Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, Moderators, protect
28,077
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 79:
Line 79: − − − 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>
no edit summary
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>