empire, there is nothing marvelous in it."

Sometimes I see the Jewish preoccupation with the
Holocaust, to the exclusion of all other human disasters,
as uncharitable, self-absorbed, self-righteous, and, well,
pushy. On the other hand, it makes no sense to counsel
putting it aside for a while. How can we be expected
to get over so enormous a tragedy in only forty or fifty
years? It takes time, centuries. It took over a thousand
years for theJews as a people to get over the destruction
of Jerusalem by Titus, and we may still not have recovered
from that. My problem is n0t that the griefis taking too
long, but that the orchestration of that grief in the
public realm sometimes seems coercive and misguided.

Jewish history is ?lled with disasters, from which
some redemptive meaning has ultimately been extracted.

A CRITIQUE OF PHILLIP LOPATE

Don?t Resist

The Holocau5t is proving to be a large bone to swallow;
it does not turn ?redeemable? so easily, and when we
try to hurry up that process with mechanical prescrip-
tions and ersatz rituals, compelling governments and
churches to pay verbal tribute to our losses in narrowly
defined terms and browbeating our young people to
feel more anguishingly the memory of our dead, some-
thing false, packaged, and sentimentally aggressive begins
to enter the picture. Perhaps the problem is that for
many alienated, secularized Jews who experience them-
selves as inauthentic in a thousand other ways, the
Holocaust has become the last proof of their own
authenticity. If so, they should realize that even this
proof is perishable stuff; the further one gets away
from personal experience, the harder it is to take the
spilled blood of history into one?s veins. l:l

 

Yebuda Bauer

hillip Lopate would quite clearly be much hap-

pier if we did not concentrate on the Holocaust

so much. It is ironic, then, that he spends an
inordinate amount of time, space, and effort in doing
precisely that. The problem will not, contrary to what
he says, go away sooner or later, as our generation
passes on. -In fact, he himself shows why it is unlikely
to go away; he agonizes over the problem?it bothers
him greatly. He both hopes that other things will take
its place and argues for a more sensible treatment of
the topic in the future. But not a year passes nowadays
without an ever-larger amount of Holocaust material of
all kinds-#historical, sociological, philosophical, theo-
logical, literary, and so on?being produced. Some of
it Lopate approves of; most of it he does not. A third
of the Jewish people were murdered; that will not
disappear or be forgotten.

Let me ?rst explain where I agree with Lopate?s
complaints. I do agree that the Holocaust has been
misused, especially, but not solely, by the Israeli political
establishment?especially, but by no means only, by the
right. I agree that much of the literature, and especially

 

Ii?b?da Better Jone Macbover Professor off-1010mm! 5:516:76:
or Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

the media treatment, has resulted in a trivialization of
the event, which is little short of catastrophic. I agree
that the Holocaust has been misused especially to pro-
mote types of Jewish chauvinism, leading many people
to ignore the sufferings of others. I agree that no ques-
tions should be barred and that comparisons with other
events are perfectly in order. I also agree that a tendency
exists, especially in the United States, to turn the Holo-
caust into a ?civil religion,? to substitute it for identifi-
cation with the Jewish heritage (however that may be
interpreted). And I agree that this tendency is dangerous.
Beyond that, I have some rather large bones to pick
with Lopate.

Lopate feels uncomfortable with being singled out, as
a Jew, for special treatment, historically speaking. I can
not help that. Facts are facts: anti-Jewishness is the oldest
group-hatred we know of, older than racial prejudice.
It stems from some rather basic cultural differences
between the Jews and the people surrounding them in
ancient times??Jews? monotheism and its implied sup-
port of the equality of all peoples, theJewish statement in
principle against slavery, the statement about the supreme
value of human life, the statement about equality before
the law (?eye for an eye?), and other provisions. Not
that similar ideas cannot be found in ancient civilizations

65

preceding the Jewish one, but the mix is certainly unique.
The Jews carried this culture with them as they began
dispersing in the wake of political disasters, and thus
they could become the target of attack when their host
societies entered periods of crisis. Could, but did not
necessarily have to?that depended on local conditions.
Anti-Semitism then is not just a prejudice; it is a cultural
attitude of great historical depth. And it became a
tremendous force with the developing differentiation
between Christianity and Judaism.

Nazism saw the Jews as a satanic element that endan-
gered the human species and therefore had to be elimi-
nated. Hence the notion that the Holocaust is unique:
not because of the number of vicrims, or because of the
methods of murder, or indeed because of the attendant
sadism and brutality (parallel manifestations of sadism
and brutality can be found throughout human history);
but because of the unprecedented totality of the plans
and because of their intended global validity. ?Unique-
ness? is understood here as ?without exact precedent,?
not as ?incomparable.? Indeed, the universal implica-
tion of the Holocaust lies, dialectically, precisely in its
uniqueness: it is the fact that the Holocaust happened
to a particular people at a particular time for reasons
that are due partly to a very long history and partly to
modern situations and developments. The Holocaust
happened; therefore it can happen again, n0t necessarily
to Jews, not necessarily by Germans, but anywhere by
anyone to anyone. The precedent that the Holocaust
sets is one of the more disturbing facts about it. That

 

Lopate t/arows into the pot
distinct cases of diverse peoples,
as though all t/aese cases
were parallels to tlae Holocaust.

 

Lopate is a Jew, that his people have for many years been
subjected to tremendous oppression, that the Holocaust
is a crucially important event in human history and
thereby pushes an unwilling Lopate as part of an un-
willing Jewish people into the of the storm?all this
I cannot help. Lopate will have to live with it, uncom-
fortably but inevitably.

When we ask about comparisons with the Romanies
(Gypsies), Armenians, Cambodians, Hutus, or any other
group, we ?nd some parallels as well as some quite
central differences. The crucial distinction is the Nazis?
quasi-religious, universal decision to engage in a total
annihilation campaign. Such a campaign did not take
place with either the Romanies or the Slavs or the
Armenians?though there was a decision in principle
to murder all Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Re-

66 TIKKUN VOL. 4, No. 3

 

cently, Romany intellectuals and historians have raised
questions about whether such a campaign of annihilation
was waged against the Romanies. If evidence were to
be introduced that showed that the racialist attitude
toward them resulted in the same kind of policy, there
would be every reason to extend to them as well the term
?Holocaust,? which is the (etymologically inappropriate)
term for the total planned physical annihilation of a
single people. Lopate?s problem is that he demands?
make comparisons and then does not com-
pare at all. He simply throws into the pot distinct cases
of diverse peoples in different circumstances, as though
all these cases were parallels to the Holocaust. They
are not.

here is of course no contradiction at all between

stating that anti-Semitism is a phenomenon that

is larger or deeper than what we usually call
?prejudice,? or that the Holocaust is 'unique in the
sense described above, and identifying with ?other?
victims as well. Quite the contrary: the study of the
Holocaust, when it is done in a controlled and serious
way, can and does lead to a greater awareness of the
process of victimization, and may help us establish
what Holocaust scholar Franklin H. Littell has called
an ?early warning system? against future repetition of
genocide and holocaust.

The point is, however, that while cancer and coronary
disease are both very dangerous, one does not treat them
in the same way. The autogenocide of the Cambodians
is of the same ?genus? as the Holocaust, but it is also
unique: we are not aware of another mass murder on
this scale by the authorities of a state against its own
ethnic group. One can compare the Holocaust with
the destruction of the aborigine Tasmanians or the
Armenians and the Romanies much more easily than
with the self-destruction of the Cambodians. In any
case, the Holocaust is probably the most extreme form
of genocide to date, because of the quasi-religious,
universal, and total motivation of the perpetrators.
By analyzing the most extreme form, one can learn
more about the political, and ideological
mechanisms that help bring about less extreme forms
of the same sickness.

Lopate emphasizes what he calls the ?continuum of
state-sanctioned cruelty,? and he speaks of the French
torture of Algerians, the My Lai massacre, the destruc-
tion of the Armenians, and Pol Pot?s murders as points
along that spectrum. But Lopate?s approach is marred
by muddled thinking. What happened in Algeria was
not genocide but an anticolonialist struggle and the
attempt to suppress it. What happened at My Lai was
not sanctioned by the State Department but was a
battle?eld decision to execute mass murder of enemies?

 

 "ml

 

again no intention of genocide can be shown. The Ar~
menian case is a case of genocide, very near to what I
define as a Holocaust situation. The Holocaust itself was
not state-sponsored; it was executed by an ideological
organization, the NSDAP, which intended to emasculate
the German state because it saw in it one of its main
enemies. The equation of nazism with the state bureauc-
racy is correct only insofar as the bureaucracy executed
the wishes of a supralegal, ideologically oriented party
mechanism. If there is a continuum. it is not one of
state-sponsored cruelty, which stretches from a police-
man in Los Angeles beating up a drunk to mass murder,
but one that goes from mass murder to genocide to
Holocaust, as de?ned above.

What I object to very strongly is Lopate?s attempt to
look at the Holocaust "from an ironic distance.? You
can do that with a lot of things, but please net with the
mass murder of your or any other people. This is nor
an academic exercise in literary criticism; this is mass
murder. It is this unfortunate ?irony? that seems to have
led Lopate to attack my article opposing the Wiesenthal
de?nition of the Holocausr as being the destruction of
six million Jews and ?ve million non-Jews. He argues
that since I see the Holocaust as killing Jews, "pure and
simple,? we Jews own the Holocaust and ?all others get
y0ur cotton-picking hands off." Let me be ?pure and
simple?: the Jews were picked out for total destrucuon,
unlike any other peOple. They would have much pre-
ferred nor to be picked out, in which case they would

A CRITIQUE or PHILLIP LOPATE

not ?own? the Holocaust. As it is, they unfortunately
do ?own? it.

Wiesenthal?s definition is demonstrably false. The total
number of non-Jewish concentration camp victims is
about half a million?which is half a million too many,
but it is not five million. On the Other hand, the tetal
number of dead in World War II has been estimated at
thirty-five million. Deduct the nearly six million Jews,
and you have many more than \Wiesenthal?s ?ve million.
Yet there was no premeditated plan to murder all these
people?all the members of any group. If you were a
Polish peasant or city-dweller and you avoided resistance
and other types of opposition, you would have suffered,
no doubt, but you would not have been targeted for
murder. To call what happened to the non-Jewish victims
?the Holocaust? is ?simply? false. \X?iesenthal, as he
admitted to me in private, invented the ?gure in order
to create sympathy for the Jews~?in order to make the
non-Jews feel like they are part of us. A nice sentiment,
maybe, but ultimately torally counterproductive, nor to
mention false.

Lopate would like the Holocaust to disappear?
wouldn?t we all! Unfortunately, one third of our peeple
disappeared into the abyss, and we have to know more
about it, not less. Rather than deal with the Holocaust
with ?ironic distance,? which is little short of scandalous,
let us deal with it?including its aberrations, trivial-
izations, and vulgarizations?in a concerned and in-
volved manner. It will not go away, but at least then we
can face it. 

What is the Meaning of This to You?

 

Debora/9 E. Lz'pstadt

or the past ten years, virtually since the explosion
of interest in the Holocaust, scholars and teachers
have had serious reservations about the way in
which the Holocaust has been used and abused to
support an entire gamut of political and social objecrives.
The Holocaust has been invoked as a means of encourag?
ing Jews to study Torah, give to Jewish charities, support

 

De?ant/9 E. Lt'pstadt is the author of Beyond Belief: The
American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust, 1933?
1945 (Free Press, 1986) and is currently conducting a study of
Holocaust Rewsr'mu'sw.

political causes?both liberal and conservative?and
observe traditional Jewish rituals.

Similar concerns have been expressed about the rash
of Holocaust memorials being erected in so many cities
in America. The amount of money being expended on
what are often artworks of quesrionable value could, if
used differently, have a signi?cant impacr on other areas
of Jewish life.

Educators have struggled to ?nd a way to teach about
the Holocaust so that students, particularly Jewish stu-
dents, do not come to conceive of theJewish experience
as a sequence of painful experiences, and of Jews as

67