返回新站                                                                                                                                                                      返回总目录 Obama vs. the Pope » Spengler | A First Things Blog
SUBSCRIBER LOGIN




Search First Things

Advanced Search
Spengler Forum

RSS

Spengler
Archives

Categories


Monthly



Monday, June 8, 2009, 2:45 PM
David P. Goldman

Obama’s failure to mention the historic tie of the Jewish people to the land of Israel elicited outraged comment from Jewish sources, for example this one from this morning’s editorial in the Jerusalem Post:

In his Cairo address the day before to the Muslim and Arab worlds, the president had justified Israel’s right to exist on the basis of the Holocaust: “The aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted,” he said, “in a tragic history” that culminated in the Shoah.

At Buchenwald, he said: “The nation of Israel [arose] out of the destruction of the Holocaust.” That rationale, standing alone, set the stage for Obama to assert: “On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinians… have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.”

What the Holocaust proved is that the world is too dangerous a place for Jews to be stateless and defenseless. But we Zionists were making that argument long before Hitler came to power.

The same point was made by some prominent American rabbis in Shabbat sermons, and it is absolutely correct. As the cited editorial said,

SO YOU see, Mr. President, long before Christianity and Islam appeared on the world stage, the covenant between the people of Israel and the Land of Israel was entrenched and unwavering. Every day we prayed in our ancient tongue for our return to Zion. Every day, Mr. President. For 2,000 years.

At every Jewish wedding down through the centuries, the bridegroom has crushed a glass beneath his foot while declaring: “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem…”

My memory is not perfect, and I do not read every Jerusalem Post editorial, but this is the first time I recall the newspaper citing Jewish prayer as the basis for a political position. That is encouraging. In the June-July issue of First Things, I argue that Jewish holiness, rather than the Holocaust, must be the foundation of our claim for support from the Christian world. Of course, I had no inkling of Obama’s coming offense when I wrote “Jewish Survival in a Gentile World,” but the President’s speech in Cairo exemplified the point. If all the Jews want is for the rest of the world to abhor the Holocaust, Obama said in effect, I’ll do that all day and all night. What a rotten thing the Holocaust was! And what stinkers are they who deny it happened! Now, you got what you paid for. Get over the barrel.

Pope Benedict XVI also had occasion to irritate the Jews during his trip to Israel and Jordan last month, particularly by complaining that the security barrier that separates Israel from the West Bank and has helped keep Palestinian terrorists away from Israeli targets. The pope has a Christian Arab constituency on the West Bank who suffer from the same security restrictions that Israel has imposed upon the territories as a matter of sad necessity. It is quite in character for him to deplore the human effects of such measures.

Nonetheless, what should be kept in mind is that the pope went to Israel precisely because of its Biblical significance, and visited the Jewish people in their divinely-appointed homeland precisely because he believes that the Jews were elected by God to communicate to all humanity knowledge of the true and unique God.

In a May 6 Newsweek column, George Weigel called attention to

the most salient personal fact about the pope’s journey—that it’s a pilgrimage by a man of the Bible to the land of the Bible. While pundits and partisans will interpret Benedict’s comments and actions according to the varying political winds and their own agendas, a real understanding of his pilgrimage must start at the true source of Benedict’s own thinking: Scripture.

Weigel added,

Ratzinger’s intense encounter with the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament over more than half a century has given him both a deep reverence for the Bible and a theologically grounded reverence for living Judaism—which is the most solid basis possible for genuine friendship and mutual regard. Benedict knows that the Hebrew Bible is integral to Christianity.

Benedict believes that the Jews should be in Eretz Yisrael for the same reason that the Jerusalem Post does: because it is divinely mandated. Obama reinforces the Arab claim that Israel is the product of European guilt over the Holocaust. Who is the friend of the Jews, and who is the enemy?

In the cited article in the June-July issue, I argued that Jews should make common cause with the Pope. It won’t be available online for another two months, so if you want to read it now, you will have to subscribe. I suppose I could make it available for free, but sorry—as the conductor Otto Klemperer said to the Israel Philharmonic, I’m too Jewish for that.

34 Comments

    Ellen
    June 8th, 2009 |

    Mr. Goldman,

    Are you suggesting that you are stingy, with that last quote from Mr. Klemperer? My son accused me of that when I started to charge him rent, after he got his first job after college.

    In any case, of course you are right that the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel long predates the Holocaust, and it’s quite stupid of secular Jews to go on using the Holocaust as the main argument justifying the Jewish state.

    Frankly, the need to justify the State of Israel at all, after 60 years of existence, is quite ridiculous. In the meantime, several Arab states have ceased to exist as real independent states (Lebanon, Iraq) and 6 more Arab states in the Persian Gulf survive only because the US military protects their existence against internal and external predators. At this historical juncture, it is the very unpopular Arab autocracies, including the PA itself, living within their artificially constructed borders, that need to come up with a justification for their own existence. If it were up to me, I’d let them all collapse like the houses of cards that they actually are.

    David P. Goldman
    June 8th, 2009 |

    Ellen,
    It would be really cool to let the existing states collapse like a house of cards, and stand back to see what happens, but I am not sure we would like the result. So I suppose that I am making a case for propping up vicious dictators in order to suppress even more vicious Islamist rebels. And I didn’t mean to suggest that I am stingy. But First Things actually pays writers for articles, not to mention its editorial staff, and the paying subscribers are what make it all possible.

    Calinescu
    June 8th, 2009 |

    Mr. Goldman,

    The logic of secular Zionism does not really require that the Jewish commonwealth exist in Biblical Israel. Let us imagine that a vast earthquake were to swallow the physical territory of Israel into the sea, God forbid. Secular Zionism would still require that the Jewish people be a nation among nations capable of defending Jewish interests abroad and providing a last refuge to victims of persecution; to that end, it would require that a new Jewish state be founded elsewhere.

    Of course, states have interests, not friends, as Disraeli said. While one presumes that this new Jewish state would enjoy certain cultural affinities with the European states and the British Commonwealth nations, there is no particular reason to assume that this state would truly enjoy their friendship. And perhaps and Israel without friends (just as are all other nations) would appeal to secular Zionists.

    The thing that distinguishes the genocide of the Jews from the other genocides that history has seen and will, no doubt, witness anew in every horrified generation until the end of the world – that thing is that the goal was to kill every Jew in existence merely for being Jewish. While one can deplore the Turkish extermination of the Armenians, the Turks did their evil for a human motive: to consolidate their state and to take the land and property of a different race. The Nazis wanted to put an end to Judaism, and diverted important war materiel to this end even as the Eastern Front crumbled.

    If Jews are to be hated for being Jews, they must embrace those who love them for being Jews and they must mistrust anyone who wants them to be merely one nation among the others; history teaches us, surely, that no one will forget that the Jews are Jews, and apparent indifference will become a mask for hate.

    First Thoughts — A First Things Blog
    June 9th, 2009 |

    [...] the other hand, for an assessment of where the Pope and President part ways, see today’s Obama vs. the Pope by [...]

    Walter Pongratz
    June 9th, 2009 |

    Dear Mr. Goldman:
    What if all the displaced peoples of Europe want to return to their native countries? Like Banat, Batschka, Bessarabien, Bukowina, Dobrudscha, Galizien, Gottschee, Krain, Siebenbürgen, etc.? None of those peoples have a covenant with Jahve. At least, I am not aware of such claim. Would that prevent them of claiming the right to return to their native lands? If not, would they then be justified to use violence against those now living there and even displace them? And let’s assume Shlomo Zand’s assumptions are correct, wouldn’t that turn the Israelis into usurpers? wp

    Michael B
    June 9th, 2009 |

    What Benedict stated as pertains to the security wall, according to the sources I’m aware of, was:

    “How we earnestly pray for an end to the hostilities that have caused this wall to be built.”

    “Hostilities” is arguably too generic, too diplomatic and not sufficiently explicit, but that statement includes an acknowledgement that the security barrier was built out of necessity, for security purposes. Or, perhaps he made another statement that caused offense. Unless that’s the case, I don’t understand how that statement alone caused much irritation.

    David P. Goldman
    June 9th, 2009 |

    Michael B.,
    That is not all that the pope said, and certainly not how it was reported. See
    http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/today-benedict-belonged-palestinians

    As John Allen reported in the cited link, ““In a world where more and more borders are being opened up – to trade, to travel, to movement of peoples, to cultural exchanges – it is tragic to see walls still being erected,” the pope said.
    Later, he said such walls “do not last forever” and “can be taken down” – a fairly clear hint that, in his mind, the wall should come down as quickly as possible.”

    David P. Goldman
    June 9th, 2009 |

    Mr Pongratz,
    Although there was a continuous Jewish presence in Palestine throughout, with major communities in Safed and elsewhere, and Jerusalem was a majority-Jewish city since no later than the 1840s, the legitimacy of the Jewish settlement stems from the Balfour Declaration subsequently confirmed by the League of Nations, creating a Jewish homeland under international law — and of course affirmed by the United Nations in 1947. The expulsion of more than 800,000 Jews from Arab countries to Israel after 1948 and their absorption further reinforces the legitimacy of Jewish presence there. The Jews earned this through enormous efforts in settlement, land reclamation, building of institutions, and so forth. No recourse to a covenant with YHWH (your transliteration is inappropriate and almost certainly inaccurate) is required to establish the legitimacy of Israel.

    David P. Goldman
    June 9th, 2009 |

    Calinescu,
    Your point is well taken, and the fact is that Zionism never really was secular, even when it purported to me; that is why Herzl found such bitter resistance to the idea of a Jewish settlement in Uganda. As I noted, my article in the June-July issue of FT addresses this matter and comes to a conclusion similar to yours.

    Ellen
    June 9th, 2009 |

    Mr. Pongratz,

    In theory, all of the European peoples you mentioned plus many more nonEuropean peoples would be entitled to demand the right to go back to land they were displaced from in previous centuries. Nothing prevents anybody, in this day and age, from making a claim of that sort. It is a fact, however, that the great bulk of displaced peoples over the centuries have assimilated into their new environments and after a few generations no longer care about the culture or place they originally came from.

    More specific to the case of the Israeli-Arab fight over the Land of Israel is the fact that the Arabs themselves were conquerers of a land that didn’t belong to them, in the 7th century. The Arabs came from the Arabian Peninsula and had absolutely no presence in the Land of Israel at all until the Islamic conquest, at which point they displaced the original biblical-descended Jewish population, plus many other Christians and pagans who were living there at the time.

    So, in point of fact, they were not the indigenous population until they drove out the true indigenous population, which included many Jews, by the force of conquest. They didn’t count on the fact that Jews have long memories and chose not to assimilate into their Arab or European environments all the way into the 20th century.

    Too bad, they underestimated Jewish perserverance, and now they are paying the price for their imperial overstretch on one hand, and miscalculation on the other.

    Greg R. Lawson
    June 9th, 2009 |

    It is good to see a thorough understanding of history. I fear that President Obama is using his condemnations of the Holocaust as a way to quickly pivot (with stunning moral equivocation) to the cause of the Palestinians.

    I am a firm believer in Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. History (not just the Holocaust) shows what happens in the abscence of such a state.

    A two state solution can only ever be envisaged if and when the Palestinians accept Israel’s right to existance. If this never happens, then there can never be a seperate Palestinian state at which point pragmatic diplomacy might suggest an incorporation of the refugees into several other Arab states.

    I know this has been discussed at some length by certain foreign policy thinkers and I think this deserves the merit of serious consideration rather than immediate dismissal.

    I think it sad that we still have what appears a distinctive spirit of anti-semitism permeating discussions about Israel. The more things change, the more they remain the same and mired in the inescapable muck of historical memory.

    Michael B
    June 9th, 2009 |

    Mr. Goldman,

    I stand corrected.

    I’m not sure NCR’s John Allen Jr. didn’t spin Benedict’s comments in a certain direction, and he does add “… Benedict balanced those statements by urging Palestinian youth to resist the lure of terrorism,” etc. Nonetheless, I won’t argue the point and I agree Benedict could have better clarified his remarks as pertains to the security wall, the (inter-generational) refugee camps which have their own elaborate contexts, and the vision of a two-state solution (short-term vs. long-term vision, and upon what conditions?).

    charleston
    June 9th, 2009 |

    Walter Pongratz asks:

    “What if all the displaced peoples of Europe want to return to their native countries? ”

    until the defeat of the Ottoman Empire land from Egypt to Iraq was one country

    there was no sovereign country called Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq or Palestine..the land was part of the Turkish Empire for over 400 years

    It was NOT ARAB LAND

    http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch09me.htm

    “. In 1916 they (the Allies) agreed to the division of territory would be called Greater Syria, today Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait and what was then called Palestine, across the Sinai desert to the Suez Canal. This was the Sykes-Picot Agreement – imperial powers dividing the control of lands without consulting the people who dwelled on these lands.”

    so much of the arab narrative is based on modern ignorance of the historical population reality in the region

    http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Palestine#Population

    absent is any mention of the forced transference of Circassians, Georgians, and Balkan muslims into Syria/Palestine

    the migrating Bedouin now claiming displacement and refugee status

    the economic migrants-Iraqi and Egyptian who moved into Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa for jobs to feed their families now claim refugee status

    and of course all the useful idiots eager to believe any and all accusations which can bring harm to Jews

    All wars cause population displacements and transfers…Christians, muslims and Jews were all shuffled around and relocated from one part of the Ottoman lands to another

    Various cultural groups of the former Ottoman lands were given the opportunity for self determination…and the Jews are one of these groups

    Ferdinand
    June 9th, 2009 |

    Ellen,

    “Too bad, they underestimated Jewish perserverance, and now they are paying the price for their imperial overstretch on one hand, and miscalculation on the other.”

    Well, I sympathise with that attitude. On the other hand, Israel is a piece of land so little, even lacking natural resources, that the Arabs have, objectively speaking, hardly a in what way ever discernable disadvantage caused by the existence of Israel. The hatred towards Israel only pinpoints a collective pathology.

    Franklyn
    June 9th, 2009 |

    I think the statements DPG has noted by dear leader are calculated and designed to be misleading. The facts concerning Israel and the Palestinians do not support his “narrative”, thus those facts must be “changed”. [Didn't we hope for change?] The fablers in the fourth estate seem giddy with “hope” the “narrative” may one day become reality, thus they will do nothing to refute DL’s mistated claims.

    [Btw, does any else think it's strange his pov supports adherent's of his father's faith, but not his own? Could this be a clue as to how he really believes? Nah.]

    Thus it is important for others – terrorists and conspirators like ourselves – to keep this dialog going so that one day, and we don’t know when that will be, a new generation of story-tellers will compare their betters with themselves in the mirror, and after suffering near-terminal revulsion will look around for a more sustainable point of view. Meanwhile, we can but “hope” for “change”. Inappropriately, I guess.

    Leon Haller
    June 10th, 2009 |

    Oh, please. Obama was trying to walk a fence, dividing Jews, who gave him 81% of their votes (this, despite all the pro-Zionist pandering of the Bush Admin, promised to be continued by McCain), from the “Third World” Palestinians, who more naturally have our race-obsessed President’s sympathies. A man with the middle name of “Hussein”, who at one time contemplated becoming a Muslim, almost certainly also has some pro-Muslim sympathy as well. Hence he played the anti-Nazi angle, which never offends anyone, while avoiding giving offense to Palestinians by linking Zionism to Biblical claims of Jewish communal property right.

    I strongly applaud the Israelis for building their security wall, and only wish we stupid Americans could follow suit, and build the wall separating us from Mexico that the great patriot Pat Buchanan has long advocated.

    But as for ultimate moral ownership of the land … that is just way too complex for modern judgment. The Jews certainly built up Israel far more than the Palestinians had, or probably would have done by now. Jews have real claims, but so do Palestinians. The only just solution is the two-state one, with the Palestinians being given their own state on the West Bank, though perhaps with some UN force in lieu of a military. I think Israel could live with that, and justice demands it.

    Qohel - Australia's Leading Independent Conservative Blog
    June 10th, 2009 |

    [...] agree with David Goldman that the most significant omission from Obama’s Cairo speech was reference to the [...]

    C. James
    June 10th, 2009 |

    The idea that land “belongs” to a race, religion or ethnic group in perpetuity is the mindset among all parties in the Middle East. Don’t you think this is a real problem, or do you also subscribe to the perpetual ownership idea?

    The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Daily Must-Reads
    June 10th, 2009 |

    [...] What the pope understands about Judaism that Obama doesn’t (Spengler/First Things) [...]

    Ellen
    June 10th, 2009 |

    Mr. James,

    Any land belongs to the people who can secure its boundaries by settlement and by force of arms. If the Arabs had been able to conquer the Land of Israel in the 7th century, then settle the land or convert nonArabs into Arabs and Muslims, loyal to their vision, and maintain a dominant presence in the Land right down into modern times, the Zionist movement never would have gotten off the ground.

    It is a matter of historical fact that they were not able to do secure the Land or develop it into a functional medieval state, let alone a modern state. That is why they lost it for a time to the Crusaders, then to the Turks, then to the British, and finally to the Zionists.

    This is the normal pattern of history for all lands at all times. If the American Indians had been able to secure their tribal holdings and build modern states, America would not have become a European colony and new country populated mostly by Europeans, by the exact same logic.

    The Arabs somehow imagine that they alone are immune from the laws of history, and that they can lose sovereignty over a land that they conquered and then lost many times, and yet outside powers will somehow intervene and restore it to their tender mercies. It’s not going to happen, no matter how much they whine and complain. If they can’t defeat Israel on the battlefield or through economic boycotts, they will end up with nothing to show for 100 years or more of antiZionist agitation.

    John Cummins
    June 11th, 2009 |

    Yesterday, June 10, there were two comments here consisting of adamant theological objections to what their posters saw as Spengler’s campaign to foster Christian Zionism.

    They have been taken down.
    This is not good.

    David P. Goldman
    June 11th, 2009 |

    Mr. Cummins, I don’t know who took which comments down. The only comments I have excluded had to do with racial theories of intelligence, which I won’t allow on this blog.

    David P. Goldman
    June 11th, 2009 |

    Mr C. James:
    Yes, it is the origin of the problem. We (believing) Jews believe that Eretz Yisrael was given to us by God (although some of us, including me, are willing to be pretty flexible about exact boundaries), and the Muslims think that our Scripture is a falsification and that the land belongs to the Muslim Ummah. However, one doesn’t have to belief in perpetual ownership to think that the Jews have a right to the State of Israel. One only need believe in international law. That was established when the League of Nations affirmed the Balfour Declaration in 1921 and when the UN agreed to partition in 1947. The status of the West Bank is unclear under international law, but that is a different matter. It is the Arab and Persian side that refuses to accept international law on religious grounds.

    John Cummins
    June 11th, 2009 |

    Not expecting any to be taken down, except by accident, while you’re sorting (still?) out your new website, I didn’t think to capture them.

    One was written from an Eastern Orthodox point of view. The other was quite long, likely from a Catholic, and strongly against your “Christian Zionist” campaign. If your site has a comprehensive log, you should review it.

    If you are truly a believer, that is, you strive for contact with God, and are open to his remaking you through your conscience and through what befalls you, you should not only not delete any posts strongly critical of your positions. As your origin and destiny is God, not the hegemony of any ethnic group, you should take on their challenges, not just to your writing, but to your thinking. And if you find yourself admonished in your conscience, you are bound to change your mind, in public as well as in private.

    John Cummins
    June 11th, 2009 |

    “…you should not only not delete any posts strongly critical of your positions. As your origin and destiny is God, not the hegemony of any ethnic group, you should…”

    Sorry, hasty editing,

    you should not only not delete any posts strongly critical of your positions, but, as your origin and destiny is God, not the hegemony of any ethnic group, you should…”

    Pastaneta
    June 11th, 2009 |

    My parents fled from Poland when the Nazis invaded, then after the war fled to France because of the communist takeover. Even if they had wanted, they could never claim Polish citizenship back and even with proof, they never received any compensation for what was stolen by the Germans and the Poles. They worked in France and integrated in France and rebuild their lives in France.

    Why should the mistakenly called “Palestinian” Arabs be different? Most never had any tie to the land as they were landless fellahin who came from Egypt and Syria at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century? Most never owned anything (the land registers are there to prove it). And why are people who were never even born there still called “refugees”? I was never a “Polish refugee”.

    The sooner these facts are assimilated, the sooner will peace come.

    John Cummins
    June 11th, 2009 |

    Mr. Goldman, you wrote, “The only comments I have excluded had to do with racial theories of intelligence, which I won’t allow on this blog.”

    Why not? They are easily and quickly refuted. As there are obviously readers who subscribe to them, such refutation can be a perpetual resource to aid them in reforming and to aid others in their refutations.

    The the sole of Obama’s shoe – will we see the end of Israel? « Jim Blazsik
    June 11th, 2009 |

    [...] Obama vs. the Pope David P. Goldman Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Obama ‘ready to drop shield plans for Russian help on Iran’Camelot devotees make very poor investigative reportersNice Shoes Michelle!Obama administration continues to alienate Israel [...]

    Katto
    June 14th, 2009 |

    Ellen,

    “Any land belongs to the people who can secure its boundaries by settlement and by force of arms….” etc. Your basic position is that, Might makes Right; the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must. If you just put it in these concise terms, you will save a lot of typing space.

    Therefore, if the USA suffers catastrophic collapse and one day can no longer defend its friends, and the Arabs succeed in replacing the State of Israel with one called, let’s say, Palestine, you will say, “Palestine belongs to the Arabs who have secured its boundaries by settlement and force of arms.” Whoever can conquer and hold it, owns it legitimately, correct? Have I understood you?

    “The Arabs somehow imagine that they alone are immune from the laws of history, and that … outside powers will somehow intervene and restore [Palestine] to their tender mercies.” For decades now, outside powers, including something new in history — the United Nations — have been actively and concretely working to help the Palestinians keep alive the hope of fulfillment of at least some part of this desire; no doubt all these powerful actors are ignorant of “the laws of history.” There are even plenty of JEWS on the Palestinians’ side, including many powerful and influential ones, as is well known. It’s hard to blame the Pals for keeping up their motivation when they have so much international (and Jewish) support. And now the current US President has even strong-armed the current Israeli government into voicing support for a Palestinian nation. Suppose this conspiracy against “history” succeeds?

    In your later post you state: “[The invading Arabs of the 7th Century] were not the indigenous population until they drove out the true indigenous population, which included many Jews, by the force of conquest.” But neither were the Jews part of “the true indigenous population.” You seem to have forgotten that the Jews had earlier invaded and occupied the land, and settled alongside or displaced those who were already there.

    Both of the current parties squabbling over this real estate have elaborate and ancient myths justifying their claims. It is refreshing that you see the situation empirically and without ‘mind-forged manacles.’ May the best man win!

    Ellen
    June 15th, 2009 |

    You don’t seem to understand the logic of what you are saying. The UN operates as part of the same laws of history as every other player. The Arabs have tried to use the UN as a lever to displace the victorious Israelis who won the 1948 war. They have not succeeded because the UN is essentially a talk-box with no power. They are using all means at their disposal to reverse their numerous (8) military defeats at the hands of the IDF.

    You may support who ever you wish to support, as may anyone else. The Israelis will come out on top, as they repeatedly have. The Jews of antiquity lost sovereignty over their homeland once and then once more, and were reduced to a marginal minority after the Islamic conquest. The Arabs had history on their side at that point, but no longer. Too bad for them.

    Mark E
    June 17th, 2009 |

    Good points David. Do you think this is happening out of ignorance or political calculation?

    David P. Goldman
    June 17th, 2009 |

    Mark E,
    Calculation. Obama is surrounded by people with huge amounts of experience in the Middle East, and he knows a good deal about the matter himself.

    Mark
    June 18th, 2009 |

    Calinescu said:
    The thing that distinguishes the genocide of the Jews from the other genocides that history has seen and will, no doubt, witness anew in every horrified generation until the end of the world – that thing is that the goal was to kill every Jew in existence merely for being Jewish. While one can deplore the Turkish extermination of the Armenians, the Turks did their evil for a human motive: to consolidate their state and to take the land and property of a different race. The Nazis wanted to put an end to Judaism, and diverted important war materiel to this end even as the Eastern Front crumbled.

    This is the hate crime argument – my victimization was worse than yours because of what the perpetrator was thinking. The Armenians are rightly furious that many Jews demote their tragedy.

    David P. Goldman
    June 18th, 2009 |

    Mark/Calinescu,
    The Armenians are right to be furious that many Jews demote their tragedy. The murder of a single child is a horror past imaging. The murder of millions of Armenians takes us to the threshold of madness. But it is not just the Armenians. I wrote recently,

    Americans shield themselves from the horror of national death. In the eyes of the third world, the Holocaust is of no special consequence. Every tribe and nation will face its own Holocaust, that is, its own extinction. The world is in the midst of a Great Extinction of peoples, in which between half and nine-tenths of the world’s 6,000 languages will be silent forever during the next century. Americans shield their eyes from the horror that pervades life in the Muslim world, the sense of looming extinction that lies upon ordinary life like an unending plague of darkness. As Franz Rosenzweig wrote, “Just as every individual must reckon with his eventual death, the peoples of the world foresee their eventual extinction, be it however distant in time. Indeed, the love of the peoples for their own nationhood is sweet and pregnant with the presentiment of death. Thus the peoples of the world foresee a time when their land with its rivers and mountains still lies under heaven as it does today, but other people dwell there; when their language is entombed in books, and their laws and customers have lost their living power.”

    http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/06/obama-and-cairo


Leave a Comment

Find Us