Israel’s 71st birthday, and Tlaib’s recent remarks on the Holocaust and the founding of Israel
Rashida Tlaib has been getting a lot of flak, and rightly so, for some remarks she made recently about Israel, the Palestinians, and the Holocaust. The context was a question about the one-state solution, and this is the part of her answer that’s drawing the criticism:
There’s kind of a calming feeling, I always tell folks, when I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust and the fact that it was my ancestors — Palestinians — who lost their land and some lost their lives. Their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways have been wiped out and some people’s passports, I mean just all of it, was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews post the Holocaust, post the tragedy and horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right? In many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away, right? And it was forced on them.
No, Tlaib did not say that thinking of the Holocaust itself gives her a “calming feeling.” I think that’s pretty clear, although the idea of putting the words “calming feeling” and “Holocaust” in the same sentence is bizarre on the face of it.
What’s really wrong with her remarks was the rest of it.
Today, May 14, is the 71st anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel. But it was no thanks to the people now known as Palestinians, to say the least. Israel was founded in 1948, when the British mandate ended, but during the actual Holocaust that occurred during WWII, the Arabs now known as Palestinians were mostly supporters of the Nazis:
The Palestinian Arab and Nazi political leaders said that they had a common cause against International Jewry. The most significant practical effect of Nazi policy on Palestine between 1933 and 1938, however, was to radically increase the immigration rate of German and other European Jews and to double the population of Palestinian Jews. The Mufti had sent messages to Berlin through Heinrich Wolff [de], the German Consul General in Jerusalem endorsing the advent of the new regime as early as March, 1933, and was enthusiastic over the Nazi anti-Jewish policy, and particularly the anti-Jewish boycott in Germany. “[The Mufti and other sheikhs asked] only that German Jews not be sent to Palestine.”…
…Up to the middle of 1938, Palestine had received one third of all the Jews who had emigrated from Germany since 1933 — 50,000 out of a total of 150,000.”[48] Edwin Black, benefitting from more modern scholarship, has written that 60,000 German Jews immigrated into Palestine between 1933 through 1936, bringing with them $100,000,000 dollars ($1.6 billion in 2009 dollars). This precipitous increase in the Jewish Palestinian population stimulated Palestinian Arab political resistance to continued Jewish immigration, and was a principal cause for the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, which in turn led to the British White Paper decision to abandon the League of Nations Mandate to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine. The resultant change in British policy effectively closed Palestine to most European Jews who suffered persecution throughout World War II…
The Mufti opposed all immigration of Jews into Palestine. The Mufti’s numerous letters appealing to various governmental authorities to prevent Jewish emigration to Palestine have been widely republished and cited as documentary evidence of his collaboration with Nazis and his participative support for their actions…
In November 1943, when he became aware of the nature of the Nazi Final Solution, the Mufti said:
“It is the duty of Muhammadans in general and Arabs in particular to … drive all Jews from Arab and Muhammadan countries….Germany is also struggling against the common foe who oppressed Arabs and Muhammadans in their different countries. It has very clearly recognized the Jews for what they are and resolved to find a definitive solution [endgültige Lösung] for the Jewish danger that will eliminate the scourge that Jews represent in the world. ….”
As Tlaib says, the establishment of Israel “was forced on” the Palestinians. Against their will. And when the UN partitioned Palestine and gave them their own state in addition to creating the Jewish state, pretty much the entire Arab world declared war on Israel.
But Tlaib is probably counting on the fact that many people today (perhaps most?) are unaware of this history.
71’st anniversary or the RESTORATION of Israel.France wasn’t founded after the allies won, neither was Israel.
Avi:
The title of the post is shorthand. You might note that in the body of the post I have written: “Today, May 14, is the 71st anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel.
The modern state of Israel, not Israel in the historical sense of course.
Encounter Books presents an 11-minute video, with writing an drawing in black marker on whiteboard, on the history of the Israel-Arab conflict. I’m sure, she said with her tongue firmly parked in her cheek, that no one will recognize who is the narrator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9U
In the sidebar there’s a video by Vox on the same topic. I watched enough of it to note some important bits that for some reason weren’t mentioned. But possibly it improves as it goes on ….
.
It probably needn’t be said, but the Palestinian Mandate, administered by Britain, was a follow-on from the Ottoman Empire’s defeat at the end of WW I. (At the source, the following is a single paragraph.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine
I do believe Tlaib was truly that self-servingly ignorant in her latest remarks.
I’ve read a fair number of Muslims attempting to make bridges to the West and without fail they lecture the West in this manner.
I have yet to read an orthodox Muslim capable of honest self-reflection when it comes to the conflict between Islam vs Jews and Christians.
Counter-examples, welcome.
My observation from living in a Muslim-majority country for a couple of years is that most Muslims do not have a remotely accurate view of their history. I think it is likely that Tlaib actually believes this warped version of the history of the area. It’s no help that American “news” media have been spewing “Palestinian” propaganda for years as if it were true.
Note that, except for a rather brief period under the Maccabees, the area has been under non-indigenous rule since about 300 BC, until 1948. Ruled by a long succession of foreign regimes, the fact that the breaking point of acceptance has been the establishment of a small Jewish state makes it clear what this is about: Jew-hatred.
Different part of the Doc Zero post I linked on the Pouncing Republicans thread.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1128267270243876869.html
When I was in Egypt, I had a very learned elderly secular Muslim friend. When I asked him about the Nazi connection and hatred of Israel, he said that he thought, at most, that the Nazi connection was entirely consistent with how the Muslim world had always looked at Jews. Cooperation with the Nazis was the effect of Islamist attitudes, and not the cause.
When you’ve lost CNN…
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/cnn-fact-checks-tlaibs-holocaust-comments-she-cant-rewrite-history/
“…she-cant-rewrite-history…”
To the contrary, she CAN…and she DOES.
And if not officially lauded is at least defended—to the HILT—for her efforts by the usual suspects—-and there ought NOT be at all surprising. (That is, if one IS surprised, then one has simply NOT been paying attention.)
Ahhh, but the Democratic party is “a friend of Israel”…. Just ask them!
(Reminds one of Merkel’s Germany—spouting officiously its friendship with Israel, and Jews, while doing its best to make sure that Iran can avoid sanctions, with everything that that implies, all this while its Foreign Minister goes out of his will to express his anti-Israel convictions and principles (well at least someone’s honest there). Which also reminds one, come to think of it(!) of Obama’s professed support of the Jewish State while allying his rogue government to the IRI and saturating his new pals with cash to pursue their, um, policies(!), both internally and foreign. The Obama-Merkel connection—or parallel, rather—as it seems to me, ought to be scrutinized quite a bit more, on several levels, but particular when it comes to ultra-centralization of non-Democratic uber-government as well as the whole subject of Moslem immigration….)
If a Muslim were capable for honest self-reflection, he would not be anymore a Muslim. Those few who were so honest, became apostates.
“…the Nazi connection…”
Very true. (And the fact that Egypt—as well as Syria—provided, post-WWII, refuge for escaped Nazi officials and military personnel, together with the post-WWII contribution of former Nazi rocket scientists to Nasser’s 1950s-60s military rocket/missile R&D is also a manifestation of this.)
But one must keep in mind that the existing anti-British sentiment of the time, Britain being the controlling (if not official) power in both Egypt (where King Farouk was essentially a puppet) and Iraq (ditto with King Faisal—at least during the war years). The desire to rid their countries of British influence, together with extreme anti-Jewish sentiment, led Anwar al-Sadat to join the anti-British underground (and be arrested, I believe, for it). Such sentiment also led to the vicious, deadly anti-Jewish pogrom (“Farhud”) in Baghdad in 1941, led by Iraqi Nazi sympathizers intending to damage British forces and welcome the Wehrmacht, which was en route to “Mesopotamia” via the Caucasus but which was decisively defeated by the Soviets before it even got to Georgia and the oil fields of Azerbaijan.
The Yishuv (the Jewish community in Mandatory Palestine), in addition to sending a significant number of soldiers to fight with the British armed forces, made extensive preparations for a final defensive battle—reinforcing for the most part the Carmel Mountain range—with the Nazi and their expected Arab sympathizers. Only the extraordinary victory (and it’s not possible to exaggerate this) over Rommel at Tobruk prevented German forces from overrunning Egypt and reaching Palestine, i.e., Tobruk, a key event in turning the tide of WWII against Germany (together with the spate of Soviet victories on the Eastern front) prevented what was certain to be a relentless massacre of the Jewish population in Palestine.
Having said all this, one must keep in mind that there were cases of Moslem protection of Jews—in Morocco (led by King Mohamed V) and in parts of Albania, as well as efforts by individual Moslems to assist Jews.
It must also be added that the situation in Palestine during the 1948-1949 Israeli War of Independence was a quite a bit more complex than most acknowledge, with a small but not insignificant number of Arabs either supporting the Jewish effort to defend itself (mostly Druze and some Beduin tribes in the Galilee and some villages, e.g., Abu Ghosh, near Jerusalem) or agreeing to stay out of the Arab campaign to quash the Jewish State (e.g., the villages of Furedeis and Jisr-a-Zarka).
To add to the complexity, it must be recognized that during the British Mandate years (1919-early 1948), there were—in spite of hostilities that burned hot and cold over those ~30 years—a variety of places where there existed good, even warm, relations between Arabs and Jews. However, during periods of stress and outbreaks of conflict, in the riots of 1920-21, in 1929 and particular between 1936 and 1939, not all such relations were able to survive. The troubles of 1936 and 1939 actually saw Arab supporters of the Mufti of Jerusalem kill more Arabs than Jews, as Mohammed al-Husseini embarked on a violent campaign to consolidate his power over the Arabs of the area—particularly over his Nusseibah-clan rivals in Jerusalem—and intimidate (and assassinate) Arabs who were well-disposed to Jews.
FWIW.
A reality that is poorly understood in the west is that, in spite of the nominal Arab solidarity, the Palestinians are mostly considered pariahs in the Arab world.
“…considered pariahs…”
This is for a variety of reasons.
1.
Originally, i.e., pre-State-of-Israel (but continuing, of course, after 1948-9), I believe it had to do with their being some of the BEST EDUCATED of all the Arabs.
So there was/is an element of envy that existed.
Once again, things are more complex than this. In Mandatory Palestine (and during the Ottoman period as well), there was a group of very wealthy Arabs (both Christian and Moslem) and a group of more middle-class artisans and professionals—the number of which grew greatly during the British Mandate period).
But there were also a lot of—mostly Moslem—fellahin, i.e., tenant farmers, many of whom were impoverished, indentured and terribly exploited by absentee landlords, who owned vast tracts of land but did not live anywhere on it (they often lived in the larger urban areas even as far away as Beirut).
So there existed, essentially, a population of extremes: the very wealthy (relatively few); a middle class—professional and artisan; and many, many poor. It is also important to note that as the area—a backwater terribly impoverished, neglected and disease-ridden by centuries-long, increasingly corrupt Ottoman rule—grew, developed, and was built up and enriched during the British Mandate period and concomitant Zionist immigration, it (i.e., the area) attracted more Arabs from outside the region who, hearing of the increased opportunities to improved their situations and lives, moved there. Note, too, that NONE of that ARAB population regarded themselves as “Palestinians”: they considered themselves either part of the greater Arab population stretching from Egypt (perhaps further west in N. Africa, e.g., Libya, if one were to exclude the Berber population) to Iraq; or else they considered themselves “Syrians”—the region of British Mandatory Cis-Jordan Palestine being considered “Southern Syria” (and it STILL IS, by the Syrian Baathist regime, which still holds it to be, rightfully, part of Syria and even refers to it as such in its official maps…or some of them.)
The “Palestinians” of the British Mandate period was the term used to refer to the JEWS of the area (which came to be called officially as “Palestine-Eretz Israel”—shortened to “Palestine-E.I.” e.g., for stamps and coins). After Israel’s creation—and survival—the “Palestinian” Jews (and Arab citizens of the new state) became “Israelis” and the term “Palestinians” was later adopted by the Arab refugees following the 1948-49 war as a most useful political tool).
2.
The shame of losing the 1948-49 war to the Jews. Note that it was not only the Arabs of Palestine who lost the war but their Arab brethren who vowed to drive the Jews into the Sea. To destroy the Jews utterly. To rid the area of the usurping, evil Jews.
So that the shame of the Palestinians spread to those “brother” countries as well, who failed to dislodge the Zionists.
Which utter shame they were reminded of daily, with the refugee camps having been established—and visible—in Jordan, in Lebanon, in Syria and even further afield.
(To be sure, this shame will—it was AND IS believed—be overcome at some future time, when the Zionist Entity will be expunged…and the Palestinians and their Arab brothers will be redeemed.)
3.
Since the Palestinians were spread around the Arab world, and also were some of the most educated (see #1 above), a significant number of them became, as engineers, doctors, teachers, professors, etc., a relatively elite, relatively wealthy—but ALIEN—segment of those countries. This generated much resentment (and envy, as mentioned) amongst the host populations; and this resentment exploded at times, for example, in Kuwait, which kicked out almost the entire Palestinian refugee population after Yasir Arafat (and some but not all of the Palestinians IN Kuwait) decided to support Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait in 1990—Arafat no doubt believing that he should support Hussein, a long-time stalwart and vociferous ally of the Palestinian cause, and that the latter would ultimately use this as the first stage of the reconquest of Palestine from the Israelis).
In addition, all the global attention—and extraordinary financial support—granted the Palestinians had some of those other countries (and particularly many other countries of the non-Arab third world) asking, “What about US?”….
Related and in pertinent detail (from PowerLine, which I assume most readers here also reference…but if not, well here it is):
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/05/from-rashida-with-love.php
Since the Palestinians were spread around the Arab world, and also were some of the most educated (see #1 above), a significant number of them became, as engineers, doctors, teachers, professors, etc., a relatively elite, relatively wealthy—but ALIEN—segment of those countries.
You’re referring to the situation in the Gulf. The Gulf Emirates and Saudi Arabia have for decades had masses of foreign residents (who constitute the majority of those present at any one time outside of SA). The ‘alien’ quality of that particular set of Arabs isn’t unusual; it’s modal. What was somewhat unusual was the durability of their residence. Most foreigners in the Gulf circulate in and out every few years.
Most Arabs with some historic connection to Mandatory Palestine live locally: in Israel, on the West Bank, in Gaza, in Jordan, or in one of the other neighboring countries.
Anti-Semites have been around a long long time; nothing new about that.
What is new is the not-so-under the radar support and acquiescence of the democrats in Congress.
Their silence should be a clarion call to all who vote for democrats, in particular jewish voters.
They can’t even pass a meaningless, toothless resolution condemning the now many anti-semitic comments of Tlaib and that other huge fan in congress (I forget her name) of Adolph Hitler.
The jewish big-wigs in Congress – Shumer, Nadler, Schiff, and others have said ZERO about any of these comments. And Nancy Palsi, who has trouble speaking clearly about anything, somehow had no verbal mis-cues excusing the jewish-hate comments of her party members.
Obviously then, she must agree with them, but it would be politically incorrect to just admit it.
I guess the democrats are too busy trying to impeach Trump to bother addressing the Nazis in their house.
I read a comment somewhere that German jews in the early days of nazi Germany that were cynics got out of dodge; those that were optimists ultimately were marched into the gas chambers.
No need to speak about the rising tide of anti-semitism within academia as well.
As an aside – sort of – jewish voters will not at all think twice for voting for democrats, despite the fact that their democrat representatives have not the cohones to speak out about the rising tide of anti-semitism amongst members of their own party and among many (most?) liberal institutions (e.g., academia, the media)
But then again, given the ultra-leftist political views of most jewish voters, they already believe that Trump IS Hitler (oh, didn’t you know that Trump IS Hitler? just ask his jewish son-in-law, his jewish daughter and his jewish grand-kids. What other proof can you possibly need !! Sieg Heil Trump !!).
Perhaps the democrats are first focusing on getting rid of the Fuhrer-Trump, and later on focusing in on his underlings.
Yea, that must be it.
There is a game afoot; a game to mainstream increasing doses of antisemitism. It works like this. A Muslim WOMAN (icons of 2 victimhoods) say something that verges or is actual antisemitism/Jew hate. Non-antisemites recognize it and call them out. These righteous individuals are accused of trying to silence Muslim voices; women’s voices; or, both. Rinse and repeat. Soon, they hope, the ploy will work and the average American will just let it slide. Thus, antisemitism/Jew hate becomes normalized in America, the land of free speech and those outraged by it are silenced by accusations of racism, misogyny, etc.
The Democrat Party will drift further into anti-Semitism, ugly tribal politics, and lunatic socialism because the leadership did not act decisively
Democrats voters seem to be trying to tell them something with the support for Biden. He is too flawed to make it to the end but who else have they got.?
Barry Meislin on May 15, 2019 at 3:35 am at 3:35 am said:
“…she-cant-rewrite-history…”
To the contrary, she CAN…and she DOES.
* * *
She gets a little help from her friends…
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1128648020571099143.html
“If Tlaib was Republican, media would be relentlessly hounding every GOP politician, asking if they agree with her nutburger beliefs. Their responses would become headline news, creating an avalanche “narrative” about the GOP’s anti-Semitism problem and/or the party cracking up.
…
I’m not aware of a single MSM outlet asking a single other Democrat if they agree with Tlaib’s version of history. Instead, the Dems are just given open microphones to rail against the GOP for “pouncing” on a Woman of Color. They are not forced to comment on what she said.
…
The media would not allow Republicans to change the subject – no “Democrats pounce” narrative has ever been written. The media would quickly produce people to testify at their outrage over Republican Tlaib’s hateful history revisionism, including as many women as possible.”
If Dems were to censor Tlaib and Omar, they would lose a HUGE number of their constituents; Muslims, POC who support Muslims at all costs because they are also POC/victims; self hating Jews; young naive ignorant SJW’s etc. Already over at places like dKos Pelosi has been taking hits for the tiny bit she has done in criticizing Omar. The only solution for moral Dems is to purge these bigots from their midst but they can’t do it with 2020 looming because they want power. Catch 22 of a big tent party.
she explains herself..
https://twitter.com/newsbusters/status/1128241834034106368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1128241834034106368
If Dems were to censor Tlaib and Omar, they would lose a HUGE number of their constituents;
No, they wouldn’t. But they’d have to admit they’ve got a problem in their ranks. They don’t do that.
IMO, Art Deco is correct.
The old-line Dems, individually, will lose supporters, and maybe their seats, but the Democratic Party as a whole will not see any of their base leave, because they have nowhere to go.
Kind of like Conservatives and the Republican Party.