Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Disgusting cover-up of Mufti's role by Guardian

This article, which is not open for comments, criticises Netanyahu for referring to the role of the Palestinian leader from 1920, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The claim is that the Mufti was responsible to convince the Nazis to go for the Final Solution when he visited the Nazi leaders in 1941. The theory surfaced about a year ago. The timing is right, because the Final Solution was not agreed on until 1942. That does not of course mean that he played a decisive role; it might well have been more like one extra stone that tipped a balance.Certainly he was well aware of what was going on, supported it all the way through and was firm in his opposition to the emigration of Jews to Palestine.

My criticism is of the article's silence on all the rest of the Mufti's previous activities. He was encouraging progroms against Jews in Palestine from as early as 1920, when interest in Zionism amongst Jews was minimal and the prospect of any Jewish state was remote. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, these were a regular occurrence. From 1936, the pressure from the Arab leadership was such as to persuade the British to impose heavy restrictions on immigration to Palestine, thereby closing an important escape route.

In 1941, the Mufti travelled to Baghdad and promoted a coup-d-etat and progrom against the Jews. Throughout the war he broadcast on behalf of the Axis, encouraging Arabs in their antisemitism. After the war his name was on the list of war criminals but he escaped and was never put on trial, having become a pawn in politics designed to appease Arab feelings.

None of this is referred to in the Guardian..

Kommentarer

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...