Many factors contributed to the Holocaust--European anti-Semitism, mass murder technologies, and Allied indifference--but none more elemental than the Jews' inability to defend themselves. Israel and its citizen Defense Forces represent the most palpable means for redressing that incapacity.
Accordingly, denying the Holocaust not only deprives Israel of its raison d'être, but, more nefariously still, it invalidates the Jews' need to defend themselves. So, the Iranian leader proceeds to arm Hamas and Hezbollah and produce nuclear weapons while claiming that the Jews of Israel--like those of 1940s Europe--have nothing to fear. But Ahmadinejad does not stop short at merely deeming the Holocaust a "fairy tale;" rather, he portrays Israel as a Nazi state--guilty of perpetrating the very offenses against the Palestinians that the Nazis never did to the Jews.
Where Ahmadinejad leaves off, the Goldstone Report, or, as it is officially called, the “United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict,” persists. The U.N. mission purports to have investigated Israel's military action in Gaza last winter, an operation launched in response to the firing of more than 7,000 Hamas missiles at Israeli towns since Israel's 2005 withdrawal from the Strip. But instead of probing Hamas's deliberate effort to maximize Israeli civilian casualties and its doctrine of hiding behind Palestinian human shields, the judges interviewed handpicked Hamas witnesses, several of them senior commanders disguised as civilians, and uncritically accepted their testimony. Inexorably, the report, which presumed Israel's guilt, condemned the Jewish state for crimes against humanity and for mounting a premeditated campaign against Gaza civilians.
The Goldstone Report goes further than Ahmadinejad and the Holocaust deniers by stripping the Jews not only of the ability and the need but of the right to defend themselves. If a country can be pummeled by thousands of rockets and still not be justified in protecting its inhabitants, then at issue is not the methods by which that country survives but whether it can survive at all. But more insidiously, the report does not only hamstring Israel; it portrays the Jews as the deliberate murderers of innocents--as Nazis. And a Nazi state not only lacks the need and right to defend itself; it must rather be destroyed.
Ahmadinejad's genocidal rhetoric and the iniquity of the Goldstone Report notwithstanding, Israel will, of course, continue to defend its citizens. No amount of vitriol will compel Israel onto a course of self-destruction. But what will be destroyed is any chance for peace. Having twice withdrawn unilaterally to recognized borders and received only onslaughts in return, and having suffered censure for protecting themselves from that aggression, Israelis will understandably recoil from additional retreats that will leave them vulnerable. Israelis, moreover, will not withdraw from any territory liable to become staging grounds for terrorist groups empowered by international agencies and convinced of their ability to murder Israelis with impunity.
Israel will pursue policies with or without firgun. But by making the connection between the Holocaust and its denial, the Iranian nuclear program, and the Goldstone Report, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has exposed the venal narrative that concludes with Israel's paralysis. By reaffirming Israel's right to safeguard its citizens, he has demarcated the only path to peace.
Michael B. Oren is Israel's ambassador to the United States.
<!--Session data-->
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (10)
One problem with relying on the Holocaust as justification for Israel's existence is that even when the Arabs acknowledge the Holocaust, they respond with something like, "Yes the Europeans killed the Jews, but why should the Palestinians pay for Europe's crime?"
What is needed is a narrative about Jewish settlement in pre-state Palestine that leaves Europe out of it, putting the focus on the Arab/Islamic crimes perpetrated against the Jewish people over the past 13 centuries. For instance, in many Muslim states, if a Muslim were to attack a Jew on the street for any reason, the Jew would not be allowed to defend himself and instead would be at the mercy of any Muslim passerby for his defens ... view full comment
One problem with relying on the Holocaust as justification for Israel's existence is that even when the Arabs acknowledge the Holocaust, they respond with something like, "Yes the Europeans killed the Jews, but why should the Palestinians pay for Europe's crime?"
What is needed is a narrative about Jewish settlement in pre-state Palestine that leaves Europe out of it, putting the focus on the Arab/Islamic crimes perpetrated against the Jewish people over the past 13 centuries. For instance, in many Muslim states, if a Muslim were to attack a Jew on the street for any reason, the Jew would not be allowed to defend himself and instead would be at the mercy of any Muslim passerby for his defense. Sort of a metaphor for how some people these days seem to think that if a Muslim state were to attack a Jewish state, that the Jewish state should seek the mercies of some other Muslim state for defense against it attacker.
Wasn't it just a month or so ago that Obama was heavily critiqued for linking the Holocaust to Israel's "raison d'etre"...? If I were Oren, I'd be careful about pushing this line of thought...though maybe he doesn't have to worry about it.
I would also humbly suggest that if Bibi is really principally interested in educating the world's youth about the reality of the Holocaust that he choose a forum slightly more prominent in the eyes of his chosen audience. I may be wrong, but I don't think that a General Assembly of the UN pulls in high ratings amongst the 8-21 age range.
On a positive note, though, this article does an effective job of combining "the Goldstone Report" in a number of s ... view full comment
Wasn't it just a month or so ago that Obama was heavily critiqued for linking the Holocaust to Israel's "raison d'etre"...? If I were Oren, I'd be careful about pushing this line of thought...though maybe he doesn't have to worry about it.
I would also humbly suggest that if Bibi is really principally interested in educating the world's youth about the reality of the Holocaust that he choose a forum slightly more prominent in the eyes of his chosen audience. I may be wrong, but I don't think that a General Assembly of the UN pulls in high ratings amongst the 8-21 age range.
On a positive note, though, this article does an effective job of combining "the Goldstone Report" in a number of sentences with "Ahmadinejad."
With due respect, "firgun" does not mean anything quite like flattery
in Hebrew. It means "an act or atmosphere of support and encouragement".
That's what the Israeli joke means about the sign at the exit of BG Airport.
You can check Rubik Rozental's slang dictionary. It comes from the Yiddish
"farginnen", which according to Weinreich's dictionary means "not begrudge"
(or, in special contexts, not envy, not indulge, afford ...).
It's related to the idea of (perhaps generously) giving the benefit of the doubt.
With due respect, "firgun" does not mean anything quite like flattery
in Hebrew. It means "an act or atmosphere of support and encouragement".
That's what the Israeli joke means about the sign at the exit of BG Airport.
You can check Rubik Rozental's slang dictionary. It comes from the Yiddish
"farginnen", which according to Weinreich's dictionary means "not begrudge"
(or, in special contexts, not envy, not indulge, afford ...).
It's related to the idea of (perhaps generously) giving the benefit of the doubt.
Whoops. In my comment I wrote "not indulge". That should have been "indulge".
And sometimes firgun is close to forgiveness. Sorry about my slipup.
Whoops. In my comment I wrote "not indulge". That should have been "indulge".
And sometimes firgun is close to forgiveness. Sorry about my slipup.
yerubal
"With due respect, "firgun" does not mean anything quite like flattery
in Hebrew. It means "an act or atmosphere of support and encouragement"."
The online Hebrew dictionary MORFIX gives the following meaning for "firgun"
"(Yiddish) (colloquial) favor, equanimity, lack of jealousy."
yerubal
"With due respect, "firgun" does not mean anything quite like flattery
in Hebrew. It means "an act or atmosphere of support and encouragement"."
The online Hebrew dictionary MORFIX gives the following meaning for "firgun"
"(Yiddish) (colloquial) favor, equanimity, lack of jealousy."
"Many factors contributed to the Holocaust--European anti-Semitism, mass murder technologies, and Allied indifference--but none more elemental than the Jews' inability to defend themselves." How about Adolf Hitler?
"Many factors contributed to the Holocaust--European anti-Semitism, mass murder technologies, and Allied indifference--but none more elemental than the Jews' inability to defend themselves." How about Adolf Hitler?
I expect better than this:
"Denying the Holocaust not only deprives Israel of its raison d'être, but, more nefariously still, it invalidates the Jews' need to defend themselves."
from Oren.
The holocaust no doubt precipitated Zionism success in Palestine, but the Zionist project to create Israel predates the holocaust, and the reality of Israel is surely much larger than it's being a response to the destruction of European Jews. And how can argument about the Holocaust "invalidate the Jews' need to defend themselves." Every people, regardless of how they came by their claim to the land the occupy, defend themselves. No reasonable person can argue that Israel has no right to defend itself, w ... view full comment
I expect better than this:
"Denying the Holocaust not only deprives Israel of its raison d'être, but, more nefariously still, it invalidates the Jews' need to defend themselves."
from Oren.
The holocaust no doubt precipitated Zionism success in Palestine, but the Zionist project to create Israel predates the holocaust, and the reality of Israel is surely much larger than it's being a response to the destruction of European Jews. And how can argument about the Holocaust "invalidate the Jews' need to defend themselves." Every people, regardless of how they came by their claim to the land the occupy, defend themselves. No reasonable person can argue that Israel has no right to defend itself, whatever they think of the reasons for its founding (and yes, I mean by this that there are many very unreasonable people in the world on this question) or however they disagree with the particular way Israel chooses to defend itself.
The "raison d'etre" for Israel is that it is there, and that it functions as a homeland for its people. It is recognized as a nation by the majority of the world, and that legitimacy cannot be undone. Israel's legitimacy ought not be based upon the tragic outcome of WW I and WW II, nor 2000 year old claims to historical rights.
History is important, but it can never be the justification for the present.
After AndrewSullivan.Com's odd attaacks on Michael Oren I had to see what the fuss was about.
Michael Oren is supporting his Prime Minister and identifying and defending the themes of his speech, comparing them with Ahmedinjad's, and pointing our the fallacies of the Goldstone Report.
Starting first with the Holocaust discussion. I agree that not everyone beleives the Holocaust occured and is settled history. Oren correctly points out denial in the Muslim world and pockets of ignorance in the west. But more importantly he is pointing out the Ahmedinjhad is a liar who is piecing together a string of lies to justify an attack on Israel.
Oren also points out that the Goldstone Report used stage ... view full comment
After AndrewSullivan.Com's odd attaacks on Michael Oren I had to see what the fuss was about.
Michael Oren is supporting his Prime Minister and identifying and defending the themes of his speech, comparing them with Ahmedinjad's, and pointing our the fallacies of the Goldstone Report.
Starting first with the Holocaust discussion. I agree that not everyone beleives the Holocaust occured and is settled history. Oren correctly points out denial in the Muslim world and pockets of ignorance in the west. But more importantly he is pointing out the Ahmedinjhad is a liar who is piecing together a string of lies to justify an attack on Israel.
Oren also points out that the Goldstone Report used staged interviews with Hamas operatives to build their case against Israeli actions in Gaza. Critics who comapare Israel to Hamas are out of normal bounds of argument. Hamas has been attacking Israel without provocation for years and without apologies. No one investigates those atrociuos attacks.
If one really wants to discuss Iran, Hexbollah and Hamas, let's start the discussion. Why is Iran worried about Israel? Iran has never had any historical ties or conflicts with Israel. They care about it as part of a misguided belief in the Islamic Revolution that they can restore the Caliphate. Hezbollah? Look at what hezbollah did to Christians living in Syria if you wonder about their intentions.
Michael Oren has written on the 1967 war and understands that events can lead to war without careful considerations. Nasser's Arab ambitions were very real and ended up in disastrous consequences for Jordan, Eygypt and Syria.
The US better served in our interest by identifying the many falsehoods of Ahmedijhad and communicating these loudly to the world. We should expect truth if the UN has any relevance. And they should take his threats seriously.
If I am understanding some of Oren’s reasoning correctly I disagree with him, respectfully.
He seems to argue that it was important for Netanyahu to stress the reality of the Holocaust because that is essential to Israel’s self defence:
“Accordingly, denying the Holocaust not only deprives Israel of its raison d'être, but, more nefariously still, it invalidates the Jews' need to defend themselves…”
Firstly, I dissent from the notion that the Holocaust defines Israel’s raison d’etre, but more I fail to understand how denying the Holocaust’s reality—a travesty I mean not at all to gainsay—invalidates Israel’s need to defend itself.
Obama has already been severely crit ... view full comment
If I am understanding some of Oren’s reasoning correctly I disagree with him, respectfully.
He seems to argue that it was important for Netanyahu to stress the reality of the Holocaust because that is essential to Israel’s self defence:
“Accordingly, denying the Holocaust not only deprives Israel of its raison d'être, but, more nefariously still, it invalidates the Jews' need to defend themselves…”
Firstly, I dissent from the notion that the Holocaust defines Israel’s raison d’etre, but more I fail to understand how denying the Holocaust’s reality—a travesty I mean not at all to gainsay—invalidates Israel’s need to defend itself.
Obama has already been severely criticized for in his Cairo speech making the Holocaust the sole repository of causation for Israel’s existence while skirting totally the deep Judean connection to the land as it ranges from the earliest mists of history to recent history ante World War II.
The Holocaust adds tragic resonance to Israel’s need to defend itself but it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition of that need, which is existentially self defining and self justifying.
I have a different reading of Netanyahu’s great U.N. speech than Oren’s and a different reading of why Netanyahu was stirringly correct to dwell on the reality of the Holocaust.
I wrote about that reading when commenting on another thread on Gideon Levy’s soft headed criticism of the speech. I’ll repeat some of what I said:
“…Gideon Levy from this and the few other things I have read by him is quite soft headed.
My impression was that Netanyahu briefly but powerfully reminded the world —in which there are doubters and deniers—of the Holocaust not to prove that it happened but to demonstrate how egregiously the U.N. shames itself by letting such perfidy occupy centre stage.
Similarly the comparison between Hamas and the Nazis was apt in context. The context is virulent anti Semitism and the desire to accomplish genocide. That aptness is driven by the extent to which Hamas is an Iranian proxy and the context’s circle gets completed by the fact and content of Ahmadinejad’s evil screeds.
What is inapposite and obtuse is Levy’s demand for historical exactitude in the comparison of either Hamas and the Nazis or the London Blitz and the Gazan shelling. The point was to contrast Churchill’s decision to firebomb Dresden with Israel’s attempts in very difficult circumstances—the embedding of Hamas fighters—in civilian enclaves to minimize civilian casualties while exercising its absolute right to defend itself, and deter, indiscriminate shelling, which appears in fact to have proven somewhat successful. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR200909...)
Here’s an instance of that obtuseness of levy’s sheer inability what Netanyahu was trying to say: “…And if we can compare a poorly equipped terrorist organization to the horrific Nazi killing machine, why should others not compare the Nazis' behavior to that of Israel Defense Forces soldiers? In both cases, the comparison is baseless and infuriating…” We all should know what’s really baseless and infuriating here.
Netanyahu was correct to emphasize the Holocaust party for the reasons already mentioned. But what sneering stupidity do we get from Levy: “Netanyahu began the speech as if he were chairman of the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial - Holocaust, Holocaust, Holocaust; his family and his wife's family.” And as if such stupidity wasn’t enough get this: “No less demagogic was his attack on the Iranian regime. They shoot demonstrators there, he protested vehemently. As if they don't do that in our Bil'in and Na'alin.”
What is shockingly being said here is that Israel in dealing with these protestors is morally equivalent to Iran’s massive and violent suppression of its dissidents such that Netanyahu has no ground on which to stand to call out Iranian brutality in the suppression of its own citizens, And deepening the shock is the intimation that the response to the Bil’in and Na’alin protestors is comparable In its scope to what Iran did. Absent that intimation the comment is even more self evidently idiotic.
And how about this: “Bashar Assad, who has been knocking on doors for years, claiming he wants peace? No one has opened the doors. “ Levy should read this: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-syria-temptation-a....
And so on.
The sneering ignorance animating Levy’s piece, the condescension—“Talk of security and victims may still have buyers among the WIZO women of America, but that's it”—ironic given the false and self refuting assumption of Levy’s superiority to these women….”
This was Levy's piece:
"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cheapened the memory of the Holocaust in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday. He did so twice. Once, when he brandished proof of the very existence of the Holocaust, as if it needed any, and again when he compared Hamas to the Nazis.
If Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, Netanyahu cheapens it. Is there a need of proof, 60 years later? Or, the world might think, is the denier right?
And it is doubtful that any historian of stature would buy the comparison the prime minister made between Hamas and the Nazis, or between the London Blitz and the Qassam rockets on Sderot. In the Blitz, 400 ... view full comment
This was Levy's piece:
"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cheapened the memory of the Holocaust in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday. He did so twice. Once, when he brandished proof of the very existence of the Holocaust, as if it needed any, and again when he compared Hamas to the Nazis.
If Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, Netanyahu cheapens it. Is there a need of proof, 60 years later? Or, the world might think, is the denier right?
And it is doubtful that any historian of stature would buy the comparison the prime minister made between Hamas and the Nazis, or between the London Blitz and the Qassam rockets on Sderot. In the Blitz, 400 German bombers and 600 fighter planes killed 43,000 people and destroyed more than one million homes. Hamas' Qassams, perhaps the most primitive weapon in the world, have killed 18 people in eight years. Yes, they sowed great terror - but a Blitz?
And if we can compare a poorly equipped terrorist organization to the horrific Nazi killing machine, why should others not compare the Nazis' behavior to that of Israel Defense Forces soldiers? In both cases, the comparison is baseless and infuriating.
Netanyahu began the speech as if he were chairman of the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial - Holocaust, Holocaust, Holocaust; his family and his wife's family. Then he spoke in Shimon Peres' terms, proposing a "rosy future" to humanity.
No less demagogic was his attack on the Iranian regime. They shoot demonstrators there, he protested vehemently. As if they don't do that in our Bil'in and Na'alin.
Then came the kicker: Operation Cast Lead was a pinpoint attack. Israel telephoned thousands of people to tell them to leave their homes. Where to, Mr. Prime Minister? Into the sea? He said the IDF, which killed nearly 1,400 Palestinians, mostly civilians, exhibited unprecedented restraint.
Moving on: We made peace with every Arab leader who wanted to, the premier said. What about Syrian President Bashar Assad, who has been knocking on doors for years, claiming he wants peace? No one has opened the doors.
Talk of security and victims may still have buyers among the WIZO women of America, but that's it. For a regional power that has almost every weapon in the world in its arsenal and is fighting primitive terror organizations, it is a bit difficult to be taken seriously when talking about security, especially when said security is only for Israelis.
Then came our ancient right to the land and the unavoidable Biblical verses, in English and the original Hebrew, that always end the performance on such occasions - though Netanyahu, unlike his predecessors, did not pull out a skullcap at this crucial moment.
That moment was supposed to move his listeners, but it left me, at least, unmoved by a propagandist prime minister. Hallelujah was heard last night only in Ramat Gan Stadium, at the Leonard Cohen concert."
Gideon Levy, Haaretz