Anne Frank, Emmett Till and the abuse of history
An age and more ago, Robert Fisk wrote a book about Israel's misbegotten Lebanon war. It was the kind of book that, starting with its title, "Pity the Nation," is so fraught with its own importance it overwhelms its cause, however righteous.
In it, I recall (I don't have it here with me) Fisk describes asking Bruce Kashdan, an Israeli diplomat, what Anne Frank might have thought of Sabra and Chatila.
Kashdan is well known in Jerusalem for the rewards his incremental, insistent diplomacy has reaped in the Arab world (and for turning up in the unlikeliest corners of the planet), but whatever berth is reserved for him in diplomat heaven was earned for resisting what must have been a mighty urge to deck Fisk. (To his credit, Fisk more recently has demonstrated a sensitivity to the misuse of Holocaust imagery.)
Now we have an imagined dialogue between Anne Frank and Emmett Till, the African American teenager whose lynching in Mississippi in 1955 galvanized the civil rights movement.
The play, by Janet Langhart Cohen, is to be performed next week at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and at George Washington University.
From the excerpts in this Courtland Milloy column in the Washington Post, it sounds just awful. The two teenagers meet each other in "Memory" and Frank (who died a decade earlier) explains it all to Till:
Anne: We're all here together in the darkness, yet alone at the same time until we're pulled into the light, until we're remembered.
Emmett: Remembered? By whom?
Teenagers, apparently, are blessed with elegant, writerly speaking skills when they die.
Ugh. Anne and Emmett were murdered, but now they have a reward. We remember them.
That makes us the heroes.
It's been said that Washington is Hollywood, but with less beautiful people. And certainly, there is a propensity in both towns for appropriating grief and turning it into sentimental, self-loving swill.
What makes the prospect of this performance even less promising is that Milloy - in apparent collusion with Langhart Cohen, who is married to William Cohen, the former defense secretary - uses it as a stick with which to beat a Jewish acquaintance of the playwright. This is how it starts:
During a high-society luncheon in Washington a few years ago, Janet Langhart Cohen mentioned that she was writing a book about "growing up in apartheid America." Langhart Cohen is black. Another luncheon guest, who is Jewish, was taken aback.
"Oh, Janet, you don't want to go discussing that," Langhart Cohen recalled the woman saying. "You live in a penthouse. You're married to the secretary of defense. Why do you want to talk about those days?"
And this is how Milloy ends it:
Among those expected to attend the play at the Holocaust Museum is the woman from the luncheon who unwittingly inspired it.
Surely, she'll remember.
The woman's remarks, while awful, were also expressed in private, and she is now being humiliated in public. (Believe me, the way DC works, a lot of people will know exacly who this woman is.)
And the thing about bullying, is that it is abhorrent whatever the character of the bullied.
More than that, that exchange is the product of Langhart Cohen's memory; shift a word or two in what was said and the Jewish acquaintance might simply have been warning the budding playwright that she did not have the chops to pull this one off.
That would sound about right.
0 Comments |
Share This
|
USCJ applauds talk of ‘strong bonds’
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism applauded Obama's honoring of the "strong bonds" between the United States and Israel. The full statement from USCJ executive vice president Rabbi Jerome EpsteinRead More >>>
0 Comments |
Share This
|
Brit Tzedek: We stand with the president
Brit Tzedek v'Shalom said the president made a "persuasive case for the common interest in resolving" the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Thursday, and said it stands with the president.
"The usual suspects will likely rush to characterize the President's insistence that both Israelis and Palestinians uphold preexisting commitments -- including a complete freeze on all Israeli settlement expansion and a concerted effort by the Palestinians to end all violence and incitement -- as indicative of an historic realignment that threatens Israel's alliance with the United States," said Brit Tzedek executive director Diane Balser. "In truth, the single most pro-Israel thing an American President can do is to actively pursue a negotiated, two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as Israel's very future as a democracy and a Jewish homeland depends on it."
The group's full statement is after the jumpRead More >>>
0 Comments |
Share This
|
B’nai B’rith: Obama broke ground, but missed opportunity
B'nai B'rith International says President Obama broke new ground by "admonishing Holocaust deniers" and talking of the "unbreakable" bonds between the U.S. and Israel, but said he missed an opportunity to addrsss the issue of incitement.
“In the heart of the Arab world, the president addressed the issue of Holocaust denial, noting specifically the six million Jews who were murdered,” said B’nai B’rith President Moishe Smith. “In doing so, President Obama attempted to end an insidious ongoing campaign against Jews. Holocaust denial, by the Arab world in general and Iran specifically, will not be tolerated. It’s a vital message.”
But the group said Obama "also missed an opportunity to discuss incitement – in mosques, schools, and the media – against the Jewish population, and he did not fully address the long record of Palestinian noncompliance with peace initiatives." It also, like other groups, said he was not strong enough in underscoring the threat of Iran.
The full statement is after the jumpRead More >>>
0 Comments |
Share This
|
Rounding up opinions on Obama in Cairo (UPDATE #2)
Reaction has been pouring in all day from Jewish groups to President Obama's Cairo speech. To sum up in a few sentences: Left-wing Jewish groups applauded the speech as a whole, while more centrist groups or those that tilt more to the right has both praise and some criticism. They all liked Obama's affirmation of the "unbreakable" bonds between the United States and Israel and his denunciation of Holocaust denial, but many thought he missed an opportunity to affirm the Jewish people's 3,000-year-old connection to the land of Israel. There was also wide disappointment with the portion of the speech on Iran, which was seen as not forceful enough in proclaiming U.S. opposition to the Iranian regime acquiring nuclear weapons.
And now -- as Warner Wolf might say if he was a blogger -- let's go to the links!
* The American Jewish Commitee focused on what it liked about the speech and gave much less emphasis to its displeasure about the Iran remarks. In a release entitled "AJC Applauds Obama Cairo Speech," the group emphaized the president's denunciation of anti-Semitism. “In the heart of a region where denial is routine – denial of Israel’s right to exist, denial of the historic link of Jews to their homeland, denial of the Holocaust – President Obama spoke the truth with a clear, unwavering voice," it said. It also praised his language on the "unbreakable" bonds with Israel and his denunciation of Palestinian violence. Not until the eighth paragraph did it mention that it was disappointed by Obama failure to be "more explicit" about "the danger Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons poses to the entire Middle East and to global security."
* The Anti-Defamation League, by contrast, puts both praise and criticism right up top in its release, calling it: "Obama's speech to Muslim world is 'groundbreaking," but misses opportunities on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." The group praised Obama for broaching issues that had never really been addressed to the Arab world before now, but said he failed to put the conflict in its proper historical perspective." For example, "while he made strong statements against anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, it should have been made clear that Israel's right to statehood is not a result of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. We are disappointed that the President found the need to balance the suffering of the Jewish people in a genocide to the suffering of the Palestinian people resulting from Arab wars." In an interview, ADL national director Abraham Foxman added that the the Iran portion of the speech was "very weak."
* The Conference of Presidents did not put out a statement, but its executive vice chairman Malcolm Hoenlein and chairman Alan Solow, in interviews, both said they were happy the president spoke of the "unbreakable" bonds between the U.S. and Israel and his condemnation of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. Hoenlein, like the ADL, wished that the president had provided more historical context on the Jewish people's connection to the land of Israel, but noted positively the lack of linkage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to progress on the Iran issue. Both Hoenlein and Solow, though, had hoped for stronger words on Iran, with Solow saying he hoped the president would use "more forceful" language in the future.
* The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism strongly praised the speech, while also briefly pointing out that Israel's claim of legitimacy was rooted in 3,000 years of history. "He made it clear that the United States and Israel have an unbreakable bond and spoke forthrightly about the need for the Palestinians to abandon violence if their hopes for a state are to be achieved," said the group. The RAC, unlike some other Jewish organizations, praised the president's language on Iran, saying "he was clear in recognizing the urgency of addressing Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and his support for the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
* B'nai B'rith International emphasized the positive, but also had some problems with the speech. Entitled "Obama Breaks New Ground in Addressing Holocaust Denial, Reinforces Unbreakable U.S.-Israel Ties," it stated "in the heart of the Arab world, the president addressed the issue of Holocaust denial, noting specifically the six million Jews who were murdered. In doing so, President Obama attempted to end an insidious ongoing campaign against Jews." In the second half of its release, it also expressed disappointment about Iran and said he missed an opportunity "to discuss incitement – in mosques, schools, and the media – against the Jewish population, and he did not fully address the long record of Palestinian noncompliance with peace initiatives."
* Concern about Iran was a main focus of The Israel Project, which said there was much to "celebrate" as well. "I am very concerned about President Obama’s comments that Iran has a right to nuclear materials for energy given the dangerous fact that some of those materials could get into the hands of terrorists including Iran’s proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad," said The Israel Project founder and president Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi. "President Obama’s speech did not convey a sense of urgency on stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons – although it is clear he does share the goal of preventing a weaponized nuclear Iran."
* The Orthodox Union had five "welcome" and five "worrisome" aspects of the speech. It liked Obama's challenge to Arab states to do more and his denunciation of Holocaust denial, but was concerned by his language on Jerusalem and his reinforcement of Israel "as a modern colonial upstart." It also lamented Obama's lack of a "nuanced approach" on settlements.
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism applauded the president for honoring the "strong bonds" between the United States and Israel. The speech was vital to the "future relations between Israel and the Arab world, and to the United States's Middle East policies," said the group.
* J Street was one of a few groups which had universal praise for the speech. It said Obama showed "bold, assertive leadership" in reaffirming the two-state solution while setting out conditions for everyone involved, and said the Jewish community supports him: "President Obama should know that the overwhelming majority of American Jews and other friends of Israel support his active diplomacy, his calls for an end to violence and settlements – and, most important, his intention to work publicly and aggressively to end the conflicts that have plagued the Middle East for far too long."
* Americans for Peace Now also lauds Obama's "determined, praiseworthy leadership" in creating a "historic opportunity" and calls on Israelis, Arabs and Americans to react accordingly. "Israeli and Arab leaders must seize the moment. If they fail to do so, they will be responsible for blood shed in the future in the region. For Americans who support Israel, this is also an important moment in which to stand squarely with a President who is doing his utmost to bring peace to Israel." The group called for its supporters to make their voices heard.
* Israel Policy Forum praised Obama's pledge to "personally pursue" a two-state solution, and lauded his call for all sides to "live up to their respective Roadmap obligations. The group also noted that "the president's message to the Arab states that they 'must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities,' is a welcome sign that the President understands the importance of a regional approach to peacemaking in the region."
Brit Tzedek v'Shalom said the president made a "persuasive case for the common interest in resolving" the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and said it stands with the president. "The usual suspects will likely rush to characterize the President's insistence that both Israelis and Palestinians uphold preexisting commitments -- including a complete freeze on all Israeli settlement expansion and a concerted effort by the Palestinians to end all violence and incitement -- as indicative of an historic realignment that threatens Israel's alliance with the United States," said the group. "In truth, the single most pro-Israel thing an American President can do is to actively pursue a negotiated, two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as Israel's very future as a democracy and a Jewish homeland depends on it."
The one Jewish group to totally pan the speech is the Zionist Organization of America. ZOA national president Morton Klein says it was a "strongly biased speech, inimical to Israel, supportive of false Palestinian and Arab claims against Israel, blatantly factually inaccurate – inaccuracies that always benefited the anti-Israel Palestinian, Arab and Muslim cause.
As for the partisan Jewish groups, the Democrats liked it, and the Republicans didn't:
* The National Jewish Democratic Council likes that "Obama did not just reiterate what the audience wanted to hear. Instead, Obama was forthright about the necessity for acceptance of the Jewish homeland in Israel and called for Palestinian abandonment of violence."
* The Republican Jewish Coalition, though, thought the speech was too balanced, and that was what was wrong with it: "American policy should not be balanced -- it should side with those who fight terror, not those who either engage in it or are too weak to prevent it." "We urge President Obama to return to the policy of holding the security of Israel as a key American priority and requiring significant, concrete, and verifiable moves toward peace from the Palestinian side.
8 Comments |
Share This
|
Conference chair: Israel language good, Iran language not as good
The chairman of the Conference of Presidents liked the president's strong words on the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship, but would have liked him to be a little tougher on Iran.
Alan Solow, an early Jewish supporter of Obama in the presidential campaign, praised the president for speaking out "forcefully and unequivocally for the right of the Jewish people to settle in the state of Israel" and the "unbreakable bond" between the two countries -- as well as his "strong statements and condemnations of terrorism."
"So on balance, the speech was one that was quite positive," Solow told JTA Thursday.
But Solow added that he hoped "in the future he'll use more forceful rhetoric in describing the impact of the possession of a nuclear weapon by Iran and the impact it would have on the rest of the world."
"He's spoken about it before, in stronger terms, and I'll look forward to his using stronger language," he said.
1 Comment |
Share This
| 
Cairo speech |
Not enough about Darfur
A group of Darfur activists are criticizing the president for viritually ignoring Darfur in his speech to the Muslim world.
"If the Cairo speech was intended to outline shared challenges that America and the Muslim world should confront together, President Obama’s failure to call for a joint push for peace in Sudan is a glaring omission," said a statement from the Enough Project, the Save Darfur Coalition and the Genocide Intervention Network. "A passing reference to suffering in Darfur is insufficient.
The full statement is after the jumpRead More >>>
1 Comment |
Share This
|
Cairo speech |
OU: Speech is welcome and worrisome
The Orthodox Union lays out five welcome and five worrisome aspects of Obama's speech on its blog. First, three of the things the group liked:
1. President Obama delivered a powerful rebuttal to Holocaust denial - which is all too common in the Arab and Muslim world. He did so in unequivocal terms and linked it to his visit tomorrow to the Buchenwald concentration camp. (The troubling point associated with this, as noted by Shmuel Rosner, is that the audience sat silent when the President spoke against Holocaust denial.)
2. The President challenged Arab states to not just speak of their interest in the peace process with Israel, but make concrete contributions to that effort. Importantly, because the Arab League often views their initiative as a “take it or leave it” offer, the President stated "that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities."3. The President denounced "Palestinian violence" in clear terms.
And three it was troubled by:
1. The President alluded to a shared Jerusalem - one that is not physically re-divided, it seems - where "Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together." As we have long, this reality has only been true with Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty.
2. Despite having insisted that Israel must be able to live in peace and security as a "Jewish state," today the President instead spoke of Israel as "a Jewish homeland." This word change might mean something different.
3. Relatedly, as David Horovitz notes, the President spoke of the "displacement" of Palestinians "brought by Israel's founding" (while making no mention of the Arab world's rejection of the Arab entity that would have been simultaneously created alongside us). In so doing, he reinforced the very portrayal of Israel as a modern colonial upstart.
For the entire post, go here.
0 Comments |
Share This
|
Cairo speech |
The Israel Project: A lot to celebrate, but also cause for concern
The Israel Project says there a lot in Obama's "bold" speech "for Americans and Muslims to celebrate," but "a number of points caused concern about Israel's security."
"I am very concerned about President Obama’s comments that Iran has a right to nuclear materials for energy given the dangerous fact that some of those materials could get into the hands of terrorists including Iran’s proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad," said The Israel Project founder and president Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi.
She added, "President Obama’s speech did not convey a sense of urgency on stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons – although it is clear he does share the goal of preventing a weaponized nuclear Iran."
The Israel Project Founder and President Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi commented on President Obama’s Cairo address: “President Obama’s speech was historic in its bold outreach to Muslims and in its dramatic move for peace. There is a lot in the speech for Americans and Muslims to celebrate.”
A number of points, however, caused concern about Israel’s security. Said Mizrahi, “While we knew Israelis would feel pressured about implementing a two-state solution and stopping settlements, I am very concerned about President Obama’s comments that Iran has a right to nuclear materials for energy given the dangerous fact that some of those materials could get into the hands of terrorists including Iran’s proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.”
Mizrahi added, “President Obama’s speech did not convey a sense of urgency on stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons – although it is clear he does share the goal of preventing a weaponized nuclear Iran. We can’t forget that North Korea’s program started as an energy program and now they are actively testing nuclear weapons in defiance of the United States. We cannot afford for this to happen with Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terror.”
Mizrahi said President Obama’s speech also denied basic facts about key security issues and omitted important aspects of today’s realities, including, she said:
“The fact that until peace is real, President Obama’s goal of a completely nuclear-free world is not consistent with Israel’s need to at least have the impression that it might have nuclear weapons for defensive purposes. We know that deterrence saves a lot of lives.
“The fact that President Obama did not mention that Israel has said that they don’t want to govern Palestinians and do want to create a better life for the Palestinian people within the context of their own security needs.
“The fact that President Obama spoke rightly of the suffering of Palestinian refugees without, however, remembering that approximately the same number of Jewish refugees were pushed out of Arab countries.
“The fact that President Obama didn’t point out that Jewish refugees have gone, and should continue to go, to Israel whereas Palestinians refugees should find their homes in a Palestinian homeland.”
Mizrahi said President Obama should have mentioned that not only does Iran-backed Hamas control all of Gaza, Hamas’s own charter calls for killing Jews: “The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!” It also states: “The indoctrination campaign must involve ulama, educators, teachers and information and media experts, as well as all intellectuals, especially the young people and the sheikhs of Islamic movements. It is [also] necessary to introduce essential changes in the curricula, in order to eliminate the influences of the intellectual invasion which were inflicted upon them by the Orientalists and the missionaries.”
0 Comments |
Share This
|
Cairo speech |
IPF ‘heartened’ by Obama speech
The Israel Policy Forum is strongly applauding President Obama's speech, saying it is "heartened" that he is "beginning to engage in the kind of sustained, tough U.S. diplomacy that will be needed in order to overcome the challenges currently facing a two-state solution and peace and security in the Middle East."
"The President reserved some of his sharpest language for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, demonstrating the strongest declaration yet by an American president in support of achieving peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians through a two-state solution," said the IPF statement. "As such, today's direct and honest speech represents an important first step toward regaining America's credibility as an honest broker of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and galvanizing the region toward a more peaceful and secure future."
In addition to praising Obama's reiteration of the U.S.'s strong bonds with Israel, the organziation also lauded his emphasis on both the Israelis and Palestinians living up to their Road Map oblgations. It added that the president's message to the Arab states that they "must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities," is "a welcome sign that the President understands the importance of a regional approach to peacemaking in the region."
The full statement is after the jump:
As did the audience at Cairo University, Israel Policy Forum strongly applauds President Obama's historic, bold and wide-ranging speech today calling for a "new beginning between the United States and Muslim around the world."
In particular, IPF welcomes the President's pledge that he would "personally pursue" a two-state solution "with all the patience that the task requires."
The President reserved some of his sharpest language for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, demonstrating the strongest declaration yet by an American president in support of achieving peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians through a two-state solution. As such, today's direct and honest speech represents an important first step toward regaining America's credibility as an honest broker of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and galvanizing the region toward a more peaceful and secure future.
Toward this end, IPF welcomes the President's re-iteration that America's bonds with Israel are "unbreakable" and declaration that "America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspirations for ... a state of their own."
In addition, IPF lauds President Obama's message that all sides must live up to their respective Roadmap obligations, calling on the Palestinians to "abandon violence" and stating that "the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," which "undermines efforts to achieve peace."
Furthermore, the President's message to the Arab States that they "must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities," is a welcome sign that the President understands the importance of a regional approach to peacemaking in the region.
Achieving a two-state solution, as IPF has long stated and as the President declared again today, "is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest and the world's interest."
Americans, Israelis and Palestinians must therefore not "see this conflict only from one side or the other," as the President said, or "we will be blind to the truth."
That is why Israel Policy Forum is heartened that President Obama is beginning to engage in the kind of sustained, tough U.S. diplomacy that will be needed in order to overcome the challenges currently facing a two-state solution and peace and security in the Middle East.
Israel Policy Forum pledges to do all it can to strengthen the voices of the majority of Americans and American Jews who support the president's efforts in this regard.
0 Comments |
Share This
|
Cairo speech |
Recent Comments
Blog Roll
