Muslims Who Fought Against the ‘Real’ Fascists & Nazis

A must read for all those RW nutjobs that believe all Muslims suppoted the Nazi's.

There's a lot to read...

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslims_who_fought_against_the_real_fascists

Think this says it all:

Nobody has denied Muslims fought for the allies.
The fact is up to 70,000 Muslim s fought for Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was instrumental in recruiting many Muslims for Hitler and agree with the extermination of Jews.
These are undeniable facts
What is of concern is the Palestinian connection to Nazism, which is still evident to day in the policies and views of Hamas and the PA.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world

You really must extend your reading sources,  I suggest this:

http://www.amazon.com/51-Documents-Zionist-Collaboration-Nazis/dp/1569804338/ref=pd_sim_14_5?ie=UTF8&refRID=05YS6DVMXPHT7S0CHS3X#reader_1569804338

51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis

This book brings to light, through the use of actual historic documnets, the desservice that the Zionist did to Jews before and during the Holocaust.

Sorry what on earth has that got to do with the Palestinian connection and links to Nazism?

Also


Brenner has a thesis, which proceeds from the conclusion he wants to find - namely that Zionism is evil. What better way to establish the fact than to link the Zionists with the Nazis?

There are 3 concerns about this book:

1. The proposition is plainly likely to be offensive to many people, not least the children and grandchildren of those who died. Now, offensiveness is not a reason to be silent. But it IS a reason for sensitivity. There is little of that discernible (to this reviewer at least) in this book. The problem is that a neutral version of the controversy Brenner posits would be sensitive: if there is no axe to be ground one would expect sympathy and empathy. The lack of it suggests the purpose is not neutral examination, but polemic.

2. Context is key. These were times so dark as to be almost unimaginable - certainly by comfortable (smug?) western liberals. There is little context to be found here. There is no real examination of the proposition that sometimes one has to reach accomodation with evil to achieve a greater good. Children got out of Nazi Germany because Zionists talked to Eichmann - who would refuse to talk in such circumstances? Brenner believes in guilt by association and tries to butress that belief with quotes which lack context. The result is not a contribution to historical debate - it is skewed history which relies for its effect on the ignorance and prejudices of its readers.

3. There is no attempt to look at what else Zionism is and was. Even if one grants Brenner's thesis, the debate is sterile. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was an avowed supporter of Hitler - against the British as well as the Jews. Does that make Jordan an illegitimate state? Simply to state the problem in this way demonstrates the intellectual paucity of Brenner's reasoning. Zionism, like it or not, has provided a homeland for people who no one would take in. Yes, that was arguably at the expense of other people. But in that case the debate is about hard choices. Brenner would rather the choice was easy - again that seems to be because he has an answer already and the problem is to phrase the question to give that answer. It's poor stuff.

Ultimately this book says no more than "this boy can't be nice because he mixes with other nasty boys". That is an argument most often heard, and best confined to, the school playground. Grownups will look elsewhere for real debate and argument

This book, compiled by a self-proclaimed Trotskyist, is ridiculous. Indeed, only a Trotskyist sectarian purist could edit a volume like this.

The book contains 51 documents, of varied quality and relevance, supposedly proving that the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis. Really?

In reality, of course, most Zionists did no such thing. The Revisionist leader Jabotinsky called for an economic boycott of Nazi Germany. The Labor Zionists supported the Allies during World War Two. Zionists participated in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, while others joined Communist partisan units. And, of course, the Zionist idea that Jews can be safe only in their own state, was ultimately proven right. Without this context in mind, the documents presented by Brenner are in effect a subtle way of suggesting that the Jews were responsible for the Holocaust. In reality, both Labor and the Revisionists smuggled Jews out of Nazi-infested Europe.

So Brenner is a Trotskyist. Now, there was a small Trotskyist group in Albania which supported Mussolini, and later joined the right-wing, anti-Communist resistance group Balli Kombëtar. There were also Trotskyists who, after the war, expressed support for the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), a fascist organization. What conclusions should we draw from this? That Trotskyists in general were Nazi collaborators?

What have Brenner come up with, then? Not much. Naturally, he spends an entire section of the book exposing the Stern gang (Lehi). But this group was very small and was disarmed by the Labor Zionists in 1948. That the Stern gang proposed collaboration with the Nazis in 1940 and 1941 is therefore as irrelevant as Albanian Trotskyists joining an anti-Communist resistance group after first praising Mussolini. Besides, the whole point of Lehi's proposal was that they would side with the Nazis only if Hitler agreed to resettle all Jews in Palestine. Since that never happened, the deal was off. No actual collaboration took place.

Next, Brenner attempts to implicate the Labor Zionists in Nazi collaboration. However, the documents he presents rather show that Labor attempted to save Jews by getting them out of Germany. Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, there was a catch: the Zionists had to buy German goods in return for every Jew being allowed to emigrate. This broke the trade boycott against Germany called by many progressive groups. The abstract sectarian Trotskyist Brenner doesn't appreciate the moral dilemma of the situation: should one uphold a trade boycott even if it means sacrificing Jews? Or should one try to save as many as possible, even if it means paying the Nazis? Only a stupid Trot like Brenner could suggest, that the only solution is...yes, what? Socialist revolution? In Germany 1936?

A similar dilemma exists in the case of Rudolph Kastner, whose case is still controversial. Kastner negotiated with the notorious Adolf Eichmann, and managed to save perhaps 2000 mostly Hungarian Jews from being killed by the Nazis. However, the rest of Hungarian Jewry was exterminated. Kastner had to "play God" and decide who was to live and who was to die. Also, he had to promise Eichmann to "uphold order in the concentration camps". The original deal between the two stipulated that one million Jews would be spared in exchange for 10,000 trucks for the Nazi army. When the trucks failed to materialize, most Jews were transported to the death camps. Still today, Jews are divided over how judge Kastner, who became a government official in Israel after the war. Was he a tragic hero? Or a cynical collaborator? The fact that Kastner appeared as a witness in favor of SS war criminals have lead many to belive the latter. But even so, Kastner was hardly identical with all of Zionism. Incidentally, Kastner was assasinated when details of his deal with Eichmann leaked out.

When the Nazis came to power in 1933, they didn't have a clear position on the Jewish question beyond apartheid. Exclusively Jewish concentration camps were set up in 1938, the Final Solution was decided upon in 1942. Until that time, different ideas existed within the Nazi leadership about what to do with the Jews. Some wanted them expelled to a foreign country, perhaps Madagascar (at the time controlled by Vichy France). This made it possible for Zionists to attempt a "deal with the Devil": since some Nazis wanted to extradite all Jews from Germany, why not propose that they be transferred to Palestine? Today, we know that this was a naive proposal. But not even Brenner's hero Trotsky predicted the Holocaust. At the time, an transfer agreement seemed like an idea worth trying. Ironically, the Holocaust proved that all attempts to get the Jews out of Germany, no matter how naive, were at some level justified.

Some documents in this book are frankly ridiculous. Please note that the point is to prove Zionist collaboration with Nazis. But Brenner has also included documents about Revisionist collaboration with Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan! Brenner never explains that Fascist Italy wasn't anti-Semitic, nor a fully committed ally to the Nazis, until the eve of World War Two (the documents cited are from before that). Nor does he explain that Imperial Japan didn't exterminate Jews in Manchuria. These documents tell us much about the antics of right-wing nationalists, but nothing about collaboration with Holocaust-mongers.

Finally, I must protest against the naivety of the editor of this anthology. He seems morally outraged by the fact that Zionists can even comtemplate some kind of deal with Nazis, no matter the purpose. But please, comrade. The Bolsheviks made secret deals with both Imperial Germany and the Weimar Republic, both equally anti-Communist, and also with the rogue Ottoman adventurer Kemal Pasha, or the anti-Communist Turkish nationalist Kemal Atatürk. The Bolsheviks took money from Wall Street banks, and even attempted to collaborate with Labor Zionists in Palestine! And during all of this, a certain Leo Trotsky was one of the leaders of the Soviet Bolshevik regime... Trotsky even supported the creation of an "anti-imperialist united front" with Chiang Kai-shek. On that point, he later changed his mind. But not on the others.

Is Lenni Brenner upset about this? Or was this "all for a good cause"?

By all means, buy this book. The documents are interesting in and of themselves. But that's about it...

By the wat they were reviews from your own link

Says it all how easily you are led by people sassy. Like I say when people are3 led by hate, they forego any ability to reason anything. Like Yesterday where you tries to argue that Isreael should not exist. You give away all too easily how you are led by a hate of the Israeli Jews, through the cover of hating zionism. What ever way you look at this, your reasoning is led by hate