There’s a certain irony about the title of Avraham Burg’s forthcoming book, “The Holocaust Is Over: We Must Rise from its Ashes.” Those very same words could be the motto of the State of Israel itself, given its emergence just three years after the defeat of Nazism.
Burg, however, believes that the Holocaust casts a greater shadow over Israel than God does. And that, he continues, is the key factor behind all the ills of the Jewish state.
A former speaker of the Knesset who was known for his blend of Jewish orthodoxy with peace camp politics, Burg has shifted more recently towards positions that, as David Remnick reported in a New Yorker essay last year, “are far from standard” on the Israeli left. Remnick referred to an exchange in Ha’aretz between Burg and the Israeli writer Ari Shavit, in which Shavit, frustrated by Burg’s complaint that Israel’s apparent Holocaust fixation leads to a distrust of the outside world, accused his interlocutor of being “patronizing and supercilious…You treat the Israeli Jew as a paranoid. But, as the cliché goes, some paranoids really are persecuted. On the day we are speaking, Ahmadinejad is saying that our days are numbered. He promises to eradicate us. No, he is not Hitler. But he is also not a mirage. He is a true threat. He is the real world—a world you ignore.“
If Shavit has read Burg’s latest op-ed in the LA Times, he will doubtless come to the same conclusion. Two points emerge from Burg’s piece: firstly, the claim that public discourse and policy in Israel are monopolized by the Holocaust; secondly that this collective mindset prevents Israel from being a force for justice in international relations.
The tones of Burg’s op-ed are quite moderate when compared to his conversation with Shavit in Ha’aretz. In that discussion, Burg described the Law of Return as a “mirror image of Hitler,” and said that Israel had already arrived at a “fascist debacle.” In many ways, he was repeating the views which earned him the adulation of Tony Judt, who, in his 2003 New York Review of Books piece urging a “binational” state, quoted Burg thus: “After two thousand years of struggle for survival, the reality of Israel is a colonial state, run by a corrupt clique which scorns and mocks law and civic morality.”
Fault for that lies with the Holocaust. “Of course, memory is essential to any nation’s mental health,” Burg writes in the LA Times. “The Shoah must always have an important place in the nation’s memorial mosaic. But the way things are done today - the absolute monopoly and the dominance of the Shoah on every aspect of our lives - transforms this holy memory into a ridiculous sacrilege and converts piercing pain into hollowness and kitsch. As time passes, the deeper we are stuck in our Auschwitz past, the more difficult it becomes to be free of it.”
One detects the echo of Norman Finkelstein, among others, in these lines. Israel has elevated “Shoahbusiness” into a form of statecraft. “Army generals discuss Israeli security doctrine as ‘Shoah-proof,’” says Burg. “Politicians use it as a central argument for their ethical manipulations.”
Of all the nations in the world today, comparatively few have been though a genocide. But examine those nations which have experienced genocide - some of whom, like the Cambodians and the East Timorese, have their own states, some of whom, like the Kurds and the Roma, do not - and you will find that the memory of attempted eradication is overwhelming. Even in Bangladesh, where there has been a concerted attempt to encourage identification with the Muslim ummah across national boundaries, the 1971 genocide carried out by Pakistan retains its centrality. One reason why Iraqi Kurds want to avoid a Sunni-dominated state is because they painfully recall Saddam Hussein’s brutal Anfal campaign. Is that, in Burg’s parlance, an “ethical manipulation,” or is it the standard response of a nation bent on survival?
Despite articulating global justice ambitions, these real world parallels do not seem to intrude upon Burg’s rather parochial thought process. Indeed, he mentions them only to be spiteful, as when, in the New Yorker piece, he makes the insulting claim, “We did not allow anybody else to call whatever suffering they have ‘holocaust’ or ‘genocide,’ be it Armenians, be it Kosovo, be it Darfur.” For Burg, these other genocides become sticks with which to beat Israel, rather than tools to understand that Israel’s internalization of the Holocaust is not unique, but unremarkable.
That’s because Burg, in common with a certain type of Jewish anti-Zionist outside Israel, has a problem with what my co-writer Eamonn McDonagh calls “Jews behaving normally.” Whereas other nations carry the weight of genocide in their daily deliberations, Jews are supposed to ignore it. Indeed, in suggesting a list of alternative historical experiences for Israelis to home in on, Burg does not seem to realize that three of them - the birth of Zionism, the founding of Israel, the 1967 war - would not have been possible without the Holocaust or modern antisemitism more generally.
In his introduction to the writings contained in “The Zionist Idea,” Arthur Herzberg correctly observed that “[W]hat marks modern Zionism as a fresh beginning in Jewish history is that its ultimate values derive from the general milieu. The Messiah is now identified with the dream of an age of individual liberty, national freedom, and economic and social justice - ie, with the progressive faith of the nineteenth century.”
And just as Jewish nationalism reflected the spirit of that age, so the Jewish state reflects the pressures of an international state system fundamentally based upon power, in which diplomacy and strategy bear the scars of a past without power.
Indeed, the internal arrangements of states reflect, to a great extent, the degree of conflict or cooperation with their neighbors. In that sense, one can marvel at just how democratic Israel is, instead of highlighting its democratic deficit. But that doesn’t fit with Burg. As Shavit cleverly points out, what stands out is that he ignores the real world, seemingly content to play the part of a “scourge” of the Jewish state. Anthony Julius describes this phenomenon well: “The ’scourge’ is a kind of moraliser…Moralising provides the moraliser with recognition of his own existence and confirmation of his own value. A moraliser has a good conscience and is satisfied by his own self-righteousness. He is not a self-hater; he is enfolded in self-admiration.”
Scourges do not make for good politicians, so it is not surprising that Burg’s political career has foundered; it is hard to imagine that anyone who presents the Iranian nuclear threat as a discursive construct based upon the exploitation of Holocaust fears will get very far in Israel, particularly when the rest of the world agrees that the threat is a real one. However, scourges - particularly those who target the Jewish state in the name of a higher morality - can expect a glittering career on the small-scale lecture circuit. That would seem to be Avraham Burg’s destiny.
Excellent piece, Ben.
A brief instant reply:
“In that discussion, Burg described the Law of Return as a “mirror image of Hitler,” and said that Israel had already arrived at a “fascist debacle.””
The problem here is that many, too many Israelis tend to at every find analogies between some policy they don’t like and Nazi policy. This is a long standing practice. I suspect it started with many recent survivors coming to Israel and using their recent experiences under Nazi rule as a measuring stick by which to judge all behavior.
If a policeman yelled at you for crossing the street before the light turned green then he was a Nazi. If the Israeli government gave an apartment you didn’t like than they were fascists.
One of my favorite poets Leah Goldberg had written in her diary (in the early 50’s) that some cultural debates “reminded her of debates in Germany in the early 30’s. Hence this behavior wasn’t limited to the “uneducated.”
This was understandable when survivors did it. However, when someone like Burg who is asking the Israeli government to leave the Holocaust experience behind yet indulgers in such awful comparison it is necessary to question his sincerity.
In any case, his view that the Law of Return is a “mirror image of Nazi law is patently false. Many countries in Europe and Asia have similar laws though framed differently.
What does he think did the Greek government do when Greeks were being persecuted in Turkey and other areas of the Middle East?
Would he call the law that offered them citizenship a mirror of Hitlerian law?
If Burg wants Israelis to stop seeing everything through the prism of the Holocaust he himself needs to stop using Nazi analogies.
Doesn’t Burg now live France? What stake has he in Israel or Israeli society? He left. He must learn that now he has no say. He gave that up when he left and advised every other Israeli Jew to leave.
Great piece Ben. Your quote from Anthony Julius – “Moralising provides the moraliser with recognition of his own existence and confirmation of his own value. A moraliser has a good conscience and is satisfied by his own self-righteousness. He is not a self-hater; he is enfolded in self-admiration” – could indeed have been written with Burg in mind: whenever you see him, he positively radiates self-satisfaction. No doubt he enjoys being called a “new prophet” – he is so far above us mere mortal Israelis and our petty concerns and fears.
If you are right with your assessment of Burg’s prospects as a politician remains to be seen – seems he is giving it another try: he is rumored to be part of the initiative for a new Leftist party:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1037560.html
Ben,
As always, an insightful response, albeit slightly off the mark in one important regard.
The overwhelming use of the Shoah to define various aspects of Jewish life in Israel, and outside, is deeply troubling.
With all due respect to survivors and the victims of the Holocaust (my grandfather’s entire family was brutally murdered at Babi Yar in the Ukraine), one must admit that if Judaism and Zionism were truly as successful as we claim them to be, then the use of Holocaust language would be far from necessary.
That the Shoah still is used as a “reason to be” for so many areas of Jewish living - that it still might be used as a reason de atre for Israel’s existence at this time - reflects a problematic evolution in Jewish being.
If the greatest tragedy of the Jewish people must constantly be invoked in order to stave off future tragedies, we have not grown strong as a people.
The time and place for such language to be used, especially in a Jewish context, has passed and it is an insult to the memory of the dead, and to those who lived and went on to build lives, to constantly invoke it to instill fear into our enemies and sympathy from our allies.
Israel’s strength as a military power, and as a democracy, should be fodder enough in the world of “psy-ops”.
Though I might disagree strongly with Burg on certain aspects of his policy, I tip my hat on this one. He is no Finkelstein, and it’s a shame to compare them.
MJ, I have to say that I see Israel not at all in these terms — indeed, I think it’s very much a “Yes we can”-country (that’s why I liked the JPost piece Ben linked to): one of the expressions you will encounter most often here is “yeye beseder” (however you spell that in English) — it will be OK.
It is still in living memory that 6 million Jews were killed while the world did nothing to prevent it, or even made much of an effort to offer refuge for those who managed to escape — frankly, I think it would be strange if this was sort of swept under the rug. It shouldn’t be used to kvetch, but I don’t think it is — after all, Israel is living now for years with an Iranian president who can gleefully talk of a “world without Zionism”, threaten to “wipe Israel off the map”, recite the “Protocols” in a speech to the UN — and get plenty of applause for it. Who is evoking the Holocaust?
MJ, I am closer to Petra on the issue of the use of Holocaust language than I am with your view that “one must admit that if Judaism and Zionism were truly as successful as we claim them to be, then the use of Holocaust language would be far from necessary.”
I don’t know what you have in mind, but most Jewish communities I know concentrate on the positive aspects of Jewish culture and tradition. If the Holocaust gets mentioned it’s because it’s an historical fact and not mentioning it would be seen as a kind of self censorship. Many children would take this as a sign that there was something shameful about it. That Jews were guilty of something and didn’t want to talk about it.
“The time and place for such language to be used, especially in a Jewish context, has passed and it is an insult to the memory of the dead, and to those who lived and went on to build lives, to constantly invoke it to instill fear into our enemies and sympathy from our allies. “
Addressing it as an historical phenomenon is very important and it’s the not same as using it as a reason to be Jewish or as a way to gain “sympathy from our allies.” Our allies don’t support us because they feel sorry for us. If the US didn’t also get some tangible benefits from the alliance they would have offered us lots of sympathies but little concrete support.
I doubt also that bringing up the Holocaust “instills fear in our enemies.” Ahmadinejad is not afraid of such language; he wants to emulate the Nazis.
Also military power is very important and it can do a lot to keep the Jewish State secure, but it can’t do everything. We also need soft power which includes diplomacy and the power of “hasbara” (explanations of the cause and purpose of Israeli actions).
There is also the need to keep fighting antisemitism which is an age old mental derangement which, alas, is still with us.
Petra I read the imaginary interview with Herzl.
I would like to recomment the following article by Judea Pearl which dovetails nicely with the “interview.”
“Early Zionists and Arabs”
by Judea Pearl Middle East Quarterly
Fall 2008, pp. 67-71
http://www.meforum.org/article/2001
I am too with Petra here. The Shoah is not ever-present in the discourse of the people here.
However, when you say: “If the greatest tragedy of the Jewish people must constantly be invoked in order to stave off future tragedies, we have not grown strong as a people.” you forget that, in fact, we are not so strong. We are a very very small country with a very small population compared to others. We are not strong, and we know our history.
My interpretation is that the Holocaust doesn’t sit well with the Jewish religious worldview, or more generally, with God’s existence, so Burg feels cognitive dissonance here and wants everybody to forget about the Holocaust or reduce it in proportions. It is not casual that Holocaust education among haredis was shown in a recent article to be gravely deficient, and was not conducive to understand its historical causes. Burg, as a religious person, suffers of the same historical deficiency.
Great piece Ben.
It makes one wonder what was the trigger that changed Burg from a main stream politician to a confused maverick. Just recently he announced that he is moving from the center-left Labor party to Meretz (or its new ultra left manifestation), and at the same time that he intended to vote, in Jerusalem mayoral election, for Meir Porush (ultra- orthodox and ultra right).
He has become irrelevant.
Do you think Burg’s change of career direction might have anything to do with his resounding defeat in elections for the leadership of the Labour Party, which immediately preceded it? At that time, he was attempting to position himself as a centrist potential prime minister, and spent his time pouring exagerated and slightly ludicrous praise on the various tribes which make up the Israeli socio-political mosaic. I wonder.
“My interpretation is that the Holocaust doesn’t sit well with the Jewish religious worldview, or more generally, with God’s existence, so Burg feels cognitive dissonance here and wants everybody to forget about the Holocaust or reduce it in proportions.”
This is an excellent observation, Fabian, and worth meditating on.
I would add that like the Orthodox, but for different reasons, the left too has trouble thinking about the Holocaust. While they are not usually deniers but they too have a tendency to minimize the horrific event.
While I certainly agree that Israel faces very real threats (I spent over nine years of my career assessing such situations for the Jewish community and Israel), that hasbara (yes, I know what that means) is of special import, and have a great familiarity with Israel (I have family and friends there and have ACTUALLY visited), the underlying issue here is not my presumed lack of knowledge.
The fundamental challenge is the ongoing use of the Holocaust - a very real and horrific tragedy - to connote the threats that Israel faces as a nation and on some level that Jews do as a people.
To compare, I think naively, the situation of Jews today and Israel, to the situation that European and some parts of North African Jewry faced during the second world war is obscene. The Jews of Europe were not, by any means, autonomous citizens, with a standing army, weaponry, diplomatic ties, and a state of their own.
Jews today, with their own state, army, security, diplomacy, and general prosperity (yes, there are many who live in poverty and abject conditions), do not face a similar fate. Israel’s quiet possession of nuclear weapons and its support from the U.S. is evidence enough of it’s true strength. And Israel, thankfully, and Jewish Diaspora communities, thankfully, will never again allow a slaughter to occur.
Iran continues to be a problem of truly existential proportions, and not just to Israel. If one cannot see that Ahmadenijad uses the Holocaust to stoke the embers of anger and hate, that his rhetoric is used for purposes more than fear, they are not clearly examining the situation. We do know that Iran must be stopped, somehow, from it current objectives.
Similarly, antisemitism is a scourge that seems to have no end.
But, that does not mean that Jews and Israel are defenseless in a corner waiting for the pogrom to begin. And to play up those threats – very real and palpable ones – by comparing them to the Holocaust again displays a very strange logic which paints Jews and Israel as sheep to the slaughter.
Let us, as you all suggest, celebrate the gifts of Jewish life that have very little to do with our tragedies, and ROAR with might that we will never again be a people defenseless. We have the sword and the pen – and we use it wisely.
Everything else is a tired scare tactic that paints us again as victims, attempts to keep Jews with little to no knowledge of their history and culture in line, and I believe, belies the memory of those killed in Europe and later those who stood proudly to die defending the Jewish people and the State of Israel.
MJ, I agree with much of what you said.
However, you are being unrealistic to expect people in a country that underwent a horrific historical experience not to use it as a prism from which to judge contemporary events.
All cultures and countries use language and language and images from their history both large and small to orient themselves in the world.
Here in the US we still use phrases such as “circle the wagons,” by now, a century and a half old image of the old West.
When the Iranian Mullahs threaten to annihilate the Jewish State is it surprising to you that the descendants of people who survived the Shoah would use images from the catastrophe to explain the threat they are facing?
My own concern is not with the use of Holocaust imagery and language but with its overuse in internal political and sometimes cultural disputes and squabbles. The settlers on the West bank calling the Israeli soldiers orders to dismantle their illegal settlement “Nazis” is a casein point.
I find the hurling of such epithets disquieting. It is also self defeating as the real enemies of the Jewish State pick up the same language and accuse all Israelis and sometimes all Jews of being “Nazis.”
I don’t think you can pass a law to prohibit the use of such language but a strong public discussion is in order. Hence I welcome you comments.
Fabian, I think you are making a good point WRT the problems of the religious to deal with the Holocaust. The debate here also shows another dimension: the Holocaust is after all not just something that affected the victims, but also the perpetrators, and also made people everywhere question how civilized we really are. It’s also noteworthy how often Israel’s “critics”, i.e. particularly the obsessive ones, resort to Nazi- and Holocaust comparisons when they try to make their “point”. In short, it’s simply something that remains such a difficult and controversial part of history that calls to get over it seem quite inappropriate to me.
And then it is, after all, something that still affects many people, because it’s their parents or grandparents who lived and suffered through this time.
Hans Jonas has written in 1984 about Holocaust and God:
“One cannot reconcile God’s omnipotence, goodness and comprehensibility”
“Here in the US we still use phrases such as “circle the wagons,” by now, a century and a half old image of the old West.”
This is an excellent analogy, but of course, if I was someone else I would say that by using the phrase “circle the wagons” you are only trying to silence the criticism of the United States, abusing history and engaging in several other crimes against anti-imperialism and world peace.
Shriber is right on the money - much agreed.
The ease with which such language is used among Jews is quite disheartening.
And certainly none of us would never call for anyone to “get over” the Holocaust. That would be as illogical as comparing Israel now to Poland in 1939.
Having seen the affects of the Shoah on the many-generation level, it is, without question, gruesome.
But, that too does not give trespass to the ease of use that Shoah-related analogies are made.
We can all agree that the tremors of the Holocaust will always be in the Jewish (and Israeli) soul. The question is, to what end do we reveal that pain and to what use is its lessons.
I advise celebrating our strength now, rather than constantly giving into the possibility of another slaughter.
“We can all agree that the tremors of the Holocaust will always be in the Jewish (and Israeli) soul. The question is, to what end do we reveal that pain and to what use is its lessons.”
One answer, with which I agree, was implied by a poster named “Saul” on the “Engage” website forum.
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/comment.php?id=2220
He implied a distinction between private people using such analogies, which is inevitable, and those used by public figures, or the State.
(I believe, but I am not sure, that it was Prime Minister Begin who started using such language for political purposes.)
We should insist that public figures especially politicians not use such analogies and that the State should not endorse the use of such language.
Ben: I think your characterization of Avraham Burg is utterly dishonest, not to mention your comparisons with the likes of Norman Finkelstein.
Here’s just one example of how you’ve twisted Burg’s words. You quote Burg on the Holocaust: “Politicians use it as a central argument for their ethical manipulations.”
Then you mention others who have suffered genocide and their painful memories. You then state:
“Is that, in Burg’s parlance, an “ethical manipulation,” or is it the standard response of a nation bent on survival?”
Burg never stated that we should forget the painful memory of the Holocaust, nor did he state that this memory itself is an “ethical manipulation” as you imply. To impute these claims to him in your hit piece is really pretty low.
Burg merely stated that a lot of Israeli politicians manipulate this memory to their politicial advantage. Do you dispute that?
You write well, but the standard of argumentation wouldn’t get much more than a B- in a decent Master’s program.
David
On Norman Finkelstein, I completely stand by that point. Burg describes the Law of Return as a “mirror image of Hitler” and portrays Israel as a “colonial state, run by a corrupt clique.” Finkelstein would also say these things, wouldn’t he?
You then accuse me of twisting Burg’s words. If you re-read the piece, you’ll see that I included generous quotations from his latest piece. The reason I object to his notion of an “ethical manipulation” is that, as Shavit says, he doesn’t live in the real world (although I can’t help thinking that he would be more amenable to reality had he won the Labor Party election.)
The threat which Iran represents is a genocidal one. Similarly, the one-state formula beloved of Hezbollah and Hamas - both of them brashly antisemitic organizations - is only possible through the imposition of a massive military defeat on the Israeli population. This is the world which Israel inhabits, and it is therefore entirely reasonable to invoke the Holocaust.
I was very clear that my argument on this point refers to the discourse around the defense of Israel : “…the Jewish state reflects the pressures of an international state system fundamentally based upon power, in which diplomacy and strategy bear the scars of a past without power.”
I did not get into the argument about the use of Holocaust-related language in other aspects of Israeli life - from settlements to keeping kashrut to intermarriage - because it is not relevant for my purposes here.
So don’t jump to the conclusion that I think the Holocaust can’t be cheapened by Israeli politicians in such contexts. It can - just as words like “fascism” and “slavery” can be cheapened in other contexts, or just like the word “genocide” can be cheapened by pro-Palestine advocacy groups. But it’s one thing to call some Israeli politicians stupid and irresponsible, quite something else to accuse the entire state of turning Holocaust memory into an aggrandizing strategy.
In any case, has it occurred to you that Burg himself might be manipulating the Holocaust with these arguments?
Finally, if I were you, I wouldn’t dole out lectures on argumentation, given how your comment morphs into a silly insult in the final paragraph. Everyone, including you, is welcome to contribute and debate here - it’s not too much to ask that you act like a grown-up when doing so.
David no one here is in your “master’s program” so your pompous pretense to handing out grades is a bit overstated.
You defense of Burg is also somewhat weak not to say dishonest.
“Burg merely stated that a lot of Israeli politicians manipulate this memory to their politicial advantage. Do you dispute that?”
Well, Burg didn’t “merely” say that: He said for example:
“The constant presence of the Shoah is like a buzz in my ear. In Israel, children are always, it seems, preparing for their rite-of-passage “Auschwitz trip” to Poland. Not a day passes without a mention of the Holocaust in the only newspaper I read, Haaretz. The Shoah is like a hole in the ozone layer: unseen yet present, abstract yet powerful. It’s more present in our lives than God.”
He is here indicting a whole society. He is not just talking about politicians.
Moreover, If I were like Burg a politician I would be ashamed to admit as he does that he only reads “one Israeli paper.” His view of Israeli society is compromised by a lack of well rounded view of the country he is criticizing.
Moreover his comment that:
“Israel must rethink its strict law of return (which defines Jewishness the same way Hitler did),…”
Is a comment worthy of Norman Finkelstein! I already criticized, in a previous post, Burg’s use of the Hitler analogy while asking the country to move away from thinking about the Holocaust. However inconsistency seems to be the rule for those who criticize supporters of Israel for referring to the Holocaust even in historical contexts while they arrogate to themselves the right to use the Shoah in order to attack the Jewish State.
Burg’s final comment is delusional:
“I have a vision of Israel as the driving force behind a global peace process and worldwide reconciliation and as a society guided by a deep sense of responsibility to world justice, but it’s difficult to accept this vision when we are confronted every day with the hardship and perpetual bloodshed reflected in our newspapers. My hope is for a Jewish people that insists “never again” — not only for Jewish victims but for anyone who suffers around the globe today.”
For Israel to be a peace maker it needs first to be at peace. Let Burg explain how he plans to make peace with Ahmadinejad or Hamas or Hezbollah before he starts dreaming about being “peace maker worldwide.”
Ben’s criticism it seems to me was more than fair given Burg’s grandiose and fallacious claims.
Am I alone in detecting that arguments that Israel “uses” the Holocaust in justifying itself, vastly outnumbers the actual number of such “justifcations”?
“You write well, but the standard of argumentation wouldn’t get much more than a B- in a decent Master’s program.”
one of the most insufferable and pompous remarks I’ve seen left on a blog.
Mark’s point is well made. Certainly, in internal Israeli discussions, the Holocaust is much less present than is implied in Burg’s remarks.
Well boo hoo hoo Eamonn, poor Ben was the object of “insufferable and pompous” remarks. I’d say that anyone who uses the word “insufferable” shouldn’t give lectures on pomposity. And Ben can look after himself quite well, as is evident.
As for the insult, I found the twisting of Burg’s words to be quite offensive, and not really adult. Sorry if you took such offense. And it continues.
Back to the substance. Quoting the opinion of Ari Shavit on Burg is not quite like quoting a neutral observer, as anyone who has read the David Remnick article will be well aware.
And just because Finkelstein “would say” some things with which Burg would agree (e.g. that the Holocaust is frequently manipulated for political gain - and really, who can deny this?) does not mean that Burg is like Finkelstein. I’m sorry, but this sort of argument is absolutely dishonest and manipluative. I am fond of children - does that make me similar to Adolf Hitler?
The Law of Return was meant to be a reversal, a mirror image if you like, of the way the Nazis treated and defined Jews. Stating such does not make one like Finkelstein either. Another distortion, both historical and personal!
Would Finkelstein say: “I have a vision of Israel as the driving force behind a global peace process and worldwide reconciliation and as a society guided by a deep sense of responsibility to world justice” ??? I think not. So is Burg “like” Finkelstein? Maybe he’s like Rav Kook? Shimon Peres?
As for the ethical manipulation by politicians stuff, I suppose Burg’s comments could be read either way. However, to me the implication was about self-serving Israeli politicans and not Israeli politicians trying to defend Israel to the world.
And Shriber, you try to pull the same trick as Ben, conflating Burg’s statement about “ethical manipulation” by politicians with the constant “buzz” that he detects. Both are part of a wider picture he’s painting, but nowhere does he state that this “buzz” is a PART OF any ethical manipulation, as is your implication.
I will state it again: Burg says that Israeli politicans often use the Holocaust for the purposes of ethical manipulation. He DOES NOT say, nor anywhere imply, that the dominance of the Shoah in Israel’s identity is an ethical manipulation.
He DOES NOT say, nor anywhere imply, that the dominance of the Shoah in Israel’s identity is an ethical manipulation.
David, if the above quotes aren’t good enough for you, then perhaps you might want to consult these other passages from the LA Times op-ed which I didn’t quote:
“The Shoah is woven, to varying degrees, into almost all of Israel’s political arguments; over time, we have taken the Shoah from its position of sanctity and turned it into an instrument of common and even trite politics. It represents a past that is present, maintained, monitored, heard and represented. Our dead do not rest in peace. They are busy, active, always a part of our sad lives.
…
What does the primacy of the Shoah mean in terms of our politics and policy? For one thing, it becomes virtually impossible to find a conversation carried out with reason, patience, self-control or restraint. Take Iran as an example. With regard to Iran, as with any other security matter that has potentially existential consequences, we have no thoughts at all — only instincts and trauma-driven impulses. Who has ever heard of alternative approaches to the Iranian issue, of strategic arguments underlying the passionate emotions, the old fears and violent rhetoric?
Few people in Israel are willing to try to perceive reality through a different set of conceptual lenses other than those of extermination and defensive isolation. Few are willing to try on the glasses of understanding and of hope for dialogue. Instead, the question is always: Is a second Shoah on the way?”
QED, as they say.
Also David, I didn’t take offense at what you said. You come across as someone who does not manage anger well, so I was reminding you that I expect debate here to be civil, respectful and adult. Eamonn and Shriber did the same.
Given how your last comment begins, you clearly have not absorbed these instructions. So I will say again: you are welcome to participate in our debates so long as you respect those who disagree with you. This means not descending to playground insults or needlessly pompous put-downs.
Last chance, ok?
This sounds whiny to my own ears, but at the moment it also feels true: It is beginning to feel as if there is an almost sadistic delight in this continuous move to take words & history away from pro-Israel Jews: No, you can’t use the Holocaust, but we will use it against you. We will put “Antisemitism” out of your reach and redefine Zionism. “Terrorism” is no longer available to describe what is done to you….
It’s the pleasure of a playground bully who knows his victim can do nothing to stop him.
Ben, you are still trying to pigeon-hole Burg as someone who diminishes the memory of the Holocaust, and as someone who believes that this memory is nothing more than a deliberate ethical manipulation (as opposed to a memory that some people manipulate).
I’m sorry, but this is not Burg’s claim, either in the article from which you have now quoted extensively, nor anywhere else. It is a slander, from the title onward (Does Burg say we should not remember the Holocaust or say “Never Again?” I must have missed that part!!!).
I have heard Burg speak on the topic, to an audience that included Hololcaust survivors, none of whom appeared to feel diminished or insulted. He was speaking about Israel and its political climate, and no-one took offense. He was not talking about the Holocaust or its victims.
His claim is that the extent to which the memory of the Holocaust pervades Israeli politics is not healthy for Israel and for Israeli society. It allows self-serving and corrupt politicians to use it for their own benefit. It affects Israel’s ability to function more rationally. He does not deny the validity of memory or pain, or experience.
You can disagree with him, but your attempts to tar him with the Finkelstein brush and so on are just plain wrong and pretty disgraceful.
Imagine a psychologist who is treating the traumatized victim of a violent crime, the memory of which has affected his life and his ability to function as rationally as he would like. She points out to him the extent to which the memory pervades his actions and how he is inhibited by them, including that he is sometimes manipulated by unscrupulous salesmen trying to hawk unnecessary and sometimes even dangerous items for personal security. She doesn’t tell him that he wasn’t really attacked, or that there are not more nasty people out there just waiting for an opportunity to attack him again, especially in the bad neighborhood where he lives. She tells him to be careful, but not to become a shut-in. She tells him that it’s not healthy to see himself always as a victim, as hard as that may be. She tells him that maybe it’s not a good idea to keep newpspaper clippings all over the walls of his apartment, but that this doesn’t mean he could or should try to forget what happened.
Will you tell the psychologist that she is like those who deny the existence of violent crimes, or that she is trying to belittle or diminish the experience of the crime victim? Will you condemn the psychologist, and write on the internet that the psychologist has been going around telling people that the crime victim is deliberately exaggerating and manipulating his victimhood for personal gain, or is cynically using it as a dishonest defense for everything he does? Will you write these slanders against the psychologist?
David, the upshot of your argument is that Israel behaves like the haunted victim of a violent crime whose demons tell him/her to filter everything through that experience. And Burg, you say, is the therapist.
I get the analogy. What puzzles me is that, in all the comments you’ve left, you’ve not provided one example of this behavior. You write reams of words defending Burg and engaging in ad hominem attacks on myself and others (now what I’ve written is “disgraceful,” apparently) - but it doesn’t occur to you to back up your own argument.
Show us how Israel behaves as you claim it does. If you can, examine whether there’s any substantive difference in the behavior of Israel when compared to other nations who’ve experienced genocide. Finally, explain to us why the Holocaust is not a valid reference point for assessing the Iranian threat.
The analogy is about YOUR attitude to the therapist. It’s about the structure of the argument (that’s what an analogy is, right?), not whether the facts of the matter are similar to the case of Burg and Israel.
I’m unclear on what argument you’re asking me to back up? Whether Israel behaves differently compared to other nations who have experienced genocide? Is that part of Burg’s argument? Are you suggesting that if other victims of genocide haven’t behaved differently, then there’s something wrong with Burg suggesting that it would be a good idea if his countrymen did?
I odn’t see how calling your distortions “disgraceful” is an ad hominem attack?
I am sorry, David, but your carping is getting tiresome.
“I’m unclear on what argument you’re asking me to back up?”
Try this David, any time you make a claim offer an example, ok.
For example,
You said:
“His claim is that the extent to which the memory of the Holocaust pervades Israeli politics is not healthy for Israel and for Israeli society.”
What is the extent to which “memory of Holocaust” can be brought up? How does Burg (and you arrive at the precise quanta of memory?
Next you say:
“It allows self-serving and corrupt politicians to use it for their own benefit.”
Which politicians are those and how do they benefit from bringing up the Holocaust and waving it like a bloody shirt?
“It affects Israel’s ability to function more rationally.”
In what way has Israel been functioning irrationally because of the Shoah or for any other reason?
“He does not deny the validity of memory or pain, or experience.”
If this is the case, how will Burg stop people from expressing that pain publicly and what does that do to your previous arguments?
Be specific in your replies, David.
I am troubled by the expression in many posts above of absolute black vs. white values. Admittedly some reported statements made by Avraham Burg were ill-advised and predictably caused a strong counter-reaction. However, we must be capable of calmly reflecting objectively on even the most painful issues raised in today’s rapidly changing world.
It is now over 60 years since the end of Nazism, which brought to an end the unbelievable suffering of our people mainly in Europe. Fortunately there were large numbers of survivors, not just from some of the camps, but also amongst refugees, partisans etc. Strangely, many survivors have lived longer than might have been expected after their terrible physical and psychological suffering. Fortunately, as a result of much research and great effort to establish the truth of what happened in The Nazi era, it has become a crime in certain countries to deny the holocaust. Ahmedinajad, who is recognised by many as posing an existential threat not just to Israel but world-wide, is a holocaust denier. My personal hope is that his political masters in Iran will ditch him.
Someone above wrote that because Burg was now a resident of France he no longer was qualified to comment about Israel. Sorry pal, if you can comment so can Burg. Democracy and the concept of freedom does not halt at national boundaries. Also it is sad when small-minded people overlook an individual such as Burg’s previous achievements because they now object to what Burg wishes to express now.
All of us Jews are trying to get a handle on what the holocaust means to us. This is ongoing and will blight our lives to a degree probably as long as we live. The habit of looking for antisemites under every bed does not actually help us either in the Diaspora or Israel. Even if we think that Nazis still walk free in Germany and collaborators are still to be found in e.g. Poland, from the pragmatic point of view we must adopt Ben Gurion’s policy of finding a way to normalise relations with these respective peoples.