Habakkuk on the cult of the Shoah.

In response to comments made by Babak Makkinejad in the discussion of my post on the future of the Israeli lobby, I recalled earlier observations he had made on this blog about the central role played by a kind of secular cult of the Holocaust in the post-war West.  Responding, he suggested that the implication was that this cult was superior to Islam.  So not only were powerful Christian states – 'this time in their post-Christian pretension phase' – once again confronting Muslim sentiment, and indeed Islam, on the question of the political disposition of Palestine:  the issue was once again becoming 'one inspired by religious sentiment on all sides.'

And this, he went on to argue, was a costly policy for the Western powers, 'as in essence, it tells Muslims that they are an inferior people whose concerns in regards to Palestine are irrelevant to the Euro-Atlantic states.'

I would stress that I was not, in the comments to which Babak Makkinejad was responding, making a personal judgement on the objective value of the cult of the Shoah – and certainly not suggesting it should be seen as superior to Islam, or expressing contempt for the religion of Muslims.  On the question of the wisdom, or lack of it, of creating this impression, I would not disagree with him.  It seems to me quite evidently the case that the policies pursued by Israel, and also by the United States and to a somewhat but not so far greatly lesser extent the major European states, are such as to make very many Muslims feel they are seen as inferior people professing a contemptible religion. 

And that this is not a very clever thing for Americans and Europeans to do seems to be clear. It is yet another unfortunate manifestation of the widespread inability of contemporary Western elites to grasp how important a motivator religious and quasi-religious beliefs are for most people – and indeed, very frequently, for themselves.

It is also in my view peculiarly stupid for Israelis to believe that their current superiority in power means that they can prudently treat Muslim sentiment with contempt.  And this, I think, reflects an inability to grasp that a short-term preponderance of power, however great, is something quite different from a strategic position sustainable over the long term.

In fact, once you have ruled out the possibility that the conflict over Palestine is susceptible of the kind of compromise which is possible between adversaries in a bitter conflict, who, even if they are not about to begin trusting one other, are capable of some kind of mutual understanding and respect, the future for Israel looks bleak.  That the progressive colonisation of the West Bank over the years since the 1993 Oslo Accords has made such a compromise increasingly unlikely has become very evident.  By making any peace deal conditional on a Palestinian recognition of Israel as 'the nation state of the Jewish people', Netanyahu has now made it clear, to anyone not obdurately determined to bury his or her head in the sand, that he is not seriously interested in seeking peace.

As Haaretz commented, by declaring the conflict insoluble, Netanyahu 'is dooming Israel to live eternally by the sword, leaving no opening for reconciliation and understanding with the Palestinians and the Arab and Muslim world.' But the notion of an Israel doomed to conflict without end as 'the nation state of the Jewish people' contains an obvious contradiction. Fundamental to Zionism was the notion that Israel would provide a safe refuge for Jews threatened by Gentile persecution. However while Jews motivated by religious and ethno-nationalist fervour may have good reasons to live in Israel, the notion that a Jew is safer in Jerusalem than, say, in New York, London, or indeed Berlin has for a long time seemed questionable, to put it mildly.  

(And indeed, if one took seriously the apocalyptic presentation of the threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran presented by Netanyahu – and Jeffrey Goldberg – a Jew taking his family from New York to Jerusalem in 2011 would appear almost as incautious as one taking his family from New York to Warsaw would have been in 1933.)

Degenerative dynamics.

Absent any possibility of a durable peace, the whole notion of Israel as refuge becomes simply ludicrous. So the natural corollary of Netanyahu's brand of Zionism is a progressive acceleration of the already very visible degenerative dynamics, whereby Jews concerned for the safety and well-being of themselves and their children seek refuge in the West, or acquire second passports from Western countries to give them the option of doing this, should the situation in Palestine further deteriorate. 

And these are things which the highly educated and technologically sophisticated elites on which the long-term prospects of the country depend can very easily do.  Taken together with the much higher birthrates of the ultra-orthodox, this means that over time Israel is likely to continue to become less and less representative of Jews as a whole, and more and more dominated by the religious and ethno-nationalist fanatics among them. 

What further follows is that the religious dimension of the conflict over Palestine which Babak Makkinejad highlighted is likely to continue to increase in salience. And as this happens, Israel will indeed come to be seen more and more as a major strategic liability by those in Western capitals who can see the acute dangers involved in becoming entangled in a religious conflict, or 'clash of civilisations'.

Moreover, as Israel develops in these directions, the cult of the Shoah comes under strain.  Accordingly, the question of the nature of this cult becomes very relevant – which does indeed bring up the question I was not dealing with in my earlier comments, as to how it should be evaluated. Here, I think a great deal hangs upon what specifically is taken to be involved in this cult, and what it is being used to do.

With the Jewish refugees from the various disasters of continental European history who ended up in my own country, Britain, through various routes, in the course of the last century, what is striking is how little they had in common. Beyond a common origin, and a certain position of marginality in the societies from which they came – which itself differed enormously in extent and nature – nothing united European Jews prior to the Holocaust:  certainly not a common religion or culture, and still less an identification with a 'national homeland' in Palestine.

Among German Jewish refugees, moreover, many had identified strongly with Germany and German culture, so much so that identification with any specifically Jewish culture had commonly become residual if not indeed non-existent. The Jew who most influenced me when young, who made it here shortly before the war after six weeks in Buchenwald, was an agnostic whose grandparents had converted to Lutheranism, and whose father – as I learnt after his death – had distinguished himself in the Imperial German Army in the First World War.

A paradigm of evil.

So anti-Semitism of the Nazi kind, as also that of the Frenchmen who condemned Dreyfus, and their analogues in the United States and Britain, has always seemed to me something distinct alike from religious intolerance and from the antipathy which people of one culture often feel for those of an alien culture, and far worse than either. And in this sense, that the treatment of the Jews by National Socialist Germany should be regarded as a paradigm of evil, and of a kind of tribalism which none of us in the modern world should or indeed can afford to indulge, has seemed to me wholly appropriate and continues to seem so.

It is hardly surprising that Zionists have made political use of the sense among Gentiles that some element of generalised guilt for the Shoah ought to be born not only by those in the Christian West who were involved in it, facilitated it, or failed to try to stop it – but by Christian civilisation as a whole.  And it was of course the greatly respected Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban – hardly a fanatic – who said that 'one of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all.'

However, the taboo against anti-Semitism has come to be used to stifle criticism of any actions of Israeli governments, however brutal, and also however self-defeating. And this practice of exploiting the cult of the Shoah to censor views which are in no sense anti-Semitic in the sense I have defined is both morally indefensible, and also, once again, self-defeating.  The issue was addressed frontally by the veteran Jewish Labour MP Sir Gerald Kaufman – who as he noted had campaigned for peace with Eban on many platforms – in the House of Commons, at the time of the Israeli attack on Gaza. Guilt among gentiles, Kaufman pointed out, was being cynically exploited:

My parents came to Britain as refugees from Poland. Most of their families were subsequently murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust. My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town of Staszow. A German soldier shot her dead in her bed.

My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The current Israeli Government ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt among Gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians. The implication is that Jewish lives are precious, but the lives of Palestinians do not count."

In saying this, I have no doubt that Sir Gerald was expressing what he thinks. However, I also suspect that he may have been attempting, as it were, to lance a boil.

It is of the nature of cults that opinions which run counter to them – which are taboo – are not expressed. Contrary to what some Zionists appear to believe, lurking behind the taboo one does not find a massive lurking groundswell of anti-Semitism, in the sense I earlier defined it, among Gentiles in Britain: and I would have thought that the same goes for the United States.

What is however I think is present is a growing resentment at what is felt to be an improper exploitation of the taboo against anti-Semitism – and I suspect that awareness of this may have been one reason why Sir Gerald, as a Jew, wanted to point to the cynicism involved.

A facile equation.

The effect of the abuse of the taboo against anti-Semitism to counter criticism of Israel must necessarily, over time, be to weaken the force of the taboo.  And indeed, this is patently already happening.  Moreover the facile equation of criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism has another very unfortunate consequence. In suggesting that anti-Zionism could be equated with anti-Semitism, Eban was not simply being manipulative.  He was articulating a classic Zionist belief that the true and authentic Jew was the Jew who had moved to the 'national home of the Jewish people', and in so doing put the world of the ghetto decisively behind him, or her.

But to suggest that the true Jew is the inhabitant of the 'national home', obviously, increase the likelihood that how Israelis behave shapes the image of the Jew.  It is one thing to do this when the image in question is that of Abba Eban:  quite another when it is that of a rabid – and thuggish – ethno-nationalist like Binyamin Netanyahu.  And this, again, is a problem which threatens to get much worse, as the balance of Israeli society shifts in favour of ethno-nationalist and religious extremists.

And once again, one cames back to the hole into which Netanyahu has been busily digging himself and Israel.  If there is no prospect of peace, and prudential considerations are increasingly likely to impel Jews to seek safety elsewhere, the belief that a revival of virulent anti-Semitism is an ever-present possibility in the United States and Western Europe is liable to become one that it is dangerous for Israelis to abandon. 

Suspicion of the world that lies to the East is now so great, that absent suspicion of the world that lies to the West, the lure of that West may be too great.  But suspicion of peoples on whose support you ultimately rely – in particular of American Gentiles – also has its dangers. 

Moreover, such suspicion is decidedly problematic, for Jews who enjoy, or aspire to, full membership in the elites of the United States, as also of Western Europe -- and above all, for those who are intimately involved in, or aspire to be intimately involved in, shaping the foreign policies of these countries. It may be difficult to remain acceptable, in the longer term, as leaders, if the people you are leading come to feel not only that you are loyal to a country other than their own, but that you suspect them of harbouring, deep down, a kind of dormant virus of hatred against you only waiting to be activated.

David Habakkuk

 

Comments

[William R. Cumming]

So there is NO cause and effect? No excuse or no reason based on either the Holocaust
or Israel for Islamic rage at the WEST? Help me understand!

Why so little impact of the PAGAN (Greek) philosophes on ISLAM? What threatens human existence more--faith or reason?

If the WEST becomes Christendom will Jews survive?
Why do none of these WESTERN religions denounce violence?

[FB Ali]

Babak Makkinejad may genuinely think that the cult of the Shoah directly confronts and demeans the religion of Islam, and the conflict is 'one inspired by religious sentiment on all sides.' It is possible that there may be religious elements in Iran who think the same way. However, I greatly doubt that this is true for the vast majority of Muslims.

For the bulk of Muslims everywhere the Palestine issue is one of Israelis uprooting Palestinians (most, but not all, of whom are Muslims) from their ancestral lands and taking it over. And, later, establishing an oppressive rule over them, in which they have been attacked, killed, and brutalized. Why this hurts Muslims is not because of religion per se, but because of the deeply ingrained feeling of all Muslims everywhere of being part of one people, the ‘ummah’.

I would suggest that painting this as a ‘clash of religions’ issue is a red herring, and seriously misleading.

[Patrick Lang]

WRC

Jews survived when it WAS "Christendom."

Classical Islam WAS heavily influenced in its first two centuries by Hellenistic philosophy, but in the time of the Caliph al-mutawakkil, the struggle between something like rationalism in religion and pietism rooted nearly exclusively in scripture was decided in favor of the pietists. This dominance has existed ever since in Sunni Islam. A somewhat different situation has existed in Shiism and among the Ibadhis but i leave that to someone else to explain or to denounce my explanation. pl

[Matthew]

David Habakkuk & F.B. Ali:

As someone with a partial dog in the I-P conflict (my wife has family living in Palestine), I think the tone of the debate matters. And the USG is tone death.

Every Israeli sensitivity is addressed solemnly. Every Palestinian demand is met with annoyance.

Please recall that Condi Rice browbeat the Palestinians to accept the Road Map "as is," but offered not a batsqueak of protest when the Israelis filed 14 reservations.

The insult I can handle. The stupidity of making it unintentially, I cannot.

[Roy G]

Excellent analysis, Mr. Habbakuk. The shoah seems to be a schismatic event for the Jews, with one side moving towards humanity, and the other intent on dominance. It seems the latter want all Jews to be considered one bloc, and that bloc must be loyal to the Zionist State of Israel. There have been many instances of Jews, Holocaust survivors as well, being pilloried in the worst ways for daring to question the actions of the Zionists. This will be put further to the test very soon, as many Jewish Americans will be on the relief flotilla heading to Gaza.

While the story of Islamic salafism has gotten much play, the same virulent strain of extremism has been busy breeding within the Jewish population as well.

[Patrick Lang]

Roy G

I am probably wrong but I thought that Teddy Kollek was an example of what was really needed. I told him that. Perhaps I am a fool and there would have been nothing but a mocking and cynical response from the Palestinians pl

[LeaNder]

"It is hardly surprising that Zionists have made political use of the sense among Gentiles that some element of generalised guilt for the Shoah ought to be born not only by those in the Christian West who were involved in it, facilitated it, or failed to try to stop it – but by Christian civilisation as a whole."

Civilisation as a whole:
I've been looking into theology and theologians during the Nazi reign, their weak attempts to resist the Nazi takeover--Gleichschaltung--of the churches ... their post Holocaust theology.

In this context I read a very interesting article by Katharina von Kellenbach:
http://faculty.smcm.edu/kvonkellenbach/

She must have had a chance to look at archival matters in the States, I'd love to take a closer look at too. Prominent German theologians implored the US authorities not to persecute the "poor Germans" to strongly, set them go free ... They added to their already already rather long letter, with many biblical citations, hundreds of petitions. they couldn't check them each, of course, they added.

I can imagine a closer check would have taken time, or been difficult, evidence might have been destroyed, sometimes deliberately or missing for other reasons... and yes the obvious chaos all around.

Although the Americans initially seemed to deal well with punishing the guilty, initially, far better than e.g. the French, their mission was successful.

The main point von Kellenbach makes--and it is very inspiring--if the guilty are not punished, than the people have to bear the guilt collectively. Not that I haven't had these thoughts before but she puts it really simply.

***************************
"My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza."

Yes, that's at the core of "my Holocaust religion". To put it very cynically: the misuse of the victims for the collective advantage. It wouldn't work without a nationalist ideology.

That's why the simplistic merging of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is very, very dangerous. I don't think one has to be a member of the ‘ummah’ to understand that. It's enough to be simply human.

[Patrick Lang]

LeaNder

We americans did not kill the Jews. We accepted them... pl

[Roy G]

Col. Lang, I would tend to agree with you, but it seems like he would never have been allowed to do as he wished.

[J]

One cannot mention Shoa and not mention Nakba in the same breath (if they have any ounce of humanity in them), useless murder is just that -- useless cold-blooded murder. The events that lead to the Shoa was -- useless cold-blooded murder. Today the Palestinian Nakba is being perpetrated by the surviving progeny of the Shoa, which makes the Heavens weep. Modern day Zionist Israel has become the 21 Century's WWII cruelty hold-over.

The late Rav Yolesh was right, Zionist Israel needs to be dismantled and left to the Divine Hand to create. Cold-blooded senseless murder cannot be justified.

[Lysander]

Speaking for myself, there is a certain annoyance among Muslims in how the Holocaust is discussed. Here we have a crime that occurred in Europe, committed by Europeans, against Europeans. And yet, to read the news today, one would get the impression that Iran is the guilty party. Angela Merkel especially misses no opportunity to transfer German guilt elsewhere.

Also, the argumentum ad Hitlerum thing is growing old. Over the last 60 years, Nasser was Hitler, then Sadat, then Arafat, then Saddam, now Ahmadinejad. By now I've grown quite jaded, and I bet I'm not alone.

It may seem cruel or callous to say this, but it's high time the Muslim world spoke with one loud voice and said that the Holocaust is Europe's burden to bear. They may say to themselves, it was a horrible example of inhumanity, but we are now moving on. Or they may continue to obsess about it. But either way, leave the Muslim world out of it. We have our own burdens to bear.

[Cal]

Someone help me out here.

I am an American gentile and feel absolutely no guilt regarding the Jews
history or the holocaust.
Nor do I see that "the world' in general was somehow responsible for Hitler's holocaust.

What happened to the Jews was deplorable, but so was 20 million Russian civilians dying in WWII.

I would also say that the now third generation of Germans don't need to keep paying for the sins of a prior generation.

Really, it's past time to put an end to this myth and meme of the world being eternally responsible for the condition of Jews or that the world owns them because they were on the losing side of the constant and various tribal and societal and religious competitions all tribes and groups were involved in throughout history.

It's nonsense. Time to put it to bed.

[Cal]

I would suggest that painting this as a ‘clash of religions’ issue is a red herring, and seriously misleading.

Posted by: FB Ali | 22 June 2011 at 04:00 PM
>>>>>>

Of course it is. Judaism has next to nothing to do with the Zionist cult of Israel.

[William R. Cumming]

Thanks PL!

[LeaNder]

sorry, for the bad proofreading.

Pat, I know. What I wrote wasn't about the Americans, what I wrote was about the Germans and their foreign helpers. ... But you won't deny that without Hitler and the Nazis there wouldn't be Israel today. Would you? German demands may have met with US cold war plans. Just as the Russian arch enemy provided a basis for continuity in Germany. I do not need to repeat that Germans are indebted to Americans, do I? But that was rather controversial in post-war Germany.

I am pondering about the ultimate future scenario my favorite "Hasbara",

http://mondoweiss.net/profile/richard-witty

once suggested, pointing to the breakup of the USSR and it's zone of influence: the future lies in ethnic states. Welcome to a: Brave "New" World. He didn't explain to us, how this could work in the US, were he lives, or over here in Europe . ... Or should the split up only occur in the region, to create a more level playing field? And why shouldn't that have the same result as European rivalry over the centuries? How exactly is the pan-Islam-threat-scenario, something that frequently surfaces in his comments, dialectically related to the "new Arab antisemitism"?

Others from his camp point to "Jewish DNA" that proves "the Jews" are a people with the right to self-govern. Another curious idea. My rights, it feels, to self-govern end, were other's rights start.

I am deeply puzzled, it may not be about governing the world, but the DNA part of the larger puzzle feels ideologically similar to good old racism.

[Fred]

WRC said:

"Why so little impact of the PAGAN (Greek) philosophes on ISLAM? What threatens human existence more--faith or reason? "

WRC, don't forget what happened to the pagan temples - remnants of religiions that had been serving humanity for thousands of years. Why couldn't (early) Christians get along with believers of those other religions, with whom they had co-existed for almost 400 years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria#Decree_of_Theodosius.2C_destruction_of_the_Serapeum_in_391

[Anna-Marina]

It seems that US government became the Israel-firsters best refuge.
“Issuing a rare maritime warning this week to American vessels traveling near Gaza, Washington has effectively distanced itself from offering protection to its citizens if they are attacked by Israel on the open sea.”

In other words, for the US government Israeli lives are more precious than American lives.

http://www.thenation.com/article/161633/gaza-aid-flotilla

[turcopolier]

richard,etc.

"the Roman Church was built on hijacking a Jewish prophet, then covering its butt by putting the blame for his death on his own people." Why the Roman Church rather than christians generally? Is this anti-papist bigotry exposing itself? pl