PLAYING THE HOLOCAUST CARD....................................
New York Times, February 2, 2005:
nytimes.com
By AMI EDEN
THE 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, which was be marked by ceremonies in Poland this week, is a painful reminder of how little has been learned since the Holocaust. Most obviously, bigotry and religious and ethnic violence have not been eradicated, but seem to be sharply on the rise, from Darfur to Tikrit to Tibet.
As for the Jews, the main targets of Nazi racism, they face a very different sort of problem today, one that is partly of their own making. Jewish organizations have pursued an effective campaign to combat bigotry through a combination of protest and education, hoping to shame wrongdoers and encourage the next generation to shed old prejudices. And yet, as they look around, they see a world increasingly hostile to them and to Israel. It is time Jews recognize that the old strategies no longer work.
Jewish organizations and advocates of Israel fail to grasp that they are no longer viewed as the voice of the disenfranchised. Rather, they are seen as a global Goliath, close to the seats of power and capable of influencing policies and damaging reputations. As such, their efforts to raise the alarm increasingly appear as bullying.
The most recent example came earlier this month, after Prince Harry of Britain was photographed attending a private masquerade party in a World War II-era German uniform and Nazi armband. His appearance touched off a frenzy in the news media. The prince was called insensitive to Jewish suffering, with some suggesting that he was infected with anti-Jewish bigotry lurking in the genes of the royal family. One protester, Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, called on the prince to make amends by traveling to Poland for the Auschwitz ceremony.
This is exactly the wrong approach. By playing the Holocaust card against Harry, Jewish critics deflected attention from how Harry had insulted the memory of the millions of Britons who suffered during World War II; they also risked squandering a diminishing supply of hard-won moral capital better spent in the fight against terrorism and the rise in Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism.
The condemnations of Prince Harry were hardly a new phenomenon. In recent decades, a long list of religious, political and cultural luminaries, from Jesse Jackson to Marlon Brando to Dolly Parton, have found themselves forced to apologize for thoughtless remarks that were taken to be anti-Semitic. No doubt, some calls for contrition were justified. But the eagerness of Jewish civil-rights groups to play watchdog, and their tendency to err on the side of zealousness, leads them all too frequently to blur distinctions between real bigotry and the verbal blunders by well-meaning individuals.Take the case of Mr. Brando, who in 1996 broke into tears in a news conference as he tried to quell the uproar over his on-air comments to Larry King that "Hollywood is run by Jews" who "should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering." Lost in the brouhaha was the actor's long commitment to opposing anti-Semitism and his support of Israel, which dated back to his involvement in "A Flag Is Born," the 1946 play that served as an impassioned plea for a Jewish homeland.
In Prince Harry's case, the miscalculation is all the more egregious because it comes after a bruising year in which the bankruptcy of the old strategy has become glaringly apparent. In several recent controversies - including the debates over Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ," the role of neoconservatives in promoting the invasion of Iraq war, and the public celebration of Christmas - we have seen a new willingness, whether by borderline bigots, respected celebrities or policymakers, to express aloud ideas about Jews and Israel that until recently were taboo. The protests by anti-Semitism watchdogs did nothing but embolden these people.
This trend would only have been reinforced by the spectacle of a bullied prince roaming the grounds of a former concentration camp, doing his best to appear suitably remorseful. (Fortunately, Prince Harry decided against attending the ceremony, though a future visit to the death camp is apparently under consideration.)
For more than half a century, Auschwitz has rightly stood at the heart of virtually every moral argument put forth by spokesmen for the Jewish community, a powerful testament to the consequences of otherwise decent people remaining silent in the face of evil. Yet this legacy is in peril, threatened by an increasing reliance on raw political muscle over appeals to conscience.
As the world recalls the horrors and liberation of Auschwitz, Jewish organizations and advocates for Israel should remember that "speaking truth to power" does not work when you are seen as the powerful one.
Ami Eden is the national editor of The Forward.
New York Times, February 2, 2005:
Using, or Abusing, the Holocaust?
To the Editor:
Re "Playing the Holocaust Card" (Op-Ed, Jan. 29):
Ami Eden criticizes Jewish organizations and advocates for leveling accusations of anti-Semitism when Jews are no longer seen as weak and vulnerable, suggesting that charges of anti-Semitism are not credible when a group that is widely perceived as powerful brings them.
But historical hatred of the Jews, including that of Hitler and the Nazis, has almost always centered on their social influence and political power. Indeed, that Jewish advocates are viewed as bullies when they rightfully react to outrageous incidents like Prince Harry's donning of a Nazi uniform suggests that Jews and their advocates are not viewed as legitimate political entities, entitled to influence world opinion and to advance their cause.
Debra M. Zeifman
New York, Jan. 29, 2005
The writer is an associate professor of psychology and Jewish studies, Vassar College.
•
To the Editor:
Ami Eden doesn't make a strong enough distinction between Jews and the state of Israel, grouping the two together at points, although it is clear that being Jewish and being Israeli are not synonymous.
Criticizing the Iranian or the Pakistani government makes one no more anti-Islamic than criticizing Spain makes one anti-Catholic.
In the same way, criticizing the Israeli government does not make one anti-Jewish. Unfortunately, both anti-Semites and advocates of Israel alike seem to have a strong tendency to confuse their terms to suit their political and ideological agendas.
Sean Lee
Paris, Jan. 29, 2005
•
To the Editor:
Our reaction to Prince Harry's choice to wear a German uniform with a Nazi swastika armband was not that it was a Jewish issue. He offended all the victims of the Nazis and all who fought them, especially the British.
We suggested that he get his education not by attending the 60th anniversary commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz, but rather by staying in London and studying the World War II era at the Imperial War Museum and in Churchill's underground Cabinet War Rooms.
Prince Harry's apology should be not to England's chief rabbi but to the British people, who suffered in the blitz and who fought valiantly against the Nazi onslaught.
Prince Harry's education should begin at home.
Abraham H. Foxman
National Director
Anti-Defamation League
New York, Jan. 30, 2005
•
To the Editor:
What Ami Eden said needed saying: many of us have been made increasingly uneasy by the moral bullying and zealousness of some Jewish groups.
The prominent role of Jews in supporting the civil rights movement was based on the understanding that Jews, too, are safest in a tolerant society and thus have a shared interest in the rights of all minorities. This orientation toward tolerance and respect has been superseded by an impatient and often abusive response to dissent.
Worst, perhaps, is justifying Israel's oppression of the Palestinians on fraudulent security grounds when Israel is a nuclear power.
Miriam M. Reik
Gardiner, N.Y., Jan. 29, 2005
•
To the Editor:
I am an affiliated American Jew who is deeply concerned about Israel's fate. Too often, I am appalled by self-appointed Jewish leaders' use of the Holocaust to stifle criticisms of Israel's conduct or to use it to address thoughtless remarks made about Jews by characterizing them as anti-Semitic.
The Holocaust must not be used as a political bludgeon. It has a universal message, and concerned Jews should not be intimated but should instead speak out, as Ami Eden has, and not let the Holocaust be hijacked by our official spokesmen.
Anita Altman
New York, Jan. 30, 2005
*****************************
Playing the Holocaust Card |
