Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Nazi Germany

Showing posts with label Nazi Germany. Show all posts

Thursday, December 08, 2022

80 years ago: The State Department says paying ransom for Jews is a crime

A small item on page 4 of the Los Angeles Times, November 25, 1942:

This came in response to a report out of the Netherlands that the Nazis were extorting huge sums for exit permits.

There is, unfortunately, a large body of literature on ransoming captives under Jewish law. A summary from Din Online:

The Rambam (Matmos Aniim 8:10, based on the Gemara in Bava Basra 8b) states in the context of charity donations: “There is no greater mitzvah (i.e. use of charity funds) than redeeming captives.” Based on its special importance, redemption of captives is the first priority for allocating charity funds. Echoing the Rambam, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 252:1) likewise states: “No mitzvah is as great as redeeming captives.”

The Gemara (Bava Basra 8b) highlights the plight of the captive in the hands of his captors. The latter can torture him, pass him through great suffering, and even kill him. He is entirely at their mercy. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 252:3) thus writes that one who can redeem a captive yet fails to do so is considered to be murdering at each moment.

Nevertheless, the Mishnah (Gittin 45a) teaches that captives should not be redeemed for any price: “Captives are not redeemed for more than their value.”

The reason for this is discussed by the Gemara, which mentions two possible reasons, without deciding which of them is the true reason. One reason is that it is too weighty a burden on the community. According to this reason, Rashi writes that a private individual is permitted to redeem his own family or loved ones, even for great sums of money.

Another suggested reason is that payment of large ransoms encourages captors to continue in their evil ways, taking further captives to make money. Based on this rationale, a private individual may not pay exorbitant sums for the release of his family, since this encourages kidnappings and places the community at risk.

It seems to me that both those reasons for not paying ransom would not apply in this case. The first reason, as stated, would not apply to the family of the relative being held hostage. The second reason, that it encourages the captors to take more prisoners, doesn't seem to apply because all the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe were already effectively captive and already in great danger.

Indeed, there have been halachic rulings that if the captive's life is in danger without being ransomed, there is no price too high to pay.

The State Department's reason - that paying ransom will add money to the enemies' coffers - is not at all a consideration in Jewish law.

Yet as far as I can tell, this was not even a subject of debate in 1942. The fate of the Jews was well known at this point in time, and there was plenty of pretend outrage in the West, but it didn't extend to actually trying to save their lives.

Jews who wanted to save their friends and family were to be considered criminals.

For context, here is the entire Los Angeles Times page 4 where these two articles were. The main two articles on the page were about the Nazis wiping out the Jews of Europe by the millions:

At the very same time the readers were being given the details of the horrors of the Holocaust, they were also informed that saving some of those Jewish lives is a crime.

Here is an editorial from a British newspaper, the Dumfries and Galloway Standard and Advertiser (December 12, 1942), that goes on at length and detail about how terrible the Nazi persecution of Jews is and how there is no longer doubt about the Final Solution:

Yet when it comes to whether something can be done to save these unfortunate Jews, suddenly the tone changes:

"The humanitarian feelings of humanity must not be traded on for the purpose of financing the Nazis."

Sure, Jewish lives matter - but not to the point of actually paying money to save them. Better to write op-eds about how terrible it is that we have no choice but to let them all die, as long as we know the Nazis will eventually be "brought to justice."

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!

The French reaction to Kristallnacht: Let's pretend to care about Jews while watching them suffer

Reading the contemporaneous newspaper coverage of Kristallnacht is overwhelming. While the story did not start out on the front pages, the coverage snowballed over the next few days as Nazi restrictions on Jews increased and editorials in newspapers expressed outrage.

The outrage did not extend to doing a damn thing to help Jews in Germany, though.

A French newspaper published this editorial cartoon:

And the New York Times reported of angry reactions to the pogroms and anti-Jewish edicts in France:

But there were two other stories out of France that week.

In this one, we see that France turned away the Jews who were fleeing Germany - Jews the Nazis were allowing to leave.

And days later, after French newspapers said how unacceptable it would be for France to make an agreement with a Nazi Germany that so cruelly and proudly persecuted Jews, France worked hard to make exactly that agreement.

That agreement was signed on December 6, 1938, and the articles about it didn't mention a thing about Jews.

Then, as now, the world pretended to care about Jews - but was not willing to lift a finger to actually save their lives. It was all lip service.

So whenever the world demands that Israel compromise on its security today, remember that it is also no lip service. No one will guarantee Jewish security and survival besides Jews themselves.

The only difference is that now we have a state and an army.

There's another relevant lesson for today. Don't make agreements with genocidal madmen.

They tend not to be too trustworthy.

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!

Nazi doctors and today's antisemites: Redefining ethics to justify persecuting Jews

A new book has just been published,titled "Bioethics and the Holocaust: A Comprehensive Study in How the Holocaust Continues to Shape the Ethics of Health, Medicine and Human Rights." It is a free download from the Maimonides Institute for Medicine Ethics & The Holocaust.

Chapter Two, "Teaching Medical Ethics in Nazi Germany: Debunking the Myth that the Nazi Physicians Abandoned Their Ethics," by Tessa Chelouche is mind-blowing.

Believe it or not, Nazi Germany was in the forefront of publishing a guide for medical ethics. medical ethics manual, Medical Jurisprudence and Rules of the Medical Profession,was written by Dr. Rudolf Ramm. In its own sick and twisted way, it created an ethics system that in some ways resembles the one used by doctors worldwide - but it was steeped in Nazi racial ideology.

The uncomfortable reality is that the physicians who executed these crimes were of the conviction that their actions were morally and scientifically right (Caplan 2010). These were not incompetent, insane physicians from the fringes of the profession. Many were distinguished, experienced professionals from mainstream German medicine, which was considered to be the most progressive of the time (Aly et al. 1994; Weiss 2005). The German physicians were not coerced to join the Nazi Party, but did so on their own initiative and in greater numbers than any other free profession (Kater 1989). Among them were university professors and experienced physicians who, like Rudolf Ramm, took it upon themselves to inculcate future generations of physicians precisely due to the fact that they believed that what they were practicing and preaching was ethically and morally right (Bruns and Chelouche 2017). In Ramm’s words: “So this book should be a companion and a guide to the student of medicine and to the young physician for his established goal and an adviser to the young person in his choice of profession.”

...Nazi Germany became the first country in the world to hold mandatory ethics classes in medical schools.
Antisemitism was an inherent feature of Nazi medical ideology. One of the first steps taken in the newly formed Nazi regime was the removal of Jews from medical practice, both academic and clinical. In reading the textbook we realize the extent to which the Nazi physicians internalized and embraced antisemitism as inherent to, and acceptable with, medical and ethical norms. Ramm praises the new antisemitic directives: “One of the first measures of the National Socialist Physicians leadership was the cleansing of the profession of politically unreliable and racially foreign elements, so long as the medical benefit for the Volk population was not endangered” “Cleansing the profession” refers to the expulsion of the Jewish physicians from medicine in 1938, whose licenses were revoked and who were no longer considered doctors, but rather healers permitted to treat only fellow Jews. “One can however today already grasp the blessings which are important to life and to our Volk in the offices of the states that have emerged after the forceful expulsion of the Jews from the profession” He rationalizes the self-righteous persecution and marginalization of Jewish physicians: “It was the Jew who forced some German doctors into a crass materialistic employment of professionally unworthy methods of competition; the Jew who endangered the German Volk, and the one who through extension of his souls-poisoning ideas, enabled the destruction of germinating life while generating the impression, through his methods of advertising in wide circles of the population, that he was indispensable as a medical researcher and medical practitioner…Today no full-blooded German would allow himself to be treated by a Jewish doctor”. Although these passages read as blatant racist propaganda, they are in essence what was deemed morally right to teach medical students in Nazi Germany.

The chapter goes on to discuss sterilization, eugenics and euthanasia as all being placed in an ethical framework.

Ramm's medical ethics manual created a framework that was 'ethical" in the sense that it had an ethical basis - the importance of the Volk and the nation, ensuring that the most fit people would lead the nation in the future. Those who would be deleterious towards that goal should be marginalized and ultimately eliminated. It is monstrous, but it is a self-consistent ethical framework that appealed to the medical professionals in Germany of the day.

The conclusion includes:

[E]thics instruction does not ensure future virtuous medical practice. In addition, the existence of codes and directives and in this case, ethical textbooks, does not assure moral integrity. In fact, Ramm’s work shows us just how training and education can be used deleteriously.

If we expand a little beyond the medical profession, this is exactly what we are seeing today. So called "human rights" groups, taking the mantle of the highest ethical arbiters as medical professionals have been, have created their own self-consistent definition of morality that just happens to be twisted against today's Jews. They created brand new definitions of "apartheid" and "persecution" and "colonialism" that have been custom built to apply only to Israeli Jews, or terms like "indigenous" that have been interpreted deliberately to exclude Jews.

The insidiousness of their methodology is that they are not just spreading hate. They are teaching their ethical framework as if it is the only ethical system that exists.

Within that framework, it is impossible to defend Israel (as well as the traditional family, religion, and a host of other issues.)

This chapter is meant to teach doctors that they cannot assume that their ethical training makes them immune to doing immoral things in service of the prevailing standards and mores. But others who claim to have the moral high ground should read this as well.

Bioethics and human rights both became much more prominent as a response to the Holocaust. This book reminds us that adhering to an ethical framework is not enough: sometimes the framework itself can justify even the most heinous crimes.

(h/t Jay L)

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!

The Yellow Spot: Detailed, contemporaneous accounts of Nazi persecution of Jews 1933-1935 sound a lot like today's antisemitism (PDF)

I just found this 1936 book, The Yellow Spot, which documents in detail the beginnings of Nazi persecution of Jews in Germany, with lots of photos and facsimiles from Nazi media.

The terror in reading this book is in the knowledge that the horrific facts recounted here in mind-numbing detail - the pogroms, the arrests, the anti-Jewish laws, the ordinary Germans enthusiastically joining the hate - were only the opening act to what was to come. All of the events in this book occurred from 1933-35, more than three years prior to Kristallnacht.

The echoes to today's modern antisemitism are striking.

Just like BDS, the Nazi media had their own "cancel culture," taking photos of Germans - especially women - shopping in Jewish-owned stores and publishing them to shame them.

The German call to boycott Jewish businesses sounds a lot like the "BDS call" to boycott Israel:

We ask you, German men and women, to fall in with this boycott. Do not buy in Jewish shops and department stores ! Do not go to Jewish lawyers ! Avoid Jewish physicians ! Show the Jews that they cannot drag Germany’s honour into the mire without being punished for it ! Whoever does not comply with this demand proves himself thereby on the side of Germany’s enemies !

There are hundreds of examples of official and semi-official antisemitism. Just like the UN today says that everything Israel does is a war crime, the trade journal of the National Socialist hairdressers wrote: “A German hairdresser who enjoys ridding Jews of their bristles commits a crime against the community.”

Like the Arabs who find Jews acting like normal people are being "provocative" and saying that their attacks on Jews are the Jews' fault, we see Goebbels in 1934 saying that Jews who aren't "provocative" won't be hurt but those who insist on acting like German citizens will be justifiably attacked:

We have been very lenient with the Jews. But if they think that therefore they can still be allowed on German stages, offering art to the German people; if they think that they can still sneak into editorial offices, writing for German newspapers ; if they still strut across the Kurfiirstendamm as though nothing had happened, they might take these words as a final warning. Jewry can rest assured that we will leave them alone as long as they retire quietly and modestly behind their four walls, as long as they are not provocative, and do not affront the German people with the claim to be treated as equals. If the Jews do not listen to this warning, they will have themselves to blame for anything that happens to them.

The Nazis' propaganda wasn't only against Jews, but against "Judah"as a nation. Again, the parallels between them and the anti-Israel propaganda in Arab media are obvious.

Judah has striven to harm the German people but has given it a blessing. On Saturday, 1st April, at 10 a.m., there begins the German people’s defence against the universal criminal, the Jew. There starts a fight such as has never been dared before throughout all the centuries. Judah has asked for the fight, it shall have it ! It shall have it until it recognises that the Germany of the Brown battalions is no Germany of cowardice and surrender. Judah shall have the fight until the victory is ours! (Volkischer Beobachter, March 31, 1933)

Iranian media sounds exactly like this today.

The parallels to today's antisemitism continue. Compare this photo from Der Sturmer in 1934 to Roger Waters' inflatable pig in concert:

Compare the Nazi mistranslations of the Talmud with that of celebrated poet Alice Walker:

Der Sturmer:

This Jew (his name and address follow) belongs to the alien race that believes itself able to carry on its race defilement with impunity just as before. He is acting according to the Talmudic principles of his race. Jewesses are too good for his vileness. Accordingly he runs after non-Jewesses. Non-Jewesses are, according to the Talmud, to be regarded as cattle ; the Jew can, therefore, defile and ruin them with an easy conscience...“ A non-Jewish girl may be defiled as soon as she is three years and one day old.”

Alice Walker, in her poem, "It Is Our (Frightful) Duty To Study The Talmud:"

Are Goyim (us) meant to be slaves of Jews, and not only

That, but to enjoy it?

Are three year old (and a day) girls eligible for marriage and intercourse?

Are young boys fair game for rape?

Must even the best of the Goyim (us, again) be killed?

Pause a moment and think what this could mean

Or already has meant

In our own lifetime.

You may find that as the cattle

We have begun to feel we are

We have an ancient history of oppression

Of which most of us have not been even vaguely

Aware. You will find that we, Goyim, sub-humans, animals

-The Palestinians of Gaza

The most obvious representatives of us

At the present time – are a cruel example of what may be done

With impunity, and without conscience,

By a Chosen people,

To the vast majority of the people

On the planet

Who were not Chosen.

Antisemitic poems in Der Sturmer sound a lot like the hypnotizing anti-Israel "from the river to the sea" rhymes we hear at anti-Israel rallies:

Jewish hands are red with Christian gore,

We demand Jewish blood and more !

The people hope one day to see a time

When shooting the last Jew will be no crime !

The Nazis carefully prepared things so that Jews literally cannot defend themselves. And that is exactly what the modern antisemites are doing with Israel, accusing it of false war crimes and false apartheid, changing international law itself to put the Jewish state in a corner, twisting anything Israeli Jews to be immoral or to be covering up for immorality, setting up UN commissions whose only purpose is to justify the eventual ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Middle East and to call it a moral imperative. They know Jews can defend themselves militarily now, so they are using other means to try to destroy it, but the goal is the same.

Both the Nazis in this book and the modern antisemites are preparing the world to celebrate a future genocide.

Here is the entire book. It is the most frightening thing you will read this year.

Palestinian newspaper defends the Mufti's collaboration with Nazis

Mark Regev wrote an article in the Jerusalem Post on November 11, marking the anniversary of the British victory at El Alamein, Egypt in 1942. He says that had the British lost that battle, the Nazis would have overrun Palestine and all the Jews there would have been murdered - because the Palestinian Arabs would have become willing collaborators with the Nazis.

Regev brings proof by noting the well-documented antisemitism and Nazi collaboration of the infamous Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin Husseini, whom Palestinians still revere, as well as the adamant Palestinian Arab opposition to allowing Jews in mortal danger to immigrate to Palestine.

Palestinian writer Amani Qurum is very upset at Regev, saying that his article is filled with lies.

Writing in Al Quds, Qurum is angry at Regev for his "fierce and repeated attack on Hajj Amin al-Husseini, may God have mercy on him, accusing him of anti-Semitism and cooperating with the Germans and support for what is known as the final solution to the Jews and genocide and help in the killing of a million and a half Jews and pressure on Britain to close the gates of Palestine in front of Jewish immigration."

Regev didn't say Husseini directly contributed to the murder of 1.5 million children, but that Husseini preferred to see them die rather than go to Palestine. This is documented in an incident, recounted by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum:

In the spring of 1943, al-Husayni learned of negotiations between Germany's Axis partners with the British, the Swiss, and the International Red Cross to transport thousands of Jewish children to safety in Palestine. He sought to prevent the rescue operations with protests directed at the Germans and Italians, as well as at the governments of Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. Demanding that the operations be scuttled, al-Husayni suggested that the children be sent to Poland where they would be subject to "stricter control." Although his preference that the children be killed in Poland rather than transported to Palestine appears to have been explicit, the impact of the letters was nil.

Qurum denies or ignores nearly all of the crimes of Amin Husseini. But she admits one - and justifies it:

Of course, Husseini’s relations with the Germans cannot be denied at all, but they must be placed in their proper circumstances and context. Germany did not occupy Palestine and did not give it to the Jews falsely. On the contrary, Britain and France shared the region as a whole between them as the two largest colonial powers at that time. Within the framework of the game of alliances, isn't it natural for al-Husayni to bet politically on Germany, only in order to defend Palestine, which colonial Britain unjustly gave to the Jews?

Qurum proves Regev's main point: Palestinians need to acknowledge their support for a Nazi collaborator, not treat him as a hero. Because of his stature, it is unthinkable for a Palestinian writer to criticize the Mufti, whose hatred for Jews cannot be papered over - he was quite proud of it.

When The Media Extols Evil: Hitler, Farrakhan and Ahlam Tamimi (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

On October 17, Natalie Hopkinson -- an associate professor at Howard University -- wrote a glowing opinion piece in The New York Times on antisemite Louis Farrakhan. Entitled The Women Behind the Million Man March, the article recounts the role played by Cora Masters Barry, wife of then DC Mayor Marion Barry, in mobilizing the women who played a significant role in the success of the march.

Hopkinson notes that

A key supporter of the event was Marion Barry, who had just returned to the Washington mayor’s office after a stint in federal prison. [emphasis added]

Nothing, however, is mentioned of Farrakhan's Jew-hatred and homophobia.

As Bari Weiss put it

If you read the oped and knew nothing about Farrakhan, you would think he was a gentleman.

When criticism was made of this whitewash of Farrakhan, Hopkinson responded by reminding her critics that she is a 'scholar':

But Hopkinson was just warming up, falling back on Black oppression and negating the oppression of others:

Rafael Medoff, the founding director of The David Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, compares Hopkinson's depiction of Farrakhan with the New York Times interview that Anne O'Hare McCormick did in 1933, Hitler Seeks Jobs for All Germans.

Medoff points out that Hitler did not waste any time persecuting Germany's Jews once he took office:

During Hitler’s first months in power, there was extensive coverage in the American press of his anti-Jewish policies, such as the mass firing of Jews from their jobs, public burnings of books by Jewish authors, and sporadic anti-Semitic mob violence. To counter this negative attention, Hitler in July 1933 granted Anne O’Hare McCormick of the New York Times his first exclusive interview with an American reporter since becoming chancellor of Germany.

To her credit, McCormick did in fact take the opportunity to ask about Germany's treatment of its Jews -- but did not follow up when her subject replied:

"It is true we have made discriminatory laws, but they are directed not so much against the Jews as for the German people, to give equal economic opportunity to the majority.

"You say the Jews suffer, but so do millions of others. Why should not the Jews share the privations which burden the entire nation?

According to Medoff, unlike Hopkinson's devotion to Farrakhan, there is no indication that McCormick was actually sympathetic to her subject and his views.

But the fact remains that in both cases, favorable pieces in The New York Times contributed to positive images for their subjects -- and only McCormick bothered to attempt a balanced article.

These days, whitewashing hate -- especially hatred of Jews -- seems to be in style.

This month, Jordan deported terrorist Nizar Tamimi, husband of Hamas terrorist Ahlam Tamimi, the mastermind of the Sbarro massacre. He is now in Qatar. Meanwhile, Ahlam Tamimi, whom Jordan has refused to extradite to the US despite their extradition treaty, risks the possibility of being apprehended and being turned over to the US if she leaves to join her husband.

What is a terrorist to do?

You turn to the media -- in this case, the always obliging BBC, whose program 'Trending' featured a whitewashing of the terrorist couple by BBC Arabic’s Rania ‘Attar:

Not once during the entire 6 minutes of broadcast could one detect the slightest hint of criticism towards either of the two from BBC Arabic. The social media solidarity campaign supporting them was uncritically portrayed as a matter of freedom of speech for the weak and persecuted. No less notable were the selective omissions from the couple’s violent history: the programme referred to Ahlam as though she was merely “accused of involvement” in the Jerusalem bombing (despite her own public admission of the crime) and failed to mention the reason for Nizar’s imprisonment at all.

The programme, entitled “#Jordan: Ahlam_Tamimi_Your_Voice_is_Loud_and_Clear”, was hosted by BBC Arabic’s Rania ‘Attar; one of Trending’s regular presenters. Describing the Tamimis as “freed detainees from Israeli prisons”, ‘Attar told her audience how the two met in the halls of an Israeli military court, got engaged while in prison and married once they were both released in the 2011 Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, against a background of sentimental pictures of their newfound life in Amman, Jordan.

The BBC host continued with the latest developments in the couple’s story, explaining that Jordan had not renewed “detainee” Nizar’s permit to reside in the kingdom with his wife (herself a Jordanian citizen), resulting in his expulsion to Qatar earlier this month. She then quoted Nizar’s brother Mahmoud who claimed that the decision to expel the husband was related to the American extradition request currently pending against his wife and that the family considers it an indirect Jordanian acquiescence to American dictates.

Next it was explained what had triggered the social media campaign which gave the programme its hashtag-style name. Last Tuesday a radio host was supposedly documented censoring Tamimi as she was on air, making her plea to King ‘Abdullah II to let her husband back into Jordan. The Jordanian-Palestinian solidarity campaign which followed used the hashtag “#Ahlam_Tamimi_Your_Voice_is_Loud_and_Clear”. Among the many comments shown, ‘Attar featured those that praised Tamimi as a woman “of great value” and “honour”, whose story should be heard by “everyone”.

The host concluded the programme with a full, uncensored video of Ahlam Tamimi addressing the King for a second time. Only afterwards were viewers made aware of what ‘Attar referred to as “the main landmarks of Ahlam’s life”, with the following statements being used to elaborate on her terrorist activity:
“First woman to join al-Qassam battalions, Hamas’s military wing […]

“She was accused of involvement in the ‘Sbarro’ restaurant bombing in Jerusalem […]

“In 2013, American Department of Justice ranked her on the list of ‘most dangerous wanted terrorists’, under the accusation of conspiring to kill Americans in the ‘Sbarro’ restaurant bombing in Jerusalem”

While the program was first broadcast on October 8th, protests against the program finally led to its being removed from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube on October 16th and from the BBC Arabic website itself on October 19th.

A BBC spokesperson later told The Jewish News:

Following an editorial review we found that this segment was in breach of our editorial guidelines and we removed the clip from our digital platforms last week. We accept that the segment should not have been shown and apologise for the offence caused.

This example of BBC moral deafness is matched only by Sarah Montague, the presenter of BBC’s Radio 4 Today program. Back on August 12, 2001, Montague called Arnold Roth -- whose daughter was one of Tamimi's victims. The family was sitting Shiva.

Montague asked whether Roth would be willing to come onto Radio 4 Today by phone the following morning to be in a two-sided interview with a man called al-Masri, the father of the human bomb [who carried out the Sbarro massacre]. This would enable the audience to hear “the two sides” of the atrocity. [emphasis added]

Two sides?

Only if you believe that a terrorist who targets children in a pizzeria is another man's freedom fighter.

But how about if you just hijack airplanes?

On August 29, 1969, Leila Khaled was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the terrorist group that hijacked TWA Flight 840 from Rome to Tel Aviv, diverting it to Damascus.

On September 6, 1970, Leila Khaled and an accomplice, attempted to hijack El Al Flight 219 from Amsterdam to New York City as part of a series of almost simultaneous hijackings carried out by the PFLP:

Soon after takeoff, [pilot Uri] Bar-Lev and his co-pilot got word that two terrorists were hijacking the plane. They had shot and gravely wounded an El Al flight attendant and had put a gun to the head of another, demanding to be let into the cockpit, which Bar-Lev had immediately locked.

Bar-Lev saved the passengers by putting the plane into a steep dive. Khaled was captured -- and later released by Great Britain in a hostage exchange.

Fast-forward to 2020.

On September 23, Leila Khaled was scheduled to give a talk at San Francisco State University, entitled “Whose Narratives? Gender, Justice, & Resistance.” Khaled was helpfully described as a "Palestinian feminist, militant and leader."

In the end, the talk was stopped by Zoom and Facebook, right at the point where Khaled said "people have the right to fight those who occupy their land by any means possible, including weapons," and despite multiple attempts to hold the talk online since then, so far it has continued to be (mostly) blocked.

Associate professor Rabab Abdulhadi, director of the Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Initiative (AMED) was to be the moderator -- and at this point, Abdulhadi's comments defending having a terrorist speak to the students is predictable:

Abdulhadi claimed the outrage over her invitation to Khaled was manufactured by the "Israel Lobby Industry," and said opposition to her was "catering to donors, catering to the right-wing agenda and catering to Islamophobia." Abdulhadi doubled down on her comments later on in the video, stating that the university president "only talked to Zionists, only talked to one brand."

"The university is participating in a very discriminatory, racist, defamatory, smearing campaign by the Zionist bullies and their right-wing, neoliberal and wealthy allies," Abdulhadi said. She also claimed the talk with Khaled was only canceled because of the university's desire to retain wealthy Jewish donors, alleging the school's president told donors she would "crush the Palestinians" and "crush AMED studies."

The reason for the opposition to giving a podium to a terrorist is stated in a September 17 letter from 86 organizations, a letter Abdulhadi avoids addressing:

We fully acknowledge that faculty members like Prof. Abdulhadi have every right, as private citizens, to express anti-Zionist views and engage in anti-Zionist activism. However, we believe Abdulhadi's continuous and intentional use of her SFSU position and the name and resources of the University to indoctrinate students with her own personal animus towards the Jewish state and its supporters and to promote anti-Israel activism, does not constitute a legitimate use of academic freedom, but an abuse of it.

The full letter points to a few of Abdulhadi's AMED activities, such as:

In 2013, AMED co-sponsored an on-campus event that involved students using stencils to create placards and T-shirts with the image of a keffiyeh-clad Leila Khaled holding an AK-47 rifle accompanied by the message, “Resistance is Not Terrorism,” and other stencils with the message, “My Heroes Have Always Killed Colonizers.” In the wake of public outrage over the event’s unambiguous lionizing of a convicted terrorist and promotion of terrorism against Israel, Prof. Abdulhadi defended the event as a legitimate use of academic freedom. [emphasis added]

The BBC's fawning coverage of Hamas terrorist Ahlam Tamimi and Abdulhadi's manipulation of terrorist hijacker Leila Khaled as a resistant icon is reminiscent of the episode of Rasmea Odeh, who was convicted in 1970 and imprisoned in Israel for 10 years for the supermarket bombing in Jerusalem which killed 2 Hebrew University students -- Edward Joffe and Leon Kanner.

Odeh later lied about her conviction when she entered the US and was eventually convicted of immigration fraud and deported from the US -- but not before she became a cause celebre and described by The Rasmea Defense Committee as an “icon of the Palestine liberation movement.”

It is one thing to give Hitler a pass, or to whitewash Farrakhan -- but in the case of Ahlam Tamimi, BBC Arabic deliberately hid facts from its audience, such as Tamimi's pride when she actually admitted to the murder of innocent schoolchildren.

And in the cases of Leila Khaled and Rasmea Odeh, there is an attempt to go a step further and to not only use terrorists to energize protest against Israel but also use their public appearances to encourage outright hatred.

Taken in the context of the increase in antisemitic rhetoric from within the progressive wing of the Democratic party and the rise in the number of antisemitic attacks by radicals on both the right and the left, Jews will continue to be a target in the US.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Saudi Arabia is less antisemitic than the @NYTimes

From The New York Times:

In a surprising televised monologue, a senior member of the Saudi royal family and former ambassador to Washington accused Palestinian leaders of betraying their people, signaling an erosion of Saudi support for an issue long considered sacrosanct.

... Prince Bandar offered a rambling and selective history of the Palestinian struggle, saying that the Palestinians “always bet on the losing side.”

His survey, interspersed with archival images and footage, cited the contacts between Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem and an early Palestinian nationalist leader, and the Nazis in the 1930s, adding, “we all know what happened to Hitler and Germany.”

While there is broad agreement that Mr. al-Husseini collaborated with the Nazis against Zionism, historians differ on the significance of his relationship with Nazi leaders.

First of all, the Mufti's contacts with the Nazis were during the Holocaust in the 1940s, not in the 1930s. Even the photo of Hitler and the Mufti that the NYT published was from a 1941 meeting.

Secondly, the Mufti was a rabid antisemite for his entire life. He wasn't against "Zionism," he was against Jews - just like the Nazis he collaborated with.

The New York Times is engaging in Holocaust minimization.

The US Holocaust Museum summarizes the Mufti's antisemitic statements on Nazi radio:

Al-Husayni spoke often of a "worldwide Jewish conspiracy" that controlled the British and US governments and sponsored Soviet Communism. He argued that "world Jewry" aimed to infiltrate and subjugate Palestine, a sacred religious and cultural center of the Arab and Muslim world, as a staging ground for the seizure of all Arab lands. In his vision of the world, the Jews intended to enslave and exploit Arabs, to seize their land, to expropriate their wealth, undermine their Muslim faith and corrupt the moral fabric of their society. He labeled the Jews as the enemy of Islam, and used crude racist terminology to depict Jews and Jewish behavior, particularly as he forged a closer relationship with the SS in 1943 and 1944. He described Jews as having immutable characteristics and behaviors. On occasion, he would compare Jewishness to infectious disease and Jews to microbes or bacilli. In at least one speech attributed to him, he advocated killing Jews wherever Arabs found them. He consistently advocated "removing" the Jewish homeland from Palestine and, on occasion, driving every Jew out of Palestine and other Arab lands.

Even during that meeting with Hitler the word "Zionist" was never used - just "Jews."

[Mufti:] The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely the English, the Jews and the Communists....The Arabs could be more useful to Germany as allies than might be apparent at first glance, both for geographical reasons and because of the suffering inflicted upon them by the English and the Jews.

The Fuhrer replied that Germany’s fundamental attitude on these questions, as the Mufti himself had already stated, was clear. Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine, which was nothing other than a center, in the form of a state, for the exercise of destructive influence by Jewish interests. Germany was also aware that the assertion that the Jews were carrying out the functions of economic pioneers in Palestine was a lie. The work there was done only by the Arabs, not by the Jews. Germany was resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time to direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well.

Hitler's opposition to a Jewish state came directly from his hate of Jews - exactly like the Mufti.

The Mufti is a hero to Palestinians and considered their first leader.

The tie between antisemitism and anti-Zionism has never been clearer than these words from Adolf Hitler.

The Saudi royal accurately noted the mistakes of Palestinians including allying with Hitler. The New York Times then tries to minimize those ties as being merely "anti-Zionist."

What a joke the New York Times has become.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.