Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, Moderators, protect
28,079
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 78:
Line 78: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 523:
Line 548: − * 1945/6.<br>+ − At the Nuremberg Trials, in stark contrast to the Egyptian al-Ahram, the two Palestinian major Arab dailies, Falastin and al-Difa': "provided little coverage of Nazi policies against the Jews, although it is clear that it was aware of them" before the trials.It also chose emphasis on the Nazis' defense, omitting the detailed atrocities.<ref>Webman, Esther., Litvak, Meir. From Empathy to Denial: Arab Responses to the Holocaust. United States: Columbia University Press, 2009, pp. 29-31. [https://vdoc.pub/documents/from-empathy-to-denial-arab-responses-to-the-holocaust-352nevq8nvk0]. − <blockquote><small> − In comparison to the Egyptian press, the Palestinian press provided little coverage of Nazi policies against the Jews, although it is clear that it was aware of them. Filastin reported a story on the conference of the victorious Allied leaders in Potsdam in May 1945, citing a report criticizing the mistreatment in the displaced-persons camps of Jews who had suffered "torture, hunger and dis ease," in Hitler’s "detention camps." − − Al-Difa' another major Palestinian paper of the time, cited on 23 December 1945 a letter by Anwar Nusayba, a member of the Arab Office in London, that blamed the Jewish Agency for the deaths of 5,700,000 Jews during the war. − Another story commending the status of the Jews in Bulgaria noted that "they were not exterminated" during the war. Hence, it appears that al-Difa was aware of the extermination of Jews during the war. − [Filastin, 23 May 1945; al-Difa' 3, 22 July, 8 November, 23 December 1945, 13 May, 25 June 1946.]. − − Revelations on the Holocaust from the Nuremberg Trials − − The coverage of the Nuremberg trials of the leaders of the Nazi regime between October 1945 and November 1946 sheds additional light on the representation of the Holocaust in the Arab world, even though "the Holocaust was by no means at the [trials'] center of attention." − − The murder of Jews was not discussed as a distinct subject, but was included in the more comprehensive category of war crimes and crimes against humanity. − [Marrus, "The Holocaust," p. 6.] − − The murder of Jews was not discussed as a distinct subject, but was included in the more comprehensive category of war crimes and crimes against humanity. These were new terms, coined during the course of the trials, and are considered, in a broader historical perspective, among their major achievements. Although the extermination of the Jews was not a distinct category in the indictment, the fate of the Jews did hold “a crucial place” in the trials and was mentioned in each of the indictments’ clauses. − − Thus, the indictment and the trials were, in Marrus's words, a turning point in the inculcation of Holocaust consciousness in the western world. For the first time, spokesmen of the Allies outlined to a non-Jewish forum the Nazi anti-Jewish policy, backed by comprehensive documentation and ample evidence. − − [Ibid.; According to some estimates, over 800 Nazi documents and the testimonies of 33 witnesses dealt with the Jewish tragedy; Jacob Robinson and Henry Sachs (eds.), The Holocaust: 'The Nuremberg Evidence, Jerusalem: 1976, cited in Marrus, "The Holocaust," p. 41.] − − There was a considerable difference in the coverage of the trials between the Palestinian dailies Filastin and al-Difa' and the Egyptian al-Ahram. In general, the coverage in al-Ahram was more comprehensive, in its discussion of the meaning of the trials, in reviewing the charges, and in reproducing the testimonies against and by the defendants. By contrast, we could not find editorials or opinion columns in the two Palestinian newspapers that dealt with the trials. No doubt, part of the difference was due to the fact that al-Ahram was a bigger paper and better established financially. Moreover, from reading the various newspapers one gets the impression that al-Ahram adopted a moral position visa-vis the defendants, both in style and in content, while the Palestinian dailies were more ambiguous. Whereas al-Ahram used the phrases "Nazi war criminals," Filastin called them "criminals," or occasionally the more neutral "Nazi leaders" (zu'ama' al-naziyya). Al-Difa' was even less committal, naming them "Nazi chiefs" (aqtab al-naziyya). Even more revealing are the headlines given to the various stories: those in al-Ahram emphasized the charges against the Nazi leaders, as in "The accusations against Göring and Ribbentrop," "The charges against Frank and Streicher," or "Dönitz accused of waging an inhumane war." − [Al-Ahram, 9, 11, 15 17 January 1946. Reichsmarshall Herman Göring was Hitler’s No. 2 man during most of the Nazi era and commander o f the German air force. Hans Frank was head of the General Government, the German government in Poland, where the largest Jewish community had lived and perished. Ribbentrop was the German foreign minister during 1936-45 . Karl Dönitz was commander of the German Navy and Hitler’s successor as Führer]. − − The headlines in al-Difa' and Filastin, by contrast, gave more emphasis to the testimonies of the defendants themselves, saying "Göring’s discussions of policy with poets and musicians"; "Kaitel seeks testimonies from Churchill and Field Marshall Alexander, while Goring asks for a testimony from Halifax and Cadogen for the Nuremberg Trial"; "Göring seeks to clear his colleagues by as suming full responsibility"; and so on. − [Al-Difa' 4 November, 20 December 1945, 19 March, 2, 11, 24 April, 6 June 1946.]. − − As far as contents were concerned, al-Difa' used only news agency reports. It reviewed the charges raised against the Nazi leaders, but devoted more space to the defense arguments of the accused. Equally conspicuous was its emphasis on − the conduct of the defendants rather than on the charges. Thus, it elaborated in depicting Göring’s cynical smiles and his ambition to be recognized as the most senior defendant, in describing Rudolf Hess's real or feigned mental illness and the total disregard that the defendants showed towards the testimonies against them. These anecdotal descriptions appeared also in the Egyptian papers, but these contained more substantial details on the prosecution. − − Likewise, the coverage of the Jewish issue was much more extensive in al-Ahram than in the two Palestinian dailies. Thus, in a report from 3 January 1946 under the secondary headline "mass killing of Jews," al-Ahram cited in detail the testimony of the German engineer Herman Friedrich Grabe on the murder of thousands of Jews near the Dubno airport in Poland in October 1942. It also reviewed the charges raised against Ernst Kaltenbrunner, chief of the Reich Security Head Office (RSHA), including a testimony that Kaltenb runner was present during the gassing of prisoners (not necessarily Jewish) in Mauthausen. Filastin reported the charges against Kaltenbrunner briefly, noting that they referred to the murder of Jewish inmates. It also cited the testimony of a "German engineer" that described the execution of 1,000 Jews. The story in al-Difa' on the other hand, only mentioned the charges against Kaltenbrunner, and devoted much more space to describing the conduct of the defendants in court. On the following day, al-Ahram cited the testimony of Dieter Wisliceny, one of Adolf Eichmann’s senior deputies, that reviewed Nazi policy against the Jews and Himmler’s 1942 order on the extermination of the Jewish race, and recounted Wisliceny’s role in the deportation of Hungarian and Greek Jews to the "death camps" in Poland. In addition, al-Ahram reported the testimony by Otto Ohlendorf, commander of Einsatzgruppe D, who confessed that 90,000 Jews "were exterminated" (ubidu) under his command in Russia. The cover age in Filastin and al-Difa' was much more succinct. While Filastin mentioned Wisliceny’s testimony in one sentence, al-Difa' dedicated one sentence to Ohlendorf's. Both papers omitted the testimony by the Auschwitz commandant, Rudolf Hoss, who appeared as a defense witness for Kaltenbrunner, but gave a detailed description of the extermination of the Jews in the camp. − [Al-Ahram, Filastin, al-Difa' 3, 4 January. On Hoss’s testimony, see Marrus, "The Holocaust," pp. 29 -30]. − − The same phenomenon was repeated in at least two other cases. Al-Ahram published an article containing the detailed testimony of a French underground activist about her deportation to Auschwitz. It included descriptions of the gas chambers, sterilization of women and operations conducted on babies born to Jewish mothers, without mentioning whether or not they were Jewish. Both Filastin and al-Difa' ignored the testimony altogether. − [Al-Ahram, Filastin, al-Difa' 29 January 1946. See also the reference to the massacres of the Jews in Wilna, reported in al-Ahram on 1 March and ignored by the two Palestinian dailies]. − − Al-Difa' did report Göring’s admission of his instruction to Reinhard Heydrich, then commander of the RSHA, to carry out "all necessary measures" for the execution of the "final solution" of the Jewish question. It also mentioned the request by Alfred Rosenberg, chief ideologue of the Nazi party, to bring to the court anti-Semitic literature in order to explain his world-view, but both references were extremely concise. − [Al-Difa' 3, 4 January, 4 March, 10, 17 April 1946.]. − − Al-Ahram devoted a story, albeit a short one, to Julius Streicher, edi tor of the extremely anti-Semitic daily Der Stürmer, whose title was "Enemy No. 1 of the Jews." It used this epithet until Streicher’s execution. Al-Ahram's distinct attitude was particularly glaring, during the trials' final days, when re porting the verdicts and the executions of the leading defendants. − [Al-Ahram, 22 May, 22 October, 20, 24 November, 14 December 1945, 11 January, 2 October 1946. See also al-lhaqafa, 12 March 1946, p. 23, and al-Misri, 16 December 1945.]. − − Of particular interest in the Egyptian coverage of the trials was a series of articles by an unnamed Egyptian correspondent in Germany, who sent eight stories during February 1946 based on interviews, in addition to his impressions from the Nuremberg trials and from visits to German cities and Nazi camps. Clearly, in these reports the writer allowed himself to express his personal views much more explicitly than in the regular news items. His second story focused on the Nazi leaders. He labeled Goring as "arch-criminal, a criminal of the brutal kind" (shaykh al-mujri in, mujrim min al-naw'al-qasi). Rudolf Hoss appeared to him as being in "total loss of consciousness as far as human heart and conscience are concerned." Alfred Rosenberg, "the philosopher of Nazism," he wrote, replied to a question on the reasons for the persecution of the Jews that he only wanted to do them good, since his "policy was intended to consolidate Jewish rights in Palestine." Rosenberg, he added, detested Muslims and sought to erect a border between the Germans and "these Asiatic barbarians" that would not be crossed "for a thousand years." He depicted Streicher as the "implacable enemy of the Jews and Judaism," adding that his genius was manifested in the boycott which he organized against Jewish stores and when he shifted from "boycott to a policy of uprooting" (qat' al-dabir). − [Al-Ahram, 3 February 1946.]. − − In his account of his visit to Dachau, the "grave of the living" (maqbarat al-ahya'), he recounted how people doubted, during the war, the news coming from Switzerland on the atrocities taking place in that camp, attributed them to the Jews, or considered them as "figments of the imagination" (shubuhat). "I saw with my own eyes that the matter is neither Jewish lies (akadhib) nor AngloSaxon propaganda," as some people said, but rather "the most horrifying crimes that human beings had ever or will ever commit." − [Al-Ahram, 7 February 1946.]. − − However, the correspondent described the trials as "a dangerous precedent and a revolution in the history of law." If the idea was to try the Nazis for what they had committed after August 1939, that is, "invasion of foreign lands with out warning, the destruction of cities and their civilian population, the destruction of countries, the extermination of populations, torturing people, killing of hostages, the theft of treasures and the expertise in methods of killings, then it is the duty of anyone who wishes future generations well." But it would be a "crippled ('arja') justice" if the goal was to punish them for annexing Austria and eliminating Czechoslovakia, without putting on the bench with them those who had enabled them to do so, "sang the praises of their good intentions," and promised to look the other way so long as they left the West and turned their forces eastward. − [Al-Ahram, 4 February 1946.]. − [...] − The Palestinian newspapers' lack of interest in the Jewish question during the trials was not coincidental. The difference in interest between the Egyptian and the Palestinian dailies... None of the three papers published editorial comment on the verdicts and their implementation. − [Al-Ahram, al-Difa' Filastin, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 20 October 1946.].</small></blockquote></ref> − −
no edit summary
"When will the dear Palestine return to the lap of the 'Arab nation'? - Al-Farouqi asks to know in a main article, regarding the results of the referendum in the <i>Saar</i>, in al-Islamiyya [الاسلامية]:
"When will the dear Palestine return to the lap of the 'Arab nation'? - Al-Farouqi asks to know in a main article, regarding the results of the referendum in the <i>Saar</i>, in al-Islamiyya [الاسلامية]:
The Arab expresses joy at the results of the referendum, as "the German people were oppressed and oppressed. Now we must rejoice that the oppressor has passed."</blockquote>
The Arab expresses joy at the results of the referendum, as "the German people were oppressed and oppressed. Now we must rejoice that the oppressor has passed."</blockquote>
In Feb 1935, the Falastin, inciting its readers, had defamed Jews by disseminating a libel as if cinema goers in Tel Aviv were objecting King Ghazi L. be shown and had framed it with a screaming headline as he is an "enemy" supppsedly as of "Jews." It didn't put out an apology even after strong denial, till approached physically.<ref>[https://www.nli.org.il/en/newspapers/pls/1935/02/11/01/article/46/ The Palestine Post, 11 February 1935].
<blockquote><small>
Trumped-Up Propaganda Arab Paper's Story of "Jews' Enemy No 2"
An instance of trumped-up political propaganda and a refusal on the part of the offending Arabic paper to publish a full correction of its invented statements has just come to light.
In its issue of Tuesday, February 5, Falastin published an article headed "King Ghazi L, the Jews Public Enemy No . 2 ." It stated that, after Hitler, the King of Iraq is the most hated by the Jews, particularly of Palestine. The Ophir Cinema, in Tel Aviv, showed a film of the opening by King Ghazi of the Iraq petroleum pipeline at Kirkuk. When King Ghazi was shown the Jewish audience, the paper reported, created an uproar and drowned out the singing of the Iraqi national anthem, protesting against the exhibition of a film of this sort in Zionist Tel Aviv.
A protest was made to the Jewish national institutions, declares Falastin, and the cinema proprietors were asked to withdraw the film showing "the Jews' Enemy No . 2". The second part of the film was consequently cut .
Firm Denial
The cinema managemen adressed to Falastin a letter, in which it expressed surprise at the false item concerning alleged uproars during the showing of the film featuring King Ghazi, vehemently denied that there had been any intervention by Jewish national institutions in this matter and contradicted the allegation that any part of the film had been cut. The management went on to say that the film would be shown intact, with the part showing the King Ghazi, until the end of the week.
The cinema proprietors requested the publication of their denial put in an early issue in order to remove a reflection upon Jewish cinema-goers and the cinema itself.
Before the statement was pubished, the cinema authorities assert, it was the duty of the newspaper to verify it . It was now up to them to ascertain who it was that had furnished them with this false report and to demand a full explanation.
Abbreviated
The denial did not appear for two days, and it was only when the editor of Falastin was approached by the cinema manager , a short note — an abbreviated version of the repudiation — was published in the issue of February 9, in approximately the following terms : —
"We have received from the Ophir Management a letter denying a local correspondent s report in connection with a Jewish rop test at the showing of a film depicting King Ghazi opening the Iraq pipeline and that Jewish institutions asked for the film to be withdrawn. The management assures us that the film was shown throughout the week, no one asked for its withdrawal, and there was no disturbance at its exhibition!."</small></blockquote></ref>
Author in 1938:<ref>[https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015026579808&view=1up&seq=436 The rape of Palestine / William B. Ziff. (1938)], HathiTrust Digital Library, pp. 402-6:
Author in 1938:<ref>[https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015026579808&view=1up&seq=436 The rape of Palestine / William B. Ziff. (1938)], HathiTrust Digital Library, pp. 402-6:
*Oct 1946.<br>
*Oct 1946.<br>
Following the hanging of Nazis, the Arabic press were exalting the dead Nazi war criminals:<ref name=arabpressexaltsdeadnazis>[https://www.nli.org.il/en/newspapers/pls/1946/10/18/01/article/12 The Palestine Post, 18 October 1946].<blockquote><small>
Following the hanging of Nazis, the Arabic press were exalting the dead Nazi war criminals:<ref name=arabpressexaltsdeadnazis>[https://www.nli.org.il/en/newspapers/pls/1946/10/18/01/article/12 The Palestine Post, 18 October 1946].<blockquote><small>