Last Wednesday, in the Herald Tribune, James Carroll was at it again with a third piece on Israel in recent weeks, which exposed once again his own miserable ignorance of the history here, even as he tries to anchor his antiJew views in history. Listen to this: In referring to Haj Amin, he wrote: “Caught between British colonial pressures and the surge in European Jewish arrivals [in the inter-war years] and needing to forge an expressly Palestinian as opposed to Pan-Arabic consciousness, Husseini took a page from the old book of Christian anti-Judaism. He promoted positive Palestinian identity by casting Judaism as a negative foil.”

If James Carroll were listening, I would tell him, “Sir, you don’t know what you are talking about.” Everything here is wrong. This is a concatenation of one mistake after another. He makes it seem as if Haj Amin was caught between British pressure and Jewish in-migration that pressured him to take a page from Christian anti-Judaism.

This has zero grounding in historical fact; none whatsoever. Haj Amin was a Muslim Jew-hater; Christian antiJewism had absolutely nothing to do with his hostility to the Jewish people and of course the Zionist enterprise burgeoning all around him.

And as for having “promoted a positive Palestinian consciousness as opposed to a Pan-Arabic one”: Lord have mercy, this has no bearing on what Haj Amin was all about. He established the newspaper “Southern Syria” to deny the very existence of a country called Palestine, because the geography had no meaning to him. It had meaning then only to Jews and Christians. The League of Nations Mandate was about creating such a map that had not existed in fourteen centuries of Islam. That is why he said, “No, this is Southern Syria.” It was the secular Zionists who were creating a “Palestinian” identity.

Carroll goes on to write that during WWII “On the principle of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, he threw in with Hitler and played the Nazi stooge throughout the war.”

The principle of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” had nothing to do with what he did. This was a Muslim murderer, an assassin who had ignited pogroms in Jerusalem in 1920 and Jaffa in 1921 before he ever heard of Hitler. His principle was his loathing of Jews which was as powerful for him as it is for Ahmadinejad today.

So it was refreshing to see in this morning’s JPost Naftali Bennett defining the menace to our lives as coming from “an ocean of radical Islam’’ – though I would dispute the necessity and even rightness of adding the adjective “radical,” which implies there is another, non-radical kind, which is nonsense. If Islam was not seen as a threat prior to the rise of Khomeini in 1979, that is because it was just quiescent. Historically, Jihad is at the core of Islam. It is by nature a crusading, aggressive ideology, which befits the seed of Ishmael, that highway robber.

Islam is nothing but the theft of Judaism’s notion of a Chosen People and a perversion of the Torah’s injunction to the Chosen People to dispossess the Canaanites and Philistines from this tiny little country.

Islam perverts that and claims the right to dispossess every nation in the entire world…