Lesson for liberals.
Omer Bartov has an important essay in the New Republic. Initially, in reviewing Hitler’s chilling second book, Bartov writes:
[W]e still do not seem to have learned a simple crucial lesson that Hitler taught us more definitively than anyone else in history: some people, some regimes, some ideologies, some political programs, and, yes, some religious groups, must be taken at their word. Some people mean what they say, and say what they will do, and do what they said.
Most liberal-minded, optimistic, well-meaning people are loath to believe this. They would rather think that fanaticism is merely an “epiphenomenal” façade for politics, that opinions can be changed, that everyone can be corrected and improved. In many cases, this is true—but not in all cases, and not in the most dangerous ones. There are those who practice what they preach and are proud of it. They view those who act otherwise, who compromise and pull back from ultimate conclusions, as opportunists, as weaklings, as targets to be easily conquered and subdued by their own greater determination, hardness, and ruthlessness. When they say they will kill you, they will kill you—if you do not kill them first.
(*) If we progressives fail to thoroughly learn this lesson, progressive reforms where planned will not be implemented and where implemented will be revoked.
Bartov covers more ground. He links the present epidemic of anti-Semitism to the decaying corpse of Hitlerism that haunts us even now. He notes that the charter statement of the terrorist group Hamas, for example, calls for the violent destruction of the State of Israel. He notes that Mohammed Atta and the Hamburg cell of Al Qaeda considered their motivation for the 9/11 attacks on the US to be anti-Semitism. They wanted to fight Jews by fighting the US.
A quibble is in order. Bartov notes disapprovingly that a recent survey finds “70 percent of Germans resent being blamed for the Holocaust.” Assuming that someone has indeed blamed “the German people as a people” for the Holocaust their reaction would not be unexpected. Most Germans alive today were not even born until after the Holocaust. To blame a people for a crime of their ancestors is not in accord with basic principles of justice. (†) If Bartov had more finely tuned his argument to eliminate the bashing of Germans for being German and focused more clearly on the atrocious wave of anti-Semitism washing over Germany and Europe, Bartov’s argument would have improved.
Those of us who defend Israel should not waste time trying, for example, to blame people born after the Holocaust for the Holocaust. Instead, we should blame Europeans, including Germans, for what they do wrong today. That includes the EU’s support for Palestinian Arab terrorism. (‡) (§)
Bartov bogs down his essay by ironically stating in the context of an event at Rutgers University, “So some may think that destroying Israel is legitimate and some may think otherwise.” Would Bartov really suggest that academic freedom is not wide enough for such an opinion, assuming the “destruction” is not violent or involved a redefinition of the state? Of course academic freedom must be that wide, and apparently Bartov wishes to constrict it.
Bartov would have done better to criticize the event as pro-terrorism. The point is not that a few students would dare to criticize Israel or even suggest it should not exist as a Jewish state. I believe Israel should continue as a Jewish state, but I also support the right to hold other opinions on the subject. Theoretically the State of Israel could legally redefine itself in the context of peace with its neighbors. That may be a bad idea or unrealistic but it is not an illegitimate point of view. The problem was not, as Bartov seems to suggest, that the event took academic freedom too far. The problem was that it was not really an exercise of academic freedom. They advocated murder, violence, and terrorism against innocent people. It was a group of reprobates, not a group of scholars.
Unfortunately, Bartov’s advocacy for the State of Israel is not effective enough. He overstates his claims and thereby limits his ability to persuade an unsympathetic audience. Doubly unfortunately, amidst the current global wave of Jew-hatred, the State of Israel needs her advocates to be at their peak effectiveness right now.