I watched Schindler’s List at least seven times, and each time, I was deeply moved by one of the greatest cinematic icons ever created. The film, released in 1993, is among the most successful works by Jewish-American director Steven Spielberg, who waived his fee for this project as a testament to his unconditional solidarity with the victims of the Holocaust.
The film is based on the 1982 novel Schindler’s Ark, whose title may draw inspiration from the theme of salvation in the story of Prophet Noah’s Ark. The novel, awarded the Booker Prize, was written by Australian-Irish author Thomas Keneally. He was inspired by the testimony of Poldek Pfefferberg, a Polish Jew and Holocaust survivor, who shared his story and memoirs about German businessman Oskar Schindler, who saved him and approximately 1,200 other Jews from the Nazi extermination camps.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Keneally recounted how luck played a significant role in the emergence of this story. In 1979, while searching for a leather briefcase in Los Angeles, he met Pfefferberg by chance. Pfefferberg shared his story about Schindler, including original documents like the actual “Schindler’s List,” which contained the names of Jews Schindler saved from Nazi persecution.
When Australian broadcaster Peter Thompson, on his show Talking Heads on ABC1, asked Keneally if the ethical complexity of Schindler’s character attracted him to the story, Keneally responded that he was intrigued by the blurred lines between opportunism and altruism in the protagonist’s character. He was captivated by the idea that goodness can emerge from the most unexpected places.
This moral ambiguity is also reflected in the film’s narrative, which portrays Schindler’s internal struggle between good and evil. Human nature, depicted as conflicting forces like crashing waves, gradually settles on a decisive course of action.
The film received 12 Academy Award nominations and won seven, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing, and Best Original Score.
A striking contrast emerges between those whose faces lit up with joy and whose eyes welled with tears upon receiving the Oscar in 1994 for their participation in Schindler’s List, and actor Marlon Brando, who twenty years earlier, in 1974, sent Sacheen Littlefeather, a civil rights activist for Native Americans, to the Oscars on his behalf.
When Brando was announced as the Oscar for Best Actor winner for his role in The Godfather, the Academy and the audience were surprised to see Littlefeather take the stage dressed in traditional Native American attire.
Despite being visibly nervous in front of the large crowd, she began reading a statement from Brando, expressing his refusal to accept the award. In his message, he condemned the entire American film and television industry for decades of ignoring the genocide inflicted on Native Americans and for perpetuating hateful racism against them.
I first watched the film in Germany in the mid-1990s when it was dubbed on a German TV channel. I had just become proficient in the language and noticed that the film had been broadcast annually for several consecutive years.
Apart from the red coat of a little girl in fleeting scenes, the flame of a candle, and the final shot of Schindler’s grave, the entire film was shot in black and white. This stylistic choice gives the film a documentary-like feel, evoking the somber mood and oppression of World War II.
The film begins in 1939 with Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland. The story introduces Oskar Schindler, an opportunistic German businessman and Nazi Party member, who arrives in Kraków seeking to exploit the war for financial gain.
Schindler acquires a factory producing enamelware for the German army through bribery and negotiation. He enlists Jewish accountant Itzhak Stern, who helps him manage the factory and employ Jewish workers at low wages, bordering on forced labor.
As World War II intensified, the Nazis forced Kraków’s Jews into an isolated ghetto, followed by mass deportations to concentration and extermination camps.
Initially focused on profit, Schindler becomes increasingly disturbed by the atrocities he witnesses, particularly the brutal liquidation of the Kraków Ghetto led by Nazi officer Amon Göth.
Witnessing the plight of the Jews firsthand, Schindler undergoes a moral transformation from a greedy businessman to a selfless individual determined to save innocent lives. With Stern’s assistance, he creates a list of essential Jewish workers for his factory to shield them from deportation, especially to Auschwitz’s gas chambers.
By the end of the war, Schindler exhausts his entire fortune bribing Nazi officials to protect his workers. Despite his heroism, he is forced to flee as he is officially a Nazi Party member.
Before leaving, his workers present him with a letter of gratitude and a ring inscribed with the Talmudic phrase: “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
The film concludes with a color sequence showing real-life survivors from Schindler’s list and their descendants placing small stones on his grave in Mount Zion, Jerusalem. Each survivor is accompanied by the actor who portrayed them.
The scene ends with Schindler’s real widow, seated in a wheelchair, placing a stone on his grave.
Israel’s Recognition of Holocaust Rescuers and Compensation for Victims
Israel, through the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial Museum, honored Oskar Schindler by immortalizing his name in the Righteous Among the Nations list, established to commemorate and recognize individuals who risked their lives to save Jews during the Nazi Holocaust. This recognition came in the same year as the film Schindler’s List was released, approximately 20 years after his death.
Among those honored is the only Arab on the list, Dr. Mohamed Helmy, an Egyptian physician. According to Yad Vashem’s documentation, Dr. Helmy moved to Germany in 1922 to study medicine in Berlin and later worked at the Robert Koch Institute during the Nazi era. He risked his life to save several Jews, and his name was added to the Righteous Among the Nations list in 2013, over 30 years after his death. However, his family in Egypt declined to accept the Israeli honor.
Numerous films and documentaries have been made about Nazi extermination camps for Jews, and even children’s stories address the Holocaust. For example, Kiddle, a children’s encyclopedia and search engine, has dedicated sections about the Holocaust, Thomas Keneally (author of Schindler’s Ark), and Oskar Schindler himself.
There are also international initiatives to seek compensation for Holocaust survivors and their descendants, such as the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany. This non-profit organization, with offices in the U.S., Israel, and Germany, provides financial compensation to Holocaust survivors globally.
Established in 1951 by representatives of 23 major international Jewish organizations, the Claims Conference negotiates the distribution of funds to individuals and institutions. It also works to recover stolen Jewish property from the Holocaust era.
Since 1952, the German government has paid approximately $90 billion in reparations for the suffering and losses caused by Nazi persecution.
The International Stance on Jews
The Balfour Declaration was issued on November 2, 1917, during World War I, which ended on November 11, 1918. The war resulted in the dissolution of three empires and the emergence of new political entities: the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Russian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire.
The Balfour Declaration was a letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Lionel Rothschild, a leader of the Zionist movement at the time, during the reign of King George V. The declaration stated:
Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur Balfour
By the end of World War II in 1945, following the victory of the Allied Powers over the Axis Powers, the London Charter was signed on August 8, 1945. This agreement, signed by the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States, the provisional government of France, and the Soviet Union, set the framework for prosecuting major war criminals of the Axis Powers, leading to the Nuremberg Trials, later ratified by 20 additional nations.
The United Nations was established in 1945 as a replacement for the League of Nations. Article 92 of the UN Charter states:
“The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with its Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter.”
On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 (Second Session), which ended the British Mandate over Palestine and proposed the division of the territory into three entities:
– A Jewish State covering 57.7% of the land.
– An Arab State covering 42.3% of the land.
– An international zone including Jerusalem and Bethlehem under special international status.
Note: Link to the English version of Resolution 181 (Second Session)
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-185393/
The resolution was adopted in the 128th plenary session of the General Assembly on November 29, 1947, with the following vote tally:
– In favor: 33 countries (including Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, the United States, and the Soviet Union).
– Against: 13 countries (including Afghanistan, Egypt, India, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen).
– Abstentions: 10 countries (including Argentina, China, the UK, and Yugoslavia).
– Absent: 1 country (Thailand).
A notable irony is that the United Kingdom abstained from voting on the resolution, despite having issued the Balfour Declaration three decades earlier, advocating for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which resulted in the displacement of 80% of the Arab population, the establishment of the State of Israel, and ongoing conflict, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194 (Third Session) on December 11, 1948. Article 11 of this resolution emphasized:
“The refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss or damage to property.”
Despite this resolution, the provisions have not been implemented for over three-quarters of a century.
On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization, proclaimed Israel’s Declaration of Independence. Ben-Gurion became Israel’s first Prime Minister. While many countries gradually recognized Israel, others rejected or later revoked recognition, such as Iran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Israel applied for UN membership the day after the declaration but was rejected twice. It was only after the third attempt that Israel was admitted under Resolution 273 (Third Session) on May 11, 1949.
Globally, separatist movements exist in regions like Kurdistan (spanning Iraq, Turkey, and Syria), Catalonia (Spain), Western Sahara (Morocco), and even Texas and California (USA).
However, unlike Palestine, these movements have never been subjected to a UN vote. The Holocaust’s atrocities likely played a significant role in garnering global sympathy for the establishment of a Jewish state.
According to the UN’s website, on November 22, 2004, the General Assembly noted in Resolution 59/26 that 2005 would mark the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II, which “brought untold sorrow to humanity and created the conditions for the establishment of the United Nations.”
On January 24, 2005, the General Assembly held a special session commemorating the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Nazi concentration camps. Approximately 30 member states requested the session to emphasize that “such evil must never be allowed to happen again.”
The United Nations has since issued multiple resolutions condemning Holocaust denial and calling for its remembrance. The term “Holocaust” derives from the Greek word Holokausten, meaning “completely burned offering.” According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, it refers to “the systematic, state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children, along with millions of others, by Nazi Germany and its allies during World War II.”
Key UN resolutions regarding the Holocaust include:
– Resolution 7/60 (2005) on Holocaust remembrance.
– Resolution 61/255 (2007) on Holocaust denial.
– Resolution A/76/L.30 (2022) on combating Holocaust denial.
Legislation Criminalizing Holocaust Denial or Downplaying Its Significance
In some countries, questioning the Holocaust or disputing the figure of six million Jewish victims killed by the Nazis is considered a criminal offense. For example:
Austria: The Prohibition Act of 1947, specifically Article 3g, states:
“Anyone engaging in activities of a Nazi nature, by any means not covered by Articles 3a to 3f, shall be punished with imprisonment of one to ten years, and in cases of severe danger or offenses, up to 20 years.”
Article 3h adds:
“Anyone denying, grossly minimizing, justifying, or approving Nazi genocide or other Nazi crimes against humanity, whether in publications, broadcasts, or other media, or publicly in a manner accessible to many people, shall also be punished under Article 3g.”
Germany: Section 130 of the German Penal Code, which addresses incitement to hatred, states:
“Anyone who publicly or during a gathering condones, denies, or downplays an act committed under Nazi rule as specified in Section 6, Paragraph 1 of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner likely to disturb public peace, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to five years or a fine.”
France: Law No. 90-615, known as the Gayssot Act, aimed at combating racism, anti-Semitism, and xenophobia, stipulates in Article 9:
“After Article 24 of the July 29, 1881 Press Freedom Law, a new Article 24bis shall be added, which reads: ‘Article 24bis: The penalties set out in the sixth paragraph of Article 24 shall apply to anyone who questions, using any of the means outlined in Article 23, the existence of one or more crimes against humanity as defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal annexed to the London Charter of August 8, 1945, committed by persons or organizations declared criminal under Article 9 of that Charter or by a person convicted of such crimes by a French or international court.'”
One notable case in France involved academic Robert Faurisson, who faced legal consequences for Holocaust denial and questioning the number of Jewish victims. His articles in Le Monde and his book Memoirs in Defense (1999) led to his suspension from teaching at the University of Lyon and legal action.
Faurisson noted a series of studies over two decades in which he denied the Holocaust. He dismissed the testimonies of Holocaust survivors and completely rejected the events, asserting that the number of deaths amounted to only a few thousand. He claimed that he found no explicit orders from Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, or the German leadership or authorities advocating for the extermination of Jews. On the contrary, he argued that the Nazi regime executed some Germans for killing Jews without authorization.
When Faurisson examined the diary of Anne Frank, the Dutch Jewish girl widely believed to have been killed by the Nazis, he claimed it was a forgery, arguing that it was written with ink that was not invented until after World War II. Additionally, during his visits to concentration camps, Faurisson alleged that the substance claimed by Holocaust proponents to have been used by the Nazis to kill Jews was merely a pesticide for killing fleas and insects, which he asserted had no lethal effect on humans. According to him, it was used on corpses to prevent the spread of disease.
Notably, Noam Chomsky, a renowned linguist and professor emeritus at MIT, defended Faurisson’s right to freedom of speech, regardless of the content of his claims.
In a 2018 New York Times article titled Robert Faurisson, Holocaust Denier Prosecuted by the French, Dies at 89 journalist Adam Nossiter wrote:
“Although Faurisson was reviled in his homeland, he was celebrated in Iran, where he received an award from then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, known for his antagonistic stance towards Israel and Jews, in recognition of his ‘courage, resistance, and struggle.'”
Dr. Robert Rozett, a historian at the International Institute for Holocaust Research at Israel’s Yad Vashem, wrote an article titled “When Denying History Becomes Incitement to Violence,” where he stated:
“In an ideal world, anyone denying a well-documented historical fact, such as the Holocaust, would be ridiculed and scorned, much like someone claiming the Earth is flat or that the Sun orbits the Moon.”
He added:
“Holocaust denial is a form of anti-Semitism, which continues to incite violence against Jews, both individually and collectively.”
He also noted:
“Legislation limiting freedom of expression should be a last resort and used cautiously. Unfortunately, in many places today, such laws remain necessary.”
Dr. Dina Porat, Professor Emeritus of Modern Jewish History in the Department of Jewish History at Tel Aviv University, stated in a video from a course published on the YouTube channel of the Israeli research center Yad Vashem, titled “Holocaust Denial and Distortion”, that denying or downplaying the Holocaust constitutes a form of antisemitism. She explained that Holocaust deniers and skeptics claim that the Jewish people fabricated the horrific Holocaust narrative to mislead global public opinion and gain control over Germany.
She also highlighted the propagation of false claims, such as alleged collaboration between Zionists and Nazis, citing the Haavara Agreement of 1933 between the Jewish Agency and Nazi Germany as supposed evidence of Zionist complicity in selecting which Jews to save.
Anti-Semitism
Dr. Abdel Wahab El-Messiri, in the second volume of his Encyclopedia of Jews, Judaism, and Zionism: A New Interpretive Model (1999), rejects the term “anti-Semitism” and instead uses the term “anti-Jewishness” to describe the phenomenon it refers to. He explains, “Anti-Semitism is a translation of the English term ‘anti-Semitism,’ but in this encyclopedia, we use the term ‘anti-Jewishness.'” He adds, “Instead of translating the term, we preferred to create a new term, ‘anti-Jewishness,’ as it is more precise and descriptive. Moreover, it is more neutral and avoids any racist or misleading connotations.”
Western atheists adopted the term “anti-Semitism,” which refers to the lineage of Shem, the son of Noah, despite not believing in his existence. From their perspective, Shem is a fictional biblical figure that contradicts Darwin’s theory of human evolution.
Additionally, Judaism as a religion is practised by diverse ethnic groups, such as Slavs, Moroccans, Ethiopians, and others, and it cannot be said that Jews belong to a single ethnic group.
The term “Semitic” originally emerged as a linguistic classification encompassing certain languages under its umbrella. However, not all Jews necessarily speak one of the languages categorized as Semitic.
The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism criticized the Encyclopaedia Britannica for stating that “Arab peoples and other ‘Semites’ cannot be racist against Jews.” The campaign argued that the encyclopaedia “commits an etymological fallacy, reinforcing the anti-Semitic stereotype that ‘Semites’ cannot hate Jews. This is ignorant and dangerous. We will write to the Encyclopaedia Britannica to urgently correct this error.”
The Historical Stance on Jews
In the Arab world, public sympathy for Jewish victims of the Nazi Holocaust seems generally limited. This is either due to a lack of detailed information about the events or because of widespread anger over the plight of Palestinians.
From an Islamic perspective, accusing a Jew or anyone else without evidence is impermissible. It is a Muslim’s duty to stand with the oppressed, regardless of their religion or personal feelings toward them.
God says in the Quran, Surah Al-Ma’idah:
“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do.”
It is sufficient to mention that nine verses from Surah An-Nisa were revealed to exonerate a Jew who was falsely accused of theft during the time of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. These verses include:
“Indeed, We have sent down to you the Book in truth so you may judge between the people by that which Allah has shown you. And do not be an advocate for the deceitful. And seek forgiveness of Allah. Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful. And do not argue on behalf of those who deceive themselves. Indeed, Allah does not like one who is a habitually deceitful sinner. They conceal [their evil intentions] from the people, but they cannot conceal [them] from Allah; and He is with them [in His knowledge] when they spend the night in such as He does not accept of speech. And ever is Allah, of what they do, encompassing.”
(Surah An-Nisa: 105-108)
Sayyid Qutb, in his Fi Zilal al-Qur’an (1978), he explains the story behind these verses’ revelation. He writes:
“The story, narrated through several sources, recounts the reason for the revelation of these verses. A group of the Ansar—Qatadah ibn al-Nu’man and his uncle Rafa’ah—participated in one of the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ military expeditions. During this time, a piece of armor belonging to Rafa’ah was stolen. Suspicion fell upon a man from the Ansar, a member of the household of Banu Ubairaq. The owner of the armor approached the Prophet ﷺ, saying: ‘It was Tu’mah ibn Ubairaq who stole my armor.’ (In another narration, it is said to be Bishr ibn Ubairaq, and this version describes Bishr as a hypocrite who composed poetry mocking the Companions and falsely attributed it to certain Arab tribes.)”
When the thief realized what had happened, he took the armor and threw it into the house of a Jewish man (named Zayd ibn As-Samin). He then said to some of his tribe, “I have hidden the armor and placed it in the house of so-and-so. It will be found there.” They went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said, “O Prophet of Allah, our companion is innocent, and the one who stole the armor is so-and-so. We are certain of this. Please pardon our companion publicly and advocate on his behalf, for if Allah does not protect him through you, he will be ruined.”
When the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ learned that the armor was found in the house of the Jewish man, he exonerated Ibn Ubayriq and justified his innocence publicly.
Before the armor was discovered in the Jewish man’s house, the family of Ibn Ubayriq had told the Prophet ﷺ: “Qatadah ibn al-Nu’man and his uncle have accused a household from among us known for their Islam and righteousness of theft without evidence or proof!”
Qatadah said: “I went to the Prophet ﷺ and spoke to him about it.”
The Prophet ﷺ responded: “You have accused a household mentioned for their Islam and righteousness of theft without sufficient evidence or proof?” Qatadah added, “I returned, wishing I had given up some of my wealth instead of speaking to the Prophet ﷺ about it.”
Later, Qatadah’s uncle Rifa’ah approached him and asked, “What did you do?” Qatadah informed him of the Prophet’s ﷺ response, to which Rifa’ah replied, “Allah is our helper.”
Shortly after, the following verses of the Quran were revealed:
“Indeed, We have sent down to you the Book in truth so you may judge between the people by that which Allah has shown you. And do not be an advocate for the deceitful. And seek forgiveness of Allah. Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful… And do not argue on behalf of those who deceive themselves. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are habitually sinful. They conceal [their evil intentions] from the people, but they cannot conceal [them] from Allah…” (Surah An-Nisa: 105-112).
The verses continued: “Were it not for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy…” and concluded with: “Then We will give him a great reward.”
When these verses were revealed, the Prophet ﷺ returned the armor to Rifa’ah.
Muslims face no religious prohibition in dealing with Jews or followers of other religions. Islam even permits a close and personal relationship—marriage—between Muslim men and Jewish or Christian women. As stated in the Quran, Surah Al-Ma’idah:
“This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking them as mistresses…”
Islamic history is replete with examples of Jews and Christians flourishing under Muslim rule, contributing to culture and civilization. One such figure is Maimonides (Moses ben Maimon), a Jewish rabbi, philosopher, and physician born in Andalusia in the 12th century. He later served as the personal doctor of Salah ad-Din al-Ayyubi (Saladin) in Cairo.
Unlike the historical religious hostility that European Christians exhibited toward Jews—blaming them for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ—no equivalent animosity exists in Islamic teachings. Islam’s rejection of other beliefs does not grant permission to demean their adherents.
God says in Surah Al-An’am:
“And do not insult those they invoke besides Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge…”
Even today, European churches grapple with the presence of sculptures and artwork portraying Jews suckling from a sow, known as the “Judensau” or “Jewish Pig.” Josef Ferenshofer, in an article for the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, states that the “Judensau” has been a feature of churches and cathedrals for nearly 800 years. These anti-Semitic sculptures take various forms, such as grotesque carvings, reliefs, or standalone statues, most of which date back to the Middle Ages. To this day, around 20 German churches still house these figures, often without any historical context provided.
He adds, “The ‘Judensau’ typically depicts a sow suckling one or more Jews, who are identifiable by the Jewish hats that authorities mandated Jewish men to wear. Sometimes, the Jews are shown feeding the pig, riding it, or collecting its excrement. Depictions of Jews in intimate scenes with the pig were especially insulting: first, because the pig is considered unclean in Jewish religious beliefs, and second, because the pig symbolized the devil in medieval Christian art.”
Turning away from Germany and toward the cornerstone of English literature, William Shakespeare, we find in his play The Merchant of Venice statements that some literary critics have regarded as anti-Semitic, particularly in relation to the character of the Jewish moneylender Shylock.
يقول Dr. Brandon Ambrosino, براندون أمبروسينو in an article for Smithsonian Magazine titled بعد مرور 400 عام، لا يزال العلماء يناقشون ما إذا كانت مسرحية شكسبير “تاجر البندقية” معادية للسامية writes: “Literary critic Harold Bloom stated in his book Shakespeare and the Invention of the Human (1998): ‘One must be blind, deaf, and dumb not to recognize that the great and contradictory comedy The Merchant of Venice is nonetheless a profoundly anti-Semitic work.'” Despite his deep admiration for Shakespeare, Bloom admitted elsewhere that he is pained by the thought that the play has caused “genuine harm… to Jews over the course of four centuries.”
Ambrosino adds, “It doesn’t take literary genius like Bloom to identify the anti-Semitic elements in the play. Shylock is portrayed as the stereotypical greedy Jew, spat upon by his Christian adversaries and constantly humiliated. His daughter elopes with a Christian, abandoning her Jewish heritage. After being outmaneuvered by the Christians, Shylock is forced to convert to Christianity, and he disappears from the play without being heard from again.”
This legacy of European Christian hostility toward Jews remains a heavy burden on the conscience of Europeans. However, one unintended side effect of this history is their tendency to unjustly project it onto Muslim-Jewish relations, despite the fact that the concept of an “Islamic-Jewish conflict” has no historical basis. This stands in contrast to the well-documented history of Islamic-Christian conflict, which spans from the Crusades in the Middle Ages to the era of European colonialism across Muslim lands.
Evidence of this lies in Morocco, which welcomed both Muslims fleeing the Spanish Inquisition in Andalusia and Jews escaping the oppression of a Christian Spain that made no distinction between Muslims and Jews.
The proportion of Moroccan Jews serves as a testament to this historical coexistence.
The conflict between Jews and Arabs, or between Jews and Muslims, was a construct of British interests, later exploited by the United States for its gains.
This conflict had no historical basis before the second decade of the 20th century, as diverse communities had coexisted and lived side by side in the Islamic world for centuries—and continue to do so.
When will global capitalism stop exporting its legacy of domination over Arabs and Muslims and extend compassion to Jews as well?