Last night at the New York Public Library, author Avraham Burg and distinguished historian Omer Bartov were asked to disagree. And it worked! As Burg pointed out during their conversation, and with delight: “I believe that if there is a God, God created the world with polemics. Because if I agree with you, and you agree with me, and we all agree with them, it’s so boring.”
In his book, The Holocaust is Over; We Must Rise From Its Ashes, Avraham Burg argues that the Jewish nation has been traumatized and has lost the ability to trust itself, its neighbors, or the world around it. He introduced this idea to the NYPL audience by telling the story of a trip he took to Berlin with his youngest son. After visiting every memorial, every library, and every tombstone possible, and then having to kill 24 hours because of a flight delay, Burg and son headed to the zoo, where he promptly plopped himself down in front of the monkey cage. This is what happened next:
If you do not see flash audio player please install the latest flash player.
Here is the rest of the conversation live from the NYPL, in which distinguished historian Omer Bartov, author of Hitler’s Army: Soldiers, Nazis, and War in the Third Reich, asked Avraham Burg to address some of the claims in his book, The Holocaust is Over; We Must Rise From Its Ashes.
If you do not see flash audio player please install the latest flash player.
Comment: We’re delighted that Omer Bartov and Avraham Burg will be stopping by WNYC’s Art.Cult blog to answer your questions this Wednesday afternoon. Please post your thoughts and comments below.
Photo by Flickr user an untrained eye.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Mr. Bartov, how do they think contemporary jewish cultural institutions and individual artists/thinkers should balance attention to Jewish history (ie., the holocaust, Israel Palestine) with impulses to address non-Jewish specific themes and ideas?
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Mr. Burg, how does globalization and, in particular, the spread of cultural ideas via the internet, affect contemporary Jewish identity and change the way younger generations relate to the holocaust?
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Mr. Bartov, can you elaborate on the “political problems” that Israel is “legitimizing” by “fleeing” to the Holocaust?
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Mr. Burg, do you see “Utopian” ideas on all sides (Israel, Palestine, Iran) contributing to the lack of serious discussion and closed reality you mentioned?
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Mr. Burg,
Would you explain again the concepts Jewish democratic state and the variants you mentioned in the conversation with Mr. Bartov? Also what are the implications of these concepts?
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:27 am
The debate over the role of overplaying the Shoah card in the internal and external debate in Israel goes to the roots of Zionism as an Ashkenazi reaction to European nationalism and anti-Semitism, and rebellion against the ‘Ghetto’ religion, language, and culture. Sefardi/Mizrahi ‘Eastern’ Jews make up more than half of the Jewish population in Israel, their historical experience and baggage comes from the Arabs and Islamic world. How do you view their role in the internal Israeli social and political conversation?
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:59 am
I’m not reacting to the conversation as I haven’t had a chance to listen to it. I’m reacting to the link that led to this page: “the Holocaust is So OVER…”. The actual war may have been over but Jews will feel the effect for many, many years to come. Our entire society was wiped out. Over 1000 years of Jewish culture and history in Europe was destroyed. We are like cultural and religious orphans. And the world expects us to “get over it”???? How can we? How can we not be terrified of our host countries turning on us like Germany did on her Jews?
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
The demographics don’t look good for Israelis in the long term - Will it take a social revolution to come to an equilibrium solution?
How will Israelis act when they eventually become the minority in a democracy?
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
When Toni Morrison was asked by Leonard Lopate whether the election of Barack Obama meant an end to racism in this county, she said: “that’s for whites to decide”. When Lopate told you of this, you wondered what the counterpart of this was in Israel. May I suggest to you that whether the Holocaust is over or not, is not for a jew to decide but for those that perpetrated it. There are many that deny it ever happened and just as many that would gladly do it again so how can it be over?
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
TODA RABBA for starting this convesation let’s go forwarde and not be always pouderd by the dust of the Holicost when the future of Israel is consen . WILLY
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I warmly salute your voice and perspectives that you are addressing in your book and conversations. I was listening to you on wnyc public radio today. Ironically, I was expecting, here comes another deflective justification of Israel’s opression and state murder policies towards its subjugated arab minorities and captives. I was asking, when will israel ever develop a critical perspective of itself, and come to see what cannot be denied, the history of the state of Israel has been to opress and kill palestinians in the name of a righteousness gotten from holocaustic victimhood.
This has always shocked and isgusted me that a people, a critical thinking , smart people, who were subjected to genocide, could then turn around and perpetrate a similar attitude towards another people. Granted they havent killed on the mass scale that holocaust did, but still the utter diregard for palestiian life, be it children or adults, regardless of anything other than ethnicity and religion, has always disgusted and angered me. I am happy to see that an honesty is beginning to emerge in the conscience and consciousness of Isralei and jewish society.
Given all the forces which are against you, I truly and admiringly salute you.
I could go on and on about the myriad dimensions involved in the status quo that you are undoubtedly going against, but I cannot only say that I hope that you and others will continue to speak up for a more honest and truthful recognition of the past and a much more honorable and respect worthy position regarding a constructive and prgamatic future for Israel and its neighbors.
Your perspective and reflection on the past and current history is very hopeful, perhaps for only the first time that I have yet seen.
Thank you.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I’d like to express gratitude for Mr Burg’s moral courage and humanistic vision. While his proposals strike me–an ordinary American with no ties of blood or creed or economic interest to either of the parties in the conflict between the Jews and the Palestinians–as rather biased in Israel’s favor, they seem to open a path towards the just resolution that is crucial to the safety and wellbeing of not just the peoples of southwest Asia but also of Americans, who are my primary concern.
Do you think that one practical step towards weaning Israel off the heavy wine of world-victimhood, with its inebriation of permission to commit any sort of crime to prevent a recurrence, its teleological suspension of the ethical, would be to stop using the absurd term “holocaust” to mythologize what was in fact a genocide?
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Thank you for these questions and comments.
Let me say that to my mind, the increasing focus on the Holocaust in scholarship, literature, commemoration, reparations, and so forth, has not come at the expense of ignoring other genocides and crimes against humanity. In fact, the opposite is the case. There is now a much greater interest in other cases of state-directed crimes than there was in the past. We should also remember that the very terms “crimes against humanity” and “genocide” were coined in response to the mass murder of the Jews, but have been applied to many other subsequent crimes.
As for Israeli policies, what troubles me within the Israeli context is not so much the obvious but in a real sense unavoidable obsession or at least excessive preoccupation with the Shoah. What troubles me much is that Israeli policy-makers invoke the Holocaust whenever they conduct policies that would otherwise be insupportable. To put it simply, the long-term occupation of millions of Palestinians is not and cannot be justified by the Holocaust, but Israeli political rhetoric often makes it so and much of the public has been indoctrinated into thinking in these terms. This is why I think that the first step for liberation from Holocaust-compulsion in Israel is liberation of both Israelis and Palestinians (who have themselves been infected by this kind of thinking, though in reverse, presenting themselves as the Jews of the Middle East and the Israelis as Nazis) from the evil and corruption of occupation.
As for the “Eastern” Jews in Israel, they have also come to “own” the Holocaust by way of their socialization into Israeli society. I strongly recommend the extraordinary Israeli film, “Don’t Touch My Holocaust,” which powerfully depicts this struggle over the “ownership” of the Shoah, and the inability to free oneself from it, by second-generation Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews as well as Israeli Arabs.
I must also add in this context that some of the strongest protests over the last six decades against the continuing mass crimes in the world after the Holocaust came from such Holocaust survivors as Primo Levi, Jean Amery, and Eli Wiesel. Indeed, the despair that filled Amery and Levi in view of the fact that the Holocaust had not taught humanity any lessons in humaneness probably played a major role in their suicides.
It should also be remembered that the 1948 UN Resolution on the prevention of genocide was crafted by Raphael Lemkin, who escaped the Nazis with the skin of his teeth and lost most of his family in Poland. What motivated him was initially the genocide of the Armenians and then the realization that the Holocaust was in part a result of the impunity which the perpetrators of that first genocide of the 20th century enjoyed.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
What should be done to maximize the degradation of Hamas’ ability to perpetrate terror for the minimum hindrance of the Palestinian people’s realization of their peaceful aspiration (for anyone reading this who questions the Palestinians’ peaceful intentions, I mean the subset of their aspirations that are peaceful)? If international leaders insist on concessions that are high on facilitating Hamas terror and low on facilitating peaceful aspirations for ordinary Palestinians (such as yielding land), should Israel yield or counterpropose other concessions that provide less help to terrorists and more help to ordinary people?
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Allison — For those who try to maintain the confinement and keep the ghetto walls as high as possible, globalization is an existential threat. Time and again they need to use the Holocaust as part of the bricks and mortar of that wall. For me, this new openness is an opportunity for a different kind of conversation between us and the non Jewish world. Thanks to globalization, the Holocaust becomes a commitment that — God forbid — something like this will never happen again in the world.
Otis — I do not know very well the Utopian dreams of the other parties you mention — I mainly know ours. The way I see it, among the Jewish people today two Utopias are in conflict: the introvert-Messianic-fundamentalist one, which I wholeheartedly oppose, and the universalistic-human one, which I belong to and I believe expresses the inner soul of historic Judaism.
Ben — Today Israel is defined by many as a Jewish Democratic state, which sounds good and complementary. Only when you look inside and dig deeper do you realize the potential volatility of these two opposing sources of authority. Democracy indicates a human source of authority and Judaism (at least the way it is officially interpreted in Israel, which is a religious interpretation) is a theological source of authority. If this built-in contradiction is not resolved, it is doomed to explode.
Miriam — Since the Zionist idea is not a one-time revolution but an ongoing evolution one may say that it began as a panacea of the European Jewry and later on turned into a challenge for Jews deriving from both the Christian and Muslim hemispheres. I believe that in modern Israel, which combines both hemispheres of origin, it is not always easy to maintain a common experience but it holds the promise for a different conversation and might even offer an example for a larger Muslim – Christian discourse.
Lorenz — You are right about the demographic trend. Because of it, Israel must make up its mind about which of the following three components it is willing to give up: the greater land of Israel (which offers no Jewish majority), democracy, or the Jewish nature and character of the state of Israel. It is impossible to have them all. Reading the demographic trend the way you do, makes it inevitable for Israel to give up the greater land of Israel if it wants to enhance democracy and preserve the Jewish nature of the state of Israel.
Lila — The Holocaust is too big and too meaningful to be the responsibility of the Jews only. Whatever will come, the day after, it should the result of a joint effort by both victims and victimizers. For more on this, please read the last chapters of my book.
mg duke – If only we had been asked on day one what definition we should use for this trauma of WWII. Then the option of calling it a genocide would have been seriously considered. But Holocaust is now a term that cannot be altered, ignored or forgotten. And we must repair the world with it.
For more on these subjects read my book, THE HOLOCAUST IS OVER; WE MUST RISE FROM ITS ASHES: http://us.macmillan.com/theholocaustisoverwemustrisefromitsashes
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Avraham Burg said something today on the radio that I feel is the origin of most contemporary arguments and rooted in the attempt of the few to control the destiny of the many. “Societies have been abducted by religious fundamental minorities”. If you replace the word Religios and Fundamental with any number of options of your choosing you’ve just described the cause of every major social, economic and moral conflict in our society.
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Mr. Burg,
Israel has “given itself permission” to ignore international humanitarian law and, among many other things, placed settlers and a separation wall in the occupied territories, both of which have been called illegal by UNSC and/or by the International Court of Justice.
How can Israel return to the rule of law?
And how can the political strength of the settler movement be overcome so that Israel can ever relinquish all or most of the West Bank under a peace treaty?
I imagine that the Israeli peace camp would like some help on these things, and I propose that the EU (or the US or UNSC) demand that Israel remove the wall and the settlers, now, today, simply because they are illegal as an incident to occupation, and not at all as a preparation for or aspect of peace negotiations.
Could you comment on this suggestion as a member of the Israeli peace camp?
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Dear Avraham, like prg above I warmly… no nearly burst with joy to hear your views today. So courageous and yet fair. I could hear you being able to listen and respond with an intelligence that gets so often shouted over. As a survivor of an abusive family, I have spent years trying to overcome the damages that molded my life. In righteous anger I acted out of my victim-hood. I see only a difference in scale between my small journey and Israel’s in the process of healing. After exhaustively gathering evidence, justifying behavior, arguing every point to death, I found myself in a circular trap built of answers with out any solutions. I had to let it go, let it go. In the end, for all the complexities of the world and all the paths taken, there really are very few truths and they seem to be simple: acceptance, forgiveness, empathy, compassion. Dare I say love? For me none of the hair splitting details matter.
There does need to be discussion; a dialog, but so few people seem to have the mature emotional control to allow a dialectic to exist. I am grateful that you have made the effort to bring these ideas forward in a coherent way. You have said for me, all that I have come to believe in the deepest experience of my life and I thank you.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Perhaps I am wrong, I was only a child at the time, but I do not remember the term ‘holocaust’ being applied to the Nazi genocides during the 1940s. I remember it being used only for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where it had some tragic appropriateness. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe people who saw the word’s power regarding Japan hijacked it to gin up irrational partisanship for Israel. I agree that “‘holocaust’ is a term that cannot be altered, ignored, or forgotten”, but it is in fact a crucial generative element of the apocalyptic mindset that you seem to recognize is corrupting not just Israel but Judaism and must be disowned if you hope ever to repair Israel much less the world.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 pm
To Avraham Burg:
As a Zionist Israeli who is both an active combat soldier and a “refusnick” I find it difficult to understand the argument of “giving up” the Holocaust in order to motivate a humanistic position in Israel and elsewhere. In your talk it seems that you were fluctuating between the position above and the abandonment of Zionism. In my view the two positions are orthogonal as Zionism as an ideology is independent from the singular event of the Holocaust (although the acceptance of the state of Israel by the world is not). Zionism itself can be violent messianic or merely the right of Jews to have their own country - so what work does the Holocaust, apart from being a rhetoric tool, do here?