What I keep thinking is, what would have we been hearing if Hitler had failed? What would we be hearing here if in 1938, for some reason, the jews of Germany rose up, and in an armed struggled killed or expelled the Nazis from Germany?
It's easy to guess. Kimiko would be claiming that, since Hitler was a nationalist first and only later an antisemite, he in some way wasn't "really" an antisemite, or at least his oft-repeated desire to kill all the jews is undestandable as a nationalist movement of liberation.
Others would point to the "situational factors" that caused the Nazis hatered of jews, by referring to Hitler's speeches about how they control all the banks, money, crime, etc. Clearly, we would be told, it is the jews' actions that brought such hatered on themselves.
"A Unique Person" would add, gravely, that Hitler, for all his faults, was a true prophet: had he not predicted accurately "the fate of the Nazis in Germany" at the hand of the jews? That this faith was only caused as a jewish reaction to the genocidal hate on the Nazis' part in the first place would be conveniently ignored as of no account. Surely, our imagined 1938 events were the cause and justification of Hitler's 1919 (I think) first public speeches against the jews, so the hate was justified.
(Of course, by the same logic, if somebody attacks me in the street for no reason today, and I call the cops and they put him in jail, I had caused him to be put in jail, so he had a good reason to attack me in the first place--so his attack was really preemptive (sp?) self-defense after all, and he should be freed! Strange how such junk logic only works when one needs to explain away why it is OK to attack jews in the street).
Anything else? Well, to judge by previous posts of people in this forum, "A Unique Person" would be explaining that Hitler's expressed goal to kill all the jews in Germany was not really antisemitism since it was limited "to a specific geographical area".
Naturally, for "peace", the jews in Germany would be pressured to let the exiled nazis back in; not that these Nazis had given up their dream of butchering all the jews--if anything, in the meantime their dream had become stronger and their deeds more violent--but they have the "right of return" to better jew-killing positions as a birthright.
The fate of the jews in that case is considered either of no account or deserved: had they not expelled the Nazis in the first place just because they threathened to kill them all, it would not be demanded today that they take them all back despite their continued, expressed desire to kill them all.
In other words, the jews would be expected to let the Nazis kill them all now, as a fair and obvious--not to say long overdue--compensation for not letting them kill them all in 1938.
Absurd? Morally despicable? Disgusting? A thinly-veiled desire to let the Nazis do now what they failed to do in 1938? Well, yes. But just replace "1938" with "1948" and "Nazis" with "Arabs" and you've got the "just and reasonable" position about the so-called "Arab-Israeli conflict".
The only difference between Al Husseni and Hitler is that one failed to kill off the jews and the other succeeded. This is not a moral, but merely a practical, difference. It does not make his views justified in any way, any more than Hitler's views would have gained credibility simply from failing to initiate the holocaust.
By the way, the "Arab-israeli conflict" in itself a misnomer equivalent to calling the holocaust the "Nazi-jewish conflict": we have here simply one side determined to annihilate the other to the last baby. It is a "conflict" because the Arabs, so far, had failed in launching Holocaust 2, nothing more.
