Trending Topics:

Britain says releasing a 1941 document about Palestine might ‘undermine security’

Opinion
on 15 Comments

A two-part archive, labeled “Activities of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem” and dated 1940-1941, sits in Britain’s National Archives in Kew. This writer successfully had the first part declassified in 2014. The second part remains sealed. My 2018 attempt to have these ten pages declassified was refused on the grounds that the archive might “undermine the security of the country [Britain] and its citizens.”[1] None of its secrets are to be available until January, 2042; and if the paired file is any precedent, even in 2042 it will be released only in redacted form.

The ‘Grand Mufti’ in the archive’s heading is Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Palestinian leader whom posterity best remembers for his alignment with the Italian and German fascists; and the years 1940-1941 place him not in Palestine, but in Iraq — and if the second archive extends to late 1941, in Europe. What could possibly be hidden in a World War II document about a long-dead Nazi sympathizer that would present such a risk to British national security eight decades later, that none of it can be revealed? At present, only the UK government censors know; but the answer may have less to do with the fascists and al-Husseini than with British misdeeds in Iraq, and less to do with Britain’s national security than with its historical embarrassment.

When in 1921 votes were cast for the new Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini came in last among the four candidates. But votes in Palestine mattered as little then as they do now, and the British, Palestine’s novice replacement occupiers for the Ottomans, handed the post to al-Husseini. At first, he proved to be an asset to the British. But as the years passed, his opposition to Zionism, support for Palestinian nationalism, and ultimately his involvement in the 1936 Palestinian uprising, led to calls for his arrest.

Photograph labelled 'Arab demonstrations on Oct. 13 and 27, 1933. In Jerusalem and Jaffa. Return of Grand Mufti from India. Met by hundreds of cars at Gethsemane, Nov. 17, 1933.'

Photograph labelled “Arab demonstrations on Oct. 13 and 27, 1933. In Jerusalem and Jaffa. Return of Grand Mufti from India. Met by hundreds of cars at Gethsemane, Nov. 17, 1933.” Library of Congress, LC-M33- 4218.

In mid-October of 1937, he fled from hiding in Palestine to Beirut. Two years later and six weeks after the outbreak of World War II, in mid-October of 1939, he slipped to Baghdad, where his sympathies for the Italian fascists further alarmed the British. Fast-forward another two years to late 1941, and al-Husseini is in Europe, meeting with Benito Mussolini on the 27th of October, and on the 28th of November meeting with the Führer himself at the Reich Chancellery in Berlin.

Al-Husseini’s motivation for embracing the Axis was likely a combination of selfish political opportunism and the belief that the alignment would help safeguard against the takeover of Palestine by the Zionists. The reasoning, however grotesque, was the same used by Lehi (the ‘Stern Gang’) in its own attempted collaboration with the fascists: Britain was the obstacle both to Palestinian liberation, and to unbridled Zionism, and for both the Mufti and Lehi, defeating that obstacle meant embracing its enemies. Even the ‘mainstream’ David Ben-Gurion had no moral qualms about taking advantage of Britain’s struggle against the Nazis — a struggle for which his Jewish Agency was already conspicuously unhelpful — by exploiting Britain’s post-war vulnerabilities.[2]

Posterity has treated Lehi’s and the Mufti’s flirtations with the fascists quite differently. Lehi, the most fanatical of the major Zionist terror organizations, was transformed into freedom fighters, and ex-Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir was twice elected as Israeli Prime Minister. In contrast, Zionist leaders quickly seized on al-Husseini’s past to smear not just him, but the Palestinians as a people, as Nazis.

The use of al-Husseini’s unsavory history to ‘justify’ anti-Palestinian racism continues to the present day. Most bizarrely, in 2015 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that Hitler had not intended to exterminate the Jews — that is, not until al-Husseini planted the words in his ear — which translates as “got the idea from the Palestinians”. A private citizen would likely have been arrested under German law for this attempt to rewrite the Holocaust.

The mufti of Jerusalem, Sayid Amin al Husseini, meets with Hitler, November 1941.

The mufti of Jerusalem, Sayid Amin al Husseini, meets with Hitler, November 1941.

Iraq won limited independence in 1932, just before the Nazis came to power. When the Mufti ensconced himself in Iraq seven years later, the country was under nominally ‘pro-British’ Prime Ministers, and Regent ‘Abd al-Ilah for the four-year-old king, Faisal II. This uneasy British-Iraqi equilibrium ended on first day of April 1941, when four Iraqi officers known as the Golden Square, wanting full independence (and similarly aligning themselves with the fascists in the foolish belief that doing so would help them get it), staged a coup d’état. It lasted two months. British troops ousted the coup on the first day of June — and as they did, anti-Jewish riots rocked Baghdad. An estimated 180 Jewish Iraqis were killed and 240 wounded in this pogrom known as the Farhud.

Why would the momentary power vacuum of the British takeover lead to anti-Jewish terror? While doing research for my 2016 book, State of Terror, I was intrigued by the claim of one Iraqi Jewish witness, Naeim Giladi, that these ‘Arab’ riots were orchestrated by the British to justify their return to power.[3] Indeed, the riots seemed unnatural in a society where Jews had lived for two and a half millennia, and the “pro-Axis” Golden Square takeover two months earlier had not precipitated any such pogrom. Yet it was also true that Zionism had created ethnic resentment, and Giladi did not question that junior officers of the Iraqi army were involved in the violence. The evidence provided by Giladi was compelling enough to seek out clues among British source documents that were not available to him.

And that, along with the hope of shedding new light on the Mufti’s pro-fascist activities, brought me to the archive at issue and my qualified (redacted) success in getting the first part declassified– officially titled, CO 733/420/19. Not surprisingly, much of the file focused on legitimate worry over the Mufti’s dealings with the Italian fascists. Some of the British voices recorded considered him to be a serious threat to the war effort, and a report entitled “Inside Information” spoke of the Mufti’s place in an alleged “German shadow government in Arabia”. Others dismissed this as “typical of the sort of stuff which literary refugees put into their memoirs in order to make them dramatic” and suggested that the Mufti’s influence was overstated.

Whatever the case, by October 1940, the Foreign Office was considering various methods for “putting an end to the Mufti’s intrigues with the Italians”, and by mid-November,

it was decided that the only really effective means of securing a control over him [the Mufti] would be a military occupation of Iraq.

British plans of a coup were no longer mere discussion, but a plan already in progress:

We may be able to clip the Mufti’s wings when we can get a new Government in Iraq. F.O. [Foreign Office] are working on this”.

So, the British were already working on re-occupying Iraq five months before the April 1941 ‘Golden Square’ coup.

A prominent thread of the archive was: How to effect a British coup without further alienating ‘the Arab world’ in the midst of the war, beyond what the empowering of Zionism had already done? Harold MacMichael, High Commissioner for Palestine, suggested the idea “that documents incriminating the Mufti have been found in Libya” that can be used to embarrass him among his followers; but others “felt some hesitation … knowing, as we should, there was no truth in the statement.”

But frustratingly, the trail stops in late 1940; to know anything conclusive we need the second part’s forbidden ten pages: CO 733/420/19/1.

The redacted first part partially supports, or at least does not challenge, Giladi’s claim. It proves that Britain was planning regime change and sought a pretext, but gives no hint as to whether ethnic violence was to be that pretext. Interestingly, Lehi had at the time reached the same conclusion as Giladi: its Communique claimed that “Churchill’s Government is responsible for the pogrom in Baghdad”.[4]

Does the public have the right to see still-secret archives such as CO 733/420/19/1? In this case, the gatekeepers claimed to be protecting us from the Forbidden Fruit of “curiosity”: They claimed to be distinguishing between “information that would benefit the public good”, and “information that would meet public curiosity”, and decided on our behalf that this archive fit the latter.[1] We are to believe that an eight-decade-old archive on an important issue remains sealed because it would merely satisfy our lust for salacious gossip.

Perhaps no assessment of past British manipulation in Iraq would have given pause to the Blair government before signing on to the US’s vastly more catastrophic Iraqi ‘regime change’ of 2003, promoted with none of 1940’s hesitation about using forged ‘African’ documents — this time around Niger, instead of Libya. But history has not even a chance of teaching us, if its lessons are kept hidden from the people themselves.

Note: According to Giladi, the riots of 1941 “gave the Zionists in Palestine a pretext to set up a Zionist underground in Iraq” that would culminate with the (proven) Israeli false-flag ‘terrorism’ that emptied most of Iraq’s Jewish population a decade later. Documents in Kew seen by the author support this. But to be sure, the Zionists were not connected with the alleged British maneuvers of 1941.

1. Correspondence from the UK government, explaining its refusal to allow me access to CO 733/420/19/1:

Section 23(1) (security bodies and security matters): We have considered whether the balance of the public interest favours releasing or withholding this information. After careful consideration, we have determined that the public interest in releasing the information you have requested is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption. It is in the public interest that our security agencies can operate effectively in the interests of the United Kingdom, without disclosing information that would assist those determined to undermine the security of the country and its citizens.

The judiciary differentiates between information that would benefit the public good and information that would meet public curiosity. It does not consider the latter to be a ‘public interest’ in favour of disclosure. In this case, disclosure would neither meaningfully improve transparency nor assist public debate, and disclosure would not therefore benefit the public good.

2. Ben-Gurion looked ahead to when the end of the war would leave Britain militarily weakened and geographically dispersed, and economically ruined. He cited the occupation of Vilna by the Poles after World War I as a precedent for the tactic. For him, the end of WWII only presented an opportunity for the takeover of Palestine with less physical resistance; it also left Britain at the mercy of the United States for economic relief, which the Jewish Agency exploited by pressuring US politicians to make that assistance contingent on supporting Zionist claims to Palestine. At a mid-December 1945 secret meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive, Ben-Gurion stressed that “our activities should be directed from Washington and not from London”, noting that “Jewish influence in America is powerful and able to cause damage to the interests of Great Britain”, as it “depends to a great extent on America economically” and would “not be able to ignore American pressure if we succeed in bringing this pressure to bear”. He lauded Rabbi Abba Silver in the US for his aggressiveness on the issue, while noting that he was nonetheless “a little fanatical and may go too far”. (TNA, FO 1093/508). The Irgun was more direct in 1946, stating that Britain’s commuting of two terrorists’ death sentences and other accommodations to the Zionists “has been done with the sole purpose to calm American opposition against the American loan to Britain”. (TNA, KV 5-36). Meanwhile, in the US that year Rabbi Silver’s bluntness on the tactic worried Moshe Shertok (a future prime minister). Although like Ben-Gurion, Shertok said that “we shall exploit to the maximum the American pressure on the British Government”, in particular the pre-election period (and in particular New York), but urged “care and wisdom in this” so as not to give ammunition to “anti-Zionists and the anti-semites in general”. Shertok criticized Silver for saying publicly that “he and his supporters opposed the loan to be granted to the British Government”. (TNA, CO 537/1715)

3. Suárez, Thomas, State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel [Skyscraper, 2016, and Interlink, 2017]; In Arabic, هكذا أقيمت المستعمرة [Kuwait, 2018]; in French, Comment le terrorisme a créé Israël [Investig’Action, 2019]
Giladi, Naeim, Ben-Gurion’s Scandals: How the Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews [Dandelion, 2006]

4. Lehi, Communique, No. 21/41, dated 1st of August, 1941

Update: This post originally referred to the “four-year-old Prime Minister, ‘Abd al-Ilah,” not the four-year-old King Faisal under Regent ‘Abd al-Ilah. Commenter Jon S. corrected us, and the post has been changed.

Tom Suarez

Tom Suarez is the author, most recently, of State of Terror, how terrorism created modern Israel.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

15 Responses

  1. jon s on May 13, 2019, 4:11 pm

    I don’t think that Iraq had a four year old Prime Minister. The error should be corrected.

    More important, as I’ve explained in previous comments, “Israeli false-flag terrorism” was not the cause of the Jewish exodus from Iraq. The Iraqi authorities, in effect , expelled the Jews.

    • Tom Suarez on May 14, 2019, 7:32 am

      Hello jon s, thank you for the heads-up on the four-year-old, who of course was the king, not the prime minister (and who met an untimely end when deposed in 1958). My sloppiness, which I’ve asked to have corrected.
      But we’ll have to disagree on the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Iraq a decade after the subject of this article. That the “emergency” that began in late 1949 to “evacuate” Jews to Israel was a false-flag Israeli scam, is fact. Even if you don’t believe the overwhelming evidence — that those responsible were caught, the forensic evidence recovered, the British and US witnesses to the trial, the US State Dept acknowledgement and even the oblique Israeli confirmations — then I ask: Why did Israel, while claiming that Iraq’s Jews were about to be slaughtered, leave tens of thousands of them who had heeded the warnings and abdicated their Iraqi citizenship cold, hungry, and homeless in Iraq, insisting that only a tiny two-plane outfit, named to obscure its Israeli ownership, effect the entire evacuation? And threatened to impound any airline that dared assist in the supposedly urgent, life-or-death evacuation? The reason, of course, is that Israel knew there was no emergency.

    • tony greenstein on May 14, 2019, 8:52 am

      So if Israel’s false flag terrorism, about which there is no dispute, was not the cause of the Jewish exodus, what was the point of it? Was it just a coincidence that the stampede for the exit by Iraqi Jews occurred directly after the bomb attacks, in particular the attack on the Masuda Shemtov synagogue?

      That there was an agreement between the Israeli government and the Iraqi government that the Jews could leave with minimal savings is not doubted but the key driving force was Israel not the Iraqi government

      • jon s on May 15, 2019, 3:52 am

        tony,
        Actually, the “false-flag terrorism ” is very much in dispute. But even if we assume, for the sake of the argument, that the bombings were carried out by Israeli agents in order to create a panic, the question in that case is: why didn’t the Iraqi authorities take steps to reassure the Jews ? The Iraqi gov’t could have issued a statement along these lines: “don’t let yourselves be manipulated by Israel, you’re welcome to stay in Iraq as part of Iraqi society, we’ll take steps to ensure your safety… ” No such statement was issued, of course, because the Iraqi authorities were hell-bent on getting rid of the Jews. Another point: at the time of the bombings the Israeli gov’t would have preferred an orderly, gradual immigration , not a panicky stampede.

        What did happen?

        The 1941 pogrom, known as the the “farhud” traumatized the community.
        Iraq’s intervention in the 1948 war brought anti-Jewish incitement to a fever-pitch.

        From wikipedia:
        1948, the year of Israel’s independence was a rough year for the Jews of Iraq:
        • In July 1948, the government passed a law making all Zionist activity punishable by execution, with a minimum sentence of seven years imprisonment.
        • On August 28, 1948, Jews were forbidden to engage in banking or foreign currency transactions.
        • In September 1948, Jews were dismissed from the railways, the post office, the telegraph department and the Finance Ministry on the ground that they were suspected of “sabotage and treason”.
        • On October 8, 1948, the issuance of export and import licenses to Jewish merchants was forbidden.
        • On October 19, 1948, the discharge of all Jewish officials and workers from all governmental departments was ordered.
        • In October, the Egyptian paper El-Ahram estimated that as a result of arrests, trials and sequestration of property, the Iraqi treasury collected some 20 million dinars or the equivalent of 80 million U.S. dollars.
        • On December 2, 1948, the Iraq government suggested to oil companies operating in Iraq that no Jewish employees be accepted.[42]

        The Iraqi regime took steps to make life in Iraq impossible for the Jewish community: they were dismissed from the civil service , boycotted economically, bank accounts were frozen , access to public facilities, including schools and hospitals – denied. Then the regime declared that the Jews could leave, within a one – year deadline, while relinquishing their property. In this situation the Jews scarcely needed “encouragement” (in the form of bombings ) to leave. It was pretty clear that they had to.

        from wikipedia:
        Nuri al-Said, the Iraqi prime minister, was determined to drive the Jews out of his country as quickly as possible,[46][48][49] and on August 21, 1950 he threatened to revoke the license of the company transporting the Jewish exodus if it did not fulfill its daily quota of 500 Jews. On September 18, 1950, Nuri al-Said summoned a representative of the Jewish community and claimed Israel was behind the emigration delay, threatening to “take them to the borders” and forcibly expel the Jews[46][46] .[50]
        According to Palestinian politician Aref al-Aref, the pro-British Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Sa’id had attempted to justify allowing the exodus by explaining to him that: ”The Jews have always been a source of evil and harm to Iraq. They are spies. They have sold their property in Iraq, they have no land among us that they can cultivate. How therefore can they live? What will they do if they stay in Iraq? No, no my friend, it is better for us to be rid of them as long as we are able to do so.”[51

        Jewish-Iraqi Communists, fierce ideological opponents of Zionism , were literally dragged from their prison cells and taken directly to the flights leaving for Israel.

        Initially the Iraqi goverment demanded that the flights evacuating the Jews touch down in Cyprus , in order to maintain the fiction that they are not enabling immigration to Israel. In the later stages the pretense was dropped and flights arrived directly from Iraq to Israel.

        For background, I recommend the feature fim “The Dove Flyer”, based on the novelist Eli Amir’s experiences:

  2. Misterioso on May 14, 2019, 10:10 am

    For the record:
    “Adolf Hitler, who took his racism seriously, applied it to all Semites. He could not stand Arabs either. Contrary to legend, he disliked the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who had fled to Germany. After meeting him once for a photo-opportunity arranged by the Nazi propaganda machine, he never agreed to meet him again.” (Uri Avnery – http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1424446157)

  3. Nathan on May 16, 2019, 9:00 am

    Tom – You described the British as “replacement occupiers for the Ottomans”. If you mean to claim that the Turkish rule was an occupation of Palestine, then you are presenting an anachronistic viewpoint. During the 400 year rule of the Ottoman Empire, no one regarded the regime to be an occupation. Quite the contrary. The sultan in Istanbul was regarded to be the caliph, the legitimate ruler of the Islamic umma. Surely, there was no Palestinian demand to be liberated from foreign rule. Islamic rule was regarded to be the way things are supposed to be. Even when Faisal was appointed king in Damascus by the British, the Palestinian public saw themselves as his subjects. Generally, western supporters of the Palestinians don’t know the Arabic language, nor do they understand the centrality of Islam in the shaping of identity. The conquest of Palestine by the British (non-Moslems) is an “ihtilal” (occupation). Such a term was not used even when the Jordanians took over the West Bank. Obviously, the rule of Jews is an “ihtilal” (non-Moslems are not allowed to rule any territory that has come under Islamic rule). Turkish rule was legitimate, obviously.

    Hajj Amin al-Husseini spent the war years in Berlin, and he broadcast in Arabic (on short wave radio) the Nazi messages. Actually, today, you can still hear these very same messages in Arabic media (nowhere else in this planet does anyone take the Nazi theories seriously).

  4. Tom Suarez on May 16, 2019, 1:37 pm

    Hello jon s,
    Yes, I am well aware of the Wikipedia entry on the Iraqi exodus, which feigns ignorance of the various proofs of the Zionist bombings. The horrible anti-Jewish edicts it cites are, as far as I know, accurate. But, while in no way justifying them, your presentation of the situation is disingenuous. You omit the entire factor of Zionism, which is the root of it all.

    First of all, the Iraqi gov was at first against Jews leaving, because it meant strengthening the Israeli state (which of course was the only reason Israel wanted the exodus). I notice that even Wikipedia states that Jews had to be secreted out at first. That these events all began in mid-to-late 1948, is not coincidence.

    While unhappy about Jews leaving to (inevitably, regardless of their individual desires for their future) support that “enemy state”, the Iraq gov unfortunately bought the racist Zionist premise that Jews + Zionism + Israel were more-or-less interchangeable, and therefore began treating its Jewish citizens as foreign agents. If you are a Zionist, this makes perfect sense, and is the same ethnicity=state racism that, for example, led the United States to intern Japanese citizens during WWII. Iraq should be faulted — for taking Zionism at its word.

    I will paste in a segment from “The Jews of Baghdad and Zionism: 1920-1948″, by Ari Alexander, Magdalen College, which says much the same in greater depth:
    It was because of Zionism that Jewish-Muslim relations could never be like Christian-Muslim relations in Baghdad. Whereas many Christians experienced the same socio-economic benefits of British favoritism and even similar exclusion from nationalist circles, the Jews were guilty by association since their co-religionists were engaging in a daily campaign that was widely perceived to be anti-Arab and anti-Muslim in nature. And it was the Zionists who willfully constructed the dichotomy of ‛Arab’ and ‛Jew’, sowing the seeds of regional conflict that placed ‛Arab-Jews’ in no-man’s land. When the Arab nationalists reproduced this dichotomy and took the Zionists at their word, blurring the line between Jews and Zionists, the ‛Arab-Jews’, much to the joy of Zionist leaders, were forced into the arms, however reluctantly, of the Zionist state.
    If Israel had not been created, the Jews living in Middle Eastern countries would have continued to live in relative security, as any other minority. And if Zionism had been an ideology adopted by the Copts, the Egyptian Copts, even ‛anti-Zionist’ Copts, would have been similarly scapegoated and reluctantly pushed to the new state for the Copts in Palestine.The story of Baghdadi Jews is not, as the Zionist narrative would have it, just one of many examples of gentile hatred of Jews. And if the Zionists can be said to have ‛saved’ the Iraqi Jews, as contemporary Zionist historians would have it, then they only needed saving in the first place because of the growth of Zionism and the stirring it aroused around the Arab world.

    • Tom Suarez on May 16, 2019, 6:37 pm

      clarification to my comment above: “… to intern Japanese citizens…” should have been more clearly worded as “… to intern US citizens of Japanese descent…”

    • jon s on May 18, 2019, 6:29 pm

      Tom Suarez,
      It seems to me that we disagree on cause-and-effect, on what came first. The 1941 pogrom known as the “Farhud” -which you chose to ignore – severely traumatized the Iraqi Jewish community. The realization that nearly 200 innocent Jews, including women and children, could be massacred in the streets , stunned the community and many were radicalized . This murderous assault convinced many Jews, especially of the younger generation, to join the Zionists (or the Communists).

      You write that “While unhappy about Jews leaving…”. The Iraqi gov’t was unhappy with the Jews leaving? How is that consistent with the policies designed to make them leave?
      And note the words of Nuri Said, as quoted by Aref al -Aref:”The Jews have always been a source of evil and harm to Iraq. They are spies. They have sold their property in Iraq, they have no land among us that they can cultivate. How therefore can they live? What will they do if they stay in Iraq? No, no my friend, it is better for us to be rid of them as long as we are able to do so.” I don’t see any mention of Zionism or Israel, just a desire to get rid of the Jews (and, of course, “inherit” their property…)

      • eljay on May 18, 2019, 8:09 pm

        || jon s: … ”The Jews have always been a source of evil and harm to Iraq. … it is better for us to be rid of them as long as we are able to do so.” I don’t see any mention of Zionism or Israel, just a desire to get rid of the Jews (and, of course, “inherit” their property…) ||

        That sounds just like the Zionist assertion that Palestinians / “Arabs” / non-Jewish Israelis are nothing more than a (demographic) threat to “Jewish State” that must be excised from “greater” Israel (and, of course, “inherit” their property…).

        Birds of a hateful and immoral feather.

  5. Tom Suarez on May 19, 2019, 1:06 pm

    Hello jon s,
    Above all I am astonished that you say I “chose to ignore” the “Farhud” — when that pogrom was the topic of my entire article! Specifically about its causes. What I am misunderstanding here?
    You ask how the Iraqi gov’t being “unhappy with the Jews leaving” is “consistent with the policies designed to make them leave”. No – you have reframed Iraq’s repressive measures, a result of its officials unjustly blaming Jews for Zionism, as being intended to “make them leave”.
    Finally, you keep repeating Wikipedia’s second-hand quotes from Iraqi individuals made after the Zionist attacks as though this has great significance. (Why not then quote Wikipedia when it states that Iraq at first did not want Jews to leave?)

    • jon s on May 19, 2019, 2:03 pm

      Tom, in my comment I was responding to your comment.
      I suppose that I should have written “that you chose to ignore in your comment.”

      • Tom Suarez on May 19, 2019, 5:28 pm

        jon s, ah, ok, you were referring to my comment, not the article. You use the suggestive wording that I “chose to ignore” the Farhud. I had not brought up the Farhud in my comment because the subject at hand was not the Farhud, but the ethnic cleansing of Jews a decade later. The two are distinct in cause.

    • just on May 19, 2019, 2:27 pm

      Tom~ you have incredible patience and heaps of real knowledge. What is scary is that jon s describes himself this way:

      “jon s

      An Israeli history teacher,long-time activist on the Israeli Left.”

      So young Israelis get the ‘benefit’ of his and wiki’s interpretation /shaping of their narrative and little objectivity or truth. He’s an immigrant to Israel.

  6. jon s on May 20, 2019, 3:51 pm

    Just,
    I don’t think I’m “scary” at all. I do my best to introduce as much objectivity and truth as possible to the classroom.

Leave a Reply