YONAH: All right…so, we… I was just telling our listeners beforehand, before we got you on, that it’s a phenomenal thing: politicians actually come out and tell the people the truth: the origins of the Fatah, that they actually originate with the idea and the philosophy of the Aryan race Nazi party, that they are Nazis themselves, and perhaps this could have changed the whole rollercoaster of ah… -- I shouldn’t even say the rollercoaster, but the whole steamroller -- of Oslo. If we’d known that they actually have their roots in the Nazi party, then we know that we can’t make peace with people like this, and perhaps, perhaps (I doubt it), but perhaps Oslo wouldn’t go through. What do you have to say about that?

FRANCISCO GIL-WHITE: Well, yeah. I mean…this Likud leader Moshe Feiglin, who is now competing for the Likud leadership with Benjamin Netanyahu (who, as you know, Netanyahu has been a strong supporter of the PLO, even when he pretended not to be[0])... Moshe Feiglin is the first leader -- the first leader! (this is really amazing) -- to tell the Israeli public that Al Fatah (also known as ‘the PLO’) was created by Hajj Amin al Husseini, who along with Adolf Eichmann was the top leader -- top leader -- of the German Nazi Final Solution.[1]

This is an obviously relevant fact for Israelis to consider (you’d think...) when evaluating the wisdom of the Oslo process that has brought Al Fatah into the Jewish State and given [it] a chunk of Israeli territory and also sovereignty over the Muslim population living there. It is also relevant (you’d think...) for evaluating the plausibility of the story we keep hearing: that Al Fatah are the ‘moderates’ to Hamas’s ‘extremists.’

There have been many opportunities to say this to the Israeli public. This is what makes this so amazing. After all, the serious diplomatic effort to bring Al Fatah into Israel began in 1991, with US President George Bush Sr.,[2] and succeeded by 1993-94 under Bill Clinton. And the original idea and initial US pressure began much, much earlier, in 1977, with US President Jimmy Carter.[3] And yet Moshe Feiglin in the year 2007 is the first Israeli leader to mention it! It only takes a second to document the origins of Al Fatah, for whoever is interested in finding out, but in 30 years nobody has said it. Hiding the fact... --

MALKAH FLEISHER: Wait, so..., Dr. Gil-White, you know, there have been a lot of people who have been against the Oslo process that brought Al Fatah into Israel. And still today, aside from Oslo, there are a lot of people who dislike Al Fatah, who understand that they are no different from Hamas, in practice, so why is it that this issue of Nazi origins hasn’t come up before?

GIL-WHITE: This is... an excellent question because hiding the fact that Al Fatah comes from the Nazis in order to bring them into the Jewish state is the kind of behavior you expect from the worst enemies of the Jews. And yet this has been the behavior of Israeli leaders. Israel is a very strange country.

The entire effort to give Al Fatah a ‘Palestinian state’ carved out of the Jewish state depends on a total silence about the Nazi origins of Al Fatah. Because it is simply beyond the pale for the great powers of the world -- who in public must preach against the memory of German Nazis -- to bring the self-same Nazis into a state that was explicitly created to make mass killings of Jews impossible. As far back as 1977, when Jimmy Carter became Al Fatah’s diplomat, the entire Oslo idea could have been killed before it started. It would have been enough for Israeli leaders opposed to bringing Nazis into the Jewish state simply to hold a press conference to explain to the Israeli public, and to the world, that Al Fatah is the continuation of the German Nazi effort to kill all the Jews. But this never happened. No such press conference was ever given. Only Moshe... --

YONAH:  Just a second. We are speaking with Professor Dr. Francisco Gil-White. His website is www.hirhome.com. That’s spelled h-i-r-h-o-m-e, dot.com, hirhome.com.

You wrote an article on that, on your website, about the documentation on the Nazi origins of Al Fatah years ago, and so..., why hasn’t this gotten out further? I mean, this is like a great story that the news would want to carry. Why hasn’t it come out if you wrote about this so long ago?

GIL-WHITE: Yeah, well, I did write an article about this back in May 2003. I published, ah..., an article documenting the Nazi origins of Al Fatah in Israel National News,[4] and, ah..., I explained in my article why this had caused me to switch from my previous pro-PLO position to a pro-Israeli position -- you see, because I had been consuming all the same media disinformation that everybody else consumes, before I actually started studying as a scholar the Arab-Israeli conflict. And, obviously what happened to me would happen to lots of other people, if they became aware of this information.

Now, what’s very important here is that my article in Israel National News made a bit of noise. I was fired from the University of Pennsylvania for having published this documentation, and this led, in fact, to a minor scandal, when some of the students at the university protested my firing. The commotion was covered in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and led to an interview with FOX NEWS.

TAMAR: Hannity and Colmes, I remember. I saw that on your website.

GIL-WHITE: That’s correct. That’s correct. Since May 2003, therefore, Israeli leaders are definitely aware that Al Fatah comes from the German Nazi Final Solution. And yet we’ve had to wait till the middle of 2007 to hear Moshe Feiglin, for the first time (because he didn’t say it before), mention this crucial fact in public, even though this is precisely the kind of information that will generate sympathy around the world for the anti-Oslo position. Israel is a very strange country.

FLEISHER: Dr. Gil-White, I am going to take this with a little bit of a different angle. You know, I was just thinking, as you were talking about the Nazi origins of Fatah... So you got a country, right, which tries, after its very shameful past, to distance itself somewhat from its Nazi origins, and that is Germany. Why is it that Germany continues to be so pro Fatah, if Fatah comes from Nazi origin? You would think that they would try to get themselves as far away from these people as possible.

GIL-WHITE: Well, there is a widespread belief that, after the war, the West German government had been cleansed of Nazism. This is completely false. Lots of Nazis came back into the West German government after the war, and, in fact, as Christopher Simpson, historian Christopher Simpson has documented in 1988, with documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act… -- although it was only the tip of the iceberg, what he was able to document, it was more than enough to show that after the war the US government, in secret, recruited tens of thousands of Nazis, including many notorious war criminals, in order to create its intelligence services. We have just published... -- well, I’ll tell you about this later. But the point is that in 1956, the US government gave to West Germany a big chunk of that Nazi infrastructure that they had recreated, and turned into the BND, which is West Germany’s equivalent of the CIA.[5] So they put the Nazis back in power. Very few people understand this. Once you do understand it, the behavior of West Germany is not so surprising.

YONAH: Go ahead Malkah.

FLEISHER: So what about leaders in the US who say they support Israel? Do they know about this information?

GIL-WHITE: Well, of course. I mean, these people have access to the best information in the world. Nobody has better information than the US government.

It is simply false that the US government supports Israel, however.[6] This is another myth. It is the US government, after all, that pushed for the Oslo process that brought Al Fatah into Israel, and is still pushing, with great energy, for moving forward the Oslo process to its final conclusion.

And it was in fact the US government, Tamar, that long ago made sure Al Fatah got the best Nazi training. That’s also something that people don’t understand. Historian Christopher Simpson, um... docum... --  We have an article that explains what he documented about Egypt, and we just published it on Historical and Investigative Research, which is my website. And in this article, we explain that in the early ’50s, after Egypt failed to exterminate the Israeli Jews in the 1948 war, the US sent some of its recruited Nazis to train the Egyptian security services and armed forces.[7] These were Hajj Amin al Husseini’s colleagues, reuniting with Husseini himself because he had taken refuge in Egypt after the war. These Nazis which the US sent to Egypt trained a group of adolescents that Husseini put together, and which included Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, and others. And this is the group that became Al Fatah.

YONAH: Let me ask you a question. If... -- you know, because I read this latest article on your website as well (hirhome: h-i-r-h-o-m-e dot.com). You say here that the CIA trained the PLO and backed them, right? So my question is, you know, the PLO were the..., were..., became famous because they were basically the first terror organization to start using hijacking of airplanes as one of their tools of terror. And I remember... Now, they weren’t hijacking El Al [i.e. Israeli civilian] planes -- the security was too good on El Al planes (God is protecting the Jewish people). But they were hijacking, you know, the G-8 type..., you know, like the European and American-type airlines. Why would America train them to..., you know, to be like this, and then have their own interests hurt by the PLO?

GIL-WHITE: I think it’s a mistake to assume that the interests of the US ruling elite are synonymous with the interests of US citizens. I think this is completely false. And therefore to be surprised that the US ruling elite engaged in policies that got US citizens murdered is, I think, out of place. The US ruling elite murders US citizens left and right. Look at all the US citizens they are killing in Iraq right now. They killed more than 50,000 US citizens in Viet-Nam. Um... And...

FLEISHER: Wait, what? Go back. Who killed US citizens in Viet-Nam?

YONAH: You are talking about soldiers...

GIL-WHITE: Yeah. Well, the soldiers were all US citizens. They were ordinary US citizens. They were not...

FLEISHER: Well, when you say it like that, it..., it sounds different.

GIL-WHITE: Oh... Well, I mean, the soldiers are citizens. And when they send them to war and they get killed, they die. The war in Viet-Nam was a completely phony war. And that didn’t stop them from getting all these soldiers killed. More recently, we published an article in Historical and Investigative Research documenting that the PLO (which is more germane to your point)... -- that the State Department always knew that the PLO had murdered US diplomats in Khartoum, and that the same State Department protected the PLO from having this information exposed.[7a] In other words, the employer of the US citizens, government employees, who were murdered in Khartoum by the PLO... hushed it up -- to protect the PLO.

FLEISHER: So, Dr. Gil-White, now that people know, okay, it’s out there... -- and we have done interviews in the past, here, on the show, in which we have kind of revealed the Nazi past of Fatah -- what difference do you think it’s going to make? Is this going to change the way that Israel approaches...

GIL-WHITE: I don’t think it’s true that people now know this. Ah... There’s very few people, unfortunately, who listen to Israel National Radio compared to the major media news services. This is a David versus Goliath fight, and I think the people at INR understand this. But, ah... So, so the question is: Can we actually get this information to a lot of people? We need to get it to a lot of people in Israel, we need to get it... --

FLEISHER: So, but I am saying... You think it would make a difference, if they knew?

GIL-WHITE: I think it really would, yeah. I think it really would. I think the reason that this information was hidden from the Israeli public is that... -- and from the Western public -- is that the great majority of us in Israel, and in the West, could not -- simply could not -- support a process to bring the continuation of the German Nazi Final Solution into the Jewish state. That’s just a..., it’s an apocalyptic policy.

YONAH: And when you see the PLO army, they walk with goose step and they have the same, you know, hand -- outstretched hand -- salute as the Nazis do... -- this is not proof of anything, it’s just an interesting tidbit, though.

YONAH: All right so you can write him there. And you can also get on his email list, when he writes any more, new articles you can get them straight in your email box, for free. Thank you very much for being with us.

...Netanyahu had measures available to him to try and counter both. He could potentially have used his exceptional oratorical skills to go over the heads of political foes and even a hostile Israeli media and effectively present the merits of his positions directly to the Israeli public. In addition, his insistence on PA compliance enjoyed extensive support in the American Congress... But...on August 14, 1996, he reentered negotiations with [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat without having made any headway on the compliance issue.

...[In late 1996] Arafat issued an urgent call to his people to defend the holy sites on the [Temple] Mount [which were in absolutely no danger], and he succeeded in triggering widespread rioting, initially in Jerusalem and then elsewhere as well. In addition, he unleashed his armed forces, including snipers, to attack Israeli soldiers in what became known in Israel as the ‘Checkpoint War.’ In the ensuing four days, fifteen Israeli soldiers were shot dead by Palestinian police and about sixty Palestinians were killed.

In the public relations war that accompanied the battles on the ground, Arafat again bested Netanyahu as he had done vis-à-vis the resumption of negotiations. The Israeli left attacked Netanyahu for allegedly having acted provocatively by opening the tunnel exit [to an excavation near the Temple Mount] and having thereby triggered the violence. The Israeli media echoed this view. Most foreign governments and foreign media took the same stance, with many in the media claiming that Israel had dug a tunnel under the Temple Mount. Again, as any of their correspondents in Jerusalem could have ascertained for themselves, Israel had not dug a tunnel nor was the existing tunnel under the Temple Mount.

The Checkpoint War demonstrated once more Arafat’s continued commitment to using violence and terror as weapons against Israel. But most observers outside the country, and indeed half of Israel, chose to ignore this and to continue perceiving Arafat as Israel’s ‘peace partner.’

...Netanyahu, failing to counter effectively the increased pressure on him mounted in the wake of events around the tunnel opening, responded to the pressure by reentering negotiations with the PA, briefly terminated in the context of the fighting, and by agreeing in the ensuing weeks to terms of withdrawal from Hebron. He did so despite his still not having secured any reversal of the PA’s pattern of noncompliance with its Oslo obligations.

...The Israeli army completed its withdrawal from the ceded areas of Hebron within hours of the Knesset approval of the agreement on January 16. Almost immediately, the PA initiated harassment of the Jewish enclave in Hebron, with rioting, stone throwing, firebombing, and gunfire. This continued on and off thereafter. The [Israeli] government added the events in Hebron to its list of talking points on the Palestinian Authority’s violations of its Oslo commitments and frequently reiterated its demand for reciprocity. But it nevertheless went ahead and offered on March 7 to hand over another 9.1 percent of West Bank territory to the Palestinians as the first of those ‘further deployments’ called for in the Interim Agreement.

...Also during this time, additional incidents of violence, in many instances perpetrated by Palestinian ‘police,’ including terrorist attacks initiated by Palestinian armed forces, added further to the violations invoked by the Netanyahu government in its demands for Palestinian compliance. Among such incidents were the murder of another thirty-eight Israelis, injury of hundreds more, many aborted terrorist attacks, and myriad stonings, firebombings, and acts of arson.

...In January, 1998, the Cabinet unanimously passed a resolution linking further redeployment [i.e. further handing of territory to the PLO’s PA] to PA fulfillment of commitments made or reiterated as part of the Hebron agreement.

But...Israel’s political opposition and media continued to urge [Netanyahu’s] government to move forward with territorial concessions, to advance the ‘process,’ and the [so-called] Peace Movement held rallies protesting the government’s alleged foot-dragging. To the degree that the government’s arguments regarding Palestinian non-compliance and the importance of reciprocity were noted at all, they were characterized as ploys being used by Netanyahu to obstruct ‘progress.’

…the Clinton Administration...effectively rejected Netanyahu’s demands for reciprocity. Indeed, it not only pushed Israel to proceed with territorial concessions without Palestinian compliance but insisted that the next round of territorial concessions exceed the dimensions proposed by the Israelis in March, 1997. Early in 1998, the State Department came up with the figure of 13 percent as the proper size of the next West Bank withdrawal, based not on any consideration of Israel’s strategic position and defense needs but simply on the fact that an additional 13 percent would place the nice round number of 40 percent of the West Bank under Arafat’s control. In effect, the administration reneged both on its formal endorsement of the reciprocity principle in the ‘Note for the Record’ and on its acknowledgment at the time of the Hebron accord that Israel had the right to determine the dimensions of the further interim redeployments.

Once more, there appear to have been steps that Netanyahu could have taken to counter both domestic and American circles that were undermining his stance on Palestinian noncompliance. At home, he could have done more to go over the heads of the opposition parties, the media, and even elements of his fractious coalition who did not fully share his jaundiced views of Oslo. He could have addressed the Israeli public [which public, after all, had elected him to office on an anti-Oslo platform] more directly and more forcefully on the dangers posed by Palestinian policies and evasions.

...When Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, in the spring of 1998, imperiously, and with veiled threats, summoned Netanyahu to Washington to finalize a 13 percent withdrawal plan, Netanyahu chose to remain at home. In response to this confrontation, many members of Congress publicly and forcefully sided with Netanyahu...