazis falacy in the piece…)

    First of all, this references the “Rabbi’s March,” a demonstration of 500 rabbis who marched throughout Washington, and who were able to meet with Henry Wallace, the VP, rather than FDR. They make it sound like they had an appointment and no one answered the door, which was not true.

    Second, the notion that they had “irrefutable proof” of the Holocaust was nonsense. They had a petition, which they gave to the president’s secretary. Moreover, the notion that FDR needed proof of the Holocaust in Ocotber of ’43 is asinine. FDR knew a hell of a lot more about what the Nazis were doing than the rabbis did.

    Third, they slander FDR by insinuating that because he ditched the meeting, a last chance to stop Holocaust was missed, which was nonsense. This event happened approximately 21 months after the Wannsee Conference.

    Fourth, the imply that because this meeting didn’t occur, something which could have been done to stop the killings wasn’t done. That implication is sheer fantasy. There was nothing the US, alone or with the Allies could have done to save the Jews that were being murdered, unfortunately, other than win the war as quickly as possible. And by and large (with some exceptions) that’s what they did. And to the extent there were other things which could be attempted, they were (such as the formation of the War Refugee Board, which, among other things, recruited Raoul Wallenberg and aided his mission.)

    If they’re lying about this past, what’s the odds that they’re lying about today??

    • They know all that. It’s part of the pressure to wage war with Iran. “Hey Obama, if you don’t bomb you’ll be responsible for a new holocaust.” The letter will generate urgent calls to representatives and the White House. The christian zionists and rightwing jews eat this stuff up.

    • There actually were actions that the Allies could have taken that would have at least slowed the butchery in death factories. Like bombing the railroad tracks that led to all the camps.

      Links: link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org
      also link to britannica.com

      Another point on the role of the American Jewish community during WWII; it would be worthwhile to dig into the reasons behind the sudden evaporation of the Holocaust Commission that was tasked with “study into what U.S. Jewish groups did to aid European Jews during the Holocaust.” I recall that there was a “last one out turn off the lights” character to its peremptory demise. See The Hour (Norwalk, CT Jan 4 1983) Holocaust Commission is Dissolved. Also NYT story (better): link to nytimes.com

      • The notion of “bombing the tracks” as a solution is post-hoc fantasizing for 3 reasons.

        First, for most of the war the allies had no bombers which could reach the lines.

        Second, there was no real “precision bombing” with 1940′s technology. You drop a bomb and could be sure it would hit the ground, and would be somewhere around where you dropped it. That’s it. You could get around the problem a little bit by carpet bombing like the RAF or low level bombing like the USAAF, neither of which worked particularly well.

        Third, even if you managed to hit a line, you wouldn’t necessarilt knock it out for long. Between repairs and shipping the trains to other csmps, you would hardly slow down the killing. And even if you did that doesn’t mean the Jews wouldn’t have been killed by other means. Millions East of the Molotov-Ribbentrop line were taken into fields and shot. The same simply could have been west of that line,too.

        • “carpet bombing like the RAF or low level bombing like the USAAF”

          The USAAF also carried out extensive carpet bombing, both in the European theatre and against Japan. (Curtis LeMay was as much a monster as Arthur Harris.) B17s had high ceilings so they were particularly well suited for it. In the European theatre they carried out their attacks from higher altitudes than the RAF.

          Both air forces also carried out low level bombing, with varying degrees of precision. Perhaps the most accurate bombing was done by RAF Mosquitoes (sometime flying down streets), although in the dambuster raids the bombs were dropped from Lancasters flying 60 feet above the water.

      • Every time the Allies bombed German railroad tracks, those tracks were repaired within a few hours. When you factor in the potential loss of bombers in any such attack (a very substantial risk if they flew as far as Poland), the game simply wouldn’t have been worth the candle.

  4. Yep, must keep the Jews convinced that we and the allies ‘deliberately ‘ turned our back on them and could have saved them but didnt just because they were Jews.

    I want to see promoters of this misinformation made to describe exactly how we could have plucked the Jews out of Germany and the Camps and the nazi occupied countries. I still see those who say the refusal to bomb the camps and railroads contributed to more Jews being killed—well bombing the camps would have killed more Jews and bombing the rail tracks wouldnt have made the slightest difference.
    I have read dozens of books on WWII in my life and Eisenhower’s correspondence during the war and I cant see it…can see no way any ally forces could have gotten behind German lines to do anything for the Jews except finally defeat and beat the Germans back. If there is one thing people should understand it is that despite the rah rah of the time and post war history/hype of the mighty US power in that war –it is how touch and go it really was for the allies and even Eisenhower was
    at times convinced the allies were losing Europe to Germany.

    I cant even get offended or mad about this gross misrepresentation any longer, it’s just sad that it keeps going and going..

    • “Yep, must keep the Jews convinced that we and the allies ‘deliberately ‘ turned our back on them and could have saved them but didnt just because they were Jews.”

      From the US Holocaust Memorial Museum

      In the summer of 1938, delegates from thirty-two countries met at the French resort of Evian. Roosevelt chose not to send a high-level official, such as the secretary of state, to Evian; instead, Myron C. Taylor, a businessman and close friend of Roosevelt’s, represented the US at the conference. During the nine-day meeting, delegate after delegate rose to express sympathy for the refugees. But most countries, including the United States and Britain, offered excuses for not letting in more refugees.

      Responding to Evian, the German government was able to state with great pleasure how “astounding” it was that foreign countries criticized Germany for their treatment of the Jews, but none of them wanted to open the doors to them when “the opportunity offer[ed].”

      Even efforts by some Americans to rescue children failed: the Wagner-Rogers bill, an effort to admit 20,000 endangered Jewish refugee children, was not supported by the Senate in 1939 and 1940. Widespread racial prejudices among Americans–including antisemitic attitudes held by the US State Department officials–played a part in the failure to admit more refugees.

      link to ushmm.org

      • @ Walid

        There have been numerous books by WWII historians detailing the reasons the US clamped down on immigration during that time….the 1 million + immigrants the US had admitted in the prior decade, the depression, the rumblings of war and then the war…..all of which made the public jittery and against admitting more large numbers of immigrants….but the holocaust industry has to maintain it was only about and directed at Jews.

      • “the German government was able to state with great pleasure how “astounding” it was that foreign countries criticized Germany for their treatment of the Jews, but none of them wanted to open the doors to them when “the opportunity offer[ed].” link to ushmm.org

        The irony

        “Instead of welcoming their Arab brothers, and integrating them into the mainstream of their societies….. ” link to eretzyisroel.org

    • You are right that it makes very little sense.

      Perhaps the allies could try a deal to stop bombing of residential parts of German cities in exchange for German’s stopping massacres of Jews. But attacking the camps would make no military or humanitarian sense. For starters, they were not really in the reach of American planes. Even if they were, it is actually strange why the Nazi had this camp system. After all, you can kill people anywhere, and you can read about “Ponary Forest” or “Babi Yar” to find atrocious examples.

      • “For starters, they were not really in the reach of American planes.”

        Or even British planes. (The Lancaster had a longer range than the B17.) The Soviets did not have much in the way of long range bombers.

        I haven’t measured, but the camps might have been with the range of the B29, but B29s were used in the Pacific.

        But even if they were in the official range of the RAF or the USAF, it would have meant sending the planes on a long mission through hostile airspace, with inevitable high losses of planes and crews, to achieve a goal which would have had no military value.

        (Admittedly, bombing the German cities probably had no real military value, but the Allies believed it did.)

        By 1943, much of the material needed for the War was coming across the Atlantic from Canada and the US, with great loss of life*. Using it for any purpose other than ending the war would run the risk of the war lasting longer, with greater loss of life both for the Allies and the Axis.

        Even if attacking the railway lines or the camps had been possible, it would have been a bad decision.

        (*In the British Merchant Navy, the lives involved would often be those of Malays, Indians, and people from other parts of the Empire.)

        • “(Admittedly, bombing the German cities probably had no real military value, but the Allies believed it did.)”

          Those who advocated it, like Arthur Harris, were quite clear in their motive: terrorism. They wanted to instil a terror in the German populace so great that they would rise up and overthrow the German leadership. Similar, but slightly different reasons were stated to justify the American terrorism in bombing Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. There’s a great book on the subject, “Among the Dead Cities” by AC Grayling.

    • I’m not keen on analyzing military solutions before or after the fact, unless it is to debunk them, so I leave the argument about bombing the trains to those who admire the armed forces. But there is a strong argument against the whole narrative that WWII was a just war in that it “rescued the Jews from the death camps.” The fact is the United States did not allow wholesale immigration of Jews from Europe when they first came under stress. We have been asked to believe that our society could not allow immigration – something that would have cost nothing, and indeed benefited America – yet we managed to come up with resources and a few hundred thousand lives in an effort to save them from Nazi genocide.

      I’m exploring another argument that has been made – that the exterminations were actually a consequence of the war and that they kicked into high gear when it was apparent the Nazis were going to lose. In other words, had Nazi victims been allowed to immigrate to the US when they first faced harassment, they would have lived. By keeping them out and then going to war the US was to a great extent complicit in holocaust deaths.

      Oh, and let’s remember what a boon to the Zionist project those restrictions on Jewish refugee immigration were.

      • But there is a strong argument against the whole narrative that WWII was a just war in that it “rescued the Jews from the death camps.” The fact is the United States did not allow wholesale immigration of Jews from Europe when they first came under stress.

        If there is a strong argument that the war in Europe wasn’t a just war it isn’t coming from the Jews or the other survivors.

        I’m amazed when someone blithely suggests that moving 6 million Jews from one continent to another is the solution to genocide. We know today that the Nazis planned to exterminate the Jews that managed to escape to Palestine. The Jews weren’t the only group the Nazis tried to exterminate either. Where was the transport going to come from to move 6 million Jews? It took the Germans several years to arrange the logistics. Where would you house and feed 6 million additional Jews while they were awaiting transportation and once they arrived in the US? It was a disaster when hurricane Katrina merely displaced 1 million people who were already here trying to find shelter and food.

        I worked on disaster relief efforts when I was in the military, helped set-up camps for the Vietnamese refugees, and helped plan part of the air and sea lift to move 500,000 troops to Saudi Arabia and supply and set-up their cantonment areas and dining facilities. Despite the fact that we had been preparing for a war in the Middle East and prepositioning equipment there for use by either a Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force or the newly created Central Command since the Carter era, it still took six months, carefully phased deployments, and unlimited funding from the Saudis to make that possible. If you had tried to scale that up to accommodate a few million more it would have simply been an exercise in futility.

        Its not insignificant to note that 500,000 German Jews and millions of others did escape and survived the war – and that would not have been possible without the supposedly unjust war.

      • ” But there is a strong argument against the whole narrative that WWII was a just war in that it ‘rescued the Jews from the death camps.’”

        No, it’s not a real strong argument at all. The thing that saved those who survived was the defeat of the German state.

        “I’m exploring another argument that has been made – that the exterminations were actually a consequence of the war and that they kicked into high gear when it was apparent the Nazis were going to lose. In other words, had Nazi victims been allowed to immigrate to the US when they first faced harassment, they would have lived. By keeping them out and then going to war the US was to a great extent complicit in holocaust deaths.”

        Not really. Most of the Jews killed by the Germans lived, before the war, in Poland and the USSR. Opening up Jewish immigration to the US at that time might have saved some German and Austrian Jews, but would not have been a concern to the others in other countries.

        Further, the Nazis’ plans against the Jews originally envisioned the murder of the Jews after the destruction of the Soviet Union, which they believed would be accomplished by late Fall ’41. When that did not happen and the Germans were turned back at Moscow, Hitler decided to take the opportunity and move up the plans. (All this, by the way, occurred before the US entry into the war and well before US forces had any effect on the European Theater) The exterminations were not “a consequence of the war” — the Nazis were going to carry them out if they could, the only question was when.

        To say that the US was complicit in any way in the deaths, let alone “a great extent” is false, a lie and a slander.

      • Then research Rabbi Stephen Wise and Chaim Weitzmann (sp?). Because it was those two who canvassed and led the charge to urge Britain, Canada, and the US not to take Jewish refugees. The documents have been referenced here at MW many times. They’re in the archives. Wise made a personal plea to Roosevelt. Documented.

        Tony British Jews for decades before WWII did not want ‘smelly’ (read: poor, no English) Eastern European Jews let into Britain; it came up before and during the Russian revolution. Again, documented in the archives.

  5. Only October 6, 1943? What was done these ten years before, since 1933? What did ADL say & do in the 1930s in this?

    What has the American Jewish “community” done before 1943? For their fellow Jews in Europe?

    • I think that ’33 is the wrong date to go by. While the Jews of Germany and later Austria were brutalized during the 1930′s, only a very small percentage of those killed in the Holocaust died during those years. It wasn’t until 1939 and the invasion of Poland, and later, in 1941, and the attack on the Soviet forces in Soviet occupied Poland and later the USSR itself, that the majority of those Jews came under the control of the Germans. And, from all indications, it wasn’t until December ’41 that Hitler had decided on extermination as the inter-war (and not post-war) policy.

      • And, from all indications, it wasn’t until December ’41 that Hitler had decided on extermination as the inter-war (and not post-war) policy.

        The threat posed by the Nazi’s was pretty well known after it was confirmed that the so-called Boxheim documents were an authentic and official statement of Hitler’s plans. They indicated he intended to intern them and other targeted groups in concentration camps and starve them, e.g. April 25, 1932, Jews to Be Starved out if Hitlerists Come to Power, JTA link to archive.jta.org

        The report in the FRUS about the internment camps also noted that the Boxheim plans dealt with both Jews and others and that 100,000 were already being held as political prisoners link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        • In fact, for same Nazis, the idea of killing Jews quickly was considered a kindness, when faced with reality that there was less and less food supplies allocated to ghettoes.
          To discuss the proportions of Jews and others killed by starvation and diseaseas opposite to those killed by bullet, fumes and gas, is non PC, but coming from Poland, where we didn’t know it is non PC, and the matter was discussed, the loss of life of Jews and other “concentrated” populations was staggering, with no active methods involved.

        • That the Nazis were a known threat isn’t the issue. They were clearly a looming menace well before ’33, and a brutal government after ’33. The issue is whether they were a known threat to commit the Holocaust. That was the context of the AIPAC letter, and that was the context of eGuard’s comment.

          And I disagree regarding the Boxheim documents, because the “defense” that this was merely a contingency, cooked up by a local SA offical, without the guidance, approval or agreement of the Party HQ in Munich, and was only devised in the event of a Communist takeover had validity. Were they an indication that the Nazis would be a brutal government? Sure. Were they an indication that they planned the extermination of European Jewry? No, not really.

        • Woody Tanaka: … whether they were a known threat to commit the Holocaust. That was the context of the AIPAC letter, and that was the context of eGuard’s comment.

          No. AIPAC and ADL today claim moral ground. The question is: what did they actually claim then, at the time?

          No. That was not my ‘context’. My question stands (plain open as it is): What has the American Jewish “community” done before 1943? For their fellow Jews in Europe?

        • The issue is whether they were a known threat to commit the Holocaust.

          They did have a published plan to intern Jews and others deemed undesirable in concentration camps and eliminate them through natural attrition and starvation. You’re right that it did not dawn on many people what the consequences of that plan would logically entail.

        • Eva,

          This comports with what I heard from my (now deceased) sister-in-law’s mother, the one who was orphaned at age 11 and whom the zionist/jewish charities refused to help (left her to die because she was too young to go to Palestine). She said that Jews were killed in the forests. Shot. No concentration camps involved. She said if Nazi soldiers found you and your family trying to escape through the forest, bang.

  6. “… are vowing to whipe out the Jews.”

    Of course. Hamas is rowing down the Hudson Valley right now. What? They’re in the Amsterdam canals as well, right opposite my hideout. Oh my — why didn’t this fellow warn us earlier?

  7. I’m currently reading Pappé’s “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”. While I don’t find the book to be terribly well-written – Pappé repeats himself quite a bit – the information in it is very interesting and only serves to confirm that Jewish supremacists – past and present – are truly a hateful and immoral lot.

    What’s particularly interesting is the ever-present under-current of aggressor-victimhood (apologies for all the hyphenations): Jewish supremacists planning and intentionally committing atrocities, all the while wailing and moaning about the Holocaust and their imminent demise. It’s as pathetic as it is disgusting.

    And you just know that these f*cking hypocrites would scream bloody murder if anyone were doing to them the sh*t that they’re doing – the sh*t they’ve been doing for almost 70 YEARS!!! – to the Palestinians. >:-(

  8. Of course, there is a Jewish community alive and well in Teheran, a Jewish lawmaker serves in the Majlis and Hamas has hosted Jews like Norman Finkelstein.

    Also, Ayatollah Khamenei never vowed to wipe out the Jews; it was a fabrication of Britain’s Daily Mail based on a misleading MEMRI article. See my complete rebuttal of this nonsense here.

  9. Iran has given signals it will accept the 2002 Saudi peace plan if the Palestinians accept it.

    Aipac wants to help Israel continue oppressing the Palestinians for generations to come. by deceiving the American people, year after year after year.

    • “Iran has given signals it will accept the 2002 Saudi peace plan if the Palestinians accept it.”

      Hizbullah also declared that if would go along with whatever the Palestinians agree to with the Israelis as far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned.

  10. AIPAC’s lies know no bounds. This is a group that long ago should have been forced to register as agents of a foreign power. If there were any other group representing a foreign country that was pushing us to war they would have had to register. AIPAC does not care what happens to American troops and American money. They are Israel Firsters and should always be known as such.

    Someone needs to point out to these AIPAC liars that if Iran were intent on wiping out the world’s Jews they would have started with the 25,000 Jews who live in Iran.

  11. Someone tells those pathological liars (staying polite) at AIPAC that if Iran really wanted to “wipe out the Jews” they would have started longtime ago with the Iranian ones.
    Iranian Jews:
    “According to the Iranian Jewish Committee, the Jewish population of Iran was estimated at about 25,000 to 35,000, of which approximately 15,000 are in Tehran with the rest residing in Shiraz, Isfahan, Kermanshah, Yazd, Kerman, Rafsanjan, Borujerd, Sanandaj and Urmia.”
    link to en.wikipedia.org

    • From the Guardian, a correction of an Ahmadinejad statement about the holocaust and about how the Jews of Iran actually feel about Israel:

      The following correction was printed in the Guardian’s Corrections and clarifications column, Saturday July 28 2007

      In the article below we reported that last year President Ahmadinejad said (quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini) that Israel should be “wiped off the map”. A more literal translation of the statement he made in 2005, at The World without Zionism conference in Tehran, is “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”.
      ——————————————————————————–
      Iran’s Jews have given the country a loyalty pledge in the face of cash offers aimed at encouraging them to move to Israel, the arch-enemy of its Islamic rulers.

      The incentives — ranging from £5,000 a person to £30,000 for families — were offered from a special fund established by wealthy expatriate Jews in an effort to prompt a mass migration to Israel from among Iran’s 25,000-strong Jewish community. The offers were made with Israel’s official blessing and were additional to the usual state packages it provides to Jews emigrating from the diaspora.

      However, the Society of Iranian Jews dismissed them as “immature political enticements” and said their national identity was not for sale.

      “The identity of Iranian Jews is not tradeable for any amount of money,” the society said in a statement. “Iranian Jews are among the most ancient Iranians. Iran’s Jews love their Iranian identity and their culture, so threats and this immature political enticement will not achieve their aim of wiping out the identity of Iranian Jews.”

      The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv reported that the incentives had been doubled after earlier offers of £2,500 a head failed to attract any Iranian Jews to leave for Israel.

      Iran’s sole Jewish MP, Morris Motamed, said the offers were insulting and put the country’s Jews under pressure to prove their loyalty.

      “It suggests the Iranian Jew can be encouraged to emigrate by money,” he said. “Iran’s Jews have always been free to emigrate and three-quarters of them did so after the revolution but 70% of those went to America, not Israel.”

      link to guardian.co.uk

  12. i guess the lesson AIPAC is giving to the world powers (in the only way they know how) is that the Palestinians should be protected and their plight should not be ignored.

  13. The Aipac statement is inaccurate/false. But Ahmadinejad recently took pride in his Holocaust denial as a prime accomplishment of his time in office and Hamas has a fair share of Jew hatred in their rigmarole of causes espoused in their charter and so, let us not pretend that Iran’s hatred of Israel and Hamas’s hatred of Israel are untainted by hatred of Yehudim.

    • @ yonah fredman
      Yes, we have the HAMAS charter, and we also have the Likud charter, Netanyahu’s agenda: Greater Israel, no 2-s solution. Which one gets support from the lone superpower at the UN? Which one has received $3.2B in US military aid for decades? Which one’s loans have been underwritten by US for decades? Which one is enmeshed in every facet of US security and defense systems, and is about to officially become America’s highest ally with yet more enmeshment? Which one is on the official US shit list, with its elected leaders ignored by the US? Which one ignores US wishes and gobbles up more land daily?

      • Which one is enmeshed in every facet of US security and defense systems, and is about to officially become America’s highest ally with yet more enmeshment?

        Officially…? Israel has no formal treaty with the US currently, is there one being planned?

    • yonah fredman “Ahmadinejad recently took pride in his Holocaust denial as a prime accomplishment of his time in office”

      Care to quote his words, verbatim.

      “Hamas has a fair share of Jew hatred in their rigmarole of causes espoused in their charter”

      Article Thirty-One: “As to those who have not borne arms against you on account of religion, nor turned you out of your dwellings, Allah forbiddeth you not to deal kindly with them, and to behave justly towards them; for Allah loveth those who act justly.” (The Tried – verse 8). link to mideastweb.org

      “and so, let us not pretend that Iran’s hatred of Israel and Hamas’s hatred of Israel are untainted by hatred of Yehudim”

      Israel, the state already in breach of numerous UNSC resolutions prior to the foundation of Hamas and the Iranian change of attitude towards Israel, is the Jewish State, no? Democratically run by a Jewish majority, no? They should be p*ssed at the Inuit perhaps?

      This “hatred of Yehudim” would naturally extend to Iranian Jews … yes?

      • Bravo. Ahmadinejad said a number of times that crimes against the Jews carried out in Europe by Europeans were not a moral basis for punishing the Palestinians. Very true.

        • Yonah – - That Ahmadinejad said Iran is not the enemy of the Jews, and that the Palestinians had nothing to do with the slaughter of the Jews in Europe, should be noted.

        • yonah fredman says:
          July 18, 2013 at 1:53 pm

          tallknic- Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying that one of his greatest accomplishments was erasing the taboo of holocaust denial:>>>

          I dont think Ahmadinejad can take credit for removing any taboos ….I think the zionist did that themselves with their holocaust overkill.

    • Yonah

      Why should anyone in Gaza love Israel?
      And it doesn’t have anything to do with Jews in the US.
      They just want to be left in peace.

      • seafoid- One simple question: Why does Hamas tout the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? But, in fact I favor negotiating with Hamas. I think an agreement reached with Fatah without Hamas’s participation would certainly prove less lasting than an agreement reached with Hamas’s participation.

        I was making a simple point. Hamas has opened the door to accusations of Jew hatred. And Iran under the previous president as well. And to glide over these facts is fine: given that one wishes to reach agreements with Iran and Hamas. And in fact Aipac in a fund raising letter is not trying to project into the future the necessities of negotiating with whomever. So they are not my role models. But in fact, Hamas in its charter and Iran under Ahmad’jad were/are guilty of rhetorical hate mongering.

        • seafoid- One simple question: Why does Hamas tout the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

          A better question would be: Why do the diaries of the Zionist leadership and the verbatim minutes of the Jewish Agency Executive, the People’s Council, and Knesset debates read just like a sequel to the Elders of Zion at all of the pivotal moments in Zionist history?

        • ” One simple question: Why does Hamas tout the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?”

          I haven’t asked Hamas, so I’m going to make a guess. From their point of view, the Protocols describes a project for control of the world which closely resembles what they see happening.

          (As just one example, the Protocols proposes Jewish control of the media. It certainly seems that there is considerable Jewish control of the media in some countries, and especially in the United States.)

          So although it is almost certainly a forgery (and Hamas may or may not have read Graves’ work in which establishes this) it nonetheless serves as (they think) a fairly accurate description of what Zionists are doing.

          At the risk of indulging in what-aboutery, or two-wrong fallacies, I would point out that a number of Zionists still appeal to From Time Immemorial for similar reasons of convenience.

          (And I see Hostage has made pretty much the same point with much greater economy of words.)

        • ‘A better question would be: Why do the diaries of the Zionist leadership and the verbatim minutes of the Jewish Agency Executive, the People’s Council, and Knesset debates read just like a sequel to the Elders of Zion at all of the pivotal moments in Zionist history?”….Hostage

          rotflmao!….they do dont they. The Zios are giving an excellent imitation of the Elders .

        • doesn’t have anything to do with Jews in the US.
          They just want to be left in peace.

          Hamas has opened the door to accusations of Jew hatred. And Iran under the previous president as well. And to glide over these facts is fine

          who opened the door yonah? seafoid ask if Jews in the US had anything to do with it, you didn’t answer. who’s gliding over facts? you?

          But in fact, Hamas in its charter and Iran under Ahmad’jad were/are guilty of rhetorical hate mongering.

          and what about people like david horowitz? stand w/us and islamophobe mongers teaching in our colleges like Tammi Rossman-Benjamin link to youtube.com

          are they not guilty of rhetorical hate mongering? who opened the door? and speaking of the rhetorical, please do not think repeating the word ‘fact’ makes it a fact. hamas didn’t open the door, the lobby thrives off accusations of jew hatred, purposely obscures the lines between zionists and jews, constantly trumps themselves as ‘jewish groups’ alluding to the lie they speak for all jews, which they do not, and has been around since WAY before hamas even existed. so go look in the mirror and then tell me who opened the door. zionism is oppressive, the lobby empowers and supports that oppression. start taking some responsibility for the state of affairs and quit trying to blame hamas and iran. and give people more credit. lots of people can distinguish between jews and zionsim. it’s those who muddy the waters and conflate they are the same thing who promote anti semitism. that would be who?

        • annie- I do not represent Aipac, although we are both members of the Lobby. Conflating Zionism and Judaism is wrong, although it is often done here in the comments section.

          I have never written a letter soliciting moneys for Aipac or any other organization, and I think the rhetoric is really over the top. I do not have a stake (although my rhetoric included them) in tarring Hamas and avoiding negotiations with them. My impetus for responding to the post was the fact that less than two weeks ago, DPA, a reputed German press organization published the boast by Ahmadinejad regarding his great accomplishment. And this was within days of equivocation by a commentator here in MW comment land playing games with whether A’jad was a Holocaust denier or not. So I felt a need to mention A’jad and threw in Hamas’s Protocols as well. I will skip the Hamas Protocols in the future here, unless it is really appropriate. But A’jad’s boasts deserved a mention.

        • @ yonah fredman
          According to DPA’s correspondent in Tehran, Ahmadinejad stated holocaust denial was “one of his greatest achievements.” In context, in Germany if you question any aspect of the official narrative on The Holocaust, you have committed a crime, and will be prosecuted. Further, the former Iranian official was not speaking in German or English. So we don’t know if he used the equivalent of “holocaust denial” in his native language–we all recall the mistranslation and contextual omission of what he said about “wiping out Israel.”
          link to en.europeonline-magazine.eu

        • ‘” One simple question: Why does Hamas tout the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?”

          Probably for the same reason a lot of us refer to Orwell’s 1984 even though it’s fiction.
          People see certain things occurring and liken them to something like Orwell or the Elders.
          I think the whole outrage over the Protocols is silly anyway….so what if some crackpot Jew did write it? There have been plenty of similar crackpot agendas or conspiracies written by non Jewish crackpots.
          The tribal tendency of going ballistic over something one Jew might have done as if it indicts all Jews contributes to things like the Protocols getting blown out of all proportion and lingerng on and on.

        • @Citizen,

          And that’s often the problem. Trying to find the actual text of what Achmadinejad says to check it for oneself is often a thankless job. It’s usually snippets of a few words here and there accompanied by reporters’ hearsay. It’s quite frustrating. If Achmadinejad said something offensive he should be called on it, but the person saying he did has to prove it, and citing to someone else saying he did it, just doesn’t cut it.

        • ‘Conflating Zionism and Judaism is wrong, although it is often done here in the comments section. ”…yonah

          No it isnt. Zionist conflate Judaism with zionism.
          The very most that happens here is talk of zionism ‘infltrating’ or perverting Judaism.
          And those occasional religion threads that go on forever and include looking at beliefs, etc. in religion(s) that led into or got turned into something else.

        • ”But in fact, Hamas in its charter and Iran under Ahmad’jad were/are guilty of rhetorical hate mongering.”…yonah

          So are you and your teams……why cant you get that thru your head?
          Go write.. ‘we are guilty of the same thing’ 100′x on the blackboard.

        • Citizen- Name one historical event that agnosticism is considered a valid attitude of educated people regarding its historical occurrence. Ahmad’jad is a game player with regard to the history of the genocide of the Nazi regime. He calls a conference and invites all the top deniers and then he denies that he is denying. This is a pile of manure. I don’t know the rules of history and historians. If someone says, I don’t know whether the US landed a man on the moon or not. You have to prove it to me. Is that considered an educated person an educated opinion. I doubt it. Ahmad’jad, is he a historian? Did he study history? I doubt it. He’s a game playing denier, now he’s denying, now he’s not denying, he’s not an atheist, he’s an agnostic. Give it up. This guy is a Holocaust game player. Maybe such a person is respectable to you and some other denizens of this comments column. I think Ahmad’jad on the subject of history is a clown and anyone who says, oh, he isn’t really denying, he’s just asking about why the Palestinians have to suffer because of something that white Europeans did, well, they are the students of a clown. And if you think you’re helping the cause of the Palestinians with this kind of tripe, I happen to think you are very wrong. Very wrong.

    • ” let us not pretend that Iran’s hatred of Israel and Hamas’s hatred of Israel are untainted by hatred of Yehudim.”

      Given the fact that israel has, from the beginning, intertwined its secular crimes against the Palestinians and the ethnoreligious background of the perpetrators of those crimes, are you surprised?

      If israelis don’t want to be hated and attacked for their Jewishness, perhaps they might try stopping hating people and attacking them based on their non-Jewishness.

      • I would see anti-Semitism, ie anti-Jewish prejudice, at work only if we can say that ‘if someone not Jewish were doing the same, they would not object so much’, or ‘they ignore the objective justification for what is done because they are never fair to Jewish people’. The important point there would be the claim to objective justification but some people seem to take the position that no justification, no shred of it, needs even to be mentioned if the opponents use enraged or insulting language. But if thoroughly unjustified behaviour meets enraged and insultingly wild words it remains thoroughly unjustified, as much as ever, and deeds always matter rather more than words.

    • ”yonah fredman says:
      July 18, 2013 at 12:58 am

      The Aipac statement is inaccurate/false. ”>>>>>

      So why arent you complaning to them about their lies? And why would you want to be a member of an org like AIPAC that regularly lies anyway? If you fancy yourself a good Jew why arent’ you a member of JVP or some other non supremist fair minded org?

    • Who pursue ethnic purity in their state?
      Who have nuclear weapons?
      Who steal land from its neighbours?
      Who threat region with war?

      If you want to make comparsions with Germany,… we all know which state that would fit. So rather, it is you, not Philip, that are the appeaser, and that towards Israel.

    • @ yrn
      Despite what Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have repeatedly said over the years the clock did not stop in 1933, or 1938. If it did, there’d be a lot less Jews in Israel today, and Jews would not be armed in a fortress state armed with nukes. And a ton of the Arab natives of the Mandate land would not only have the key to their home, but they’d still be living in those homes, not in refugee camps far from their ancestral land.

  14. So, it was October 6, 1943. Then Six decades later, and what the delegation of rabbis faced 60 years ago.

    Dear AIPAC. 60 years ago: 2013 – 60 = 1953.

  15. The real story is that this is merely another stalling tactic by AIPAC and Likud’s extreme right wing leader, Binyam Netanyahu. HE HAS NOT THE SLIGHTEST INTENTION OF MAKING PEACE OR AGREEING TO A PALESTINIAN STATE.

    John Kerry needs to cease acting like a Putz and to start reading the Likud charter. In it he will find that Netanahyu and his political cohorts are in business in order to establish a Greater Israel incorporating ALL OF THE WEST BANK AND THE TRANSFER OF ALL ARABS TO NEIGHBORING STATES.

    • All of the West Bank may be their short-term goal, but why should we believe they will stop there? Doesn’t their ideology say they were promised all the land to the Euphrates?

      • Doesn’t their ideology say they were promised all the land to the Euphrates?

        The Euphrates doesn’t flow through Canaan, but it could form the northern border of that promised land in Syria. Abraham indicated that he had established a household in Damascus at one time (Genesis 15:2).

        It’s likely that some Babylonian scribe conflated references to “the river” [Jordan] with the Euphrates. After all we are explicitly told that Moses died outside the promised land on Mount Nebo in Jordan. Was he, and everyone else mistaken about that?

    • I just finished listening to the Israeli Amb to Ireland spouting nonsense about Israel wanting peace while the Palestinians wont come to the table.

      He kept up the bait and switch approach by pointing to , Syria/Iran/Egypt etc ad infinitum.But at least the interviewer kept on message which is why shouldn,t the EU act against Israel who has been breaking Intl Law for decades.The Ambassador then responds with the usual “Israel is a Sovereign Nation” blah blah blah.

      Wasn,t going to eat supper anyway.

      • @amigo – - I am sure the Israeli ambassador to Ireland knows the Arabs have offered peace and recognition to Israel for years now.
        And that Israel is the problem. Which he does not want most people to understand.

  16. Hmm. AIPAC fails to mention the Zionist appeasers who at the same time were sacrificing so many of their brothers and sisters for their beloved Palestine. Do not mistake this in any way as an effort to soften German guilt. But let us never forget the Jewish blood on the hands of the Zionist collaborators.

    • I do not know if there is a good case for “Jewish blood on the hands of the Zionist collaborators”. As it was observed above, it was simply not predictable what turns the ideological and war induced madness would take.

      The two largest groups of central European Jews that survived the Holocaust were: (a) Romanian Jews, (b) Jews of formerly eastern Poland who were either recruited to factories in central and eastern Russia or forcibly exiled to Siberia and Kazakhstan. Hungarian Jews lost in that insane lottery: compared to Romania, Hungarian pro-German government was not anti-Semitic at all, but unfortunately it decided to switch sides to Allies several months too early, resulting in total Nazi control in the last 15 months of the war.

      Thus assuming perfect intelligence AND foresight in the Fall of 1943, what could FDR do? The only Jews surviving under direct Nazi control were in hiding and few. Big majority of those who were still threatened by Holocaust were in Romania and Hungary.