Re: [NewYorkTimes 1962] Arab Nazism nothing has changed in 50 or 80 years

Submitted by Roberta (United States), Dec 20, 2010 at 03:09

Arab Nazism nothing has changed in 50 or 80 years

Here's a NyTimes article dating Dec. 1962, 'the more things change the more they stay the same.' - Give or take '50 years.'

ISRAELI ACCUSES ARABS OF NAZISM; U.N. Envoy Sees Link to Modern Fascist Groups

By KATHLEEN TELTSCH Special to The New York Times ;
December 07, 1962,
, Section , Page 14, Column , words

UNITED NATIONS, N.Y., Dec. 6 Israel accused Arab representatives today of cooperating with neo-Nazi and fascist groups in the United States, Latin America and elsewhere "to exploit anti- Semitism as a political weapon."

Yes, you got that right, 1962 was before the (1967) six-day war which "gave" the Arabs/Muslims the opportunity (somehow) to come up with an excuse of the so called "fighting the occupation," not that they didn't massacre or call for genocide of Jews prior to that.

So are today's unholy alliance between Islamists - Neo-Nazis when it comes to anti-Semitism, including "buying" into Hezbollah's invented 911-conspiracy-theories, Arab world's running of cartoons borrowed from the Nazi propagnada era like twisting around / altering facial features. Repeating old libels, etc.

Iran/Hezbollah's massacre in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1994 at the AMIA building did it with the help of Neo-nazis in that country - no surprise, again.

Going back roughly nearly 80 years ago, We all know the tight Arab-Muslim nazism during WW2, spearheaded by the 'religious' devout racist Arab-Islamic leader the ex-Mufti Haj amin al-Husseini of Palestine, but this chapter doesn't seem to be a mere historic past.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".