Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Holocaust minimization

Showing posts with label Holocaust minimization. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 27, 2023

Palestinian writer says Jews treat Palestinians as Nazis treated Jews before denying the Holocaust

Ibrahim Abrash, a former minister of culture for the PA, writes in the Palestinian Sada News site another of the never ending antisemitic articles you can find there. It was copied and quoted in many other Arabic news sites.

The title is comparing Israel's policies to the Nazi Final Solution.

We are not about to dig up the history of the Jews in Europe and the world nor enter into a debate about the suffering and persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany during World War II from 1939-1945, but what caught our attention is a phenomenon that Ibn Khaldun had previously touched upon in his well-known introduction, which is that: “The conquered nations resemble the conquering nations,” and what psychologists later confirmed is that the victim imitates the executioner in terms of admiration for his strength and tyranny, which later pushes her, despite what she suffered at the hands of the executioner, to imitate his style of dealing with others, and she herself turns into an executioner who practices the same logic of superiority, tyranny, and types of torture with others who fall under their authority and rule.

This is what we see today in the way the Zionists, victims of the Holocaust, deal with the Palestinian people. In this context, we noticed the great similarity between the “Final Solution Plan” drawn up by the Nazis during World War II to get rid of the Jews in Germany and the “Decision Plan” drawn up by the Zionist right and extremist Smotrich to get rid of the Palestinians and end the conflict.

....The Holocaust, which the Zionists claim killed 6 million Jews, is one of the most important tools of the plan for the preferred description of the Jews for what they were exposed to in Germany, - although Western thinkers and researchers, including the Frenchman Roger Garaudy, refuted with documents and scientific analysis the validity of the number, as he said that the number of Jews in Germany at the beginning of the war was not 6 million: How did the Nazis kill 6 million and millions of people who were rescued remained inside Germany or fled from it to America, European countries and Palestine?

He starts off saying that the Holocaust happened, - and then quotes a famous Holocaust denier saying it didn't happen or was exaggerated.

So in one article, we have Holocaust denial, Holocaust trivialization and Holocaust inversion (saying Jews are the new Nazis.)

Every definition of antisemitism, even the ones drafted by defenders of Palestinian antisemitism, includes Holocaust denial as an example of antisemitism. Yet somehow these drafters of the "progressive" definition stay quiet when someone they support exhibits the very Holocaust denial that they jump to condemn with it comes from the Right.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

08/14 Links Pt2: The Jews in Defiance of History; Obama’s Calculated Tolerance of Black Anti-Semitism; Antisemitism Still Haunts the European Left

From Ian:

Meir Y. Soloveichik: Not Everything Is Tisha B’Av

It is with this in mind that we must approach the reaction of many when the Knesset, three days before Tisha B’Av, approved limitations on the Israeli Supreme Court. The Times of Israel immediately presented us with the remarkable headline: “Judicial overhaul opponents see parallel to Tisha B’Av, saddest day in Hebrew year.” Indeed, comparisons to the destruction of the Temple abounded. A meme with the words shisha b’av, “the sixth of Av,” was circulated on the Internet, with the comparison to Tisha B’Av being made even by prominent Israeli writers. Some Israelis announced that though they did not usually fast on the Ninth of Av, they would do so this year to mourn what the Knesset had wrought.

I do not wish to discuss the merits or flaws of the government proposal. Rather I want to make one point only: One cannot compare the tragedies of the Jewish past to a democratic vote by the Israeli Knesset, however mistaken one might believe that vote to be. To make this comparison is to recommit the sin of the spies and their audience among the Hebrews, and to repeat the error of our ancestors in the desert millennia ago. Sharing a meme with the words shisha b’av dangerously demonizes a vast part of the Israeli electorate by comparing voters to the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem. And one can react only with horror to the statement by a Jew that a vote by the Knesset is more worthy of mourning than the deaths of Jews throughout history.

In arguing that the memories of Tisha B’Av obligated him to protect the physical well-being of the Jewish state, what Begin was also implying was that in the story of Israel, some—though not all—of what the Romans had wrought had been undone by the rise of the State of Israel and the miracles that followed. The Temple is not yet rebuilt, and hatred of the Jews still festers, but a rebuilt, united Jerusalem stands under Jewish sovereignty. If those who suffered in the events marked on the Ninth of Av would have been shown images of our own age—a united Jerusalem featuring a Jewish government, a Judean desert in bloom, and Jewish homes rebuilt throughout the Holy Land—they would have rejoiced at this vindication of Jewish yearnings. And if they would have been told that during all this, the parliament of the Jewish state would then vote to limit the ability of a Supreme Court to pronounce administrative decisions as “unreasonable,” their awe would not be diminished by an iota, no matter the flaws or virtues of this vote.

And so it must be stressed—though as I type these words, I still cannot believe that it must be stressed—that however much one might disagree with the Israeli coalition’s agenda, it is not Tisha B’Av. It is not the Holocaust. It is not the destruction of the Temple. It is not the expulsion from England, or Spain. It is not the auto-da-fé. It is not the massacres of the Crusades. To argue otherwise is to desecrate the memory of the martyred and the murdered, the exiled and the expelled, those who died with faith in the future of Jerusalem on their lips, and who would react with wonder at the miracles of our age.

Obama’s Calculated Tolerance of Black Anti-Semitism

I believe Sheila Miyoshi Jager’s account; she has nothing to gain by such a story, while the calculating Obama, determined to leave her because he was sure that as a white woman, she would be a political liability as his wife, made sure in his own memoir, Dreams of My Father, to leave out the Cokely episode, including his failure to condemn Cokely for his charge that “Jewish doctors” were deliberately committing “genocide” on “black babies.” This variant on the medieval blood libel about Jews killing Christian children so as to use their blood in making matzos, was a charge so explosive that it could well have resulted in murderous attacks by credulous African-Americans on Jewish doctors. When Sheila Miyoshi tried to convince Obama to denounce Cokely, he refused. He had decided that if he condemned Cokely, he would lose more support among black antisemites than he would gain in Jewish support. Clearly, Obama did not share the anguish of Jews at such charges, an updated version of the medieval blood libels. He was perfectly willing to pass over in silence Cokely’s disgusting and absurd charge of “genocide” by “Jewish doctors” of “black babies.” Sheila Miyoshi was appalled at Obama’s indecent political calculus, and told David Garrow so; that, she said, was her reason for the breakup. Obama, ever the calculating arriviste, determined to rise high, felt no need to reassure Jews that he stood with them. Instead, his silence about Steve Cokely’s charge suggested he had no interest in condemning even the worst antisemitic charges if to do so might hurt him with a black electorate that was also predominantly antisemitic.

Obama’s betrayal of a longstanding American commitment to veto all anti-Israel resolutions at the UN Security Council, when instead of a veto he had Samantha Power abstain from voting on UN Security Council Resolution 2334, that declared Israeli settlements in the West Bank, where a half-million Israelis lived, to constitute a violation of international law, was bad. An American veto would have killed the resolution. With the Americans not vetoing it, UNSC 2334 passed by a vote of 14-0. But Obama had done worse than that, when as a thrusting young Chicago politician he refused to do the right thing; he never denounced Steve Cokely for his extreme antisemitism, reflected in his charge that “Jewish doctors” practiced “genocide” on “black babies.” Obama’s tolerance of the worst kind of antisemitism was then, and remains, a form of antisemitism.

Antisemitism Still Haunts the European Left

Why the double standard? Why identify and condemn antisemitism from the right but not from within the left’s own ranks?

A large part of the answer sheds light upon a problem for the left not just in France, but in Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom—the other countries covered by the ADL report—as well. In essence, antisemitism is not seen as a pernicious ideology targeting Jews as the root of the world’s ills, but rather as an instrument to be deployed in political conflicts. If antisemitism comes from a source that you would have no truck with anyway—in this case, an organization that believes fervently that Catholic doctrine should lie at the foundations of law and public policy—then there is no hesitation in condemning it, particularly when, as was true with the Civitas episode, there is no mention of Zionism or the State of Israel. But if antisemitism comes from an ally, like Corbyn, then you are duty-bound to deny it and dismiss it as a smear. In such an environment, any analytical consistency and certainly any attempt to point out the glaring overlap between far-left and extreme-right antisemitic tropes—dual loyalty, financial clout, disproportionate political and cultural influence—becomes impossible.

While the ADL report highlights the differences between the four countries under the microscope, there are also some key commonalities. “In all four countries, the two dominant findings were that antisemitism was used in anti-Israel contexts and in anti-capitalist contexts,” it observed. “In anti-Israel contexts, antisemitic themes included (1) accusations that Jewish cabals control politics and media and prevent either criticism of Israel or support for Palestine; (2) Holocaust trivialization as a means of arguing that Palestinians are no less victims today than Jews were during the Holocaust; (3) equating Israel with the Nazi regime, thus demonizing Israel; (4) accusations of antisemitism are in bad faith and employed to silence criticism of Israel. In anti-capitalist contexts, antisemitic themes included (1) Jewish control of financial markets; (2) Jewish obsession with money; and (3) Jewish exploitation of workers.”

The point, however, is that large swathes of the European left are either incapable of recognizing these themes as antisemitic, or they believe that the upsurge in hatred against Jews is solely a result of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians. “They have learnt nothing from what happened to them in Europe. Nothing,” ranted Tariq Ali, a British far-left leader, at an anti-Israel rally in May 2021. “Every time they bomb Gaza, every time they attack Jerusalem—that is what creates antisemitism. Stop the occupation, stop the bombing and casual antisemitism will soon disappear.”

Ali did not spell out the lesson that he believes the Jews should have learned from the Nazi era, but the implication of his words is that they are receiving their just desserts for dispossessing the Palestinians. And that their choice now is to either give in—and thereby suddenly and miraculously banish antisemitism from public discourse, or to carry on fighting and accept antisemitism as an inevitable consequence. Until this mode of thinking is banished from the left, Jews will have little reason to trust its representatives, even on those occasions when they do condemn antisemitism.

Jimmy Carter, antisemite.

The announcement that Jimmy Carter is entering hospice care at his home is prompting a wave of fawning pre-obituaries about what a wonderful humanitarian he is.

No one is talking about his antisemitism.

Carter's animus towards Israel is legendary, but the source of that hate is not his progressivism or humanitarianism, but old fashioned Christian antisemitism.

For decades, Jimmy Carter gave a weekly Sunday sermon at his Georgia church. Some of his lessons promoted classic Christian antisemitism, way beyond what the Christian scripture says.

He says that modern Israeli Jews are persecuting Palestinian Christians in line with alleged Jewish persecution of Christians in the New Testament because of Jewish supremacism:

“…this morning I’m gonna be trying to relate the assigned Bible lesson to us in the Uniformed Series with how that affected Israel and how it affects us through Christ personally… It’s hard for us to even visualize the prejudice against gentiles when Christ came on earth. If a Jew married a gentile, that person was considered to be dead. … How would you characterize from a Jew’s point of view the uncircumcised? Non believer? And what? Unclean, what? They called them DOGS! That’s true. … What was Paul’s feeling toward gentiles in his early life as a Jewish leader? [Paul was not a Jewish leader. Ed.] Anybody? Absolute commitment to persecution! To the imprisonment and even the execution of non-Jews who now professed faith in Jesus Christ. … We know the differences in the Middle East. But the differences there are between Jews on the one hand who comprise the dominating force both militarily and also politically and the Palestinians who are both Muslim and Christians. …”

Carter bizarrely claims that sacrifices in the Jewish Temples were a means for rich Jews to avoid taking care of their elderly parents:

“Corban [sacrifices] was a prayer that could be performed by usually a man in an endorsed ceremony by the Pharisees that you could say in effect, ‘God, everything that I own all these sheep all these goats this nice house and the money that I have, I dedicate to you, to God.’ And from then on according to the Pharisees law those riches didn’t belong to that person anymore. They were whose? God’s! So as long as those riches were belonged to the person, that person was supposed to share them with needy parents right? But once it was God’s it wasn’t theirs and they didn’t have anything to share with their parents. So with impunity, and approved by the Pharisaic law, they could avoid taking care of their needy parents by a trick that had been evolved by the incorrect and improper interpretation of the law primarily designed by religious leaders to benefit whom? The rich folks! The powerful people! Because the poor man wouldn’t have all of this stuff to give to God. He would probably, in fact he might very well have his parents in the house with him or still be living with his own parents.”

This is a completely fictional reading of Jewish law.

Carter repeatedly said that Jewish leaders wanted to kill Jesus for various reasons, spreading the very source of Christian antisemitism as truth:

The subject of his first class was the tale of Jesus driving the moneylenders from the temple. The press soon reported that the president had informed his students that this story was “a turning point” in Christ’s life. “He had directly challenged in a fatal way the existing church, and there was no possible way for the Jewish leaders to avoid the challenge. So they decided to kill Jesus.”

So the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because he opposed the moneylenders! And in another lesson, Carter doubled down on Jewish hate of Christians:

He soon spoke at a Sunday-school class again; and, with an AP reporter in attendance, told those assembled that Jesus, in proclaiming himself the Messiah, was aware that he was risking death “as quickly as [it] could be arranged by the Jewish leaders, who were very powerful.”

There is a theme of rich, powerful Jews who want to oppress the gentiles - that informed Carter's view of the modern Middle East.

And his opinion of American Jews reflected that same animosity he has towards the Jews of Jesus' time. he blamed Jews for his loss in the 1980 election, more than once.

Kenneth Stein, who worked with him and interviewed him for his own book, quotes Carter as railing against the "Jewish money" that opposed him:

"[Vice president] Fritz Mondale was much more deeply immersed in the Jewish organization leadership than I was. That was an alien world to me. They [American Jews] didn't support me during the presidential campaign [that] had been predicated greatly upon Jewish money."

Carter's aide Stuart Eizenstat also says that Carter blames Jews for his 1980 loss: “From the New York primary [in March 1980] onward, I believe Carter was left with the view that New York Jews had not only defeated him in the primary but were also a factor in his loss in November.” However, while New York Jews did vote overwhelmingly for Ted Kennedy in the primary, more voted for Carter than Reagan in the presidential election.

Reagan took over 90% of the electoral college in 1980. It was a landslide. For Carter to blame New York Jews for his huge loss is nothing less than pure antisemitism.

Carter's antisemitism doesn't end there. He noted how Palestinian Christians were fleeing, but he blamed not the Muslim supremacists who are persecuting them, but Israel, continuing his theme of powerful Jews persecuting Palestinian Christians - even though Israel's Christian community has stayed steady.

His hate of Jews naturally spread to his supporting antisemites. When Helen Thomas lost her job for calling for the ethnic cleansing of Jews in Israel, saying Jews must "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go home" to Germany or Poland where they were massacred, one of the very few people who supported her was....Jimmy Carter. She told Playboy that he was very sympathetic but didn't want to go into details because it would get him into trouble.

Carter also condoned terror attacks against Jews in Israel. Really.

In his "Peace, Not Apartheid" book, Carter wrote, "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

This "humanitarian" didn't call for suicide bombings against Jews to end unconditionally. He advised Palestinians to use them as a bargaining chip to force Israel to give in to their demands. That is literally the definition of terrorism, and Carter is saying that he supports the goals of Palestinian terror.

Carter made many hateful statements about Israel which clearly cross the line into antisemitism. For example, he once downplayed the Iranian nuclear threat because they would only have a couple of bombs while Israel has hundreds, as if dropping a nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv is no big deal. Carter's support and even compliments for Hamas, for Palestinian "democracy" and other outrageous anti-Israel statements could fill a book. But even without mentioning Israel, his antisemitism is clear and unambiguous.

The single most damning example of Carter's antisemitism comes from an incident in 1987.

Neal Sher was the head of the Office of Special Investigations, the Justice Department’s Nazi prosecution unit. They had iron-clad evidence that a Chicago resident, Martin Bartesch, a member of the SS Death’s Head Division at the Mauthausen concentration camp, was a war criminal and a murderer.

Bartesch's family started a huge campaign against the OSI, writing letters to members of Congress and other prominent people asking for help. Most politicians contacted the OSI to find out the details, OSI provided them with evidence of his guilt, and they would drop the matter.

But, Sher says, not Jimmy Carter.

In September 1987, after all of the gruesome details of the case had been made public and widely reported in the media, I received a letter sent by Bartesch’s daughter to the former president. Citing groups that had been exposed for their anti-Semitism, it was an all-out assault against OSI as unfair, “un-American” and interested only in “vengeance” against innocent family members.

...Not even the staunchest and most sincere devotee to humanitarian causes could legitimately claim that an SS murderer who deceived authorities to obtain a visa and citizenship was somehow deserving of exceptional treatment.

That’s why I was so taken aback by the personal, handwritten note Jimmy Carter sent to me seeking “special consideration” for this Nazi SS murderer. There on the upper-right corner of Bartesch’s daughter’s letter was a note to me in the former president’s handwriting, and with his signature, urging that “in cases such as this, special consideration can be given to the families for humanitarian reasons.”

Unlike members of Congress who inquired about the facts, Carter blindly accepted at face value the daughter’s self-serving (and disingenuous) assertions.

Here is Carter's note supporting the case of a known Nazi war criminal.

Carter took the side of a family of a Nazi against his own government. And he couched it in "humanitarian" terms.

Maybe, maybe one could excuse one or two of these examples in isolation. But in the aggregate, there is no denying it: Jimmy Carter is an antisemite, and anyone who doesn't think that this detracts from his humanitarian work is condoning world's oldest hate.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Antisemitic Canadian Arab journalist denies he is antisemitic

Nazih Khatatba, general director and editor of Ontario-based Arabic newspaper Meshwar, writes in Wattan.net:

I am a Palestinian Canadian journalist. Our newspaper, Mishwar, is published in Arabic and distributed in the Ontario region, especially Toronto. We have the right to attend any event, especially if it is related to Palestine and the Middle East. We are not anti-Semitic, and we have not spoken badly about Jews in Canada or other countries. Rather, we criticize the Israeli occupation policy and stand with the Palestinian people. Those who accuse us of “anti-Semitism” without evidence are themselves supporting and protecting the Israeli occupation that commits daily murders against Palestinians.

He is especially upset at Honest Reporting Canada, which has exposed his and his newspaper's words publicly.

So here are some of their highlights:

Accusing Jews of dual loyalty:

The vast majority of ambassadors and mediators the US administration sends to the Middle East are Zionists and hold Israeli citizenship, and they owe more loyalty to this entity [Israel] than the US itself, including the US envoy Amos Hochstein [who was assigned] to negotiate with Lebanon on the demarcation of the region’s maritime borders and gas resources. He is not considered a mediator but rather a negotiator for the occupation entity more than his leaders. He is trying to play on the factor of time and procrastination, buying the debts of some loyal Lebanese leaders and activating the role of pawns to pressure Hizbollah. Still, this game that succeeded with the Palestinian Authority will not gain success with [Hassan] Nasrallah [leader of Hezbollah].

(Hochstein is not a dual national.)

Casting doubt on the Holocaust:

Why are the Zionist organizations afraid of opening the Holocaust file, preventing researchers from approaching it, and protecting it with strict laws that threaten those who come near it with imprisonment, prosecution, and even dismissal from work? Is it possible that they are hiding something, and we do not know?

Crazy antisemitic conspiracy theories:

Some world leaders in the West, who belong to the Zionist-Masonic movement, have already long ago drawn their plans to divide the Arab homeland in order that the Zionist-Masonic generations will inherit it generation after generation.

All aforementioned details confirm without a doubt that there is today an actual track to implement the Zionist -American enterprise, which is aiming at weakening Iraq and Syria, to tear them apart and to fragment them as a basis to tear apart and fragment the entire Arab region. This also confirms without a doubt that the goal of the attack, which the entire Arab region and areas are subject to, is basically to tear apart this region in order to serve the colonial Zionist -American enterprise.

And in 2015, it published an article that said that killing is ingrained in the Jewish faith.

Sounds pretty antisemitic to me!

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

A film-maker comments on Ken Burns' Holocaust documentary (Martin Ostrow)

By Martin Ostrow

Ken Burns’s advance interviews for his new Holocaust film provided much material for public discussion. Now that PBS has broadcast the six-hour series, how does the film measure up?

The answer, unfortunately, is that it’s a disappointment. “The U.S. and the Holocaust” misrepresents some key historical issues and entirely omits crucial information. Ultimately, Ken and his producer partners, Sarah Botstein and Lynn Novick, have failed to deliver the kind of film that we would have expected, given their track record.

I write not as a historian, but as the producer and director of a previous PBS film on America’s response to the Holocaust, “America and the Holocaust: Deceit and Indifference,” which first aired in 1994.

Inevitably, both my film and Ken’s cover some of the same ground. We both describe the context in which America’s response to the Holocaust evolved, such as the racism, isolationism, and antisemitism in the United States in the 1930s. Ken handles those themes and the unfolding of the Nazi genocide quite well, worthy moments of Holocaust education.

It is one thing, however, to acknowledge the disturbing trends in public and congressional opinion in those days; it is another to make it seem as if President Franklin D. Roosevelt was captive to them, as Ken does. FDR, after all, was a masterful leader. When he cared about an issue, he knew how to fight for it. But he made no real effort concerning the plight of Jewish refugees, not even to let them stay temporarily in a U.S. territory such as the Virgin Islands.

One might argue that Ken’s series is so broad and complex that it’s easy to lose Roosevelt in its massive story. Perhaps that was his intention. Ken certainly has the skill to render his subjects with vivid three-dimensional effect. Yet in this vast work, FDR is at times ghost-like—a hapless, impotent figure. The film offers excuses for the president’s inaction and shifts almost all the blame to Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long. Viewers could easily forget who actually hired Long, and who could have fired him if he had wanted to. Long served at the pleasure of the president, not the other way around.

It's a shame the series brings nothing new to understanding Roosevelt’s troubling decisions and motivations. Ken had a major advantage in making this new film. He could have drawn on significant information scholars have uncovered in the past two decades about FDR and America’s response to the Holocaust. I’m puzzled and disappointed he did not. For example:

— FDR’s Private Feelings About Jews. Historians have uncovered more than a dozen private statements made by Roosevelt in which he disparaged “Jewish blood,” advocated quotas on Jews in various professions (and college admissions), and even accused the publishers of the New York Times of using a “dirty Jewish trick” to gain a tax advantage. While President Roosevelt’s private feelings about Jews may or may not offer a clue to his policies concerning Jewish refugees, they at least need to be part of the conversation. Yet they are not mentioned in the film.

— The James McDonald Diaries. The discovery of the diaries of the late refugee advocate and diplomat James G. McDonald shed new light on his efforts to help the Jews—and the refusal of the Roosevelt administration to assist him. Remarkably, McDonald is not even mentioned in the film.

— The George McGovern Interview. In a revealing 2004 interview with filmmakers Chaim Hecht and Stuart Erdheim, George McGovern, the former senator and presidential nominee, recounted his experiences as a World War II pilot who bombed the oil factories in the slave labor section of Auschwitz. McGovern’s eyewitness recollections about the feasibility of bombing the railways leading to the camp tell us much more than Ken’s commentators, who offer confusing speculations about why neither the railways nor the gas chambers were ever bombed.

Admittedly, a disadvantage Ken suffered was that in the decades since my film, some of the remaining principal figures in the story passed away. For example, unlike Ken, I had the opportunity to personally interview John Pehle, the first director of the War Refugee Board.

Recalling the British-American conference on refugees held in remote Bermuda in 1943, Pehle told me it was “a conference set up to not accomplish anything, and the people who represented the United States there were given those instructions.” Yet the Bermuda meeting, a crucial event in the history of the U.S. response to the Holocaust, was not even mentioned by Ken.

Regarding the failure to bomb Auschwitz, Pehle says in my film, “After we recommended to the War Department that the extermination facilities at Auschwitz be bombed, we were told [that] this would involve bombers being sent from England…and therefore, it was not possible to do this. Later, perhaps after the war, we discovered at the very time we were recommending this, bombing all around Auschwitz was going on from Italy, and we had been misled.” Pehle’s powerful words should have been in Ken’s film. They are not.

As with every Ken Burns film, "The U.S. and the Holocaust” includes affecting cinematography, touching moments, and memorable music--although the decision to appropriate the precise Bach violin concerto passage from the most poignant moment of my film, is certainly questionable.

But the film's strengths do not make up for the fact that this Burns production stumbles when it comes to the most important parts of the historical record. Ken promised "The U.S. and the Holocaust" would answer many of the lingering questions about our nation’s response to the Nazi genocide. But after watching all six-plus hours of the film, I can only imagine that many people are still asking the same questions. They certainly should be.

[Martin Ostrow has been an award-winning documentary producer, writer and director for public, commercial and cable television for more than 30 years.]

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Jordanian news site: Palestinians were the biggest victims of the Holocaust, and Jews are today's Nazis

This was predictable.

Columnist Hamada al-Farana at Jordanian news site Ad Dustor writes:

The Palestinian Arab people were the most affected peoples in the whole world from the results of the Nazi fascist European massacres against the Jews for several fundamental reasons:

Get out the popcorn.

First, because we, as Arabs, Muslims and Christians, our culture does not allow us to accept collective punishments against humans, and to treat them with contempt, hatred, or hostility, on the basis of religion, nationalism, sect, or their positions and convictions.

That's great! That means that they do not hate Jewish Zionists because of their nationalism, positions or convictions!

Ummm...

Secondly, because Jews and Judaism are part of our Arab people and nation. Judaism is one of the monotheistic religions that complements Christianity and Islam, even if the diligence and diversity differ among them. The difference between Jews and Judaism on one side and the Zionist movement on the other, is the difference between Islam and Muslims from the two organizations Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

Well, only a slight contradiction between two adjoining paragraphs.

Thirdly, the Palestinians paid a heavy price because of the Holocaust, as Zionism and the colonial countries of Europe exploited the Nazi massacres against the Jews, and worked to displace and resettle them in Palestine, and to establish a Jewish state for them on the land of the Palestinian people...

Fourth, and this is the most important, that the Palestinians paid the price of the European massacres of the Jews, so Palestine was colonized, half of its people were expelled outside their homeland, and they were subjected to displacement and exile, and massacres were committed against them.

Yup. The biggest victims of the Holocaust wasn't six million Jews, but the Palestinians whose leader supported the Nazis.

For these reasons, we sympathize with the tragedy of the Jews in Europe, and we reject, as Arabs, Muslims and Christians with the Palestinians, those Nazi fascist crimes against the Jews, just as we reject and condemn, at the same time, with the same force, the massacres of the Israeli colony and its daily crimes against the Palestinian people, including killing, destruction, persecution, besieging and starvation.

I like the "starvation" part. I haven't found any examples but it can't hurt to throw that in.

And just as the civilized international community did by chasing down the chased down the Nazis and prosecuted them for what they did against the Jews, the leaders of the international community and human rights institutions, and those with living consciences should try Israeli criminals in accordance with fair values and human rights, and not to evade just and equitable punishment.

What the Palestinian President said, what he expressed, and what he meant, is the core of the bitter truth that needs to be addressed by the European and German people.

So we have Holocaust minimization, Holocaust distortion and Holocaust inversion, as mainstream Arab political opinion.

Hamada al-Farana is a former minister of Jordanian parliament and has been a member of the Palestinian National Council since 1984.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Putin compares Western sanctions against Russia to Nazi persecution of Jews

In his Wednesday speech, Russian president Vladimir Putin compared Western sanctions imposed on Russia, its economy, athletes and cultural world to the persecution of the Jews by the Nazis in the 1930s.

He said in the speech::

In many Western countries, people are subjected to persecution just because they are originally from Russia. They are being denied medical care, their children are expelled from schools, parents are losing their jobs, and Russian music, culture, and literature are being banned. In its attempts to “cancel” Russia, the West tore off its mask of decency and began to act crudely showing its true colours. One cannot help but remember the anti-Semitic Nazi pogroms in Germany in the 1930s, and then pogroms perpetrated by their henchmen in many European countries that joined the Nazi aggression against our country during the Great Patriotic War.

Whatever one thinks about Western blanket sanctions against all things Russian, it is nothing like how Nazis treated Jews in the 1930s. For one thing, Jews in Germany were utterly helpless, as they didn't have a state that could protect them.

Putin's use of the word "pogrom" is also telling, since the Russian word has been used since the 19th century to initially refer to Russian attacks on Jews. There seems to be a desire by Putin to pretend that there is no Russian history of antisemitism and it is a purely Nazi invention.

Both sides in the Russian invasion of Ukraine are not shy about accusing their opponents of antisemitism. This is not out of any love for Jews on either side. In some ways, the analogies to Jews that we are seeing are themselves a form of antisemitism.

For one thing, it is a minimization of actual pogroms and historic attacks on Jews. The war is not an attack on race or ethnicities; it is driven by nationalism. Russia may be targeting (or at least grossly uncaring about the lives of) civilians, but they aren't targeting victims by race.

Secondly, the comparisons with Jews on both sides has an implication: Jews are a dominant, unified, worldwide force and therefore both sides want to use them for their own political gains. It is a diluted version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion where the powerful Jews decide which side should win to help their own (nefarious) goals.

When the Jews don't do what these leaders demand, that itself can foment antisemitism in their own countries.

When world leaders invoke Jews to make a political point, it is rarely good for the Jews.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Read all about it here!