.jpg){kind=small}
mini.jpg)
Malvina Schwartz survived Auschwitz as a young girl. She managed to make her way to America and eventually came to Los Angeles where I published her oral history in 1977 in the Los Angeles Times. I am certain that Malvina is no longer alive. But if she had managed to survive to today, I’d like to think she would have something to say about George Bush’s misuse of the Holocaust for political gain in today’s speech to the Israeli Knesset.
Mark Klempner, in his book The Heart Has Reasons, profiles five Dutch Righteous Gentiles who saved Jews. Here is how one of them, Mieke Vermeer, speaks of historical analogies between the Holocaust and contemporary society and how the errors of one era can be repeated in another:
People say “Never Again,” but just because they say that doesn’t mean that they’re any more aware than the Germans were when Hitler was making his debut. How many people who read the newspaper can tell the difference between propaganda and fact? How many can see through bad politicians? There’s such a lot of dirty politics.
[Klempner] So you’re saying we mustn’t underestimate our capacity to be misled…
Yes, or to do the wrong thing when we think we’re doing the right thing…
Some Dutch…will call [blacks] racist names. They fall silent when I say, “I have a black son-in-law.” I tell them, “There’s no us and them–we’re all part of the same human family.
My husband suffered terribly at the hands of the Germans, but he didn’t hate all of them–he hated the people who had caused the suffering.
When we educate our children about the Holocaust, it’s not enough to tell them about the horrors–we have to tell them that it should not happen that way again. That hate doesn’t bring peace, and that you need to be strong in mind and think things over before you get a weapon to use against the one you call your enemy.
George Bush would surely benefit from reading this book. Well maybe not, but it couldn’t hurt.
I can’t pretend to know how my friend, Malvina, would react to Bush’s speech. But as a Jew who studied this era and did historical research, and prepared oral histories of survivors, I am offended that George Bush has likened the Arab states which have engaged with Israel in a territorial dispute since 1948 as Nazis. I am angry that Bush made a moral equivalence between Hitler Germany and the Palestinian national movement. On Malvina’s behalf, I am hurt that George Bush seems to believe that America and Israel are the two most righteous nations in the world while the Arab world represents little short of barbarism.
I am not arguing that it is impermissible to use the Holocaust as a historical analogy to discuss contemporary political and moral issues. I AM arguing that to do so one must be extremely careful and nuanced. It is a rhetorically easy and cheap shot to invoke the Holocaust to bolster a narrow political argument. Bibi Netanyahu and his fellow Likudniks do it regularly. In fact, Bush in his speech virtually channeled Netanyahu’s “it’s 1938 and Ahmedinejad is Hitler” rap.
The other day I wrote a tongue in cheek blog post declaring that Bush’s days as a president might not be numbered. If Bibi wins the next elections and becomes prime minister, Bush would be better than even money to win the next Israeli presidential race should he be interested. One thing’s for sure: Israelis, 66% of whom rate him favorably for his inability to find an Israeli policy he didn’t like, are a helluva lot happier with him than we are here in the U.S. (his current approval ratings are among the lowest of his presidency).
Bush’s speech lauded Israeli democracy and even went so far as to claim that our Puritan ancestors were incipient Zionists (Bush’s speechwriters lifted this from Netanyahu’s favorite pundit, Michael Oren, and his latest book about the roots of Zionism in American political thought).
Bush’s version of Israel in this speech was air-brushed to remove the moles, scars and other imperfections. Gone was the second-class Israeli Arab minority and gone too those Palestinians who seek to realize their own national vision in their own country. In their place Bush posited Israel as a model western democracy. What the president does not understand is that true democracies are states of ALL their citizens, not just a privileged majority as Israel is.
Sure, Bush acknowledged a Palestinian state as an afterthought in the speech. But clearly he saw such a state in an obedient, subservient, secondary regional role.
Of course, there is not the slightest reference to any blemish on Israel’s record. The nation is a pure miracle from its founding in 1948 till today. There is no Occupation (even Ariel Sharon could acknowledge the Occupation and call it by its proper name, kibush or “conquest”), there are no settlements, there is no expropriation of Palestinian land, and there certainly is no Nakba. I wouldn’t expect him to excoriate Israel in the well of its Knesset. But a deft politician could’ve easily included a reference to a job left undone. Anwar Sadat managed to do just that in his 1977 speech. Bush would have none of this.
One of the most offensive elements of the speech was its repeated invocation of God to justify Israel’s existence. Here Bush perfectly mirrored the settler movement, which conceived of Israel’s 1967 conquest of the Territories and subsequent return to the lands that Abraham trod, as confirmation of God’s will that Jews realize a Greater Israel.
Just as mixing religion and science in dealing with issues like abortion or stem cell research makes for bad science (cf. Terry Schiavo); so mixing religion and politics makes for bad politics. The Arab-Israeli conflict is fundamentally political in nature, not religious. It will be resolved by political compromises and not by resorting to God’s law. Those on both sides who invoke their own God to support them wreak havoc not only on their enemy but on themselves and those they hold dear.
American presidents, when they travel abroad, rarely take partisan political potshots at their domestic opponents. But this president, as in everything else to do with partisanship, breaks the mold. So he engaged in an unprecedented and distorted attack on Barack Obama’s attempt at renewing a U.S. foreign policy which adheres to a more traditional American sense of prudence and moderation:
Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
For 200 years, the U.S. has talked to its enemies and attempted to negotiate resolution of the major conflicts facing us. In this, Obama is simply returning to a traditional, more pragmatic foreign policy. It is Bush who is the radical breaking from American diplomatic convention. He should be in the dock and called to account for wreaking havoc with our international relations. Instead, he attempts to tar his Democratic opponent with the brush of weakness and defeatism.
Bush proves in this speech that he understands nothing about the Middle East. He certainly doesn’t understand Islam. He sees it all through the narrow prism of terrorism. It is the struggle of good vs. evil; God and the devil. There is no subtlety, no nuance. His views are utterly hopeless.
It is outrageous for an American president to use the term “appeasement” in describing the policy of an opponent when speaking before the parliament of a foreign nation. Democrats have rightly reacted with deep anger to this affront. It seems that when it comes to American traditions, George Bush is content to play Samson and topple the pillars of the temple in order to smash precedents he dislikes. What he forgets is that Samson not only killed his enemy, the Philistines, but himself as well.
Bush’s interminable and self-destructive presidency will continue to be so till the bitter end. And if he can topple the campaign of his political enemy, he’s prepared to bring the walls down on himself as well. So ends one of the most shameful of American presidencies.
Related posts:
- U.S. Envoy Calls Bibi’s Speech ‘Inadequate’ Before He Delivers It
- Obama’s Cairo Speech: One for the Ages
- Lieberman’s Pickax-Style Foreign Policy
- Obama-Clinton Continue Bush’s Denial of Ramadan U.S. Entry
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Tags: bush addresses knesset, obama foreign policy appeasement
![Image of Family and Friends: Rambling Boy [Vinyl]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61YAzRoqibL._SL110_.jpg "Family and Friends: Rambling Boy [Vinyl]")
Richard yes – I am still pretty bewildered that the 04 election was so close. that the first mistake of electing Bush, a man who never had the goods to be president was compounded using just this kind of fear/ demagoguery/dishonesty and thievery. It never should have been so close. (What chutzpah to say that Obama isn’t qualified in the light of GWB who had little experience to begin with 8 years ago and has learned NOTHING since.)
And here we are again with more demagoguery ( see Youtube Chris Matthews make a fool out of right-wing radio screamer Kevin James who did not know the meaning of appeasement or what happened in ‘38 as he kept shouting). The screamer knew NOTHING and how many who listen to him nod??
So we as a country have allowed a “dullard” ( you are too kind) to go on like this for 8 years- no impeachment for the unforgivable crime of taking us to a war that was not necessary and all that has come in it’s wake here and abroad.
And now let’s watch as “swift-boat” mavens and fearmongers take aim (encouraged by our dullard in chief in the Knesset).
Check this Suzanne, concerning the “swift-boat”. I am sure Obama’s people are busy and prepared for another hoax along these lines. Besides time are changing.
http://undercoverblackman.blogspot.com/2008/05/anti-obama-rumor-of-day.html
There were 50,000 Palestinian Jews in the British army. ( and yes at that time when you said Palestinian you were referring to Jews) There was a Moslem SS division. The Arabs threw in with the Germans, without question. Are you that caught up in moral ambiguity that you can’t make that distinction?
I am aware of what you write Bill, but – I assume you are addressing me – not quite why you think you have to point it out to m
I am aware of what you write Bill, but – I assume you are addressing me – not quite why you think you have to point it out to me.
LeaNder- it has to be more than rumor if it’s going anywhere. So let’s hear it. Maybe this is what Hillary is wishing for. But “to Swiftboat” is a verb, used a lot lately, so those with some political awareness will be more wary. But it’s a good question how much of the general public will fall again for unsubstantiated rumors with unexamined origins.
@Bill Pearlman:
A “Moslem SS division?” You don’t know shit from shinola. There may’ve been Arabs fighting for the Nazis but I’d dare you to prove they constituted an “SS division” as you claim.
So you’re saying it doesn’t bother you that Jews supported the German cause in order to overthrow the Brits??
Jim Lobe, Nazi-Iran Analogy:
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=140
It was the 13th waffen SS division, The Scimitar Division Waffen SS. They had a great time hunting Jews in Yugoslavia. Meanwhile you had the Jewish Brigade, attached to the Briitish army. Among the other 50,000 Palestinian Jews in the British army. Hannah Senesh, SOE, droped into Europe and tortured to death by the same Germans who were entertaining the mufti in Jerusalem. You can bow down to the altar of the nakba all you want but don’t try to white wash Moslem backing of the Nazi’s.
As usual, you can’t trust the truth or accuracy of anything Bill says. I had to look up this stupid issue in Wikipedia to get to the bottom of it. Yes, there was an SS division composed of Bosnian Muslims (not Palestinian Muslims) and Catholics. There were approx. 10,000 Muslims serving. They fought for the Germans for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do w. Jews or Palestinian Muslims. They fought because Serbian Chetniks had murdered 100,000 Bosnian Muslims earlier in WWII & there was a desire to fight back.
Meanwhile:
I still find it unbelievable that any Jew could support the German side no matter how much hatred they might have for the British. A Jew supporting Germany is FAR MORE TROUBLING than a Bosnian Muslim serving in the German army to fight Serbian fascists. It musn’t bother Bill because we still haven’t heard a peep out of him on this.
Not to mention that Ben Gurion made his famous statement that he’d prefer to witness the destruction of all of European Jewry if the alternative was that all escaped to countries other than Israel (then Palestine).
@LeaNder: I ban him not just because of the insults directed at you. Pearlman is just an insult to the human race & damn tiresome.
Don’t worry, he seems to have access to unlimited IP addresses & manages to weasel his way back into the threads.
It’s embarrassing how little you all know about the depth of Arab and Moslem cooperationwith the Germans.And for intelligent people to use wikipedia as a source. http://www.nyjtimes.com/cover/03-22-05/Arabs&Nazis-CanItBeTrue.htm
“But it’s a good question how much of the general public will fall again for unsubstantiated rumors with unexamined origins.”
Suzanne, I sure hope the Obama camp has a brilliant risk assessment. So far they did a good job.
Richard, Billy Boy is pretty predictable. Obviously for you, that must feel quite a bit different. For me he is some kind of counterpoint. He doesn’t hit really deeply. Mostly it feels like a rather light-hearted insult and fast insult, andyou won’t believe occasionally he even dives beyond these surfaces. Rarely only, but nevertheless.
I am not really deeply familiar with the Zionist or Palestinian/Arab/Muslim Nazi connections. The Husseini (however you like to spell it) clan had a man in Berlin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni, and I am sure he had his fingers in Muslim recruitment. I doubt if the Zionist were that close ….. So on this issue I still lean slightly towards Pearlman.
At the moment Francis R Nicosia seems to be losing the fight against many other author’s books. But he sure is still on my reading list. http://tinyurl.com/4aexvd
Too many play to fat with evidence, for my taste.
Richard, I have decided to consider Pearlman as a counterpoint. Maybe in the state of “countercheck quarrelsome”. (search Romeo and Juliet) Besides, I am leaning towards his position on this.If I were a friend of reading history backwards or confusing it with fiction, I might find the Zionist – Nazi connection more interesting too. But while lately Francis R. NIcosia has lost the fight against a whole pile of other authors, I will read him in the near future: http://tinyurl.com/4aexvd
There definitively is a connection between the Husseini clan and the Nazis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni. … I doubt the Zionist were that close.
Suzanne, Obama will win! Especially since Richard told us, it never happened before that someone he supported became president. And yes, I trust in the risk assessment of the Obamaites. And I will be really offended, if some”kind of swiftboaters” will again fish for bias. What is Rove doing?
Richard, I have decided to consider Pearlman as a counterpoint. Maybe in the state of “countercheck quarrelsome”. (…) Besides, I am leaning towards his position on this issue. We can’t read the thirties from our contemporary perspectives,. And yes, I have absolutely no doubt the Zionists were children of their times, how could they have been anything but? It’s an absolutely interesting topic no doubt. One of these day I’ll dive into these times, with a little help from Francis R. Nicosia. At the moment he has lost the fight against a whole pile of other authors. But I will read him in the near future: http://tinyurl.com/4aexvd.
There definitively is a close connection between the Husseini clan and the Nazis; even if the Wiki’s cry bias at the moment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni. … I still doubt the Zionist were that close.
Suzanne, Obama will win! Especially since Richard told us, it never happened before that someone he supported became president. And yes, I trust in the risk assessment of the Obamaites. And I will be really offended, if some”kind of swiftboaters” will again fish for bias. What is Rove doing?
@Mark: It is ironic beyond measure that someone relying on a “source” called the “New York Jewish Times” would impugn the reliability of Wikipedia as a source; especially w/o providing a shred of evidence (“evidence,” what’s evidence?) to question it. I carefully vet Wikipedia articles before I link to them. Yr standards apparently aren’t as high.
I didn’t say Arabs didn’t collaborate. I said that Jews sought to as well which, once again is a claim that none of you apologists are willing to touch w. a 10 foot pole.
@Mark
Quote:
You should always exercise criticism of your sources. Avoid media or writers you know or suspect of having a bias. I prefer to use regimes opposition or critics. Like Richard here. On Iran I prefer to read arab newspapers, and vice versa.
In Uncharted Waters Wikipedia is an excellent starting point, use the footnotes for a check, and if you are the least uncertain, spend 5 minutes “googling” on important issues.
Back to you Mark. Your link to “New York Jewish Times” as a proof of arab cooperation with the nazi regime fails the most benign litmus test as a reliable source. You will always find people cooperating with the enemy. Hitler had Quisling and jewish “kapos”, US have Maliki and Kharzai, Israel have Abbas. Why some people chose to side with the enemy is hard to tell. Sometimes greed, ideology, pressure or just stupidity.
Your embarrassment should not be our ignorance of ” Arab and Moslem cooperation with the Germans” but of your own opinionated assertion that we lack the very quality your comment is a valid proof of short supply.