“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’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 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.

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?

It’s the pleasure of a playground bully who knows his victim can do nothing to stop him.

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?

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.

one of the most insufferable and pompous remarks I’ve seen left on a blog.