Notify me of
My previous article, “Achilles’ Heel: the muftí, the Nazis and the ‘Palestinian Authority,” has been answered by José Hamra Sasson with an article titled “On Heels and Conspiracy Theories.” In this piece, and the next one, I reply.
Hamra deals with two main issues. The first locks horns with me on the question of how, on the best evidence, we should represent the historical relations of German Nazis and Palestinian leaders—and, by derivation, the ideology of PLO/Fatah (i.e. the ‘Palestinian Authority’).
The other issue is that Hamra disputes my version of November 8, when at the Jewish community event of Día Limud, I gave a conference on the Palestinian Authority’s roots in the Nazi Final Solution. In attendance, Hamra provoked—according to my version—a disturbance; in his version, he is the aggrieved party.
Seems awkward: Aren’t we mixing up a trivial subject—mere gossip—with an historical question? Not at all. As I now explain, both subjects, because of the political structure that binds them, are weighty. Nothing here is trivial. But there is altogether too much to contest in Hamra’s confetti of claims about what happened on Día Limud; I will focus here, therefore, on what is really of moment: the importance of having a public debate.
I will begin by conceding a point: it is true, as Hamra says, that I left out some details in my retelling of November 8th. Those omissions are now pertinent to evaluate his depiction, according to which, after asking innocently for a bibliographic source, he found himself attacked for no reason.
What I left out is that, in the days before my conference, Hamra phoned the organizers and donors of Día Limud, denounced the scandal that I should have been invited (for a second time...) to present, and recommended that I be canceled. When that didn’t work, Hamra decided to attend the conference on Nazi German and Arab Palestinian relations that he couldn’t close to others.
By coincidence, Hamra sat next to a generous donor of Limud who is also a student, patron, and sponsor of my classes on the history of the Jewish people, a kind and courteous man of impeccable manners. I never saw my friend so agitated with offense as when forced—against his very nature—to silence Hamra so that I could continue. In my version, the entire audience (the speaker too) reacted this way; in Hamra’s, not so many. But this controversy concedes the point: but for the intervention of these others, be they many or few, I could not have resumed.
Now, but why this drive to censor? We may propose a charitable interpretation: Hamra behaves this way because he thinks I am dangerous—after all, he does compare me with Hitler, and my efforts to inform the public with the dissemination of the Protocols of the Elders of Sion.
The latter comparison is intriguing.
The Protocols—a Tsarist imperial fraud concocted at the turn of the 20th century—transformed the world. It accuses ‘the Jews’ of being, in secret, a great conspiracy running everything: the financial system, the media, the workers’ movements, industry, and the Western governments. The Jews, it says, will use this great clandestine power to destroy ‘Christian civilization.’ Upon becoming the spinal column of antisemitic propaganda worldwide, and especially Nazi propaganda, The Protocols caused such anti-Jewish hysteria as to make possible the Third Reich, World War II, and the Holocaust.
The great mass killings of the Holocaust were relatively easy, for (to a close approximation) no government supposedly in the thrall of Jewish power agreed to receive the Jews as refugees, and then (to a close approximation) no institution supposedly controlled by ‘the Jews’ defended them from their exterminators. Hence the great irony: it was the very success of The Protocols in tipping Europe—heavy and drunk already with anti-Jewish hate—toward the Holocaust that demonstrated the falsity of its accusations.
But that demonstration—notwithstanding its drama—was entirely useless, for The Protocols had become our very culture and cosmology. This is why today, even many people who do not recognize the title of the work nevertheless own its arguments: that ‘the Jews’ control the banks, the media, etc.—and, through the ‘Jewish Lobby,’ the foreign policy of the US and its allies. Antisemites lovingly husband and revive these hot embers, which threaten, at any moment, to become a new great fire.
In my work I have denounced those who, in the last decades, have reanimated The Protocols (see here and here); I am somewhat taken aback, therefore, to find that Hamra compares me with them. Moreover, what Hamra came to denounce was my sharing with the public of the link between the Nazis and the ‘Palestinian Authority.’ So it is pertinent to ask: What similarity does Hamra perceive between this latter and the dissemination of The Protocols?
According to him, to link Nazis and Palestinian leaders is to propose ‘conspiracy theories,’ and, says Hamra:
“conspiracy theories construct enemies. In point of fact, by means of the conspiracy theory of ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,’ Hitler built the Jews up as an enemy to be eradicated. Hence the danger of this kind of theory in the present context of the Israel/Palestine relationship.”
Hamra’s implicit syllogism is as follows:
Premise 1: The Protocols was an important cause of the Holocaust (for it built ‘the Jews’ up as an enemy)
Premise 2: The Protocols proposes a ‘conspiracy theory.’
Conclusion: All ‘conspiracy theories’ are dangerous (because they construct enemies).
Political corollary: All ‘conspiracy theories’ must be censored!
Under this charitable interpretation, then, when Hamra attempts to silence me, he perceives himself as one who contributes a paternalistic service to the public.
Men and women are not children, and they hardly need a protector to box their ears (lest they hear an idea!). But even should we concede this old paternalistic apology, common to every totalitarianism, we have an additional problem here: the syllogism is crippled by a basic logical error: it concludes generally—namely, that all ‘conspiracy theories’ are dangerous—on the basis of just one case.
This does not yet demonstrate—mind you—that Hamra’s conclusion is false; in principle, there might exist another syllogism that produces a correct derivation for it. To refute his conclusion, therefore, we need a sui generis demonstration. The most useful such demonstration will refer us to the same case: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
the turn of the 20th c., as the old imperial Russia shook with social
turmoil, Von Plehve, one of the Tsar’s top policemen, expressed:
The evidence has convinced historians that there was indeed a conspiracy: that of the Tsarist spies. This later became the conspiracy in favor of fascism and antisemitism of a coterie of powerful eugenicists at the very top of industry and government in the West. It was they who disseminated The Protocols all over the world.
At the time, some cried foul. Phillip Graves from the Times (London), for example, demonstrated in 1921 that The Protocols—which claimed to be the minutes of a gathering of nefarious ‘super Jews’ who in secret controlled everything—was in reality a lightly adapted plagiarism from a forgotten work of fiction by French political thinker Maurice Joly (his text accused Napoleon III, not ‘the Jews’).
Today this conspiracy has been largely forgotten. The majority remembers only the Nazis—and Henry Ford, who famously spent a huge chunk of his own fortune disseminating The Protocols. But there were others. As historian Edwin Black has documented, there was a Western eugenicist cabal—led by the industrial networks of Rockefeller, Carnegie, and other monopolists—that propped and braced the German Nazi movement with financial assistance, diplomatic cover, and political support. American eugenics, as Black documents, gave birth to German Nazism and stood it on its feet.
So here is the central issue: it cannot be denied that this dangerous text, The Protocols, proposes a ‘conspiracy theory’; but Graves, Black, and others who blew the whistle on the Tsarist fraud and on pro-Nazi eugenics have proposed (and documented) another. It follows, therefore, that if all ‘conspiracy theories’ are reprehensible, then Hamra must also condemn and censor Graves and Black. He will then be, simultaneously, adversary and protector of The Protocols, enemy and ally of the Nazis. But this is absurd. And thus we have shown that Hamra’s conclusion, and its political corollary, are both false. QED.
The danger of The Protocols lies not in its being a ‘conspiracy theory’ but in its being an antisemitic libel.
Are antisemites generally dangerous? I say yes—for the Jews and also for others. And I conclude this not from the special, if dramatic, case of World War II alone (where the antisemites caused—directly or indirectly—the deaths of more than 54 million non-Jews), but after reviewing—as I do in my book and in my course—2500 years of this ideology. My corollary? When antisemites mask themselves in various disguises it is a public service, as a form of basic self-defense, to make known the best historical documentation.
That’s what I tried to do.
The ‘Palestinian Authority’ has been represented as the necessary ‘peace partner’ to the Israeli Jews. So, when the Israeli prime minister (somewhat late) mentioned the link between the Nazi Final Solution and the ‘Palestinian Authority,’ I republished the documentation on Hajj Amin al Husseini—founder of the Arab Palestinian movement—and his responsibility for the Nazi exterminations of the Jews. I explained, also, that Husseini was mentor to Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, the most important leaders of the ‘Palestinian Authority.’
The public is free to reach its own conclusions as to whether I am ‘constructing enemies’ or identifying enemies that already exist (and from whom we would do well to defend ourselves). To exercise that freedom, however, the public needs the facts.
For my troubles in sharing them, Hamra has seen fit to compare me… to Hitler. Philosophers call this an ad hominem: the resort to insults when reason fails. Insults don’t compel refutations, but Hamra has earned the following reminder: Hitler did not promote freedom of expression on historical questions (or other questions); he burned books, forbade ideas, and canceled conferences.
No matter. Though an irony, I choose to see in José Hamra Sasson my accomplice. For here we are, despite his best efforts, debating in public Hajj Amin al Husseini’s double role, as co-director of the Holocaust and as creator of the ‘Palestinian Authority.’ Better late than never. Or rather: better late than after the next Holocaust. And so long as we debate rather than censor, we are in my court.
Let us proceed, then, to the presentation of evidence.
I will examine in my next article those arguments and sources that Hamra recruits to controvert the line that stretches from the Nazi exterminator Hajj Amin al Husseini to the present ‘Palestinian Authority.’ Notwithstanding that Hamra claims to be done with all this, I hope, for the public’s benefit, that he will participate fully and reply. For such give-and-take is at the very heart of journalism and science.
Francisco Gil-White, anthropologist
and historian, is a professor at ITAM (Mexico City) and
author of ‘Hajj Amin al Husseini’, Tome 1 of The
Collapse of the West: The Next Holocaust and its Consequences
(for sale at Amazon).
The Modern Protocols of Zion
Reply to Mearsheimer & Walt's "The Israel
THE NETANYAHU BOMBSHELL
How did the 'Palestinian movement' emerge? The British
sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.
Nazi training was CIA-sponsored
Gil-White, F. (2014). El Colapso de Occidente: El Siguiente
Holocausto y sus Consecuencias (Tomo 1: Hajj Amin al Husseini). México, DF: FACES (Fundación para el Análisis del
Conflicto, Étnico y Social).
Footnotes and Further Reading
 My original article:
Heel: The muftí, the Nazis, and the ‘Palestinian Authority’; Historical and Investigative Research;
16 November 2015; by Francisco Gil-White
“De talones y teorías de la
conspiración: a los lectores de Enlace Judío”; Enlace Judío; 24 de Noviembre 2015; por José Hamra Sasson
“1. Introduction: The ‘Protocols
of Zion’ in the broadest historical perspective”; from: THE MODERN PROTOCOLS
OF ZION; Historical and Investigative
Research; 25 August 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
 Ben-Itto, H. (2005). The Lie that Wouldn't Die: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. London: Vallentine Mitchell. (pp. 23-25, 29)
 “The Protocols of Zion - An
Exposure”; The Times (London);
August 16 through 18, 1921; bv Phillip Graves
 Black, E. (2003). War against the
weak: Eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race. New York:
Four Walls Eight Windows.
 “THE NETANYAHU BOMBSHELL: Founder of
Palestinian movement instigated the Holocaust - Part 1: Is this true?”; Historical and Investigative Research;
23 October 2015; by Francisco Gil-White
Notify me of new HIR pieces!