Q: "The PLO was not optimistic about Camp David and tried to postpone it, why?"
A: "First of all, the different Israeli governments refused to enter negotiations with us regarding issues of the permanent settlement. Netanyahu did not mention these issues even once during three years [of his administration]. However, when Barak became Prime Minister we were shocked from his five no's, which meant that they refuse to return to the 1967 borders, refuse to remove the settlements, refuse the right of return, and to return [East] Jerusalem. We are amazed at how the Israeli government wishes to negotiate the questions of permanent settlement, while at the same time sets limitations regarding these issues. We spoke with Barak more than once and told him that if this is Israel's position then what is the use in having the negotiation?"
"The American administration pressed us to enter negotiations. We traveled to Washington several times, and presented our positions to the American side; the essence of which was the implementation of [UN Security Council Resolutions] 242, 338, and 194..."
"From that moment on, both the Americans and the Israelis attempted to get concessions from us. We made clear to the American and Israeli sides several times that the Palestinian side is unable to make concessions on anything, since this is the minimum that it is willing to accept, and because the Palestinians had taken the difficult decision when they recognized Resolutions 242 and 338 in 1988…and will not agree to anything short of Resolution 242, and 338, together with Resolution 194."
"We never refused to go to Camp David, all we said is that if you want to enter negotiations you can't put time restrictions on them… There was no other way but to make preparations for this summit. The Americans refused [to accept this suggestion] right from the beginning. The Israelis thought that if we go directly to the summit, it would be possible [for them] to get Palestinian concessions. At this point, the Palestinian side absolutely insisted on the need to prepare for negotiations. In the meantime, we met with senior Israelis. I met with Barak one month prior to negotiations and told him that I'm hoping he understands that without preparations for negotiation, he will not succeed and the consequence will be a catastrophe. Additionally, [I told him that] if you have illusions that the Palestinian side can make concessions on land, borders, settlements, Jerusalem, or on refugees, you are daydreaming, since the official, real, and rational Palestinian position is what I tell you: 'We demand a return to the 1967 borders; in full.' If there is a need to make minor adjustments and [land] swaps that are equal in value and size then we will be ready to discuss it. We cannot agree to settlements on our land. We want Israel to recognize its responsibility for the refugee problem and for the right of return, and following that we will agree on ways to implement this right. Regarding Jerusalem, it is clear that East Jerusalem should return to us, and that West Jerusalem will be an open city. There is going to be cooperation between the [two] municipalities. This is our position, and you should absolutely ignore anything else…"
"Unfortunately, both the Americans and the Israelis insisted on going to Camp David… When we asked: 'What about the preparations?' The [Israelis] replied: 'The preparations can be done in two or three days.'"
"The Israelis can say whatever they want. We want a Palestinian state, and after it is established it will have a confederative relationship with Jordan. That is our preference; that is our goal; and we will achieve it in time."
Abu Mazen, P.L.O. official who signed the agreement in Washington with Shimon Peres (Al-Khiat, cited in the Jerusalem Post International Edition, 13 November 1993)
Following are excerpts from the most recent and comprehensive interview with Mahmoud Abbas, Abu Mazen, in the Palestinian daily Al-Ayyam:
Q: "What, in detail, has Israel proposed regarding Jerusalem?"
A: "They left the Jerusalem issue for the last moment. At the beginning they spoke of the Wall, which consists of the Wailing Wall and the Western Wall. Later, they spoke of the Armenian Quarter, and then they spoke of the Al-Magharba neighborhood, which they call the 'Jewish Quarter.' We told them: 'We would not agree that you would have any kind of presence in the Western Wall. However, you may conduct [religious] ceremonies at the Wailing Wall. Regarding the Al-Magharba neighborhood, it would be possible to find a solution; beyond that, East Jerusalem, in its entirety, must be ours.'"
"On the last day, they presented us with the most ridiculous proposal: that the supervision over the [Haram] will be Palestinian whereas the sovereignty over what's underneath will be Israeli. We, of course, viewed this as a joke and as an offensive proposal, which we are unable to accept, and thus we rejected it."
"Regarding the proposals which came up following Camp David, and specifically with regard to what was termed the Clinton Proposal, namely that the 'Arab homes will be for the Arabs and the Jewish homes for the Jews'. What is known as the Holy Basin, which includes what is inside and outside of the Wall, the Silwan Village, Mount of Olives, and more will be subject to international sovereignty of twenty supervising countries. In short, part of East Jerusalem and its surroundings will be handed over to international custody. With regards to the settlements that they established in Jerusalem - they absolutely refused to discuss this issue."
Q: "Many Israelis and Americans are trying to promote what was offered at Camp David, using attractive language such as: We offered you ninety-five percent along with almost full control over East Jerusalem. What is your reaction?
A: "When they say: 'We offered you ninety-five percent,' I'm asking: 'Why not one hundred percent?' When they are saying, almost full control over Jerusalem: [I'm asking] 'Why wouldn't the control be full?' While they are talking about Israeli positions - [I am asking]: 'Why shouldn't there be an international security force, similar to the ones in Sinai, South Lebanon, or on the Syrian border? If they wish to have security, we have no objection for the presence of an international force between them and us. However, we object to Israeli security on our land since this interferes with our sovereignty. They are sugar coating everything with nice words, but unfortunately many people think that these were tempting offers and they complain about us rejecting them. However, they absolutely misunderstand what was actually offered: the meaning of the offer was cantons and definitely not an independent state."
"They proposed ninety-one percent at Camp David, and ninety-four percent at Taba in return for land exchanges measuring between one and three percent. The meaning of this is that there is five percent left over. The five percent equals twice the size of the Gaza Strip. This means that they want to take [land] in the West Bank, with no compensation, double the size of the Gaza Strip."
Q: "It was said that one of the reasons for the failure of the Camp David summit was that the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, isolated himself and sat in his room all by himself [what is your comment?]"
A: "Due to personal reasons not known to me, Barak did not show up at all during some days. He would be hiding, and we would hear that he is not meeting with his colleagues or with the Americans. We would hear about this but we did not know the reasons for his self-isolation. But there is one very important thing and that is that there was never a trilateral meeting between him, President Arafat, and Clinton. Despite the fact that it was possible to assume that they would meet, talk, and exchange [views], this did not happen even once. Barak would send the teams and they would stall time."
Q: "Many Israelis and Americans, and even some Palestinians, claim that the Palestinians did not give Clinton's ideas a positive consideration."
A: "Unfortunately, these same Israelis, Americans, and few Palestinians are deluding themselves. You could say that they are rushing [to judge], or that they were blinded by a few Israeli proposals that were [actually] empty. Regarding the options for the refugees, when you read the options you discover they're really not options. When you discuss [the claim] that they offered us ninety-five percent of the territory, you realize that the remaining five percent controls the water resources and divides the West Bank into four cantons... five hundred fifty kilometers. Why should I donate that land? What makes the settlements legitimate? The Sinai settlements were uprooted, and Barak himself decided to uproot all the settlements in the Golan if there is going to be an agreement [with Syria]. Why won't they uproot all of the settlements [in our area]?"
"Unfortunately, few of our brothers - Palestinians and non-Palestinians - found these offers tempting. However, we believe that what was offered to us was actually humiliating and we must not accept it or even discuss it. When a Palestinian says that we have missed an opportunity, or a tempting or a beneficial offer, it weakens the Palestinian position, since, [consequently] the Americans and Israelis say: 'Here is a Palestinian who agrees with our position.' Such things, unfortunately, severely hurt the Palestinian position."
Q: "Is what Robert Malley said true, namely, that Clinton made a mistake trying to play with the contrast amongst the Palestinians?
A: "I have already said that they applied collective and individual pressures. Yes, they tried to grab on any word, from anyone, that remotely resembled a concession. Even during unofficial negotiations, which they conducted with non-governmental Palestinian organizations, when they would get any kind of word from a Palestinian, they would grab onto it and bring it to the formal negotiations and say: 'the Palestinians said this and that.' But who are the Palestinians? The Palestinians are President Arafat, and he is the one who makes the decisions. We would tell them: 'Have you heard anything from President Arafat? If you have not heard from him, anything else you've heard is a lie.' We repeatedly warned the Israelis and Americans regarding this issue. I told Barak, 'I hope that you will hear from us and not about us,' meaning, if he wishes to learn what is the Palestinian position he must hear it from President Arafat and not from anyone else. Only President Arafat represents the Palestinian position. Yes, sometimes they would play this card."
Q: "That said, was Camp David a trap which you managed to escape from?"
A: "Certainly. This was a trap. From beginning to end, and we survived it. No one was ever subject to pressures such as those applied on us. Imagine yourself not being able to speak with anyone or go outside of [Camp David]. Once I went out with brother Abu Alaa to speak with advisors. This caused a big fuss. We went out for only fifteen minutes. [When we returned, we were asked:] 'How did you get out? From where? Why?' There was barbed wire, police, and military. And you should know this: We went out in coordination with the American security, apparently, without them getting the authorization from the higher levels. Throughout the entire period [of the summit] we stayed at Camp David, isolated and under siege."
Q: "How was the relationship between you and the Israelis during the Camp David summit?"
A: "Normal relationship. We would sit to the dining table, eat, and talk. But the negotiations were very difficult. What I am trying to say is that the human relations and the formal relations were completely different. Meaning, our relationship with them was excellent, but this does not mean that if there is an excellent relationship with someone I will make concessions to him. He [Barak] thought that if my relationship with him is excellent he could influence me. No. These are two different things."
Q: "Now, a year following Camp David, do you feel a sense of regret for not accepting the proposal which was presented to you?"
A: "Not at all. I don't feel any sense of regret. What we did was the right thing to do. The Israelis and the Americans deluded themselves and others that in that way, and based that information which they gathered from here and there, they could coerce us [into doing] something and to come out of this summit victorious."
"We discussed the opportunity very seriously and responded to everything that was offered to us with both counter offers and with written proposals and we have records for all of that. We were not negative, despite the fact that they are trying to present us as the ones who rejected, as if they made offers and we [only] rejected them. These things are incorrect."
"Right from the beginning we said that the goal of the negotiations was to implement Resolutions 242 and 338, and that this slightly diverts from Madrid [the 1991 Conference]. So we agreed on that. We have the right to demand it. Can you call the demand for what was agreed upon - stubbornness?"
Q: "If this is the situation, what can you tell people who claim that you missed an opportunity?"
A: "I tell them that the opportunity never existed. The opportunity was never offered by anyone. There were a few ideas that were unacceptable, and the proof to that is that many Israelis and Americans say that they were unacceptable. Take Robert Malley for example, he says that the Israeli proposals never reached the Palestinians minimum aspirations. Now the Israeli and American press begin to uncover many documents and many of them are saying that there wasn't any opportunity and that it is a big lie."
"We are not inflexible and we are not radical, we do not support terror or violence, but only peace. We started Oslo and accepted the principle of peace, not peace at any price, but peace that is based on justice, and the meaning of justice is international legitimacy. I am not asking for absolute justice, I mean relative justice that was confirmed by the international legitimacy. We did not miss an opportunity at all, but rather survived a trap which was laid for us."
Al-Ayyam (PA) July 28, 2001 (Part A); July 29, 2001 (Part B).
Abu Mazen, The Holocaust Denier and Terrorist
Prof. Paul Eidelberg, Israel- Wednesday 18th Jun 2003
A little more than a decade ago, PLO chief Yasser Arafat, the godfather of international terrorism, was sanitized in Washington as a `moderate.` This benign assessment not only made Arafat eligible to walk with Israel along the road marked `territory for peace`; it also enabled Washington to guide the adversaries along that road with a good conscience.
The Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of 1993 is a consequence of that purblind assessment of Arafat. So is the murder of more than 1,000 Jews.
Now the erstwhile moderate Arafat has become `irrelevant` and must therefore be replaced by another Arab `moderate.` Enter the PLO's number two terrorist, General Secretary Mahmoud Abbas aka Abu Mazen.
Having been appointed `prime minister` of the Palestinian Authority — Arafat remains its `president` — Abu Mazen now has the diplomatic credentials to join Israel on the road to peace guided by Washington's `road map` (never mind the `Quartet`). That road leads to an Arab state and the return of countless Arab refugees, with the consequence that there would be more Arabs than Jews between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. With Abu Mazen—or virtually any Arab—as that state's prime minister, its goal will be nothing less than the `Final Solution` to the Jewish problem.
Invited to the White House, Abu Mazen will be lionized by policy-makers and opinion-makers as the one man that can salvage the Oslo `peace process.` What other attitude can one expect from the Americans, seeing that he has been made kosher by the Sharon Government simply by deleting from Abu Mazen`s dossier the fact that he is Holocaust Denier.
What needs to be added is that for Abu Mazen to be acceptable to the Arabs, he must indeed be a terrorist, and no minor one. Only a prominent and accomplished terrorist can put an end to terrorism and make peace with Israel—or so certain `pragmatists` thought of Yasser Arafat.
Needless to say, this is not how the public perceives, or is given to perceive, things. The pragmatists purvey the term Arab `moderate` for the consumption of the media and the masses. It should be understood, however, that these pragmatists deceive themselves in the process of deceiving others. Their expectation of Arab `moderates` is but a manifestation of arrogance steeped in ignorance. To paraphrase the Austrian statesman Metternich: `To expect the leaders of despotic regimes to be moderate is like expecting them to destroy the foundations of their existence.`
Abu Mazen, who was trained by the Soviet Union as a terrorist, knows that terrorism is not merely a tactic, but a great `equalizer` having moral significance. It was terrorism that induced Israeli politicians like Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, and Ariel Sharon to negotiate with and thereby dignify Yasser Arafat. By so doing they placed murderers on the same level as their victims. This is how `moral equivalence` entered the Middle East peace process. It was not the media so much as Israeli prime ministers that prepared the ground for `moral equivalence,` to which pundits have succumbed by denigrating Israel's retaliation against Arab terrorists.
This moral leveling or obscurantism underlies the Sharon Government's attempt to sanitize Abu Mazen. Sharon himself has admitted that his son Omri taught him `not to think in terms of black and white.` This makes it all the more easy for Mr. Sharon to walk hand-in-hand with Abu Mazen along the road to a Palestinian state. Of course, we are told that this will be a democratic state, one that shuns terrorism. We are thus given to believe by prime minister Sharon that prime minister Abu Mazen, an arch terrorist, is well qualified to usher in this democratic and peace-loving state. If Mr. Sharon believes this, then he has succumbed to a disease fatal to Israel, the same disease that afflicted Shimon Peres who became the partner and apologist of Yasser Arafat - a `moderate` who became `irrelevant` after soaking Israel in Jewish blood.
Trying To "Launder" Abu Mazen
19:35 Mar. 12, '03 / 8 Adar 5763
Senior government officials ordered the "filing away" of reports that Abu Mazen had denied the Holocaust and supported for terrorist attacks against Israelis Arutz-7's Haggai Huberman reports that senior government officials instructed the IDF Spokesman to remove from the IDF website the report of an interview with Abu Mazen in which he expressed support for terrorist attacks against Israelis. Abu Mazen is set to become the Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister. The item was on the site as late as this morning, but is no longer. As reported here on Sunday, the IDF Spokesman's position on the matter was, "Abu Mazen's comments clearly express the Palestinian Authority's position on the subject of a cease-fire with Israel. Abu Mazen, as well as the Palestinian Interior Minister, Hani Elhassan, justify the continuation of the armed struggle against Israeli civilians in [Yesha]. His comments also imply that Israeli residents of these regions are a 'legitimate target' for the 'resistance.'"
Abu Mazen told the London-based Arabic paper A-Sharq al-Aussat on March 3 that "all means" were legitimate against Jews living in Yesha. He said the "intifada must continue. The Palestinian people [sic] have a right to oppose, using all means at their disposal..." President Moshe Katzav today condemned Abu Mazen's statements.
This was not the first time information about Abu Mazen has been censored for political reasons. MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union) told Arutz-7 today that prior to the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, the Israeli Foreign Ministry and the U.S. State Department together asked the Simon Wiesenthal Center to conceal its information on Abu Mazen's Holocaust-denial writings. Eldad said that the Israeli and American diplomats were seeking to "launder" the man who was about to sign a historic agreement with Israel.
Abu Mazen - Arafat's choice for Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, and the man regarded by much of the world as its great hope for moderation and peace in the Middle East - is the author of a book in Arabic book entitled, "The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism." The author's thesis is that the murder of six million Jews by the Nazis is a "Zionist fantasy' and a "fantastic lie." According to Abu Mazen, only 890,000 Jews were killed by Hitler, and that they were victims of a joint Zionist-Nazi plot.
"According to information I have received," MK Eldad said, "Israel's Foreign Ministry approached the Wiesenthal Center with the request to file away the translation [of Abu Mazen's work denying the Holocaust] and not to publish it. It was also made known to me that the US State Department made a parallel request. And the fact is that the translation has still not been published."
MK Eldad said he has yet to receive a reply from the Wiesenthal Center regarding his inquiry on the issue - nor has he yet received one from the Foreign Ministry about his request for confirmation of the facts of the matter. Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen)
(Abu Mazen 1935 - )
Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, was born in Safad in 1935. He left as a refugee for Syria in 1948 and worked as an elementary teacher. He later gained a BA in law from Damascus University and a Ph.D. from the Oriental College in Moscow in History (on supposed contacts between the Zionist movement and the Nazis). He worked as director of personnel in Qatar's civil service and began to manage and organize Palestinian groups. He was a founding member of Fatah and a member of the Palestine National Council (since 1968) and the PLO Executive Committee. Abbas has headed the PLO Department for National and International Relations since 1980 and was elected by the PLO Executive Committee to replace Abu Jihad (assassinated in April 1988) as chairman of the portfolio on the Occupied Territories in May 1988. He was elected the Committee's secretary general in 1996, informally confirming his position as Yasser Arafat's deputy.
Abbas was the first PLO official to visit Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War in January 1993 and “apologized” to the Gulf countries for the PLO's stand during the crisis.
Abu Mazen is considered one of the leading Palestinian figures devoted to the search for a peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He advocated negotiations with Israelis and initiated a dialogue with Jewish and pacifist movements in the 1970s. He led negotiations with Matiyahu Peled that resulted in the announcement of "principles of peace" based on a two-state-solution in January 1977. He also coordinated the negotiation process during the Madrid conference. His long contacts with Israeli leftists won him a reputation as a PLO dove and he headed the Palestinian negotiating team to the secret Oslo talks. It was Abbas who signed the 1993 peace accord with Israel on September 13, 1993, on behalf of PLO. Abbas has been the head of the PLO Negotiating Affairs Department since 1994 and signed the Interim Agreement in September 1995 on behalf of PLO. He returned to the territories in September 1995 after 48 years in exile and took residences in Gaza and Ramallah. Abbas authored an account on the Oslo negotiations entitled Through Secret Channels: The Road to Oslo (1995). Together with his Israeli counterpart Yossi Beilin, Abbas drafted a controversial “Framework for the Conclusion of a Final Status Agreement Between Israel and the PLO” (better known as Abu-Mazen-Beilin Plan) in October 1995 (although its existence was denied for five years before being published in Sept 2000). He headed (with Uri Savir) the first session of the Israeli-PA final status talks in May 1996.
Though considered a moderate, Abbas also has made numerous radical statements, for example, claiming that the Nazis killed "only a few hundred thousand Jews," not six million. He has recanted on some of these in recent years.
Abbas served as head of the Central Election Commission for the Palestine Legislative Council elections in Jan.1996. He was elected as a representative for Qalqilya. In March 2003, he was named the first Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority. It is not yet clear what authority he has as Yasser Arafat continues to insist that he alone will be responsible for foreign affairs (including negotiations with Israel) and security. The Palestinian Legislative Council did, however, reject Arafat’s attempt to retain the authority to approve the Prime Minister's cabinet, fire ministers not to his liking, and appoint two deputy premiers of his preference.
Abbas commands respect among Palestinian officials, in United States, Israel and the Arab world as the brains behind the PLO. But he lacks Arafat's charisma and has little credibility among ordinary Palestinians. Some consider him too conciliatory toward Israel.
Source: MSNBC, (December 6, 2001); JTA (March 12, 2003); PASSIA. Photo courtesy of PASSIA
Less than 1 million Jews died in Holocaust?
Palestinian leader questions number, says 'Zionists' tied to Nazis
Posted: May 31, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jon Dougherty
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
A Palestinian leader considered to be second-in-command after Chairman Yasser Arafat claimed in a pair of doctoral theses that the number of Jewish men, women and children killed by the Nazis during World War II is a fiction perpetuated by Jewish leaders and the West.
The secretary-general of the Palestine Liberation Organization's Executive Committee, Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, discussed in a 1982 paper "the secret ties between the Nazis and the Zionist movement leadership." In a separate paper written two years later, Mazen "raised doubts that gas chambers were used for extermination of Jews and claimed that the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust might be 'even less than a million,'" according to an interpretation published by the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI. Insinuating that the "Zionist movement" would benefit from exaggerating the number killed in Nazi death and concentration camps, Mazen accused Jewish leaders and the West of lying so "Zionists" would achieve "greater gains" after the war when the time came to "distribute the spoils."
"Mazen's intention was to undermine the legitimacy of the Zionist movement by proving that during a critical stage in the history of the Jewish people – the rise of Nazism and World War II – the Zionist leadership stopped at nothing to achieve its aim of establishing a Jewish state," MEMRI analysts wrote.
Mazen said "the truth [about the Nazi crimes] has another aspect" that the West preferred to disregard. Rather, the West was working to hide "a basic partner in crime" – in this case, the Zionist movement.
Pointing to an alleged convergence of interests between Nazis and Jews, Mazen, in his 1984 paper – a dissertation for Moscow's Oriental College that was published in Arabic by Dar Ibn Rushd publishers in Amman, Jordan – said the Zionist movement sought to conspire "against the Jewish people" and collaborate "with the Nazis to annihilate it," because the movement considered "Palestine" the only appropriate destination for Jewish emigration.
"It might be imagined that Zionism would do all it could, materially and otherwise, to save the Jews, or at least to keep them [alive] until the end of the war," Mazen wrote. "It might have been expected that it would arouse world public opinion and direct its attention to the massacres carried out against the Jews so that the governments would act to rescue them from their bitter fate."
However, the Zionist movement "did the exact opposite of what could have been expected," he claimed. Instead, it "sabotaged various aid plans and withheld information regarding the bitter fate of Europe's Jews 'in order to free itself from the need to take necessary action,'" the MEMRI analysis said.
The PLO official himself added, "the Zionist movement led a broad campaign of incitement against the Jews living under Nazi rule in order to arouse the government's hatred of them, to fuel vengeance against them and to expand the mass extermination."
He also accused the Western nations of skewering the truth about the Holocaust because they won the war and were able to "sketch the final picture" of the war's outcome and define "the crimes committed."
"They locked up details, facts and crimes that they didn't want to exist; they ignored names, important people, institutions, organizations and countries that they chose to ignore. In the end, they charged the Nazi leaders with all the crimes that were committed during the war. …" wrote Mazen, according to MEMRI's translation.
How many killed?
The PLO official questioned the number of Jews that were killed in comparison to all the casualties reportedly produced during the war.
Throughout the war, "40 million people of different nations of the world were killed," he wrote. "The German people sacrificed 10 million; the Soviet people 20 million; and the rest [of those killed] were from Yugoslavia, Poland and the other peoples. But after the war, it was announced that 6 million Jews were among the victims and that the war of annihilation had been aimed first of all against the Jews, and only then against the rest of the peoples of Europe."
Mazen continued: "The truth of the matter is that no one can verify this number, or completely deny it. In other words, the number of Jewish victims might be 6 million and might be much smaller – even less than 1 million."
He went on to accuse Jewish leaders of "inflating" the number of Jews killed to "ensure" great post-war gains.
"This led [the Zionist movement] to confirm the number [6 million], to establish it in world opinion, and by doing so to arouse more pangs of conscience and sympathy for Zionism in general," he said, adding that "many scholars have debated the question of the 6 million figure and reached perplexing conclusions, according to which the Jewish victims total hundreds of thousands."
To underscore his point, Mazen quoted Canadian author Roger Delarom, who once wrote, "To date, no proof whatsoever exists that the number of Jewish victims in the Nazi concentration camps reached 4 million or 6 million. Zionism first spoke of 12 million exterminated in these camps, but then the number decreased greatly, to half, that is, only 6 million.
"Then the number decreased further, and became 4 million, as the Germans could not have killed or exterminated more Jews than there were in the world at that time. In effect, the true number is much smaller than these fictitious millions,"
Delarom wrote, as quoted by Mazen. According to the MEMRI translation, Mazen also compared Zionism to Nazism, claiming both zealously believed in the "purity" of their own race and that Jewish leaders betrayed "the Jewish people" as other "leaders have betrayed their people and their country and sold them to their enemies" throughout history.
THE HAMAS CHARTER
Interviews with Hamas women
Hamas in its own words
A CRY FROM THE HEART
Has there ever been a peace process?
CAN ISLAM MAKE PEACE WITH ISRAEL?
WHY DID YASSER ARAFAT SIGN THE OSLO ACCORD?
The treaty of Hudabiyyah
The treaty between Saladin and Richard I
Peace? What peace?
Sermons in Palestinian mosques
The truth about Arafat and the Palestinians
Yasser Arafat over the years
Aid money used for weapons
Obituary of Yasser Arafat
Egyptian tributes to Arafat
Marwan Barghouti could succeed Arafat
Palestinian leadership should get real
Hamas on the 1967 borders
Arafat and the Viet Cong
The Hizbullah programme
The Gaza disengagement