wave of -- which may not be a bad idea, but i don't think europeans are any less, you know, aggressive when it comes to taming the cyber space from americans. >> right. the next congress action is going to be decreed the cyber reserve force. >> yes. >> for the military. more questions, please. >> of the cyber peace corpses. >> probably not that one. [laughter] ..
>> and also now the internet is become the national sovereignty issue. so that means each country looking for their own information. and this is going to be very harmful to the international community. thank you. >> well, as far as the initial question was about the way in which opponents, you know, opponents of climate change can use the internet to battle without. i mean you do see a lot of, you know, denial happening on many significant issues, not just climate change facilitated by the media. some of that is the quipped with, and some of that sticks around. with the plan to deliver it by
various lobbyist and think tanks and whatnot. on the level of information and misinformation, that is happening. you would remember probably the signaturest subject of debate in the last 12 months related to climate change was a bunch of e-mails, you know, because of a hack on the server, university server in england. so you will definitely be seeing more efforts to manipulate the evidence, or to present the evidence as genuine and when it's not. but all of that applies, i think, universally across many subjects. not just climate change. so it's just that in this new environment, you do need to take much many thoughtful and careful ways about the networks and information. i think the consequences of this, especially as it applies to wikileaks, did it turn off the management?
there will be documented only grabbed by one party on one particular computer. others will not be able to share them. it's an interesting start up that raised $30 million dollars yesterday on the idea of providing documents on a more secure digital right system. i think some of that will come in. i don't think anything specific with regards to climate change. other than, you know, cloud computing, because, you know, of the servers are generating a lot of energy. but other than that, you know, i do not see much of a connection. >> do we have more questions? in the back. i can't see all that well. yes, right here. >> james. i think you agree the internet is a disruptive technology. it's generally a rule that smaller organizations respond better to disruptive technologies than large
organizations. governments are, of course, large organizations. in what ways is the challenge of the internet going to be disruptive for countries like iran, and china, and russia? >> i think they are actually adopting much better than i think most of us thought in the past. and, you know, the speculating about two decades ago. but i had to go on the assumptions and predictions. i think the assumption was that they either, you know, cut down the internet completely and they start censoring everything with democracy and human rights or something that is threatening to them, or the economy collapses. you know, there's a lot of this you will know this a lot of the talk about the information of revolution and globalization and you needed networks and you needed access to technology and information in order to grow. i think a lot of the discourse,
more or less, up until 2005, 2006, up until now, you go with the world is flat statement now. it's still very much of new information, transforming governments and governments enabled to cope with the threat. i think the governments had actually adopted to the new world much better. and some of it happened because the delegated, the cost of the private sector so they have, you know, companies that came to make money in this country. to more or less take on the cost of censorship, or surveillance. it's chinese private internet companies which attack by law removing content from the web site. so the government doesn't have to hire a staff of 500 people. the companies are the ones that, you know, need to take care of that. the other thing which i think is happening and which is probably one the more prominent ideas in
the book is the idea of censorship that's happening. we are starting to see smarter decisions to make a decision on the spot what used to be censors, and what doesn't need to be censored. based not only on the content, but also on the identity of the user who is trying to access the information. my prediction is what we will be seeing as, you know, in a country like china, you will see the investment bank who contribute to the economy will be able to access what they want. you can monitor their internet use. they access a lot of financial times and they have other investment bankers as their friends in facebook. and they look trustworthy. in that hands, if you look at what human rights activist will be able to access, it will be the local government-made internet.
because they visit web web sited other activists as their online friends. this will help the government to escape the problem of, you know, the dictators dilemma. they either have to censor the internet, or have to let it. and, you know, basically suffer the consequences. they can still let the internet in, but be much more selective about who gets to browse what. and all of that is driven by the same logic that, you know, digital advertising. it's all about u.s. -- customization and the serving and browsing experience. the only difference instead of showing at the most relevant ad, you will be banned access to most of the page. but the logic is more or less the same in a world that logic is what capitalist now. it's all about customization, and that's one way in
governments manage to adopt to the new environment. >> all right. you need to be subversive thinking successful bankers in china in order to become the democracy in the future? >> yes, that's the future of change. investment bankers. >> we'll see if they censor that or not. i think we have time for one or two more questions. do we have any? >> okay. yes, here. >> hi, sam dupont from mdm blogs mobile. i'm nearly done with the book and enjoying it very much. my question has to do with the state departments misstepped as you describe them. i think you do a good job of popping the bubble of utopianism that has surrounded the technology. i guess my own feeling about the
state department's work what they have been trying to do is introduce an old fashioned bureaucracy into two new technologies. their missteps have been caused if anything by an excess of success in and bringing this technology to the work of other departments. and i think -- you do a good job of describing the mistakes that they've made. i'm wondering how you would -- you don't necessarily in the book get too much into subscriptions for further, you know. i wanted to give you this opportunity to if you do have ideas about how they could do a better job, how they would go about it? please. >> sure. well, i think we touched upon that briefly when we talked about the cyber realism. to me, you know, i try to be as much country and government
independent and not specific in the book. what we need to get right are the principals, not the particularlies according to which governments will be promoting or defending internet freedom. so, you know, it's not just america that is trying to do that. you also, you know, now have the, for example, the dutch government which is extremely interested in the problem of internet thee rum and get many other governments who are interested in helping to promote it. the way in which i end up describing it in the book is not a description of the, you know, internal bureaucracy in the state department and whom to hire, whom to fire, and who needs to get more funds? it's broader kind of abstract framework and approach. as i said, i do believe that much here depends on whether there is a centralized approach to a subject like internet theory. and you have local desks and
power over decision making, making decisions as to whether the internet is transforming china or russia or belarus or whether or not. i think those are the people who are in the much better position to assess the actual impact of the internet on those countries. and people who know everything about the internet. you know, you can read technology blogs all day and still know nothing about the role of nationalism or religion in like belarus, or any country in the middle east. so much of it has to do with the kind of internal structuring of kind of how to actually learn. a lot of this is logic stuff, and how to learn about the way in which the internet is transforming the world. because my own experience that the reason why there is so much, is because the media -- because of -- the areas, you know, internal structures have been much more focused on highlights
the positive changes in places like russia, china, and iran, and part of it is because often it's the prowestern democratic lovers are the only one that want to speak to western media. you don't run into iranian bloggers that want to talk to bbc. in part because that will get them in prison. and second they denounce bbc and cnn as the imperillist west. the story that we get to hear about the bloggers have to do with bloggers promoting the interest of civil society and secular culture and whatnot. i think the overarching point is that we do need whatever framework we end up deciding on, we do need to be extremely careful about the processes by which we learn, decide, and make decisions. and i think once we have all of those in mind, we can start thinking who needs to get more
funds? who needs to get more power? and whether we need actually someone who will be, you know, highlighting the american companies playing in this. or rather let american companies do the job without necessarily publicizing the connection to the u.s. government. all right. that's sort of the matter. the matter level. i mean there are many problems that i outline in the book like, you know, the gross in cyberattacks on the web sites of ngos which are a global problem in nature. they do require solutions which will involve multicountries, multiinternet service providers, and much more work that can be done by the single unit watching russia or an issue of human rights or whatnot. they think they will just need perhaps a different mechanism. but i do not think that they --
the presence of the four, five, or six global problems would justify an internet centric, as i call it in the book, thinking about the political power of the internet. >> wow. i think that's probably a perfect note for us to end on. i always thought it was rich justice that's something from belarus and who has thought about the failed utopia of the 20th century should be guiding us through or pushing us against our own utopian impulses in the next country. thank you, evgeny. the profile coming up tomorrow says that evgeny is leading a
new culture towards cyber regionalism. they missed the headlines. they switched the headlines. i think this book is as you can see from tonight's discussion, going to get a lot of attention. i think you can pick up copies out and i hope you'll stay for some wine. thank you to our host. and evgeny. >> thank you. [applause] >> up next, edwin black looking at the alliances of adolf hitler
and amin husseini. this program is an hour and a half. [no audio] >> or in miami or london or anywhere else. in addition to that, after we are cone -- done with that, i will take questions from the audience. we ask no statements or speeches, just questions so we can get as many questions as we can answers that are pressing and important to you on any topic that we can. after the event, i'll be in the back if anyone needs a book. so the topic that we are
discussing today is the farhud. the roots of the arab-nazi alliance in the holocaust. what is the farhud? the farhud is a nazi-arab bag grum against the nazis and jews in baghdad in 1941. this was an attempt to exterminate completely the jews of baghdad and iraq. it didn't go off the way they had planned it. it was a terrible event. i will explain what happened. farhud, the wood -- word "farhud" is an iconic symbol for the arab-nazi alliance in the holocaust. because how is it that a group of people that were dwelling in a land for 2600 years, the jews of mesopotamia, of iraq, 1,000
years before muhammad game to be considered to be [inaudible] which is german for subhuman and were expelled from their own homes and subject to efforts to perpetrate a again -- genocide. how did this occur? how is it the nazis who were anatase medic made an alliance with the arabs who are semites. what is semite? a semite is the children of the descendants of noah. noah had three sons, one of them shem, abraham, and they were semites. want arabs and jews are different stems of the abraham tree. how is that the nazis who hated arab and hated the semites were able to make an alliance against
the british and the jews? who was -- what was the purpose? the purpose was oil. what was the reason? the reason was oil. we'll get into all of that. i'd also like to say the farhud, this one pegran was in one city and after it, well, the alliance went into the battlefield. from paris to palestine. from intelligence operations -- [no audio] >> wrecked alliance -- [no audio]
>> very sensitive stuff. my information is completely historical. it's the 20th century, not the 21st century. nothing in what i say as unhappy as it is here should be used as a pretext to moving or a negative reaction. i do understand the legacy of hate and the farhud created the holocaust and created the middle east that grew out of the holocaust is in many ways with us today. once again, it's important to keep this discussion completely historic. if anyone trying to draw me into a contemporary discussion, i'm not going to be drawn into it. i'm here only talking about the
academic history. i should say that there were more than a dozen volunteers in five countries who helped to research this book. there's a web site for the book called farhudbook.com. farhud is f-a-r-h-u-d, i have my own web site at edwinblack.com and probably more than 1,000 footnotes as we reviewed thousands of archive, the yetish press, arab press, nazi press, nazi diplomatic papers, arab diplomatic papers, and tried to do as thorough of a job. in fact, some of the people who helped me provide the book to you are in the audience today. with that, i'll start reading. and i'd like to get a copy of the book. can we have a copy brought up?
so when did the hatred for the jews begin in the muslim world? and why did it last as long as it lasted? well, the history shows us, remember, we're talking history here. the history shows us these moments. the history shows us -- that the beginning of the arab hatred and the muslim hatred for the jews began in 627. when the jews of medina were exterminated by mohammed. you've heard of mecca and medina. medina was largely a jewish city. medinon -- medinot comes from
hebrew. it was written from hebrew and syria. the original prayers following down were to jerusalem. and after the jews of medina refused to convert, it turned to mecca. and the jews were exterminated one by one by having their heads severed by muhammad and his colleagues. then came the islamic conquest of all of the arabian peninsula. this is the well documented muslim conquest. and that is how the muslim world became established. i'm going to remind you, i'm going to remind people this is
sensitive poppic. -- topic. i want to talk history only. not contemporary affairs. [inaudible comment] >> my job is history. you will determine the presence tense and you will determine the future. okay. so. the jews of the arabian peninsula and the middle east when the muslims took it over became demis. not just the jews, also the christian. this meant they were a protected group within the islamic world. they had second and --
second-class citizenship, or third-class citizenship. they weren't allowed to have complete religious freedom. and this is important because this issue comes right to the question of the farhud, right to the question of arab-nazi alliance, and right to the question of our status today right in jerusalem. now it would be completely incorrect to say that the jews as demis in the muslim world were always kept as subhumans or as a discriminated class. many jews in many areas thrived greatly in the muslim world. they were protected in the muslim world. they became great merchants in the muslim world. when the muslims exposed -- excuse me, when the catholic church of spain expelled the jews in 1492, it was the muslim world, it was the salten who
took them in. they brought them in to thrive and make the empire stronger. there where many times when jews were horribly persecuteed or greatly emancipated within the context of the demi world. whenever they accelled, they did it as demis, when they were put down, they were put down as demis. there's no way to generalize. if you have a question, i would love to hear it. the jews of mesopotamia for there for 2600 years. that's 1,000 years for islam came to the middle east. how is it that they were turned into a vile member of the
citizenry? well, the answer is the demihood, the nazis. how did the nazis come to make common cause with the arabs? the answer is oil. there were never -- there were never any countries in the middle east. they were all created by british petroleum and angelo, and by other oil imperillistic states in the west for the soul purpose of getting the oil prior to this there were just tribes. as a result of this, this bringing in of the west with the mesopotamians, as a result of this, it made the people of mesopotamia feel that they were being invaded. and guest what, they were being
invaded. they were invaded by british petroleum, persia oil. i've written the second book about this which is coming out next month. the original way i got into the farhud was by documenting the oil in the middle east. the question is where did the jews fit into this? in 1933 -- excuse me, let me go back. in 1919, the jews were given a homelandened the declaration through the league of nations. i don't want you to think this was strictly a british enterprise. the same type of declaration was repeated by the germans in the war, it was repeated by the ottemans who owned palestine. the same type of declaration was given by the united states.
this was worldwide phenomenal. in fact, no one view from palestine was in 1919 when the belford declaration was made. when was palestine? it was renamed by the romans in 1818 when the jews were expelled. it was called syria palestina to wipe away the jews in israel. eventually during the 20th century, they didn't know if palestine was a southern part of syria, was a northern part of africa, they still don't know. there are -- there were no boundary lines at that time. even today, we see that there are disputes about who -- there were disputes about who owned the bottom of the peninsula where caba was. there were disputes in lebanon. in 1919 when the jews were given -- when the area was put into two states, a jewish state, and
an arabic state, the arabs failed to develop their own state. why? because they would not coexist with jews in palestine as equals. when i say jews, i don't mean european, polish, or russia jews. although many polish and russian jews were behind the settlement. any jews could not come up and settle from about 1898. those who say that arabs and jews have always lived in peace in palestine are unfortunately mistaken. in the last 150 years from about 1898, maybe a little bit before, there was never a single day of peace between jews and arabs in palestine.
there were laws against the jews coming into palestine. there were laws against jews owning property in palestine. it was under federal of -- under control of the sultan. when the jews got a homeland in 1919 and 1920 as a result of the declaration and national home in the league of nations, the arabs rebelled and terrible riots. when i say riot, what am i talking about? i am not talking about people running up and down the street with large placards saying palestine for the palestinians. i'm talking about people running into synagogues, burning toras, heads being cracked open, people being killed, people beheaded,
and these are the facts. 1920, 1921, the british mortuary reports they have never seen as many head injuries as people were bashed and bashed just because they were jewish. in 1928, this came to a head. in 1928, the jews decided to sit down at the wailing wall while they were praying for mr. kipper. this is a rem innocent of the temple, this is the holiest site for the jewish people. because they tried to sit down, it violated sharia. jews were considered second and
third-class citizens. they had second and third class religious rights, or those rights given. the feeling was that if jews sat down at the wearing well, they were demonstrating the right to sit down. and sit down without permission. the british were obligated to enforce the preexisting status quo and when little old ladies tried to sit down in 1928, the british policeman pulled the chairs out from under them, to make them stand. now why were the arabs so opposed to the jews sitting when they prayed at the wailing wall? because according to arab tradition, the wailing wall is a barracks and that is the place where muhammad hitched his horse
and his winged horse on the way to heaven. you've heard of the [inaudible] it means the furthest mosque. when muhammad was going to heaven on the winged horse, he stopped at the furthest mosque and the furthest mosque was in jerusalem because there were very, very few muslims there at the time during these early years. of the 7th century. and that made this wall holy to the muslim world. there were many decrees under the ottoman court, as you know the ottoman's owned palestine for half a millennium, 500 years. there were many decrees that stated jews will not be allowed to sit. jews did sit. what was the reaction? they said do not do that again. in 1929, the jews did do it again. in 1929, the jews decided to sit
down in the middle of the summer heat when they prayed. and the arabs reacted by going on a horrible riot. they not only rioted at the old city, at the wailing wall, but pulling out the papers from the wall that jews put into to make the devotion to god, they stabbed people, they shot people, but then while the police were busy in jerusalem, they went up to hebron which has been a jewish city since the days of abraham. they went up to hebron and undertook a horrible massacre of the jews. what do i say by a massacre? i mean -- and i'm going to have to talk about bad things here. i'm going to do as i did in my book. i'm going to apologize in advance for the history that i
must give you. in fact, i'm going to read -- i'm going to do some reading from my book which is something i almost never do. i'm going to say as i said in my introduction, this book is a nightmare. i regret anyone must read it. i regret it was necessary to write. the scholar had his head, his brain extracated and played with a football. the baker was baked in an oven. i'm not talking auschwitz, i'm talking hebron. the visitor was crucified on the door, babies cut in half, people were stabbed, the police in many instances joined the muslims. i want to make it clear, there
where many muslims who saved their neighbors and hid them from further murder and mass destruction. but it did occur. a state of seats was declared, the british brought in airplanes, machine guns that actually shot into the streets to sue press -- suppress the riots. and this was the condition of the arab-jewish existence in palestine in 1929. before hitler ever came to power. and this particular monstrous massacre in a long line of massacres in which this was not an anomaly, this was a high point of many high points. this occurred because jews tried to sit down when they prayed.
now comes january 30th, 1933. hitler comes to power. and the arabs say we want hitler. they are not just fascist leaning, they are actual nazis. they petition to join the nazi party. they in various cities, i don't want you to think this occurred just in palestine, jerusalem, this occurred in baghdad, cairo, beirut, syria. they ran and translated. they redacted and changed the translation to take away the word semite and turn it into anti-jew hatred, and would not have an impact on the arab.
they wore arm bands. there's a place in the book where the arabs are with a huge nazi flag. the syrian national socialist party, national socialist, stuff like german national socialist with the nazi party with a swatica. their flag has not changed. pardon me? syria national socialist party. and the nazis said, we don't want you. you are seminights. on top of that, we are talking about the republic here, we are talking about the post by the republic, nazi era. we will never led you into the nazi party because you must be
pure arien to be in the nazi party. if you don't adopt us, we'll be in our own nazi party. that's what they made. many nazi parties all over the middle east. they ran nazi publications, and they of specialized in arabic. henry ford's the elders of dying. which was a turning point for adolf hitler in the war against the jews. and this treat us today -- the fake protocol, the forgery is still the best selling book in the arab world. in addition, the nazis did one up. upset the apple cards with the british. the british had the mandate for palestine. the british had the control over
german debt. and the nazis wanted to keep palestine open for jews. now you remember i wrote the book about the transfer agreement. the deal between the zionist and the nazis that brought home 60,000 jews to palestine and millions and millions of their money. well, that was actually based upon the deal in 1903 with the czar which was actually based on the mosaic deal to let me people go with the cattle and sheep and goats to come with. the nazis wanted palestine to remain a jewish settlement so they could force the jews out of europe, force the jews out of germany, and into this one place. and then when they were all in this one tiny tract of land, they would execute the final
solution to the jews which would be extermination. and this was something that the arabs were deeply involved in. and when i say, arabs, i mean tens of thousands of arabs. and i'll give more information about that as i go along. i want to remember, i want to remind everybody in the middle of my speech, this is about history. nor do i wish to say that every arab in palestine was unwilling to coexist with their jewish neighbors. but i have to tell you something, i'll give you an example, the nashasebe family was one the strongest in jerusalem. those who tried are marginalized, intimidated, murdered, ostracized, and eventually the forces of hate, the forces of hate, take over.
i talked in the beginning about the beginning of this being the extermination of the jews in medina in 627. why did you do that? just to find an historic problem? no, that's what the arabs themselves constantly spoke about in their newspapers, in their rallies, on the radio, they constantly refer totem termination of the -- refer to the extermination of the jews. for them it was iconic. for the christians, it would be thesore -- the sermon on the mound. for the jews, it might be the parts of the red sea. and it was the extermination of the jews in medina. when they spoke and recalled this information, when they recalled it, they recalled not only within their own private little circles, they sent it to
adolf hitler personally face to face, eyeball to eyeball. they said on german radio, they said it openly. we must exterminate the jews. now i'm going to read something. our hatred from the jews -- i'm going to read this -- our hatred from the jews dated from god's condemnation for their persecution and rejection of jesus christ, and subsequent rejection later of the chosen prophet. the word of god teaches us and we implicitly believe this for a muslim to kill a jew ensures him an immediate entry into heaven
and into the presence of god almighty. what more can a muslim want in this hard world? now who said this? this was not the jerusalem? this was not arab agitator in the old city. this was the king of saudi arabia. who was he saying it to? no, this was the king of saudi arabia. saying it to the british foreign ministry. an official protest of 90 minutes which i quote completely in the book. that year was 1937. which was in the middle of the hitler regime. as the muslims are telling the hitler regime you are either going to stop allowing jews into palestine, you are either going to give us our own state, the
way we want it, which is free. free of jews. or we are going to work with the germans. and that's exactly what they did. the reason that i read that is because i don't want you to think i've exaggerated some independent guy, some little guy, some marginallistic guy. but he was not who was the central figure. he was not the marginal guy. he was the leader of the arab a- the supreme muslim council. he was the grand of jerusalem, who made him? the british. he had an international islamic following for his work. from india to jerusalem to yugoslavia, london, to beirut,
everybody there was communication and support for the arab war against the jews. eventually after the arabs continually beckoned the nazis for some form of alliance, it all came to the head when the appeal commission in the late '30s recommended that their be two actual states. they said we've tried for many years to bring these two peoples together. now it's time to cut the country in half. and they say we will never coexist with the jews in palestine. they actually said better britain should run it as a colony for 100 years than we should live one days with jews as co-equals, allowing them to sit while they pray at the wall. i have to tell you that 99% of what you read in this book is
about quotation in context from the origin nailer risk, from the original german, from the original english, from the original british documentation, et cetera, et cetera as we try to document carefully the roots of the arab-nazi alliance. eventually, the british began to see that their efforts to push the jews out of germany, and out of europe into palestine was creating an actual jewish state. not just a settlement, not just a big prison cell with beaches, not just a reservation, but an actual state. and they thought that as is threat to the third rite, because they believed in henry ford's theory of an international jewish conspiracy. at that point, something else occurred. they realized as they were edging closer and closer to war in 1937, 1938, they were
beginning to understand that the british who they hoped would join them in a conquest of the lower forms of human life was not going to happen and war was coming and when war would come, they would need one thing. and that one thing did not grow in london, that one thing grew in the middle east. and that was oil. and the arabs went to the germans, and when i say they went to the germans, they went to adolf hitler personally. and they said we will give you oil if you will kill all of the jews. if you will recognize our state. they didn't miss words. i know and you all know that the nazis like to talk about extermination and code. zander, which meant gas chamber. you translate it and it means
special treatment. arabs made no such pretense. they said kill the jews whenever you find them. kill the jew before he kills you. this wasn't whispers. it was on the radio night after night. broadcast in internationally. how does this make its way up to the farhud? well, the farhud was in 1941. but this time, the world war ii was in in full swing. and at this point, the russian -- the nazis had decided to launch operation barbosa to invade russia. they couldn't get it -- they couldn't get there without oil. the oil in romania that they had used was insufficient. arabs said we will give you the oil, we will give you the oil of iraq, we will give you the oil of iran, we will give you all of the oil that we have if you will declare for an arab state.
and hitler said i will declare for an arab state and finish the jews when i cross the caucuses mountains. so it was everything the nazis -- the arabs would do to make that come to pass. and a point in time in the spring of 1941, the jews of baghdad were on edge. they had lived there for 2600 years. but they knew there were many arab nazis. now when i say an arab-nazi, i'm not talking about a guy running around with an arm band. i'm talking about hitler youth in arab lands. what do i mean by hitler youth? i mean actual hundreds and thousands of young iraqi jews who went to nuremberg, who went to germany to march in torchlight, who taught nazi --
iraqi-arabs, excuse me, who went to germany and brought the concept back and organized along the german bases and considered themselves actual nazis. in fact, i need to tell you that the second most popular name for a young child in the arab world was hitler. in fact, you could today see some people on the internet arabs who's name is hitler. i'll give you an example. you can look at -- google a man by the name of hitler tantawi. he's just an ordinary civil servant in egypt in charge of efficiency. his name is hitler. they had a theory that hitler was not born in australia, his name was muhammad hadar.
he was an egyptian boy. he had visited all of the mosques of egypt. he was the new savior of the arab people. the poster in the marketplace said in heaven your master is ali, on earth your master is adolf hitler. so in 1941, in june,, -- just before june 1, there was a decision to totally exterminate the jews. they were told to go into their homes, shut the homes, stay off of the phone, turn off the radio, and pack their bags for three days. you all know the scenario. due to a last minute -- i'll use the word rescue, by one the arab leaders who was in good relation with the jewish people there. he expelled the cheap arab nazi
who was doing this, and at that point, because the extermination affect had failed, there was a mass riot of iraqi military men, iraqi police, and arab nazis running all over the streets from june 1 to june 2 of 1941 killing hundreds of iraqi jews. what am i talk abouting? i'm talking about women being raped in front of their parents, i'm talking about parents being raped -- being murdered in front of their kids. i'm talking about babies being sliced in half and thrown into the river. i'm talking about homes being invaded and people running up to the rooftops and jumping from rooftop to rooftop to be escaped, for escape. and this was done with the full knowledge of the nazi government.
they had actually given money, they had sent aircrafts in to support an operation just a few days before. and the chief arab agitator from the berlin government, groba, had they office there. they were working with the muslims of jere reduce -- jerusalem in order to kill all of the jews of baghdad. it didn't work. because it didn't work, it's been labeled a pagram, farhud. was that farhud mean? violent disposition in air risk. -- arabic. that's a word we rarely have in english. there's not a farhud jew in the united states or the world who does not know what farhud is. there are many people in the room that have worked with me to
bring the information out. it's been suppressed because they wanted to pretend that the jar against the jews -- war against the jews had a bright line north of the middle east. that is not the case. the war against the jews was not just a war against my parents and your neighbors and you in poland, but all jews. the british did not intervene in this monstrous massacre. where were the british? they were just outside of town outside of baghdad. why were they there? they had one job, secure the oil. and they did secure the oil for british petroleum. and they said if we don't secure that oil, if the nazis get that oil, they will be unstoppable. well, the nazis did not get that oil. and eventually, the pagram was
stopped because someone had the courage in the iraqi government which was changing form from minute to minute to call out guards and suppress the agitation. thereafter, the arabs changed their tactics and said we will no longer work with just urban riots and mass mayhem in the cities. we'll help hitler do what he wanted to do. cross the mountains, come around and exterminate of jews of palestine. how? first of all, we'll make common cause with the iranian. what does the word "iran" mean? aryen. they are the true aryen. the name was changed in persia to invoke the well entrenched name of iran, aryen, as a
massive-nazi dominated infrastructure. so after the british took over the oil wells, secured them, that they had from decades in iraq, for years, not decades, they then moved into iran, expelled the shah, brought in the man that you know as the shah of iran, and kicked out 2,000 nazi agitators and military men. and advance units that were creating railroad systems, training, all sorts of infrastructure events to cut iran off from the west to cut the oil off from the west, and give it exclusively to nazi germany. after that, the arab said okay, we're going to switch to the
battlefield. they recruited not one muslim fighter, 100. not 1,000, but tens of thousands. three divisions. the first one hanshar, the second was sanderbag, and the third was comma. and the ones -- they worked mainly in yugoslavia. anyone here from yugoslavia? >> they were pheasants. >> okay. they were pheasants. i want you to again accept my apology in advance. what happened in yugoslavia was a manifold greater genocide than what happened in