Intellectuelle

Ghandi says: "[The Holocaust] is a very good example of how a community can overplay a historic experience... Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world... The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger."

I just watched the classic movie "Judgment at Nuremberg" last night, and I'm reminded that Israel was established as a safe-haven for Jews, not only in response to Nazi death camps, but the anti-Jewish pogroms of Russian, the anti-Jewish racism that still exists in Austria and the Baltics, etc.

Ghandi is at least being naive to frame these things as a regrettable historical "episode" limited to Germany's distant past. When modern-day Iran makes public statements suggesting that Israel should be wiped off the map and hosts an international conference denying the Holocaust, intelligent people like Ghandi ought to be honest enough to say that anti-Semitism is not going to be eradicated simply by disarming Israel.

I don't think comments critical of Israel should automatically be labeled "anti-Semitic," but a great many ivory-tower intellectuals like Ghandi would pretend that there is no such thing as anti-Semitism any more, except that justifiable frustration brought on by the Jews themselves and their militarism.

That view is hopelessly childish and fails to understand what I think is a basic revulsion towards God's chosen people, one that is as strong today as it has ever been and is rooted in some sort of spiritual blindness to the hand of God in history.

Criticizing modern-day Israel and its politics is not the same as criticizing Judaism. But sometimes they do come from the same root of Jew-hatred. Ghandi's remarks don't seem to come from there, but they are perhaps worse in that he seems to believe there is no such thing in the world today.

Hi Charlie, thanks for your comment.

I read Gandhi as basically telling Jews not to play the victim. And in this, I don't disagree with him.

Where I think he's naive is in his suggestion that enemies, in general, and Israel's enemies, specifically, can be befriended.

What do you think of the response to his comments?

The problem is that his suggestion is not naive, but rather a key point often made by those who view Israel as the source of the whole problem...i.e. if Israelis weren't these terrible aggressive imperialists, then the peace-loving Palestinians would be happy and there would be peace. People with such a view will sometimes also say that the Jews haven't gotten over the Shoah appropriately, and then conclude (directly or by implication) that the Israelis are part of a cycle of abuse, essentially that the Jews are not 'getting over it' but are in their turn becoming the Nazis to another people.

Gandhi's views in that post certainly raise red flags for me.

Bonnie, I think the response to Gandhi's comments by the U of Rochester is censorship, and there is already too much squelching of unpopular ideas on college campuses.

At most universities you may not question gender equality, sexual identity, global warming, the just cause of the Palestinians, and all sorts of accepted wisdom without getting your hand slapped, or worse. Gandhi's remarks seem uninformed to me, but not beyond the pale.

I couldn't disagree more with Ghandi's accusation that Jews in general have "created a culture of violence" and "dominate" people.

Let's not forget that Israel is a country that is fighting for its very existence today, even at this very moment.

It appears this hostile attitude toward Israel has been the result of much revisionist history and forgetfulness. Is it easy to overreact, as Bonnie you implied? Sure, especially if you're in that category of "Jews" that Ghandi is railing against. In this, I can't blame Seligman.

But if the Jews don't stand up for their own name in the face of hostilities, who will? In truth, very few people and countries, have ever come to the defense of the Jewish state.

As I see the attitudes of Jews that I know personally and the actions of Israel, I don't find them playing the victim at all.

*Letitia*

Letitia, I agree that some of Gandhi's comments are silly. And that's partly why the uproar is curious to me -- why take silliness seriously?

At the same time, though my knowledge of Israeli history is limited, I don't think they've been entirely innocent. And, as he said, he wasn't speaking of all Jews, just some, even if he doesn't get it quite right. I think I see what he was trying to say.

Bonnie,
It certainly sounds as if Ghandi is referring to all Jews. He speaks of "Jewish identity," "Jews today," and the entire nation of Israel. Who's not included?

Silly might describe his statements if he were talking about about, oh, Icelanders perhaps. But he is talking about Israel, a country that
Iran,
Jordan,
Syria,
Egypt,
Saudi Arabia,
the Palestinians,
Hamas,
Islamic Jihad,
Al Qaeda,
to name just a few,
want to eliminate off the face of the earth.

Ghandi's statements should be taken seriously insofar as they reinforce their views that Israel is a menace and illegitimate (another silly idea). He adds fuel to their fire and to their committment to kill Israeli men, women, and children. Plus, anyone willing to believe his statements will think that Israel is the perpetrator when there is no question that it is the victim.

Letitia,

Thanks for the dialogue. Do you think that Gandhi’s apology was insincere?

There’s an interesting article at First Things by David Novak that sheds some light on Gandhi’s comments.

Bonnie,

If I were Jewish, I would ask "what apology?"

His statement was a classic dodge. 'I'm not sorry for what I said, just the way I said it' doesn't constitute much of an apology in my mind.

What I'd like to see are leaders like Ghandi denouncing attempts to take over/eliminate Israel by force and for Israel's enemies to seek peace and harmony. But of course, that goes against everything they have lived for since 1948.