GERMANY EDITION

May 4, 2009

Dear Friends:

In a few days I’ll be off to Washington to attend the 103rd Annual Meeting of the
American Jewish Committee. These gatherings are always fascinating and chock
full of information especially about international relations. I’ll try to take copious
notes and report back on those items I think most interesting. After I get back I’ll
be getting ready for my June 12th trip to Hamburg and Berlin accompanying our
AJC – Adenauer Foundation Exchange delegation. Perhaps I’ll run into some of
you while I’m there. In the meantime…

IN THIS ISSUE
*NETANYAHU IN WASHINGTON
*DO THE PALESTINIANS REALLY WANT A STATE?
*AHMADINEJAD AND DURBAN II
*ITALY”S FRATTINI ON DURBAN II
*DENYING THE DENIERS
*PRES. OBAMA AND THE HOLOCAUST
*MADE IN GERMANY
*PERSONAL NOTES

NETANYAHU IN WASHINGTON
In two weeks Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be visiting
Washington to meet with President Obama and there is a certain amount of
trepidation on the part of American Jews about how the two will relate to each
other and what the outcome will be.

Since the last important meeting between the leaders of the two States both have
had changes in governments, leaders and political outlook. Obama has replaced
Bush, Netanyahu has replaced Olmert, the U.S. is set on a much more “liberal”
course and the Israelis on a more conservative one. Pres. Obama seems to be
more interested in extended diplomacy when it comes to Iran and the
Palestinians while Netanyahu sees Iran as a genuine military threat to Israel and
ha, thus far, refused to endorse the “Two State Solution” as far as the
Palestinians are concerned.

I do not have any special wisdom or knowledge about how the meeting between
the President and the Prime minister will come out. However, if you want another
way of looking at things read the next article.

DO THE PALESTINIANS REALLY WANT A STATE?

The blame for continuance of the Israeli-Palestinian problem both here in the
U.S. and in Germany, especially from the left, seems to fall on the Israelis.

1
Though it should be obvious to even the least objective observers, Arab leaders
and the Palestinian leaders themselves use the situation to hide their poor
treatment of their own people and to utilize Israel as a scapegoat. It seems to me
that any rational leaders would try to bring the hostility to an end so that their
people could begin to reap the harvests that peace would bring. For the
Palestinians that has not been the case.

I have often wondered why the Palestinians, as Abba Eban, the great Israeli
diplomat once put it, “… never miss a chance to miss a chance”. With so much
international sympathy for them shouldn’t they be able to push through some sort
of deal that would assure them a State and peace for their people?

It never occurred to me that – perhaps they really don’t want a state.

I recently came across an article in The Atlantic by one of that magazine’s

correspondents, Robert D. Kaplan; entitled “Do the Palestinians Really Want a
State?” After pointing up all the problems and shortcomings on the Israeli side,
he notes, “…there is a deeper structural and philosophical reason why the
Palestinians remain stateless—a reason more profound than the political
narrative would indicate. It is best explained by associate Johns Hopkins
professor Jakub Grygiel, in his brilliant essay, “The Power of Statelessness: the
Withering Appeal of Governing” (Policy Review April/May 2009). In it, Grygiel
does not discuss the Palestinians in particular, but rather the attitude of
stateless people in general.

Statehood is no longer a goal, he writes. Many stateless groups “do not aspire
to have a state,” for they are more capable of achieving their objectives
without one. Instead of actively seeking statehood to address their weakness,
as Zionist Jews did in an earlier phase of history, groups like the Palestinians
now embrace their statelessness as a source of power.

New communication technologies allow people to achieve virtual unity without

a state, even as new military technologies give stateless groups a lethal
capacity that in former decades could be attained only by states. Grygiel
explains that it is now “highly desirable” not to have a state—for a state is a
target that can be destroyed or damaged, and hence pressured politically. It
was the very quasi-statehood achieved by Hamas in the Gaza Strip that made
it easier for Israel to bomb it. A state entails responsibilities that limit a
people’s freedom of action. A group like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the author
notes, could probably take over the Lebanese state today, but why would it
want to? Why would it want responsibility for providing safety and services to
all Lebanese? Why would it want to provide the Israelis with so many tempting
targets of reprisal? Statelessness offers a level of “impunity” from retaliation.

But the most tempting aspect of statelessness is that it permits a people to

savor the pleasures of religious zeal, extremist ideologies, and moral

2
 absolutes, without having to make the kinds of messy, mundane compromises
that accompany the work of looking after a geographical space.

Grygiel raises a challenging proposition. If his theory is correct, then the

Palestinians may never have a state, because at a deep psychological level,
enough of them—or at least the groups that speak in their name—may not
really want one. Statehood would mean openly compromising with Israel, and,
because of the dictates of geography, living in an intimate political and
economic relationship with it. Better the glory of victimhood, combined with the
power of radical abstractions! As a stateless people, Palestinians can lob
rockets into Israel, but not be wholly blamed in the eyes of the international
community. Statehood would, perforce, put an end to such license.

Mr. Kaplan concludes by saying that the U.S. should continue to put pressure
on Israel to do “the right thing”. But the U.S. should also brace itself for an
Israeli-Palestinian conflict that may never end, because the Palestinians may
already have what they want.

If Mr. Kaplan is correct and Prof. Grygiel theory is correct, it seems to me that
both the U.S. and the EU should start rethinking their policies.

AHMADINEJAD & DURBAN II

By this time you have read all the newspaper accounts about the speech
Iranian President Ahmadinejad made at the Durban II conference in Geneva
and the walkout of the European delegates when he launched into his vitriolic
ant-Israel diatribe. Of course, both the American & German representatives
were absent by virtue of both countries deciding to boycott the meeting. I must
say, Germany’s decision played very well in the American Jewish community
in that it was another evidence of Germany’s sensitivity to Jewish concerns
and its strong positive feelings toward Israel.

Of course, the fact that Ahmadinejad spoke at all at a conference on racism

and discrimination is a joke in itself. David Harris, AJC’s Executive Director,
writing in the Jerusalem Post I think hit the nail on the head when he wrote, “It
was tragedy masquerading as farce. There was the Iranian president
addressing the Durban Review Conference in Geneva. Perhaps there was no
better symbol of all that had gone wrong with a process originally designed to
advance the anti-racism struggle than seeing the world's bigot-in-chief at the
podium. And the fact that the hall doubles as the venue for the UN Human
Rights Council made a further mockery of his appearance - and of the
institution itself.

After all, while President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is busy railing against

liberalism, predicting the demise of the West, seeking Israel's disappearance,
and claiming special protection for Islam, he represents a nation that has
trampled on the human rights of its own citizens.

3
Instead of being at the podium, he should be in the dock.
You can read the entire article:
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/harris/entry/tragedy_masquerading_as_farce_posted

ITALY’S FRATTINI ON DURBAN II

I don’t want to overload you with material about Durban II. However, the
Jerusalem Post had an interesting interview with Italy’s Foreign Minister Franco
Frattini concerning Italy’s boycott of Durban II wherein he spelled out the reasons
for Italy’s action very clearly. Italy’s statement noted, “In our assessment we also
considered... the statements that would eventually be made in plenary session
and on the sidelines. We could not participate in an event where, once again, the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict was manipulated and Israel labeled a racist nation, as
happened in 2001. The events of Monday afternoon confirmed that foresight."

"Not just the text, but the context itself was our concern, Italy bowed out when we
realized all space for negotiations was gone and Holland's excellent draft would
be discarded," he said.
We felt three key points of the adopted paper were unacceptable: approval of the
Durban 2001 document, which singled out Israel amid motions decrying racism;
insufficient treatment of the Holocaust - the greatest tragedy of the 20th century,
and motions aimed at limiting freedom of expression regarding criticism of
religions and their followers.
"An international forum on a crucial issue such as racism cannot be exploited to
attack Israel," he continued. "The EU displayed political weakness and lost an
occasion for expressing unity."
Frattini said the UN Human Rights Committee ought to be reformed, recalling a
US proposal for "a coalition of democracies" within the UN.

I think Frattini has a point about reorganization. Countries such as Germany, the
U.S., Israel, Holland and Australia (among others) did not boycott Durban II
because they were not as opposed to racism as any of the other countries
involved. They stayed away because it turned out to be too easy for a pressure
group in the UN Human Rights Committee to hijack the conference and turn it
into a one issue (anti-Israel) political lynching.

Frankly, when it comes to these sorts of issues I do not have much faith in the
UN. Anti-Israel propaganda is very often used to cover up the human rights
violations of the accusing countries. So while I agree with Foreign Minister
Frattini about reorganization I don’t hold out much hope that even with some sort
of new structure the scapegoating of Israel will end.

So, in conclusion, I’m delighted that Germany decided to do the right thing and
took a moral stand. Let’s get ready for Durban III.

4
DENYING THE DENIERS
In my earlier years I said to myself, “Who cares about Holocaust deniers?” After
all, the rational world accepts the facts and history of the 1930’s and ‘40’s and
just because a few crazy extremists try to cook up some isolated facts and
statistics in an effort to prove that it never happened - well, so what? I started to
think more seriously in the 1960’s when Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism and the
new anti-Israelism became more widespread. I began, vaguely, to see the
connections but, frankly, while I fully understood the anti-Israel and anti-Semitism
connection, I still couldn’t see where Holocaust denial fit.

About 10 years ago there was a celebrated trial in Great Britain which pitted
denier David Irving against American Jewish historian Deborah Lipstadt. Deborah
and I had actually both taught together at Hebrew Union College (Los Angeles)
back in the late 1970’s and I knew her to be a person of outstanding quality and
genuine backbone. In the case, David Irving sued her and her publisher, Penguin
Books, for libel in an English court, after she characterized some of his writings
and public statements as Holocaust denial in her book Denying the Holocaust.
Although English libel law puts the burden of proof on the defendant rather than
the plaintiff, Lipstadt and Penguin won the case using the justification defense by
demonstrating in court that Lipstadt's accusations against Irving were
substantially true and therefore not libelous. The case was argued as a bench
trial before Mister Justice Gray, who produced a written judgment 334 pages long
detailing Irving's systematic distortion of the historical record of World War II. The
Times (April 14, 2000, p. 23) said of Lipstadt's victory, "History has had its day in
court and scored a crushing victory."

During the trial it all became clear to me. Holocaust denial is, indeed, anti-
Semitism wrapped up in academic dress. In “celebration” of Holocaust Memorial
Day the JTA featured a Q & A session with Deborah. You can read it all at
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/04/19/1004269/denying-the-deniers-q-a-with-
deborah-lipstadt (and you should), however, the most important exchange
centers around what Deborah calls “Soft-core Denial”. It follows:

LIPSTADT: I see the evolution of Holocaust denial -- there is what I call “soft-
core denial.” Hard-core denial is David Irving or Bishop [Richard] Williamson.
Soft-core is more slippery. It's “Why do we have to hear so much about the
Holocaust?” or saying “the genocide of the Palestinians.” Soft-core denial is not
denying the facts, but either inverting it so the victims become the perpetrators --
“Why did the Germans hate the Jews? Because they Jews were rich and
conniving,” -- as if to say they deserved it. It's justifying it. Soft-core denial is also
making a false comparison, and that dilutes what the Holocaust was. It's a much
more slippery kind of manifestation, but it's very much there.
JTA: How do you fight it?

5
LIPSTADT: It's much harder. You have to go back and zero in on what it is -- you
can say, “Look, you might disagree with Israel's policy vis a vis the Palestinians
or that they should not have gone into Gaza, but to call this a genocide is to deny
what a genocide is.” They are not denying the Holocaust but they are making a
false comparison which elevates by a factor of a zillion any wrongdoings Israel
might have done, and lessens by a factor of a zillion what the Germans did. And
that's not to defend everything Israel does, but you can't call it a Holocaust
unless you want to distort what the Holocaust is. When you begin to use the Nazi
term and you begin to compare Israeli soldiers -- who are not angels and
sometimes do awful things for which they should be criticized and punished --
that's different than genocide. The Holocaust was state-sponsored. It came from
Berlin and Berlin worked to make sure that every Jew on which it could lay its
hands would be killed. In no way can you compare what's going on in the Middle
East to that. Even if you have the extreme belief that there should be no state of
Israel, to make the argument that Israel is committing a genocide is a complete
fabrication and a worm of soft-core denial

So, I thank Deborah for putting me on the right track and I now understand more
fully how pernicious Holocaust denial is. I used to be concerned about
Germany’s laws against it on the grounds that it violated free speech. I now more
fully understand that as well.

PRES. OBAMA & THE HOLOCAUST

While I once had questions about the importance of “deniers” I never had any
about the lessons to be learned for everybody from the Holocaust. I was quite
pleased to hear that Pres. Obama speaking at the Capitol Rotunda (and reported
by JTA) said “The lesson of the Holocaust is never to be silent in the face of
inhumanity”
"How do we ensure that 'Never Again' isn't an empty slogan, or merely an
aspiration, but also a call to action?" the president asked while speaking
Thursday in the Capitol Rotunda at a commemoration organized by the U.S.
Holocaust Memorial Museum. "I believe we start by doing what we are doing
today -- by bearing witness, by fighting the silence that is evil's greatest co-
conspirator."
Obama said that "evil has yet to run its course on earth," describing "mass
graves and the ashes of villages burned to the ground, and children used as
soldiers and rape used as a weapon of war" as well as Holocaust deniers.
He called the State of Israel a signal of hope.
"The hope of a chosen people who have overcome oppression since the days of
Exodus; of the nation of Israel.

I think he understands it all pretty well.

MADE IN GERMANY

6
There was a time during the 1930’s, 40’s, 50’s and beyond when American Jews
would not touch (or buy) anything that was “Made in Germany”. Very deep was
the antipathy! I’m not sure that the same does not still hold true among those
who lived through the World War II period. I certainly thought that the same
would be the case in Israel. During my first visit there in 1969 (before my first visit
to Germany in 1982) I was surprised to see that most of the taxis were Mercedes
Benz’s. I didn’t think much about it but over the next number of years it began to
dawn on me that the Israelis were way ahead of us American Jews in coming to
terms with the realities post-War Germany.
There is no doubt that it is still the case. Maybe it’s because we are physically so
separated from Europe or that history dies hard in the minds of some but there
are still mostly older American Jews who won’t go near anything “Made in
Germany”. My, now, many years of visiting both Israel and Germany tell me that
the relations between the people of these two countries are far different than
those between American Jews and Germany. Of course, I’m not talking about
deep down feelings. No one can know, except maybe a psychiatrist, what goes
on in the depths of peoples’ minds. I’m talking here about “relations” – how
people get along and relate to each other.

I thought more about it this past week when www.ynetnews.com, an Israeli based
news service, ran an article entitled “MADE IN GERMANY NO LONGER
TABOO”. It noted that “Boycott on German-made products during Israel's first
years was gradually replaced with local preference for country's high quality
goods. After spelling out the history of Israeli boycotts of German goods over the
years the story continued …But with time also passive opposition dwindled and
several German companies gained prominence in the local market, such as the
Lufthansa airline, which is one of the busiest flight operators in Israel. In 1958,
when it first opened offices in the country, the company was faced with threats by
members of the Beitar youth movement. Trips to Germany, including by train, are
also no longer considered taboo.
While in the past the importation of German products to Israel was done almost
secretly, today an abundance of German-made products are a staple in Israeli
households, including cars made by Mercedes, Volkswagen and BMW, Bosch's
electronic appliances and AEG washing machines. Israelis eat Milka chocolate,
ride Kettler bicycles, use Merck and Bayer medicines and get x-rayed by
Siemens machine.

The article further explains that while some of these companies participated in
the Holocaust, today and some Israelis still kept away from goods produced by
them, “But for most Israelis, the "Made in Germany" label today only signifies
quality, reliability and lost-lasting products.

I don’t have any facts or figures to back up my supposition that the same sort of
thing is happening with American Jews – but more slowly. One thing I know is
happening and that is that there is a great deal more travel to Germany by

7
American Jews (at least until the economic crisis hit) than in the past. There are
many reasons – and that is the subject for another time. However, I firmly believe
that the American Jewish Committee’s actual opening of a full-time office in Berlin
eleven years ago helped change the “chemistry” and thinking in the organized
American Jewish community and it has become more “kosher” for Jews to visit ,
at least, Berlin.

PERSONAL NOTES
Remember – if you do not receive the American Edition of DuBow Digest sent
directly to you, you can read it on line at www.dubowdigest.typepad.com