More Ralph-Northam Hypocrisy from the Left

Ibrahim Samirah

Two weeks ago Ibraheem Samirah, a second-generation Palestinian running for an open seat in the 86th district of the House of Delegates, joined other Democrats in calling for the resignation of Governor Ralph Northam for appearing in black face in 1984. Now, it turns out, Samirah has to answer for some intemperate remarks he made five years ago about Jews.

Samirah has kinda-sorta apologized for saying on Facebook that sending money to Israel is “worse” than sending money to the Ku Klux Klan, that Israeli teenagers used Tinder to “cover up the murders in their name,” and that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would burn in hell — assuming that calling the charges against him a “slander campaign” constitutes an apology.

The charges, he said, cite “five-year-old Facebook posts from my impassioned college days, posts that upon my reflection and with the blessing of time, I sincerely regret and apologize for. I am so sorry that my ill-chosen words added to the pain of the Jewish community, and I seek your understanding and compassion as I prove to you our common humanity. Please do not let those who seek to divide us use these words out of context of time and place to accomplish their hateful goals.”

The would-be delegate says the charges are taken out of context. Opposing Israeli policies does not make him anti-Jewish. To the contrary, he joined the traditionally Jewish Alpha Mu fraternity at American University, co-founded a chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace, and took a class taught by Yossi Olmert, brother of former Prime Minister  Eduh Olmert. He has participated in intesectional events with rabbis and pastors. “I believe that human supremacy of any kind is damaging to the world we live in.”

In other words, Samirah pleads for understanding on the grounds that (a) he made his intemperate comments a long time ago, and (b) his statements should be viewed in the full context of his views and actions over his life. Those are pretty much the arguments I advanced against rushing to judgment about Northam’s blackface revelation: He wore blackface 35 years ago, and he should be judged based on his words and deeds since then.

Samirah’s argument would be a lot easier to swallow, however, had he given Northam the same benefit of the doubt. But he didn’t. On Feb. 3, the Samirah for Delegate Campaign tweeted:

It has been a painful 48 hours for Virginians. I am confronting @RalphNortham’s actions in the hopes that we start a conversation about a more equitable society. We should ensure opportunities for people of color by advancing healthcare, education and environmental justice…

… For these reasons, I stand with the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus in calling on Governor Ralph Northam to do the right thing and step down immediately. This kind of behavior, past or present, is unacceptable in Richmond.

Screen grab from

Bacon’s bottom line: I’m willing to forgive Samirah for his use of intemperate language. But I cut him no slack for sanctimonious hypocrisy.

Share this article


(comments below)


(comments below)


7 responses to “More Ralph-Northam Hypocrisy from the Left”

  1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    This fellow Ibraheem Samirah, a 2nd generation Palestinian running for an open seat in the 86th district of the House of Delegates, seems to represent a growing trend of Anti-Semitism rising noxiously in Virginia, including most particularly in Charlottesville, given for example recent incidents at UVa, and throughout the nation, fueled most particularly by leftist Democrats.

    Perhaps the Jewish community in Virginia should demand reparations for Governor Northam as well. For details see below:

    “Definition Of Holocaust

    Most Holocaust historians define the Holocaust as the enactment, between 1941 and 1945, of the German state policy to exterminate the European Jews.[a] In Teaching the Holocaust (2015), Michael Gray, a specialist in Holocaust education in high schools, offers three definitions: (a) “the persecution and murder of Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators between 1933 and 1945”, which views the events of Kristallnacht in Germany in 1938 as an early phase of the Holocaust; (b) “the systematic mass murder of the Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators between 1941 and 1945”, which acknowledges the shift in German policy in 1941 toward the extermination of the Jewish people in Europe; and (c) “the persecution and murder of various groups by the Nazi regime and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945”, which includes all the Nazis’ victims. The third definition fails, Gray writes, to acknowledge that only the Jewish people were singled out for annihilation.[26]

    Hitler came to see the Jews as “uniquely dangerous to Germany”, according to Peter Hayes, “and therefore uniquely destined to disappear completely from the Reich and all territories subordinate to it”. The persecution and murder of other groups was much less consistent. For example, he writes, the Nazis regarded the Slavs as “sub-human”, but their treatment consisted of “enslavement and gradual attrition”, while “some Slavs—Slovaks, Croats, Bulgarians, some Ukrainians—[were] allotted a favored place in Hitler’s New Order”.[20]

    Dan Stone, a specialist in the historiography of the Holocaust, lists ethnic Poles, Ukrainians, Soviet prisoners of war, Jehovah’s Witnesses, black Germans, and homosexuals as among the groups persecuted by the Nazis; he writes that the occupation of eastern Europe can also be viewed as genocidal.[h] But the German attitude toward the Jews was different in kind, he argues. The Nazis regarded the Jews not as racially inferior, deviant, or enemy nationals, as they did other groups,[i] but as a Gegenrasse: “a ‘counter-race’, that is to say, not really human at all”. The Holocaust, for Stone, is therefore defined as the genocide of the Jews, although he argues that it cannot be “properly historically situated without understanding the ‘Nazi empire’ with its grandiose demographic plans”.[24] Donald Niewyk and Francis Nicosia, in The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust (2000), favour a definition that focuses on the Jews, Roma, and Aktion T4 victims: “The Holocaust—that is, Nazi genocide—was the systematic, state-sponsored murder of entire groups determined by heredity. This applied to Jews, Gypsies, and the handicapped.”[5]

    The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum defines the Holocaust as the “systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators”,[28] distinguishing between the Holocaust and the targeting of other groups during “the era of the Holocaust”. The latter include those persecuted because they were viewed as inferior, including for reasons of race or ethnicity (such as the Roma, ethnic Poles, Russians, and the disabled); and those targeted because of their beliefs or behavior (such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, communists, and homosexuals).[29] In the UK, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, a British government charity, similarly defines the Holocaust as the systematic attempt, between 1941 and 1945, to annihilate the European Jews.[30] Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust memorial, defines it as “the murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators” between the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 and the end of the war in Europe in May 1945.[31] According to Yad Vashem, most historians regard January 1933, when Hitler was named chancellor of Germany, as the start of the “Holocaust era”.[32

    The logistics of the mass murder turned the country into what Michael Berenbaum called a “genocidal state”. Bureaucrats identified who was a Jew, confiscated property, and scheduled trains to deport them. Companies fired Jews and later used them as slave labor. Universities dismissed Jewish faculty and students. German pharmaceutical companies tested drugs on camp prisoners; other companies built the crematoria.[33] As prisoners entered the death camps, they were ordered to surrender all personal property, which was catalogued and tagged before being sent to Germany for reuse or recycling.[34] Through a concealed account, the German National Bank helped launder valuables stolen from the victims.[35]

    The industrialization and scale of the murder was unprecedented. The killings were systematically conducted in virtually all areas of occupied Europe—more than 20 occupied countries.[36] Close to three million Jews in occupied Poland and between 700,000 and 2.5 million Jews in the Soviet Union were killed. Hundreds of thousands more died in the rest of Europe.[37] Victims were transported in sealed freight trains from all over Europe to extermination camps equipped with gas chambers.[38] The stationary facilities grew out of Nazi experiments with poison gas during the Aktion T4 mass murder (“euthanasia”) programme against the disabled and mentally ill, which began in 1939.[39] The Germans set up six extermination camps in Poland: Auschwitz II-Birkenau (established October 1941); Majdanek (October 1941); Chełmno (December 1941); and in 1942 the three Operation Reinhard camps at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka.[40][41]

    Eberhard Jäckel writes that it was the first time a state had thrown its power behind the idea that an entire people should be wiped out.[j] Anyone with three or four Jewish grandparents was to be exterminated,[43] and complex rules were devised to deal with Mischlinge (half and quarter Jews, or “mixed breeds”).[44] Without the help of local collaborators, the Germans would not have been able to extend the Holocaust across most of Europe;[45] over 200,000 people are estimated to have been Holocaust perpetrators.[46] Saul Friedländer writes: “Not one social group, not one religious community, not one scholarly institution or professional association in Germany and throughout Europe declared its solidarity with the Jews.” Some Christian churches declared, according to Friedländer, “that converted Jews should be regarded as part of the flock, but even then only up to a point”.[47] Discussions at the Wannsee Conference in January 1942 make it clear that the German “final solution of the Jewish question” was intended eventually to include Britain and all the neutral states in Europe, including Ireland, Switzerland, Turkey, Sweden, Portugal, and Spain.[48]

    Medical experiments conducted on camp inmates by the SS were another distinctive feature.[49] At least 7,000 prisoners were subjected to experiments; most died as a result, during the experiments or later.[50] Twenty-three senior physicians and other medical personnel were charged at Nuremberg, after the war, with crimes against humanity. They included the head of the German Red Cross, tenured professors, clinic directors, and biomedical researchers.[51] Experiments took place at Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau, Natzweiler-Struthof, Neuengamme, Ravensbrück, Sachsenhausen, and elsewhere. Some dealt with sterilization of men and women, the treatment of war wounds, ways to counteract chemical weapons, research into new vaccines and drugs, and the survival of harsh conditions.[50]

    The most notorious physician was Josef Mengele, an SS officer who became the Auschwitz camp doctor on 30 May 1943.[52] Interested in genetics[52] and keen to experiment on twins, he would pick out subjects from the new arrivals during “selection” on the ramp, shouting “Zwillinge heraus!” (twins step forward!).[53] They would be measured, killed, and dissected. One of Mengele’s assistants said in 1946 that he was told to send organs of interest to the directors of the “Anthropological Institute in Berlin-Dahlem”. This is thought to refer to Mengele’s academic supervisor, Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer , director from October 1942 of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics in Berlin-Dahlem.[54][53][k] Mengele’s experiments included placing subjects in pressure chambers, testing drugs on them, freezing them, attempting to change their eye color by injecting chemicals into children’s eyes, and amputations and other surgeries.[57]” End Quote found under The Holocaust, in Wikipedia.

    SEE Also as to the University of Virginia:

  2. TooManyTaxes Avatar

    Has the Washington Post endorsed this guy yet?

  3. Aren’t they all that way?

  4. LarrytheG Avatar

    What this really illustrates is that in our world – around the world – there is hate and mistrust between different races, cultures and religions whether it is in Ireland, Kosovo, Rwandan, and in our own country with Native Americans or Blacks in the South or Asians building our railroads, you name it – it’s a real and quite awful seemingly universal thing about humans.

    In countries where we have diverse demographics, like the US, if you want to run for office and represent people – constituencies – you have to put aside your own biases against others which you may well have stated earlier in various venues of which if on the internet – it’s forever and it will be dredged up and you will have to account.

    There may well be a few folks who are totally agnostic with respect towards others that are different from themselves – but for most – there is some “history” of intemperance towards others not like themselves. It’s just a human charactertistic.

    So.. “we” cannot seem to deal with this reality without continuing the war against each other… “we” cannot accept apologies or even subsequent actions that demonstrate a more inclusive acceptance of others..

    Nope.. if you done wrong EVER in the past, – it’s all over.. you are condemned… forever.. as a racist and hypocrite… there can be no redemption.

    so.. we cannot get better.. we can’t try to improve and find a better path – nope… once you’ve sinned the knife goes in – and stays…

    However, that IS different than if you still continue to harbor such sentiment – if you do – and it’s fair to find out – then you should not be in governance.

  5. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    “Bacon’s bottom line: I’m willing to forgive Samirah for his use of intemperate language. But I cut him no slack for sanctimonious hypocrisy.”

    Sorry but I don’t get this. A man of Palestinian extraction has harsh remarks about Israel and then recants and seeks understanding. This somehow makes him a sanctimonious hypocrite? Huh?

    1. What makes him a hypocrite is that Samirah did not extend the same forgiveness to Northam for doing blackface, recanting and seeking understanding. You don’t see the obvious parallel?

  6. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    No I do not. This man was open about his political views and then changed. The Northam situation is very diffierent

Leave a Reply