A prominent liberal journal that spoke out against the Nazi genocide has published an article accusing Israel of genocide, justifying the Hamas pogrom, and denying the Jewish state’s right to exist.
Irony? Tragedy? Perhaps both.
In its October 9 issue, The Nation featured an essay by Mohammed R. Mhawish, a writer in Gaza, claiming that “Israel has been slowly killing all 2.3 million people in Gaza for the past 16 years.”
Raphael Lemkin, the Polish Jewish scholar who coined the term “genocide” in 1944, would have been surprised by this novel concept of a genocide which kills people so slowly that they do not actually die. The population growth rate of Gaza is more than 2% annually; by comparison, the U.S. rate is half of one percent.
Mhawish also rationalized the Hamas massacres (or “resistance,” as he called them) on the grounds that “No people can be expected to endure the kind of oppression and discrimination that Palestinians face at the hands of the Israeli government forever without any kind of response.”
The decision to print Mhawish’s article is consistent with the views of The Nation’s publisher, Katrina vanden Heuvel. She responded to the Hamas massacres by retweeting commentary from Jeremy Corbyn and Ilhan Omar. On the fifth day of the war, Prof. Matt Schneirov of Duquesne University publicly asked vanden Heuvel on X (Twitter), “Any thoughts about the brutal murder of 1000 Jews in one day?” She replied by accusing Israel of “dispossession of Palestinians.”
Founded in 1865, The Nation is America’s longest continuously-published political affairs weekly. During the Holocaust years, it was respected and influential, and it used its prominence to speak out, early and vigorously, for U.S. action to rescue Europe’s Jews.
After the 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom in Germany, the journal called for admission to the U.S. of at least 15,000 German Jewish refugee children. The Roosevelt administration’s refugee policy “is one which must sicken any person of ordinarily humane instinct,” editor-in-chief Freda Kirchwey wrote in 1940. “It is as if we were to examine laboriously the curriculum vitae of flood victims clinging to a piece of floating wreckage and finally to decide that no matter what their virtues, all but a few had better be allowed to drown.”
In 1941, the Roosevelt administration devised a new immigration regulation that barred the admission of anyone with close relatives in Europe, on the grounds that the Nazis might compel them to spy for Hitler by threatening their relatives. The Nation‘s editors denounced that theory as “reckless and ridiculous.” Kirchwey blasted the espionage claim as “an excuse concocted by the [State Department]” to keep refugees out and “a good story with which to win popular support for a brutal and unjust restriction.”
In early 1943, at the height of the Holocaust, a Kirchwey editorial denounced President Franklin Roosevelt’s response to the mass murder in particularly strong terms.
“You and I and the President and the Congress and the State Department are accessories to the crime and share Hitler’s guilt,” she wrote. “If we had behaved like humane and generous people instead of complacent, cowardly ones, the two million Jews lying today in the earth of Poland and Hitler’s other crowded graveyards would be alive and safe. And other millions yet to die would have found sanctuary. We had it in our power to rescue this doomed people and we did not lift a hand to do it—or perhaps it would be fairer to say that we lifted just one cautious hand, encased in a tight-fitting glove of quotas and visas and affidavits, and a thick layer of prejudice.”
In 1944, Kirchwey authored a moving appeal for U.S. action against the deportation of Hungary’s Jews to Auschwitz. The millions of European Jews already killed were victims of both “Nazi ferocity and Allied indifference,” she wrote. “It is untrue to say that little could have been done, once the war was started, to save the Jews of Europe. Much could have been done. At most stages Hitler was willing to permit his Jewish victims to substitute migration for deportation and death. But the other countries refused to take in refugees in sufficient numbers to reduce by more than a fraction the roll of those destined to die.”
The Roosevelt administration’s claims that it was impossible to rescue the Jews was just a flimsy excuse, Kirchwey emphasized. “[U.S.] troopships which have delivered their loads at Mediterranean ports could be diverted for a single errand of mercy. Transport planes returning from India or the Eastern Mediterranean could carry out of Hungary the 10,000 children to whom Sweden has offered shelter….The last opportunity to save half a million more lives cannot be treated as a matter of minor concern…[W]e must hurry, hurry!”
The Nation has fallen from those days, not only in circulation (today it’s under 100,000 and dropping) but, especially, in moral stature. For a magazine that once forthrightly spoke out against actual genocide to feature an article falsely accusing the Jews of genocide represents a new low.
Dr. Medoff is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies and author of more than 20 books about Jewish history and the Holocaust. His latest is America and the Holocaust: A Documentary History, published by the Jewish Publication Society & University of Nebraska Press.
They Once Protested Genocide, Now They Accuse Israel of Genocide
Rafael Medoff
A prominent liberal journal that spoke out against the Nazi genocide has published an article accusing Israel of genocide, justifying the Hamas pogrom, and denying the Jewish state’s right to exist.
Irony? Tragedy? Perhaps both.
In its October 9 issue, The Nation featured an essay by Mohammed R. Mhawish, a writer in Gaza, claiming that “Israel has been slowly killing all 2.3 million people in Gaza for the past 16 years.”
Raphael Lemkin, the Polish Jewish scholar who coined the term “genocide” in 1944, would have been surprised by this novel concept of a genocide which kills people so slowly that they do not actually die. The population growth rate of Gaza is more than 2% annually; by comparison, the U.S. rate is half of one percent.
Mhawish also rationalized the Hamas massacres (or “resistance,” as he called them) on the grounds that “No people can be expected to endure the kind of oppression and discrimination that Palestinians face at the hands of the Israeli government forever without any kind of response.”
The decision to print Mhawish’s article is consistent with the views of The Nation’s publisher, Katrina vanden Heuvel. She responded to the Hamas massacres by retweeting commentary from Jeremy Corbyn and Ilhan Omar. On the fifth day of the war, Prof. Matt Schneirov of Duquesne University publicly asked vanden Heuvel on X (Twitter), “Any thoughts about the brutal murder of 1000 Jews in one day?” She replied by accusing Israel of “dispossession of Palestinians.”
Founded in 1865, The Nation is America’s longest continuously-published political affairs weekly. During the Holocaust years, it was respected and influential, and it used its prominence to speak out, early and vigorously, for U.S. action to rescue Europe’s Jews.
After the 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom in Germany, the journal called for admission to the U.S. of at least 15,000 German Jewish refugee children. The Roosevelt administration’s refugee policy “is one which must sicken any person of ordinarily humane instinct,” editor-in-chief Freda Kirchwey wrote in 1940. “It is as if we were to examine laboriously the curriculum vitae of flood victims clinging to a piece of floating wreckage and finally to decide that no matter what their virtues, all but a few had better be allowed to drown.”
In 1941, the Roosevelt administration devised a new immigration regulation that barred the admission of anyone with close relatives in Europe, on the grounds that the Nazis might compel them to spy for Hitler by threatening their relatives. The Nation‘s editors denounced that theory as “reckless and ridiculous.” Kirchwey blasted the espionage claim as “an excuse concocted by the [State Department]” to keep refugees out and “a good story with which to win popular support for a brutal and unjust restriction.”
In early 1943, at the height of the Holocaust, a Kirchwey editorial denounced President Franklin Roosevelt’s response to the mass murder in particularly strong terms.
“You and I and the President and the Congress and the State Department are accessories to the crime and share Hitler’s guilt,” she wrote. “If we had behaved like humane and generous people instead of complacent, cowardly ones, the two million Jews lying today in the earth of Poland and Hitler’s other crowded graveyards would be alive and safe. And other millions yet to die would have found sanctuary. We had it in our power to rescue this doomed people and we did not lift a hand to do it—or perhaps it would be fairer to say that we lifted just one cautious hand, encased in a tight-fitting glove of quotas and visas and affidavits, and a thick layer of prejudice.”
In 1944, Kirchwey authored a moving appeal for U.S. action against the deportation of Hungary’s Jews to Auschwitz. The millions of European Jews already killed were victims of both “Nazi ferocity and Allied indifference,” she wrote. “It is untrue to say that little could have been done, once the war was started, to save the Jews of Europe. Much could have been done. At most stages Hitler was willing to permit his Jewish victims to substitute migration for deportation and death. But the other countries refused to take in refugees in sufficient numbers to reduce by more than a fraction the roll of those destined to die.”
The Roosevelt administration’s claims that it was impossible to rescue the Jews was just a flimsy excuse, Kirchwey emphasized. “[U.S.] troopships which have delivered their loads at Mediterranean ports could be diverted for a single errand of mercy. Transport planes returning from India or the Eastern Mediterranean could carry out of Hungary the 10,000 children to whom Sweden has offered shelter….The last opportunity to save half a million more lives cannot be treated as a matter of minor concern…[W]e must hurry, hurry!”
The Nation has fallen from those days, not only in circulation (today it’s under 100,000 and dropping) but, especially, in moral stature. For a magazine that once forthrightly spoke out against actual genocide to feature an article falsely accusing the Jews of genocide represents a new low.
Dr. Medoff is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies and author of more than 20 books about Jewish history and the Holocaust. His latest is America and the Holocaust: A Documentary History, published by the Jewish Publication Society & University of Nebraska Press.
Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.
Editor's Picks
Israel and the Internet Wars – A Professional Social Media Review
The Invisible Student: A Tale of Homelessness at UCLA and USC
What Ever Happened to the LA Times?
Who Are the Jews On Joe Biden’s Cabinet?
You’re Not a Bad Jewish Mom If Your Kid Wants Santa Claus to Come to Your House
No Labels: The Group Fighting for the Political Center
Latest Articles
The Bret Stephens Speech
It’s Time to Add Humor to Our Fight Against Jew-Haters
Bored Panda: I Thought I’d Seen Every Shade Of Blue, Until I Sailed Through French Polynesia
If the Horseshoe Fits… Saddle Up!
Brain Surgery, Film Noir, Accidental Love: Marcus Freed Is Still Out There
Washington’s Promise, America’s Test
Thoughts on Radiation
The October 8th and October 9th Jew
Rethinking Rabbinical Education for a New Era
At a time when the Jewish world can feel uncertain and strained, investing in new models of rabbinic formation is an act of hope.
The Hidden Cost of Campus Antisemitism: Faculty Mental Health
Since Hamas’ October 7 terrorist attack, many Jewish faculty at colleges and universities across the country have been describing their professional lives in language more commonly associated with trauma than academic disagreement.
Quo Vadis after October 8th: A Pledge for a New Direction in Memory Politics to End Political Homelessness
Remaining politically homeless is not a defeat; it is a commitment to a truth that refuses to be simplified.
The Crisis in Jewish Education Is Not About Screens
If we want to produce Jews who carry Torah in their bones, we need institutions willing to demand that commitment, and not institutions that blame technology for their own unwillingness to insist on rigor.
Theodor Herzl’s Liberal Nationalist Leap of Hope – and America’s
Herzl recognized nationalism as a powerful but neutral tool, capable of bringing out the best in us – or the beast in us.
Nation of Laws – A poem for Parsha Mishpatim
I live in a nation of laws but the laws seem to change with the flick of a tweet.
Borrowed Spotlight Art Exhibit Pairs Holocaust Survivors with Celebrities
Cindy Crawford, Wolf Blitzer and Chelsea Handler are among the celebrities who were photographed with survivors.
A Bisl Torah — Holy Selfishness
Honoring oneself, creating sacred boundaries, and cultivating self-worth allows a human being to better engage with the world.
A Moment in Time: “Choosing our Move”
Waiting for Religious Intelligence as for AI and Godot
Award-Winning Travel Author Lisa Niver Interviews Churchill Wild Guide Terry Elliott
Print Issue: One Man’s Show | February 6, 2026
How Meir Fenigstein Brings Israeli Stories to the American Screen
Does Tucker Carlson Have His Eye on The White House?
Jason Zengerle, a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, and staff writer at the New Yorker wrote a new book about Carlson, “Hated By All The Right People: Tucker Carlson and The Unraveling of The Conservative Mind.”
Michelle Heston: Valentine’s Day, Cake Love & Chocolate Ganache
Taste Buds with Deb – Episode 142
Love Stories – A Persian Love Cake
Love is precious and this Persian Love Cake is the perfect way to show a little love to your friends and family.
Table for Five: Mishpatim
Empathy for Strangers
Meir Fenigstein: One Man’s Show
How Meir Fenigstein Brings Israeli Stories to the American Screen
Rosner’s Domain | In 2026, It’s Right vs. Right
The elections of 2026 will not be “right vs. center-left.” They will be “right vs. right.”
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.