HOME November-December 2008 Featured Stories Background Information News On The Web



by Richard H. Shulman


Whereas the Holocaust Museum in Washington is a federal project, New York's Museum of the Jewish Heritage is supposed to be a Jewish project. It does not stand up enough for the Jewish people. It explains Zionism inadequately in the face of efforts for a new Holocaust. Placards are worded neutrally -- no feeling, no depth of quality. They portray only faintly what life was like for Jews.

Most people think that because Britain's Mandatory regime banned Jewish immigration, the clandestine immigration was illegal. The regime's Mandate, however, required Jewish immigration. The Museum failed to state that key point, although our media and the State Dept. treat Jewish settlement in the Territories as a sin. The Mandatory regime gave the excuse that the economy could not absorb more people, belied by its allowing extensive Arab immigration.

Guests are informed that the British interned on Cyprus most of the clandestine immigrants to Palestine. Unstated: the illegal internment was brutal enough to bring on disease. Britain tried keeping the Jews there after Israeli independence, so that Israel would lose the War for Independence. That would continue the Holocaust. What a sorry record Britain has!

The Museum should have explained that Britain's immigration policy for western Palestine made it an accomplice to Nazi Germany's policy to exterminate the Jews that Britain forced to stay in Europe. Punches pulled, truth withheld.

Prominent US Jewish organizations accepted Ben-Gurion's plea to oppose efforts by Palestinian Jewish nationalists, right-wing opponents of his, to publicize European Jewry's plight and organize US rescue of them. He played politics with the lives of the Jewish people. Those US Jewish organizations, such as the American Jewish Committee, became indirect collaborators of the Nazis. You wouldn't learn that from the Museum. Collaboration and not settlement is what Jews should be ashamed of.

Nor did the Museum explain the Islamic imperative to oust the Jews, still the motive for wars on Israel. Indeed, the Museum hosted a speech by an Iranian Muslim, a refugee from Iran's Islamist revolution. He denied the evil of jihad and its religious motive against the Jews. His point was that Muslims who think anti-Zionism is religious are misinformed. Then let him persuade Muslim audiences! I would have asked whether he tells them they misunderstand the Koranic order to kill Jews. I wouldn't have been allowed to follow up against a slick evasion.

He came to a Jewish audience, to divide and conquer. Like other supposed Muslim friends of the Jews whom I've heard or heard of, this alleged friend blames the Jews and excuses the Muslims. He described the Jewish presence in Hebron as "occupation." Not correct. He slants this towards the Arab case. He described the Arab-Israel conflict as over territory and sovereignty. In order to make it seem territorial, the Arabs fabricated a Palestinian nationality, then claimed that that "nationality" is entitled to sovereignty over "its" territory.

What territory? First, the Arabs got 99.5% of the Mideast outside of Iran. The Jews were to get .5%, as a restoration of their homeland, taken from them by invaders, including the Muslims. Then the British gave the Arabs 79% of the Jewish homeland. The Museum then, falsely, called the rest, "Palestine." Now there's a "territorial dispute," in which the Arabs wish to partition the remaining fifth of the Jewish homeland? The Museum omitted this point crucial to understanding the justice of Zionism.

If it were a territorial dispute, the Arabs would have accepted offers of most of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. They don't, because, as the PLO and Hamas Covenants explain, the Muslim Arabs want Israel too. Religious imperialism and attempted genocide are not territorial conflict but religious, existential conflict. Again, if he thinks the Muslims are misunderstanding their religion, let him convince them! What good does it do to convince the Jews, when the Muslims are the aggressors? His purpose is to get the Jews to give more concessions to the uncompromising Muslim Arabs, preparatory to Islamic triumph.

This is a religious conflict, because the operating principle is that the Muslim war cry is "kill the Jews." The speaker might have had the grace to admit that there is no Jewish religious component to the conflict. Then he might have to admit that Islam is an imperialist faith. Was it "territorial disputes" that caused it to acquire perhaps the biggest empire in history, in the name of its faith?

More offensive was his lie about "hatred on both sides." The Muslims preach and teach hatred and war; Israel preaches and teaches tolerance and peace. Islam preaches dominance; Judaism does not. Muslims commit terrorism; Jews do not (but he cited one frame-up whose evidence indicates action by agents provocateurs to defame the Jews). Don't pile on "Jewish guilt," when the Arabs are the aggressors! The audience came uninformed about such matters. Most of it liked the two sides being equated, not realizing that this is unfair and part of Muslim propaganda against the Jews, part of jihad. I get infuriated by a kind of equation I didn't hear that speaker make. Some people try to equate believers of the fundamentals of both Islam and Judaism, as "extremist." They equate terrorists incited by their clergy to commit murder, with rabbis who exhort not to murder. Enormous difference! The occasional Jewish violator is an exception among the Orthodox, and the Muslim Arabs approve the frequent Arab violence. There is a problem among Far Leftist, secular Jews in Israel, whose hatred of their Jewish identity has prompted them into violence against fellow Jews. Hardly anybody condemns that, because hypocritical humanitarians and liberals put politics before truth and justice.

The Muslim speaker distorted doctrines of his and other religions faster than one could take notes. He quoted approvingly earlier chapters of the Koran, surmising that the audience would not know they were superseded by later chapters. He claimed that Muhammad's initially made overtures to Judaism, because he wanted his revelations to be part of it. Historians found that he tried to win Jews over, couldn't, and then turned against them.

The speaker claimed that dhimmi status initially was tolerant, then was misinterpreted in modern times. This was part of his slick presentation, which muted the grievous behavior of Muslims and the doctrines of militant Islam. A scholar knows that as a dictatorial movement gains power, it consolidates its doctrine and can become harsher. Islam calls for humiliating dhimmis. He boasted that Muslims offer dhimmis protection in exchange for a special tax. Protection from what? From being put to death, by the state and by mobs. That's tolerance?

Lesson one, beware of Muslims posing as friends of the Jews.

Lesson two, ignorant of their own history and of their enemies, Jews are divided. They need education, pride, and unity.


Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at

This article was submitted December 9, 2008


Return_________________________End of Story___________________________Return

HOME November-December 2008 Featured Stories Background Information News On The Web