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! |
|
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! |
|
Jimmy Carter was a one-term president in part because he took on the Israel lobby over settlements. Stuart Eizenstat, Carter’s liaison to the Jewish community and later Hillary Clinton’s, wrote recently that Carter ascribed his loss to the opposition of “New York Jews” who had formerly supported him but were alarmed by his criticisms of Israel’s settlements....Indeed, in 1992, Bill Clinton won the presidency and ran to Bush’s right on Israel issues, and gained the blessings of the lead Israel lobby organization AIPAC.AIPAC had unfettered access to the White House under Barack Obama, too. Obama’s top foreign policy aide, Ben Rhodes, has said that he spent more time dealing with 10 to 20 Jewish groups than anyone else, and those groups were piping the Israeli government line. “It’s not a conspiracy, it is what it is.”What we are describing here is political clout at the highest levels of the American political system (surely having a lot to do with campaign contributions). It is in our country’s best democratic traditions to examine such corruption and give it sunlight. Pro-Israel Jewish groups want that sunlight to go away.
We did not devise the yellow star to put pressure on the Jews themselves. On the contrary, its purpose was to control the natural tendency of our German people to come to the aid of someone in trouble. The marking was intended to hinder any such assistance to Jews who were being harassed. We wanted Germans to feel embarrassed, to feel afraid of having any contact with Jews. So our administration was quite happy to distribute these bolts of yellow cloth and to regulate the time limit by which the stars would have to be worn.
Dani Dayan, chairman of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem, is taking the heat for the removal by the museum, of a large, floor-to-ceiling photo of the well-known meeting between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin El Husseini and Adolph Hitler. That the photo has disappeared from view is not in doubt. But what does the disappearance of the photo signify?
Was its removal from public eye motivated by politics and political correctness, or was it more about museum function and management?
More to the point: Was the photo removed in the first place?
Several important voices, for example Lyn Julius, Ellie Cohanim, and Daniel Greenfield, have alluded to the removal of the photo as politically motivated. And in fact, the disappearance of the photo does seem political, even shockingly so.
For one thing, the Bennett government coalition includes Ra’am, the Arab list. This is one of the larger factions of the coalition, and it is in Bennett’s best interests to avoid offending Arab sensibilities. Dani Dayan, meanwhile, is a Bennett appointee. Could Dayan be behind the removal of the photo in order to satisfy some injunction from above?
If so, preserving the government would have come at the
expense of the public’s understanding of this grievous chapter in Holocaust history.
Those who saw the photo while it was still on display, speak of its stark
impact. There was Shalom Pollack, who
said, “As a tour guide since 1980, I have visited the old museum numerous times
and remember clearly how my tourists were shocked by the duo in the photo.”
Pollack described his efforts to get the photo reinstated:
When I wrote to Yad Vashem and asked why they removed the photo from the new museum, I was told that the new museum "concentrates on the victims and less on the perpetrators". However just a few feet from the small Husseini - Himmler photo is an entire wall of perpetrators - the architects of the "Wannsee Conference" that drew up the plans for the Holocaust.
I asked a number of local official Yad Vashem guides about the photo. They either did not know of it or said it was political and they did not discuss it with visitors. They were uncomfortable with my inquiry.
I wondered if associating Palestinian Arabs with Nazis was no longer politically correct since the Oslo accords with Arafat in 1993.
Undeterred, Pollack looked for a more sympathetic ear. Dani Dayan was a son of the
right. For six years, Dayan had chaired the Yesha Council, which represents
Judea and Samaria, settlements and settlers. Pollack thought he might have finally found an ally in Dayan:
Today there is a new chairman of Yad Vashem,
Mr. Dani Dayan came to the position with "right wing" credentials, so I renewed my efforts. I wrote to him asking that he return the photo and asked for a meeting with him about the subject. I was refused a meeting and told that there will be no changes made.
I then encouraged people to write to Yad Vashem and request that the photo be returned. The letter writers were made to understand that there never was such a photo. Emails began bouncing back to the senders. I enquired with Yad Vashem and was told that they changed the email address. I was told the new one and the letter campaign resumed.
Knowing of Pollack’s determination to reach Dayan, his brother found a way to
put the two in touch:
In mid-November 2021, Mr. Dayan addressed a well-known and affluent synagogue in Westhampton, NY. My brother, a member of the community, approached Mr. Dayan and told him of my concern. He said he was aware of it and assured him it is not political. My brother asked if he would meet me. He agreed and so I received a call from his office for a meeting.
At the meeting Dayan told me he did not meet with me earlier because he did not like the tone of the letters written to him. He told me that "no one will lecture him on Zionism and love of Israel. His credentials speak for themselves." That is true, which is why I had expectations.
He claimed that I was interested not in historical record but the politics of the Jewish - Arab conflict. I said it was both, which he did not accept. He added that Yad Vashem is not a museum of the Arab - Jewish conflict, that Husseini played only a tiny part in the Holocaust and did not warrant more space than he has in the museum.
Next came a denial that the photo was ever displayed to
begin with (emphasis added):
[Dayan] told me that he is in charge and won't bring the photo back, if there ever was one. His advisor chimed in: “There was never such a photo." She asked me if I had photographic proof and I reminded her that it is forbidden to bring cameras into the museum. I asked her if the many signed testimonies of veteran guides that I have gathered is proof enough and she said it was a possibility.
Mr. Dayan was frustrated that I continued to hold firm to my position. I told him that there are growing numbers of people, Jews and non-Jews, who want the truth not be hidden at Yad Vashem and the photo returned. He asked that I leave his office.
Who was right about the photo? Pollack, or Dayan’s advisor? Dayan’s
official
statement appears to back assertions that the photo has never been on
display at the museum (emphasis added):
To anyone who mistakenly believes differently, the facts are that the picture of the meeting between Adolf Hitler and the Mufti was never displayed in the old historical museum at Yad Vashem (it does, however, appear on the Yad Vashem website).
Here is where Dayan flubbed it. This was a denial of a fact and it made Dayan look
bad, as though he were lying. He was also insulting, as much as calling those who said they saw the photo, liars.
Dayan had an important platform that gave him the chance to make
things better, but he’d only made it worse. Hence the communal umbrage.
Mort Klein of the ZOA came to the fore to defend
Pollack:
The decision by Yad Vashem to remove the photo of the Mufti tying him to Hitler did not go over well with Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton Klein, who “slammed the museum and its head Dani Dayan for an ‘appalling’ censorship of history.” Klein didn’t mince words, nor should he have done so, since the decision by Yad Vashem has worrying implications, particularly given the contemporary rise in Islamic antisemitism throughout Europe and North America.
From Breitbart (emphasis added):
“I can vouch and state as a matter of fact that I, Morton Klein, personally saw that picture on Yad Vashem’s wall when I was there,” he asserted.
Though photography is forbidden in the museum itself, the author of the recent op-ed attacking the museum gathered twenty signed testimonies of veteran guides over the last month attesting to the photo’s original presence, before it was allegedly removed and never returned during renovations in 2005.
Other voices have testified to having seen the photo in the “old”
museum, prior to renovations, contradicting Dayan’s denial:
Former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem David Cassuto, a longtime member on the museum’s council, told Breitbart News on Sunday that the photograph was absolutely part of the museum’s previous exhibition.
“I remember it; I saw it there,” Cassuto said, as he expressed his bafflement as to why it was ever removed.
“They have to bring it back and out it in a prominent point in the exhibition,” he added.
Cassuto, who met with Dayan over the issue last month, disregarded Dayan’s denials.
“[Dayan] has no idea because he was not there at the time.”
Ephraim Kaye, who served as the director of international seminars for educators from abroad at the museum for over 25 years, also confirmed the prior display of the photograph and its subsequent removal.
“Everyone remembers the picture of the Mufti and Hitler, it was towards the end of the museum — it was there,” Kaye told Breitbart News. “It was up until 2005 when we closed the old museum and opened the new one.”
Dayan is certainly not culpable for the original decision not to exhibit the Mufti/Hitler photo in the refurbished museum. That happened in 2005, when Dayan was not on the scene, as Cassuto rightly states. Nonetheless, reading Dayan’s statement is to understand why the subject blew up.
This could have been handled so much better. But Dayan is new to the job. And Israelis are notoriously bad at public
diplomacy.
In light of Dayan’s statement/denial, it was not
unreasonable for the public to presume that Arab sensibilities were at least a
partial factor in the disappearance of the photo of Hitler and the Mufti. If true, that's a shocking thing: a Jerusalem Holocaust museum putting history into hiding to keep Bennett’s government intact.
The disappearance of the photo is viewed as the museum downplaying or minimizing the
importance of the Mufti-Hitler meeting. The
museum looks culpable of purposely hiding history. Dani Dayan, who represents the
museum, looks as though he is capitulating to Arab and woke sensibilities by refusing to find a
way to restore the photo to public scrutiny.
But what if he isn’t?
I spoke to Dr. Elana Heideman, Holocaust scholar and
Executive Director of The
Israel Forever Foundation. Heideman suggests that the controversy may
not be a controversy at all. I reviewed with her what other writers are saying.
She reminded me that each of these parties has a
particular focus: “Mine is integrity of memory. If you want to make an issue,
then it should be for using this as an example of the danger of extracting
details that are uncomfortable to contemporary rhetoric. And that this should
raise questions not only in Jerusalem, but everywhere, as to the complete
exclusion of any reference to the Muslim/Nazi connection and shared ideology.”
Heideman described the exhibit, which I had not seen. It was
true that the photo of the Mufti and Hitler was floor-to-ceiling, but Dr.
Heideman told me that in the former exhibit, each photo had had a corresponding
same-sized photo on the opposite wall. That salient fact had been omitted from most
other accounts I had read. Reading the op-eds, I had been under the
impression that the photo of the Mufti and Hitler was the only large photo in
the exhibit, and perhaps the largest photo in the entire museum, or at least
one of the largest.
Discussing this with Heideman was confusing for me. She had
me contemplating the idea that I’d gotten hung up on the word “removal,” when
the photo had not been “removed” so much as not placed on exhibition in the new
museum. The refurbished museum had all new exhibitions. According to Heideman,
all the voices speaking of removal imply that the photo was displayed in the
museum and subsequently taken down for the sake of political correctness.
Heideman, who knows about these things, mentioned that it
takes a lot of thought to create new exhibitions, and how best to present the
museum’s holdings to the public. That the photo is not currently on display,
does not exclude the possibility that it will be on display in the future. A
new exhibition may even be in the works. It would take a lot of thought and planning to create an exhibit on the Muslim-Nazi connection with maximum impact on visitors
to the museum.
In other words, maybe shifting stock is just what museums,
do. And in fact, that’s exactly what this
museum did. They put up other things instead. Just not that thing.
What Heideman said made me pause and think
about how it would be a difficult and complicated conversation to have. How should we portray the Muslim-Nazi connection to museum goers? How might we best teach the subject in the classroom? How much space do we give to this part of Holocaust history? One chapter in a textbook? Ten?
Every chapter of Holocaust history, in fact, requires a difficult
conversation for educators and others who strive to engage the public on the
subject. As Dayan suggested in his statement, it may be legitimate
for a museum to consider how large a part the Muslim connection plays in the
greater scheme of the things:
Research shows that the meeting between the Mufti and Adolf Hitler had a negligible practical effect on Nazi policy. Attempting to pressure Yad Vashem to expand the exhibit on the Mufti in the Holocaust History Museum is tantamount to forcing Yad Vashem to partake in a debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is alien to its mission.
But while it's legitimate for a museum to decide the best way to utilize its inventory and space, it's also legitimate for museum accusers to want that photo back up, not only because it is an important part of history, but because it still has relevance for us, today.
Pollack said so to Dayan's face:
He claimed that I was interested not in historical record but the politics of the Jewish - Arab conflict. I said it was both.
We are supposed to learn from history, lest we repeat it. But wokism means that if we talk about the Muslim/Nazi ideology connection, we're accused of Islamophobia. This is similar to the way we are now not allowed to say that the vast majority of antisemitic attacks in New York have been perpetrated by blacks. The facts may be facts, but bringing them to light is definitely construed as racist in the prevailing zeitgeist.
Dov Hikind has spoken of the need to change this dynamic:
Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, former longtime Democratic New York State assemblyman Dov Hikind said that there is “a problem with many young people in the black community, but not just young people.”
He pointed to antisemitic comments made by Joan Terrell-Paige, a member of the Jersey City Board of Education, following the Jersey City antisemitic shooting, who alleged that “brutes of the Jewish community” had “waved bags of money” at black homeowners, and alleged that “six rabbis were accused of selling body parts.”
Hikind also noted that members of the Hudson County Democratic Black Caucus, representing elected officials at the state, county and local levels in New Jersey, said that while it did not agree with “the delivery of the statement” made by Terrell-Paige, they said that the issues she raised “must be addressed and should be a topic of a larger conversation” between the African-American and Jewish communities.
“This is unreal,” said Hikind. “This to me indicates something much deeper at play. Whatever it is, we shouldn’t be afraid to discuss it.”
"So much of this hate is emanating from the minority community and if we don't talk about it and if we don't face it, how in G-d's name are we ever going to deal with it?"pic.twitter.com/QqRxgFUSjJ
— Dov Hikind (@HikindDov) January 23, 2022
Has anyone else noticed how after every major violent attack on Jews by blacks or Muslims ppl like @WajahatAli have responded in one of three ways:
— Dov Hikind (@HikindDov) January 20, 2022
1. Blame white supremacy
2. Link antisemitism with Islamophobia
3. Paint Muslims as victims, even the perpetrators#CAIRtactics pic.twitter.com/UzjtdQMUBh
The Mufti-Hitler photo may or may not have been removed with conscious political intent, but on whichever side you fall in the debate, it is the way Dani Dayan handled things that drew public scrutiny, especially in regard to his response to the complaints. Dayan had a platform. Still does. His statement should have been seen as an opportunity to correct or at least redirect the narrative to avoid harm to the museum. That is his job.
Instead, he denied the photo had ever been there, when he should have refrained from mentioning this at all. There are lots of things he could have said. He could have made a forceful statement and said that the photo had not been hidden from view.
He could have said that the museum was
taking time to consider how best to use the photo in a future exhibit on Muslim-Nazi relations--true or not.
But he said none of these things. Dayan blew it. And that put winds in the sails of the idea of “removal”
as opposed to “not currently on display.”
Dayan should have registered how his behavior and statement would look and feel to the public. That floor-to-ceiling photo had made a strong impact. People noticed its absence. They feel a loss. They feel as though we, as a people, scuttled an opportunity to confront the world with a shocking and important image that helps make our tragedy real to them.
As an inexperienced spokesman, Dani Dayan created a massive PR blunder. His statement is not as it
should be and stands to this day on the Yad Vashem website as a giant gaffe. It should not have gone down this way. Dayan's actions have only fueled public
outrage and lent it credibility.
This leads to the thought that Dani Dayan may have been good at minor politics, but he quite frankly sucks
at his new job. This issue is not going to die an easy death. It is only getting worse.
But there is still one thing the museum can do to fix things, with or without Dani Dayan:
Find a
place to display that photo on the walls of Yad Vashem.
And soon.
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 !
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.
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.
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.”
We also need to recognize and - this is for me as a Palestinian-American - we also need to recognize... you know as I think about my family in Palestine that continue to live under military occupation and how that really interacts with this beautiful black city I grew up in, you know, I always tell people cutting people off from water is violence and they do it from Gaza to Detroit and it's a way to control people to oppress people.It's those structures that we continue to fight against.So I know you all understand the structure we've been living under right now is designed by those that exploit the rest of us for their own profit.I always say to people, you know I don't care if it's the issue around global human rights and our fight to free Palestine or pushing back against those that don't believe in the minimum wage or those that believe that people have a right to health care and so much more, and I tell those same people, that if you open the curtain and look behind the curtain it's the same people that make money - and yes they do - off of racism, off of these broken policies, there is someone there making money and you saw it it was so exposed during the pandemic, because all those structures everything that was set up they made record profit when we were all at having some of the most challenging most difficult times in our lifetime at that moment, and and again they made record profit so if anything this pandemic just exposed what we all have been fighting against.
Tlaib makes a direct connection between the Jews in Israel and the money-grubbing capitalists in America. Both of them are "they." "They" are racists. "They" are greedy. "They" profit from their racism. . "They" are hiding behind the curtain, and she reveals to her audience who "they" are: rich, miserly, greedy Fagins.
This is what @RashidaTlaib means when she says "behind the curtain”.
— Ben M. Freeman (@BenMFreeman) August 4, 2021
This is a piece of Nazi propaganda that presents Jews as behind the curtain controlling the Nazi’s enemies. pic.twitter.com/EV4p8samHg
Hitler's letter authorizing the murder of the "incurably sick" |
Leo Kanner |
Kanner spoke of ‘the garbage collector’s assistant who has served our neighborhood for many years’. This was a ‘sober, conscientious, and industrious fellow, . . . deservedly respected by his employer, his co-workers and his spare time companions.’ Still, ‘with an I.Q. of 65, he is rated by us psychiatrists as feebleminded or mentally deficient' . . .
Kanner discussed ways in which the ‘mentally deficient’ contribute to society:“Sewage disposal, ditch digging, potato peeling, scrubbing of floors and other such occupations are as indispensable and essential to our way of living as science, literature and art. Cotton picking is an integral part of our textile industries. Oyster shucking is an important part of our seafood supply. Garbage collection is an essential part of our public hygiene measures. For all practical purposes, the garbage collector is as much of a public hygienist as is the laboratory bacteriologist. All such performances, often referred to snobbishly as ‘the dirty work’, are indeed real and necessary contributions to our culture, without which our culture would collapse within less than a month.”Although Kanner agreed with Kennedy that ‘idiots and imbeciles cannot be trained in any kind of social usefulness’, he disagreed with Kennedy’s conclusion that, in Kanner’s words, ‘we are justified in passing the black bottle among them’ through the procedure some ‘dignify with the term euthanasia’. Kanner linked such ideas to reports of Nazi atrocities, and asked, ‘Shall we psychiatrists take our cue from the Nazi Gestapo?’. . . Kanner agreed with Kennedy and others that ‘sterilization is often a desirable procedure’ for ‘persons intellectually or emotionally unfit to rear children’. However, he objected to sterilization performed ‘solely on the basis of the I.Q.’
Propaganda poster for the Nazi eugenics program |
Collection bus for killing patients. Hartheim Nazi killing center, bus with driver |
Quebec massacre suspect "Liked" Sprite on his Facebook page, proving that Sprite drinkers are terrorists according to @MaxBlumenthal— ElderOfZiyon (@elderofziyon) January 31, 2017
ROME (Feb. 20)So the Arab nations did once want to accept and naturalize refugees - as long as they shared Hitler's goals for the Jews.
Arab agents are today recruiting mercenaries to fight against the Jews in Palestine from among the Yugoslav Ustashi and Chetniks and the Ukrainians, Albanians, Circassians (former inhabitants of the northwestern area of the Caucasus) and other groups here who were on Hitler’s side during the war, and are now under the care of the International Refugee Organization.
Able-bodied men, both inside and outside the I.R.O. camps, who are between 22 and 32 years of age, and who accept the Arab terms of payment–their fares to the Middle East and maintenance of their families in exchange for their pledge to serve in the Arab forces for at least one year–are being given visas by the governments of Egypt, Syria and Transjordan. Where the mercenaries are of Moslem origin they are being officially resettled by formal negotiations between the governments concerned and the I.R.O. which, however, disclaims any knowledge of what use the individuals are put to on arriving in the Middle East.
Buy EoZ's book, PROTOCOLS: EXPOSING MODERN ANTISEMITISM
If you want real peace, don't insist on a divided Jerusalem, @USAmbIsrael
The Apartheid charge, the Abraham Accords and the "right side of history"
With Palestinians, there is no need to exaggerate: they really support murdering random Jews
Great news for Yom HaShoah! There are no antisemites!