E. Rowell: This article traces the results of a global media blackout on the Nazi roots of Palestinian jihad represented by the PA, which allowed for the insertion of an Iranian statelet inside Israel through the Oslo Accords. The leftists in the US and Israel were either useful idiots or knowingly complicit with the Jewish genocide that would follow. Can anyone justify the fact that Israeli political leftists complicit with Palestinian genocidal intent have positions inside the Israeli military and intelligence agencies? Is this not treason?
By Fransisco Gil-White, MANAGEMENT OF REALITY 3 June 2024
The University of Pennsylvania (UPENN), where my system test was incubated.
- I was hired at an ethnic-conflict think tank at the University of Pennsylvania.
- Everybody there was interested in the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process, created by US bosses to bring PLO/Fatah into Israel.
- But nobody there ever mentioned Hajj Amin al Husseini, top leader of the German Nazi Final Solution, and creator of PLO/Fatah.
- What gives?
In 1993-94, with heavy US sponsorship and pressure, Israeli bosses signed the Oslo Accords with PLO/Fatah, what we now call the ‘Palestinian Authority,’ the organ that governs Arab Muslims in the disputed territories of Judea & Samaria (‘West Bank’) & Gaza.
The two-step logic of that was:
- PLO/Fatah—responsible for a long list of terrorist attacks that had murdered many Israeli civilians (and citizens of other countries)—would stop launching terrorist attacks meant to destroy Israel; and
- Israel would enter ‘peace’ negotiations with PLO/Fatah so it could become the ‘Palestinian Authority’ with partial sovereignty in the disputed territories, thus preparing the ground for a future PLO/Fatah State (a ‘State of Palestine’).
As explained in Part 1 of the present series, in 2003, while doing research on the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I came across certain stunning facts concerning the relationship between the Arab Palestinian movement and the German Nazis.
Summarized, these facts, still unknown to most people in the West, are the following:
- The founding father of the Arab Palestinian movement, Hajj Amin al Husseini, worked hand-in-glove with the German Nazis, at the highest level, to exterminate the European Jews during World War II.
- After the war, Husseini escaped justice and created the terrorist group Al Fatah with the express mission of continuing Adolf Hitler’s genocide in Israel.
- By 1970 Al Fatah had swallowed the PLO, or Palestine Liberation Organization, keeping its name (hence, I always write ‘PLO/Fatah’).
- This group, PLO/Fatah, was supported by US bosses, who essentially forced the Israelis to accept it inside the Jewish State on the militarily strategic territories of Judea & Samaria (‘West Bank’) and Gaza.
After learning all of that, my burning question was the following:
- Did US bosses work to bring PLO/Fatah into the Jewish State knowingly or unknowingly? In other words, did they understand, when they invented the Oslo Process, that this group had come straight out of the German Nazi Final Solution and was hellbent on finishing Hitler’s job in Israel?
I decided to conduct a system test to answer that question. In this piece, Part 2 of the present series, I will give you the context of how I came to this particular juncture and developed my research question.
If identified by my academic degree, then I am a political anthropologist with training in evolutionary theory, cognitive psychology, and sociocultural ethnography. For my Ph.D. thesis at UCLA anthropology, I presented evidence and a new theory to explain the evolutionary origins of those cognitive mechanisms that make us susceptible to racist political appeals.
From the start, this theory was rather successful. It got me a New Investigator Prize from the Human Behavior and Evolution Society (HBES), a job at the University of Pennsylvania’s famous psychology department, and a fellowship at the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict (also at UPENN)—and all of that before even publishing my theory in Current Anthropology (though that was in the works) or even defending my thesis formally before my UCLA advisors. In fact, the Asch Center gave me a grant to finish my Ph.D. thesis at UPENN, in time to start as a psychology professor in the fall of 2001.
This was all highly unusual. By the year 2000, which is when I got my job offer from UPENN, it had become entirely standard even for the most promising new scientists to spend several years in post-doctoral limbo, as universities were cranking out way too many Ph.D.’s. But here I was with a job offer before even turning in my Ph.D. thesis.
I share this not to toot my own horn—well, maybe a little. But I also have a more important reason, which is to make clear that UPENN considered my work to be the very best on offer in the academic market. And that’s highly relevant context to fully interpret UPENN’s subsequent institutional behaviors.
Okay, so there I was, teaching ‘Biocultural Psychology’ and ‘The Psychology of Ethnicity’ at UPENN psychology, and working also as a fellow at the Asch Center think tank, where a central topic of investigation was the Oslo Peace Process.
(It was a great time. I loved Philly, and I got myself the most perfect two-story flat in the Old City, including a large wooden deck and a panoramic view of the Franklin Bridge and the Delaware River—kid you not. Sigh… Magnificent days. I felt like such a success!)
This was the post-Oslo years.
Now, the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process was, on purely logical grounds, a challenge to any rational mind.
The mainstream geopolitical interpretation that saturated all Big Media news reporting and academic analysis claimed that US bosses were self-evidently the bestest, greatest, most intense and unconditional allies of the State of Israel. One even heard the accusation in both media and academia that the ‘Jewish Lobby’ or ‘Israel Lobby’ supposedly had ‘too much power’ in Washington and used it to steer US policy too far in Israel’s favor.
And yet here were the US bosses creating a diplomatic process to bring professional killers of Israeli civilians—men, women, and children—into the Jewish State. Who needs enemies when your ‘friends’ do that?
Wasn’t this a paradox? How to resolve this (obvious) contradiction?
US bosses resolved it for us: they gave us a narrative. A Palestinian State, they said, would satisfy Arab opinion, and this would bring about a lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, making Israel secure for the long term. There was nothing to fear, because PLO/Fatah was now the good guys: they were abandoning terrorism!
When Israeli bosses appeared to resist this rather doubtful logic, President George Bush Sr. threatened to cancel badly needed aid for Israel and moreover threatened to meet with the Arabs—without Israel—to decide the future of the Middle East. In this manner, Israel was coerced into the Oslo Peace Process.1
Tough love for a stiff-necked people that doesn’t know what’s good for them, was the mainstream media interpretation: US bosses were protecting Israelis from their own stubborn selves.
Lots of ordinary folk wondered about that mainstream interpretation. And there were some questions. But US bosses, working hand-in-glove with their cronies in Sweden, slapped a Nobel Peace Prize on mass murderer Yasser Arafat. The implicit message: ‘See? He really wants peace now. Otherwise, why did we give him a Nobel Peace Prize? Calm down.’
And US bosses got AIPAC (the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee), the center of the so called ‘Jewish Lobby’ or ‘Israel Lobby,’ to support Oslo, which meant: ‘See? The Jews support Oslo. It’s all kosher. Calm down.’
And that… worked! (By such tricks is our reality managed.)
I too had became a strong supporter of the so-called Oslo Peace Process. To be frank, it was hard to resist.
You have to understand: young academics absolutely worship older academics and constantly seek their approval. I was no exception. And the older academics around me expressed unanimous support for the Oslo Peace Process. This was true, especially, of the Asch Center directors at UPENN, where I was now a fellow, and where the Oslo Process was a key research topic featured prominently in the presentations of our local academics and invited guest speakers.
Perhaps inevitably, I myself became immersed in Oslo stuff after landing the UPENN psychology job and the Asch Center fellowship. I began studying the entire history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. That’s when I learned that Hajj Amin al Husseini, founding father of the Arab Palestinian movement, had played a leading role in the German Nazi extermination of European Jewry, and had then created PLO/Fatah, the very group that Oslo had brought into the Jewish State.
I stood there looking at my documents in shock: just two weeks of research, and all of it in UPENN’s Van Pelt Library, a mere one-minute walk away from my Assistant Professor’s office. I asked myself: Why had I never before heard of Husseini?
I was holding an anthropology Ph.D. from UCLA specializing on the question of racism and ethnic conflict. But never had I come across Husseini. Why not?
Looking further, I found my answer: starting right around the time of my birth (1969), which is also when Al Fatah was swallowing the PLO, a complete silence had been imposed in media and in academia on the question of Husseini.
As a startling example of this, not one expert at my own think tank, the Asch Center, an institution obsessed chiefly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Oslo Process, had ever so much as mentioned Husseini’s name—the once-world-famous founding founder and longtime leader of the Arab Palestinian movement, and mentor to Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas!
His relevance did not rate a single mention? Wasn’t that… very odd?
In this total vacuum on all things Husseini, Big Media and establishment academia had pushed with impunity the following interpretation: the Oslo Process was like the concurrently running negotiations to produce the Northern Irish Good Friday Agreement2; PLO/Fatah, therefore, should be understood as roughly analogous to the Irish Republican Army (IRA).3
This interpretive framework was dominant at the Asch Center.
Political scientist Ian Lustick, one of the Asch Center directors (and the most important one), had published in 1993, to coincide with the launching of the Oslo Process, a book that strongly endorsed such comparisons: Unsettled States, Disputed Lands: Britain and Ireland, France and Algeria, Israel and the West Bank-Gaza.4 His good friend Brendan O’Leary, an expert on the Northern Irish ‘Troubles’ and also an Asch Center director, likewise agreed with this framework.5 But lumping PLO/Fatah and the IRA into the same category now seemed to me incoherent.
Yes, true, both PLO/Fatah and the IRA engaged in terrorist activity. But the IRA was concerned with political questions, all of them in principle susceptible to negotiation rather than armed conflict:
- Who should have power in Northern Ireland?
- What rights should Catholics in Northern Ireland enjoy?
- What should the relationship of those Catholics to Ireland proper be?
- Should Ireland remain divided?
- By what rules should the British government—if at all—exercise sovereignty in Northern Ireland?
If some concessions on some of these questions could be negotiated, the IRA might lay down its arms, especially in the context of widespread and growing opposition among Irish Catholics to IRA terrorism. No one had any reason to suppose that concessions made to the IRA would be used by this group to prepare the extermination of non-Catholics in Northern Ireland because genocide was simply not the IRA’s announced goal.
By contrast, as historian Howard Sachar candidly wrote in 1982:
“From the outset… the Fatah’s reputation depended largely upon the success of its Moslem traditionalist approach of jihad against Israel.”6
You may suspect that perhaps Sachar slipped above when he wrote that PLO/Fatah was a jihadi organization, because for years media and academia have told us that PLO/Fatah is supposedly secular. But Sachar didn’t slip.
You see, in 1982, when Sachar published that book, the media/academic campaign to clean up PLO/Fatah’s image was not quite yet at full throttle. Moreover, just three years before, PLO/Fatah had had the starring role in the creation of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s jihadi Iran.
I kid you not. PLO/Fatah trained and armed Khomeini’s guerrillas. Moreover, after putting Khomeini in power in Teheran, this group, PLO/Fatah, also created the key institutions that jihadi Iran employs to oppress ordinary Iranians and to export jihadi terrorism everywhere. All of that was reported on the front page of the New York Times in the period 1979-1981.
Yes, you read correctly. We document all that here:
That was all fresh in 1982, when Sachar wrote his book. It was therefore no secret to Sachar—or to anyone paying a bit of attention—that Fatah, creator of jihadi Iran, was in consequence, and most obviously, a jihadist organization.
So what happened? How could the world forget that PLO/Fatah was a jihadist organization? How could the world forget that PLO/Fatah had created Khomeini’s jihadi, terrorist Iran? What happened?
Just one year later, as if a sudden decision had come from On High to all the world’s meaning makers, all mention of the relationship between PLO/Fatah and jihadi Iran was essentially abolished from public discussion. The effect of that was remarkable. Very soon—just a few years—nobody could remember what the NYT had explained on its front page. That’s how public memory works.
We explain this phenomenon here:
Such complete and total forgetting was quite functional to a saturation campaign in media and academia, assisted by high-profile political/diplomatic maneuvers, that already, from 1979, had been working to make us believe that PLO/Fatah—an Islamo-fascist group—was supposedly secular and moreover leftist.
Yes, it was the leftists who adopted PLO/Fatah and made this group their mascot.
The effect of that was tremendous: it made the Oslo Process eventually possible.
But in 1982, when Howard Sachar published his book, most of that had not happened yet. And the Iranian Revolution was still fresh. So Sachar wrote that Al Fatah, created by the fanatical jihadist Hajj Amin al Husseini, and creator of jihadi Iran, was a jihadist organization.
And that’s the truth: PLO/Fatah is a jihadist organization.
Jihad always means genocide. Given that, the first hypothesis for any rational person should have been that PLO/Fatah’s participation in the Oslo Process negotiations was just a ruse to obtain from Israel, for its genocidal plan, the militarily strategic territories that Oslo dangled as a reward.
Of course, to propose any such hypothesis a rational person would first need to know that Husseini had led the German Nazi Final Solution, that he had created PLO/Fatah, and that PLO/Fatah had created jihadi Iran, which promised to repeat the Final Solution in Israel.
Or a rational person would need to pay enough attention to PLO/Fatah, for this group was explaining in public that they intended to fake an interest in negotiations to be in a better position to annihilate Israel.
So was the problem ignorance? Had US bosses created the Oslo Process because they no longer remembered Husseini? Did they also not remember, anymore, that PLO/Fatah had created jihadi Iran? Weren’t they paying any attention to what PLO/Fatah was saying in public to its Arab audiences?
Or was there a more sinister explanation, one that would fit comfortably in the ‘conspiracy theory’ category?
This became my research question.
To be precise, my research question concerned only the issue of knowledge about Husseini, because back then, in 2003, I had not myself become aware, yet, of the facts concerning PLO/Fatah’s creation of jihadi Iran (that would come later). So my 2003 test was focused exclusively on what US bosses knew about Husseini.
To explain the fact that US bosses had organized the Oslo Process, I had two options to consider.
- Option A ? Incompetence. The bosses—and their ‘experts’—were collectively so incompetent that not one of them had thought to do even the most basic research in a university library—like puny little me had done—on the history of the Arab Palestinian movement, and so Husseini had disappeared from historical consciousness. Afflicted by their encyclopedic ignorance, when the US bosses had brought PLO/Fatah into the Jewish State, created to protect Jews from genocide, they had done so in good faith. It was a royal screw-up.
So that was Option A.
If, however, US bosses had known about Husseini all along, as minimally competent bosses would, then a different hypothesis would explain their quite rabid insistence, for several decades, in favor of the Oslo Process:
- Option B ? Machiavellianism. US bosses had deliberately inserted PLO/Fatah, Husseini’s creature, into the Jewish State precisely because PLO/Fatah was built to finish Adolf Hitler’s job; US bosses had been consciously collaborating with Husseini’s genocidal plan.
I fleshed out the two possibilities.
In Option A, US bosses—the most powerful in human history—were somehow, despite their unprecedented power and resources, utterly ignorant concerning matters of grave moral and geopolitical importance, and naively eager to mobilize vast material and diplomatic resources without proper consideration, achieving in consequence dramatic results at direct cross-purposes to their own intentions.
I would have to suppose that the media and academic systems, which had uttered not a peep about Husseini for several decades, were also run by thoroughly incompetent people, and were unable to document basic and relevant historical facts for the public despite their own vast resources.
But at least in Option A a benign view of the values, intentions, and broad goals of US bosses, and of media and academic professionals, could be preserved.
To adopt Option B, by contrast, would be to jump to an entirely different model, in which the values, intentions, and broad goals of US bosses were frankly… evil.
Here, an appealing hypothesis for the silence of media and academia on Husseini would be massive clandestine corruption—by the same US bosses—of the entire meaning-making system in our ‘democratic’ West.
Question: How to find out which model, whether Option A or Option B, whether well-intentioned incompetence or evil Machiavellianism was more valid?
I explain the logic of my research approach, and of my test, up next in Part 3.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.