Debra DeLee, the head of Americans for Peace Now, seen at left with President Obama, sent out a disturbing letter for the high holidays. Here’s the key excerpt:
In Israel, government minister Moshe Ya’alon used the word "virus" to describe Shalom Achshav, the Israeli Peace Now movement. These words discourage civil debate and contribute to a climate in which violence may explode.
Just this week, I was saddened and alarmed by another "Glenn Beck moment." I received, on the eve of our holiest days, an email from someone I had gone to public school with. We had also gone to Hebrew school and Sunday school together. His father had bowled with my father in the same B’nai Brith league, and his mother and my mother served together in Hadassah and the temple sisterhood. I was quite excited to see the name of someone I had not seen in many decades in my inbox. Imagine my surprise when I read the message:
"May the G-d in heaven curse the enemies of the Jewish people and Israel in APN, particularly Debbie Epstein DeLee."
How sad that someone who had shared so much of my early life could not find a civil way to share a different view with an old friend who shares a love of Israel, but who has a different view of how to ensure its survival. What terrible hatred could motivate such words and such actions?
I, for one, wished him a healthy and peaceful New Year. I then promptly made a contribution to APN in his name to remind him of the Talmud’s interpretation of a wise person.
My heart goes out to Debra DeLee. I admire her response to the asshole; and I am grateful to her for sharing this. It is part of the necessary conversation inside the Jewish community, and outside it, too, about the censorious quality of Jewish life. This is the reason that Jewish Voice for Peace started the great site Muzzlewatch: because of Jewish censoriousness. It is the reason that the Israeli government tried to shut down Breaking the Silence in July, censoriousness. It is the reason that Judge Richard Goldstone, a Jew who has supported Zionism, is now being smeared by Netanyahu himself at the U.N. as a believer in a flat-earth and a defender of terrorism– because of censoriousness.
Censoriousness is the reason that this blog left the New York Observer and is the reason that non-Zionist views have made so little headway in the Jewish mainstream. It’s the reason that Dana Milbank condemned Walt and Mearsheimer as anti-Semites in the Washington Post.
It is a problem that Jews have to deal with; and DeLee’s brave letter to a community of Jews and non-Jews shows that we are dealing with it. Yes, of course; you get two Jews in a room and you have three opinions. But what if one of the Jews isn’t in the room? He is standing outside the room. Well he has no opinion at all. Ask Spinoza, who got excommunicated. Ask Norman Finkelstein.
Michael Walzer said words I always quote on this blog about the historical Jewish achievement as a legal/religious community. At the Center for Jewish History a couple of years ago, he slamdunked Ruth Wisse’s assertion that Jews aren’t good at politics. "We sustained a national existence for 2000 years without territory, sovereignty, and without coercive power… That is an extraordinary political achievement… one that has not been studied enough, or appreciated enough." Walzer went on to say that we’ve done a lousy job of governing other people, a noble statement by a bend-over-backwards supporter of Israel; but today I’m focused on Walzer’s achievement claim, and I think it’s somewhat wrong. The idea that Jewish authorities have not possessed "coercive power" is simply wrong. Indeed, that is how we have sustained self-governance for so long. Because of Jewish law steeped in religion, the curse from God that guy brings on DeLee.
That law is the reason I will feel guilty tomorrow for not being in synagogue all day. That law is the reason I felt a tiny tiny tremor of guilt last night for eating scallops (God said, only fish with fins and scales are to be eaten; nuts). It is the reason I have a leitmotif of anguish over the best thing I ever did, found my wife, a non-Jew (and yes I work that anguish on this site to a faretheewell). Because of Jewish law and governance, that’s why.
That is coercive power. As the Jewish community wrestles with its real power in the modern world over the lives of others, not just Jews, the power to intimidate dissenters is something we must take on.
Related Posts
- Lustick: Attack on Iran would end any prayer of Israel being accepted in region
- another prayer about Jewish censoriousness, from Rabbi Rosen
- Prayer: Obama Victory With Low Jewish Vote Marginalizes Israel-Firsters
- Adelson’s ‘most important’ work is sending Jewish kids to Israel so they won’t marry non-Jews
- ‘Forward’ source rationalizes kidney scheme on basis of 500-year-ago Jewish expulsion
{ 51 comments }
“That law is the reason I will feel guilty tomorrow for not being in synagogue all day. That law is the reason I felt a tiny tiny tremor of guilt last night for eating scallops (God said, only fish with fins and scales are to be eaten; nuts). It is the reason I have a leitmotif of anguish over the best thing I ever did, found my wife, a non-Jew (and yes I work that anguish on this site to a faretheewell). Because of Jewish law and governance, that’s why”
Who’s power is so great, who’s power is so far-reaching, and who’s name is so awesome it must never be spoken, so we call it only, in hushed whispers, “Mom”.
Well, for goys, in case you don’t know, MOOSER, up until the nanny nation, the awesome name
was “Daddy.”
Too bad you weren’t raised Reform. I ate shrimp at my own Bar Mitzvah!
And bacon and eggs that morning for breakfast! Maybe that’s why I had such a hard time with my Haftorah. Ah, but could anything be better than wearing a nice suit and a Yamulke?
LOL. You obviously didn’t live on my street. Every second house had two kitchens and a van picked them up to go to synagogue on Friday nights when it was too cold to walk to temple. The kids could never come to my house for birthday parties because we didn’t keep kosher, so we snuck them all hotdogs in the lane. I remember they always brought their own mustard.
You know honestly, it’s starting to look like the biggest threat to the tenets of morality and social justice that compose Judaism, and the people who champion it, are Zionists. I am honestly a little bit astounded at how Richard Goldstone has been treated, and he put as much white wash in his report as he could and still be considered credible by the greater international community.
“I am honestly a little bit astounded at how Richard Goldstone has been treated, ”
Yeah, me too, though I shouldn’t be. Part of me is an old Chomsky reader and nothing the mainstream politicians and press do in the area of human rights surprises me–in fact, I’m more surprised when I see any signs of moral consistency.
All the same, it never stops being a shock when you see more glaring examples of hypocrisy. Hypothetically speaking, if the MSM really was in the business of reporting important news stories, the Goldstone report would be front page news not for one day, but for weeks. A very close US ally reflexively supported by almost everyone in Congress, with its crimes whitewashed by both them and by the supposedly open-minded Obama, is accused of crimes against humanity in a meticulous report headed by a pro-Israeli Zionist Jewish judge with impeccable human rights credentials. There should be stories detailing the evidence, stories about the Israeli reaction, stories about the contrast with how the human rights groups support it, stories about the Palestinian reaction, and about the contrast with how most American politicians reacted (if at all) and why.
And the result in the NYT? One front page NYT story, one Goldstone column, one stupid David Landau column, and then silence. No NYT editorial at all, not even one denouncing it. I suppose they are deathly afraid of giving the report any extended attention. The same so far from the New Yorker. They said nothing about the Gaza War while it was happening, and they say nothing about this. There is no chance, none at all, that they would have reacted this way if Hamas rocket fire had killed hundreds of Israeli civilians.
Ditto here, regarding the treatment Goldstone received. In my case, shocked, but not surprised, as I am familiar with the many ways Judaism promotes and sanctions conformity. Once it was to specific laws (which were ruthlessly enforced. Did anyone not see fiddler on the roof, or what?). nowadays, it’s to unspoken and unseen and untouchable tribal bonds. Tribes go well beyond religion – not only in the case of the Jews of course, but the jews – in which I include wanna-be Israelis – raised to a level of a living art form. That’s why that ‘circle the wagons” effect sneaks out even from unexpected corners and aims at seemingly undeserving targets. The gut-level reaction from some otherwise fine commentators on this site go to the former, goldstone to the latter.
The jewish tribe defined itself as “people” over eons and parsecs. Religion was one way to keep the bond, but only one, which may not even be the most important one. Goldstone is to be made an example of – as one who washes tribal dirty linen in public – giving aid and comfort to the enemy (ie goyim, as in “lump-them-all-together-into-one-unholy-mess goyim). As such he must be punished with cherem – near-expulsion from the tribe just as Phil said, raising the spectre of Spinoza.
Lately I’ve taken to explaining tribalism (mainly to decidedly non-tribal americans) as something more akin to a caste system than anything else. officially it is denounced. Unofficially – straying has consequences. It’s similar to a caste system in that everyone knows it and no one likes to talk about it. And in that the repercussions of straying are felt – and enforced – mostly in the social sphere, where it hurts the most. Of course, it spills into other areas, professional, political, what not.
This caste comparison is just a recent little idea of mine i’m toying with (surely am not the first to note the similarities). Helps explain why reform, conservative, totally secular and utterly insular can somehow manage to all pile on the few insiders who stray and/or the many outsiders they believe are ready to prey.
It begs the question, doesn’t it, that if Zionists can’t look at Goldstone’s report with a cold eye and vilify anyone connected with it, what is it about the Holocaust historical documents they can’t look at with a cold eye and have made it against the law to examine throughout Europe?
I tell you, the reaction to Goldstone’s report makes me think that maybe the International Red Cross reports to the court of the Nuremberg trials were accurate.
What were those reports? I know nothing about it….
This seems kind of redundant, don’t you think?
This ’struggle with my own Jewishness and reconciling it w/ the yada yada yada’ discussion? It’s boring and so stale.
Please don’t turn into Anthony Lowenstein (who I like). He does the same old ‘not in our name’ bit over and over. It’s getting so pretentious. Why can’t you just be a humanist? Why is it always framed through the lens of Jewish identity?
And how does this make you different from the Zionists? They have the same mechanism for motivation. Jewish identity. Because we are Jews we should [whatever].
I don’t mind this at all, probably because I’m a Christian. One can be motivated to support human rights for all people for all sorts of different reasons. I’m happy (thrilled is more like it) to see religious Jews opposed to Israel’s actions because it’s not in keeping with what the Old Testament prophets said, for example.
Yea? But you haven’t dealt with my point. That this same arbitrary mechanism is being used to justify their political/moral conclusions.
And then, who says that their interpretation of Judaism is correct? Then you wouldn’t argue about whether they were doing the right thing in accordance to international law/respecting basic human rights/etc. but rather whether ‘the Old Testament’ said it was ok or not.
Look at Neuterai(sp) Karta. Do you think they are good for the Palestinian cause?
There are people on both sides, who use religion to justify their politics. Why do we accept this mechanism when it’s in our favor and bash it when it isn’t?
Donald, the best reason to be opposed to Israel or its actions is because of the suffering and dispossession Israel must bring to others in order to operate. You can never go wrong with that.
The Old Testament Prophets, of course, did seem to know what they were talking about. Adultery and whoring after false gods will getcha, every time!
Everybody has some sort of ultimate commitment–if we were all secular we’d still have people arguing about what principles should be the fundamental basis of our morality. Not all secular people end up being leftwing human rights supporters. (For an extreme case of this, look at the Randians.) And yes, religious people have the same disagreements.
So why should religious people be criticized for thinking that their religion supports compassion for all and told they have to argue from supposedly universal secular principles? On pragmatic grounds, yes, when you are arguing with someone outside one’s own tradition you have to see if there are some principles you have in common as a basis for arguing and you can’t cite the Bible, but inside a community that isn’t the case. I tend to get a little antsy when politicians start using religion, because I think it’s inappropriate for them to do this, but when, for instance, Jews like mooser use the prophets to support Palestinian rights, good for him. It won’t convince non-religious people, but he might make headway with some Jews and Christians.
We criticize secular, atheists for their politics. Their politics reveals their particular moral code which they may have learned through their upbringing, their unique individual experiences, their education, etc.
But religion is one institution. One institution that people interpret in a variety of ways, and they do this not SOLEY based on the religion – obviously. They do it because the foundation of their existence is the same as the secular atheist. Their upbringing, their education or lack thereof, their unique individual experiences, etc.
Now, unless someone picks up a Torah before anything else and loses their mind or becomes Ghandi – I don’t see how religion is a legitimate channel *at all*.
You go into ‘religion’ with a foundation. Whoever put the book in your hand and made you religious when you didn’t know better (children) had his or her own interpretation already.
And again, you’re only accepting the interpretation that suits your political aims. It’s hypocritical. Why don’t we approve of that Rabbi? Or the Islamic terrorists?
There are plenty on insane things in these books. Why aren’t people following them to the letter these days? Because we have been socialized to know better. We pick and choose from religion because most of it is incompatible w/ our daily modern life.
This is about tactics to you. Not principle.
I’m not Jewish myself, but I think the big difference between the Jewish identity of people like Mr. Weiss and that of Zionists would be sincerity. I would liken it to comparing my own mother and Erik Prince. I would say my mother is a devout Catholic, but devotion and blind obedience aren’t synonyms. She actively questions practices and policies that the Catholic church engages in which she thinks need to be challenged or reformed.
Compare that to Erik Prince, of Xe (lately named Blackwater) who while I can’t verify what denomination of Christianity he is, he at least swathes himself in Catholic mystique by dredging up all that Templar imagery.
Both my mother and Erik Prince live by the principles of what they consider Catholic (or at least, Christian certainly) identity. I don’t know about you but I can see a hell of a lot of difference. And it comes down to sincerity — whether you are trying to live to a genuine ideal, or if you are trying to warp and hammer the identity to justify what you want to do.
I think of the variation as differences between the cultural inheritance people receive from their parents and elders. It can exist almost completely independently from interpretation of actual scripture, and guides both how that interpretation is applied to real-life decision making and what bits and pieces of scripture are conveniently ignored because of perhaps unconscious fear that a too-close examination will yield interpretations that would require unwanted behavior changes. I think Erik Prince relishes the role of the ‘Christian Warrior’, and anything from scripture that might cast doubt on the righteousness of killing isn’t going to be high on his list to contemplate. Obviously your mother is cut from a sturdier bolt of cloth.
“I’m not Jewish myself, but I think the big difference between the Jewish identity of people like Mr. Weiss and that of Zionists would be sincerity.”
Interesting, Philip Weiss is more sincere Jew than Zionists. Which Zionists? All of them? It’s good to know that Philip Weiss is such a of Jewish sincerity.
As I have said over and over, the Zionists seized the Jewish narrative, as there was no-one to tell them “no”, and don’t ever forget, lot’s of desperate and persecuted Jews who thought they had every reason to buy into it, and no way of knowing the conditions under which their Zionism operated.
At any rate, if Jews with questions or doubts and information about Israel seize the narrative, the Zionists are gonna have one hell of a hard time.
Yea, and Islam is a ‘religion of peace’!
What is the ‘Jewish’ narrative, Mooser? Anything that is ‘good’ right? Anything that is ‘bad’ is Zionist?
What about Islamic terrorism? Is that an oxymoron?
People pick and choose from religion. Why is one choice bad and another – ‘good’? Because the bad choices reflect poorly on everyone.
No one is willing to take responsibility for the bad actions. Doing so does not mean you are ‘guilty’ of the crimes of some Jew across the world, who – for example – sexually molests a Palestinian female minor prisoner. Or in the case of a Muslim, all the cases of Islamic terrorism.
Basically, you want to disassociate anything ‘bad’ from Judaism or Jewish identity.
Religion itself is the problem. Are you a religious Jew? Do you follow everything in the book? Doesn’t it make you a hypocrite to not do so? Where does it say you can pick and choose? And if you say there are different styles of Judaism, then obviously they can’t ALL be right can they?
What about that insane Rabbi who said it was ok to kill women/children/livestock? Who then said, this was the ‘Jewish way’ of war? Is he a Jew? Or a Zionist?
“Religion itself is the problem. ”
That’s just empirically wrong. Not all religious people are supporters of unjust violence–often quite the opposite, and not all convinced secularists are saints, not be a long shot. Secularists end up with the same kinds of conflicts that religious people have and you even have self-proclaimed liberal secular rationalists arguing for liberal secular jihads to democratize the backwards religious countries. I’m thinking, for example, of people who supported the Iraq War–an unprovoked war supported by some in the name of human rights. And the wars and genocides and massacres of the 20th century were mostly over secular ideologies. The problem comes from people who say “My set of beliefs X is correct. Those other people don’t accept it. They’re wrong. They’re irrational, or evil, or ungodly, or out of step with history or something. They have to be stopped.”
There’s probably no set of ideals which isn’t strictly pacifist which someone can’t use to justify something unjustifiable.
Anyway, I’ve seen these religion is inherently evil arguments before and having stated my opinion, I’m not going any further with it, though I’ll read your response.
“Yea, and Islam is a ‘religion of peace’!”
“What about Islamic terrorism? Is that an oxymoron?”
“Do you follow everything in the book?”
For one thing, I’m amused by the fact that if Islamic terrorists did, in fact, follow everything in the Qu’ran, they actually couldn’t be terrorists.
I would have hoped by now that it was painfully obvious to most educated, socially aware people at this point that “Islamic terrorism” is the same sort of bogeyman that was constructed around Jewish people in Europe up to the early 20th century. I continue to be amazed that it’s so easy to peddle Palestinian resistance as “Islamic terrorism” when, in fact, the Palestinian identity includes Muslims, Christians and Jews (people seem to forget that European Zionists attacked native Palestinian Jews just as aggressively, if they didn’t take up the banner)
I think people associate Palestinian identity w/ Islam because they are mostly Islamic, correct?
I am not saying the Quran or Islam is a terrorist’s religion. I’m saying the slogan:
‘Islam is a religion of peace’ is bullshit.
There are far too many wacky things in all these religions for them to be a religion of peace. People pick and choose today. They are hypocrites. They want to be secular and so they pick the passages that they like. They disassociate themselves from ‘bad [Jews/Christians/Muslims]‘ – because it reflects poorly on them.
Really? Because I think people associate Palestinian identity with Islam because they are ignorant bigots who haven’t talked to very many Palestinians.
And I should like to point out (as has perhaps been covered elsewhere by other commentors) that atheists can be just as fanatical, extremist and inhuman as any religious zealot. Stalin? Chairman Mao? Mussolini?
I used to be an atheist myself for a time, actually. (For the record, I only grudgingly believe in God for reasons which would be hard to explain and I am strictly non-denominational in every sense of the word) Seeing other vocal atheists like Bill Maher — an otherwise sensible if obnoxious guy who is quite thoroughly bigoted and racist against people from the Middle East — use their supposed ideology as a smoke screen for heinous attitudes and behaviors, I opted to distance my self from “bad” atheists.
I suppose you have a point but the problem is, you are unwilling to apply that same sharp knife to your own fanaticism.
There was a poll done fairly recently on how Palestinians identify themselves and most said as a ‘Muslim’.
And if you read the post I was replying to (YOURS!), I was responding to your point that Palestinian identity encompasses, X Y and Z religions.
There is NOTHING bigoted about what I said. The point is that people *perceive* them as mostly Islamic. This doesn’t imply that everyone does so is a bigot.
Really, you don’t even know a goddamn bigot from your elbow. You’re acting like Dershowitz. That’s his favorite word too!
Here’s the report:
http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/c25aba03f1e079db85256cf40073bfe6/04db1d2976ca606b8525758b0060480b?OpenDocument
[blockquote]More than 80 percent of young Palestinians are depressed and 47 percent identify themselves as Muslim rather than Palestinian, according to a United Nations Development Programme report presented today.
The report, based on interviews with 1,200 Palestinians over the age of 17 from the West Bank and Gaza found that 39 percent were “extremely” depressed and 42 percent were depressed by their conditions. Depression was more marked in the Gaza Strip where 55 percent said they were “extremely” depressed.
When asked to define their identity, 47 percent identified themselves as Muslims, 28 percent as Palestinians, 14 percent as humans and 10 percent as Arabs.
The survey also revealed that the majority of Palestinian youth (69 percent) believe that the use of violence as a means to resolve the conflict in not very helpful, while only 8 percent believe it is an important tool.
The survey of attitudes of Palestinian youth was part of a report, “The Mapping of Youth Organizations” commissioned by the United Nations Development Programme and presented to a workshop designed to plan a strategy for youth development for the Palestinian Authority.
Youth are exceptionally vulnerable to conflict and unemployment rates for youth range from 35 percent in the West Bank to 51 percent in Gaza. UNDP commissioned the survey to understand the needs and expectations of youth organizations, levels of intervention, gaps to be filled, and set youth policies and strategies relevant to the needs of the Palestinian society and adopted by both the public and private sectors.
The results of the survey were launched during a workshop held on March 31, 2009 at Sharek Youth Forum in Ramallah. The workshop was attended by H.E. Tahani Abu Daqqa, Minister of Youth and Sports, Mr. Jens Toyberg-Frandzen, Special Representative of the Administrator, Mr. Nasfat Khofash, President of Palestinian National Institute of NGOs, and Mr. Bader Zamareh, Executive Director of Sharek Youth Forum. Over 85 percent of the mapped organizations (540 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip) have accreditation from the Palestinian Authority, be it the Ministry of Interior (70 percent), Ministry of Youth and Sports (13 percent), Ministry of Culture (2 percent) or others.
More than half of the mapped organizations are civil society organizations and NGO’s with programmes targeting youth, while only 22 percent identified themselves as youth organizations. 41 percent out of these youth organizations have problems with funding, as opposed to 33 percent from civil society organizations.
“Young people are exceptionally vulnerable in a conflict situation. They are more likely to be injured, arrested or sucked into harmful situations,” said Jens Toyberg-Frandzen, Special Representative for UNDP’s Programme of Assistance to the Palestinian People.
“At UNDP we have always understood that you cannot develop an economy or a nation without developing its youth, particularly when the economic and political environment appears to offer limited hope. The findings of this survey will help us understand what needs to be done to make the most of young Palestinians.”[/blockquote]
SO at the very least – there is no cause for you to outright dismiss what I said. You did so reflexively. Typical response.
Atheism is not a religion. I don’t go to atheist conferences. I don’t pray to an Atheist God.
I just reject religion in general. I believe the Palestinians have a right to self-determination. I believe a Palestinian people exist. I believe that the partition was unfair and that there could only be a Jewish State because 800K Palestinians were driven out of their own land.
I don’t need a ancient comic book to tell me right from wrong.
And I don’t need to admire other atheists to give me direction. I read the history of the conflict and come to my own conclusions, which are informed by my own ‘identity’. My identity was created by my education/upbringing and unique experiences.
Religion is just another illusion of order. It’s a way for people to get direction in their life and derive meaning.
The only time someone is a bigot is when they assume that someone cannot be religious and complex. When someone assumes that religion is unique and that once you flip open a Torah or Quran or Bible you turn magically into another species of being, then they are being a bigot.
I take the opposite view. I believe religion is a man-made construction. It is a form of social organization. It is an institution. It is also obsolete and deeply flawed.
Most people select parts of religion they like. So what they are doing is following their own philosophy and incorporating some religious principles into said philosophy. These aspects that they incorporate give them a sense of identity and gives them meaning because they feel like they are a part of something ‘bigger’ than simply ‘themselves’. But they are hypocrites. They haven’t changed. They are still the same. They just picked out parts that were the only parts they would have ever picked, keeping in line w/ their own path in life and their own ‘identity’.
sorry for the ninja-edit. with i could have changed it in my OP
Americans for Peace Now are Zionists, not anti-Zionist.
The political map is of the moderate peace-seeking middle from middle-left to middle-right, and the uncompromising and overreacting right, and the uncompromising and over-reacting solidarity.
That might change right quick, Richard, if Israel and her supporters continue the “you’re either with us unconditionally or you’re not really Jews!” tack. You don’t think how Israel is treating B’Tselem, or even Rahm Emmanuel and Richard Goldstone aren’t making Jews question what Israel is really about?
Liberal Jews have been called self-hating since I was a teenager. We can stand it.
If anything, the opposite is occurring to what you fear. That is, to the extent that Obama articulates criticism of Israeli expansion, us liberal Jews have the credibility of the US government behind us to criticize policies, while not threatening the existence of the state.
Its a distinction that is sadly lost on the left, that the tone of criticism is as communicative as the content.
a phony jew, a phony christian, and a phony muslim walk into a bar. the bartender looks at them and says ‘is this a joke or something?’
a joke indeed!
phony jews are starving and killing palestinians so that they can worship their golden calf, greater israel. phony christians want to bring armageddon in the middle east to, get this, so that the prince of peace can return. phony muslims want to kill you if you don’t become a phony muslim like them.
the problem is really not religion but phonyness or lack of sincerity as you will find people of compassion in all three religions.
The term is idolatry. Zionism is a form of idolatry and the Land of Israel, as you say, is their golden calf. And idolatry has always been the primary sin against Judaism.
When “the children of Israel did what is evil in the sight of the Lord” they were whoring after false gods, after idols.
Landlust is an idolatry. Association as a people is an assertion.
Personal guilt or oblligation or whatever you want to call it are fine, but without the actual political powers exercised by internally autonomous Jewish authorities until Emancipation, most of us would have gone awol (in the sense of figuring out Jewish identity for ourselves and/or choosing to abandon it) a lot longer than two centuries ago. Over the past two centuries or so, most of us have.
I find it hard to relate to the “God said” approach, but God and his better prophets also had an awful lot to say about how one should treat one’s fellow man. On that score Phil, you are a righteous man indeed, and I would be much happier to pray with you on Yom Kippur than with the externally pure (like pigs who have only the external signs of kashrut) who allow and even encourage Israeli atrocities.
In the words of the Jewish humanist Chaim Zhitlovsky: The more you are a human being the more you are a Jew. The more you are a Jew the more you are a human being.
Shmuel, I think you and Phil constantly illustrate Zhitlovsky’s axiom. To me, this
is a very good sign. Yet, I do feel complelled to point out that no human being ever
has a choice to reject being a human being, except, arguably, by suicide. Perhaps
the adjective “humane” surgically placed adds stricter logic and converys the meaning more?
Thanks, Citizen. “Human being” here (”mentsch” in the original Yiddish – with a broader meaning than in common English usage) of course refers to the best in man – tolerance, respect, compassion, creativity, etc. Personally, I don’t like the word “humane” in this context, because it has a connotation that leans toward the element of compassion, and there is far more to “humanity” than that. In any case, you get the idea.
Chaos wrote:
Very true.
Shlomo Sand’s book is out. Anyone get it yet? My copy is awaiting me at home, which I wont see for a while.
MRW, could you elaborate on the reports you mentioned in your comment above, as requested by Danaa? I am also curious to know more about it.
The International Red Cross said at the Nuremberg trials that approx 345,000+ died in the concentration camp system. Total. I dont remember the exact number. But it was around 345,000. That was ‘people died’; this number did not distinguish religious groups, and included those who died from typhus, which was rife. This included Roma, Polish, and many nationalities, as well as religions as diverse as Catholic to Muslim, and Jewish to Buddhist.
The International Red Cross report said that approx 79,000 (74,000?) died at Auschwitz, which comports with the number that the Auschwitz Museum allowed you to peruse in their new database about four years ago, subsequent to the Russians archives discovered. Then they took it down. These were the names that came from the Soviet records, which showed up in 1989-1990 and were incorporated for a time. I spent days and days looking through them for the names of people I had been told died at Auschwitz. In many cases, I couldn’t find them. For example, Wiesel’s father was not there. So many of them were elderly and died from illness, or old age. The Auschwitz Museum documents provided English translations for a time, but you can’t find them now. They were removed in late 2007, as I recall.
The International Red Cross numbers (1945-47) comported with the Soviet records (1989-1990). You can research the Red Cross numbers at the trials via Google.
This is kind of risky ground to tread upon, but then again, truth matters. How was the IRC report put together? And how reliable and trustworthy are the Soviet records? I’m not trying to undermine what you’re saying, but it goes without saying that what you have laid out is pretty significant and it behooves one to exhaust certain possibilities before adopting it even as a hypothesis.
I’ll reply to this in good faith.
1.) At the Nuremburg trials and other trials of the immediate post-war period, many numbers were brought forward by various sources as to the number of victims of the Holocaust in total, or of various partial aspects (like a particular camp.) They generally were guesswork, some of them being much too high, others much too low. The ones you quoted from the Red Cross apparently belong in the latter category. This is not at all unreasonable – only a few months after the end of the war in Europe, which was the most devastating and chaotic in history, without having had access to the camps during the war years, and after hasty Nazi cover-up efforts. Naturally, a systematic outside evaluation of such a colossal event was impossible at this point.
In the several decades since then, a large body of well-researched historiography has emerged, based on tremendous efforts to recover the remaining historical evidence, of which there is plenty. The numbers aren’t set in stone, but the vast majority of researchers places the number of Jewish victims of the Holocaust at about 5 to 6 million.
2.) The large majority of those who died in Auschwitz-Birkenau were never registered as camp inmates. Think about it: Of course the SS didn’t bother with registering people who were to be killed right after their arrival in the camp anyway. Individual histories are thus impossible to ascertain from the records that the SS did keep (which principally included only prisoners who were selected to remain alive for working – at least for a while.)
3.) It may be possible that you were given the death toll for the camp Auschwitz I. This was a distinct part of the concentration camp system “Auschwitz” and is not identical to Auschwitz-Birkenau, the extermination camp. Auschwitz I was a “normal” concentration camp in that its purpose was primarily forced labor and not organized mass murder. Still, there was a death toll of about 70,000 among its prisoners, which coincides with the number you quoted above, so I reckoned you might have been given those numbers.
If anybody has any doubts, I can only urge you to consult one of the many comprehensive works about this topic, starting maybe with the late Raul Hilberg’s “The Destruction of the European Jews”. Go ahead and read it with a critical eye, consider its methodology and come to your own conclusions.
I, certainly, do not know enough to comment on the veracity of court docs, and I have not studied them. I remember reading a long academic study of the Nuremberg trial information, and noted the Red Cross figures, which some agreed with, others said were woefully understated. As far am I am concerned, I accepted the info in the category of ‘duly noted’.
I have no interest in Holocaust denial or its opposite. It does bother me that people go to jail for researching it or questioning the provenance of proof, as is the case in Europe. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that should be the criteria; why not let people investigate it to their heart’s content? Let’s say, hypothetically, that only 400,000 Jews were discovered to be eliminated in the camps. I still hew to the argument that Jews were persecuted for being Jews; that’s like persecuting someone for being a woman, or a cripple, or a Muslim for that matter. It is persecuting someone for the concept of their beingness, and that is wrong. The numbers are immaterial. I objected strenuously to the 1400 Gazans killed for what Tom Friedman said was a necessary lesson to teach them not to exist.
Hilberg is the best, and the number seems to fall between 5 and 6 million Jews murdered, although I disagree with his conclusion that the Nazi extermination program was unique and thus somehow incomprehensible. Unfortunately it isn’t.
One of the Israeli news sites had an op-ed by, I think, a rabbi urging Israelis to pray for forgiveness from the Palestinians they have harmed. I can’t find it now, but it think the suggestion is in the right spirit.
It is interesting that I have heard the same arguments regarding religion repeatedly, some posit the problem in the people others in the religion itself. What I do not see is how religion is used by an elite, yet it is a critical juncture of religion as it intersects with people. Mooser probably got closest to the point when he said Judaism was hijacked.
The elite posit the religion in the national context, and than proceed to commandeer whatever deity to do their bidding for whatever purpose. The tear it out of the context of a living people and put it in an external cause, whatever that might be. We have seen it from manifest destiny to redeeming the land. So that people begin to read whatever holy book or set of beliefs with their news papers.
Perhaps the best critique I have heard of religions of the theistic variety is from the indigenous population of North America. Essentially saying that you endow you’re god with human characteristics, anthropomorphism’s, so that you can justify whatever atrocities you are about to commit – get them blessed by your deity.
LOOK AT US
Imagine the old and new testaments sans all anthropomorphisms? It would be like
reading Robbe-Grillet novels.
So, anyone who uses religion for you to divest humanity and common destruction is a lie. The same goes for any secular idea that produces the same. I have news for you, you cannot pretend to embrace the fruit of reason , humanism, nor a sincere Judeo – Christian ethic and demonize human beings. these are mutually exclusive options. So people are going to have to choose between a world of rich diversity, or an unnaturally partitioned world of death, destruction and exploitation at the behest of your “wise” leaders.
What is amazing in this scenario is that the people who promote this view claim to be the heirs of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and it’s natural offspring of humanism. Many confess to be in the Judeo-Christian tradition which claims to believe that man is created in the imago dei, the image of god which claims the dictum “love your neighbor as yourself.” Yet they “officially” spread this spurious lie through an elite which deceives their people, and an ignorant mass which believes their lies.
What evil force did Kant give to the world? None or many?
Shouldn’t that message be reported to law enforcement?
Islamic terrorism is very real and directed against the people of the United States.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/25/terrorism.cases/index.html
” In the past week, U.S. officials have announced charges in five terrorism probes in five states. It is a confluence of cases unlike anything the country has seen since the September 11, 2001, attacks.”
“A federal judge on Friday ordered Afghan native Najibullah Zazi, 24, of Colorado to remain in custody. Zazi is charged with plotting to set off “weapons of mass destruction” in the United States.”
Do you ever follow up on these investigations, Julian, given that most initial reports of ‘terrorist’ activity have not resulted in criminal convictions in this country or others? Is this a case of a legitimate terrorist threat, or are we dealing with another group of mental defectives being plied with chewing gum, loose change and army boots by a government informant?
Let’s hear what some insiders think of the ‘War on Terror’:
“Mexico squandered three years on wild goose chases, hunting imaginary ‘terrorists’ who were supposed to be convening in Acapulco, sipping margaritas on a beach in Cancun, or plotting to smuggle nuclear or biological weapons from Mexico City. All paranoid nonsense from the nutcases in Bush’s administration,” Interior Minister Juan Camilo Mourino, the country’s second-most-powerful politician and head of domestic security, argued, shortly before he died in a plane crash. “And during this time, the drug cartels [in northern Mexico] organized, grew and now pose an imminent threat to Mexican civil society.”
Comments on this entry are closed.