It was the systematical extermination of more than six million Jews. It was the annihilation of over 10 million human beings. Whether we recognize it as the ‘Nazi holocaust’, or the more emphatic ‘Holocaust’, does not change what ook place in the concentration camps of the Third Reich during World War II. To call it man’s single worst crime against humanity simply does not capture its horrific reality. It is only logical, with a human rights violation of this magnitude, that any claim of its memorialization or industrialization for the personal gain of mostly Jewish lineage, or for the sake of U.S. global positioning, would be received with ridicule and charges of anti-Semitism. First we are appalled that such accusations could even be imagined, quickly followed by anger and personal attacks on the integrity of the individual responsible for such hateful and hurtful allegations. For a guy like Norman Finkelstein (wrote the hotly controversial The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering), we dismiss him as a ‘self-loathing Jew’: an anti-Semite of the worst kind. We are quick to discard his claims solely on the anti-Semitic basis; but we never dismantle his theses with legitimate counterpoints. If you’ve never read the essay, in it Finkelstein makes the shocking claim that the Nazi holocaust has been used to justify U.S. support for criminal policies of the Israeli state. Offensive to many, but he supports his claims with powerful evidence that should not be dispelled without a reasonable investigation into their legitimacy. Unfortunately such an investigation cannot take place without first addressing the controversy surrounding the alleged anti-Semitism in his claims.
Here’s a brief summary of his claims:
The Holocaust Industry was created in 1967 after a dominant display of military prowess in the Six Days War proved the Israeli state could be a powerful Middle East ally to the U.S. Shortly thereafter, a dramatic increase in scholarly attention in the U.S. to the Nazi holocaust resulted in the popularization of Israel as a victim state for a victimized people; the effect of which created anti-Semitic implications in any criticism against the state and its military action. “The Holocaust” became a means to reach the end (the end being a formidable ally in the Middle East, particularly for the U.S.): “an ideological misrepresentation of the Nazi holocaust” (Finkelstein, 3).
Are these claims anti-Semitic? If they are anti-anything, they scream anti-American foreign policy. The lack of a U.S. presence in post WWII Holocaust issues prior to an extensive interest in Israel’s power within the Middle East is a recurring theme in Finkelstein’s supportive evidence. The implications of this expose a controversial and underlying factor in the discussion of the industrialization of the Nazi holocaust, but are of little consequence to the relevance of anti-Semitism in Finkelstein’s claims. Therefore, I will refrain from comment on the validity of his statements and concentrate on the motives behind them.
An unbiased reading of the text will reveal a simple theme. We are presented with a Jewish son of survivor lineage, whose perception of today’s exposure of the Holocaust has him concerned about the legacy of Holocaust victims – both the survivors and non-survivors. When he sees individuals (Jewish or not) actively pursue capital or social gain from the suffering of an entire people, he sees a loss of solemn reverence that should accompany the history of the victims. The way he sees it, “Holocaust profiteers” are diminishing the suffering of his ancestors through the objectification and misuse of the monumental devastation that was the Holocaust that justify the infliction of the same kinds of suffering on another people. In his own words, his concern is that “[t]oo many public and private resources have been invested in memorializing the Nazi genocide. Most of the output is worthless, a tribute not to Jewish suffering but to Jewish aggrandizement” (8). He is angered that “the moral stature of their (Holocaust victims) martyrdom” (8) is being cheapened by efforts for monetary retribution and social advancement. Finkelstein blatantly states that he cares “about the memory of [his] family’s persecution” (8). Here is the key point that Finkelstein wants to get across: He believes the “falsification and exploitation of the Nazi genocide…has been used to justify criminal policies of the Israeli state and U.S. support for these policies” (7-8).
Are these statements anti-Semitic? I do not believe so, but let me explain why. He expressed one man’s pride and respect for his people’s history. He expressed the concerns of a man who genuinely believes their memory – the solemnity of their suffering – is being tarnished by the use of that suffering as an excuse to use any means necessary to protect against anti-Semitism or to defend the Israeli state and military policy, including the oppression of others. When broken down in its simplest form, Finkelstein’s text introduced me to an individual deeply offended by the world-wide manipulation of his people and their history for reasons of personal and national gain. His claims include the actions and manipulations by individuals of Jewish ethnicity, including the heralded Elie Wiesel (and amidst much controversy). Finkelstein generalizes with the term ‘Jewish Elites’ multiple times in his criticisms, but sometimes for articulation purposes such generalizations are necessary. He explains his definition of the Jewish Elite strictly as “individuals prominent in the organizational and cultural life of the mainstream Jewish community” (13). They are the ones with the access: the power. Was every US Jewish Elite guilty of conveniently ‘forgetting’ about the Holocaust during the Cold War (when the U.S. relied on West Germany as an ally)? Of course not, but as the most personally invested social group with the power to influence action, they have to be referred to as one unit. I equate this to saying SUV drivers are responsible for the hole in the ozone. Accuracy of the statement is secondary to the implications my statement makes. Does it mean I am anti-SUV drivers? Absolutely not – my mom is one of them – and it certainly doesn’t imply that I am anti-automobile drivers as a whole. It is conceivable that I can be against my mom driving an SUV without being against her personally. Similarly, it is conceivable that Finkelstein’s frustration over the presence of U.S. Jewish Elites in Holocaust issues now that there is something to gain does not make him anti-Semitic.
Here is the point: If accusations like Finkelstein’s are viewed as anti-Semitic, then there is a severe flaw in our sociological makeup. We should be able to express displeasure with Israeli policies – particularly military policies – when we disagree with them. Exactly when did a criticism of an individual’s (or a state’s) actions become the criticism of his ethnicity? When did the expectation of accountability become an offensive suggestion? Finkelstein might suggest it was right around 1967 with the international casting of Israel as a victim state. Then again, we are still waiting on a legitimate exploration of his evidence…
Finkelstein, Norman G. The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of the Jewish Suffering. 2nd Ed. Verso; 2000; 2001; 2003.
No comments:
Post a Comment