Uncategorized
How the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Sought the Jews’ Destruction — and Paved the Path to War Today
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, meets with Adolf Hitler in 1941. Photo: German Federal Archives via Wikimedia Commons.
In 1946, the future son-in-law of Harry Truman, who eventually decided to recognize Israel, met with the man whose life ambition was to destroy the Jewish State. Until recently, the resulting New York Times profile was seemingly lost to posterity.
But it tells us a great deal about how notorious antisemites were viewed in the wake of the Holocaust.
Clifton Daniel was a veteran journalist who would go on to lead the New York Times editorial section and, in 1956, marry Margaret Truman, the sole child of Harry Truman. Among his many accomplishments, President Truman created the architecture that eventually helped win the Cold War, oversaw the Marshall Plan, and recognized the newly created nation of Israel. To be sure, the Zionists fighting on the ground, many of them Holocaust survivors, secured Israel’s existence. Yet American support was crucial.
But in the summer of 1946, all of this was in the not-too-distant future. Daniel was then a 33-year-old reporter who had made his way to Cairo. He had secured a meeting with Amin al-Husseini, the founding father of Palestinian nationalism and an infamous Nazi collaborator.
In 1921, Husseini was appointed by ruling British authorities to the position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, making him the preeminent Muslim cleric in the land. Husseini had little to recommend him for the post. He was a mere 26 years of age and had little in the way of religious training. Yet he came from one of Jerusalem’s leading Arab families. And he had served the British as a spy and recruiter during the Great War and its aftermath.
The British had defeated the Ottomans and sought to administer the area as a Mandate. In 1917, the government of David Lloyd George declared its support for the creation of a “national home” for the Jewish people in their ancestral land. The 1920 San Remo Conference and 1924 Anglo-American convention further enshrined Jewish territorial claims into international law. But Husseini was unalterably opposed.
In 1920, Husseini helped incite an anti-Jewish pogrom in Jerusalem, with the hopes of influencing British authorities to drop their support for the Zionist project. To the cries of “the Jews are our dogs” and “kill the Jews; there is no punishment for killing Jews,” Husseini and other Arab rioters attacked Jerusalem’s Jewish citizens, murdering five Jews and injuring hundreds more.
At the time, Husseini proclaimed that “Faisal is our King,” hoping that the area would become part of Faisal’s short-lived Syrian kingdom. Put simply: his goal wasn’t so much the creation of a Palestinian Arab state as we would understand it today. Rather, he was an Islamic supremacist who opposed living in social and political equality with Jews. In 1920, that meant working to ensure that the area would be ruled by Faisal of the Hashemite family. Later, he would seek power on his own terms — indeed, his henchmen would eventually murder Faisal’s own brother, King Abdullah of Jordan, in 1951. And the British would unwittingly help him along the way.
In 1921, Herbert Samuel, the governor of the Mandate, appointed Husseini to be Grand Mufti over other, more qualified candidates. Historians have long speculated as to why Samuel would offer the position to a man who opposed one of its foundational tenets. Perhaps Samuel was rewarding Husseini for his wartime intrigues. Or perhaps he hoped that he could co-opt a “hardliner” opposed to Jewish self-determination and convert him, via patronage and support, to the great power’s objectives. If so, Samuel was the first, but hardly the last, to indulge in such self-delusions.
Husseini actively worked against ruling Mandate authorities, fomenting other, bloodier, pogroms in 1929. In the 1930s, he solicited, and received, support from the burgeoning fascist movements in Italy and Germany.
Husseini, gifted with fascist arms and money, played a leading role in the 1936 Arab revolt, in which terrorists attacked and murdered British authorities, Jews, and Arab “collaborators.” The revolt was eventually quashed, but not before the British government, worried about the gathering storm clouds of war in Europe, pursued appeasement.
In 1938, the Woodhead Commission recommended the first outline of what would later become known as the “two state solution” — one Arab state, and another Jewish one, carved out of the original Mandate. Arab leaders, pressured by a now-exiled Husseini, rejected it. The British, desperate to appease the Arabs, responded with more appeasement, issuing the 1939 White Paper, which closed the Mandate’s doors to Jews seeking to flee Hitler’s Europe.
Husseini, unbowed and unmoved, made his way to Nazi Germany, where he toured death camps, broadcast Arab propaganda, recruited a Waffen SS regiment, and in a November 1941 meeting with the Fuhrer, sought support for the elimination of Jewry in the Middle East that he hoped to one day rule.
By 1946, Husseini was a wanted Nazi war criminal, who had made his way from France, where he lived comfortably in a villa with a chef and bodyguards, to Egypt. The Third Reich was dead, but Husseini’s goals for a Judenrein Middle East lived.
Egypt’s King Farouk, Daniel noted, received Husseini with “cordiality, and offered him every comfort in exile.” And “it soon became apparent that the Mufti was a popular hero, and that there was no way short of actual imprisonment to keep him from continuing the work that has been his passion for a lifetime-keeping Zionism out of Palestine.”
To his supporters, Husseini’s virulent antisemitism was a recommendation. When Husseini left France, rumors swirled that he would return to Mandate Palestine where, Daniel reports “the Arabs of Palestine went delirious. Some of them did not sleep for three nights. They posted pictures of him all over Palestine, festooning them with garlands. They strung lights around the minarets, and with alarming abandon-built gasoline fires on the roofs of mosques and fired off guns which they threaten someday to turn again against the Jews and British.”
“Tributes of such fervency are not paid to a man unless he is something special,” Daniel observed. Husseini, the New York Times correspondent noted, displayed great “charm” and “excessive courtesy.” He was a “renowned spellbinder” who spoke “softly, with a well-modulated voice.” Daniel noted a young Arab supporter meeting the Mufti for the first time. “What a sweet guy!” the man exclaimed. “Oh, he’s beautiful! His eyes are something to hypnotize you. So polite, so nice. He’s lovely!”
But Husseini wasn’t without his detractors and rivals, many of whom he sought — often successfully — to have murdered during his long career.
Daniel noted that Husseini sparked “internecine” war among Arabs living in the Mandate and that, in 1946, some Arab leaders were lukewarm about the prospect of his potential return. Some of them, he remarked, referred to him as “just another Arab leader.” And “others feel privately that he has besmirched the Arab cause by his association with Germans and Italians.” Yet, “the controlling factor, however, is that this association with the Axis does not seem to have damaged him with the [Arab] masses.”
Husseini hoped to use this support, his ambitions undiminished.
The Mufti’s critics, Daniel noted, claimed “that he has not had a new idea for a quarter of a century.” But “another interpretation would be that he is single-minded.” And while future academics, journalists, and apologists would attempt to minimize or obfuscate Husseini’s ideology, Daniel didn’t do so. The Mufti’s life “has been dominated by a single idea to recreate the unity of the Arab nation, and particularly to prevent that one corner of the Arab world which is Palestine from being occupied by people whom he regards as intruders.” Those “intruders” were the Jewish people, whose suffering and death he actively sought. And his “devotion to this cause,” Daniel wrote, “is unflagging.”
The Mufti may have “played the role of the savior of Palestine” as Daniel put it, but his legacy, in all its blood drenched failure, is readily apparent today.
The writer is a Senior Research Analyst for CAMERA, the 65,000-member, Boston-based Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis
Uncategorized
Anti-Israel Streamer Hasan Piker Reaffirms Hamas Support
Hasan Piker. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Controversial streamer Hasan Piker raised eyebrows Monday after reaffirming his support for the Hamas terrorist group during an interview on the popular left-wing podcast “Pod Save America.”
While speaking with Jon Favreau, former speechwriter to US President Barack Obama, Piker doubled down on his assertion that Hamas is a preferable governing entity compared to Israel.
“This [quote] is from January,” Favreau said while reflecting on previous comments made by the streamer. “‘Hamas is a thousand times better than a fascist settler colonial apartheid state.”
“I stand by that,” Piker responded.
Favreau then asked Piker to clarify whether his comments were genuine or hyperbolic.
“[T]his is the one that bothered me most when I first heard it …. Even if you believe what happened in Gaza is genocide and what’s happening in the West Bank is apartheid, those are different claims from ‘Hamas is a thousand times better,’ because Hamas is an organization that has massacred, raped, kidnapped civilians on Oct. 7,” the former Obama speechwriter said, referring to Hamas’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel in 2023. “They’ve also been catastrophic for Palestinians by almost every measure … Do you actually mean that or is that a rhetorical move or like a solidarity signal?”
“I mean, it’s all of the above. I do mean it,” Piker affirmed. “I’m a lesser-evil voter and therefore I would vote for Hamas over Israel every single time.”
Jon Favreau: “When you say Hamas is a thousand times better, do you mean that?”
Hasan Piker: “I do mean it … I would vote for Hamas over Israel every single time.” pic.twitter.com/1dNxvOGslo
— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) April 13, 2026
Hamas, which openly calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews, has launched a brutal crackdown on dissent among fellow Palestinians in recent months. Social media videos widely circulated online show Hamas members brutally beating Palestinians and carrying out public executions of alleged collaborators with Israel and rival militia members.
Piker also suggested that Hamas is “entirely comprised” of orphaned children whose parents were killed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — remarks that critics say distort reality and risk minimizing the group’s violent actions. He framed Hamas as a product of trauma, arguing that many of its members are driven by personal loss tied to Israeli military operations. The comments quickly drew backlash from analysts, policymakers, and pro-Israel advocates, who say the characterization is both factually inaccurate and morally problematic.
Piker continued, comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and repudiating Zionism as “an ethno-religious supremacist ideology that is exterminationist.”
The US and several countries around the world designate Hamas as a terrorist organization. On Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists murdered 1,200 people, kidnapped 251 hostages, and perpetrated widespread sexual violence during their rampage
Piker’s remarks are the latest in a series of contentious statements on Israel and the broader Middle East, which have drawn scrutiny from both media watchdogs and political figures. His large online following has amplified the impact of his commentary, fueling debate over the responsibility of digital influencers in shaping public understanding of global conflicts.
Piker has drawn immense scrutiny in recent months as his popularity has surged and mainstream Democratic politicians have increasingly appeared on his livestream show.
Beyond Hamas, Piker has also expressed support for authoritarian regimes in China, Russia, and Iran.
Uncategorized
Iran Executed More People in 2025 Than Any Year in Nearly Four Decades, NGOs Find
A February 2023 protest in Washington, DC calling for an end to executions and human rights violations in Iran. Photo: Reuters/ Bryan Olin Dozier
The Islamic regime in Iran has continued to accelerate its execution machine into a steady grind of state-ordered killings, now rising again to a peak unseen since 1989.
According to a joint-annual report released by the European groups Iran Human Rights (IHR) in Norway and Together Against the Death Penalty (ECPM) in France, Iran executed at least 1,639 people in 2025, a 68 percent leap from the 975 killed in 2024 and the highest seen since tracking began in 2008. All known executions were reportedly conducted by hanging.
The number of executed women also rose to 48, a jump from 31 in 2024. Courts convicted 21 of these women for murdering their husbands or fiancés.
The figure of 1,639 human beings represents an average of four executions each day; however, IHR warns that the full body count is likely much higher, as the group requires two sources to confirm an execution.
“By creating fear through an average of four to five executions per day in 2025, authorities tried to prevent new protests and prolong their crumbling rule,” IHR director Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam said in a statement.
“The death penalty in Iran is used as a political tool of oppression and repression, with ethnic minorities and other marginalized groups disproportionately represented among those executed,” added Raphaël Chenuil-Hazan, executive director of ECPM.
The report cites the higher levels of executions targeting Sunni Muslims such as Kurds in the west and Baluch in the southeast.
A significant number of executions involved non-lethal offenses, with nearly half of documented executions – 747 people – convicted of drug crimes. While most executions took place inside prisons, the number of public hangings more than tripled to 11.
The report begins with a foreword written on Feb. 20 by human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh. On April 1, Iranian police arrested her and today her whereabouts remain unknown.
Beginning by noting that Iran has ranked highest in executions per capita for many years and remains one of the highest for total killings, Sotoudeh writes that “the reasons for opposing the inhuman punishment of execution are so clear that they hardly require repetition. Nevertheless, governments such as the Islamic Republic of Iran often invoke public opinion to justify this inhuman punishment.”
Sotoudeh explains that the regime justifies executing murderers and drug traffickers because of a supposed public demand, “as though that settles the matter.” She points out that historically executions can rise after revolutions following dictatorships.
“We experienced this ourselves within the past half-century. After the 1979 Revolution, many officers and senior officials of the monarchy were executed without fair trials,” Sotoudeh writes. “Yet the cycle of violence did not end, and the execution machine went on to claim the lives of others, including those who had contributed to the revolution’s victory. This cycle has not ceased to this day, nearly half a century later, and has in fact accelerated.”
Invoking one of history’s most famous victims of unjust execution, Sotoudeh adds, “This is precisely why death sentences should never be issued under the influence of public opinion. Socrates, too, was sentenced to death at the age of 70 by a vote of the Athenian majority and chose to drink the cup of poison rather than leave Athens.”
The report reveals the extent to which the regime has sought to conceal its bloody hands. Official government sources only announced 113 executions (less than 7 percent), down from 9.7 percent in 2024 and 15 percent in 2023.
Rape is a capital offense in Iran, with 37 people killed after convictions. The report notes that “as in previous years, people accused of crimes were tortured and forced to confess. Criminal convictions are frequently based on information extracted under torture.”
The execution increase established in 2025 appears to have continued into 2026.
On Monday, for example, the Human Rights Activist News Agency announced that Judge Iman Afshari of the Tehran Revolutionary Court had sentenced to death protesters Mohammadreza Majidi-Asl, Bita Hemmati, Behrouz Zamaninejad, and Kourosh Zamaninejad.
The charges which Afshari judged as worthy of execution included “destruction of public property,” “chanting protest slogans,” “throwing objects including bottles, concrete blocks, and incendiary materials from rooftops,” and “participation in protest gatherings on Jan. 8 and 9, 2026.”
The Iranian regime unleashed a brutal, nationwide crackdown on anti-government protesters in January, resulting in the deaths and arrests of tens of thousands of people. Activists fear that many of those detained will be executed.
The report cites Max du Plessis, a UN Fact-Finding Mission expert, who said in October after observing the increase in killings, “if executions form part of a widespread and systemic attack against a civilian population, as a matter of policy, then those responsible – including the judges who impose capital punishment – may be held accountable for crimes against humanity.”
Uncategorized
Hampshire College closure reverberates for alumni who treasured a Yiddishist hub
Hampshire College, once a hub for Yiddish scholarship thanks to its proximity to the Yiddish Book Center, will close by the end of the year amid financial challenges.
The Yiddish Book Center will not be affected by the closure, said spokesperson Rebecka McDougall, noting that the Yiddish Book Center owns its land and building, located adjacent to campus.
Even so, the closure signals the end of an era for Yiddishists who found their footing at Hampshire. Among its alumni are Yiddish singer Miryem-Khaye Seigel, the Yiddish Book Center’s academic director Madeleine (Mindl) Cohen, and the Forward’s archivist, Chana Pollack.
“It connected me to other people that were very instrumental to my broader Yiddish interests,” said Lana Adler, a 2013 Hampshire graduate who went on to work at the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, which houses the largest collection of Yiddish-language works in the world. “It was an incredibly important space for Yiddish.”
Hampshire and Yiddish
Founded in 1970 in Amherst, Massachusetts, Hampshire College was conceived as an experiment in alternative education, offering self-designed concentrations instead of traditional majors and “narrative evaluations” rather than grades.
A decade later, it became home to a major Yiddish revival effort when alum Aaron Lansky returned to found the Yiddish Book Center. Alarmed that American Jews were discarding irreplaceable Yiddish books, Lansky set out to save them.
New York City seemed the obvious base. But mentors warned he might “get swallowed up” among the city’s many Jewish institutions, recalled Penina Migdal Glazer, a former Hampshire professor, in a 2024 interview.
Instead, Lansky chose Amherst — a place he knew from his college years, with faculty mentors who could support the project, and more affordable land. He purchased 10 acres on an apple orchard next to the Hampshire campus and, in 1997, built the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Building, designed to evoke an Eastern European shtetl.
In the years that followed, the Yiddish Book Center and Hampshire College became a magnet for students interested in Yiddish. The two partnered to host Yiddish language classes and programs like the Yiddish Book Center’s Steiner Summer Yiddish Program, where participants immerse themselves in seven weeks of Yiddish language and culture while staying in Hampshire College dorms.
The closure’s impact
Facing declining enrollment and mounting debt, Hampshire College’s Board of Trustees voted to permanently close the school following the fall 2026 semester, president Jennifer Chrisler announced Tuesday.
McDougall told the Forward that the Yiddish Book Center’s summer residential programs are independent of Hampshire College and will continue, adding, “There is currently no programmatic partnership with Hampshire College.”
“We are saddened by Hampshire College’s announcement,” Susan Bronsin, president of the Yiddish Book Center, said in a statement. “Hampshire has been a valued neighbor for many years, and we recognize the significance of this moment for its community.”
For Aleks Ritter, co-founder of the student group Hampshire Jewish Life, the campus’ proximity to the Yiddish Book Center was a large part of the school’s appeal when he first applied. Ritter had studied Yiddish through YIVO in high school and hoped to continue in college.
He and his friends would often go to the Yiddish Book Center to study and hang out, and several of his friends worked part-time jobs there.
“The school has been really wonderful for Jewish students,” Ritter said.
Now, Ritter will have to transfer to another college in the area.
For alumni like Adler, the loss also feels personal. Hampshire was the first time she had formally studied Yiddish — an experience that shaped her career.
“There was something special happening at Hampshire,” Adler said. “It was very important to me and to a lot of other people. I’m just so sad. I can’t believe it’s closing.”
The post Hampshire College closure reverberates for alumni who treasured a Yiddishist hub appeared first on The Forward.