.. >> you know, for all the stories about biden being a daily traveler on amtrak, as a senator he was extremely widely traveled around the world. he knew, got to know many of the

world's leading figures and built up quite a reputation for himself as a foreign policy expert. one of the highlights was a visit to, to then yugoslavia when he confronted the bosnian strongman, slobodan milosevic, and called him a war criminal to his face. controversy came up over that as well as some people said, well, it really didn't happen. but i have in the book here a picture of biden shaking his fist over the table at milosevic. [laughter] later chapters in this book talk about biden's position concerning the wars in iraq and afghanistan. and the previous wars. he supported -- he was against the persian gulf war, then

supported bush's invasion of iraq but criticized the aftermath. he proposed the federalization of iraq by provinces that got nowhere, and it was kind of regarded as all the lot in terms of his position on iraq. but obama showed great confidence in biden by giving him the assignment of monitoring the american involvement in iraq and, ultimately, the withdrawal of american forces. and hen as we saw last year -- then as we saw last year in the long and torturous debate within the administration about what to do in afghanistan, biden was a, was an influential force with obama be -- pushing back against

the generals. eventually, when obama agreed to put 30,000 more troops into afghanistan, biden was widely cast as a loser in that argument. although he did, he did persuade obama to focus more in afghanistan on the old pursuit, the original pursuit of getting osama bin laden and al-qaeda. because of the criticism of biden, i took the occasion this submitting -- in submitting written questions to obama how he felt about the allegation that biden had been the loser. and i'd just like to read to you what obama's response was.

here's what he said. i don't think anyone who was party to that, to the very, very exhaustive discussions we had would say that, that biden was the loser. joe was enormously helpful in guiding those discussions. the decision that ultimately emerged was a synthesis of of some of the advice that he gave along with the advice of secretary gates and generals petraeus and mcchris call offered. i think we arrived at exactly the right answer and would not have gotten there as quickly or at all without each of their contributions. the vice president played a vital role in that process. more recently, biden has been in the middle of the argument about whether troops should start coming out of afghanistan next july.

he was, he was an important voice in those deliberations to urge obama to set that timetable. not a deadline. and can -- he still, from what i can tell, still fighting that battle today. biden had some other important contributions in the senate that i go over in this book, one of which he was a champion for the violence against women act, and he was instrumental in the legislation to put more cops on street. he's always been interested in fighting crime. although he's regarded generally as a liberal, he's not a knee-jerk liberal in any sense. for instance, in delaware he was strongly against school busing because it affected the schools the wilmington school district. and so he's antagonized some

liberal democrats for having that position, and he's not, as i say, he's not dependable liberal although he takes liberal positions pretty much, pretty much across the board. i tried to make this biography a definitive one, going beyond an excellent memoir that bide been himself wrote about -- biden himself wrote about four years ago. it's not an authorized biography, but i had interviews three and a half hours with biden and many interviews with other members of the family, particularly his sister, valerie, his brother, jimmy, jill biden and all three children. and all the gaffes and allegations and setbacks are fully reported in this book. but i come down, really,.

[inaudible] a biden presidency which nobody wants at this point the way it would happen. i believe he could assume the presidency with confidence and comfort, though always with kind of an edge of unpredictability as a messenger giving his open nature. and i find that, i find that very reassuring as the country continue to struggle -- continues to struggle with the economic problems at home and abroad. so i want to thank you very much for listening to me, i'd be happy to take a few questions. [applause] >> [inaudible]

>> thank you very much, mr. witcover, for this wonderful exposition. we do have some questions. anybody who has questions, please, write them on cards provided on your table, and the cards will be brought up to us at the head table. the first question is, given the tragic deaths -- >> [inaudible] >> given the tragic death of richard holbrooke yesterday, do you think that joe biden will have to step in at least -- [inaudible] to undertake some of those duties in the -- >> louder! >> in afghanistan, pakistan, etc. >> the question was whether biden would have to step in to fill some of the duties that richard holbrooke performed until his death. i don't see him as taking that

role exactly because he, biden has already been very much involved in monitoring the war in afghanistan and in persuading the pakistani government to be more, more forthcoming in dealing with the troubles of al-qaeda in pakistan. i think biden will continue to same role, i think it's essential already obama to find somebody else to fill holbrook holbrooke's role which will not be easy was he was a superior negotiator and diplomat and, in my view, a very serious loss for the administration. >> can i share the mic with you? people can't hear me, i'm so

sorry. any reason to give credence to the reason that biden and clinton change jobs in 2012? >> i don't think so at all. and i'll tell you why. i think, pall, biden -- first of all, biden loves the job he's got. hillary clinton seems to love the job she's got, and she doesn't want to be vice president, she wants to be president. [laughter] beyond that, i think the relationship between biden and obama has become very strong to the point that obama said -- biden said recently that obama asked him to stay on the ticket with him, and he said he would. >> with rahm emanuel's departure from the white house, will the vice president's advice on matters with congress become more important to the president and his inner circle? >> yes, definitely. i think we're seeing that already in dealing with getting

the tax deal through. obama is not known on the hill even e though he was in the senate for a short time. he, biden has probably better contacts in the senate particularly than rahm emanuel ever had, and he's very well liked, probably a lot more than rahm emanuel was. [laughter] so i think he'll continue and maybe more so be a player for the administration with congress. >> this is a small question, how well did you know biden before you began the research for this book? had you followed his career from the beginning? >> yes, pretty much from the beginning. i was kind of an old-timer when biden came to the senate. in 1972 i'd already billion here about 20 years -- already been here about 20 years, almost 20

years, and i had followed his, occasionally followed his hearings in the judiciary and later the foreign relations committee. as i said, i covered his presidential campaign in 1987, traveled with him a bit, got to know him a little bit. i wouldn't say that i was -- i certainly was not an insider, but i knew him, and we had a good relationship as biden seems to have with the press which is itself unusual. and then i started this book, i really started this book two weeks before the election of 2008, getting myself a tentative contract assuming they would win which i felt fairly sure that he would. and then followed him very closely, and can as i say, it was all over delaware, syracuse,

scranton and talking to many members of the senate in the past year. >> thank you. why didn't biden allow the two women to testify and substantiate anita hill's charges? that's a story that's never going to die. >> that's right. [laughter] well, it's somewhat of a mystery, and i asked biden about it, and he kind of punted on the question. he insisted that the members of the committee didn't want to have these women testify. i gleaned from conversations with some of the democrats that they did want them to testify. and it is, it's a big question mark with people who are still remember that whole episode and don't think very kindly toward biden because these women have not testified.

as you recall, the matter came ahead recently when thomas' wife for reason that escapes me and probably the whole western world -- [laughter] demanded an apology from anita hill and got, basically, what she should have expected. [laughter] >> what role does jill biden play in the public life of joe biden? >> well, she follows her own career. she's now, she's now i teaching at northern virginia community college after a long career in the community college field in delaware. and she, she's accompanied to school every day by the secret

service agents, but she's managed to get them to take a discreet position, and when she's asked by her students is she, what her relationship is with the vice president of the united states, she says he's a relative of mine. [laughter] but she's not a gung ho democratic activist, but she's very aggressively supportive of the whole concept of community colleges, and she's often spoken on that subject. >> we're digressing altogether now, what do you think of the future of journalism with the current state of newspapers in this country? >> well, as someone who five years ago had to take an offer i

couldn't refuse at the baltimore sun, i'm very distressed not only personally, but professionally about the state of newspapers. it seems to be a dying undertaking, and i'm not at all comforted that, that 20 years from now we'll have more than just a couple newspapers. but i'm more concerned than about the existence of print journalism than i am concerned about the quality of journalism in all its ramifications. i deplore the newspapers cutting back on their or copy editing. you pick up a newspaper today, and your guaranteed -- you're guaranteed you're going to find some grammatical or factual

error. and television and particularly cable news they don't seem to bother much about accuracy or about the truthfulness of what they report. and so i think it's a, the t a battle -- it's a battle that journalism has to fight to maintain it own, its own integrity and its own reputation. in this age of anything goes in television and cable. [applause] >> thank you so much for this wonderful chance. we have a very small token of appreciation here for you. the women's national democratic love pen with which he will sign his books up front. >> thank you. [laughter] >> so, please, go and buy his book. i'm sure it's fascinating. thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> this event was hosted by the women's national democratic club

here in washington. for more information visit democratic woman.org. >> host: author and former cia analyst and head of the cia's bin laden unit michael scheuer has a few in book coming out in february 2011, it's a biography on osama bin laden, and he joins us to preview his book. mr. scheuer, one of the things you write in your book is something i'd like you to expand on. bin laden is not the caricature that we made of him. indeed, if i only had ten qualities to enumerate in drafting a thumbnail biographical sketch of him, they would be pious, brave, generous, intelligent, charismatic, patient, visionary, stubborn, egalitarian and, most of all, realistic. >> guest: yes, sir. i think he's very much an enemy who we need to respect because of his capabilities.

much like the allies felt about rommel during world war ii. they know they needed to kill him, but they had to be respectful of his ability to fight them. and i'm afraid what we have gotten from some authors and most politicians is a caricature of bin laden as either a criminal or a thug or somehow a three yo list -- neolist or a madman. and i don't think it's true, and i think it retards our ability to understand the enemy we face. >> host: what's the danger of that caricature, in your view? is. >> guest: well, the danger is we underestimate capabilities of the man. bin laden runs an organization that is shul unique -- absolutely unique in the muslim world, for example, because it's multiethnic, multilinguistic, and there is no other organization like it. it's more like a multi-national organization than it is a,

certainly a terrorist group. we also, the danger -- another danger we face is simply that we underestimate the patience, the piety and most especially the motivation of bin laden. he is truly within the parameters of islam. he is not somehow a renegade or someone who is outside of islam or making, or hijacking the religion. he is a pious what is called a sol fist sunni muslim, and his appeal comes from the fact that he is, believably, defending the faith against what is deemed by many muslims as an attack from the west. >> well, knowing that or presuming that he is within the muslim faith and tradition, what should the u.s. strategy be? >> guest: well, i don't know exactly what our strategy should

be, but i think before you can have a strategy you need to have the american people onboard in terms of understanding what the enemy is about. we have spent, now, 15 years as of this coming august when bin laden declared war on us 15 years ago in august, twb. 2011. and we have spent all of those years telling the american people that we're being attacked because we have liberty and freedom and women in the work place and because we have elections and one or more of us may have beer after work. and that really has nothing to do with the enemy's motivation. if we were fighting an enemy who simply hated us for what we, how we lived our lifestyle and how we thought, the threat would not even rise to a lethal nuisance. because there wouldn't be enough manpower to make it more than that. we're really fighting an enemy

who is opposed to what we do, what the u.s. government does. and until we really understand that, i don't think it's possible to form a strategy. >> host: you have a subchapter in your book called, "luring america, "and you talk about how osama bin laden wanted to lure the u.s. to fighting in afghanistan. >> guest: yes, sir. he worked very hard from 1996 when he declared war on us until 2001. and i think we frustrated him on several occasions. he wanted us on the ground in afghanistan so they could apply -- they, the mujahideen, the al-qaeda people, the taliban people -- they could apply the same military force against us that they applied against the red army in the 1980s. believing that we were a much weaker opponent than the soviets and that a fairly limited number of deaths would persuade us to

leave eventually. and so the attacks on us in saudi arabia in 1996 and 1995, in east africa in 1998, on the uss cole in 1999 were all designed, but failed, to get us into afghanistan. but 9/11 did the trick for them. >> host: in your upcoming book, "osama bin laden," mr. scheuer, you also talk about some of the other books that have come out on bin laden and his family. what do you think of those, lawrence wright, itself? >> guest: i think many of those books are very worthwhile, and what i tried to do is to take a different tack than those books so i wouldn't be repeating what had been written already. steve cole's book is an excellent book, i think. there are a number of very good books on bin laden, jason burke wrote one, a british journalist. and the problem i had with those

books were they were primarily books that were based on what other people had said about osama bin laden. not what he had said or done himself. and i have found over the past decade that whenever bin laden speaks, he is very often described as ranting or raving or issuing yet another diatribe. and so i thought that i would take the primary sources based on interviews, statements and speeches he made and write a book based on what he said and see how it turned out. and i think, very frank hi, that -- frankly, that when you take the primary sources which number in my archive and can i certainly don't have every one that's available, but i have over 800 pages. when you take that information, the man that emerges is not like the bin laden that emerges in lawrence wright's book or steve

cole's book as sort of someone who is mentally disturbed or, or hateful of our lifestyle. but, rather, a man who is very clear about what he believes, what he intends to do and most especially matches words with deeds which is very unusual for any politician in this day and age. >> host: because of your background with the cia, did this need to be cleared through the cia? >> guest: yes, sir. everything that i write whether it's a book or an article, even if i was a poetry writer which i am not, for the rest of my life it has to be cleared by the cia and this book was, in fact, reviewed twice, once before i sent it to the publisher, and then once after it was reviewed and we had made changes that the publisher wanted or the editor wanted. so the agency -- i'm very careful to try to respect my obligation to have that reviewed

before it's published. >> host: was anything taken out? >> guest: no, nothing was taken out, sir. in fact, i've worked with the agency now for six years since i retired, probably have published, well, two books and probably 200 articles, and i've really only had four or five things taken out by the agency over that amount of time. and i have to say that at least on four of the five occasions they were correct and i was wrong. they're simply looking to protect classified information and sources and methods, and they've been very good to work with. i've found them very, very accommodating and very helpful. >> host: three different presidents have chased osama bin laden. are you surprised we haven't found him? >> guest: well, i'm -- i think we have found him, certainly, between 1998 and 2001

mr. clinton had 13 opportunities to either capture him or kill him. and certainly mr. bush's general had the chance to capture or kill him at tora bora in december of 2001. i think now especially in the last five years, sir, it's not surprising that we haven't gotten him. first, like any other thing in life if you have an opportunity to do something and you don't do it, sometimes the opportunity doesn't come around again. but second, we have so massively undermanned our operations in afghanistan that there's simply not enough of american soldiers and intelligence officers to go around. they have so many tasks and so few people to do them that i don't think it's a surprise that we haven't got him at this point. >> host: well, that said, what would you like to see the u.s. do in afghanistan, beef up or

pull out or what? >> guest: i think, sir, that we've been there too long. i don't think we have enough soldiers in the u.s. military if we committed every ground troop that was available to really rectify the situation. and america as a society no longer knows how to fight a war, no longer has the stomach for it. we have lost, you know, less than 2,000 people in afghanistan from be a population of 310 million, and we are, we are rapidly, rabidly wanting to leave. my own view is we should have fought and won there, but i am a hawk only if we intend to win, and i'm afraid mr. bush and mr. obama have never been able to define a winning strategy. and so my own view is that it's not worth another, another american marine or another american soldier's life to stay there. the one thing i would add,

though, is when we leave, it will be a tremendous defeat for the united states. however we dress it up, if we say the afghans had their chance and they couldn't do it, if we say that we have somehow satisfied what we went there to do, we may fool the american people, but we will not fool the muslim world. when we leave afghanistan without accomplishing what we said we were going to, it will be viewed as the mujahideen defeating the second superpower, and all that -- that can only mean, rather, that the muslim world will be more galvanized against us and more young men will flow to the battlefields wherever they are and, certainly, more will take up arms inside the united states. >> host: michael scheuer's books, osama bin laden, will be in bookstores in february

2011. >> up next, edwin black looks at the dispossession of the jews of baghdad of 1941 and the alliance between the mufti of jerusalem and adolf hiterer. the author speaks in new york city for about an hour and a half. >> i'm going to make my presentation, then i'm going to take questions and answers. the first questions and answers i take will, have been submitted in advance p by people around the world who were aware of this event but were unable to attend whether they are here in new york or in miami or in london or anywhere else. in addition to that, after we're done with that i will take questions from the audience on any topic. i would ask you for no

statements, no speeches, just questions so we can get as many questions answered that are pressing and important to you on any topic that we can. then after the event i'll be in the back if anyone needs a book. so the topic we're discussing today is the farhud, the roots of the arab-nazi alliance in the holocaust. what is the farhud? the farhud is a nazi bag ram against the jews of baghdad on june 1st and june 2nd, 1941. this was an attempt to exterminate completely the jews of baghdad and of iraq. it didn't quite go off the way they had planned it, and can it was just -- and it was just terrible. i will explain exactly what happened. but the farhud, the word the farhud is actually 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, a thousand i years before mohamed came to be considered vermin, subhuman and were expelled from their own homes and subject to efforts to perpetrate a genocide? how did this occur? how is it that the nazis who were antisemitick -- anti-semitic made an alliance with the arabs who were semimites? what's a semite? a semite is the children of the descendants of noah. noah had three sons. those descendants, including abraham, were semites.

so the arabs and the jews are of different stems of the abraham tree. how is it that the nazis who hated arabs, who hated semites were able to make an alliance against the british and can the jews? what was the purpose? well, the purpose was oil. what was the reason? the reason was oil. now, we'll get into all of that. i'd also like to say that the farhud, this one pagram was just one pagram in one city. and after it, well, the alliance went into the battlefields from be paris to palestine, from intelligence operations to parachute platoons to artillery brigades. this was not one mufti of jerusalem, but a mass movement of tens of thousands of muslims.

and these tens of thousands of muslims were in a direct alliance of open genocide against the jews. now, i have to explain something. we're going to be talking about very sensitive stuff. my information is completely historical. it's the 20th century, not the 21st century. so nothing this what i say finish in what i say, as unhappy as it is to hear, should be used as a pretext to move against or have a negative reaction against any of our neighbors. but i do feel that our legacy of hate can be confronted. we will never be have a future of peace. and we have to understand that the legacy of hate that created the farhud, created the holocaust, 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 tries to draw me into a contemporary discussion, i'm not going to be drawn into it because i'm here only o talking about the academic history. i should say that there were more than a dozen volunteers in five countries who helped o research this book. there's a web site for the book called farhudbook.com, farhud is f-a-r-h-u-d, and we reviewed thousands of archives. we reviewed the yiddish press, the german press, the american press, the arabic press, the nazi press, the nazi diplomatic papers, and we tried to do as thorough a job to vet the process. 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, just a moment. 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 mohamed. medina, you've heard of mecca and medina, medina was largely a jewish city. in fact, the word medinat comes from hebrew. there was, in fact, no arabic at the time of the koran. it was written in a come combinn of hebrew and syriac. the original prayers, bowing 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 mohamed and his colleagues. then came the islamic conquest of all the arabian peninsula into the middle east, into 2340r9 africa. this was the well documented

muslim conquest. and that is how the muslim world became established. now, i'm going to remind, i'm going to remind people that this is a sensitive topic, and i want to talk history only. not, not contemporary affairs. >> [inaudible] >> my job is history. you will determine the present tense, not the -- 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 dimmies. not just the jews, also the christians. and this meant they were a protected group within the islamic world, but they had 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 the 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 dimmies 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 sultan who took them in and who allowed them to thrive. and he took them in not to carry stones up to build a pyramid, he brought them in to thrive and to make the empire stronger. so there were many times when jews were either horribly persecuted or greatly emancipated within the context of the dimmy world. but whenever they excelled, they excelled as dimmies. when they were put down, they were put down as dimmies. there is no way to generalize. if you have a specific question, i will specifically answer you. now, the jews of mesopotamia

were there for 2600 years. that's a thousand years before islam came to the middle east. how is it that they were turned into a vile member of the citizenry? well, the answer is this dimmyhood, this dimmytude. 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 anglo persian and by other oil imperialistic states in the west for the sole purpose of getting the oil. prior to this there were just

tribes. as a result of this, this bringing in this of the west with the mess so poe tame yangs, as a result of this it made the people of mess sew poe tame ya feel that they were being invaded. and guess what? they were being invaded. they were invaded by british petroleum, they were invaded by anglo-persian oil company. i've written a 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? this 1933 -- in 1933, excuse me, let me go back. in 1919 the jews were given a homeland under the ball fort declaration through the league of nations. i don't want you to think this was strictly a british enterprise. the same type was repeated by

the germans in the war, the same type of declaration was repeated by the ottomans who owned palestine. the same type of declarat was given by the united states. this was a worldwide phenomenon. in fact, no one knew where palestine was in 1919 when the balfort declaration was made. where was palestine? palestine was actually renamed israel by the romans in 70 a.d. when the jews were expelled. it was attached to syria. this was to wipe away the identity of 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 no boundaries -- 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. we see that there are disputes up in lebanon. so in 1919 when the jews were -- when the area was put into two states, a jewish state and arabic state, the arabs failed to develop their own state. why? because they would not coexist with jews in palestine as equals. now, when i say jews, i don't mean european jews. i don't mean polish jews and russian jews although many were behind the settlements. even yes, ma'am night jews. any jews could not come up and settle in palestine there there about 1898. those who say that arabs and jews have always lived in peace in palestine are, unfortunately,

mistaken. in the 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, there were laws against the jews coming into palestine, into palestine, there were laws against jews owning property in palestine, and these were all under the control of the sultan. well, when the jews got a homeland in 1919 and 1920 as a result of the balfort declaration and jewish national home in the league of nations, the arabs rebelled, and there were terrible riots against the jews. now, when i say a riot against the jews in 1920 and 1931, what am i talking about? i am not talking about people running up and down the street with large plaque cards saying

palestine for the palestinians. i'm talking about people running into synagogues, burning torahs, heads being cracked open, babies being killed, people being beheaded. and these are the facts. in 1920, 1921, the british more chew wail reports say they've never seen so many postmore chew wail head injuries as people were or constantly 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 yom kippur. everybody here knows what the wailing wall is. this is a remnant of solomon's

temple. this is the holiest site within the jewish people. and because they tried to sit down, it violated sharia. now, you remember i told you that jews were considered second and third-class citizens within the muslim mindset. you will recall that i said that they had second and third-class religious rights or those rights given. the feeling was that if jews sat down at the wailing wall, they were demonstrating the right to sit down and sit down without permission. the british were obligated to enforce the pre-exist being status quo -- pre-existing status quo, and when little old ladies tried to sit down in 1928, the british policemen pulled the chairs out from under them to make them stand. now, why would the arabs -- why were the arabs so posed to the jews sitting when they prayed at

the wailing wall? because according to arab tradition, the wailing wall is a park, and that is the place -- a bark, and that is the place where mohamed hitched his horse, his wigged horse on -- winged horse on the way to heaven. you've heard of thal axa mosque means the furthest mosque. and when mohamed 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 seventh 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 a half a millennium, for about 500 years. there were many decrees that had stated jews will not be allowed to sit, but the jews sat. 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 by pulling out the papers from the wall that jews put in to make a supplication 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 for, since the days of abraham. they went up to hebron and undertook a horrible masker of

the jews. now, what do i say by a massacre? well, i mean -- and i'm going to have to talk about some very bad things here. so 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 e head, his brain extricated and played with a football. the baker was baked in an oven. i'm not talking about our wit here, i'm talking hebron.

a visitor was crucified against a door. babies were cut in half. people were stabbed. the police in many instances joined the miss i limbs -- muslims. now, i want to make it clear there were many muslims who saved their neighbors and hid them from further murder and mass destruction. but it did occur. a state of siege was declared, the british brought in airplanes with machine guns that actually shot into the streets to 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

mass kerr 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 30, 1933. hitler comes to power. and the arabs say, we want hitler. they're not just fascist leaning, they're 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, in jerusalem. this occurred in this baghdad, cairo, this occurred in beirut, this occurred in syria. they ran, they translated "mein

kampf". they redacted and changed the translation to take away the word "semite "and turn it into just anti-jew hatred instead of anti-semitic hatred so it would not have an impact on the arabs. they wore armbands. there's a place in the book where the arabs are with a huge nazi flag. the syrian national socialist party, national socialists just like german national socialists with the nazi party with a swastika. you can still see this right now on the internet. their flag has not changed, it still has a swastika. pardon me? >> [inaudible] >> syrian. syrian national -- syrian national socialist party. and the nazis said, we don't want you.

you're semites. on top of that -- we're talking the myanmar republic here, excuse me, we're talking about the post-myanmar republic, we're talking about the post-nazi era -- we will never let you into the nazi party because you must be a pure aryan to be in the nazi party. so they said, okay, if you won't adopt us, we'll make our own nazi parties. and that's exactly what they made. they made many nazi parties. and they made them all over the middle east. they ran nazi publications, and they theorized in arabic henry ford's -- [inaudible] which was a fundamental turning point for adolf hitler in his war against the jews. and this treatise today, this fake protocol, this forgery is still the best-selling book in the arab world.

in addition, the nazis didn' t want to up set the apple cart with the british. the british had palestine, the british had 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 zionists and the nazis that brought some 60,000jews 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 with the pharoah to let my 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 that this is about history, nor do i wish to say ha every arab -- 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. one of the strongest families in jerusalem, but those who try

today coexist with the jews just like today are marginalized, they're intimidated, they're murdered, they're ostracized. and eventually, the forces of hate, the no, sir forces of hate -- the forces of hate take over. now, i talked to you in the beginning about the beginning of this being the extermination off the jews in the 627. why did i do that? just to find some historic problem? the no. that is what the arabs themselves constantly spoke about in their newspapers, in their rallies, on the radio. they constantly referred to the extermination of the jews as setting the path for their future course. for them this was an iconic moment. for the christians, it would be the sermon on the mount. for the jews it might be the parting of the red sea. for the muslim world it is, this

their own words -- not for me or you to decide -- it was the extermination of the jews in medina. and when they spoke, when they recalled this information, when they recalled it, they recalled it not only within their own private little circles, they said it to adolf hitler personally face to face, eyeball to eyeball. they say it 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 for the jews dates from god's condemnation of them and their subsequent rejection later

of his chosen prophets. the word of god teaches us, and we implicitly believe this, for a muslim to kill a jew insures him an immediate entry into heaven and into the august presence of god almighty. what more can a muslim want in this hard world? now, who said this? this was not an arab agitator in the old city. this was the king of saudi arabia. and who is he saying it to? >> [inaudible] >> 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. >> [inaudible] >> that year was 1937.