So here's the promised update on the panel discussion on genocide denial that took place Thursday night at UCLA. Commenter Micromike wonders whether anything was accomplished. I frankly don't know.

The discussion was interesting. Professor David Myers drew incisive connections between the experience of the Armenian and Jewish communities; Professor Richard Hovanessian gave a fascinating talk on the rhetorical moves deployed by genocide deniers; I argued that while issues such as those are complex enough to support endless academic study, the moral contours of this situation are very stark—one needn't consult scholars to know that Jewish orgs ought not support a campaign of genocide denial. Then Aram Hamparian placed all this in the context of his work as head of the Armenian National Committee, and also made some very kind and encouraging comments about Jewcy.

Phantom says he hopes the experience was meaningful for me, and yes, absolutely it was. Having a chance to sit next to, and engage with, David Myers, Richard Hovanessian, and Aram Hamparian, was as edifying as it was flattering.

But of course that's entirely irrelevant. There are cheaper and easier ways to edify and flatter ourselves than to hold a genocide denial panel discussion at UCLA. There were people who flew across the country for this discussion (afterward, one person came up to me and said she flew in from Chicago, and another said that he came from Arizona; Mr. Hamparian flew in from DC): presumably, they weren't there just to hear interesting or stirring things. They must have hoped that something significant was actually going to come out of it.

On my end, there's one preeminent criterion by which I'll judge whether the event was a success: did it do anything at all that will make genocide denial a less acceptable political manuever to leaders of Jewish-American orgs such as the AJC (David Harris) and the ADL (Abraham Foxman). Will it cause anything to happen that in turn causes people lower down in these organizations to say to these men, "I understand how simple-minded and Polyanna-ish this sounds, but I really think we need to consider the idea that supporting a genocide denial campaign is really just deeply problematic, political considerations aside."

If that's too much to hope, then I'd be satisfied if supporters came to them and said, "listen, this isn't just some bullshit about 'morality' or 'the memory of the Holocaust'—it's actually serious. People out there are saying all kinds of damnfool things about our supporting Turkey's campaign of 'genocide denial,' and it could turn out to have very negatives consequences for this organization."

If that happens--if one person in either of those organizations can muster up the conviction to say either of those things to Abraham Foxman or David Harris--I'd call the event a success. But maybe I'm more easily satisfied than people who flew across the country hoping to witness some progress in ending denial of their family/community's systematic murder, I don't know.

Riddle me this: What do you think would happen if the Center for American Women in Politics attempted to take out an ad in Ms. magazine featuring three female senators? Say they chose photos of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and Kay Bailey Hutchison, along with the text: "This is America." Do you think that the magazine's executive editor, Kathy Spillar, would reject the ad on the basis of editorial "favoritism" because two of the three women belong to the same political party? I suppose it's possible, although it is hard to imagine.

Not so hard to imagine is the parallel reality that's unfolding as I type: Ms. magazine has rejected this ad, for that stated reason:

Image from LGF. 

Ayaan Hirsi AliAJC Executive Director David Harris had a letter published in this week's New York Times Book Review regarding his disdain for Times' book critic Ian Buruma's review of Infidel. In the letter, Harris ardently defends Ali and criticizes Buruma for his derision of her values.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her new book, “Infidel,” deserved better than Ian Buruma’s review (March 4). While expressing admiration for her “courage,” he rejects her “descriptions of life in the West” as “idealized,” with an “almost comic-book quality.” Elsewhere, he derides her view of the West as “a caricature of sweetness and light.” Meanwhile, he challenges the notion, presumably Hirsi Ali’s, that “Europeans who argue ... that Muslims might feel more at home in the West if we offered a modicum of respect for their religion, instead of insulting them at every turn, are ‘stupid’ or worse.”

As to Buruma’s claim that Europe must show greater respect for Islam, the reality is that many European nations have done just that, in some cases bending over backward to accommodate religious beliefs and needs. And where there have been lapses, many have rushed to protest. But Hirsi Ali’s key point is that this must be a two-way street. Newcomers must respect and adapt to their host societies’ defining principles. If not, she contends, Europe will wake up one day and no longer recognize itself as a bastion of Enlightenment values.

Jimmy Carter: Evangelican Christian as anti-Semite? Never!I'd imagine that many Jewcy readers might describe themselves (among other things) as "Progressive Jews." Such readers might be interested in reading this article in the NYTimes and the AJC essay it discusses, 'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism."

Evidently, "a number of Jews, through their speaking and writing, are feeding a rise in virulent anti-Semitism by questioning whether Israel should even exist."

I'm not going to get started on the "Does anti-Israel=anti-Semitism" question today, and I want to state here that I've carefully avoided the Jimmy Carter mess, because I'm having a really hard time thinking it through in a clear way. But this NYTimes piece is really really really worth your time, and I'm going to re-read it myself right now.

There's so much here, and I think it's critical, as we head into this particular fray, that we try to avoid taking sides automatically, and actually ask ourselves what we believe as individuals, and as a community.

You know, the way Jews have been known to do.