Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
"'NEVER AGAIN' OVER AGAIN" — Joseph Anderson on Holocaust Remebrance Day
I thought that “Never again!” meant never again for all humanity—not just never again for European Jews.
-
The Daily Californian newspaper
University of California at Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
Friday, May 6, 2005
Holocaust Remembrance Day
Letters
‘Never Again’ Over Again
- by Joseph Anderson
Kriss Worthington’s letter to the Daily Cal (“Lurking Legacy of Discrimination,” May 3) deals with Holocaust Remembrance Day and the very profound tragedy European Jews suffered under the Nazi regime. We are called again to learn the lessons of history. But have we?
The primary lesson was supposed to be “Never again!” But, a very sad disappointment—and even for many Jews, including some Holocaust survivors—is that we really have not learned. For, as I grew up seeing the horrors revealed in Holocaust documentaries and movies, I thought that “Never again!” meant never again for all humanity—not just never again for European Jews. Where is remembrance day for the Native American, the black slave, the Filipino, the Armenian, in effect the Vietnamese, and the U.S. Vietnam war expansion-triggered Cambodian holocausts?
Blacks were also victims of Nazi Germany's holocaust machine that consumed other ethnic minorities like the Roma, in addition to the mentally handicapped, and before that blacks were genocidal victims of Germany's colonizations in Africa — as with genocidal Western European colonizers (there and in the Americas).
As a member myself of an often oppressed minority whose religious traditions have identified with the Biblical story of the Jews’ oppression, it saddens me to see many pro-Israel Jews oppress others via a foreign state that would claim to embody Jewish values. For African American ideals, “The Promised Land” is not a land to be "reclaimed" after hundreds, or even thousands, of years, citing God as the real estate agent. The Promised Land doesn’t echo the injustices of the past by, in part, replicating them upon others. The Promised Land is the creation of a just society with an appreciation for the diversity of all humanity and equality for all.
I appreciate Worthington’s letter, but I object that it makes it seem like Berkeley has become a bastion of Jew-hatred: “In Berkeley itself, Jews have far too frequently been victims of hate crimes,” he writes.
California criminal-justice statistics show that hate crimes for all minority groups have gone down—except for indigenous Middle Easterners and Muslims.
Kris writes that overt prejudice, discrimination and institutionalized exclusion are unacceptable. But, that’s exactly what Jews who commemorate the Holocaust—yet who also ideologically believe in an exclusionary Jewish state—support every day for Israel.
Others, like many of us, like “the good Germans” of another era, turn our heads away from this human rights catastrophe against, in turn, another 'despised' minority: the Palestinian people. Their resistance to brutal ethnic cleansing is, ironically, labeled “anti-Semitic.”
To paraphrase Worthington, Holocaust Remembrance Day should cause us to reflect, to learn that the horrors of all these catastrophes did in fact happen, to support the oppressed everywhere, and to join in the activism to say, “Never again!”—for all humanity.
_____________________________________________________
Joseph Anderson is a Berkeley resident, an occasional
contributing columnist/essayist to various newspapers,
political and literary publications, a grassroots progressive
political activist, and an occasional interview guest on KPFA's
Hard Knock Radio.
(the above is the slightly longer, original version
of the word length-constrained version published at
http://dailycal.org/article.php?id=18630 )
-
The Daily Californian newspaper
University of California at Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
Friday, May 6, 2005
Holocaust Remembrance Day
Letters
‘Never Again’ Over Again
- by Joseph Anderson
Kriss Worthington’s letter to the Daily Cal (“Lurking Legacy of Discrimination,” May 3) deals with Holocaust Remembrance Day and the very profound tragedy European Jews suffered under the Nazi regime. We are called again to learn the lessons of history. But have we?
The primary lesson was supposed to be “Never again!” But, a very sad disappointment—and even for many Jews, including some Holocaust survivors—is that we really have not learned. For, as I grew up seeing the horrors revealed in Holocaust documentaries and movies, I thought that “Never again!” meant never again for all humanity—not just never again for European Jews. Where is remembrance day for the Native American, the black slave, the Filipino, the Armenian, in effect the Vietnamese, and the U.S. Vietnam war expansion-triggered Cambodian holocausts?
Blacks were also victims of Nazi Germany's holocaust machine that consumed other ethnic minorities like the Roma, in addition to the mentally handicapped, and before that blacks were genocidal victims of Germany's colonizations in Africa — as with genocidal Western European colonizers (there and in the Americas).
As a member myself of an often oppressed minority whose religious traditions have identified with the Biblical story of the Jews’ oppression, it saddens me to see many pro-Israel Jews oppress others via a foreign state that would claim to embody Jewish values. For African American ideals, “The Promised Land” is not a land to be "reclaimed" after hundreds, or even thousands, of years, citing God as the real estate agent. The Promised Land doesn’t echo the injustices of the past by, in part, replicating them upon others. The Promised Land is the creation of a just society with an appreciation for the diversity of all humanity and equality for all.
I appreciate Worthington’s letter, but I object that it makes it seem like Berkeley has become a bastion of Jew-hatred: “In Berkeley itself, Jews have far too frequently been victims of hate crimes,” he writes.
California criminal-justice statistics show that hate crimes for all minority groups have gone down—except for indigenous Middle Easterners and Muslims.
Kris writes that overt prejudice, discrimination and institutionalized exclusion are unacceptable. But, that’s exactly what Jews who commemorate the Holocaust—yet who also ideologically believe in an exclusionary Jewish state—support every day for Israel.
Others, like many of us, like “the good Germans” of another era, turn our heads away from this human rights catastrophe against, in turn, another 'despised' minority: the Palestinian people. Their resistance to brutal ethnic cleansing is, ironically, labeled “anti-Semitic.”
To paraphrase Worthington, Holocaust Remembrance Day should cause us to reflect, to learn that the horrors of all these catastrophes did in fact happen, to support the oppressed everywhere, and to join in the activism to say, “Never again!”—for all humanity.
_____________________________________________________
Joseph Anderson is a Berkeley resident, an occasional
contributing columnist/essayist to various newspapers,
political and literary publications, a grassroots progressive
political activist, and an occasional interview guest on KPFA's
Hard Knock Radio.
(the above is the slightly longer, original version
of the word length-constrained version published at
http://dailycal.org/article.php?id=18630 )
-
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$185.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
It is Palestinians who are oppressing other Palestinians and want to oppress the Jews and deprive them of their land.
I'd rather have Jewish values than Islamofacist values. Jews don't teach their children to blow themselves up, while Islamofascists do, as it happens among the Palestinians.
Maybe not, but the Israeli Military teaches Soldiers to drop bomb on Palestinian People including children from Apache Helicopters. And the Israeli Government allows Palestinian land to be taken so that they can build a wall in side the West Bank instead of using its own land just inside the Pre 1967 (Green Line) Border, Thereby increasing the need for resistance and further fighting of the Palestinian People for their land and Freedom.
"the Israeli Military teaches Soldiers to drop bomb on Palestinian People including children from Apache Helicopters."
Of course the Israeli Military has to teach soldiers. It would be wonderful not to need armies and police and judges. This would mean that everybody is good and nobody attacks others.
Israel Military has to teach soldiers to drop bombs on those who are attacking it.
Should the PA arrest and punish those people, Israel wouldn't need to kill them.
Why do the Palestinians dispatch their own children to plant bombs and use their children as shields? They don't care about their own children. Either the Israeli miltitary let the Palestinian kill Israelis or they have to defend themselves.
Angel:
"And the Israeli Government allows Palestinian land to be taken so that they can build a wall in side the West Bank instead of using its own land just inside the Pre 1967 (Green Line) Border, Thereby increasing the need for resistance and further fighting of the Palestinian People for their land and Freedom."
A question: what do the Palestinians mean by "Palestinian land"?
And, like everyone else, I have even less use for JA in general.
@%<
From my point of view, "Islamofascist" is OK. I don't think this means that all the Muslims are fascist. The fact is that some Muslims are Islamofascist since they want to imposse Islam (or a certain kind of Islam) by force.
(now get ready everyone -- those who are not clinical -- for gerhig's 'natural segue' and the gratuitous sequitur ...; this is going to be *amazing*:)
gerhig: "And, like everyone else, I have even less use for JA in general."
So, you won't be showing up in your usual bright red lipstick, your red lacey bra and thong set, your black fishnet stockings, your stiletto heels, and your Prussian helmut?
What?: did I spank you too hard when you were all tied down, bent over that sawhorse last time???
I'll miss your little weekend kinky self-humiliation games, where I -- the ardent anti-Zionist -- get to soundly whip you!
Haha!!
So Zionazi would be an ok term with you if there were ever any Zionists who were also Nazis? Im always a little sceptical about the individual examples of Zionist/Nazi connections but there were defnitely antiSemitic Zionist connections if you coinsider the people who created the Balfour declaration Zionists (some of them called themself that in a descriptive sense while also talking about Jewish conspiracy theories and making exteremely offensive references about what they thought of Jews)
On a side note, Im curious why people like to talk about how "the Arabs got Jordan" (and similar things that almost seem to be in support of ethnic cleansing) while at the same time claiming that Palestinians never really existed as an identity. The only real period in which a greater Palestine existed (full of Jews and Arabs) was under British rule and the borders were drawn up for colonial reasons having to do with Britian not due to local support. Even the Palestinian flag is the one that was created by Britian to rally opponents to the Ottomans. Arab is a broad descriptive term that many didnt apply to the people called Palestinians before the fall of the Ottoman Empire. In 1918 the following was part of a speech at the Zionist Political Committe in London (see Isiah Friedman's "The Question Of Palestine, 1912-1918 British Jewish Arab Relations"p178 ): "The movement lead by Prince Feisal was not unlike the Zionist movement. It contained ral Arabs whowere real men. The Arabs in trans-Jordania were fine people. The west of the Jordan the people were not Arabs, but only Arab-speaking. Zionists should recognize in the Arab movement, originally centered in Hejaz, but now moving north, a fellow movement with high ideals"
So when people go around talking about how "the Arabs" got Jordan what does that really mean. Using broad descriptive terms to classify people results in arguments like "the Shia got Iran so why sholdnt the Sunnis have Iraq" (which was perhaps part of how the Sunnis did get Iraq in terms of British policy and was defnitely part of US policy in terms of supporting Saddam in the 80s) People are not interchangable and individuals have ties to place that is lost when broad tersm like Arabs (or evern Palestinians) are used. The post 48 conflict between Israel and Palestinians wasnt about "Arabs" wanting territory, but of individuals wanting back land that belonged to their families.
The conflict between neighboring countries and Isreal had antiColonial elements to it and while it was waged "on behalf of the Palestinians" it wasnt really waged by the Palestinians even though they are the ones suffering as a result (almost by definition since Palestinian identity emerged in response to individual sufferings). Of course people in Israel also feel under attack but arguing back and forth about Israelis oppressing Palestinians vs Palestinians attack Israel misses a number oif important distinctions. The IDF and Israel government policy oppresses Palestinians in the Wets Bank and Gaza. Some Palestinians are attacking Israel. Most individuals in the Israeli public are powerless on their own to change what is going on and the same is true of most Palestinians.
by Sefarad Friday, May. 13, 2005 at 7:54 AM
From my point of view, "Islamofascist" is OK. I don't think this means that all the Muslims are fascist. The fact is that some Muslims are Islamofascist since they want to imposse Islam (or a certain kind of Islam) by force.
add your comments
--------
Here you have my previous post. You take off a sentence and write a windy pamphlet based on it.
And why do you do it anonymously?
We cannot say zionazi, given that Zionists' aim is not to murder "gentile dogs" and moderate Jews in order to spread Judaism by force.
You should be ashamed to use that word. Zionism is the idea of the Jews having a country of their own because they were harassed and murder for centuries and mainly under the Nazis.
You seem to think the Jews have no right to exist anywhere. And that's exactly what the Palestinians are trying.
Most Muslims dont have a fascist aim so IslamoFascist has the exact same flaws in terms of its use. Some extremists (like those described here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/685792.stm ) who call themselves Zionists do want to spread Judaism by force (or at least sperad the area conrrolled by Jews to be by force).
"Zionism is the idea of the Jews having a country of their own because they were harassed and murder for centuries and mainly under the Nazis."
Zionism existed before the Nazis and was initially partly about oppression in E Europe but also about Christian antiSemities in W Europe wanting to get rid of their Jewish populations and colonize the Middle East.
WWII certainly lead to a moe global Jewish nationalism than extended beyond ethnicity and even religion but the immigration to Israel at the end of WWII from Europe and the Middle East wasnt as clearly tied to a "Zionist" ideology as had the earlier immigration during the first and second Aliyahs (it was for more personal reasons tied to escaping oppression). After Israel came into existance the word "Zionist" really lost most of its past meanings and can now mean any number of things. The small groups of religious Zionists who want a greater Israel that is 100% Jewish do resemble Nazis in some ways but without the genocide or the scale its more comparible to similar movements in other places (like Serbia in the 90s or whats going on with Kirkuk today). Left Zionism in Israel is much more similar to just "patriotism" which I find troubling but not something specific to Israel (like people on AIr America talking about taking back our flag). Zionism can also just mean supporting that Israel exist but since Israel does exist and is in no danger of not existing its hard to see that as a real ideology.
"You seem to think the Jews have no right to exist anywhere. And that's exactly what the Palestinians are trying."
I guess Jewish if you regard it as an ethnicity (although Im an athiest) and think I have a right to exist wherever I want to exist. I probably would be scared to be openly Jewish in the Middle East but some brave Jewish Palestinian activists like Barbara Lubin and Kate Raphael have worked with Palestinians in Palestine and run into few problems because of their ethnicity (I think Saudi Arabia or Iraq under the US occupation would be more dangerous places to be openly Jewish). I even think Jews (and any other religious or ethnic group) should be allowed to live in the West Bank and Gaza if it means they are willing to live under a future Palestinian state. The conflict between Palestinians and Israelis isnt a religious conflict that has anything to do with Judaism (even though it has lead to antiSemitism and antiArab racism) it is over land and self-government. In terms of why antiSemitism is on the rise I have a bad feeling that a lot of its is due to the crying wolf aspects of criticism of Israel being equated with antiSemitism. Traditional European antiSemitism (at least during the last few hundred years) has been tied to conspiracy theories about seceret societies controlling the world (and were tied to conspiracy theories about Masons). Dislike for Israel's policies may lead some simple mided people to become antiSemitic but I would guess that outside of those directly tied to the conflict the heavy handedness of the condemnation of those who oppose Israel is actually more dangerous in terms of how it plays into traditional conspircy theories. The myth of most American Jews being NeoCons and strongly proIsrael is unfortunately perpetuated by both the RIght and Left when most Jewish Americans I know are left of center and at least critical of Sharon and certain policies Israel has used in the West Bank (like bulldozing and assasinations in public areas)
It has not the same flaws. There are Muslims trying to spread Islam by force and so killing "infidel dogs" and moderate Muslims. They are Islamist and they are fascist, and they want to oppress the rest of the world.
What do you think about the Taliban regime in Afghanistan?
Too tired to respond to the rest, but do want to point out that the flag is actually the Arab Revolt / Hejaz flag of Sharif Hussein which was just a minor modification (one of the colors changed shade slightly) of a flag created by Mark Sykes.
"The green, red, white and black banner that fluttered over Arab raiders led by the Hashemite family against the Ottoman empire -- the basis for today's flags of Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organization -- was designed by a British Foreign Service officer named Sir Mark Sykes and produced by his army's supply shop in Cairo."
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~patrick/geo201/jordan.htm
(a full response to the rest of what your wrote would be along the lines of pointing out that even the idea of a panArab identity was partly an artificial creation of the British during WWI back when the British thought Arab nationalism and Zionism were natura allies that could be used to defeat the Ottomans)
You are right to some extent. If I remember, Zionism came out in the XIX century. And it was after many centuries of persecution of Jews in Europe. The Christian antiSemites in W Europe's aim was not the colonization of the Middle East, which came much later. But it was also a consequence of the persecutions the Jews got through in E Europe. In fact, the main migration of Jews to Palestine took place in the 1880s, owing to the fact that they were being mistreated in Russia.
<<WWII certainly lead to a moe global Jewish nationalism than extended beyond ethnicity and even religion but the immigration to Israel at the end of WWII from Europe and the Middle East wasnt as clearly tied to a "Zionist" ideology as had the earlier immigration during the first and second Aliyahs (it was for more personal reasons tied to escaping oppression)>>
Here I would say that during and after WWII the most important aim of the Jews was to avoid extermination. However, is it strange that they wanted to move to Zion? They have been so harshly treated for so long in societies which didn't consider them to be citizens and that, from time to time, launch pogroms against them?
"After Israel came into existance the word "Zionist" really lost most of its past meanings and can now mean any number of things. The small groups of religious Zionists who want a greater Israel that is 100% Jewish do resemble Nazis"
I don't know why to bother for a small group of religious people. There are every kind of people everywhere. The same happens in the US: there is the left-wing, the right-wing, the extreme right, the extreme left, the KKK, etc. Why does Israel have to be singled out?
About being Nazis, I think this is twisting reality. Nazis aimed to control the entire Europe and to exterminate the Jews. I don't believe those religious Jews are like Nazis. Do you remember the commandments?
<< Left Zionism in Israel is much more similar to just "patriotism" which I find troubling but not something specific to Israel (like people on AIr America talking about taking back our flag).>>
Well, I don't find patriotism to be troubling. I think it is good to love your country and appreciate what your ancentors did in so harsh circumstances to improve our conditions of life.
" Zionism can also just mean supporting that Israel exist but since Israel does exist and is in no danger of not existing its hard to see that as a real ideology. "
And I don't know about the Israeli Jews, but I think their patriotic feeling should be deeper, since they got through so much misery and it has been so hard for them to have their country.
Well where else could they go? The US wasnt allowing many European Jews into the US at the time. Some recent Russian Jewish immigration to Israel has similarly been not clearly about Israel or Zionism in that some people just see it as a stopping of point one the way to the US (where its much harder to immigrate to). Escaping Russian antiSemitism by going to Israel doesnt seem like a bad thing but somehow many Russian immigrants have ended up in settlements in a way where it seems liike they are being used for the political purposes of others (in recent years where there is so much news coverage of the settlements its seems like it would be harder for the immigrants to not know what they are getting into).
It seems like there was less Zionist ideology in the 3rd and 4th Aliyahs with economic opportunity being a larger factor. Adventurism in the European colonial sense (why British moved to Kenya or India) did play a role in the early immigration too.
Observation:
Perhaps Russians move to Israel because Russia is a disaster. But perhaps anti-Semitism has also something to do. It might happen as with French Jews, many of whom have moved to Israel and others are thinking of doing so.
I think that the way antiSemitism is dealt with often creates antiSemitism. Stepping away from the Middle East for a second the way the real antiSemitism among African Americans in the US has been dealt with by the ADL seems like it may have made things worse rather than better; when progressive leaders like J Jackson were demonized for inappropriate statements rather than corrected and worked with the end result was that many who supported Jackson's other policies saw those attacking him as attacking him because of his other priorities and thus an atmosphere where the interests of Jews and Afrcian Americans seemed divergent gained momentum.
The way compensation from Swiss banks has been dealt with in Europe seems like another case where the end result coudl be seen as increasing antiSemitism there (and even in the US due to the failure of the movement for reperations for African Americans compared to compensation for WWII loses). Stolen moneyshoudl obviously be returned but the way it was done stressed economic losses of the wealthy due to the Nazis more than the cost in human lives or the losses of most Jews who were not rich.
You can say that we should ignore the simple minded and only worry about fighting a good fight against antiSemitism, but whats the point in making things worse for no good reason when there are other ways these types of issues could have been dealt with with less of a negative outcomes.
One is the compensations for the Jews. Many Jews were robbed of their property. So it is fair to give it back to them. Or perhaps they worked as slaves for certain companies (I don't know if you are talking about it, sorry).
As for the blacks, I suppose the compensation has to be other. I have heard you have some "discrimination" laws, that is to say, that the minorities, blacks and others, have more advantages in some matters.
Anyway, I think another kind of compensation would be very complicated after so long. Who do you have to give that compensation to? To them , to the countries where their ancestors were brought from or to both?
Its a combination but even when the reason for leaving is antiSemitism peopel generally want to moe to the US sicne it seems safre and has a better economy. Most immigration is a combination of escaping oppression and seeking economic prosperity be it immigration from China, Cuba, Russia... Israel isnt the best place to move to escape antiSemitism since its in a region where its made a lot of enemies; while Sharon did enoucrage immigration from France Im sceptical that it had much effect since moving to a war zone to escape hatred seems pretty strange (Immigration to Israel from the West tends to be for religious reasons with immigration from poorer countries being mainly economic).
Israel may not be the best place in the world to live in. But where else can you go when you are being harassed in other places because you are Jewish?
I remember Sharon invited the French Jews to move to Israel. The reason is that anti-Semitism is spreading in France and there have been many attacks on Jews. The French authorities had been trying to cover it, but it was so evident that, at last, they had no way but to admit it and then they said they were going to make steps to solve the problem. However, if I were Jewish and lived in France, I wouldn't be very confident.
Yep ,it would be hard but in the US there are insurance companies that still exist that have records of the money they made of policies related to slavery. The Civil war was about 140 years ago whereas WWII was about 60 years ago; thats only slightly more than twice as long ago (and reparations demand have been around for awhile and even when they were just 100 years after the time of slavery it was said it was too long ago for payment to happen). Some peopel do go out of their way to make sure that dealing with the horrors of WWII are not seen as sidelining other peoples plight; Spielberg made Armistad ijn resposne to African American students' concerns exporessed to him when he was promoting Schindler's LIst. Unfortunately the ADL and many other groups fighting antiSemitism dont similarly think about the consequences of their own strengh and how it can make other oppressed groups angry. The linking of criticism of Israel with antiSemitism is slightly different in that it is never really about antiSemitism and becasue of that linking fighting antiSemitism with promoiting Israel is so openly opportunitic that it always backfires (even if in the short run it can look like a useful thing to do and seems to create right-wing allies).
don't lie please, which is very ugly.
"This hold no water. I dare you to prove your assertion."
I'll try to find some quotes but Im thinking of some the the quotes from people during the frist Aliyah in "Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1882-1914" ( http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/6761.html ) Its not a great example, but if you can see the picture on the front cover of that book, the strange cast of characters that moved to what is now Israel in the late 1800s included a lot of people just seeking adventure. I would place some religious Zionism (both Christian and Jewish) in the early 1900s in this same category. Israel was a land one read about not a real place; some of the religious ties people felt towards Israel were more akin to visting the ruins of Troy than fullfilling a prophesy. Of course many people supported moving to Israel because of oppression but during the First Aliyah moving there was expensive so the actual people who went werent the most oppressed people who needed to leave Europe.
I suppose any country can be critizise because nobody is perfect. You can critizise Great Britain or Germany of Poland and also Israel of course.
However, much criticism on Israel is anti-Semitism, because it is aim to destroy it. It is unfair to critizise Israel the way many people do : for what they do and for what they don't do; not basing criticism in true facts; critizising what you wouldn't critizise about any other country; critizising Israel's customs or laws and not critizising tyrannic countries.
The problem about compensations to blacks is how it can be done for the reasons I said before. Even if there are records, who do you give the money to and how?