But there is more: the most interesting aspect is perhaps the attempt to attribute the responsibilities of the genocide of the Jews to the Mufti of Jerusalem. Without risking to pass for defenders of the authority designated to control the Islamic holy sites during the period of the Mandate, it is necessary to clearly reaffirm that – out of his anti-Jew stance – the Great Mufti cannot be considered responsible for massacres that he did not commit and did not had the power to commit (in spite of his pious desires). Most important, it is not conceivable to match the feelings of the Palestinians between the two wars with the positions of the Mufti, that instead, by all appearances, was antagonized by a great part of the Palestinian society back then.

What is unfolding within the words of Netanyahu is a strange marriage between the worst negationism and the most extremist Zionism, even a contradictory one in its terms. A rereading of history which is tailored in order to blame the responsibility of the genocide of European Jews upon the Palestinian people; in order to find yet another reason to harass them and guarantee them a damned life (while justifying an expansion that, not so rarely, appears to refer to concepts of “vital space”, cloaked in a holy frame). For Netanyahu to be able to go such far is not a surprise anymore, on the other hand it is certain that his words attest a filth that endemically oozes out increasingly sizeable parts of the Israeli society. Because – beyond all the disquisitions whether the historical revision that Netanyahu carries out in his statements is permissible or not – a very widespread and established feeling in a great part of the Israeli society which is most extremist and racist towards Arabs, is expressed in his words. After all, if Netanyahu expresses that what is reported by the media all over the world, it is not only because he really believes in what he says (and, because of that, the slip would reveal something embedded in his ideological background) but he says what he knows to be shared by a wide part of his electorate – a given that is a lot more pregnant with consequences. These slams – like the daily provocations that such characters as Salvini and Le Pen do teach us in our context – are not casual pronouncements of politicians which are infamous for their coarseness; they are planned remarks, instead, that are made in order to collect consensus through the most low and resentful underbelly of society. They answer more to a science than to a boundless instinctive behavior.

After all, as the Israeli Jew intellectual Warschawski accounted in a book of his, as terrible as ominous (“Toward an Open Tomb: The Crisis of Israeli Society”) on an Israeli wall (or maybe more than one) back then already appeared the writing: “Holocaust for the Arabs”.