I too was stunned by the Forward's editorial -- I can't believe they would print such a cop-out, or claim that Israel was not founded (at least in part) with the aim of being a Jewishly ethical state (haven't they read any early Zionist thinkers?), or even claim that this is a watershed moment in idealism vs. realpolitik. Where were they while Israel was selling arms and military technology to South Africa? Listen to Shimon Peres talk about that relationship:

Pressed about whether he ever had doubts about backing a government that was the antithesis of what Israel said it stood for, Peres says his country was struggling for survival. "Every decision is not between two perfect situations. Every choice is between two imperfect alternatives. At that time the movement of black South Africa was with Arafat against us. Actually, we didn't have much of a choice. But we never stopped denouncing apartheid. We never agreed with it."

Sound familiar?

The Forward's editorial ends with "The task of the post-post-Holocaust era is to forge a new ethic for our new world." It might as well be rewritten as "The task of the post-post-Holocaust era is to forge a new ethic of Holocaust denial for our new world."

There are two very different issues at hand. One is the ideal of Zionism that is forced down the throat of every Jew in religious school the idea (that has only come up thanks to the hard AJWS, Save Darfur, and some others) that Jews are --for lack of a better term-- a witness people to make sure Genocide never happens again. One is that we will never be a people without a land, the other is that we can't let what happened to us ever happen again.

Lets face it, the Forward has some good points. EV the point of early Zionists were national, not universal. The statement of standing with all people against Genocide isn't a nationalist issue. And the Forward has never really been all that gung-ho Zionists.

The issues at hand are a question of priorities. Are we Zionists or are we internationalists? You can't be both. Pick a side.

There are two very different issues at hand. One is the ideal of Zionism that is forced down the throat of every Jew in religious school AND THE OTHER idea (that has only come up thanks to the hard AJWS, Save Darfur, and some others) is that Jews are --for lack of a better term-- a witness people to make sure Genocide never happens again.

I'm a clever boy. I'm leaving Jewcy for two weeks tomorrow, and today, as I frantically try to tie up loose ends before going, I decide that now is just the time to invite a debate with another blog and also, amazingly, respond to a comment about my dialogue with John Derbyshire for the very first time since we published that dialogue. May it please God that no one responds to that response.

So...David Kelsey responded to the above post with a new one of his own titled "Joey Kurtzman responds." You can read it there, but in summary he says:

(1) He is no longer at Jewschool, at least not for the moment

(2) "Quite frankly, I don’t think that remembering the Holocaust will prevent anything from happening. I consider such a strategy most speculative, and already proven wrong to a large degree."

(3) "Never Again is an empty mantra because we are not in control of everything. We can “internalize” whatever we want. But terrible things, including genocide, will still happen. The Mandaeans are being exterminated this very instance. Where is the Jewish community? Why isn’t/wasn’t Kurtzman and Jewcy raising hell?"

I'm going to have to give David a more brief reply than he deserves. I hope the issues are ready for revisiting when I return.

(1) My bad. I just assumed that Kvetcher was a Jewschool blog because the URL has jewschool in the name. Kvetcher it is.

(2) I agree. Simply remembering The Holocaust will prevent nothing, and intense commemoration of the Holocaust can coexist very nicely alongside ongoing genocides. The Holocaust retains an enormous place in American and Jewish life as a symbol of the moral failure of states and individuals, but that’s meaningless unless its commemoration is coupled with a commitment to prevent similar failures.

(3) Terrible things will still happen, and the future is not entirely within our control, that’s very true. For example, no matter what you or I do, there is at least some very small chance that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will acquire nuclear weapons and one day use them on Israel or the United States. The best you or I could hope for is to act in such a way as to slightly decrease the likelihood of that happening. Do you think it’s worth the effort, even though it’s mostly out of our control? If so, why? I assume because you don’t genuinely believe that our limited influence logically mandates this “shit happens” fatalism.

The existence of many injustices in the world does not require shit happens fatalism any more than does our limited influence over any one issue. Why are we raising hell on this particular issue? First, do no harm: This is not a case of the ADL acting insufficiently good, it’s a case of their going out and actively undermining the very concept of genocide as they demean an entire community. They're also doing it in the name of the Jewish community, which includes us, and which we know does not broadly support them on this. They were foolish to do this, and we think they can be made to stop, which speaks to the cost-benefit analysis.

And they've also just really pissed us off, you see.

Okay, bye. 

Joey

People have fixated on the phrase “tantamount to genocide”; questioning if the statement falls short of full recognition. However, no one seems to be keying in on the real operative phrase; that being “consequences of those actions”. Allow me to explain. According to the UN Genocide Treaty,  “intent” to destroy is requisite for  genocide. It has been Turkey’s longstanding position that while people were killed on both sides, no one intended to destroy the Armenians. Hence, whatever the result, it was not genocide. Foxman’s  use of the word “consequences” leaves open the question of “intent”. Therefore, his statement is “tantamount” to paraphrasing Turkey’s own genocide denial.

How would Kelsey like if one fine day the gentiles of America sit down and do a cost-benefit analysis of supporting Israel and making enemies of half the arabs, and fighting wars that are not profitable to US?

If you are going to sell your morality and humanity for profit, then do not complain later for being treated unjustly due to someone else's profit.

'Hence, whatever the result, it was not genocide. Foxman’s  use of the word “consequences” leaves open the question of “intent”.  Therefore, his statement is “tantamount” to paraphrasing Turkey’s own genocide denial.'

 Exactly!

Jewcy explains the story it tells. The Jewish Daily Forward does not.

The editorial in The JDForward approves the benefits of state policies in Israel guided by realpolitik to the detriment of ones guided by moral principles, as if what is on offer is intrinsically an equal-opportunity choice. These two do not have parity: in the long term, moral principles steadfastly hold the upper hand in framing astute political motives of nations. Absent real moral principles, look at what hell modern Turks have put themselves through globally every day and year since 1965 for those crude, contrived threats they levy upon any who consider recognition of the Armenian Genocide. A mess: the Turks squirm this way and that against steady bodies of Armenian and Jewish--even universal--educated opinion. The JDForward editorial further counsels American Jews, in the present "post-post-Holocaust era", to trust in the rightness of an Israeli realpolitik that forged an open-ended alliance with such a dissembling and inconstant Turkey (whether or not one assumes that Israel in fact has this outlook or has weighed the outlook wisely). In the short term, approving the realpolitik which The JDForward discerns in Israel's alliance with Turkey will encourage a nugatory stance toward the Armenian Genocide. Whew, got rid of that pesky problem. Such approval will focus American Jewish attention where it belongs, the script runs. Grappling with the Armenian Genocide is supposed to vanish thereby from many sectors of American Jewish opinion as trifling and irrelevant. All that remains will be to explain Israeli policies tout court plausibly to the wider audience as they unfold. The new "post-post-Holocaust era" will resemble nothing so much as the failed, discredited nineteenth-century "Great Game" of Middle Eastern diplomacy, but with Israel as an added piece.

Israel in fact is going to do what it is going to do, but a compass will be lost if The JDForward does not give attention to moral principle as an explanatory ground. More than that, however, realpolitik has its own internal dynamic--which is a problematic dynamic, devilishly hard to manage. If you are serious, you have to blend cynicism with arrogance to hold the realpolitik patches steady, and let your experience feed the scheme. If you are not serious, you can be cavalier toward the whole enterprise. You can be either, and remain in good standing, because realpolitik is a reactive, opportunistic, and self-contradictory force, without any explanatory underlay beyond the fugitive interpretive goals of whoever is writing about policy at The JDForward that week. The control and delivery of a misshapen perception count for all. Realpolitik in this guise is an invader's rationale. A "defensive" policy fashioned on realpolitik is elsewhere usually a prop for a scheme of naked aggression. Are readers of The JDForward so gullible as to turn on a dime again and again and follow editorial views of Israeli "realpolitik" wholeheartedly as the component factors churn through all sorts of labyrinths, no matter what? Soon everyone, subscribers and others, will simply turn off attention and leave commentary on Israel to its squishy fate.

We as human beings now have achieved, in the definition of genocide, alertness to a universal moral standard in politics for the first time. That definition of genocide is a compass upon which to plot one lone bit of rightness of any nation's internal and foreign policies. American Jewish efforts have done a lot to inform the result. In denoting this scant distance, by forging a definition of genocide that pretty much every nation can figure out, we have reached a moral terra firma to measure nations and for nations to measure themselves. One hopes that we humans will build on the success and agree on still more definitions in common to reduce politically-caused disorder and suffering. Why pull back from this gain? In realpolitik what goes around comes around. Let the tough moral choices lie where they are, then try to clear them up the hard way--with a compass in mind. Israel ought to take on a proactive role here. Good for the long term, you know.

Foxmans latest machinations reminds me of the Yiddish proverb that “a half truth is a whole lie.”