Gary Ackerman Gets It: Hitler Youth Pope Doesn't...And Dershowitz Vows To Destroy Hampshire College For Ideological Deviation!!!
Anyone who believes that anti-Semitism is a thing of the past needs to consider the case of Bishop Richard Williamson, the cleric who denies that the Holocaust occurred and insists that the murder of six million Jews is "lies, lies, lies."
Williamson is a Jew-hater, pure and simple. Pope Benedict's support for him demonstrates that the current pontiff, who started out as a Hitler Youth, has a rather different attitude toward Jews than his revered predecessor, John Paul II, who started out in the Polish Resistance.
The whole phenomenon of Holocaust denial, of rejecting proven historical facts, is incredible.
My wife was born in a Displaced Persons (DP) camp in Germany a few years after the war. Her parents were survivors. But two of her mother's siblings were not.
They were from Poland. Her brother Abraham was a lawyer. Her sister Hannah was a teacher. When the Nazis invaded their town of Rozwadow in September 1939, they, and their parents, fled across the border to the nearby city of Lvov, which was then part of the Soviet Union. They settled there, thinking they were safe from the Nazis in Russia (now Ukraine).
Hannah, who was 27, met her future husband there. When he decided to return to Poland to help out his parents who had been left behind, Hannah insisted on going with him. Shortly afterwards, the young couple was apprehended and murdered by the Nazi occupiers.
Abraham stayed in Lvov and was there when the Germans invaded that part of the Soviet Union. Hiding behind his "Aryan" looks, he regularly smuggled bread from the gentile part of Lvov to the ghetto. It didn't take long before he was caught, shipped back to Poland, and executed.
I have to wonder. What do Holocaust deniers think happened to people like Hannah and Abraham Ellenbogen? Do they think they were on the lam like Bonnie and Clyde? Did they change their identities to escape an overbearing family? Are they still alive?
Of course, these aren't serious questions. They are dead. They were killed in the Holocaust. Most likely they were gassed at the camp at Maidanek or Birkenau and burned up in a crematorium.
Those who deny the Holocaust are in the same class as people who deny that dinosaurs once ruled the earth or that FDR presided over this country from a wheel chair. They are, politely put, nuts.
But the Holocaust deniers are not merely crazy. Their denial of historical facts is motivated by hate. Its specific purpose is to delegitimize Israel.
They believe that if there was no Holocaust, there would be no Jewish state either. So, eliminating the Holocaust is a means toward eliminating Israel.
Holocaust denial also allows the deniers to freely hate Jews who, they maintain, invented such a monstrous lie. Holocaust denial then not only intends to delegitimize Israel but also to legitimize anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism is primarily a relic of the past, but it continues to exist. It thrives on the fringes of the far right and far left and ignites whenever the Israeli-Palestinian conflict flares up.
There are those who argue that anti-Semitism is unrelated to developments in the Middle East, that it is always around, and that its rise or fall is unrelated to actual events. They make a strong case, one that is probably true in most cases.
But the current spike is not simply the product of intrinsic anti-Semitism but a by-product of the Gaza war. That may not be fair but it's a fact.
Endless war does Israel no good on the public relations front, no matter whether the war is justifiable or not. Prime Minister Olmert's statement threatening more "disproportionate responses" did Israel the kind of harm that all the spin in the world will not undo.
Fortunately, the harm produced by war is undone when Israel is seen as pursuing peace. In fact, when Yitzhak Rabin was extending the hand of peace to the Palestinians, he was admired in the same quarters (particularly in Europe) where Israel is so widely disdained today. In fact, he was the most admired statesman in polls taken throughout the world.
If anti-Semitism was as permanent and deep-seated as some say, Rabin would have been no more admired than a Sharon or a Shamir. Real anti-Semites don't make exceptions, especially for Israeli war heroes. Israeli policies indeed affect how Jews are viewed worldwide, as does our penchant to take to the television screens to defend those policies, no matter what they are.
Of course, old-fashioned anti-Semitism- like that of Richard Williamson-is unrelated to the Middle East. It is race-based. He would hate Jews no matter what, like segregationists in the south hated African-Americans. But, fortunately, that kind of anti-Semitism is less common than ever before, much like the social anti-Semitism that kept Jews out of the "best" colleges, jobs, clubs, and neighborhoods through the 1950's.
Jews today are better off than ever before. Abraham and Hannah Ellenbogen would laugh at the very idea that a professor who champions the Palestinians-and wishes Israel would go away-is tantamount to a pogrom. If they were here, and could witness the condition of American Jewry and the power and vitality of Israel, they would think the Messiah must have arrived.
And yet Israelis (and some of their American supporters) are running scared, as evidenced by the Avigdor Lieberman phenomenon.
What happened?
Forty years of occupation, forty years of fighting stone throwing teenagers in the streets of the West Bank and Gaza, and ten years of defending Israel against lunatics who blow up buses have done terrible things to Israel.
And then there is Hamas.
Israelis look at all this and suddenly a Lieberman seems not quite so unreasonable. He did not arrive from nowhere. He is the creature of Hamas just as Hamas is the creature of the settler movement.
Not long ago, that would be a controversial statement. But no more.
Yesterday, Congressman Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Chair of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia convened a hearing on the Gaza situation.
Dr. Ziad J.Asali, President of the American Task Force on Palestine, delivered an eloquent statement explaining why it is morally wrong to punish the people of Gaza and also why it is naïve to believe that Hamas will ever change its terrorist stripes.
Naturally, he was attacked by several of the Representatives in Congress who, with the lobby's talking points in hand, struggled mightily to justify withholding United Nations-sponsored humanitarian aid from innocent people. It was the usual stuff from the usual suspects, one of whom was not Gary Ackerman.
Ackerman has long been Israel's most outspoken advocate in Congress. However, his idea of supporting Israel does not include punishing children. And, wonder of wonders, the Democrat from Queens blames both Palestinians and Israelis for the current horrors. In Congress, it is de rigueur to insist that the Israelis are always innocent and the Palestinians always guilty.
But, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Ackerman said yesterday that Israeli hardliners and Palestinian terrorists are "all part of the same destructive dynamic."
The "downward spiral" in the region "comes from terrorism and the march of settlements. It comes from the firing of rockets and the perpetration of settler pogroms. It comes in daily images of destruction and the constant reiteration that 'they only understand the language of force.' It comes from tunnels in Gaza and, yes, from digging in Jerusalem as well."
Amen.
Will Ackerman catch hell for his statement? Will he be sat down for some friendly warnings by the lobby? Will he be threatened by wealthy donors?
You bet he will. But he knew that before he opened his mouth and, rare on Capitol Hill, he decided to "damn the consequences." (There won't be any anyway-none that matter-which will encourage his more timid colleagues to follow Ackerman's example).
It was a rare moment on Capitol Hill. A powerful, pro-Israel Representative departed from the script and told his listeners that the current course is bad for America, bad for Israel, and bad for the Palestinians. It was, perhaps, the first such moment in a subcommittee that has always been rather predictable when it comes to Israel. But I suspect it won't be the last.
What can you do to help?
Why don't you give Congressman Ackerman a call and thank him? Believe me, the status quo lobby will be calling and reading Ackerman the riot act. Just call 202-225-2601 and tell whoever answers to give the Congressman a message. A hearty "way to go, Gary" will suffice.
BY THE WAY, IM POSTING ON IPF'S HOT NEW MIDEAST PEACE POST BLOG INCESSANTLY.
CHECK IT OUT!
ALSO JOIN ME IN PLAYING THE HOT NEW, NEW YORK GAME: "HIPSTER OR IMMIGRANT"
Go to Brooklyn and before the tight pantsed skinny guy or the violet haired woman opens their mouth, vote HIPSTER OR IMMIGRANT.
Note: In Greenooint, there are twofers.
It's fun.
It is indeed astounding that there are deniers.
Kudos to Ackerman for speaking the truth. I will email his office thanking him.
Incidentally, I met a Lebanese Maronite Christian in Havana who referred to Pope Benedict as Nazinnger.
February 13, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no reason to deny the fourth, or maybe fifth worse pogrom of the twentieth century was the extermination of European Jews. But even if the Nazi thing was smaller than some others, it has something in common with largest one.
The Stalin thing where the Marxists killed fifteen million Ukrainians was a lot more impressive. But that was just a homemade socialist thing. The granddaddy of 'holocausts' was the Indonesian one where all the Chinese were murdered. It has something in common with the Nazi thing.
The Chinese moved into Indonesia as a minority. They knew there were Indonesians there when they moved in. They were evidently causing the Indonesians problems and the Chinese suffered with their lives.
As far as 'anti Semitism' in pre-war Germany is concerned, those Semites knew there were Germans in Germany when they slipped in there. Evidently, they caused Germans problems, cause the Germans killed them out by the millions.
This history gives us a valuable lesson; If you're going to invade a country or civilization, don't go in half assed. If you do, you might wind up like the Jews did in Germany, or the Chinese did in Indonesia. Simple as that!!!! I hope you're smarter now!!!!
February 13, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As far as 'anti Semitism' in pre-war Germany is concerned, those Semites knew there were Germans in Germany when they slipped in there. Evidently, they caused Germans problems, cause the Germans killed them out by the millions."
Come again...
This time slowly...
February 13, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Come again'??? What???
February 14, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
One has hard-pressed to understand what you mean in the quoted section. What was your point?
February 14, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure,
See, the Boers knew there were Zulus in South Africa when they moved in there, see?? Well, the Boers wore out their welcome and now they're victims of a pogrom at the hands of the indigenous Africans, see??
Anytime you move in on someone and wear out your welcome while the indigenous population is hollering at you "Get Out, Get Out, Get Out" and you just keep on hanging around you have no justification to whine victim hood over the way things turn out!! See???
February 14, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, here we'd have to define "indigenous" people. How long does a people have live in a place before they are "officially" indigenous? It's a somewhat important question, because so much discussion seems to ride on this point.
For example, just perusing Wiki, it would appear that Jews were in Spain from around 300. They were kicked out in 1492, which means they were there for over a century (perhaps). Does that count as indigenous?
As for Germany, here's the Wiki entry: "Jews have lived in Germany, or "Ashkenaz", at least since the early 4th century, through both periods of tolerance and spasms of antisemitic violence, culminating in the Holocaust and the near-destruction of the Jewish community in Germany and much of Europe, the subsequent division of Germany and reunification, and post-unification immigration of Jews from Russia."
So, from the fourth century to the 20th century is, what? 16 centuries. Do you think that length of residency is enough to give Jews the title of "indigneous" people?
All of this predates the Boers...
February 14, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prehistory, Tintin, prehistory.
That's the criteria. Prehistory.
Now that can be as small a time frame as a couple of weeks in the darkest parts of Africa, or the jungles of South America. But prehistory customarily defines indigenous.
Yeah, Ferdinand kicked the Jews out of Spain and the results of this unburdening were stunning from a historical perspective.
The cleansing invigorated Spain such that in the very same year, Spain began a cultural and economic accendency which brought it the world's first global superpower status. Impressive history, this. Yeah,, Something to be learned there. Good cause and effect example.
February 14, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, then where do the Jews belong as an indigenous people?
February 14, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm no expert on the subject, but between my sunday-schooling and what I've picked up since, I'd say probably some whereabouts most of 'em are holed up now. And having all those problems with their brother Semites.
February 14, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about the Jews in America?
Should they leave and head back to the Middle East?
What about the other non-indigenous folks in the Americas?
Back to Europe?
February 14, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I don't know what they ought to do. Or not do.
You thinking towards writing an advise column in some Jewish weekly publication or something?
February 14, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, not really. I'm just trying to figure out what your meaning is.
Since your definition of where a people belongs is rooted in "pre-history"--IOW, unless a people was there from the VERY beginning of time they don't really belong--it would seem that you reject the notion, often put forward here, that if one is a citizen of a country, one belongs there.
That is to say, if one is a citizen of Spain, one is Spanish; of Germany, one is German; of America, one is American.
Do you reject this notion?
BTW, I'd say most of the Jews of the world are holed up in America, last I counted.
I'm also curious about your remark about Ferdinand. Is it your claim that Spain experienced a renaissance of sorts BECAUSE he expelled the Jews...or is it that these two events happened to coincide in your opinion?
Reading you a bit closer, you APPEAR to be saying that if a people is going to go where they don't below--for example, Ferdinand's empire-building--they better well wipe out, or thoroughly defeat, the indigenous people, or there will, inevitably be hell to pay.
Is that close to your meaning?
February 15, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
We’re getting sidetracked here.
My original statement dealt with minorities immigrating to counties, then becoming irritants to the majority population, thus causing them to become victims of these horrible pogroms. I state that in most instances they share at least some responsibility for these events.
Perhaps I should have used the word ‘preexisting’ cultures instead of ‘indigenous’. Indigenous is an anthropological qualification with unintended connotations.
You’re correct in stating more Jews live in America than in Israel, just as more Irish live in America than in Ireland. But I’d ask you to agree that as a rule, the Jews in Israel are likely more Jewish than the Jews in America.
Isabella did in fact initiate her global imperialism in 1492 which coincided with the expulsion of the Jewish population. You can make of that what you wish.
Your last paragraph does closely reflect what I’m saying. I believe a sterile examination of historical fact proves me out.
February 15, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"My original statement dealt with minorities immigrating to counties, then becoming irritants to the majority population, thus causing them to become victims of these horrible pogroms."
But this is simply to blame the minority for the pogrom and to assume that the majority's action is a rationale and justifiable reaction to so-called "irritations."
Seems to me you have to SHOW that the minority really were an irritant and no other means of dealing with the problem was possible. Otherwise, you're simply accepting the majority's actions. Why would anyone follow you down this line of reasoning?
February 15, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK
I'm sure now that you're right and I was terribly wrong.
Any time an immigrant minority population immigrates to any country, legally or illegally and with any motivation, and is set upon in any way by the existing majority population, whether it be slurs, hard looks, or 'dissing' in any way, the majority population as a whole is guilty of racism, homophobia, hatred, ignorance, bigotry, and greed.
February 15, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, not at all. Necessarily. But it seems to me that normal, rational discourse would require that you prove your case. The trouble is, also, there is a moral dimension to this case. That is, suppose the minority is somewhat of an irritant to the majority. Does that really justify, say, killing off the minority?
February 16, 2009 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spriche:
Jews did not 'invade' Germany. In fact, many of them -- any one over 62 when Hitler took power -- had been living in the country before it was Germany -- when it was a collection of independent principalities, duchies, etc. Their families had certainly been there before 1871. (We forget that the 'Second Reich" lasted all of 37 years from the unification until the fall of Kaiser Wilhelm -- in fact only the third ruler of a united Germany.)
Before 1871, 'Germany' was a term like "Latin America," a geographical expression covering many independent regions with wildly varying cultures and rulers. (It was entirely separate from the Hapsburg Empire that was centered in Austria and that produced a future leader of Germany. The two of them were, in this way, like Canada and the US.)
And, in fact, rather than 'invading' they had usually been invited in by rulers who wanted them there, or who had offered them protection.
February 14, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, yeah, I realize Bismark organized modern Germany from a group of principalities or whatever, but that's pretty modern history in the greater scheme of things isn't it?? I mean you don't have to learn that from archeological digs, now do you??
Oh, sure, no doubt they were cajoled and begged into immigrating into Germany by the rulers. Now that's the damnedest thing I've ever heard.
What I'm saying is that if you immigrate into a country with a solidified culture and set of values and wish to remain a class apart, you're setting yourself up for these pogroms of which history provides plenty of examples. There's always cause and effect in these things. Two sides to every story. The one demanding 'hapless victimhood' is a little strong for me to swallow.
February 14, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Criticism of Williamson for his belief is warranted. What I oppose is making expression of beliefs a crime punishable by imprisonment as it is done in Europe. That is too Orwellian.
You then have the strange case of Abe Foxman of the ADL. He, along other Jewish leaders, met with the pope. After their meeting, Foxman complains to Haaretz that the pope is not doing enough about Williamson. This is coming from a guy who defends Lieberman's loyalty oaths for Israeli Arabs. link
February 13, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The whole phenomenon of Holocaust denial, of rejecting proven historical facts, is incredible."
Is it any more incredible than Newtonian physics? "Every exaggeration deserves an equal and opposite overreaction." It's just "an eye for an eye" in slightly different terms.
While there are wackos, I believe some denialists deny the narrative (story and drama), not the facts, in favor of some other narrative. History is a story about facts, and if "the winners tell the tale" is true, then it's obvious that it's biased. Your anecdote is biased when it asserts "murdered" without facts, for instance. The difference is that your narrative is ostensibly designed to serve a just cause, while most denialists choose narratives to support misplaced hate. The problem is that some Zionist narratives aren't designed for peace but for self-advancement at the expense of others.
That said, I applaud the move to speak out against entrenched "status quo" political interests, in favor of progress towards peace in the Middle East.
February 13, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's just "an eye for an eye" in slightly different terms. While there are wackos, I believe some denialists deny the narrative (story and drama), not the facts, in favor of some other narrative."
Maybe you can explain this. I certainly don't get it. Which facts don't they deny...which narrative do they put forward?
February 13, 2009 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're missing the point on purpose.
February 13, 2009 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, no, I'm not.
February 14, 2009 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Convince me.
February 14, 2009 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, since you're the original poster of this, and I asked you to clarify, the ball is in your court. I asked for a clarification. You appear unwilling to give one.
February 14, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You find my comment unclear? Try quoting it correctly, for starters. Read the rest of the comment and consider it overall, don't nitpick it in pieces like you did.
Do you know anyone who denies that WWII occurred, who is not a wacko? How would WWII not count as an accepted fact? Etc.
February 14, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the piece I quoted was in full, word for word.
I was asking you about that.
You seem a bit touchy.
Seems to me most denialists deny the facts that 6 million Jews were murdered. So what are the facts they accept or get right?
February 14, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, actually it wasn't. And you are not convincing me that you read the rest, so I'll leave you to stew.
February 14, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, then, let's look at the ENTIRE quote and see what we can make of it.
EDS: "The whole phenomenon of Holocaust denial, of rejecting proven historical facts, is incredible."
Is it any more incredible than Newtonian physics? "Every exaggeration deserves an equal and opposite overreaction." It's just "an eye for an eye" in slightly different terms.
Tintin: Really? How so? Are you suggesting that the basic account of Jews being rounded up, sent to concentration camps, gassed, shot, or killed off through exhaustion or disease to the tune of 6 million is an exaggeration? Is the exaggeration in the numbers cited or in the substance of what happened to "many" Jews in Europe? Is it...if you say 6 million died because they were Jews, I'm going to give an equal exaggeration by saying it didn't happen? A small point: Newtonian physics has nothing to do with this conversation; I think most people would agree on this. How about you?
EDS: While there are wackos, I believe some denialists deny the narrative (story and drama), not the facts, in favor of some other narrative.
Tintin: You mean some say that, indeed, the Germans and their allies killed 6 million Jews, but they impute other motives to, and justifications for, this killing? Most deniers that I've heard fixate on the number or whether anyone was gassed, but few agree to this facts and then explain them with a different narrative. What would that narrative be? That the Jews brought it on themselves with XYZ actions? That the Jews sold out the country per BW below? Are you referring to the Kevin B. Macdonald theses?
Maybe you can give an example of a denier who accepts the facts, but puts forth a different narrative. But in my experience, THESE folks would be the "wackos" and outliers. MOST of the deniers fixate on the numbers, IMO. But I'm interested in your views here.
EDS: History is a story about facts, and if "the winners tell the tale" is true, then it's obvious that it's biased.
Tintin: This is an oft-quoted maxim. But it's hard to see how the Jews of Europe came out as winners. Moreover, often it is the losers' narrative that gains credibility. For example, the narrative of the Native Americans. Most knowledgeable people no longer accept the notion that they were "savages" and needed to be wiped out to make room for good Christians. Similarly, the justice of the Palestinian narrative, though they lost in 1948, is gaining in credibility amongst knowledgeable people.
But truthfully, EDS, your sentence here doesn't make much sense. Facts are, presumably, facts and not subject to bias except insofar as some are left out and some exaggerated. But has nothing to do with the facts, but with what people do with the facts. So your conclusionary..."so it's obvious that it's biased"...doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Maybe you can explain.
EDS: Your anecdote is biased when it asserts "murdered" without facts, for instance.
Tintin: I assume you're referring MJ's statement above: "Shortly afterwards, the young couple was apprehended and murdered by the Nazi occupiers." What facts are missing from this sentence? Are you saying that MJ doesn't know whether they were murdered or happened to fall and hit their heads or died from some disease? Or perhaps they were trying to kill a German, and the German killed them in self defense?
Anyway, would it help you accept the factual basis of MJ's claim if he told us HOW he knew they were murdered rather than died in some other way?
EDS: The difference is that your narrative is ostensibly designed to serve a just cause, while most denialists choose narratives to support misplaced hate.
Tintin: But they are equally biased and divorced from the facts. Is that your meaning? If so, what do YOU think the facts are?
EDS: The problem is that some Zionist narratives aren't designed for peace but for self-advancement at the expense of others.
Tintin: I don't know if that's "the problem," but I agree that occurs.
EDS: That said, I applaud the move to speak out against entrenched "status quo" political interests, in favor of progress towards peace in the Middle East.
Tintin: So do I.
February 15, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, MJ, a GREAT post.
But you're not getting quite the response I expected.
February 13, 2009 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya, me neither.
February 13, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin,
It's useful to know that some of these folks are out there. Living in our bubbles among people who share our enthusiasm that America has turned a page this past November, it is easy to forget the haters out there.
And not just in the Republican caucus (you know, the people want to see Americans lose their jobs by the million to score partisan points) but real old-fashioned bigots.
This kind of post tends to draw them like flies. (No insult intended, Flies).
Good. It's a lesson for us all.
It also helps to show the difference between the Jewish organization's definition of anti-Semitism (not supporting Israel) and the real kind (wishing the Jews -- and/or African-Americans Arabs, and GLBTs -- were dead).
February 13, 2009 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
As usual MJ, I enjoyed your post. Some points to consider:
1. Accepting Williamson back into the Church is consistent with the Church's mission to save souls. We accepted convicted murderers and child molesters back in, so Williamson having his excummunication lifted is not "validation" for his views.
2. I have never heard a good explanation for Holocaust Denial. It's probably as tortured and strange a phenomenom as Exterminationist Ideology. Maybe it would be good subject for a separate post.
3. The Pope should refuse to meet with Abe Foxman. Full Stop. He is a disgrace to Judaism, America, and the World. In a perfect world he would be caught eternally in vortex with Williamson and they could antagonize each other for eternity.
4. Dershy has decided to atone for OJ and Klaus von Bulow by justifying the unjustifiable. Please note that he recently told FrontPageMagazine (or whatever you call Horowitz's vehicle) that Hamas was using human shields during Cast Lead. Right, because we know Israel and Egypt opened their borders to allow Palestinians civilians to flee. That's right, they didn't. Considering this level of intellectual dishonesty, should we be surprised he's now threatening college students? Of course, these students need to market t-shirts with the logos "I was threatened by Alan Dershowitz, and all I got was the respect of decent people everywhere."
February 14, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would say that refusing to meet with Foxman...and embracing Williams' soul, despite his unwillingness to recant...are somewhat contradictory impulses.
Of course, the Pope is the bishop's "father" in a sense, the shepherd of his soul, as it were, so he has a greater responsibility for Williams and how he develops than he does for Foxman.
(I'm leaving aside the Church's universalist mission to save ALL souls, not just Catholic ones, because that way leads us down the rabbit hole. Hmmm, but he could just try to help Foxman see the errors of his ways and thinking. What's a spiritual leader for, anyway? I grant that Foxman is the Jews' responsibility, but every bit helps.)
All that back and forth said, the Church has, IMO, a HUGE responsibility to repair the damage its doctrines and practices have done to Jews (and Christians in the process) over centuries. So perhaps the Pope should see this relatively minor event in that light.
February 14, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I wrote on my blog, I just met a skinhead in Eastern Europe who was incensed at my support of Obama because Mein Kampf informed him that blacks are bad. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mare_nostrum/2009/02/a-skinhead-revealed-to-me-why.php
I thought we had put the ugly matter behind us, but later I couldn't but notice that he was miming the training of a pistol at my head.
There are crazy, malevolent people out there. Logic, such as, what do they think happened in Germany to result in the deaths, won't ever work with them.
Bravo for Ackerman. He is going to take a good licking for the offense of speaking truth to power. He must believe he can sustain that, and walk forward unbowed. Time will tell.
February 13, 2009 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eastern Europe is the home of many active Nazis. We should be very aware of that segment of their society as they are, indeed, malevolent.
February 14, 2009 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Bravo for Ackerman. My family knows him reasonably well. I'm with MJ on this: I don't think he's going to "pay" in any serious way. You know, just at the point when an argument becomes the common wisdom--e.g., the lobby is all-powerful and crushes anyone who gets in its way--is the moment at which it's about to start losing strength and relevance. The lobby, like any bully, is a paper tiger whose strength lies mostly in convincing others that it's stronger than it really is.
And congrats on your new blog page, MJ. I dipped into it briefly, but will become a frequenter.
February 14, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that does annoy me is how anybody who raises any question about any aspect of the Holocaust is called a "Holocaust denier."
That sounds a lot like the same McCarthyism of calling anybody who questions Israel an anti-Semite.
Were only 5.8 million Jews killed instead of 6 million? Is supposing that reason enough to get bent out of shape and throw terms like "Holocaust denier" and "Jew hater" around?
That reaction sounds like it's intended to stifle debate and research.
We know that Stalin's significantly greater crimes were under-reported because Russia fought with the Allies. We also know that various factions had reason to exaggerate the crimes of Hitler. Who was going to quibble with the people saying it was 6 million when the real number was 5.8 million, 5.2 million, or lower?
If our U.S. government was trustworthy with civilian kill counts of Hitler, why didn't they destroy the reputations of the Rockefellers, Harrimans, George Walker and Prescott Bush, and the many other American titans who helped fund Hitler's rise to power, his private army, his slave labor camps, his steel and gunpowder, and his synthetic oil?
If George W. Bush can visit Auschwitz and scarcely anybody in American media can point out that the concentration camp was built because it was close to a slave labor metal mine run by Prescott Bush, why should we censor ourselves and everybody else who questions any aspect of the Holocaust?
Some people are freaking out about the new movie that depicts a SS soldier as slightly more than a pure evil monster.
And let's not forget the phenomenon of Holocaust exaggeration. Read Norman Finklestein's the Holocaust Industry for some examples, though it was written before Oprah's "most amazing love story ever" was found to be a fraud.
I know it's a sensitive subject, but people should be cautious before demonizing somebody, in the event that they really are only pursuing truth, however uncomfortable it may make some people.
I met an old Polish author who spent her early childhood in a Russian concentration camp, and one publishing house told her that her book was about "the wrong Holocaust."
February 14, 2009 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me, the point is...what is the POINT of the inquiry.
See what I mean?
If an historian is ACTUALLY interested in trying to establish the precise number of dead...assuming that's even possible...then all well and good.
But often, and frequently, it's pretty apparent that that is NOT the point. And it isn't all that hard to tell the difference.
February 14, 2009 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
All attempts to play with the 6,000,000 number are motivated by anti-semitism.
The purpose is to show that, hey, what happened to the Jews wasn't so bad.
That is why holocaust revisionists NEVER raise the possibility that 6.2 million died, only fewer than 6.
Holocaust denial reminds me of the JFK conspiracy folks IF THEY were arguing that JFK was shot at close range by Jackie.
In other words, had that occurred the JFK assassination would be exposed as a fraud and we could all stop being sad about the poor guy, He died in a domestic quarrel!
February 14, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
A comment from billwalker on a previous thread:
"The middle east would be a more democratic, less radical place if Zionist bankers hadn't convinced WW2 victims that they should seek safety in inevitable, perpetual warfare."
So this is where billwalker is coming from: blaming Middle East strife on Jewish bankers. Maybe Bill is among the 30-odd percent of Europeans who blame the financial crisis on the Jews. Is that manifestation of antisemitism among the enlightened merely a reaction to the Gaza situation?
February 14, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
M.J., did the Zionists (including the Rothschild bankers of London, Paris, and Frankfurt) who were pushing for the creation of Israel long before the Holocaust have reason to exaggerate the number?
Is raising that question inherently motivated by antisemitism?
Was the Balfour Declaration addressed to Lord Rothschild? Under what circumstances?
Germany had been the most accepting place in Europe to Jews. What caused the backlash? Did the German people feel betrayed by certain German Jewish bankers who sold out the country so that they could commit England to creating a Jewish state, well before the Holocaust?
All of these questions are fair game, and the vast majority of Jews were victims either way. Before WW2, when the Zionists pressured Jews to move to Palestine, the vast majority didn't even want to go. And now they are stuck in perpetual war in the middle of the Arab world, believing a variety of national lies like "A land without a people for a people without a land."
And who built the Israeli Supreme Court, complete with all the creepy Masonic imagery? Rothschilds?
Lastly, is there any evidence at all of Zionist collaboration with the Nazis?
No offense, but dismissing all of these questions as coming from pure antisemitism smacks of Abe Foxman.
Last year I met a older Zionist Jew who told me the story of his grandparents in Romania. A prominent Zionist journalist convinced the non-elite Jewish population to get on the trains because it would lead them to safety, when it went straight to the concentration camps where they died.
There are many legitimate questions. If the American media today can't cover Israel with any degree of honesty, why should we blindly believe everything they've ever said about the history of Israel and the events that led to it's creation?
I mean why besides fear of McCarthyism.
I'd love to discuss the Zionist movement before 1949 without being called an anti-semite, and I'm not a Holocaust denier.
Lastly, did a Rothschild representative help create the private Federal Reserve? Did this new institution give the creators immense power that has never been relinquished? Immense power that could be abused by manipulating our economy, our press, and our foreign policy?
5.8 million is not an inherently antisemitic number.
February 14, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I'll try to address your points the best I can. Some I can't; some I can:
BW: M.J., did the Zionists (including the Rothschild bankers of London, Paris, and Frankfurt) who were pushing for the creation of Israel long before the Holocaust have reason to exaggerate the number?
Tintin: Your reasoning seems a bit convoluted. But, if you're not a denier, and you think "a lot" of people died in fact, then what would your point be in assuming that anyone exaggerated? Do you think 5.8 million would have been less compelling than 6 million? I'm mean, what if the bankers rounded up to 6 million? Would it have changed the ESSENCE of the argument for a Jewish state in any material way? No.
Tintin: Most of the Zionist theory was written well before the Holocaust--no one denies this. It was based on an analysis that said that Jews would never be accepted as equal citizens, at least in Europe. Unfortunately, events corroborated their analysis, at least for that period of time. And those events pretty much ended that discussion, because there was no going back.
BW: Is raising that question inherently motivated by antisemitism?
Tintin: MJ might disagreed, but I would say no. But it is interesting that no one, to my knowledge, who raises this question ever pursues the possibility that more died, rather than less. One would think that an impartial and scholarly attempt to establish that number--what you're after, right?--would entertain both possibilities. Perhaps, they do, but I've never seen it. Certainly Williams, the subject of this post, is not.
BW: Was the Balfour Declaration addressed to Lord Rothschild? Under what circumstances?
Tintin: Here's what Wiki says: "The declaration was made in a letter from Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, a Zionist organization. The letter reflected the position of the British Cabinet, as agreed upon in a meeting on 31 October 1917. It further stated that the declaration is a sign of "sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations."
You could have answered that yourself, yes? What do you make of this fact?
BW: Germany had been the most accepting place in Europe to Jews. What caused the backlash? Did the German people feel betrayed by certain German Jewish bankers who sold out the country so that they could commit England to creating a Jewish state, well before the Holocaust?
Tintin: There's a lot to unpack here. There is the attempt to blame the victim for what has befallen him. Even if we accept the premise that Jewish bankers "sold out the country," (and I'm merely accepting this premise for discussion) in what way does that justify, in any sense, what was done in response? Moving on, you'd have to unpack the phrase "sold out the country"--what does it even mean? Moving on, it would seem to me that you'd have to prove this thesis to give your argument any weight. Bankers of all stripes do terrible things in self-serving ways meant to profit "their own." Does that mean the populace is impelled to rise up and kill not only the bankers, but their co-religionists, most of whom did not want to move to Palestine?
For example, given that Ford, IBM, and Harriman brothers, not to mention the Bush brothers were all Protestants, why didn't our country rise and kill all the Protestants? But even when Protestants do terrible things, as they did in Northern Ireland, worldwide Protestantry, doesn't become the target of violence. No one says, as Hitler did, that we have to rid the country of Protestants.
BW: All of these questions are fair game, and the vast majority of Jews were victims either way.
Tintin: You see, the questions take the FORM of fair game questions, but mostly they hide an agenda, IMO. And if you say the Jews were "victims either way," you vitiate the questions. Because if you're saying that the Jews would have been victims even if the Jewish bankers hadn't sold out the country, then what are you left with for a cause for the Holocaust? What caused the "backlash?" Well, this subject has been HEAVILY studied, and there are plenty of reasons that don't consign the German people to eternal purgatory. Anti-semitism + XYZ = Holocaust.
BW: Before WW2, when the Zionists pressured Jews to move to Palestine, the vast majority didn't even want to go. And now they are stuck in perpetual war in the middle of the Arab world, believing a variety of national lies like "A land without a people for a people without a land."
Tintin: And most of the ones who didn't go are dead. So what you prefer: dead or alive with a fighting chance? All countries believe a whole pack of national lies. For example, we revere our colonists. Guys like GW and TJ. And the Palestinians believe their stories, too.
BW: And who built the Israeli Supreme Court, complete with all the creepy Masonic imagery? Rothschilds?
Tintin: Are you even aware of the role of the "creepy" Masons in building THIS country? Are we now going to go witch hunting for Free Masons, the Da Vinci Code in one hand, our pistols in the other? Good grief! That aside, what is the POINT of this question. I really don't see what you're getting at, sorry.
BW: Lastly, is there any evidence at all of Zionist collaboration with the Nazis?
Tintin: There would appear to be. They both wanted the Jews out of Europe...but for vastly different reasons. The Nazis hated the Jews, and the Zionists did not. Surely that's a significant difference.
BW: No offense, but dismissing all of these questions as coming from pure antisemitism smacks of Abe Foxman.
Tintin: I would say all GENUINE questions are legitimate.
BW: Last year I met a older Zionist Jew who told me the story of his grandparents in Romania. A prominent Zionist journalist convinced the non-elite Jewish population to get on the trains because it would lead them to safety, when it went straight to the concentration camps where they died.
Tintin: So? What's your point? Zionists wanted the Jews to die? Seems to me this is hard to reconcile with the thesis that Zionists were "pressuring" the Jews to leave Europe for Palestine. But whatever, this is the story of two people. In extreme times, lots of things happen. It's the height of folly to generalize from one person's experience, assuming, even, and we don't know this, that he's telling the truth or remembering correctly or got the story right. You got the story from "older Zionist" who's remembering what a "Zionist journalist" told his grandparents about "non-elite Jewish population." Too much "telephone" for me. Too many holes in this story list.
BW: There are many legitimate questions. If the American media today can't cover Israel with any degree of honesty, why should we blindly believe everything they've ever said about the history of Israel and the events that led to it's creation?
Tintin: Don't blindly believe anything. Why are you blindly believing a story an old Zionist told you? And some questions have greater validity than others. That is, there's more supporting evidence to support them. And since there's only so much time in the day...
BW: I mean why besides fear of McCarthyism.
Tintin: No comment.
BW: I'd love to discuss the Zionist movement before 1949 without being called an anti-semite, and I'm not a Holocaust denier.
Tintin: Okay, sounds good.
BW: Lastly, did a Rothschild representative help create the private Federal Reserve? Did this new institution give the creators immense power that has never been relinquished? Immense power that could be abused by manipulating our economy, our press, and our foreign policy?
Tintin: Did a whole lot of Protestant bankers help create the private Federal Reserve? You know the answer to that one. Moreover, what is WRONG with a Rothschild helping to create the Federal Reserve? Your question suggests that if one Jew, and I think it was Warburg, helps do X, then it's somehow a "Jewish creation" and, by inference, the Jews are responsible for it and, by inference, if the current financial crisis leads to a rising tide of anti-Semitism against folks like Jewish school teachers, then, somehow, "the Jews" have only themselves to blame for it because, after all, didn't "a Rothschild representative help create the private Federal Reserve?" The whole basis of this question is insane, and it's pity you don't see it.
BW: 5.8 million is not an inherently antisemitic number.
Tintin: Nor is 1,300.
February 14, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say:I'd love to discuss the Zionist movement before 1949
No you don't. Discussion implies a dialogue, and you might just run into someone who knows what they are talking about, and knows you don't. (And I am perfectly willing to consider your mythagoguery to come from stupidity and gullibility, rather than anti-Semitism, if you insist.)
I'll probably be posting a diary sometime after the weekend discussing the term 'Zionism' and its various versions; original "Zionism" -- a purely secular movement arguing, correctly, that Jews as a group had suffered persecution through the years; that, with the Russian pogroms -- the main spur to Zionism -- and also the rise of literary and religious anti-Semitism in France, eventually leading to the Dreyfus Affair -- and that the only protection would be for them to have a state of their own. (This movement was in fact anti-religious, and Herzl's willingness to accept Kenya -- whether serious or not -- was a 'thumb in the eye' to the religious.
Then there's religious Zionism -- based on the supposed promise from their version of a diety -- which is purely post-Israel. (The Orthodox Jews who remained in the area opposed the formation of the state until the arrival of the Kooks -- not a pejorative, that was their last name -- two rabbis who reconciled the ultra-Orthodox to the secular founding of Israel.
Then there's the use of "Zionist" which really means "I want to say 'Jew' but I'm afraid to be called an anti-Semite, so if I say 'Zionist' I can claim I'm not talking about all Jews."
I had and have much to say, but later, if billwalker really wants to 'discuss' Zionism.
Oh, and, btw, I'm a German (by descent) ex-Catholic, not, afaik, Jewish at all
February 14, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, if I'm not stupidly mistaken, Prupagandist:), the original Zionists wanted to live side by side with the Palestinians, not in a Jewish state. That early version of Zionism has my full compassion, understanding, and perhaps even approval.
As Charles Crane wrote in the King-Crane Commission report in 1919, creating a Jewish state would cause religious Zionists to constantly fight to expand their borders, until their territoral ambitions of a Greater Israel was fulfilled.
Now look at Israel today. Thanks for reading my stupidity once again, and I look forward to your diary entry where you presume ignorance of anybody who uses the term "Zionist" derogatorily, as if any comprehension of the meaning of the term by a user of the word must be limited if they don't include several paragraphs explaining the history of the word's usage.
February 14, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you the term Zionist/ism too often tossed around as if it had a single clear definition when in fact is misused constantly. Out of ignorance, Out of personal belief or mis-belief, and all too often as little more than a code word for "evil Jews."
It a term loaded with conflicting definitions, connotations and implications. The word itself is booby-trapped.
February 14, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm..., maybe like the word "liberal."
February 17, 2009 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Never thought of it that way, MJ.
They never raise the possibility...because who knows and it is a subject for open inquiry, right?...that MORE people died than is commonly thought.
Certainly that wasn't the point of Mahmoud A's conference on the Holocaust...
February 14, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, seems to me a lot of what is described as 'holocaust denial' is just reaction to some of the more fantastic holocaust accounts which have been debunked. You can run anything into the ground.
There's so much emotion surrounding the issue valuable lessons are being lost. Objective study is not allowed due to political correctness.
But if that era should be examined objectively. We could learn why the most advanced and educated civilization on the planet, early 20th century Germany, came to the conclusion something like the holocaust extermination was justified and needed.
There has to be more to it than the pat 'bigotry, racism, greed, homophobia, ignorance, and hatred'. Cultures wrapped up in such rot don't make the kind of stunning advances for the human race with which the Germans are justifiably credited.
February 14, 2009 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the era has been EXTENSIVELY studied and not just by Jewish scholars, but by German ones. Why not familiarize yourself with it? Then, perhaps, you can list your key findings here with your sourcing.
February 14, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, research is great. But you've got to admit.
There's a broader range of thinking on this subject holding itself out as grounded in fact than any other, at least that comes to my mind.
You could spend a lifetime reading on it and still not be able to confidently separate the lunatics from the serious scholars.
Read two chapters of anything written on 'Zionism' and you're expected to accept just as many nefarious conspiracies.
February 14, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You could spend a lifetime reading on it and still not be able to confidently separate the lunatics from the serious scholars."
That simply isn't true. It's an established field with established scholars. It's no more true of this topic than it is of physics.
February 15, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way the Pope made a very strong statement completely repudiating anti-semitism and which stated that denial of the Holocaust was a very serious error. I think the Church is in a real bind. The people who believe in the otherworldly plain which are of course the Church's 'bread and butter' are theologically fairly conservative. I don't think there has to be that connection but there it is, there is that connection. The pope's worst nightmare is of course the Anglican Church in Enland which is largely irrelevant and which of course the Catholic Church is fairly close to in many, many ways. I don't think the current pope is the ogre portrayed. I find it almost impossible to get on board with the program but as long the pope isn't calling for jihads of one sort or another against the 'enemies of the church' one can hardly blame the pope for promoting Catholicism. This isn't to minimize the difficulties associated with being a Catholic but a lot of those are solved by not going to Church.
February 14, 2009 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who's arguing against promoting Catholicism?
Personally, I'm all for saving Williams' soul.
February 14, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is mendacious. It is well documented that Joseph Ratzinger's enrollment in the Hitler Youth was compulsory, as it was for all German boys who reached fourteen years of age. To suggest that Pope Benedict somehow agrees with the policies of Adolf Hitler based on an unavoidable requirement imposed on him by the Nazi regime stinks of bigotry.
From The New York Times, 23 April 2005:
"Some 80 to 90 percent of Germans joined the Hitler Youth and refusing to sign up could mean being sent to a youth ''reeducation camp,'' akin to a concentration camp, said Volker Dahm, director of Nazi-era research for Munich's Institute for Contemporary History.
'You could try to avoid it but it was very, very difficult,' Dahm said. 'It was a bit easier to avoid it if you lived in a big city where you could hide yourself in the crowd, but in the countryside it was nearly impossible because everyone knew you.'"
Is M.J. Rosenberg actually suggesting by his commentary that it would have been preferable for young Joseph Ratzinger to have been sent to a concentration camp?
It is likewise well documented that Joseph Ratzinger's father was strongly anti-Nazi, forcing his family. And while it is true that Joseph Ratzinger served in the German military, he did not join voluntarily, but was drafted, along with his entire seminary class, in December 1944. He deserted in 1945.
The Catholic Church's policy on antisemitism was clearly laid out in Pope Pius XI's encyclical Mit brennender Sorge. This encyclical was drafted by Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli (the future Bl. Pius XII), who has also been the target of anti-Catholic bigotry and slander. In the wake of this encyclical the Nazis murdered 2500 monks and priests in Poland and sent untold numbers of others to concentration camps.
Just because Pope Benedict XVI has lifted the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson does not mean, as Rosenberg suggests, that he enjoys the support of the pontiff. Bishop Williamson's latae sententiae excommunication was for his participation in the unauthorized use of ecclesiastical power, per Canon 1382. As Pope Benedict does not consider this consecration to have violated Canon 1382, there was no longer justification for the Church to maintain Bishop Williamson's excommunication. More precisely, because the Holy Father does not view Bishop Williamson's consecration to have been illicit, the excommunication is null and void. This is not about supporting a Holocaust denier. This is about according due justice to a cleric under ecclesiastical law.
February 14, 2009 4:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
This makes sense. I think MJ was a bit over the top on Ratzinger.
However, as Williamson is making public statements about the Holocaust, and the reinstatement was public, I do think the Pope has a duty to address this issue and address it vis a vis this bishop (and with the bishop himself).
February 14, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey no need to even get into all of that:
Strikes me that MJ is jumping to the same kind conclusions without checking out the whole story that other people do when they jump to calling someone an anti-semite because they said something nice about a Palestinian.
February 14, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It bothers me greatly when Williamson's Holocaust denial isn't taken for what it is: antisemitism.
Please consult his letters, you might start here:
However one victim who escaped death was a certain Christian Rakovsky (Christian only in name), one of the internationalists who considered Stalin had betrayed Communism by putting the interests of Russia and himself first. Rakovsky, to save his life, promised to tell Stalin secrets of great value to Stalin. Stalin who knew that Rakovsky was one of those few men who are the real rulers of the world, agreed to listen. The resulting interrogation of Rakovsky by one of Stalin's agents inside the prison was recorded by the interpreter present for the interrogation, and by him it was smuggled out of the prison. By remarkable circumstances it reached the West, where it should be far better known than it is, but of course the modern world has a thousand ways of smothering its own dirty secrets. God puts in men's hands the "Protocols of the Sages of Sion" and the "Rakovsky Interview", if men want to know the truth, but few do.
http://www.sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/May1-2000.htm
February 14, 2009 5:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Congressman Ackerman is providing much needed leadership.
Plus, he is doing a great service to Israel. Right now, the Israeli right wing and Hamas feed off of each other. They remind me of youth gangs in our inner cities. They continue to react to their enemies instead of building their own health and prosperity.They only build power because of an outside threat.
A common tactic for dealing with youth gangs is to encourage them to “stop and think”. Once they start to deal with the details of what they really want out of life, they begin to see that their behavior hurts instead of helps their wellbeing.
Members of youth gangs are frequently victims of years of abuse by their parents and others. Part of being a victim is that the victim begins to believe that they have no control over anything and they are not responsible for much of anything. On top of that, they are famous for the “flight or fight syndrome”. They just react and do not think about making a plan for what’s best for themselves. Does that remind you of the Middle East?
So, thank you Mr. Ackerman for helping start a process of “stop and think”.
Bob Spencer
February 14, 2009 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really great post M.J., thanks. I truly find it hard to believe the Pope could back a holocaust denier, heck I find it hard to believe hard core holocaust deniers really exist outside of extreme fringe and uneducated groups, but as you say Anti-Semitism has deep roots. And then on the other hand I don't really expect to see a congressional hearing showing some balance when talking about Gaza. The world is full of surprises, or perhaps my expectations are simply flawed.
I hadn't really thought about Holocaust deniers as taking aim at Israel, just thought they wanted to defame Jews. I guess it makes sense, but the complaint I see most often regarding Israel's legitimacy doesn't question the Holocaust or the idea of a Jewish homeland, it asks why the Arabs gave up land for the crimes that were clearly committed by Europeans. If you're an Arab I can see the logic here, but of course there is more to the idea of Israel than a reaction to the Holocaust.
Anyway, again, great post.
February 14, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ says:
But the Holocaust deniers are not merely crazy. Their denial of historical facts is motivated by hate. Its specific purpose is to delegitimize Israel.
They believe that if there was no Holocaust, there would be no Jewish state either. So, eliminating the Holocaust is a means toward eliminating Israel.
I guess I think most Holocaust deniers are anti-Semites first and anti-Israel only as a consequence of their anti-Semitism. An exception may be some Arab Holocaust deniers who recognize that the strongest argument for the existence of Israel as a Jewish state is the fact that the Jews clearly needed a place of refuge and safety after the Holocaust. Obviously, if there were no Holocaust, then the argument that there is a need for a place of refuge for Jews would be weaker (maybe not absent given other, less extreme but still significant, instances of anti-Semitic violence), and therefore the need for a Jewish state would also be diminished. But this type of argument--denying the Holocaust specifically to deligitimize the existence of Israel as a Jewish state--seems rather uncommon. Most Holocaust deniers are anti-Semites pure and simple. Their feelings about Israel are simply an extension of their broader hateful feelings toward Jews.
I do think that virulent anti-Semitism is less common in the West than it once was (though Williamson proves it still exists in the West and it's probably growing in some other parts of the world). That said, there is still significant tension between Jews and non-Jews in the West that has the potential to break out into anti-Semitism. Herzl and Foxman tend to place the blame for this tension squarely on the goyim and accuse them of having some kind of inherent tendency to feel animosity against Jews. In reality, however, I don't think the goyim have any inbred predisposition toward anti-Semitism. I think, instead, that all people have a tendency to be suspicious of groups they see as "other." One of the great strengths of Judiasm (defined broadly as a cultural, ethnic, national, and religious phenomenon) is its power in preserving the Jewish identity in the midst of non-Jewish societies that threaten to destroy the distinctness of the Jews either through persecution and violence or through assimilation. This power is a double-edged sword, however. On one hand it has allowed Judaism to survive for millenia despite its near-perpetual minority status. On the other hand, it has helped preserve Jews as perpetually the "other" in most societies and therefore prone to being victims of discrimination and persecution. In the Jewish state, Jews of course are not the other, but the majority. Sadly, though, the Jewish state itself seems more and more an "other" in the world community and more and more viewed with disdain in much the same way as Jews themselves have been viewed with disdain by non-Jews through history.
Folks like Foxman say that the way to end this unhappy dynamic is for the goyim to simply refrain from dislike of Jews and let Jews be. But I fear that's unrealistic--at least without an unbreachable separation barrier erected between Jews and goyim (and the Israeli hafrada barrier is a very potent symbol of the problem). As long as Jews and goyim live together, we must see ourselves as one, not two, or we will fall back into distrust and hatred of each other. For this to happen may require changes on both sides: a redefinition of Jewishness that maybe makes its boundaries less rigidly defined and more welcoming to those who weren't born Jewish; and a diligent effort on the part of non-Jews to eradicate anti-Semitism where it still exists and ensure the safety of Jews everywhere.
In my mind, Israel as a Jewish state--as a hafrada state--only helps maintain the old division between Jews and the rest of the world. To me that's tragic. In a way, a multinational Israel, a state that is heavily Jewish in culture but also open to all, would go a long way to redefining the old way of thinking and help reintegrate Jews and goyim into the one people we really are.
February 14, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple: But this type of argument--denying the Holocaust specifically to deligitimize the existence of Israel as a Jewish state--seems rather uncommon. Most Holocaust deniers are anti-Semites pure and simple. Their feelings about Israel are simply an extension of their broader hateful feelings toward Jews.
Tintin: Mahmoud A is an example of this, I'd say.
Purple: I do think that virulent anti-Semitism is less common in the West than it once was (though Williamson proves it still exists in the West and it's probably growing in some other parts of the world).
Tintin: If, by "West" you mean "Europe," then there ain't too many Jews left, and I think Europe is still in post WWII shock. But have you been reading about the "Jew get out" demonstrations in Venezuela? I thought the Jews of Venezuela were simply Venezuelan "citizens," no?
Purple: That said, there is still significant tension between Jews and non-Jews in the West that has the potential to break out into anti-Semitism. Herzl and Foxman tend to place the blame for this tension squarely on the goyim and accuse them of having some kind of inherent tendency to feel animosity against Jews. In reality, however, I don't think the goyim have any inbred predisposition toward anti-Semitism. I think, instead, that all people have a tendency to be suspicious of groups they see as "other."
Tintin: If, by "inherent," you mean an "anti-Semitic gene" or something, I'd agree. But there are peoples who are perennial scapegoats and oppressed. Blacks, for one thing. Asians in some cases. Catholics have had a pretty hard time in the U.S.
Purple: One of the great strengths of Judiasm (defined broadly as a cultural, ethnic, national, and religious phenomenon) is its power in preserving the Jewish identity in the midst of non-Jewish societies that threaten to destroy the distinctness of the Jews either through persecution and violence or through assimilation. This power is a double-edged sword, however. On one hand it has allowed Judaism to survive for millenia despite its near-perpetual minority status. On the other hand, it has helped preserve Jews as perpetually the "other" in most societies and therefore prone to being victims of discrimination and persecution.
Tintin: You've raised this point before, and despite its apparent logic, I find it perplexing. In what sense "prone"? Are you aware that a Jew awarded Hitler his Iron Cross for his service in WWI? Are you aware that a Jew wrote, or helped write, the Germany Constitution (if Wiki is to be believed)? Even Jews who keep kosher at home often eat traife out. Most Jews in America don't keep kosher at all.
I find your apparent point that if Jews remain Jews they are inviting, encouraging, leaving themselves open to persecution. I have to tell you that most Jews are far less separate from other Americans than the Amish, the Mormons, the Mennonites, and Muslims who go around with their head covered. Are all these people, in effect, asking for it? I just don't get it.
Purple: In the Jewish state, Jews of course are not the other, but the majority. Sadly, though, the Jewish state itself seems more and more an "other" in the world community and more and more viewed with disdain in much the same way as Jews themselves have been viewed with disdain by non-Jews through history.
Tintin: It would appear. But tell me, where would you and your family feel more at home: In Haifa or Mecca? In Tel Aviv or Teheran? For one thing, where is more English spoken?
Purple: Folks like Foxman say that the way to end this unhappy dynamic is for the goyim to simply refrain from dislike of Jews and let Jews be. But I fear that's unrealistic--at least without an unbreachable separation barrier erected between Jews and goyim (and the Israeli hafrada barrier is a very potent symbol of the problem).
Tintin: Why the hell can't they? Are they also bound to hate blacks? Asians? I thought Christianity preached universal love. If everyone has to be the same for that love to exist, then all it is is universal self love. Is that Christ's message?
Purple: As long as Jews and goyim live together, we must see ourselves as one, not two, or we will fall back into distrust and hatred of each other. For this to happen may require changes on both sides: a redefinition of Jewishness that maybe makes its boundaries less rigidly defined and more welcoming to those who weren't born Jewish; and a diligent effort on the part of non-Jews to eradicate anti-Semitism where it still exists and ensure the safety of Jews everywhere.
Tintin: More welcoming...how? Unpack this Purple, and you will find a treasure trove of contradictions. Anyone who wants to convert to Judaism, can. Much to its credit, Judaism's goal is not to convert everyone to its way of thinking. That strikes me as pretty progressive in this day and age, or any day and age.
Purple: In my mind, Israel as a Jewish state--as a hafrada state--only helps maintain the old division between Jews and the rest of the world. To me that's tragic. In a way, a multinational Israel, a state that is heavily Jewish in culture but also open to all, would go a long way to redefining the old way of thinking and help reintegrate Jews and goyim into the one people we really are.
Tintin: I like that vision of Israel... Maybe, then, you'll get to work on Saudi Arabia...
February 14, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin, you may be surprised to learn that one of my sisters wears a headscarf. She converted to Islam after marrying an Arab and she's made the Haj (to that scary place, Mecca). I myself have not gone to the Middle East, but I've been invited by my new Arab relatives many times. So no, Mecca doesn't feel so unwelcoming.
My other sister married a Jew. My Jewish brother-in-law and his immediate family are very welcoming. But they hosted a party for all our families before the wedding. There I met my Jewish brother-in-law's cousins. I began making normal small talk, asking them what they do, where they live, etc. Before I got far, I was bluntly interrupted: "You're not Jewish are you?" I said, "No." A frown passed over the cousin's face. The conversation ended. I felt somewhat awkward and uncomfortable the rest of the evening. It was clear that a significant portion of my new family didn't like me--or my sister, their cousin's soon-to-be wife--because we were not of the right ethnic/religious background.
I'm not sure that's all representative. I'm sure there are Arabs who are suspicious of non-Arabs. And certainly I know many Jews who aren't in any way suspicious of non-Jews (my Jewish brother-in-law among them and also a good friend of mine who's an Orthodox Jew and who's invited me to visit his family and friends in Israel many times). But I also have met many Jews who seem overly concious of their separateness--and of my own separateness from them. As a younger man, I dated women of many ethnic, racial, and religious backgrounds. I rarely felt our differing backgrounds would be an obstacle to marriage. An exception, though, were with some (certainly not all) Jewish girls. It was quite clear that for some only a Jewish man could be taken seriously. None of these women was religious at all. I guess I could understand a person's desire to marry someone of the same religious beliefs if religion were important to that person. But these were quite secular, quite Americanized, quite modern women. But the need to marry an ethnic Jew was intense. That strikes me as strange. Maybe my experience is unusual, but it certainly has made me think that there is indeed something powerful in Judaism that demands the preservation of separateness in a way that I don't see quite so powerfully in other groups.
February 14, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, Purple.
When we moved to Connecticut, there were entire towns we couldn't move into because we were Jewish.
When my father got out of the Army, it was common to find ads in the NYT specifying WASP only.
Who's keeping themselves separate? And who's trying to join the club?
A few years back, my best friend's father, with whom I was quite friendly, said (to my friend) that I wasn't to be invited to their Christmas dinner.
I wasn't particularly offended--but, I ask you: Who's trying to keep separate there? Me, who's happy to chow down with some Christians, or the Christians who don't want me at their table.
I had Greek friends who, under no circumstances, were NOT going to be allowed to marry non-Greeks. And the reason was only partly religious.
A whole lot of Catholics want to marry only Catholics. A whole lot of Protestants only want to marry Protestants.
I'm sure there are a whole bunch of Irish who just feel more comfortable marrying and even hanging out with other Irish.
Wanting to be among "your own" and maintain your ethnic identity and culture is a VERY common phenomenon. It's just that Jews get killed for it or thrown out of the country for it and Greeks and Protestants (mostly) don't.
And I'm willing to bet that heading up and filling the ranks of most universalistic movements--from the Communist parties of old to the New Age spiritual movements, you will find young Jews way out of proportion to their numbers in the society at large. This notion that Jews wanting to keep themselves "separate" is the root cause of anti-Semitism really lacks substance. It's often cited, but I don't see it.
February 15, 2009 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin, I am rather mixed ethnically (and maybe that predisposes me to finding ethnicity irrelevant), but one segment of my family is of Italian ancestry. The older members of that side of the family--first and second generation Americans--certainly have a strong ethnic identity and maybe a preference for marrying within their own ethnic group (although, in actuality, many of them married people of other ethnicities, hence my own mixed background). But this ethnic identity really dies out in the younger, more Americanized generations. To me, identifying strongly as "Italian" seems silly, atavistic, unsophisticated, stunad. While there are still those who cling to their ethnicity, it seems to me that the more educated among us are living in a post-ethnic world.
I assume many American Jews of the third and fourth generations feel the same way about expressions of Jewish ethnicity. But I also know many highly educated, highly sophisticated, fully Americanized Jews who still take their Jewish identity very seriously. I can understand this if one is intensely religious. But I guess it seems strange to me if one isn't religious, because, to me at least, cultural-ethnic identity seems so trivial and so fluid, especially in today's intermixed world. Sure, I can see why someone has affection for the ethnic traditions of his or her grandparents--but really don't we move on from that? Why try to preserve something that was relevant to my grandparents' world but that is hardly significant in modern-day America? Culture is always evolving--and with intermarriage and equality before the law, ethnicity is, and should be, less and less relevant. Being ethnically Jewish seems irrelevant to me. Much as being ethnically Italian does. Who really cares any more?
Yet there is this intense focus among many Jews--demonstrated daily on this website--with maintaining their Jewishness, maintaining the Jewish state, assuming that Jewish ethnicity is somehow important and relevant in today's post-ethnic world. This not among bumpkins--among goombahs to use an Italian-American expression--but among highly educated, highly sophisticated people. Maybe the suffering of the Holocaust explains it. I can understand that. And it makes much more sense in that context. But even then, isn't this something to try to move past, since Jewish ethnicity should be irrelevant to everyone--both Jew and non-Jew? Isn't the best and surest way to end ethnic hatreds to diminish completely the significance of ethnicity? It seems so to me. And given that I see little value in maintaining ethnic identity, I see little that would be lost by doing so.
To conclude, I quote a paragraph from the Lappin Foundation's website. Maybe this is unrepresentative of how most Jews feel about their ethnicity. But it does demonstrate the kind of intense focus on ethnicity that strikes me as atavistic and contrary to what I see as a healthy current pulling people away from their ethnic identities in modern societies. Let me know what you think:
We believe that the most serious threat to Jewish continuity is assimilation and intermarriage. We are succeeding in reversing the trend of intermarriage and asimilation in our community by enhancing Jewish pride through the innovative programs of our Youth to Israel, Jewish Continuity and Interfaith Outreach Committees.
The key to Jewish continuity in the United States is in enhancing and instilling Jewish pride in our children, which is an achievable goal for every Jewish community. Building on the enormous success of our cornerstone program, Youth to Israel, which provides fully subsidized teen trips to Israel, in 1996, the Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation expanded its Jewish continuity initiative by creating unique, Jewish, community-wide programs, which enhance Jewish pride, connect people to Israel, and instill a feeling of being a member of the Jewish family—a great and unique people.
Maybe this is good, but honestly I react badly to calls against miscegenation. I react similarly when I hear supporters of Israel talk about "demographics." It feels skeevotz to me . . .
February 15, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
To underscore my point, how does this text sound to you?
We believe that the most serious threat to Italian-Catholic continuity is assimilation and intermarriage. We are succeeding in reversing the trend of intermarriage and asimilation in our community by enhancing Italian-Catholic pride through the innovative programs of our Youth to Italy, Italian Continuity and Interfaith Outreach Committees.
The key to Italian-Catholic continuity in the United States is in enhancing and instilling Italian-Catholic pride in our children, which is an achievable goal for every Italian-Catholic community. Building on the enormous success of our cornerstone program, Youth to Italy, which provides fully subsidized teen trips to Italy and the Vatican, in 1996, the Robert I. Lappini Charitable Foundation expanded its Italian-Catholic continuity initiative by creating unique, Italian-Catholic, community-wide programs, which enhance Italian-Catholic pride, connect people to Italy, and instill a feeling of being a member of the Italian-Catholic family—a great and unique people.
February 15, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
You make some very interesting points, Purple. As always.
I have two sorts of responses: The first is, minorities and majorities always see things a bit differently, just by virtue of their different statuses as minority and majority.
The majority doesn't have to worry about maintaining whatever identity it has. Just by virtue of numbers, the band will play on. Sometimes this reverses, as when the majority white population in the south feared its "dilution" through miscegenation with blacks.
And "scholars" like Kevin B Macdonald are worried that Jewish influence has adulterated the basically progressive and Christianized West. These sorts of fears lead, of course, to unjust and horrible consequences.
But basically, IMO, the numbers create a "current" in the opposite direction. And, in fact, with the Enlightenment, many, many Jewish thinkers couldn't see the point of being Jewish any longer. They were simply European (maybe not even ethnic Poles, Hungarians, etc.)
(In fact, I would argue that the emancipated Jews probably felt more "European" or like "universal men and women" than did their fellow Poles, Hungarians, and Germans who--as spriche says above--felt themselves rooted in a particular "soil." The Jews were "rootless cosmopolitans," as Stalin called them. So they were even more universalistic in their outlook than their Christian neighbors. That's why they were natural recruits for Communism and socialism.)
When you are in the majority, you feel like "jes folks." The world around you reflects you back to yourself. This situation gives you an ease and comfort that you take for granted. It's like a fish's "attitude" toward the water it swims in. Or someone who doesn't think he has an accent when he speaks. He does; it's just that he's never (or very rarely) spoken to someone with a different accent. Even then, it's the OTHER person who has the accent. (There's a good joke about that I'll tell sometime.)
But when the majority suddenly feels or fears, for whatever reason, that they are in danger of becoming a minority--one woman I know got ANGRY that Macdonalds was postering its Meal Deals in Spanish to draw the large Latino population in my neighborhood--they start squealing like a stuck pig and things can even turn ugly because, of course, they have the numbers on their side. IOW, they're happy to have everyone be the same, as long as that "same" is being like them, e.g., speaking English, praying to Jesus.
So, let's take Saudi Arabia, and scary Mecca. It is my understanding that a citizen of that country is not allowed to be Jewish. I'm not even sure that a self-identified Jew is allowed into the country. I'm morally certain that a non-Muslim would not be allowed to attend the Haj.
(I don't know why not--non-Jews are allowed to come high holy day services and can visit the Wailing Wall. But, whatever...)
So, in terms of the morality of it, the enlightened aspect of it, SA is much more backward than, say, a place like Israel. Far more racist, if you will. But nobody really complains about it because the Saudis are the majority in SA. You don't find Jews trying to get in to the country (much); wanting to immigrate; and all the Jews who were there originally are long gone. I don't know, but I imagine your sister, her husband, and their family aren't asking, "Why can't we invite some Jews or Christians to share this beautiful country, share in the majesty of the Haj?" They may bristle under the restrictions that apply to Saudis...but I doubt they are crying out for "diversity." Maybe they are...
But the world is not arrayed against the racism inherent in the Saudi Arabian "system." No other Arab or Muslim country is complaining that only Muslims are allowed on the haj or to become SA citizens. You don't find resolutions introduced in that oh-so-enlightened UN charging Saudi Arabia with racism. No British scholars are saying we should boycott SA oil or prevent their scholars from coming here. In fact, the only grief SA has gotten has been the result of 9/11. Now, you'll find a few people asking why we should be doing business with SA when the 19 hijackers were Saudis--but no one's getting hot about it. And you'll notice that we didn't invade SA.
So a piece of this just has to do with the difference between majority and minority status. When you have the numbers on your side, you can get away with a lot.
In fact, the REASON you find quotes like the Lappin quote is BECAUSE Jews are intermarrying in huge numbers. So it's a reaction to a much larger phenomenon of which you'd approve. In fact, I know rabbi who is well known for assisting in inter-marriage ceremonies because he feels that, otherwise, there would be no Jewish element to these marriages whose numbers are increasing. They'd all be held in churches. Full stop.
So, the second point has to do with what I might call "cultural/spiritual ecology." We are concerned when species die out. We are also concerned when languages die out. There is an attempt to preserve both because there is reason to believe that each species and each language and culture brings to the world an important function and important insights into the human condition. So a desire to preserve Jewish culture/religion has validity, IMO, simply on that score. It has important things to contribute to the whole, even if it remains the province of a relatively small number of people.
Related to this point is the distinction you make between religious Jews and cultural Jews--the former being okay; the latter being anachronistic. It's important to understand that inherent in Judaism is the idea of "the Jewish people." It's as if the Jewish religion gave birth to the Jewish people.
It's also important to understand that Judaism is poor in theology--stuff you're supposed to believe--and rich in commandants--stuff you're supposed to do. So it's relatively easy or natural for a Jew to slough off the theology--and say, "God doesn't exist"--and still hold fiercely to the feeling that it's important to DO the right thing. The religion imbues the culture and the culture outlasts any belief in a deity.
(In fact, there's a very moving--to me, at least--midrash, or story, in which God is quoted as saying that, if He had to choose, he'd prefer his people to stop believing in him, but keep his Torah, rather than the other way around. What you do is the key thing.)
So being Jewish can be very important to atheist Jew because the commandment to do the right thing, if you will, is held, carried, by the people themselves. It's not just an accident of the ghetto that Jewish people spoke Yiddish and Ladino and used Hebrew lettering. It's not an accident that there was a language--Hebrew--with its own literature--to bring back to living status.
And it's not an accident that, contrary to those who say Jews keep themselves "separate" that these languages and this culture assimilated much that Jews found in their "host" countries. Yiddish is German mixed with Polish mixed with Hebrew and now mixed with English. Ladino is largely Spanish. Jewish food is an amalgam and, in Israel, it's largely of Arab origin. Same for the music. Far from being purist, Jews were greedy adopters and adapters. Freud, for example, wrote (I'm told) beautiful German. Saul Bellow's English is pretty good, too.
Nor is it an accident that you find so many Jews in the helping professions and seeking to make a contribution to the betterment of the world. The Jewish religion gave birth to the Jewish people who, like all peoples, have a language (or two) and a culture which continue to convey the "spark" or the "seed" of the religion's basic insights about how to live: do the right thing and treat other people as you would wish to be treated.
Now, OF COURSE, we can talk about all the ways in which the Jewish people have, and continue, to fall short, sometimes very badly, of their own ideals. We can start with the prophets, if you like. But given all of the above, I can see why Jews would want to preserve their culture, however it may change from place to place and time to time. And I would think you could see it too.
Anyway, good dialogue!
February 15, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin, yes, very good discussion as always. Thank you!
I wanted to make two comments on your post.
1. Saudi Arabia versus Israel in Public Opinion
Empirically there is a clear difference between Western reactions to Saudi Arabian policy toward non-Muslims(and women and other groups) and Israeli policy toward Palestinians. Saudi Arabia is treated with indifference while Israel seems to invoke intense passion among both its supporters and critics. I think there are a lot of reasons for this: Israel is, in many ways, part of the Western world while Saudi Arabia isn't, so we tend to hold Israel to Western standards while giving, fairly or unfairly, the more alien Saudi Arabia a pass. In addition, Israeli settler-colonialism resembles at least in some ways other Western settler-colonialist movements which we now tend to look back on with some embarassment and therefore are prone to condemn. Israel also gets very significant financial and diplomatic support from the US, which tends to make our policy toward Israel subject to more attention. And there are, of course, many strongly pro-Israeli groups active in the US that bring Israel to the public's attention, encouraging positive press but also keeping the spotlight on Israel and therefore making it subject to criticism as well.
All of the above reasons are significant, but I do think those who accuse (or at least imply) that a lot of the attention Israel gets is the result of anti-Semitism are actually correct. But I come to this conclusion not believing that non-Jews are really all that anti-Semitic or that anti-Semitism is anything materially different or more intense or more inevitable than the other forms of racism that distinct groups of people tend to feel toward each other. In a way, as a non-Jew, I can't read Herzl without being a little insulted. I simply don't accept that we non-Jews are somehow unable to rid ourselves of anti-Semitism. Yet I also can't deny the empirical reality of Herzl's conclusion: that anti-Semitism is remarkably persistant and that the Jews therefore cannot trust it to disappear no matter what they do. I've struggled to reconcile these two thoughts--enough so to spend a time reading ADL and other publications on anti-Semitism to try to better understand the phenomenon. In the end, my conclusion is simply this: that Judaism is, as you say, at its core, not so much about religion or culture or ethnicity (although those are all extremely important elements of Judaism), but about preserving the distinct identity of a particular people. In fact the two most remarkable things about Judaism are, one, that it has survived so long despite the fact that Jews are a small group of people generally living as minority populations in non-Jewish societies and, two, that persecution of Jews is so persistant through history. It strikes me that these two things are interrelated: Judaism couldn't have survived if it weren't so successful at maintaining Jewish identity. Yet in preserving Jewish identity so strongly it forces Jews to remain perpetually other and therefore likely to be victims of racism.
2. Preserving Judaism by Redefining It?
This gets me to my second point. I agree with your observations on Judaism and admire it very much as a religious (or maybe ethical) system. I especially like that focus on "doing" the right thing rather than believing in the "right" thing. I think it is not a coincidence that so many Jews have been in the forefront of civil rights movements. Judaism values justice--in this world--and that is highly admirable and has been highly valuable in making the West a better place. (This is not to diminish Christian values--especially the idea of forgiveness, which balances justice--as important too.) Where I'm more ambiguous in my feelings about Judaism is its tendency to define "the Jewish people" along ethnic lines. While I know the more progressive segments of the Jewish community have in recent decades encouraged conversion, Judaism traditionally has discouraged conversion (or at least made it difficult). It also traditionally discourages intermarriage (quite unsuccessfully at times, in part because it seems also to encourage openmindedness!) and assimilation. These phenomenon make sense given the mileu in which Judaism evolved. The Jews (ancient Hebrews) appear to have been at least semi-nomadic and often existing in the midst of other communities. In such circumstances, the Jewish community could preserve itself only if it remained extremely cohesive. This cohesiveness could be reinforced by strictly defining the group by ancestory, ritual, and devotion to a common written history and scripture. I'd argue that this intense cohesiveness, especially when reinforced along ethnic lines, limits Judaism and makes it more of a localized, ethnically-specific phenomenon than a universal one. To me, this seems like a loss--particularly if one agrees that Judaism as a religious and ethical system has much to offer the world. You have praised Judaism as a non-prostelyzing religion. And I agree that the aggressiveness of some religions in imposing themselves on others is offensive. But there's also a side of prostelyzing that is really just sharing with others something one cherishes and feels is of value and would be useful to others. Judaism might, in some sense, be a stronger--and also less-often despised--phenomenon if it prostelyzed more, it it attempted to free itself from ethnic identity and offer itself as a universal phenomonon open to all people of all ethnicities. I think Judaism has much to offer the world, but through it's history it has tended to define itself as the religion/ethical system of a particular "nation" with a responsibility to benefit the rest of the world's "nations." But to the rest of the world's nations that often sounds a tad arrogant and condescending. Why not simply break this boundary between Jewish goy and the other goyim not be reaching out toward the goyim but by pulling more of the goyim in? In other words, give up just one aspect of Judaism--the focus on Jewish ethnicity--and thereby expand and strengthen Judaism by making it a more universal religious or ethical movement which all people of all ethnic backgrounds are strongly encouraged to join? Some in the reform movement have already done this, of course--but I don't think the main current of Judaism yet moves in this direction.
(Sorry, those last paragraphs could be better written, but I need to log off before I miss a plane.)
February 16, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I'll try to reply to key pieces of this:
Purple: 1. Saudi Arabia versus Israel in Public Opinion
Empirically there is a clear difference between Western reactions to Saudi Arabian policy toward non-Muslims(and women and other groups) and Israeli policy toward Palestinians. Saudi Arabia is treated with indifference while Israel seems to invoke intense passion among both its supporters and critics.
T: Okay.
P: I think there are a lot of reasons for this: Israel is, in many ways, part of the Western world while Saudi Arabia isn't, so we tend to hold Israel to Western standards while giving, fairly or unfairly, the more alien Saudi Arabia a pass.
T: And since many of the countries that vote in the UN give SA a pass and not Israel, the irony is quite acute.
P: In addition, Israeli settler-colonialism resembles at least in some ways other Western settler-colonialist movements which we now tend to look back on with some embarassment and therefore are prone to condemn.
T: And there are many significant differences which are often NOT brought except by Israel's defenders. Isn't this unfair?
P: Israel also gets very significant financial and diplomatic support from the US, which tends to make our policy toward Israel subject to more attention.
T: But Egypt gets a shitload, too, the second-most, AFAIK. And SA gets some too, as I recall, not to mention the oil money, which is not a gift, but is still support. In fact, it's oil, in large part that enables us to be so modern. So the irony piles up.
P: And there are, of course, many strongly pro-Israeli groups active in the US that bring Israel to the public's attention, encouraging positive press but also keeping the spotlight on Israel and therefore making it subject to criticism as well.
T: Okay.
P: All of the above reasons are significant, but I do think those who accuse (or at least imply) that a lot of the attention Israel gets is the result of anti-Semitism are actually correct. But I come to this conclusion not believing that non-Jews are really all that anti-Semitic or that anti-Semitism is anything materially different or more intense or more inevitable than the other forms of racism that distinct groups of people tend to feel toward each other.
T: Well, it's hard to blame a view on anti-Semitism and then say that the people who hold the view aren't all that anti-Semitic. When you say that this anti-Semitism is not "inevitable," however, you confuse me, because I think your view is that anti-Semitism IS inevitable as long as Jews maintain their Jewish identity. I think you end up saying that non-Jews wouldn't be inherently anti-Semitic if Jews would just stop being Jews.
P: In a way, as a non-Jew, I can't read Herzl without being a little insulted. I simply don't accept that we non-Jews are somehow unable to rid ourselves of anti-Semitism. Yet I also can't deny the empirical reality of Herzl's conclusion: that anti-Semitism is remarkably persistant and that the Jews therefore cannot trust it to disappear no matter what they do. I've struggled to reconcile these two thoughts--enough so to spend a time reading ADL and other publications on anti-Semitism to try to better understand the phenomenon.
T: Well, there are plenty of people who aren't anti-Semitic and it is curable, just like any other form of racism is. Stamping out racism, or hatred, society-wide is another matter however.
P: In the end, my conclusion is simply this: that Judaism is, as you say, at its core, not so much about religion or culture or ethnicity (although those are all extremely important elements of Judaism), but about preserving the distinct identity of a particular people.
T: I think you misunderstand me a bit. Let's put it this way: The Jewish people is a religious element, or character, if you will, in Judaism. The Jewish people are kinda sorta like the Apostles (with PLENTY of differences). They play a central role in the religious narrative. But because they are a people, and not just a character in a story, they have carried on all these years. Put it a different way: The Christian story gave birth to a community of believers in Jesus Christ. The Jewish story gave birth to a people that is supposed to follow God's law. So the point is not about preserving Jews' distinct identity for the sake of longevity or survival and divorced from what and who the people are.
P: In fact the two most remarkable things about Judaism are, one, that it has survived so long despite the fact that Jews are a small group of people generally living as minority populations in non-Jewish societies and, two, that persecution of Jews is so persistant through history.
T: These certainly are remarkable things, but there is much else that is remarkable Judaism. You just have to want to dig in.
P: It strikes me that these two things are interrelated: Judaism couldn't have survived if it weren't so successful at maintaining Jewish identity. Yet in preserving Jewish identity so strongly it forces Jews to remain perpetually other and therefore likely to be victims of racism.
T: This is where you and I start to go down different paths. Jews are different, to one degree or another, but they are remarkably the same and integrated into any society that will have them. We're doctors, lawyers, judges, Supreme Court judges, VP candidates, members of Congress, pitchers, insurance salesmen, car dealers, real estate agents, nurses, shrinks, musicians, professors, economists, authors, journalists, artists and on and on. And in these roles, we are utterly the same as any other American or member of any other country where we reside. So what's so "other" about that?
In fact, many times I can't tell if someone is Jewish.
Surely, the fact that we remain Jews and Jews remain connected (some, not all) to each other really should not present a problem to anyone else. So it really sounds like you're saying that as long as Jews remain Jews they are "likely" to be persecuted.
2. Preserving Judaism by Redefining It?
P: This gets me to my second point. I agree with your observations on Judaism and admire it very much as a religious (or maybe ethical) system. I especially like that focus on "doing" the right thing rather than believing in the "right" thing. I think it is not a coincidence that so many Jews have been in the forefront of civil rights movements. Judaism values justice--in this world--and that is highly admirable and has been highly valuable in making the West a better place. (This is not to diminish Christian values--especially the idea of forgiveness, which balances justice--as important too.)
T: Sounds like it's something worth preserving, doesn't it?
P: Where I'm more ambiguous in my feelings about Judaism is its tendency to define "the Jewish people" along ethnic lines. While I know the more progressive segments of the Jewish community have in recent decades encouraged conversion, Judaism traditionally has discouraged conversion (or at least made it difficult).
T: I think Jewish attitudes on this have changed over time. Since the days when it's been tough to be a Jew, Jewish authorities have discouraged conversion as a way of protecting the convert from the hardships he may be unaware are in store for him. But in America, this is mostly a formality. Having known quite a few Catholics, I think it's also the case that a priest will ask that a prospective convert really think it over and not take the decision lightly. That said, there is a doctrinal reason for seeking out converts to Christianity (i.e., Christ is the way to salvation) that doesn't exist in Judaism. This should be considered a good thing, IMO.
P: It also traditionally discourages intermarriage (quite unsuccessfully at times, in part because it seems also to encourage openmindedness!) and assimilation.
T: This is a big topic and it's a bit late. The intensity of this feeling depends on the brand of Judaism. But this is hardly unique to Judaism: I'm not sure that priests are crazy about a Catholic and a Protestant marrying.
P: These phenomenon make sense given the mileu in which Judaism evolved. The Jews (ancient Hebrews) appear to have been at least semi-nomadic and often existing in the midst of other communities. In such circumstances, the Jewish community could preserve itself only if it remained extremely cohesive. This cohesiveness could be reinforced by strictly defining the group by ancestory, ritual, and devotion to a common written history and scripture. I'd argue that this intense cohesiveness, especially when reinforced along ethnic lines, limits Judaism and makes it more of a localized, ethnically-specific phenomenon than a universal one.
T: Depends on what you mean by limited. It's certainly very rich within itself. Again, conversions happen all the time. Anyone who wants to convert, can. In fact, some people claim that the Ashkenazim are nothing but converted Khazars.
P: To me, this seems like a loss--particularly if one agrees that Judaism as a religious and ethical system has much to offer the world.
T: It isn't easy following Zen Buddhism, either. Some things take work.
P: You have praised Judaism as a non-prostelyzing religion. And I agree that the aggressiveness of some religions in imposing themselves on others is offensive. But there's also a side of prostelyzing that is really just sharing with others something one cherishes and feels is of value and would be useful to others.
T: That makes some sense. Though, historically, it's hard to think of Torquemada or Cotton Mather as folks who just wanted to share.
P: Judaism might, in some sense, be a stronger--and also less-often despised--phenomenon if it prostelyzed more, it it attempted to free itself from ethnic identity and offer itself as a universal phenomonon open to all people of all ethnicities. I think Judaism has much to offer the world, but through it's history it has tended to define itself as the religion/ethical system of a particular "nation" with a responsibility to benefit the rest of the world's "nations."
T: Is your thought that anti-Semitism springs from the fact that folks felt they couldn't be Jews or this door was closed to them? The history of this phenomenon, especially the role of the Church, strongly argues against this position.
P: But to the rest of the world's nations that often sounds a tad arrogant and condescending. Why not simply break this boundary between Jewish goy and the other goyim not be reaching out toward the goyim but by pulling more of the goyim in? In other words, give up just one aspect of Judaism--the focus on Jewish ethnicity--and thereby expand and strengthen Judaism by making it a more universal religious or ethical movement which all people of all ethnic backgrounds are strongly encouraged to join? Some in the reform movement have already done this, of course--but I don't think the main current of Judaism yet moves in this direction.
T: Why not break the boundary between believing Christian and non-believer? Or the boundary between Muslim and non-Muslim? Jews believe that the righteous of all nations have a place in heaven. Why should everyone have to be, or be encouraged to become, a Jew? Isn't that the arrogant thing?
But overall, with all the ethnic diversity in the world--diversity that isn't going anywhere--I think the way to go is for people to accept each others' differences and not kill them for it. That should be the goal. If we accept the idea that a persistent difference encourages violence, then we are doomed to perpetual violence, because the multifariousness of the world's ethnic and cultural and religious groups isn't going to go away. And even if we tried to make it go away, we would have to decide WHICH one group we were all going to become. And which one would THAT be?
If you meet an arrogant and smug Jew, just think of him as you would any other sort of arrogant and smug person. If you meet a proud Jew, think of him as you would any other person who is proud of who and what he is. This really shouldn't be hard, especially if you think that, at bottom, we're all the same.
(I don't mean "you" Purple; I mean "one" as in anyone.)
(Sorry, those last paragraphs could be better written, but I need to log off before I miss a plane.)
February 17, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Peter.
You might ask the thousands of Jews in Tehran why they prefer it to Tel Aviv or Haifa, for that matter.
You are conflating a Sunni Wahhabi state with Iran.
They are not remotely similiar and it's curious that you would "think" so. Is this a function of Islamophobia?
February 14, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just shows you how well Jews fit in WHEREVER they are if they have half a chance.
This is the point I'm arguing: That Jews don't keep themselves separate, even though they DO keep their identity. To be sure, the very religious Jews do stay quite separate. But so what? Is this a reason to kill them or kick them out of the country or exclude them from this or that town?
And now the point is being made that, somehow, this same need to remain separate is at the root of Israel's problem. Well, you know what? There are any number of states that keep themselves separate in a variety of ways--Saudi Arabia being one, and for some reason, the world doesn't hate them.
If a Palestinian state ever comes about, it's going to be filled 99.9% with Palestinians. Is the world going to hate them for wanting to have a "Palestinian state"? A place for their people? I don't think so. But if Jews want to have a Jewish state, now THAT's a problem.
This was my point, Lally. I didn't mean to conflate Iran with Saudi Arabia, and I don't detect in my Islamophobia. But I would say that the average religious Jew is no more "separate" from the world--and probably a lot less in some ways--than your average imam in Iran. But truly, it's not a big point with me.
My point is...if the claim is...Jews keep themselves "separate" and that's largely why they are disdained or hated...I'm merely asking...who's REALLY keeping themselves separate...and from whom?
February 15, 2009 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Peter. It's more a matter of HOW Zionist Jews have gone about establishing and attempting to expand "their" state than anything else. That's the rub. The fact that America has become a full partner to the counterproductive, destructive methodologies employed makes it my business.
Please, the Saudis aren't hated? Why do you suppose THAT is? Could oil and petrodollars and the fact that they don't have expansionist territorial ambitions have something to do with why they're considered an asset to the powers that be, including Israel?
BTW, I would compare imams and rabbis, not your average religious Jew and some Iranian imam somewhere.
If you want to discuss a group of people who were subject to the Holocaust, are universely despised and who are still unwelcome to settle anywhere, we could talk about the Rom......
February 15, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make some good points, as always, Lally.
Part of the rub, of course, is that Israel is a "reconstituted" state.
SA and Saudis were already there, as it were. The conflicts in creating SA were among so-called indigenous peoples, whereas the Jews are considered the interlopers.
Nonetheless, with the Saudis, you don't find this richly elaborated fabric of myths about world control, eating Christian babies, creating the Federal Reserve, etc.
In fact, what's odd is that hatred of Jews seems to stem the power over the rest of society they are thought to wield. Whereas, if you're right, Saudi power inoculates them from the hatred of others. So Jews are hated for the power they don't have, while the Saudis are respected (and left alone) because of the power they do have.
I think it would be hard to argue convincingly that a Jewish state of any size or dimension would have been welcomed by the Arab world, regardless of the Zionists' methods. PERHAPS if the early Israelis had made provisions for the Palestinians, but in those days, the Palestinians wanted it all back.
No argument about the Roma...
I'm not trying out for the most-hated group in the world...
February 15, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
A very compelling discussion between Purple State and Tintin. And I mean that in the best sense of the term.
Tintin:
I submit it is the opposite, since, according to the narrative, the people had to have been there to accept the Torah. In any event, the Jews are the people, Judaism is the religion. This is no simple distinction without a difference, because whatever extent Jewish identity may be rooted in ancient and medieval theological expressions is by now largely beside the point. As with Arab peoples, Norse peoples, Celtic peoples, etc.
Purple State:
Don't you think this attitude says more about you, Purple State, than it does about them? Jewish, Greek, Irish, Italian, whatever, within every group there are fears and suspicions of assimilation with out-groups. Nevertheless, I would challenge anyone to find the ethnic culture anywhere that never benefited to some degree from the inevitable interaction at its fringes -- whether in the areas of arts and letters, laws and ethics, business and commerce, or culinary recipes. Why should any of this be any different when it comes to the Jews? Like all other peoples, we have our hardcore, we have our mavericks, and we have everything in between.
Purple State:
Therein lies Hebrew Power. We never feel awkward and uncomfortable around The Others. (That, and our idiosynchratic sense of humor....)
Fuck'em. Hang out with the part of the family that likes you instead. I'd be willing to bet that they don't like each other much, either. Go figure.
Purple State:
Surely you don't mean to suggest that we should strive for some civil equivalent to ecological monoculture, but that is the way this notion comes across (as Tintin has noted as well). Within the overarching discourse of the Arab-Israeli conflict in general, and the idea of a bi-national state in former British Mandatory Palestine in particular, this notion strikes me as the kind of thinking that accepts the whole of the Middle East as "The Arab World," unchallenged, while at the same time condemning the one non-Arab political state in the region as "racist."
Again, a facinating discussion. Kudos to you both.
February 17, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Bar K--
I don't have too much time now (another plane to catch--the travel required by my job is absurd!)--but I do want to address the monoculture question at some point. I'm not arguing for a single, universal culture, though I see how it might sound that way. I think preserving a diversity of ideas and approaches to life is important. When I have more time, I'll talk more about it, but carrying the biological analogy further, I think I'm arguing for the continuous evolution of culture, with more fluid genetic interchange between populations, so that the different cultural groups are less separate, less clearly defined, more fluid, and less stagnant.
Oh well, no time to work this out more fully, but I'm sure we'll get a chance to discuss this further sometime.
February 18, 2009 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Looking forward. Happy Trails.
February 18, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Holocaust denial is a dramatic example of a fairly common phenomenon--the ideologically motivated denial of some atrocity.
Orwell wrote about it in Notes on Nationalism--
"Indifference to Reality. All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side. The Liberal News Chronicle published, as an example of shocking barbarity, photographs of Russians hanged by the Germans, and then a year or two later published with warm approval almost exactly similar photographs of Germans hanged by the Russians(5). It is the same with historical events. History is thought of largely in nationalist terms, and such things as the Inquisition, the tortures of the Star Chamber, the exploits of the English buccaneers (Sir Francis Drake, for instance, who was given to sinking Spanish prisoners alive), the Reign of Terror, the heroes of the Mutiny blowing hundreds of Indians from the guns, or Cromwell's soldiers slashing Irishwomen's faces with razors, become morally neutral or even meritorious when it is felt that they were done in the ‘right’ cause. If one looks back over the past quarter of a century, one finds that there was hardly a single year when atrocity stories were not being reported from some part of the world; and yet in not one single case were these atrocities — in Spain, Russia, China, Hungary, Mexico, Amritsar, Smyrna — believed in and disapproved of by the English intelligentsia as a whole. Whether such deeds were reprehensible, or even whether they happened, was always decided according to political predilection.
The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. For quite six years the English admirers of Hitler contrived not to learn of the existence of Dachau and Buchenwald. And those who are loudest in denouncing the German concentration camps are often quite unaware, or only very dimly aware, that there are also concentration camps in Russia. Huge events like the Ukraine famine of 1933, involving the deaths of millions of people, have actually escaped the attention of the majority of English russophiles. Many English people have heard almost nothing about the extermination of German and Polish Jews during the present war. Their own antisemitism has caused this vast crime to bounce off their consciousness. In nationalist thought there are facts which are both true and untrue, known and unknown. A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one's own mind.
February 14, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Anyone who believes that anti-Semitism is a thing of the past needs to consider the case of Bishop Richard Williamson, the cleric who denies that the Holocaust occurred and insists that the murder of six million Jews is "lies, lies, lies."
--- MJ Rosenberg
"The 19th century is over!"
--- MJ Rosenberg
Well, I guess the endlessly fascinating and endlessly annoying 19th isn't quite set to let the fat lady sing...
Antisemitism...Nationalism...Fascism...Racism...Demagogues...myth-making in the name of cynical political advantage...hero-worship...the mass movement of people...the disruption of whole communities by industrialization environment and birth rates...or disease...terrorism...
paging Mista Kurtz...('es not dead; 'es rest'n...)
Or maybe, History not only has its own cunning but perhaps, History is really a Catch-22...in order to understand why things happen the way they do, you have to be crazy...but if you're crazy, you can't understand why things happen the way that they do...
So,perhaps we're all still characters in a big fat 19th century Russian novel...or to paraphrase Donald Barthleme: "At the Tolstoy museum, things just keep happening..."
Have a nice day;-)
February 14, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't ever accuse a banker of being powerful, or having an agenda, because he just might be Jewish. That's the best way to move forward.
February 14, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Balfour Declaration:
Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour
February 14, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an example of some non-Jewish bankers, last names Bush and Harriman:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-drobny/appeasement-of-the-nazis_b_28440.html
February 14, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler:
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/index.html
A great book showing it wasn't just Henry Ford, IBM, Standard Oil, Chase and National City Bank, and Harriman Brothers who supported Hitler's rise to power.
February 14, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Williamson was neither excommunicated nor restored for his views on the Holocaust, but for his being consecrated by a renegade Bishop in the 1980s; the other shunned priests so consecrated likewise had their excommunications lifted.
No rational person can impute Williamson's views to Benedict XVI. In 2006, Benedict visited Auschwitz and said this: “To speak in this place of horror, in this place where unprecedented mass crimes were committed against God and man, is almost impossible - and it is particularly difficult and troubling for a Christian, for a Pope from Germany. In a place like this, words fail; in the end, there can only be a dread silence - a silence which is itself a heartfelt cry to God: Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this? In silence, then, we bow our heads before the endless line of those who suffered and were put to death here; yet our silence becomes in turn a plea for forgiveness and reconciliation, a plea to the living God never to let this happen again.”
Benedict said he was unaware of Williamson's views as a denier, as was the rest of the world until his views became known in a Swedish news interview aired after Benedict's restoration; the Pope has demanded Williamson recant his position on the Holocaust.
A mixture of lies, half-truths, and guilt by association conflates restoration of one priest with fabricated innuendo that Holocaust denial is certified by the Papacy.
Benedict’s membership as a teenager in the Hitler Youth is a common theme in any discussion of this issue, even though membership in the group was compulsory in Germany; Benedict did not attend meetings, and his father was a staunch opponent of the Nazis, in part because a relative was murdered as part of the Nazis’ euthanasia program.
The leader of no other religion on earth could be the target of such ugly slander. In the West, it is the epitome of fashion to castigate and slander Christianity at large and the Vatican in particular.
This does nothing more than fool fools, and disgust the rest.
February 14, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Bill Walker who writes:
"Germany had been the most accepting place in Europe to Jews. What caused the backlash? Did the German people feel betrayed by certain German Jewish bankers who sold out the country so that they could commit England to creating a Jewish state, well before the Holocaust?"
Wow. Right out of Mein Kampf, Read it. That is Hitler's argument. Jewish bankers. The stab in the back by Jews. Holy shit. People believe that stuff.
Wow!!!!
Thanks to Bill for opening my eyes to the fact that I am way too naive when it comes to thinking that anti-Semitism is on the way out.
I mean that.
And, yes, I think Bill is anti-Semitic. But so what. I don't think he'd kill Jews or even try to hurt Jews. He is like the racists who said those horrible things about Obama and African-Americans during the election. Unlike some of the Jewish organizations, I don't consider people like Bill a crank not some danger to anyone.
February 14, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: "I consider people like Bill a crank not some danger to anyone.
February 14, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harsh, M.J.
I have a lot of respect for your brave criticism of Israel, and believe that you truly are reformed from your AIPAC days.
I understand that the entire issue of the Holocaust must be a very sensitive subject, and I'd be the same way if I were Jewish.
You didn't touch on any of the issues I presented, none of which I'm dead set on believing.
What caused the German people to suddenly become so hostile to the Jews all of a sudden? I'd like to know how they became vulnerable to Hitler's rantings, besides American and Thyssen financial support.
Even if Jewish bankers did sell out Germany, it still doesn't excuse the backlash against the entire Jewish population, and the Jewish people were tragic victims in either case.
My grandmother was Jewish, I spent a couple dozen Friday nights at the synagogue as a kid, I have several close Jewish friends, and many of my favorite writers are Jewish, including Greenwald, Klein, Wolf, Finkelstein, and I admire your bravery to no small extent.
On this particular issue I think you're being quite out of character. At what particular date in history should I consider Zionsists less than 100% credible? And what do you think of Finkelstein's alegations in "The Holocaust Industry" that many Jewish Holocaust survivors exaggerated or fabricated some of their memoirs, including Elie Wiesel, a proud Zionist?
If you can't address any of the content of my concerns, and can't recognize the validity of my questions (including the Rothschilds and the creation of the Federal Reserve), it will be a sad day for me.
Lastly, if you insist on writing me off as an anti-semite, I still look forward to your coverage of Israeli politics, the details of the nature of the McCarthyism in D.C. that makes criticism of Israel a career threatening move, and lastly, your theory on the circumstances surrounding the assasination of President Garfield.
February 14, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
STRIKE my last comment. I read it over and its too mean-spirited. I am disgusted by what Bill wrote but I'd rather not characterize him.
February 14, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink