Today's Washington Post reports that a Jewish theater company in Washington allowed Elie Wiesel to put the kibosh on a play that treated his role in the Bernie Madoff scandal. Norman Finkelstein responds:
What the Washington Post left out:
Wiesel was reportedly miffed because the play portrayed him reading Shakespeare's complete works in Yiddish, whereas in fact he read them in the original Chinese. He did offer to rescind his objections in exchange for one-third of box office receipts. Negotiations are continuing.
I am not sure if people will get my Wiesel remark. It refers to his claim that he read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in Yiddish, although as I pointed out in The Holocaust Industry, The Critique of Pure Reason was never translated into Yiddish. You are too young to remember, but a huge controversy erupted with Wiesel then claiming that he had a copy of the Critique in Yiddish on his bookshelf. It was all quite comical, I must say.
The WP discreetly says he "personally lost several millions." In fact it was reported that he lost upward of $40 million, of which $15 million was invested in his foundation tax shelter. My guess is that he actually lost $45 million. Under the law you can invest 30 percent of your savings in a tax-exempt foundation. You do the math.
“Under the law you can invest 30 percent of your savings in a tax-exempt foundation.”
Must be a very recent change. I dont know anything about it. But I’ll bet Wiesel created his Foundation in the 90s, maybe late 80s.
You could put all your money into a foundation then, and you need only spend 10% a year on whatever your foundation is for. The rest is take care of , well, you. Tax free.
I know the Wiesel family, known them for decades. Every he says is a patent lie. Everything.
Now MRW, you can’t really know, I mean no one can truly know, Mr. Wiesel. It’s not as if he’s some exhibitionist, running from one microphone to the next, yammering on incessantly about his ‘life’. Really, don’t flatter yourself; you’re just not capable of that kind of insight.
Sometimes Wiesel might not by lying, if only by accident. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
marc b.,
You are right to excoriate me for what appears as hyperbole on my part, and for sloppy assertions. What I meant to say was that the family told me this. Their words, not mine.
marc b,
This guy has it right.
link to savethemales.ca
Actually MRW I was being sarcastic. Wiesel and Dershowitz both present themselves, by slightly different methods, as being otherwordly, indecipherable by mortal men. I heard Dershowitz being interviewed on the local NPR affiliate a few years back, and a caller responding to his position on Israel started his comment with the phrase, “well you think that . . .”, or words to that effect. Well, the caller never even made it to his substantive point, the presumputiousness being just too much for Allen to bear. “What I think? What I think? Well, you have absolutely no idea what I think at all.” This from a guy who publishes a book a month, and has been intreviewed hundreds of times on radio, television and in the press. Presumably anyone who has followed Dershowitz in the media would have a general idea of his positions.
33% of $45=$15. 30% of $45=$13.5.
The math is easy. This AM, WNYC fund-raising told us there was a 1 for 2 matching contribution, so if you gave $50 is was worth $90. Hmmm. pretty good. But if you gave $100, it was worth $150. The arithmetic, in anyc ase, is easy, but the LAW? The law is so hard. Take the settlements. No, really!
About the play which was cancelled:
“He was metaphorically placed in the room with this man so I could investigate moral complexities about what kind of person could commit the kind of crimes Bernard Madoff committed. . . . It enabled me to look at both ends of the moral spectrum and the points in between. And so I was very sorry to have displeased Professor Wiesel. And quite devastated by his response,” she says.
Wiesel and Madoff were placed at opposite ends of a moral spectrum? Or was Wiesel at some “point in between”? (Clarification is now unlikely.)
according to finkelstein’s math, wiesel lost a cool $45M, presumably amassed from the fees earned on his magical mystery speaking tour and other medicine show spectaculars. hypothetically speaking, if wiesel had figured out the con before it came unraveled, would he a) withdraw his funds and report Madoff to the SEC, IRS, pick an agency?; or b) assume that he (wiesel), with some soothing Madoff hand-holding, was one of the chosen few to be pulled from the inevitable collapsing house of cards, blemish-free? answer that question, and you will be able to plot wiesel’s position on the moral spectrum.
I’ve said for a long time that Norman Finkelstein’s experience and compassion are not put to their optimal use.
Both Elie Wiesel and Norman Finkelstein (and everyone that I know) have exagerated during their lives for what they understood was the greater good (or even their own good, a component of the greater good).
Those that experienced the holocaust generally concluded one of four large themes:
1. Guilt for surviving
2. Rage at the world
3. Compassion for those that experience suffering
4. Desire to forget, to numb themselves
Children of those that experienced the holocaust also have common themes, that elaborate on, reject, and/or confuse their parents’ themes.
It is a very difficult tank to grow up in, very confusing. The norm within a survivor’s family is almost on another planet from those of us that had less traumatic history.
The trauma of Palestinians’ and many others that have suffered and experienced Kafkaesque persecution and absurdity is both similar and distinct (as all persons’ and groups’ experiences are distinct).
I greatly wish that Norman’s warm heart, would be expressed universally, among all those that struggle, even for those whose political positions he opposes.
I consider a great tragedy that Norman continues to ridicule those that differ with him, on the rationale that they are in some power or influence, rather than identify with them, befriend them, and transform them with the wider/varying scope of some of his experiences and influences.
“Which side are you on?” is small, even with Phil’s suggested juxtaposition of the two photos. (He should give credit to the individual that suggested the juxtaposition in another thread.)
As one such individual, I am just happy to see the photos posted together.
I don’t think Finkelstein ridicules those “that differ with him”. I don’t recall him ridiculing Ali Abunimah though he disagrees with him about the two-state solution, or Mearshheimer, with whom he disagrees regarding the Lobby, or Raul Hilberg whose politics he disagreed with. He ridicules people who, it seems to me, merit it, and he documents why.
Speaking as someone whose father was a survivor of the Stalinist terror – my father’s father was sent to the Gulag, and his brothers and sisters either were exiled to Central Asia (a kind of giant gulag) from the Caucusus after WWII or were killed by the Communists – I can say that I know plenty of people who don’t try to cash in on their suffering and walk around sad-eyed like Wiesel. Being a victim does not make anyone a saint. Among the survivors of the Stalinist terror I’ve known old folks who were mean and grabby, and others who were generous and great-hearted. I never heard my father or his friends say that the best way to remember Stalin’s crimes is through silence or some other poetic balderdash.
I have to say, I do agree with your four-fold taxonomy of reactions, but not with your attempt to sentimentalize Finkelstein. He’s as serious as a heart attack. One can fault him for not being a “curator of his own career” (a phrase that’s been going around) but that’s hardly a sin.
He’s ridiculing Elie Wiesel here.
Its not necessary.
Elie Wiesel is a liar and an immoral extremist. Why shodl ebh not be ridiculed?
Oh that’s right, becasue you agree with him.
witty, wiesel has enthusiastically transformed himself into a commodity, and he has benefited handsomely from the sale of that commodity: the commercial embodiment of ‘holocaust suffering’. my sympathy for his personal history ends somewhere in the late 60s.
Why is it not necessary to ridicule Elie Wiesel? Hasn’t he set himself up as a moral leader? That’s been his entire business, yes? Satire is never necessary, right Richard Witty? Somehow you don’t strike me as a Spartan, Witty.
“He’s ridiculing Elie Wiesel here.
It’s not necessary. “
Ha, for once I agree with you, Witty! He doesn’t need any help from NF…
It’s certainly necessary. Like Madoff, frauds need to be exposed so they can be kept from doing more harm.
How is it “small,” Richard Witty? Please elaborate. Do you mean succinct?
Richard, Norman stood up against the many, the powerful; he’s never rationalized anything. You ask the little one who stands up against the many to exert effort to befriend and identify with such many. Such an armchair humanist you are.
Wiesel appeared to devote his whole life to holding the criminals from WWII accountable. There are far too few so committed to accountability.
Just too bad the same standards of accountability are not applied to the crimes being committed against the Palestinians
Really outrageous that the same standards are not applied to the crimes committed by Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Ledeen, and the rest of the thugs who are ultimately responsible for the hundreds of thousands dead , injured and displaced in Iraq. These thugs should either be dropped down in the middle of Baghdad and have to run for their holes in the ground like Saddam or life sentences working in Walter Reed taking care of the thousands of injured American soldiers.
I had no idea Wiesel had so much personal wealth. Is this what Norman means when he says “Holocaust Industry”
Although sure agreed with Ellie’s addition to Madoff’s prison sentence. Better that Madoff should have to clean the homes of people that he stole from
“I had no idea Wiesel had so much personal wealth. Is this what Norman means when he says “Holocaust Industry””
That’s what I’m wondering. How does a professional moralist acquire $45 million to invest with Madoff?
“… How does a professional moralist acquire $45 million to invest with Madoff?…”
He’s not a professional moralist. He’s a professional spin doctor that tries to justify every unpleasant action of the Israeli government and its minions. A professional moralist would not ignore or even attempt to deny that millions of non-Jews have suffered mass murder and/or genocide… Wiesel only cares about Jewish suffering, and hence is a moral particularist.
What’s wrong with Elie Wiesel? Plenty…
Elie Wiesel recently posted an “Open Letter” and got a number of Nobel Prize winners to sign it, that moves ever closer to openly calling for war with Iran.
You can find the text of the letter here
link to eliewieselfoundation.org
Here’s an excerpt:
IN THE NAME OF CONSCIENCE AND HONOR, WE APPEAL TO THE LEADERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO DO WHAT IS NEEDED TO HELP THESE COURAGEOUS FIGHTERS WHO RISK THEIR LIVES STANDING UP TO THEIR GOVERNMENT’S IMMORAL, INHUMAN AND ILLEGAL OFFICIAL POLICY.
More forceful and unequivocal condemnations of Tehran’s repulsive practices must be heard from Washington and Paris, Moscow, London and Berlin, the Security Council and important NGO’s. Harsher sanctions must be imposed. And yes, concrete measures must be taken to protect this new nation of dissidents, so that their sacrifice is not – and will not – be in vain.
Wiesel is targeting the government of Iran. Calling for “Harsher sanctions” is a prelude to war.
Question: Did Wiesel ever issue an appeal “In the name of conscience and honor, to leaders of the international community to do what is needed to help the courageous fighters who risked their lives standing up to ISRAEL’S immoral, inhuman, and illegal official policy of racism and war”?
Answer: of course not. Elie Wiesel is a big hawk. He supported Israel’s massacre of 1400 people in Gaza. Wiesel is a big hypocrite.
Wiesel got his start in the late 1940′s as a member of the Menachem Begin’s Irgun. Wiesel was a propagandist. And he still is.
And Richard Witty defends Wiesel by saying it’s not “necessary” to ridicule Wiesel, while taking a potshot against Finklestein for not identifying with the Jewish power establishment. Why is it not necessary to ridicule Wiesel, but necessary to ridicule Finklestein, Witty?
The Holocaust is a commodity to both Wiesel and the jewish power establishment. Both lost lots of money via Madoff, who was an equal monetary opportunist. How much money did Finklestein lose via Madoff? How wealthy has he become by bashing the Holocaust Industry?
Norman is not served by your passively laudatory comments.
His work now serves a couple roles. One is for the content that he presents, for the argument that he offers. If his argument is only gadfly-ish, then it cannot serve as a basis for a policy, but only as an exception to note in a political or policy position.
The second role that he fills currently, is as mentor.
And, again, if he mentors to get intelligent people only to the point of “I object”, and not to “I propose coherently and reliably” or “I inspire”, then he has done half a job, half a truth.
Witty you are quite wrong about Finkelstein. He saves his ridicule for the obvious clowns like Dershy baby and Wiesel. I have heard him give two lectures and read a number of his pieces — he is generally quite respectful for others, even Zionists and rightwing scholars. He shows Wiesel all of the respect that he deserves.
I’ve seen Norman once in face to face, a dozen times filmed, a few times recorded, and in personal correspondence.
I think there were three occassions of those in which I remember he didn’t ridicule those that he was dialoging with.
And, Elie Wiesel deserves a great deal of respect for his description of the inner life of his and other holocaust survivors. Differing with someone’s views is DIFFERENT than ridicule.
“Differing with someone’s views is DIFFERENT than ridicule.”
Good thing you capitalized there–otherwise we might have missed the point.
Wiesel is ridiculed because he is a noxious denier of Israeli atrocities, while posturing as a moral guru. There’s nothing sacred about “someone’s views” if the views are stupid or immoral or both.
He’s respected because he suffered, and articulated the approach of sensitivity in response.
I like individuals that I sense their heart. I find it very difficult to trust those that present ideology or political analysis only.
I thought “instincts were for reptiles,” Mr. Wittypocrisy.
Well you may sense his heart but I got whiff of his soul — and it smelled off charlaton.
Inded Witty, your post is nothing more than a thinly veiled admission that when it cones to Israel, you’d rather believe the pto Israeli propaganda than consider the facts.
Of course, we already knew this and have seen countles examples of such a psychosis. It pretty much explains why suduing with you would be a excercise in futility. When topics you are uncomfortable with arise, your trbalidm will simply rake over and prevent you from being logical.
It means that I’d rather respect people than ridicule them.
Witty you are easily pleased with yourself.
Israeli propagadists you always have time for Witty, like Shamirfor example.
Some people – hypocrites, for example – are not worthy of respect.
“I’ve seen Norman once in face to face”
That’s “Professor Finkelstein”, to you.
“I think there were three occassions of those in which I remember he didn’t ridicule those that he was dialoging with.”
Ridicule is an appropriate response to people making ridiculous claims and accusations.
As I’ve said (and you have too), Weisel doesn’t need Mr. Finkelstein’s help in ridiculing himself, he does fine by himself. The “Yiddish” Critique of Pure Reason story is ample evidence of not only ridiculousness, but of outright lying. Sanctimonious calls for sanctions against Iran?
What exactly is there to defend? Is he the only person to have suffered because of the Holocaust? Find some real heroes, like Victor Frankl, or Raoul Hillberg.
“I like individuals that I sense their heart. I find it very difficult to trust those that present ideology or political analysis only.”
Yeah, that’s nice, except when you find that they are sentimental hypocrites and unfortunately Wiesel is. Here is a man who has suffered greatly and has made it his life’s work to talk about the Holocaust. Unfortunately he then turns right around and recites some of the worst lies anyone has told about the origins of the I/P conflict. There’s nothing about human nature that would suggest that great suffering necessarily ennobles people. I suspect that in some of the cases where it seems to do so the person was a mensch to begin with. Wiesel regrettably, is a moral tribalist.
Why don’t you be a little more specific, than to just name-call.
I regard tribalism as a good in ways as well, if it is part of a more ecological view that include more detailed scale for loyalty (individual, family), and broader scale.
I’m not sure that you’ve distinguished the preference for Finkelstein’s “serious as a heart attack” for Wiesel’s large but still limited scope of compassion.
The appealing element of Finkelstein’s argument is that it does seem rooted in compassion, and not only in particular ideology. His ideological expression has changed over years.
I don’t like his extreme negativity and his willingness to ridicule other real human beings, well-meaning, and well-acting human beings.
I also dislike the intensity of judgementalism which strikes me in ways as “whose life is worthy vs unworthy”, with politics as the basis of judgements (changing politics). I believe that acceptance and need are more compelling bases of conclusions.
Some conclusions may end up similar. I’ve spoken at length with many Israel/’Palestine peace activists that are frustrated beyond their range of confusion, that have given up on persuasion as means of social change.
They’ve given up on Israelis and they’ve given up on Palestinian solidarity.
A tough place for a progressive.
“Why don’t you be a little more specific, than to just name-call.”
I’ve been specific–I’ve linked to the NYT piece he wrote some years ago a couple times now where he denies the Nakba and repeats the lie that the Palestinians fled simply because their leaders told them to. You’ve looked right at that article and seen nothing objectionable. Now you pretend forgetfulness.
This is why you get no respect around here and why nobody wants to “study” with you. Something has to be repeated countless times with you and if you don’t want to hear it, you won’t.
Finkelstein’s personal style is sometimes objectionable to me, but the attacks on him are much worse than any of his sins. It’s conceivable that he puts a few people off with his sarcasm. For the most part, though, anyone put off from listening to him because of that needs to grow up.
And since you’re a regular at “Realistic Dove”, you should have read this–
link to realisticdove.org
So why pretend to be ignorant of Wiesel’s behavior on the I/P issue?
I still respect the man. Respecting the man does not compel me to adopt every word that he says.
Norman and you are different than that. In the name of universal humanism, you dismiss and deny the man.
It doesn’t strike me as consistent or mature political approach. It strikes me as habit, strictly a personal failing to demean another, to ridicule another in that way.
And, the more important consequence, is relative to Finkelstein’s primary political roles, as I outlined.
1. Content – To the extent that he adopts maliciousness in his language, his relationships, its very difficult to identify with, to rely on, even to investigate further.
2. Mentorship – To the extent that what he teaches activists is to ridicule and demean, he teaches bad and inneffective character.
“It doesn’t strike me as consistent or mature political approach”
You’re adopting Weazel tactics. What’s politics got to do with anything. All we are concerned about is what is true. Politics are nothing mire than a filter where facts are undemoned and hidden.
“So why pretend to be ignorant of Wiesel’s behavior on the I/P issue?”
He’s not ignorant Donald, Witty’s simply trying to mask the fact that he’s on the same page as Wiesel. His beliefs are the same when it comes to the belief in the uniqueness of Jewish suffering, while dismissing the suffering of the Palesrinians as necessary.
Did you notice how he respects Wiesel’s compassion, which is exclusive to the Israeli side of the conflict?
Finkelstein’s tendency to ridicule is excessive, but far preferable to Wiesel’s sickening dishonesty. Whatever his merits might be as a writer on the Holocaust (and I’ve read other Jewish commenters who seem less than enamored with him), he is absolutely horrible on Israel/Palestinian issues. And as someone constantly held up as some sort of saint, he sets a truly appalling example.
But naturally, the fact that Norman is sarcastic towards those who excuse Israeli war crimes makes him much worse in your eyes.
“Did you notice how he respects Wiesel’s compassion, which is exclusive to the Israeli side of the conflict?”
Pretty much. What Wiesel does is something I’ve often seen done–he claims compassion for the Palestinians and then puts all the blame on their suffering on their leaders. It’s “shooting and crying” in its purest form.
“What Wiesel does is something I’ve often seen done–he claims compassion for the Palestinians and then puts all the blame on their suffering on their leaders”‘
Little wonder that Witty consideres him his mentor.
The mention of Wiesel’s veracity brings some interesting questions to mind. I attended a talk by the administrator in charge of our campus library system, and she told about how she in a previous post had been scolded by patrons for putting books on paranormal, or the occult in te fiction section or the Holocaust in the non-fiction section. She said she placed them according to whatever consensus had been reached regarding any particular title. If I remember correctly, Wiesel’s “Night” was originally released as a memoir of sorts, but when translations made passages such as “geysers of blood” coming from the mass graves more widely known, it was “repackaged” as a novel. Had his book publishers maintain that the account was history, would he have run afoul of the laws about Holocaust denial (for either rejecting or maintaining the claim of geysers of blood), or would others be liable for Holocaust denial charges for either rejecting or agreeing with that same assertion depending on how the book was classified??