High Schoolers in Land of Arab Spring Revere Hitler & ISIL

Hitler was very popular among Arab nationalists before WW2 in the 1930s. Now, 70 years after the end of the Nazi German Holocaust, perpetrated under Hitler's command, he is popular among some Arab youth, students at at least two high schools in Tunisia, the land where the Arab Spring began. This has been revealed in French media organs

In Tunisia, "Islamofascism" is not merely a media formula. It can take on a quite concrete appearance. . . . At the high school in  Jendouba in the northeast of the country, a banner showing Hitler saluting the German flag was displayed, the site of Francetv Géopolis reports.
En Tunisie, l'«islamofascisme» n'est pas qu'une formule médiatique, et peut prendre un visage bien concret. . . . .Au lycée de Jendouba au nord-est du pays, une bannière représentant Hitler saluant le drapeau allemand a été déployée, rapporte le site de Francetv Géopolis.

In another high school in the area of Jendouba, it was the black flag of the Islamic State that was put on display. . . . .

Dans un autre lycée de la zone de Jendouba, c'est le drapeau noir de l'Etat islamique qui a été exhibé. . . . 

In the girls high school of Kairowan (LJFK), the religious center of Tunisia, a banner showing a representation of the persecutions of the Islamic State was hung on a wall. One can see on it a masked warrior armed with a scimitar accompanied by two prisoners dressed in the typical orange pajama. One of them in flames might represent the Jordanian pilot burned alive by Da`ash [ISIL] last February. 

Dans le lycée de jeunes filles de Kairouan (LJFK), centre religieux de la Tunisie, une banderole représentant des exactions de l'Etat islamique a été accroché sur le mur. On y voit un guerrier masqué armé d'un cimeterre accompagné de deux prisonniers vêtus du typique pyjama orange dont un, dans les flammes, pourrait représenter le pilote jordanien brûlé vif par Daech en février dernier.

The article in Le Figaro looks for an excuse why many in the Arab world are so fascinated with Hitler. And the reporter finds a false reason.

The fascination for the 3rd Reich is not rare in the Arab countries, which did not undergo the trauma of Nazism and are gladly hostile to Israel.

La fascination pour le Troisième Reich n'est pas rare dans les pays arabes, qui n'ont pas subi le traumatisme du nazisme et sont volontiers hostiles à l'Etat d'Israël. . . . [Le Figaro, 15 April 2015]

This reason is false because in fact Nazi German troops, the Wehrmacht, did occupy Tunisia in late 1942 and early 1943. The Jews there were subjected to the preliminary stages of the Holocaust while mass murder camps were being built in North Africa. In fact, Walter Rauff, the Nazi expert in murdering Jews spent several months in Tunisia. Read excerpts from his reports to his superiors and diaries here.

Year-Old Latma Satire Had It Right on Assad Basher & Obama's Soft Spot for Him

UPDATING 6-2&20&22&30&7-1-2011 at bottom

The Peace in Peace Process refers to peace
of mind for Judeophobes.

Sometimes art anticipates reality, or reads reality more accurately than the professional pundits, analysts and commentators. In June of last year, the Latma satirists produced The Three Terrors, named after the three famous operatic tenors, Pavarotti, Domingo and Carreras, but modeled in character after Ahmadinejad, Erdogan [Erdung], and Assad Basher.

At one point the Assad character sings:

. . . and I a serial killer who should spend all his life in jail [chorus: oy vey, oy vey] . . .

Of course he is a serial killer. But he doesn't do it one at a time, to be sure. He slaughters en masse and his minions torture as well. Perhaps the video of Assad Basher's troops placing a protestor in the path of tank treads can convince even the hardest hearts in the West and among the anti-Israel crowd that Jews would be treated this way too, if Assad's gangsters could get a hold of them. In any case, the repeated cruelty of the Assad regime over the past 10 weeks does not seem to have much moved the Western "human rights crowd." Where are the demos in London, Paris, Milan and Berlin calling for international intervention to save millions of Arabs from Assad's butchery? Where are all the friends of the Arabs who get upset when Assad's household terrorists --those whom he deploys abroad-- shoot rockets at Israeli children, as does Hamas, and then Israel strikes back? When Israel strikes back, those unrepentant or unreconstructed Euros get angry. But when Arabs are slaughtered by Arab tyrants, we hear no public condemnation. The same goes for when Israel struck back at Hizbullah in 2006 after the Hizb raided across the border killing and kidnapping a dozen soldiers. The Euros protested then. But when the Hizb attacked fellow Arabs, civilians in Beirut, in 2008, no Euro protests were audible.

The Three Terrors does not spare Ahmadinejad whose government has been working for a nuclear bomb for some 20 years. The A-jad character thanks Obama for his help for the Iranian bomb project:

I wish to thank Obama for his patience, for playing dumb, [chorus: for playing dumb ] 'cause now I got the peace of mind to build me a nuclear bomb [chorus: the nuclear bomb]. . .

Obama and Bush before him have facilitated the Iranian Bomb project. Back in 2003 the US and other Western powers were giving A-jad "a last chance." But the last chance was not really the last. And now Iran is close to having the Bomb or has already achieved one or two such bombs.

As we said, art sometimes anticipates reality. In this case it really is not funny.
- - - - - - - -
6-1-2011 Jennifer Rubin on Obama's promised largesse to Egypt & Tunisia plus his continued indulgence of Assad Basher [here]
6-2-2011 Hilary Clinton has conducted a thorough study of the matter, using quantum mechanics, boolean algebra and supercomputers, and has scientifically, mathematically concluded that Assad Basher's ". . . legitimacy. . . is, if not gone, nearly run out." [here]. Her scientific approach included careful measurement of the legitimacy that Junior Basher had stored up when the Vogue issue came out with the puff story on his wife, the "Rose of the Desert." Hilary's patient, scientific, almost scholarly approach to this issue is why she is so highly paid.
6-10-2011 Leon Wieseltier on how Obama's Syria policy betrays both America's values and America's interests [here]
6-12-2011 Lee Smith on the good sides and bad sides of the Arab Spring [here]
Leon Hadar sees the "Arab Spring" as more a series of conflicts between tribes, politicized religious sects, powerful factions and families than as an unalloyed drive for liberal freedoms [here]
Con Coughlin has negative thoughts about the outcomes of some of the Arab Spring revolts [here]
6-15-2011 Tony Badran says that Obama doesn't want to do anything to stop Assad [here]. "Syrians are fully aware who stands behind them in the international community. In recent weeks, they have burned the flags of China, Russia, and Iran. Why haven't they burned the American flag? Perhaps it's because they still hold out hope that Washington will come to their aid. That hope is itself a form of leverage. Obama should not squander it by continuing to bet on Assad as he murders people in the street."
6-20-2011 Jackson Diehl wrote an excellent column for the Washington Post on Obama's two-faced attitude toward the Middle East, soft on Assad and tough on Israel [here]
6-22-2011 Lee Smith presents us with a powerful package of perspicacious insights about the obstacles to making peace between Israel and Syria [here]
6-30-2011 Basher Assad's little goons of the Hizbollah were busy six years ago getting rid of an enemy [or obstacle] of the Assad gang, the Hizbollah and the Iranian ayatollahs' regime [here]. This enemy was Rafiq Hariri, killed by a car bomb or truck bomb with 22 others. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon has finally submitted indictments of four Hizb leaders to Lebanese officials.
Corriere's report is [qui]
Neil MacDonald of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. wrote up an extensive account of the STP investigation back in November 2010 [here]. This article is for those who really want to get into the subject.
7-1-2011 William Harris on the indictments of Hizbullah big guns in the Hariri murder case [here]
Michael Rubin on Obama's similarity to Assad toady Dennis Kucinich [here]
Evelyn Gordon [here] on Obama' latest Syria policy --stated by Hilary the other day. Assad should still stay in power in Syria in order to lead a "transition" to --- reforms -- in cooperation with the opposition whose rank and file he has been torturing and slaughtering for months. Is this bizarre or just weird?
Jonathan Tobin points out that the indictments of Hizbullah terrorist officials in the Hariri by the Special Tribunal on Lebanon begs the question of what Obama is going to do. Not only about Lebanon & Hizbullah but about Syria that supports and enables Hizbullah [& Iranian] domination of the Land of the Cedars. [here]

This all goes to support our theory that Obama pushed to get rid of Mubarak in Egypt while supporting Assad's staying in power in Syria for one and the same reason: His strategy is to surround Israel with hostile regimes: on the south, [Syrian-supported] Hamas in Gaza and an Egyptian govt under Muslim Brotherhood influence; in the north and northeast, Hizbullah [an arm of the Holocaust-denying Iranian ayatollahs] in Lebanon & the Iranian allied Assad regime in Syria. Bear in mind that the Assad regimes's politcal party, the Ba`ath was founded in emulation of the German Nazis. That Assad's Syria has helped the anti-American terrorists in Iraq is apparently of no consequence to Obama & his deep thinkers in DC, like Lee Hamilton & Zbig brzzzski.

Syrian Regime Opponents See Obama as Favoring Assad Basher

UPDATED see at bottom 8-7-2011

Barry Rubin compares Obama's rhetoric on the "Arab Spring" with the actual policy of the Obama administration. He also quotes from a message that he received from an Arab friend:

How ironic. President Barack Obama extolls the “Arab Spring,” helps overthrow the Egyptian and Tunisian governments, made a try to do so in Bahrain (until the State Department talked the White House out of it), and is still trying in Yemen and in Libya (with military intervention!) yet does nothing on Syria, the most repressive by far of all these countries (except Libya).

So, here’s how the Middle East works. As an Arab friend writes to me:

“Everyone, whether anti- or pro-regime, is convinced that the U.S. government is protecting [Syrian dictator] Bashar al-Assad and wants him to stay. The longer this administration stands by its incredibly stupid position telling him to "lead the transition" as he kills and tortures at will, it will be stained by his obscenity.”

In other words, when the U.S. government defends the Assad regime the people believe it supports the Assad regime. Every principle set down by the Obama Administration on Egypt and elsewhere—whether right or wrong—is being violated by that same government in Syria!

. . . . .

And the Syrian oppositionists correctly believe that they aren’t getting any international support. Palestinian groups that have practiced terrorism for decades are treated as saints and victims; the Syrian people (and Iranian, Turkish, and Lebanese oppositions, too) are treated like pariahs. Western students do nothing for them; Western students and activists don’t protest on their behalf.

Why do only anti-Western movements and opponents of governments friendly to the West get Western support? [here]

Indeed. Why does the US Govt or, if you like, the Obama administration support regimes that stand against what Western values are supposed to be? Regimes that violate human rights every day? Why does Obama work so hard at undermining countries --Israel in particular-- that embody those values in their everyday governmental practice?
- - - - - - - - -

See our previous posts on the revolt in Syria[here]&[here]&[here]& [here]& [here]. Posts are listed earliest first.
6-20-2011 Jackson Diehl wrote an excellent op ed for the Washington Post on Obama's Middle Eastern policy. He is soft on Assad Basher and tough on Israel [here]
8-7-2011 The Hill reports on the US public relations outfit that arranged for Assad's wife to have a profile of her done for Vogue [here]

Western States Overlooked Arab Tyranny on account of Their Own Israelophobia

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

Lee Smith does it again. He wrote a perceptive, excellent analysis of the Arab Spring revolts, their connection to Israel or lack of same, the reason for the latest terrorist attacks on Israel [including rocket attacks], and the failure of US and other Western policymakers to foresee what was coming or to understand it.

Here are some excerpts:
Regarding the rockets attacks on Israel from Gaza and the terrorist bombing in Jerusalem [to which I would add the recent massacre of five members of the Fogel family in Itamar], Smith writes that the recent revolts against Arab regimes from Tunis to Yemen to Syria [among the most notable] occurred:

without the slightest apparent connection to popular outrage against Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians . . . .

That these revolts were motivated by resentments against local, homegrown tyrants who oppressed and impoverished their own peoples while most of the rest of the world was growing more prosperous:

should be surprising to most experts and politicians in the West. For over four decades, the driving idea behind the West’s approach to the Middle East has been the supposed centrality of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process to Arab popular anger at the West and its key to ensuring the stability of the West’s favored regimes. That the price tag for this American diplomatic instrument has been thousands of dead Jews and several lost generations of Arabs has, in the upside-down world of Mideast policymakers, made the achievement of an ever-elusive peace deal seem all the more important with every passing year

That all that mattered to the Arabs generally was the alleged "plight of Palestinians" and "Israeli occupation",

was a convenient point of agreement between Washington policymakers and Arab regimes. For Washington, the peace process was a good source of photo ops and a chance to show concern for human rights in the region without interfering with the propensity of America’s Arab allies to torture and murder their political opponents. As for the regimes, they were happy to escape criticism of their own failures—rampant corruption, lack of basic human rights and freedoms, and violence against the Arabs they rule—by blaming Israel. . . .

By pushing the centrality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the past four decades, the West has helped to underwrite Arab repression at home. The rationale behind the emergency laws in places like Syria and Egypt (even now after Cairo’s “revolution”) is that because of the war with Israel, the Arab security states must be ever-vigilant and therefore forbid their people from exercising basic rights like freedom of speech—or, in the words of Gamal Abdel Nasser, “no voice louder than the cry of battle”—diktats that they enforce through torture and murder.

In view of the Arab popular revolts,

the Israeli-Palestinian peace process isn’t even a convenient fiction by which Washington can make nice to the Arabs. Rather, it has been a recipe for failure on a grand scale—social, political, and economic—that has now been laid bare. While the Arab regimes are being held responsible for their failures by their fed-up populations, Washington seems to feel no need to hold itself accountable for the collapse of a set of enabling fictions that has greatly diminished our position in a region that is of crucial strategic importance for the United States both militarily and economically

In this context, who was behind the recent terrorist attacks on Israel:

So, who might have an interest in the sort of disruption and realignments the Jerusalem bus bombing has caused? Maybe it was the Syrians tapping a few of their Palestinian assets to heat things up in Israel. . . .
Or perhaps it was the Islamic Republic of Iran, attacking Israel through proxies. . . .

Bear in mind that

President Barack Obama failed to support the protesters who took to the streets for Iran’s Green Revolution in June 2009

Nor has Obama yet called for Assad to give up power, about three weeks after the Syrian protests began, although he called for Mubarak to give up just three days after the start of the mass protests in Cairo. How do we explain the discrepancies? Apparently, Obama and the rest of his crowd of policymakers in Washington like the Assad regime. Recall that Obama sent Zbig Brzezinski to Damascus to meet with Assad & Co. in February 2008, nine months before the presidential election. He wanted Assad to know that if Obama were elected president, Assad would have a friend in the White House.

Smith stresses the Washington obsession with the "peace process" which is strong enough to override common sense and overrule a proper concern for human rights and general decency in politics:

Whoever attacked Israel last week knows how the game works, too, and sure enough in short order the U.S. policy community jumped to attention. Instead of pushing to cut off the regime in Damascus as the Syrian people braved death to go the streets, American policymakers like Sen. John Kerry and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered their bona fides. “There is a different leader in Syria now,” Clinton said of the man believed responsible for ordering the murder of Hariri. “Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.” [that is, Junior Assad is a "reformer"] Never mind that her own State department says rather that Syria is a state sponsor of terror; Washington will do nothing to help the Syrians who’ve come out against their own government, because the U.S. president is going to make good on his word to engage dictators, no matter how many Arabs have to die as he proves his point.

In other words, Smith shows that Washington policy is less concerned with Arab welfare than with enforcing a humiliating, dangerous, likely genocidal, "peace process" on Israel. Smith also demolishes the "linkage" argument, that is, that everything happening in Arab politics is really caused by what Israel does or does not do. This argument supplies an excuse to always pressure Israel no matter what happens among the Arabs. In my opinion, some Western policymakers have been and still are ready to fight Israel to the last Arab. So obviously they couldn't understand why Arabs wouldn't share their obsession with Israel and their eagerness to fight Israel [through the instrumentality of the Arabs], despite the Arabs' own abysmal social & economic situation. This paragraph is my own and does not represent Lee Smith. I conclude that the "peace process" is in essence a Judeophobic endeavor unconnected to any real search for peace.

By the way, Smith provides some interesting info about Olmert's role in the "peace process" and his connection to Washington [here]