Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, has recently made one of the hugest gaffes imaginable. As everyone knows, he recently told the World Zionist Congress that Hitler did not want to exterminate the Jews of Europe; he wanted to deport them, but was talked into the Holocaust by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, has a reputation for gross tactlessness. Here are two of his classic gaffes, taken from a Daily Telegraph article:
""If it doesn't fart or eat hay then she isn't interested"- speaking about his daughter, Princess Anne.
"Can you tell the difference between them?"- The Duke's question after President Barack Obama said he met with the leaders of the UK, China and Russia. "
We can laugh at gaffes such as this, but Netanyahu's blunder has had far more serious consequences. He has been condemned for this statement by just about every one, even within Israel itself. Apparently, he has made this claim before, in 2012, but now appears to have done some further reading on the subject. As today's Haaretz says:
"The argument concerning Husseini's role was recently mentioned in a book by Barry Rubin and Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, "Nazis, Islamists, and the Making of the Modern Middle East." The authors, like Netanyahu, draw a straight line between the mufti's support of Hitler and the policy of the Palestinian Liberation Organization under Yasser Arafat.
But even these two researchers do not claim that the dialogue described by Netanyahu ever took place. They say Hitler reached the conclusion to exterminate the Jews because of his desire to nurture Husseini, who opposed the transfer of Jews to pre-state Israel."
Netanyahu's faux pas has led some to say that he is letting Hitler off the hook by putting the blame on the Grand Mufti; he has also given Israel's opponents some excellent propaganda.
More seriously, I think, is that this blunder appears to be unfair to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and he is a man who deserves no sympathy. The Grand Mufti under discussion here, who met Hitler in WW2, was Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini, (lived 1897 to 1974). Husseini was an active campaigner against the British pre-war mandate in Palestine, and a bitter opponent of Jewish immigration. He fled an arrest warrant in 1937, eventually arriving in Nazi Germany. While there, he actually did meet Adolf Hitler and made pro-Nazi propaganda broadcasts. He was known as "The Arabian Lord Haw-Haw", and was paid the equivalent in today's money of 12 million US dollars. He also played a key role in recruiting Bosnian Muslims into the Waffen SS. These units waged war against Yugoslav partisans (and civilians), gaining a grim reputation for atrocities. Some survivors of these units are said to have fought against the new Israeli state in 1948. Some authorities say that the Muslim SS were responsible for the deaths of 90% of all murdered Yugoslav Jews. Husseini eluded capture after the war, dying in Beirut in 1974. It hardly needs to be pointed out that even if he was not responsible for the Holocaust, he was unlikely to have opposed it.
Now, when I have had disagreements with the Pro-Palestinian Lobby (PPL) - my invented term - as distinct from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign - they emphatically maintain that they are anti-Zionist and not anti- Semitic. Any suggestion of similarity with the aims of the far right is met with righteous indignation (or is it self-righteous?). I accept this, and know that most PPL people are sincere in their beliefs, but, like it or not, there are anti-Semites in the PPL. Searchlight magazine has documented Neo-Nazis among Palestinian demonstrators in the UK, and even anti-Zionist Jews have been attacked by the far right on Gaza demos in Germany. This is not confined to neo-Nazi infiltrators, either. There are many PPL members (for want of a better word) who conceal their anti-Semitism. Occasionally, however, they let their mask slip, and I have experience of this. Pro-Palestinians often appear on my Facebook page, making swingeing attacks on Israel - and I never make any comment. But on one occasion, I did. Someone with an Arabic name made the comment "Crazy Jews". I was angered by this. Had he said "Israelis" or "Zionists", I would have said nothing. This time, I spoke out against it, to be answered by the comment: "Once a shithead, always a shithead". I congratulated this man with an Arabic name on his self-knowledge, and told him to take his self-analysis elsewhere.
To be fair, another PPL person did correct the Arabic man, suggesting that his unguarded utterance should be modified to "Crazy Zionists". This brings me back to the issue of gaffes - PPL members with Arabic names make them, the Israeli PM makes them and the Duke of Edinburgh makes them. Well, it's nice to know they have something in common.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You are far too kind to Netanyahu. He did not make a gaffe; it was quite deliberate black propaganda. Hitler made clear his desire to wipe out the Jews as early as 1922, 19 years before he met the Mufti. While the Mufti was certainly a Nazi collaborator, encouraging Bosnian Muslims to join the SS (against the wishes and advice of their own local clerics, it has to be said), and gleefully welcoming the Holocaust, he had no role in Hitler's decision to commit mass murder. The Mufti would have made a pact with the devil to oppose those whom he saw as the two enemies of his people - the British and the Jews - and you could say that in his dealings with Hitler, that's more or less what he did. He actively lobbied for an audience with Hitler, who really didn't want to meet the representative of a people whom he regarded as grossly inferior and non-Aryan.
ReplyDeleteYou are also too kind to the Mufti. The terms dishonest, ruthless and bigoted apply to both him and Netanyahu equally. Had he gained political power in Palestine, he would have treated the Jews in a similarly vicious way as the Palestinians are currently being treated by the Zionists. Neither man has any redeeming characteristics. The fact that the Palestinians regard the Mufti, to whom Yasser Arafat was related, as some kind of national hero does them no favours.
As for the person who wrote that bigoted comment about the Jews on Facebook, you will recall that I told him the correct word is 'Zionists', but Netanyahu must take some some of the responsibility for that confusion of terminology. When he visited the USA a few months ago, Netanyahu constantly referred, not to Israel, but "the Jewish state", thus quite deliberately politicising the term 'Jew'. He can't complain if his enemies follow his lead. Using the term 'gaffe' to describe his utterances is to underestimate his intelligence: whatever else he is, he isn't is stupid and he knows exactly what he is saying and doing.
As an aside, to bring that royal buffoon, Philip Mountbatten, into this is ludicrous: there is simply no comparison between his recurring stupidity and the deliberate and vicious bigotry and racism of Netanyahu and his cronies.
Nev, I hardly think that the bigot who appeared on my FB page used the word "Jews" because of Netanyahu; Arab extremists always use it - if you don't believe me, take a look at the Hamas Charter, where they clearly and repeatedly use the word "Jews".And if Netanyahu and his cronies are guilty of racism, then they are no worse that Hamas and Husseini.
DeleteI never suggested the person on Facebook had specifically taken his lead from Netanyahu. I was stating that referring to "the Jewish state" all the time politicises the word 'Jew'. If 'Jew' becomes a political term relating to a state, instead of a word for adherents of a specific religion, the term 'anti-semitism' will lose its unique meaning. Saying 'Jew' in a pejorative way would then be little different from, for instance, saying 'Russian' or 'American' pejoratively, which isn't helpful in my opinion. Potential own goal by Netanyahu, I think.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for blaming both sides, as you suggest I should do: firstly, two wrongs don't make a right, and I don't condone racism by Palestinians any more than I do by Zionists. Secondly, my original comment did put blame in both directions by arguing that the Mufti and Netanyahu are as despicable as each other. You, on the other hand, were trying to minimise Netanyahu's vindictive lies about the Mufti being responsible for the Holocaust as a unthinking gaffe on a par with one of Prince Philip's.
Netanyahu appeared to be groping for a word to use to describe al-Husseini's influence upon Hitler and the Jewish question. Netanyahu used the word instrumental which is of course a laughable assertion. Hence as you rightly state Geoff, a gaffe. However, the rest of the short extract of his speech that I heard contained no untruth. Until Sept. 1939
ReplyDelete, Hitler was content to solve Germany's Jewish question by emigration.
The rest is all well documented history. After the conquest of Poland, the Low Countries and France the problem became the solution of European Jewry which he had written and made speeches about before attaining a position to influence the outcome. The invasion of Russia with special action groups in 1941 charged with the elimination of undesirables and the establishment of Ghettoes in Poland before the Final Solution decided at Wanasee in 1942- all ad hoc, even the invasion of Russia, even if mentioned in My Struggle.
RedNev makes some pertinent comments about the declaration that Israel is a Jewish state by it's leader. Hence correctly, a person who makes negative comments about this state and refers to it as Jewish, is only confirming the opinion of it's leader What a stupid man Netanyahu can be sometimes. However to equate al-Husseini and Netanyahu as being equal in their viciousness is far fetched. If the Grand Mufti had the power that Netanyahu possesses, would there actually be any Jews still alive in Israel now?
I disagree: I said that if the Grand Mufti had had political power, etc. In fact, he never did have such power, which is just as well. It is strange not to see that a man who vociferously supported the Holocaust at the time is at least as vicious as Netanhahu.
ReplyDeleteAs for Hitler being content with emigration at any time:
Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews. As soon as I have the power to do so, I will have gallows built in rows—at the Marienplatz in Munich, for example—as many as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged indiscriminately, and they will remain hanging until they stink; they will hang there as long as the principles of hygiene permit. As soon as they have been untied, the next batch will be strung up, and so on down the line, until the last Jew in Munich has been exterminated. Other cities will follow suit, precisely in this fashion, until all Germany has been completely cleansed of Jews. - Adolf Hitler in 1922.
Yes RedNev, Hitler's rhetoric was often very repulsive. So much so that he could easily fit into certain 'modern day' societies. But however we interpret the word 'content', the fact is that up until the invasion of Poland in 1939, Jews could emigrate from Germany.
ReplyDeleteI take issue with the phrasing of your first paragraph. Would you be so kind as to provide links to support your assertion that the statements of Netanyahu are as vicious as al-Husseini's (not their actions, since the latter fortunately never held power)
No, because if you take issue with my assertions, it's your job to refute what I've written.
ReplyDeleteFair enough, I now know your terms and conditions of debate.
ReplyDeleteOh dear! Please do not be so pompous. Actually, I was being polite because your request was quite unrealistic. Whether one person is more vicious than another, or whether they are equally vicious, is a matter of opinion, not measurable fact. Both men have behaved in a vile manner, perhaps in different ways, and I despise them equally. Yes, I could provide links that demonstrate how the behaviour of both has been thoroughly reprehensible, but which is worse would still remain a matter of opinion.
ReplyDeleteMy inclination is to side with the Palestinians as the wronged people, but I am not under the illusion that they have always behaved in a saintly manner: the Achille Lauro hijacking and the Munich Olympics, to mention just two events, are sufficient evidence of that. Having said that, the Palestinian people, who have lived in the area for at least hundreds of years, probably a lot longer, are the ones who have been invaded by people of mostly European and American descent who have dispossessed them of their land. These land seizures are an ongoing process and continue to this day in contravention of international law and UN resolutions. That last point is demonstrable fact.
Netanyahu actively encourages that process. The Grand Mufti welcomed the Holocaust and encouraged Bosnian Muslims to join Hitler's SS. If you can find any process by which I can objectively measure who is worse of these two, please let me know. Until then, it's a matter of opinion, and I have given mine – more than once now.
I agree with all the contents of your 2nd paragraph. I could add the atrocities committed by sections of the Jewish forces before Israel was proclaimed a state which encouraged 100,000s of Palestinians to flee their homes and become refugees. The Six Day war was a premeditated and pre-emptive attack by Israel on its neighbours which lead to the occupation of Sinai, the Golan Heights and the West Bank. The Palestinians in the West Bank are under military occupation while Israeli Arabs are discriminated against. Israel is an apartheid state in the same manner that SA and the US were but worse in that it is expansionist. I believe Israeli politicians, such as Netanyahu, have no intention of agreeing to a 2-state solution as demonstrated by building settlements on the West Bank.
ReplyDeleteTo deal with your first paragraph involves re-stating the core of the debate which is your assertion that Netanyahu's rhetoric is as vicious as Al-Husseini's. When requested to provide links to any source material you declared that it was the duty of the challenger to disprove your assertion. Now if that is not an unrealistic request what is? Instead of you providing one or two sources, I would have had to trawl through every historical speech by Netanyahu to provide a negative. So if you did perceive my terse response to this as being pompous so be it because in truth it was meant to be derisive.