Gaylani's pogrom

Achcar devotes some space to the Farhud in Iraq. He is all over the place on this one. Let's sort it out.

What was going on in the early spring 1941 along the Two Rivers, was a feeling among the Arabs - and the Iranians - that Hitler was winning. Word had also got out that Hitler was no longer a Zionist - by which I mean, Hajj Amin had got out, spreading his venom. Meanwhile, Britain still owned a strong military presence in the Gulf Coast, the Royal Navy not being yet subjugated. Sporadic looting had broken out here and there, although the Muslims in charge of Basra had put a stop to that.

Iraqis pondered whether they might appeal to Hitler or - better - to the Soviet Union, the Soviets being closer; for an overthrow of the British occupation. Iraqi Jews were not Zionists; quite a few were Marxists.

In April Gaylani (or Kailani) led a coup in Baghdad. He wasn't a Marxist, so wasn't about to throw in with still-Hitler-allied Stalin; and he burbled something about respecting the former régime's treaty with Britain. But he also wasn't the lawful sovereign, and then there was that footsie with Hajj Amin.

19 April, the Brits invaded and took Basra. Gaylani lost control of Baghdad by the end of May, and that city fell to chaos. Gaylani's futuwwa blamed the Jews for collaborators with the British and for Zionists. Then came Shavuot which brought those Jews out into the streets.

And here is where Achcar ashq-splains to us, how firstly Gaylani was pushed into being proNazi by the Brits and secondly that the Farhud was not all that bad, and thirdly wasn't a jihad. Something something Gaylani didn't set his regime to be proNazi whilst the coup was in progress blah blah, source: Gaylani's mouth.

As I look into it all, I'd firstly not trust a single word Gaylani said after the fact. Secondarily I'd not trust Achcar here either. Both have a motive to transfer agency from the locals and to pin that upon the colonialists. Not that I'm here to hail Churchill as a saint, especially over this period which famously occasioned a Winston-made famine in Bengal.

What I am here for, is to support Achcar where he points out that the Farhud was... not that bad. Something like 180 Iraqi Jews were killed, which is awful and, yes, the rioters intended worse (as we'll see seven years later). But the rest of the 90000 were saved, by the actual Muslims, especially Shi'a. This, because the Shi'ite ayatollah there denied this riot the imprimatur of Jihad. As a result the mob were made up of street trash and thugs. And when it was understood that the mob was more a liability than an asset, the city leaders opened fire. Hundreds of rioters were killed in that, many more than Jews beforehand.

Achcar, I believe, succeeds in exonerating the various Islams in Iraq, and the best and most numerous of her people, from this atrocity. I do not believe that Achcar exonerates Gaylani who, I say, deserves no such mercy from historians. The Farhud was Gaylani's monster, for which he must answer in his afterlife.