Notify me of new HIR pieces!
really happened in Bosnia?
2. Painting fascists as victims, and their victims as fascists.
The mainstream media turned
Bosnia upside down.
Izetbegovic openly resuscitated
Izetbegovic had been a violent
< How to clean up a fascist who hunted Jews? Easy: Ignore the facts and call him a victim of fascists. For good measure, compare him to Jewish victims of Nazi violence (the propaganda of Bernard Henri-LÚvy)
HIR has charged that, in Bosnia, the US and its NATO allies deliberately trained, financed, and politically supported a faction of Muslim fundamentalists whose goal was to create -- through violence -- a fascist-clerical state. This is what caused the Bosnian civil war.
Put bluntly, what happened is that NATO supported a campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide against innocent Bosnian Serb civilians, and then NATO blamed the victims, as if they had been the ones carrying out a genocide.
Are we right about all this?
In the first part of this series I showed that Alija Izetbegovic espoused a violent Muslim fundamentalist ideology. This I did by quoting directly from Izetbegovic’s own book: ‘Islamic Declaration,’ where he explains very clearly that Muslims may not organize under any secular system and that the only proper behavior towards ‘infidels’ is violence. Alija Izetbegovic did not speak for all Bosnian Muslims. In fact, he spoke for a minority of them, as we shall see.
Despite Izetbegovic’s violent writings having been famous from the start (in Yugoslavia, and in the Muslim world), this is how the New York Times described him in April 1992: “The Bosnian President, Mr. Izetbegovic, a Muslim Slav regarded by Western diplomats as a moderate…”
And then on May 8th, the New York Times wrote: “…President Alija Izetbegovic, a moderate Muslim Slav…”
In just one month, Izetbegovic’s supposed moderation went from being vouched for by Western diplomats to become a simple and obvious fact of the world which the Times could state with zero comment. Propaganda moves faster than the speed of light.
The question of when Izetbegovic wrote his Islamist manifesto is important of course. Since he wrote it around 1970, it is in principle possible that by 1990 his views had changed. But this case has to be made in a decisive way, naturally, before anybody calls Izetbegovic a "moderate." The violent fundamentalism he espoused in 1970 would not cease to be relevant, and any responsible journalist would have to explain with facts why people should not be concerned that Alija Izetbegovic might still be a dangerous fanatic. And yet the New York Times did not even bother to attempt such an explanation when defending Izetbegovic as a supposed moderate. What the New York Times did, rather, was omit saying anything about Izetbegovic's past writings, and in this way it gave its readers the appearance that the label "moderate" could be applied to this man with zero controversy.
But matters are worse.
It turns out that Izetbegovic did not win the 1990 elections in Bosnia. So he proceeded to seize it illegally from Fikret Abdic, the non-fundamentalist and pro-Yugoslav Muslim who was (1) allied with the Serbs; (2) more popular than Izetbegovic; and (3) who had defeated Izetbegovic at the polls.
What does this reveal? Well, if the most popular Bosnian Muslim leader, Fikret Abdic, was allied with the Serbs, then most Bosnian Muslims were not interested in fighting the Serbs -- on the contrary: they wanted to preserve a united Yugoslavia. But this in turn implies that the Serbs were not trying to exterminate the Bosnian Muslims, as the Western media repeatedly claimed, because if they had been, why would most Muslims be allying with them? Finally, it is obvious from this that the multiculturalist and moderate Bosnian Muslim leader was Fikret Abdic, not Alija Izetbegovic, as the media claimed.
There was never any question about this, in fact. The reason Izetbegovic was famous for having published Islamist writings in the 1970s is that such activities got Mr. Izetbegovic tried and imprisoned in Yugoslavia, for a few years, on the charge of inciting dangerous and fanatical ideas.[3a] And the key point is this: Izetbegovic re-issued "Islamic Declaration" in 1990 -- the same year that he ran for the presidency of Bosnia and lost the election to Fikret Abdic. This was an election that coincided with a political crisis about the future of Bosnia, so Izetbegovic was obviously using his violent book to define himself as the leader of a movement that meant to turn Bosnia into a Muslim fundamentalist and racist theocracy. It is the height of scandal, therefore, that the New York Times should neither mention this book nor give an explanation when it calls Izetbegovic a "moderate."
But matters are, in fact, worse still.
Having taken the stance that Izetbegovic was a supposed moderate and multiculturalist democrat (they stopped short of calling him a saint), the New York Times, without blushing, allowed itself to paint the accusations of the Bosnian Serbs against Izetbegovic as baseless and hysterical myths:
“Essentially, the Serbs there were told that they faced resurgent Croat fascism and, from the Muslims, Islamic irredentism. In [Bosnian Serb leader] Mr. Karadzic's political lexicon, Alija Izetbegovic, the Bosnian President, has been cast as an apostle of Islamic fundamentalism, and his followers as potential fanatics reminiscent of Iran and Libya. To non-Bosnians [i.e. to Westerners, supposedly -- FGW], the image of the quiet Mr. Izetbegovic as an ayatollah seems incongruous, a sad misrepresentation of the leader of a cultured, almost languid Slavic people who converted to Islam under the Turkish occupation. But Mr. Karadzic is insistent. ‘Mr. Izetbegovic intends to dominate the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina, not just the Muslim parts, and make it a platform for the development of Islamic regimes in Europe,’ he said. It is a conviction that stalks the towns and villages of Bosnia, making a self-fulfilling prophecy of Mr. Karadzic's belief that Serbs cannot live peacefully with Croats and Muslims, unless walled off in territorial enclaves.”
Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic was simply telling the truth: Izetbegovic was a dangerous fanatic. The New York Times by contrast simply lied. The Times pretended that the accusations against “the quiet Izetbegovic” were “incongruous,” as if Izetbegovic had not written an entire book explaining himself in detail, as if the book itself were not famous in Yugoslavia (and elsewhere), as if Izetbegovic had not served time in jail for his inflammatory writings, and as if Izetbegovic had not used his "Islamic Declaration" as a political flag in the Bosnian elections (all of which the New York Times, of course, knew perfectly well). By painting Karadzic’s perfectly just accusations as the hysterical myths of a warmonger, the NYT got to blame the entire conflict on the Bosnian Serbs at the very point that this conflict started.
But the Times was not alone.
The Washington Post made no reference to Izetbegovic’s violent tract except when portraying Izetbegovic as a supposed political martyr:
Not only does the Washington Post refer to Izetbegovic’s fanatical outbursts tamely as a call for “revitalization of Islamic practices,” but it proceeds to use Izetbegovic as a character witness for his own book, taking him at his word that he was just writing about “a separate Muslim identity.” But to see that the book foams with violent fundamentalism all anybody had to do was open it.[5a]
And then the Washington Post published this editorial:
“…some members of the U.S. Congress…maintain that there is growing Islamic extremism in Bosnia… …critics point to several indications…including…the secret arming of the Bosniaks [by fundamentalist Iran] and the continued presence of Islamic [mujahideen] fighters from other countries.[5b] The concerns these factors raise are, I believe, unwarranted. Those who fear a radical Islamization of Bosnia often point to the politics of Alija Izetbegovic…who authored the 1960s treatise ‘Islamic Declaration’ and…is viewed by some as having an Islamist ‘agenda.’ In reality, Izetbegovic and his supporters are themselves wary of extremism.”
If the author conceded that Izetbegovic was importing foreign mujahideen (Islamic fundamentalist ‘holy warriors’), then how could he simultaneously claim that Izetbegovic was “wary of extremism”?
And yet matters are even worse.
Why? Because the New York Times and the Washington Post are hardly alone -- far from it. The portrayal of Izetbegovic as a ‘moderate’ recurred in most of the Western mainstream media outlets, and it has remained remarkably consistent to this day.
Let us fast forward to the present -- to Vanity Fair’s January 2003 issue, which has a fawning portrait of the famous and politically influential French philosopher Bernard-Henri LÚvy, who, we are told, was “the first and loudest champion of Bosnia’s Muslims and their president Alija Izetbegovic,” and who lobbied President Franšois Miterrand successfully on their behalf.
LÚvy, after complaining that “religion has become ideology” (perhaps that makes sense in French), explained to Vanity Fair what he saw as the solution: “The only hope, he said, was in the birth of modern, secular Islam, which is what he had found and admired in Bosnia.”
Is there any such thing as "secular Islam"? Of course not. That is a contradiction in terms because the meaning of 'secular' is 'non-religious' and Islam, of course, is a religion. But what survives the contradiction is the portrayal of Izetbegovic and his followers as Muslims who lead a secular political movement. The mind boggles at this because Mr. LÚvy, being French, can no doubt read the French language. Therefore, being a high-profile intellectual supporter of Alija Izetbegovic, he must have read that man’s book, which is available in a French translation distributed in Paris by Editions El-Bouraq (the edition I use is this very French translation). So I find it astonishing that LÚvy should pretend that Izetbegovic stood for secular politics when the latter expressed himself unequivocally on this point:
That's pretty clear, isn't it?
Shame on LÚvy for defending this man. In doing so, he spits on the mass graves of his Jewish coethnics who were murdered in World War II. Why? Because the man LÚvy defends, Alija Izetbegovic, proudly re-created in Bosnia the Nazi SS Handzar Division.
The original Handzar Division was organized by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al Husseini, founder of the Palestinian movement and Arafat’s hero. Hajj Amin was an ally of Hitler’s and attained cabinet-level rank with the Nazis during WWII. Among other barbarities, the Mufti was responsible for the slaughter of 400,000 Hungarian Jews.[9b] He also made himself enthusiastically helpful to the Nazis by organizing the Bosnian Muslim allies of Hitler to hunt down Jews, Serbs, and Roma,[9c] to be murdered in their homes or sent to the death camps of the Croatian Ustashe, where they suffered orgies of racist violence that according to some “appalled even the [German] Nazis.”[9a] As written in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust:
“…[The Mufti Haj Amin al] Husseini made his contribution to the axis war effort in his capacity as a Muslim, rather than as an Arab leader, by recruiting and organizing *in record time* [my emphasis], during the spring of 1943, Bosnian Muslim battalions in Croatia comprising some twenty thousand men. These Muslim volunteer units, called Hanjar (sword), were put in Waffen-SS units, fought Yugoslav partisans in Bosnia, and carried out police and security duties in Hungary. They participated in the massacre of civilians in Bosnia [Serbs, Jews, and Roma] and volunteered to join in the hunt for Jews in Croatia... [my emphasis]. The Germans made a point of publicizing the fact that Husseini had flown from Berlin to Sarajevo for the sole purpose of giving his blessing to the Muslim army and inspecting its arms and training exercises.
Visit this page to see pictures of
the Handzar division in its full Nazi regalia:
It was not pretty. But don’t tell that to Izetbegovic. In a 1993 article entitled “Albanians And Afghans Fight For The Heirs To Bosnia’s SS Past,” the Daily Telegraph reported on how the modern Handzar Division, lovingly resuscitated by Izetbegovic, carried itself. This article was one of a sprinkling of reports telling the truth about the Sarajevo regime that managed to make it through the censorship screen (the bracketed text below appears in the original):
Everybody knows that it is not good public relations to look like a Nazi. The fact that Izetbegovic and his fundamentalist followers resuscitated the Bosnian SS Handzar Division suggests that they are genuinely proud of it -- that is, they are unapologetic fascists who are so committed to their cause that they ignore the possible public relations costs. In fact, as the Daily Telegraph states, “Their spiritual model was Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who sided with Hitler,” and who was a jihadist and genocidal monster.
And notice that members of the Handzar division proudly explained that “We do everything with the knife…”
In a world of modern automatic weapons, what does that mean? Clearly one cannot “do everything with the knife” in modern battles. This is not the 7th century. So this must have a different, more sinister, meaning: attacks against civilians, butchery, and torture -- in other words, a campaign of terror. And that is precisely what the resuscitated Handzar was for. The original fascists, after whom Izetbegovic’s own Handzar modeled itself, carried out their slaughters -- in their death camps and elsewhere -- with various forms of literal butchery involving torture before death which required using different sorts of one-on-one contact weapons; it is this messiness that supposedly "appalled" the German Nazis, though in truth the distinction is without a difference: the Nazis were merely more businesslike in their mass killing.
The slaughters which the fascist Croat, Albanian, and Bosnian Muslim allies of the Nazis carried out in Yugoslavia during World War II were fond memories for Izetbegovic. At the time of the World War, he was just a teenager, but a precocious one, as the publication Young Muslims Canada proudly explains:
“In 1940, at the age of 16 [Izetbegovic] co-founded the Young Muslims, a religious and political group modeled on Egypt's Ikhwan al-Muslimeen. Six years later he and his friend Nedzib Sacirbey were jailed by the communist government of Yugoslavia for helping publish the journal ‘Mujahid.’”
‘Mujahid’ means ‘Holy Warrior,’ and Egypt's Ikhwan al-Muslimeen is the ‘Muslim Brotherhood.’
The Muslim Brotherhood was a fascist and Islamist organization that cooperated with the German Nazis, that still exists today, and that continues to be extremely powerful.
then one hardly needs to imagine what Izetbegovic was up to during World War II.
So what do we have?
That the Bosnian Muslim faction led by the man who earlier had been a leader of fascist and Islamist movements from the tender age of 16, who wrote and re-issued a book which positively foams at the mouth with fundamentalist fanaticism, who re-released that book as his political platform in the Bosnian elections of 1990, and who recently recreated the SS Handzar Division in fond remembrance of his WWII participation in Nazi crimes in occupied Yugoslavia ... the government created by this man is what Bernard-Henri LÚvy described as an example of "modern, secular Islam."
The mind reels. LÚvy is not merely a famous philosopher -- he is supposedly Jewish. But...but...Izetbegovic's past was not a secret!
This is how Vanity Fair describes Bernard Henri-LÚvy’s efforts on behalf of Alija Izetbegovic:
“LÚvy fought loud and long to bring the world’s attention to Bosnia. In 1992 he was one of the first four foreigners into the besieged Sarajevo, where president Izetbegovic told him, ‘We are the Warsaw Ghetto. . .Tell your president,’ which he duly did. In his book ‘Le Lys et la Cendre’ (Lilies and Ashes), he describes how, in order to get the message across to a distracted Miterrand, he had to compare Izetbegovic with Salvador Allende, the Chilean Socialist president, who is a martyr to the left. Four days later Miterrand flew to Sarajevo.”
Pray for Western civilization.
1) Izetbegovic -- a violent antisemite -- compares his plight to that of the Warsaw Jews.
2) LÚvy, a prominent French Jew, compares this violent antisemite to "a martyr of the Left": Salvador Allende. Does that make sense? Not if Salvador Allende is held to have been a leftist, which is what the reader is supposed to believe. It turns out, however, that this "martyr of the Left," according to a recent book by Chilean author Victor FarÝas, was himself a violent antisemite.[17a]
3) Vanity Fair, with a straight face, and with perfect contempt for the intelligence of its audience, explains that these grotesque inversions of the truth were supposedly crucial in getting French President Franšois Mitterrand’s attention, and crucial in winning his support for Izetbegovic’s cause.
What the reader is supposed to believe, then, is that Mitterrand, a supposed leftist, was spurred into action to defend Izetbegovic, a supposed multiculturalist democrat, by comparisons between Izetbegovic to another supposed leftist, Salvador Allende, and by comparisons between Izetbegovic's followers to the Warsaw Jews.
They might as well have burned all the history books…
Franšois Mitterrand -- in case you didn’t already know -- was a highly placed collaborator in the Nazi government in WWII France. This is the government also known as the ‘Vichy regime’ (for its capital). Miterrand was an intimate friend of RenÚ Bousquet, who was nothing less than the secretary general of the Vichy police. That’s right, the same police that deported so many French Jews to the slaughterhouse.
Mitterrand did not collaborate with the Nazis because of political expediency following the invasion of France (and that would have been bad enough). No, matters are much worse. Miterrand was in fact deeply committed to a fascist anti-Semitic ideology well before the German invasion, which invasion he welcomed.
In those times,
As if that were not enough, Mitterrand himself helped out with the roundup of Jews.
The Nazi Vichy regime was thankful: Mitterrand joined the ranks of the select few who received the ‘francisque’ -- the highest honor bestowed by Vichy. He only joined the resistance in 1943, when it became obvious that Germany would lose the war.
So what do we really have here?
Not only does a famous French and supposedly Jewish intellectual -- LÚvy -- pretend not to notice that a famous fundamentalist and fascist antisemite -- Izetbegovic -- grotesquely compares his poor military fortunes (in a conflict that Izetbegovic himself provoked) to the plight of… of the who? Of the Warsaw Jews!
Not only that. We are also asked to believe that this comparison to the Warsaw Jews was meant to make Mitterrand’s heart melt. Mitterrand! The man who had himself hunted Jews for the Nazis…
But that is not all.
We have, furthermore, LÚvy’s absurd claim that in order to get this fascist, Mitterrand, to support this other fascist, Izetbegovic, he compared the latter to "a martyr of the left": Salvador Allende. But neither Mitterrand nor Allende were ever real leftists -- they were both violent antisemites who helped eviscerate the Left while pretending to lead it.
I point out that for anybody paying even the slightest attention, Mitterrand's ideology was not a secret:
Phillipe Petain had been France's top Nazi.
Let us observe, finally, that Vanity Fair simply prints all of this with no comment, despite the fact that a well-documented book by Pierre PÚan, which showed that Mitterrand was always a Nazi from head to toes and never apologized for it, was published some time ago, in 1994.
Perhaps you need to pause.
Returning to Izetbegovic, it was not just the media that portrayed him as a moderate. Academics (or what passes for academics) did the same. Take Noel Malcolm, whose book ‘Bosnia, A Short History’ received rave reviews in the US press. It also sports on the back cover, for example, plaudits from the likes of former US ambassador to Yugoslavia Warren Zimmerman, who cooperated in the demonization of the Serbs, the whitewashing of Izetbegovic, and the destruction of Yugoslavia. (Conspicuously missing from Malcolm's back cover is the endorsement of even one historian.) Malcolm defends Izetbegovic as a supposed moderate secular democrat, and accuses that pointing to Izetbegovic’s writings in order to argue that he is a Muslim fundamentalist is just propaganda.
‘Propaganda’ is the deliberate spreading of falsehoods for political gain. Nobody is making up what Izetbegovic wrote down, and yet Malcolm argues that taking Izetbegovic at his word is propaganda, whereas defending him as a secular democrat -- in flagrant contradiction of the man's own written beliefs -- is supposedly not propaganda. Malcolm excels at what Orwell called ‘newspeak,’ in which one insists that anything politically meaningful should be interpreted as the opposite of what it explicitly says.
The characterization that was rightfully Izetbegovic’s -- murderous fascist -- was given first to Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and later to Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic. But neither man behaved like a fascist. Milosevic was represented all over the mainstream Western media as “the new Hitler,” a supposedly bloody nationalist determined to create a ‘Greater Serbia’ cleansed of other ethnicities. Equally unfairly, this portrayal was extended to all of the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia.
Even those with just a passing acquaintance with current realities in the former Yugoslavia will not fail to be surprised, in retrospect, by this portrayal. After all, Serbia is the only part of former Yugoslavia that remains an integrated, multiethnic state. But no matter: the media insisted with ferocity that the Bosnian Serbs supposedly cooperated with Milosevic in his supposed dreams for an ethnically pure ‘Greater Serbia,’ and that such dreams caused the Bosnian civil war. Here is an example from The Financial Times:
“As Moslems in Sarajevo went to prayers yesterday afternoon, Serbs were reinforcing blockades on the roads leading from the republic’s northern town of Banja Luka towards the border with Croatia.
There, Serbs backed by the federal army and supported by Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, president of Serbia, appear determined to lay down the markers for a Greater Serbia, using an area where they are the dominant ethnic group.”
Notice that the Financial Times goes out of its way to present a contrast: “Moslems…went to prayers” while the “Serbs were reinforcing blockades.” The Moslems were pious and peaceful; the Serbs warlike. This was the reliably and massively repeated portrayal. But the followers of Alija Izetbegovic were hardly peaceful. And the Serbs were their victims.
Of course, many Bosnian Muslims were victimized as well, but not by the Bosnian Serbs. Rather, these Muslims were victims of the Croatian fascists, or else of Izetbegovic’s Islamic fundamentalists. The latter demanded total obedience from their co-religionists and were guilty of spectacular atrocities. The innocent of Bosnia were caught between competing fascisms: Croatian and Muslim, but not Serbian.
The next piece in this series will demonstrate that Alija Izetbegovic started the Bosnian war, that his goal was ethnic cleansing and genocide, and that the Bosnian Serbs merely reacted in self defense. The accusations against the Bosnian Serbs were slanders.
Footnotes and Further
 “Moderate Democrat or
Radical Islamist?: Who is Alija Izetbegovic, the man the US
sponsored in Bosnia?”; Investigative and Historical Research; by
 The New York Times, April 5, 1992, Sunday, Late Edition -- Final, Section 1; Part 1; Page 3; Column 1; Foreign Desk, 681 words, Bosnia Calls Up Guard and Reserve, By CHUCK SUDETIC, Special to The New York Times, SARAJEVO, Yugoslavia, April 4
 The New York Times, May 8, 1992, Friday, Late Edition -- Final, Section A; Page 10; Column 3; Foreign Desk, 1058 words, Bosnia's Besieged Government Near Disintegration, By CHUCK SUDETIC, Special to The New York Times, SARAJEVO, Bosnia and Herzegovina, May 7
 “Mr [Fikret] Abdic got more votes in the 1990 Bosnian presidential election than Mr Izetbegovic but, under party political pressure, ceded his place to him. He was pro-Yugoslavia and lukewarm about Bosnian independence.”
[3a] "...The court found the accused guilty because it held that
their activity had been directed against brotherhood and unity, and
the equality of our nations and nationalities with a view to
destroying Bosnia-Hercegovina as a Socialist Republic and thus of
undermining the social order of the SFRY.
 The New York Times, May 17, 1992, Sunday, Late Edition -- Final Correction Appended, Section 4; Page 7; Column 1; Week in Review Desk, 1221 words, Conversations/Radovan Karadzic; Understanding, and Letting Loose, Historic Hatreds in the Balkans, By JOHN F. BURNS, BELGRADE, Yugoslavia
 The Washington Post, July 6, 1993, Tuesday, Final Edition, FIRST SECTION; PAGE A1, 1014 words, Bosnian Mourns 'Tragic Reality' of Partition, John Pomfret, Washington Post Foreign Service, SARAJEVO, Bosnia, July 5
[5a] “Moderate Democrat or Radical Islamist?: Who is Alija
Izetbegovic, the man the US sponsored in Bosnia?”; Investigative and
Historical Research; by Francisco Gil-White
[5b] “HOW THE U.S. &
IRAN HAVE COOPERATED TO SPONSOR MUSLIM TERROR: (And this while
loudly denouncing one another in public...)”; Emperor’s Clothes; 13
April 2003; by Jared Israel.
 The Washington Post, April 21, 1998, Tuesday, Final Edition, OP-ED; Pg. A21, 923 words, Scare Talk About Muslims in Europe, Arslan Malik
 Vanity Fair. “France’s Prophet Provocateur.” January 2003. pp. 86+
 Izetbegovic, Alija. 1999 . Le manifeste Islamique (original title: Islamska deklaracija). Beyrouth-Liban: ╔ditions Al-Bouraq. (p.82)
To read a comprehensive
analysis of Izetbegovic’s ideas please consult my piece entitled
“Moderate Democrat or Radical Islamist?: Who is Alija Izetbegovic,
the man the US sponsored in Bosnia?”; Investigative and Historical
Research; by Francisco Gil-White
 You will find the most complete documentation on this here:
Some of this material was originally published here:
[9a] Nyrop, R. F. 1982. Yugoslavia: A country study. Headquarters, Department of the Army, DA Pam 550-99: American Univeristy. (p.68)
Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian
Leadership"; Israel National News; Jun 17, '03 / 17 Sivan
5763; by Francisco J.
 Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Edition 1990, Volume 2, Pages 706 and 707, entry Husseini, Hajj Amin Al.
 “Albanians and Afghans fight for the heirs to Bosnia's SS past,” (London) Daily Telegraph, 12/29/93; By Robert Fox in Fojnica; bracketed text in original
 To learn more about Hajj Amin al Husseini and the Nazi history of the Palestinian movement, read:
 To read
about what Jasenovac, the system of death camps in World War II
Croatia, was like, visit:
Izetbegovic"; Young Muslims Canada; June 14, 2000; by Ismail Royer.
 “…as Italian and German fascism sought greater stakes in the Middle East in the 1930s and '40s to counter British and French controlling power, close collaboration between fascist agents and Islamist leaders ensued. During the 1936-39 Arab Revolt, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of German military intelligence, sent agents and money to support the Palestine uprising against the British, as did Muslim Brotherhood founder and "supreme guide" Hassan al-Banna. A key individual in the fascist-Islamist nexus and go-between for the Nazis and al-Banna became the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini -- incidentally the later mentor (from 1946 onward) of a young firebrand by the name of Yasser Arafat.”
 “A key individual in the fascist-Islamist nexus and go-between for the Nazis and [Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan] al-Banna became the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini,”
[17a] This is documented in FarÝas's book "Salvador Allende: Antisemitism and Euthanasia," published by Maye, a Chilean outfit in 2005.
 Libertad Digital (Digital Liberty).
Wednesday 25 Septeber, 2002. “Papˇn The Nazi,” by Carlos Sempr˙n
 The Associated Press, September 3, 1994, Saturday, PM cycle, International News, 753 words, New Book Reveals Mitterrand's Long-Hidden Wartime Collaboration, By MARILYN AUGUST, Associated Press Writer, PARIS
EDITORS NOTE: The book in question is: PÚan, P. (1994). Une jeunesse franšaise: Franšois Miterrand. Paris: Fayard.
 Though Time Magazine incoherently apologizes for him, they nevertheless cannot help saying what Mitterrand actually did to the French Left:
“A staunch defender of the working class [sic!], he presided over a doubling of unemployment levels, a widening gap between rich and poor. . .A champion of the French left [sic!], he ultimately marginalized the Communists and plunged the Socialists into disarray.”
Aah…! Let me see. So he was a “champion of the French Left” by means of actions that “ultimately marginalized the Communists and plunged the Socialists into disarray”? That’s an interesting way of championing the Left.
 Pean, P. 1994. Une jeunesse franšaise: Franšois Mitterrand, 1934-1947. Paris: Fayard. [See footnote 19 for a summary]
 Malcolm, N. (1996). Bosnia, a short history. New York: New York University Press. (see pages 218-220)
 Financial Times (London). July 13, 1991, Saturday, SECTION I; Overseas News; pg. 2, 800 words, Moslems prepare to resist Greater Serbia, Judy Dempsey.
 To get a taste for these, you may read
about the exploits of one Naser Oric here:
Consider also that the
moderate Bosnian Muslims were fleeing Izetbegovic's murderous
Islamist fanatics and taking refuge with...the Bosnian Serbs! The
so-called 'concentration camps' that the Bosnian Serbs were
supposedly filling with Bosnian Muslim victims were really *refugee*
camps were these Bosnian Muslims came looking for protection from
Notify me of new HIR pieces!