Bruce Wolman writes:
President Obama gave the keynote address Thursday at a Holocaust remembrance ceremony at the US Capitol. The theme for this year's ceremony was "Never Again: What You Do Matters." Peterr over at Firedoglake remarked "it was actually pretty good -- if you could put Gitmo and Abu Ghraib out of your mind."
Obama quickly recognized the essential contradiction of the Holocaust:
It is the grimmest of ironies that one of the most savage, barbaric acts of evil in history began in one of the most modernized societies of its time, where so many markers of human progress became tools of human depravity: science that can heal, used to kill; education that can enlighten, used to rationalize away basic moral impulses; the bureaucracy that sustains modern life, used as the machinery of mass death, a ruthless, chillingly efficient system where many were responsible for the killing, but few got actual blood on their hands.
While acknowledging the uniqueness of the Holocaust, Obama tied it to other atrocities with these words:
While the uniqueness of the Holocaust in scope and in method is truly astounding, the Holocaust was driven by many of the same forces that have fueled atrocities throughout history: the scapegoating that leads to hatred and blinds us to our common humanity; the justifications that replace conscience and allow cruelty to spread; the willingness of those who are neither perpetrators nor victims to accept the assigned role of bystander, believing the lie that good people are ever powerless or alone, the fiction that we do not have a choice.
Obama noted, "To this day, there are those who insist the Holocaust never happened, who perpetrate every form of intolerance -- racism and anti- Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism and more -- hatred that degrades its victim and diminishes us all."
And he gave his own interpretation of Never Again:
"Our fellow citizens of the world, showing us how to make the journey from oppression to survival, from witness to resistance and ultimately to reconciliation. That is what we mean when we say, 'Never again'."
Walter Reich - a former director of the United States Holocaust Museum, the Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Professor of International Affairs, Ethics and Human Behavior at George Washington University and a Senior Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars - wanted to hear something different from Obama, as he wrote in an article that was published before the speech in The Baltimore Sun and the Jerusalem Post.
In contrast to Obama, here is Reich's take on Never Again:
Until now, Holocaust remembrance has been about the past: the systematic murder by Nazi Germany of six million European Jews between 1939 and 1945. Suddenly, Holocaust remembrance is also about the future. It's about the threatened murder by Iran of nearly six million Israeli Jews. And, even worse, it's about the potential murder of many millions more. The meaning of "never again" has never been as clear, as urgent or as universal.
Of course, Reich attacks Ahmadinejad's speech from Monday, and then insists, "The seriousness of this threat by the bellicose leader of a country clearly rushing to amass nuclear weapons, and utterly committed to the elimination of Israel, can hardly be exaggerated."
Apparently for Reich, no evidence is necessary to counter the the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which stated that the ending of Iran's weapons program in 2003 "indicates Tehran's decision are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs." Even the NIE was unable to present evidence proving that Iran has made the decision to proceed with making a bomb.
Skeptical of Obama's "reach out" to Iran, Reich is convinced that Iran's "bellicose rhetoric, like the bellicose rhetoric of murderous leaders six and seven decades ago, sustains and justifies the rush to violence. Ahmadinejad is a man obsessed and determined, as are others in the Iranian leadership, and is fast on his way to building the instruments of mass death." Reich just ignores the bellicose rhetoric coming out of Israel, and the fact that Israel is the only power in the Mideast with any nuclear weapons, hundreds of them in fact. Apparently, Iran is suppose to just ignore and not take seriously Israeli nukes, IDF war exercises, and the extreme hostile threats emanating from Israel.
While the Obama administration has moved slowly on Iran, it has already recognized that the Bush policy - demanding a halt to Iran's current low-level enrichment program before negotiations could even begin - was a failure. But this decision just sets off alarms for Reich: "the Obama administration's readiness to drop the demand that Iran suspend its nuclear program while negotiating about it could guarantee that, as the talks proceed, the centrifuges will continue to spin, the warheads will be made, the rockets will be poised, and Iran will be ready to strike."
Reich sets out his risk calculations: "TOO MUCH is at stake - not only for Israel and its Jews but also for America and the world. A nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel could kill many times six million, both Israelis and Iranians. And before any exchange - even if Iran only uses its nuclear weapons for blackmail - other nuclear powers, fearful of Iran's thrust toward regional hegemony, will emerge in the region." Mutual Assured Deterrence, the strategy applied in the Cold War, will not work with Iran, according to Reich's strategic calculations. "The world created by a nuclear Iran could never be controlled. And the nuclear-tipped rockets shot off by those countries could reach well beyond the Middle East into Europe and elsewhere."
The Professor of Ethics and Behavior insists that Obama "should explain clearly why talking to Iran is necessary." Does Reich prefer that Obama proceed directly to the bombing and just skip the further talking part? Like the rest of us, Reich wants the President to explain "what he wants to accomplish." But then Reich also wants to be told what Obama will do "if, after a reasonable effort, it becomes apparent that Iran is only using the talks as a tactical maneuver to buy the little time still needed to build nuclear weapons."
Shifting to his Woodrow Wilson Scholar hat, Reich offers his suggestions:
Options are available, including very sharp and targeted sanctions against elements in the Iranian regime, that have a chance of at least slowing, and even preventing, Iranian weaponization. Mr. Obama should make it clear that he's ready to pursue those options, and any others he thinks might work and would be compatible with world peace, and to lead America's European and other allies in doing so. And, given the urgency, he should make clear that he will do so well before Iran's ticking nuclear clock strikes twelve.
Despite the supposed singularity of the Holocaust, the pro-Israeli lobby couldn't help itself from infusing Iran talk with the Holocaust, on this Remembrance Day 2009. Reich gave us a window into the lobby's demands on Obama when it comes to Iran policy. Let's hope Rahm has the president's back. Disappointingly for Reich, Obama did not mention Iran in his speech. But had Obama given the talk Reich hoped to hear, it would have been a controversial Holocaust speech. However, none of the Congressional audience nor invited guests would have walked out.
It is a high risk strategy this constant accusation of Hitlerism on Iran/Ahmadinnejad. What happens if after all these tantrums against Iran, the U.S. finally decides it has to reconcile with Iran? What if Pakistan becomes so unstable, it is no longer possible to supply U.S. forces in Afghanistan? What if Iraq flairs up again?
If after after all this, the U.S. decides it has to cut a deal with "Hitler," what happens to Holocaust rhetoric afterwards? Who will ever take it seriously again?
Bruce mentioned in his report on Durban II that Ahmadinejad is playing into neocon hands. But I suspect that by constantly calling him Hitler, they are playing into his.
Dinnerjacket is no Hitler. Iran is no germany. Neither have the education nor the ndrive for domination. But they do profess an antisemitism so vivid as to believe they are capable of making a suicidal first strike.
The AEI assessment was not convincing of Iran's long-term intent. While it is a mistake to act aggressively. It also a mistake to be gullible about Iran's prospects that are becoming near, rather than remote.
Is that the neo-con's hand? Or is that reality?
Iran is not Germany. Iran is merely encouraging, funding, arming militias that only target civilians. Its actions still rationally convince Israel that they are not trustable yet in any way.
If you read Mohammed's comments on Ahmenijidad's speech, he applauds the effort to harrass Israel unconditionally (not dependant on 67 borders), until it disappears.
That's nice for his ideology, but not nice for mine or for other Zionists that VALUE our more confident protection and coherence.
Richard Witty,
The AEI assessment was not convincing of Iran's long-term intent.
Did you mean the Intel community NIE estimate? If so it should be noted that the NIE states it will become increasingly probably that Iran will resume their nuclear weapons program the more time elapses without a diplomatic resolution.
It floored me how people on all sides of this seem to be unable to comprehend the relatively jargon free, self explained, NIE.
Antisemitism so vivid as to believe they are capable of making a suicidal first strike? Bullshit. The oldest continuing Jewish community in the world is in Iran: 3,000 years old. Iran has not attacked another nation for 300 years. Iran/Persia has a history of protecting Jews. You need to provide verifiable independent proof that it is otherwise, and you can't.
Dinnerjacket is bitching about Zionism as a political entity. Uhmm. Baaad.
The Israelis have demonstrated a racist ethnic fundamentalism so vivid as to actualize an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as a self-governing entity, first from Israel proper, increasingly in the West Bank. You're saying a few words from Ahmadinejad on the Holocaust are more menacing than Israel's demonstrated history of attempting to wipe the Palestinians off the map? I would say on balance, the Israelis have demonstrated themselves far more capable of genocidal racism than the Iranians.
Israel intentionally targets civilians, Witty. Israel kills more civilians than these militias, Witty.
Israel is not trustable in any way, Witty.
Israel is a nuclear power, Witty.
Go away Witty. You're not fooling anyone who actually pays attention.
I wonder what it is with these "scholars". They'd have me believe that it's the rabbit that chases the wolf and not the other way round.
I find it fascinating that racism against the Jews has its own special phrase: anti-semitism.
Makes it a bit odd, since every other racist (if you happen to hate blacks, chinese, euros, whatever) is just a plain ole racist… but if you hate jews, there you go, you are BOTH a racist and an anti-semite.
The AEI assessment was not convincing of Iran's long-term intent…It also a mistake to be gullible about Iran's prospects that are becoming near, rather than remote.
The NIE was a summary of a much longer classified doc with hundreds of pages of supporting material from 16 US intelligence agencies backing up the summary assertions. It's written in the standard conditional tense of diplomatic language.
Cheney sat on this report for a year. it completely contradicts what the Bush/neocon admin and Israel claimed about Iran.
the reich is pretty sickening… he doesn't beat around the bush however… to quote him.."It's about the threatened murder by Iran of nearly six million Israeli Jews."
if anyone can be accused of Hitlerism it is present day israel that has been moving in this direction for some time and appears to want to cap it off with acting it out in the fullest sense towards iran… israel has become what it claims to detest… people like reich confirm this…. explain to me how some jackass like this guy gets off saying such bullshit that is so upside down it defies logic?? who has the nuclear weapons? who has been a constant military aggressor on others? this guy is sickening…
6,000,000 – such a special number.
The question is framed: "what is the intent of Iran,does it intend to do harm to Jews?"…
Sorry,but I thought the issue on the table was the war crimes of Israel in Gaza,and the attitude of the people of Israel and the Jewish diaspora towards the harm the IDF did to the Palestinians?
I'm afraid,THIS discussion, in that it centers on a defense of Ahmadinejad ,seems to prove that the Holocaust is indeed used to deflect and divert attention from the actions of Israel..
And aren't we also, by having this discussion about whether Ahmadinejad "denies" the Holocaust or not,implying that crimes against Jews are more important than those against Palestinians?
6,000,000 – just keeps popping up.
""Our fellow citizens of the world, showing us how to make the journey from oppression to survival, from witness to resistance and ultimately to reconciliation. That is what we mean when we say, 'Never again'." "
Cute. What reality, if any, permeates this construction of Never Again? One size fits all?
The NIE assessment is already innaccurate. For example, they stated that Iran would not have enough nuclear material to construct a single bomb for what was it stated four years, and last week Iran announced that it already had enough nuclear material.
Its an opinion. An assessment, based on admittedly faulty intelligence over an extended period.
That faulty intelligence cuts two ways. One is that from a fear-oriented approach, an assessment can exagerate evidence that supports the fear. Or, an overly optimistic assessment can dismiss evidence that rationally supports concern.
'Bellicose rhetoric' from Iran? Oh, my!
As opposed to 'bellicose rhetoric,' just in the past three years, Israel has had troops on the march, tanks on the roll and fighters on the wing over Lebanon and Gaza, bombing the living shit out of civilians as if they were demolishing an anthill. Where is the REAL risk, when an undeclared, unrestrained nuclear proliferator pimp-rolls its way round the neighborhood, leaving mountains of rubble and dead bodies?
The Remembrance Day speechifying is a pure example of 'Shoah business.' Without the Holocaust link (right down to the hypnotically invoked 'six million, six million … you are counting to six million … you are getting sleepy'), and the implied gentile guilt (even though most of us weren't even born when the bad H-news went down), tensions between Israel and Iran on the far side of the world would be of no significance to the United Snakes.
As George Washington plaintively asked in his farewell address (I'm paraphrasing a bit), why must we get enmeshed in the byzantine quarrels of these squabbling orientals?
I don't need to provide verifiable independant proof. All I need to do is read history. You need an education.
What can one say to the most complete antisemite on the board? ED has proved himself to be a fine acolyte of Hitlerian philosophy. Well done! OZ must have been thinking of ED.
Not so. The Palestinians deliberately target civilians. But their incompetency earns them nothing.
Blame the German social scientist who coined the word.
Again, assertions of antisemitism are a replacement for actual facts and logic. You would me more convincing if you actually tried to refute someones point rather than call him a bigot.
BTW, on the subject of bigotry, would you say that Palestinians have all the rights that Jews and other gentiles have? Do you feel Iran has as much right to pursue scientific progress as does Israel?
If not, why not? If yes, why do you object when they exercise their rights?
Iran does not shoot missiles into apartment blocks. Israel perfected that defensive technique.
The facts exist. Are you so stupid that you don't know them? Or are you willfully ignorant?
On the subject of bigotry, every single nation on earth has a real problem with bigotry in government.
On the subject of Iran, they are not pursuing scientific progress. They are pursuing the formation of weapons of mass destruction. The world says they do not have that right. There is no right to the development of such terrible weapons which will be used to threaten peaceful countries.
No one but Saddam's Iraq threatened to invade Iran before they started attempting to build atom bombs.
I will not argue with antisemites like ED. It's like teaching a pig to dance. A waste of time and it annoys the pig.
And who, even though they have the ability 10 times over, has not commited genocide against the palestinian people? Israel is what it needs to be to survive the hostile and genocidal desires of its neighbors. Israel does not want to be in that condition, but history anmd people like you constantly enforce the notion that they need to be that way.
Someone needs to talk to Obama and other Americans about another holocaust committed by the US, Uk and others after WW11 devised by Morgenthau and authorised by Eisenhower to murder as many German civilians possible and the ethnic cleansing of 15 million more.
Systematic, ritualised, brutal slaughter – I have only ever found two worthwhile books about these crimes of the west, yet we never acknowledge them for one second.
"They are pursuing the formation of weapons of mass destruction. The world says they do not have that right. There is no right to the development of such terrible weapons which will be used to threaten peaceful countries."
Uh, Berel, you're confusing Iran with Israel. And Israel's already got nukes. Try to keep up.
How many Americans do you know who know 100,000 Japanese Americans were sent to ten relocation camps during WW2?
Now, how many Americans do you know who know that many thousands of German Americans were dragged out of their
homes at night for no reason at all? In just one day, the day following Pearl Harbor, over 60,000 German Americans were rounded up for interrogation; our government ordered the arrest and internment of thousands of German Americans into federal prison camps during WW1, and again, during WW2. Not one of them was ever charged or found guilty of any war related crime. Hundreds remained incarcerated as late as 1948. Why has this not been taught in our schools? Especially
considering the Germans are the single most populous ethnic group in our demography?
Between 1944 and 1950 a terrible revenge was brought down on 15 million east central european Germans, totally innocent people with roots there from the 12th century. This ethnic cleansing is discussed in very few books, one of
them available in English translation is Alfred-Maurice De Zayas' A Terrible Revenge, The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944-1950,
St. Martin's Press, 1993
Ummmm, you as a freely practicing jew in Iran are able to base this claim on which authority exactly? I suspect you are neither jewish, nor living in Iran, so please leave your assumptions in bed. The fact is, jews in Iran are walking on egg-shells. Being jewish in Iran is enough of a reason to be put on trial and executed under the guise of spying for Israel. The proof is in the fact that Iranian jews I meet here in Israel who left their livelihoods in Iran behind to be free in Israel…they are also fearful for members of their family that have remained behind… One final point, modern zionism's roots lie-in the fact that jews were made to be scapegoats for ills in society…Iran is doing the same today. History does repeat itself, and Israel wont let such a thing come to pass again… Your move
Ed, if Israel has been practicing a policy of ethnic-cleansing for the past 60 years, then it really is bad at it no?! Afterall, the Palestinian population is growing; there a millions more now than years ago… The point is, the population is increasing. That is enough to debunk your ethnic cleasning point… Your hypocracy is quite amusing: on the one hand you protest israel's military strength and "war-machine" amid cries of "war crimes" and "ethnic cleansing" but on the spin of it…how exactly does one engage in ethnic cleansing over 60 years, whereby the concerned population increases in size…how does that work exactly???
Lysander, it is simple. Yes, Palestinians have the same rights. But in their own country. Not in one that they desire to destroy and have tried to destroy since inception.
Iran has a right to pursue scientific progress, as much right as Israel. But that right should be subject to intentions. And the leader of Iran has made his intentions clear… If you want to respond, as many do, with: Israel has nuclear weapons and is a threat to world security, then I would implore you to see that Israel has never used them, has never stated its desire to destroy another country, and has harboured its weapons as a means of ensuring its survival in a region where the country has been under attack since its creation.
You are right Tommy… Israel does do that. You know what the screwed up thing about it is…?… when those apartments are used by terrorist organisations and operatives, the IDF calls up and gives them time to evacuate. How nice. Do you think the people in southern/northern Israel civilians who are about to be blown-up in a cafe or restaurant are bestowed with the same courtesy?
Iran just kidnaps British service men, executes those who sin (including bloggers) and supports just about every international terrorist organisation around the world. Also, with their stated policy of global caliphate i find the need to tell you a lesson your father should have told you: Be careful who you sleep with pal…
Dan, "ethnic cleansing" simply refers to forced population transfer or removal. Ethnic cleansing does not require mass murder, and Palestinian fertility is irrelevant to the question of whether or not their populations have been ethnically cleansed.
David F. – you are right. I stand corrected as I put too much emphasis on mass murder. But even in population transfer, it's done a piss-poor job. From being forced under a war from surrounding countries since its existence, to put population displacement solely on the doorstep of Israel is a joke. Responsibility for the issues should be shared. But whilst we are talking about it, how about the 750,000-1,000,000 jews who were forced out of their homes in Arab countries? that's not ethnic cleansing?
Well Dan, actually Israel did a pretty good job of population transfer in 1948.
Under the UN proposed partition the Jewish-controlled territory was to consist of 499,000 Jews and 438,000 Palestinians. The Arab-controlled territory was to have 818,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews. After the first Arab-Israeli War 79% of the land was in the hands of Israel and the population was now 716,000 Jews and 92,000 Arabs. According to my math, that was a very effective job of population transfer. By the end of 1948 the number of Palestinian refugees had swollen to around 700,000.
And if you are going to bring up the 750,000-1,000,000 Jews that left the Arab countries, then you ought to present an analysis of who was forced and who left of their own free-will, and even then take note that in the background Israel was refusing to accept back any Palestinian refugees. You will find that the situation varied in each Arab country. Moreover, those countries that let Jews emigrate to Israel faced hostility from other Arab nations, as they were seen helping the demographic of the Zionist state.
Finally, you are going to have to recognize the role Israeli agents played in fomenting strife in Arab countries in order to panic the Jews into leaving. Israel had to at least partially admit to these activities – tactics which were the worst acts of terrorism – when their agents were caught in Egypt and Iraq.
If I was you, I would drop these talking points. But if you want to make the case, you better do more research.
Could you clarify your grounds for declaring the east central european Germans of 1944 "totally innocent people"?
Also, and I just curious about the number as I doubt I will get to De Zayas' book, how many civilians were killed in this revenge, and how many were ethnically cleansed, from where to where?
In the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens asks a very simple and very obvious question. Observing the fact that while some 6000 Palestinians (many if not most of them terrorists) have been killed by Israeli fire since the beginning of their Second Intifada against Israel compared with between 25,000 and 200,000 Chechen civilians (in a population about one third or one quarter the size of the Palestinians) who have been killed by the Russians during that period, he wonders why the world merely shrugs in indifference at the brutalities in Chechnya while dwelling incessantly and obsessively upon Israel. He asks:
Why, for instance, do high-profile Western writers like Portuguese Nobelist José Saramago make ‘solidarity’ pilgrimages to Ramallah, but not to the Chechen capital of Grozny?
Why do British academics organize boycotts of their Israeli counterparts, but not their Russian ones?
Why is Palestinian statehood considered a global moral imperative, but statehood for Chechnya is not?
Why does every Israeli prime minister invariably become a global pariah, when not one person in a thousand knows the name of Chechen ‘President’ Ramzan Kadyrov, a man who, by many accounts, keeps a dungeon near his house in order to personally torture his political opponents?
And why does the fact that Mr. Kadyrov is Vladimir Putin's handpicked enforcer in Chechnya not cause a shudder of revulsion as the Obama administration reaches for the ‘reset’ button with Russia?
I have a hypothesis. Maybe the world attends to Palestinian grievances but not Chechen ones for the sole reason that Palestinians are, uniquely, the perceived victims of the Jewish state. That is, when they are not being victimized by other Palestinians. Or being expelled en masse from Kuwait. Or being excluded from the labor force in Lebanon. Things you probably didn't know about, either.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/mel…..rage.thtml
Hey Bruce. I know what you are talking about. Yes, there is a difference in the pre and post 1948 numbers – thats down to the fact that a war was declared on Israel from the time of, and indeed before its independence. Unfortunately for the Arabs, the war that they declared was lost. Israel gained territory. Jordan took control of what is now known as the West Bank and Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip. There were no cries of occupation then. If you want, we can go tit for tat – the Palestinians, under "Israeli occupation", actually were brought more into modernity with regards to having electricity, fresh water, etc provided to them (something their Jordanian and Egyptian "brothers" had denied them).
And so what if I take into consideration the number who Jews left of their own free will? Whats your point? There wasn't any ethnic cleansing of the Jews at all?… You should take into consideration the responsibility of Arab states and governments for the creation of the "Palestinian refugee" issue, created out of war. You should also take into consideration those Palestinians who voluntarily left their homes and villages to allow for the invading Arab armies to come in and destroy the Jews and "throw them into the sea", only to find that things didnt really go according to plan.
FYI – Your attempt to paint me as ignorant about the subject is highly offensive as I think I have more knowledge about the subject than you. Wanna see whose is bigger?! ;-)
Dan,
I apologize if my last line was snarky. Actually, I had considered that you might be well informed, and had maybe left out a number of facts intentionally. My attempt was not to paint you as ignorant, but your argument as full of holes. And I have no problem conceding that yours is bigger if that does something for you.
Yes, the Palestinians and Arabs did declare war in 1948. They formally argued they had a legitimate right since the UN had not met its obligations under its own charter in proposing the partition and all other means of redress had been exhausted. It would be interesting to see a legal review of that claim today.
And it is true that the Palestinians and Arabs lost. Unfortunately for Israel, since the end of WW2 it has not been internationally permissible to conquer territory through war. Otherwise, Russia would look much larger on the map today and Germany much smaller. Even the #1 Super Power doesn't have the right to issue exemptions. For the next 2000 years the Palestinians will have a legal right to try and reclaim that lost territory. That's a long time to face conflict.
It's a fashionable talking point in some circles to declare that nobody talked of occupation when Jordan and Egypt seized the remaining parts of the West Bank. But it is not true. The Palestines were not at all pleased with the arrangement. And I am sure you are aware of all those secret negotiations between Jordan and Israel during the early period. (The Israelis are quite generous about opening up their archives to scholars.)
Providinig electricty and fresh water may sound good to you, but it is no basis in international law for an occupation. In fact it is the responsibility of the occupier to deliver such services. Nobody gets very far today justifying colonial rule because the natives are being brought into modernity. Even the Afrikaners didn't get away with that one.
My point was that how the Jews left the Arab countries dramatically alter the numbers you are throwing around. Numbers matter. Even the Palestinians do not insist no Jews were ethnically cleansed from some of the Arab states. They argue, if this happened, the Jews should be compensated, but that these claims do not alter their rights.
Believe me I have taken into careful consideration the responsibility of the Arab states in the refugee issue, and also all of the applicable international laws and precedents, and the fact that Israel has refused to accept the refugees back since 1948 under any conditions. I am wondering what precedents you are basing your case on. Civilians have a right to voluntarily leave a war zone, and then they had a right to return.
Civilized countries resort to compulsory arbitration when they have disputes. Why don't you convince Israel to show the Palestinians the road to modernity and resort to this method of conflict resolution. I am rather certain the Palestinians would accept.
Thanks for clarifying your real thinking.
Here's what's happening: the usefulness of holocaust guilt as a tool and justification for Israel's atrocities against Palestinians had started to run out. Iran presented a convenient secondary application for holocaust guilt.