Rob Kall, the editor in chief of OpEdNews (OEN) recently published a provocative edition of a weekly Zoom call among editors and contributors to his website. It was provocative because the remarks of one of the participants about fascism and the Great Holocaust caused several Jewish attendees to take offense and vehemently accuse him of holocaust denial and anti-Semitism.
Basically, the offending remarks identified Germany’s wealthy Jewish 1% as providing Hitler’s fascism with pretext for his genocide of the other 99%. (I’ve summarized what was actually said here.) The discussion that ensued led Rob to wisely recommend caution in approaching such sensitive topics.
Rob’s recommendation reminded me of a sobering experience I had years ago in Mexico. It put me in the position of the OEN provocateur. It also caused me to reflect on the role of self-criticism that is part and parcel of the Judeo-Christian tradition and of critical thinking in general.
My Report from Israel
The experience I’m referring to came when I was invited to give a “Report from Israel” after a three-week study tour of Israel, Jordan, and Egypt sponsored by Berea College, where I taught in the Philosophy and Religion Department for 40 years. The invitation came from the Unitarian Universalist (U.U.) congregation of San Miguel de Allende.
My report was heavily influenced not only by our time spent in the Palestinian community, but by a separate visit my wife, Peggy, and I made to the Sabeel Ecumenical Center for liberation theology in Jerusalem. Scholars there connected the Palestinians’ situation with colonialism. They pointed out that ever-expanding Jewish settlements stood in blatant contravention of UN Resolution 242. It was a continuation of the European colonial system that had supposedly been abolished following World War II. In Israel-Palestine, Jewish occupation represented the familiar European settler pattern repeated throughout the former colonies. It had (Zionist) settlers from Germany, Russia, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, and elsewhere arriving unexpectedly in lands belonging for millennia to poor unsuspecting Palestinian peasants, and then confiscating their homes, fields and resources.
With all of that fresh on my mind, the thesis of my U.U. presentation was clear and unambiguous. “The real terrorists in Israel,” I said, “are the Zionists who run the country.” I didn’t consider my basically historical argument particularly original or shocking. The Sabeel Center and Noam Chomsky had been making it for years.
What I didn’t realize was that almost everyone in my audience was Jewish. (I didn’t even know about San Miguel’s large Jewish population – mostly “snowbirds” from New York City.) Nonetheless, my remarks that Sunday stimulated an engrossing extended discussion. Everyone was respectful, and the enthusiastic conversation even spilled over beyond the allotted time.
The trouble started after the head of San Miguel’s Center for Global Justice (CGJ) where Peggy and I were working at the time invited me to publish my talk as an article in San Miguel’s weekly English newspaper, Atención.
I’ll never forget what followed; it was very similar to what occurred during Rob’s OEN Zoom call. All hell broke loose:
- A barrage of angry letters flooded the Atención pages for the next two weeks and more.
- As a result, Atención threatened to cancel the column space set aside for the CGJ each week.
- San Miguel’s Bibliotheca (library) talked about ending the CGJ’s access to meeting rooms there.
- My article was removed from Atención’s archives.
- Someone from the AIPAC (American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee) phoned my provost at Berea College reporting me for my inflammatory article, asking whether I really taught there and if my credentials were genuine.
- The CGJ’s leadership was forced to do some back-pedaling distancing itself from me and my remarks.
- They lit candles of reconciliation at a subsequent U.U. meeting begging forgiveness from the community and absolution for that mad man from Berea.
- The guiding assumption in all of this was that my argument was patently false.
In other words, an article that should have stimulated critical thinking and discussion (with CGJ activists leading the way as a voice for Palestine’s voiceless) was met instead with denial, dismissal, and apology.
Of course, I know that criticizing Zionists for their treatment of Palestinians is quite different from the holocaust denial that some on the OEN call perceived a few weeks ago.
It is also probably futile for members of the goyim like me to comment on the topic. Frankly, I’m unqualified to do so, because:
- My relatives and loved ones weren’t the ones slaughtered in Hitler’s crematoria and gas chambers.
- They weren’t among the peasants, laborers, shopkeepers, mothers, fathers, grandparents and children whose lives were cruelly wasted and destroyed by the Third Reich.
- Instead, as Elie Wiesel has pointed out again and again, my Christian religious cohorts were the very ones who incinerated Jews during the week, went to confession on Saturday, were given absolution, received Holy Communion on Sunday, and then returned to their gruesome work the following day.
Yet, it must be acknowledged that my religious tradition is also specifically Judeo-Christian. Its central figure is the Jewish prophet, Jesus of Nazareth, who was a reformer of Judaism and had no intention of founding a new religion. Jesus was not a Christian; from his birth to his death, he was a proud and faithful Jew.
In a sense, then, especially as a theologian in this tradition, I too am somehow a spiritual Semite. (Whether they realize it or not, all Christians are.) Additionally, what separates Zionists from other contemporary neo-colonizers is their claimed religious identity. So, to ignore the role of religion here overlooks the proverbial elephant in the room.
Recognizing the elephant gives license to say that what really happened in the Zoom conversation and in reaction to my remarks in San Miguel mirrored exactly the traditional dynamic between Jewish prophets like Amos and Jesus and their contemporaries. Both Amos and Jesus (as typical Jewish prophets):
- Denounced their nation’s elite in no uncertain terms
- Predicted that their crimes would lead to destruction of the entire nation
- Were vilified as unpatriotic, self-hating Jews
- Were threatened with ostracism, imprisonment and death
- And were often (as in the case of Jesus) assassinated for their prophetic words
Put otherwise, the Jewish prophets were social critics – the kind of clear-eyed seers who weren’t afraid to blame the powerful in their own nation for crimes that brought harm, ruin, death and destruction to the entire nation. The prophets did not blame the widows, orphans, foreigners, peasants, unemployed, beggars, prostitutes, or the hobbled and ill. Instead, they unstintingly impugned the equivalents of Germany’s Jewish 1% while recognizing that the crimes of those few inevitably brought ruin, pain, exile and death even to the innocent among their own people. It’s simply the way the world works. The blameworthy crimes of the powerful cause suffering, death and massacre for the innocent majority. Pointing that out is simply telling the truth.
Despite what I said about being unqualified to comment on words that seem cruel and insensitive to victimized Jews, I do know something about being tarred with a broad brush. As a Roman Catholic and former priest, I could easily be accused of being part of a worldwide pedophilic ring represented by the priesthood and hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. It would even be true to say that the ring has connections to a still wider movement of pedophiles among the world’s elite whose iceberg tip revealed (e.g. in the Epstein scandal) connections with the CIA, mi5, mi6, Mossad, and Mafias of various types throughout the world.
All of that would be true even though I never personally encountered any hint of pedophilia in all my more than 20 years preparing for and direct involvement in the Roman Catholic priesthood. It remains true despite the innumerable saints, martyrs, and holy men and women I’ve known personally and from the otherwise hallowed history of the Catholic Church.
The point here is that as an American, and much more as a former priest, I’ve been deeply associated with horrendous institutional delinquencies that I’d rather not discuss, because they hit too close to my spiritual and cultural identity. In other words, as both a Roman Catholic and a U.S. citizen, I find in my own community, uncomfortable truths that parallel the “accusations” against the Jewish 1% in Hitler’s Germany and against contemporary Zionists. I feel resentment at the very mention of such truths.
Nonetheless, and despite my hurt feelings, truth remains truth. And in the spirit of Amos and Jesus, I must face the facts and draw appropriate conclusions. Doing so draws me out of parochial consciousness and self-defensive denial. It creates room for the dialog and recognitions that might head off further community disaster.
As Paulo Freire puts it in The Politics of Education, all critical thinking begins with self-criticism.
4 thoughts on “Truth-Telling Is Not Anti-Semitism or Holocaust Denial: A Personal Reflection”
The accusation of antisemitism started as a shield against racial and religious discrimination. The edges of the shield have been sharpened and it has become an all purpose offensive weapon to stifle any and all criticism of the policies of the Government of Israel or anything Jewish.
It’s a knee jerk defense, not supported by facts.
Also not supported by facts is the author’s analysis. A few isolated incidents do not justify the wide general conclusions stated. I don’t see anything that indicates prejudice—-just poor factual research and faulty reasoning. The usual laziness and stupidity on all sides.
Ouch! Walter, I’m not sure which parts of the analysis and conclusions are not supported by facts. Please help me so I can avoid further factual errors, faulty reasoning, laziness and stupidity.
During the 1960s, Lyndon Baines Johnson endorsed the Civil Rights Act as a way of splitting a very active part of the American citizenry (for example, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) away from the Republican Party.
The Balfour Declaration had a similar (and successful) political purpose, seems to me.
From my Berea College textbook “Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Sixth Edition”, page 76, “Negotiating the Text” regarding the Balfour Declaration:
“A favorable response to the Zionist request could be used as the basis of a propaganda push in both Russia and the United States. But no decision was immediately forthcoming… in part because of the concerted effort by the secretary of state for India, Edwin Montagu, the only Jew in the cabinet, to block the declaration altogether.
“Montagu’s objections stemmed mostly from his feeling that a declaration in support of a Jewish State in Palestine, defining the Jews as a separate nation, would threaten the position of assimilated Jews in countries where they had established themselves as citizens….”
The text goes on to emphasize Montagu’s recognition of his precarious position as a Jewish citizen in England. The book steers readers away from thinking about the (highly successful) strategy of Britain to split off Germany’s Jewish citizens, Germany’s prosperous, well-educated professional “1%” of lawyers, doctors and business leaders.
The Jewish population of Germany was exceptionally well assimilated at the time of World War I; in fact, part of the German WWI strategy was to attract Eastern European Yiddish speakers as allies, through establishment of schools and public welfare organizations. (Despite what is taught in college classes, most Yiddish and German speakers can understand each other fairly easily. The language difference is similar to the difference between Australian, or Scottish, and American English; some adjustments are needed, but with minimal effort both can understand each other)
OpEd News has an article by Tim Duff that broaches this history:
“After the big lies of the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Agreement duplicity were put in place the allies, Britain, France and finally the United States, entered World War 1,
“not because of the assassination of the heir to the throne Prince Ferdinand of Austria, but to put an end to the German Berlin-to-Baghdad railroad, and the German aspirations to control the oil fields of Mesopotamia, bypassing the sea routes controlled by Britain, and establish a base at the port of Basra on the Persian Gulf”
This recognition of the hidden role of energy resources in politics seems accurate to me. College classes tend to focus more on theories about race, gender and human body differences as the motivation for political decisions, which tends to miss the mark