by Marc HerschI was prompted to write the following post (originally a comment) by Madeleine Kando’s very evocative, bittersweet essay, “If Houses Could Speak…“ I think her post resonated for me in part, because in 2004, I too visited Amsterdam, Holland during a long layover between the Canary Islands and San Francisco. While there, I took the opportunity to visit the Anne Frank house and stroll the neighborhood. Madeleine’s post put into words a feeling I had back then. Some houses can speak.
I was born in 1947, an “American Jew”, which is to say that my family was very assimilated. My religious training wouldn't fill a thimble. The central tenet of my Jewishness consists of something my mother told me at a very tender age.
She said, "It doesn't matter if you feel like a Jew or think like a Jew or believe like a Jew. All that matters is that there are people in the world who will classify you as a Jew, and when they come for you, there is nothing you can say or do that will keep them from doing to you what they think they should do to Jews."
To be raised an atheist or agnostic, I don't know which, but be born a Jew in the still-simmering melting pot of post-WWII America, was to come of age in a kind of limbo---belonging and not belonging at the same time. As a child, the storied events of WWII were distant history to me. As sure as the sun rose each day, the storied horrors of the past could never be repeated in our enlightened age, and occasional shouts of "Jew boy" not withstanding, reason would rule the world forever and ever.
Distant-history became near-history when, soon after graduating college in 1970, I set out to travel the world. I spent my first year afoot in Europe, just another backpacking American hippie abroad.
I first encountered real Jew hatred during a frightening meeting with the police in Switzerland. They rousted me for sleeping on a bench and when I tried to explain, they shouted, “Shut up you dirty Jew!”;
In Bavaria, where I lived and worked for some time, not far from Munich and only a short time before the massacre of the Israeli athletes, I first saw the Nazi flag displayed on the walls of some small town beer halls filled with boisterously singing Germans. One time a burly German grabbed me by my shirt, spraying me with spittle as he shouted, "You MUST speak German."
I stayed for some time with a very kind family in the university town of Freiburg im Breisgau and worked at a local factory. The patriarch of the house, a one-eyed veteran of the war, was fond of saying after a few beers, "Hitler vas bad but ze var vas goot!"
Did he know I was a born Jew? I never brought the subject up.
My travels throughout Europe consisted mainly of meeting wonderful people and having delightful experiences, but my rare encounters with anti-Semitism and the vastly more ubiquitous post-WWII guilt, transformed distant-history into near-history. Paradoxically, it seemed to me, the passing of time had brought the past nearer to the present.
When I traveled the following year in the Middle East and Asia I realized that in Europe, and pretty much Europe alone, the Christian myth of the Jew as "other" is deeply rooted---more than a thousand years deep---and generally speaking (which is how we sociologists tend to speak) the peoples of Europe have little or no choice in the matter of Jews. The mythical Jew—the “other”--- is cemented into the foundation of their consciousness. They can no more will it away than give up their abiding taste for copious amounts of beer and wine.
Last year I read the recently published "The Third Reich at War" by Richard Evans. In it he gives a meticulous accounting of the disposition of European Jews during WWII. Most disturbing was that, despite some admirable exceptions, all of the nations of Europe, without exception, were complicitous when it came to ridding themselves of “their Jews” and confiscating Jewish property.
A month ago I visited friends in Israel and France and what had become near-history during my travels years ago, became now-history. As is common knowledge, liberal Europe on the whole, and France in particular, have become deeply critical of Israel. The Jews cast out from Europe were never, as the popular European story now goes, rabid ideological Zionists seeking hegemony over Palestine. They were the remnants of European Jewry who had nowhere else to go. Although Israel was granted legitimacy by the Europeans in 1948, the reality is that those who sought refuge in that faraway land found solace only in shared purpose--to survive. But their battle to survive has raged on unabated.
It seems that now-history remains in practice, the same as near-history and distant-history. The deeply rooted Christian myth of the Jew as "other" abides. The Jew continues to be seen as a secret aggressor, possessed of magical powers out of all proportion to his numbers, and he continues to work wherever he is, to undermine God's good and true natural order.
The Arab-Islamic world, in which anti-Semitism is virtually non-existent, has a very different axe to grind but has learned to use the European myth of the "other" to great advantage as they press forward with their grievances.
Like many people who have lived more than half a century, Marc Hersch’s life experiences are many and varied. Years ago he worked in the fields picking beans, in steel mills as a ladleman and in oil fields as a sandblaster. He studied the Sociology of Education at university, taught in public schools, and worked for years as a consultant to various organizations. As a youth he traveled around much of the planet with a pack on his back, mostly chasing girls. Later in life he raised a family, did what families do, and spent six years sailing with them half-way round the world and back again. He currently calls Santa Cruz, California, home as he has for 30 years. As he looks back on it all he’s not sure what to call himself at this point in the game, other than human being. Suggestions, so long as they are civil, are always welcome. Marc’s blog can be found at: http://www.3sigma.com/
leave comment here
10 comments:
Marc:
I like your post a lot. I too am Jewish and 'agnostic/atheist' as you so cleverly describe yourself.
I am struggling with my Jewishness because my maternal great-grandfather already 'converted' back in Hungary, mostly out of a necessity to survive.
So my mother never gave us any information on what it is to be Jewish. My father, (who is a gentile and is actually on the Yad Vashem list in Jerusalem, because he saved so many Jews from deportation by impersonating a German officer,) I consider as a second Raul Wallenberg.
Had I stayed in Europe my urge to explore my Jewishness would had been even more pressing. I realize only now that living in America frees you from a very heavy burden, as a Jew and as a non-Jew who lived during the Second World War. America, at least does'nt have the guilt, the doubt, the questions, that Europeans all share. That's a liberating thought. Americans are innocent in that regard. In fact, they are the liberators. I only wish that people here would be more aware of that fact: that they played the main part in orchestrating the collapse of evil.
I keep hearing incredibly heroic stories from my friends back in Holland. Fathers and mothers, uncles and aunts, that were in the 'resistance'. Tortured, emprisoned, killed. Those folks were in the frying pan for much longer than the GI's who landed on the Normandy beaches on D-day. But without that huge surge of military power Holland would'nt exist now.
So you see, being Jewish is both simple and complicated. I think your mother was a very wise woman. The way she describes being Jewish is so to the point, I can not express it any better.
Dear Marc,
A reaction from over the ocean, Holland to be exact.
Firstly it is sad and true that anti-semitism still exists. In Amsterdam it is similar to, for example, discrimination of gays. But also Moroccans and many other minorities are discriminated against, although I think they are less likely to be scolded at and more likely to be refused a job.
In your before-last paragraph you speak of a Christian myth of Jews as a secret aggressor, possessed of magical powers, who continues to undermine the work of god. You refer to it as something of the now.
I disagree with this. There are some farmers in far away villages that are hard core Christians. More are Christians in a metaphorical way, but most are really not Christian. I think this is very different from American society.
In your last paragraph you state that in the Arab-Islamic world anti-Semitism is virtually non-existent.
I very much disagree. Although you could say hating the state of Israel is not necessarily anti-semitic. I do think very many people in the middle-east regard Israel as a continuation of medieval crusades. To see it as relgious affair and not just political has a base, afterall the reason to determine the place to create the state of Israel was based on religious arguments.
I do think a discussion about the future of Israel and a Palestinian state would be interesting for this blog.
There are many differences of opinion and the directions masses would prefer are different in the USA than in Europe. (If it is possible at all to find out these directions.) And it is relevant now, because Obama just tried to kickstart a new peace process.
The thing I often miss in discussions from the American side is the Palestinian story.
Say there would have been a great war in China where one minority was almost exterminated by a terrible genocide. The memories to all the places were so terrible it was not a place they were able to live.
Say this minority had a long trading history with the Dutch town of Delft. Chinese are rich nowadays, especially this minority, so the Chinese minority buys a significant part of all houses in Delft, as well as most companies. Good for the Dutch treasury, good for the Chinese minority.
If the Chinese minority declares their own state, it may feel very just considering the terrible attrocities they have lived trough. But the Dutch will go rebel and there cause is ofcourse very justified as well.
An important difference with my story is the jews came back to a country they lived in 2000 years ago. The question is if this delivers valid claims to the soil.(What about Indians reclaiming North America.)
To me that got even stranger now Netanyu said claims to the areas occupied after 1967 are rightfull because settlers have lived there for a couple of decades.
I am curious to know what the contributors to this blog think about this.
Johnny,
You bring a lot to the conversation and like you, I recognize that the localized stand-off between the Jews of Israel and Muslims of Palestine is a terrible and possibly intractable problem. Allow me to begin with the salient point in your first comment.
Conflict between differing communities, when they come into close proximity with one another, seems to be the rule rather than the exception. In America, first and even second generation immigrant communities warred in confines of urban cauldrons. What was unique about America during its peaks of immigration was that both space and economic opportunity were abundant. So long as this was true, America could accommodate difference quite well.
But even in the melting pot of American opportunity, some differences were different than others. An important example was the black-skinned people who were imported, bought and sold in America. For hundreds of years, before and after 1776, they were defined as property and formally excepted from the rights granted by the U.S. Constitution.
It is true that black-skinned people suffered from being more readily identified as different in kind, by virtue of skin color, but more important was a cultural mythology that emerged over time, defining blacks as subhuman, inferior beings to be economically exploited.
The fact that blacks in America are now legally recognized as human beings, entitled to the rights of other Americans, cannot erase from the cultural mythology, the quality of blacks as the quintessential American "other". This mythology imbues both whites AND blacks----both inadvertently conspire to perpetuate their difference. To this day, whites SEE blacks and blacks SEE whites as "other". No law or intellectual exercise or conversion of thought can erase this way of knowing in America.
It seems that the only force that can overcome this cultural myth of black inferiority and white exploitation is a long-term immersion in the practice of collaborative effort to survive and prosper in the world. One might say that in the foxholes of life, there are no blacks and whites. There are just people, helping one another to survive.
The point in all this is the idea that the awareness of differences in kind are different than differences defined in terms of cultural narrative in which the "other" is created and maintained as an integral part of a coherent whole. (i.e. a cultural mythology.)
Johnny,
Now on to your second comment...
(Divided into two parts due to lenght)
My contention is that the relationship of Jews to European Christianity is similar to that of whites and blacks in America. It is not founded in a difference in "Kind" but rather a cultural mythology wrought over 1500 years in which the Jew is defined as "Other".
In America whites are defined as virtuous, intelligent and good. Blacks are defined as indolent, shirkers, stupid, dangerous and possessed of demonic sexual power. Facts have little to do with this mythological opposition that sustains the story's narrative tension.
In Christian Europe, Christians are graced by God, true of heart and pure in intention. Jews are in league with the devil, ingeniously devious by nature and devoted to subverting all good people, and not just Christians. This is what has come to be known as "anti-Semitism". It provides the story's narrative tension, without which the story would be unsustainable.
In both cases, the cultural mythology is the property of both parties and the narrative knot cannot be undone by one or the other. It is part of the self-conception of all parties to the tale. The secular European is no more immune to this mythology than the religious European.
The situation between the Jews of Israel and Muslims of Palestine is a case in which we can observe a competition for control of a narrative which is not yet fully internalized as cultural myth.
Narrative 1: The Jews, a tiny tribe of people who have been oppressed and killed for centuries, have a moral and God-given right to sanctuary in their ancient Biblical homeland.
Narrative 2: The Jews are powerful usurpers and oppressors who use their incredible military might to starve and kill Palestinian helpless women and children.
As always, the formation processes is rooted in facts on the ground.
Practically speaking, the creation of the state of Israel was not a religious act. The problem was that Christian Europe had presided over the killing of half the Jews of the world and after WWII they needed to find a way to deal with the remaining dispossessed Jews---a solution that did not involve extermination.
Since Europeans were nominally in control of Palestine (the Brits), a solution it seemed, was to create a marriage of convenience with a small minority of socialist Jews called Zionists, who since 1900 were buying up land to create a homeland in Israel--a process that might have worked had it been pursued without interruption. With relative impunity, Europe carved out a political entity called Israel. This, it seemed could solve Europe's "Jewish problem".
On the Arab side, the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate and subsequent occupation by Christian-Europeans was never very popular as was fast becoming clear worldwide to the colonial powers.
It's no surprise that Europe's imposition of the state of Israel was a effrontery to the Islamic-Arab peoples. First came the Crusades. Then came the British Mandate. And now Europe's "other", the Jews.
(Continued)
So if we understand that Israel "the fact" was created by Christian Europe--anti-Semetic Europe----in order to solve their Jewish problem, we understand that today the victims of European anti-Semitism include both the Jews and Palestinians.
What we have as of 1948, are facts on the ground that cannot be rolled back. The Israeli Jews who survived the ravages of anti-Semitism in Europe have nowhere else to go and have created a narrative that explains their "right" to a homeland. The Islamic-Arab world resents Europe's imposition and the Palestinian narrative assert their "right" to Palestine and Jewish oppression.
Remember, both parties have deeply rooted narratives the predate Israel. For the Jews, 1500 years of violent oppression as "other" in Christian Europe. For Islamic-Arabs, the oppression of European infidels.
The question of who has "rights" to the land that now makes up Israel is moot. In practical terms, Jews expelled from Europe have nowhere else to go. The mortal threat to their existence continues, now in the Middle East rather than Europe. The principal difference for Jews today, is that the fact of the European Holocaust made real the possibility being exterminated.
I recently spent some time in Israel and it was clear to me that the idea of Israel is a nation was secondary to an idea that permeates both religious AND secular society in Israel. "Never again!"
So given the facts on the ground bequeathed by Europe, can an accommodation be realized?
So long as the Islamic-Arab community avers its intention to destroy Israel, Israel maintains the strongest defensive posture possible. They will do whatever it takes to assure their survival. They have learned that when people say they want to destroy them, those people MUST be regarded as meaning what they say.
So what if the PLO casts off the Hamas credo to destroy Israel? Then Israel must still look to Hezbollah in the north. And if Hezbollah renounces their intention to destroy Israel, they must look to the Muslim Brotherhood to the south. And if the Brotherhood changes its tune. then they must still look to Iran in the East. An so and so forth.
If someones vows to kill you and tries again and again to do so, what attitude can you take toward them?
You can do what you can to change their minds, appease their appetites and dispel their anger, but when your appeasements are exploited as yet another opportunity to kill you, even the most moral and humane person can do naught but gird themselves for battle and fight back.
This may be an intractable problem, but if a solution exists it is not to be found in the vilification of Israel's obsession with the existential threat she lives with. The solution is to acknowledge the fact on the ground---Israel's right to exist. Once that is accomplished, the details become easy.
Postscript
To get some idea of how Europe's "Jewish problem" was solved and where Jews find refuge in today's world, see the tables at the following URL.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html
The problem between Israel's Jews and the Palestine's Muslims is not over real estate. It is a problem rooted in story.
Another thought for curious of minds.
In my replies to Johnny my purpose was to illustrate the central role story-telling in shaping our actions in the world.
In today's NYT is a wonderful story about story telling that is both interesting and inadvertently revealing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/opinion/30blight.html
Actually, it's a story about the process of remembrance by which we construct our history, history being fundamentally everything that we know about the world--our recollections of how some causes produced some effects whether they be discovered in anecdotal experience, authoritative books or records of rigorous scientific experiments.
There is no escaping the fact that everything we know is bound up in storied remembrance.
The author the NYT times story suggests that certain truths about the history of Memorial Day have been "forgotten" and juxtaposes one little known story against others. But is the his-STORY he tells more accurate or more truthful than the his-STORIES of others?
The process of remembrance always selects for stories of causes and effects that serve our intentions. In one case, Southerner's select causes and effects that server their purposes in life. Black people select causes sand effect that serve theirs.
Is one remembrance--one his-STORY---more "accurate" than another? The set of possible histories---of cause and effect narratives---is always infinite.
To understand the usefulness of one history vs. another requires not that we ask which is more accurate or true, but rather what are the AIMS of the story-teller?
If you understand this, the roots of Israeli-Palestinian conflict become much clearer.
Importantly, this also means that we have choices in the way we tell our stories about the past. To construct a useful story, one that does not imprison with with imaginary facts, we must begin by asking, What is our AIM?
Johnnie:
Originally Palestine was a British Mandate, a large piece of land that now includes Jordan, which is solely inhabited by Arabs. They made sure that all the Jews who lived there got kicked out (there were as many Jewish refugees as Palestinian refugees).
The difference is that those refugees were welcomed in Israel, whereas the Palestinian refugees were denied entrance to all the Arab countries (except Jordan).
Tragically, those same countries encouraged the Palestinians to leave their homes, thinking that they would win the war against Israel in a matter of days.
Hence the Palestinian refugee problem that exists today. The Jewish refugees never were allowed to 'repatriate' to the countries that expelled them, never got compensated, never had a 'right of return'.
I agree with Marc that this problem is not going to be solved until Israel's right to exist is acknowledged. Everything else is secondary.
America thankfully still supports Israel and it's desperate attempts at survival. I, for one, wouldn't have it any other way.
Madeleine, you said...
"those same countries encouraged the Palestinians to leave their homes, thinking that they would win the war against Israel in a matter of days."
This has been my understanding for a long time but researching this question today brings up several different versions, many of which claim that, to a greater degree, the Palestinians were forced out.
For example, in a tit-for-tat storytelling debacle, Palestinians say that Israeli's forced Haifa Arabs to leave. The Israeli's say that in that case, Arabs were asked to evacuate for their own protection and those who refused to leave were escorted away.
This reminds me of arguments I used to have with my teenage son. General principles would fall victim to a growing flood of tiny details---slights, miscues, you-saids and I-saids---until nothing made sense anymore and each of us would retire to our corners and wait for the storm to blow over. Anyone who has raised a teenager will know what I mean.
The story as you relate it and I learned it seems reasonable given the events at the time. The alternative stories rest on a view of Israeli's as brutal oppressors.
The only way to sort things out at this point is to chose the story that leads forward along the most constructive path.
Story 1. The Jews of Israel are hateful and brutal oppressors of Palestinians and will commit immoral acts to be rid of them.
Path: Terrorize and kill the evil Jews and destroy Israel.
2. The Jews of Israel are humane and reasonable people who are looking for a solution that works for themselves, their Arab citizens and neighboring nations, but they will bite back when threatened or attacked.
Path: Stop attacking Israelis and find a solution that allows Israelis, Palestinians and other Arabs to live among one another and prosper.
Which one leads to a better future?
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!