After many years of struggle, the Supreme Court rejected last March’s appeal against Iraqi prejudice victims, who repeatedly asked the state to correct the historical injustice and recognize them as the Nazi persecution victims.
A new study that has ended these days is now trying to provide another legal perspective on which its authors suggest that the court allegedly erred in its ruling. The research was carried out by Dr. Nissan Sharifi, a lawyer and son of Iraqi immigrants, and Prof. Gideon Greif, a historian engaged in the study of the Holocaust.
On June 1 and 2, 1941, a severe pogrom was carried out on the Jews of Baghdad, the capital of Iraq. 179 Jews were massacred, thousands injured, hundreds of women raped and tens of thousands of homes looted and vandalized. This pogrom was later known as “Prehud” (terrorism against the ruled) and was the culmination of a campaign of incitement and Nazi propaganda in Iraq, which began with Hitler’s rise to power in 1933. Iraq had known many coups during those years, but most of its leaders at that time were pro-Nazis. King Gazi, who ruled Iraq intermittently from 1933 to 1939, was Hitler’s friend and ally and even received a magnificent survivor gift from him.
The Nazi propaganda in Iraq was distributed, among other things, through Berlin’s Arabic radio and the newspaper Al-Al-Arab. The newspaper was bought by the embassy in the early 1930s, and he published, among other things, episodes from Hitler’s book “Mein Kampf” which were translated into Arabic. The person behind Hitler’s translation of Arabic into Arabic was Iraq’s propaganda, economic and security minister Al Bassawi, who served under Prime Minister El Kilani, who was also a pro-Nazi.
A report by the Iraqi Investigation Committee, established by the Iraqi government, stated that the parahood was the result of the Nazi incitement in Iraq. The Jerusalem Supreme Court acknowledged this, but rejected the appeal, in part, on the grounds that German law entitled to compensation is only one that was harmed in one of the countries under Nazi occupation. The court also ruled that the pariah happened during a “two-month” period between Iraqi governments and coups, and hence the definition of a “metastatic state” which necessitates the existence of a prime minister who allegedly interfered with it is denied.
The authors of the study say that “this is an exception in Article 43 of German law, which states that a person who has suffered a” deprivation of liberty “can claim it – even if he has no territorial affiliation with Germany.” One of the points to which the exceptional clause refers is that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation if the “foreign state government was motivated to deny liberty by the German Socialist government”.
On the rejection of the definition of “metastatic state” by the Supreme Court, the investigators report that the Iraqi commission’s inquiry established that “the military police, civilian police and even the Iraqi military were involved in the commission of disturbances, actively or totally ignored by the rioters” .