MICHEL TERESTCHENKO: An Open Letter on the Misuse of Holocaust Memory by Omer Bartov, Christopher R. Browning, Jane Caplan, Debórah Dwork, Michael Rothberg, et al.

vendredi 24 novembre 2023

An Open Letter on the Misuse of Holocaust Memory by Omer Bartov, Christopher R. Browning, Jane Caplan, Debórah Dwork, Michael Rothberg, et al.

Lettre ouverte, publiée dans le New York Review of Books, le 20 novembre 2023, signée par les meilleurs historiens de l'Holocauste et de l'antisémitisme, expliquant que la référence à la mémoire de l'Holocauste obscurcit notre compréhension de l'antisémitisme que rencontrent les Juifs aujourd'hui et mésinterprète dangereusement les causes de la violence en Israël et en Palestine :

"Particular examples have ranged from Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan donning a yellow star featuring the words “Never Again” while addressing the UN General Assembly, to US President Joe Biden saying that Hamas had “engaged in barbarism that is as consequential as the Holocaust,” while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told German Chancellor Olaf Scholz that “Hamas are the new Nazis.” US Representative Brian Mast, a Republican from Florida, speaking on the House floor, questioned the idea that there are “innocent Palestinian civilians,” claiming, “I don’t think we would so lightly throw around the term ‘innocent Nazi civilians’ during World War II.”

Antisemitism often increases at times of heightened crisis in Israel-Palestine, as do Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism. The unconscionable violence of the October 7 attacks and the ongoing aerial bombardment and invasion of Gaza are devastating, and are generating pain and fear among Jewish and Palestinian communities around the world. We reiterate that everyone has the right to feel safe wherever they live, and that addressing racism, antisemitism, and Islamophobia must be a priority.

It is understandable why many in the Jewish community recall the Holocaust and earlier pogroms when trying to comprehend what happened on October 7—the massacres, and the images that came out in the aftermath, have tapped into deep-seated collective memory of genocidal antisemitism, driven by all-too-recent Jewish history.

However, appealing to the memory of the Holocaust obscures our understanding of the antisemitism Jews face today, and dangerously misrepresents the causes of violence in Israel-Palestine. The Nazi genocide involved a state—and its willing civil society—attacking a tiny minority, which then escalated to a continent-wide genocide. Indeed, comparisons of the crisis unfolding in Israel-Palestine to Nazism and the Holocaust—above all when they come from political leaders and others who can sway public opinion—are intellectual and moral failings. At a moment when emotions are running high, political leaders have a responsibility to act calmly and avoid stoking the flames of distress and division. And, as academics, we have a duty to uphold the intellectual integrity of our profession and support others around the world in making sense of this moment.

Israeli leaders and others are using the Holocaust framing to portray Israel’s collective punishment of Gaza as a battle for civilization in the face of barbarism, thereby promoting racist narratives about Palestinians. This rhetoric encourages us to separate this current crisis from the context out of which it has arisen. Seventy-five years of displacement, fifty-six years of occupation, and sixteen years of the Gaza blockade have generated an ever-deteriorating spiral of violence that can only be arrested by a political solution. There is no military solution in Israel-Palestine, and deploying a Holocaust narrative in which an “evil” must be vanquished by force will only perpetuate an oppressive state of affairs that has already lasted far too long.

Insisting that “Hamas are the new Nazis”—while holding Palestinians collectively responsible for Hamas’s actions—attributes hardened, antisemitic motivations to those who defend Palestinian rights. It also positions the protection of Jewish people against the upholding of international human rights and laws, implying that the current assault on Gaza is a necessity. And invoking the Holocaust to dismiss demonstrators calling for a “free Palestine” fuels the repression of Palestinian human rights advocacy and the conflation of antisemitism with criticism of Israel.

In this climate of growing insecurity, we need clarity about antisemitism so that we can properly identify and combat it. We also need clear thinking as we grapple with and respond to what is unfolding in Gaza and the West Bank. And we need to be forthright in dealing with these simultaneous realities—of resurgent antisemitism and widespread killing in Gaza, as well as escalating expulsions in the West Bank—as we engage with the public discourse.

We encourage those who have so readily invoked comparisons to Nazi Germany to listen to the rhetoric coming from Israel’s political leadership. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Israeli parliament that “this is a struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness” (a tweet from his office with the same phrase was later deleted). Defense Minister Yoav Gallant proclaimed, “We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly.” Such comments, along with a widespread and frequently cited argument that there are no innocent Palestinians in Gaza, do indeed bring to mind echoes of historical mass violence. But those resonances should serve as an injunction against wide-scale killing, not as a call to extend it.

As academics we have a responsibility to use our words, and our expertise, with judgment and sensitivity—to try and dial down inciteful language that is liable to provoke further discord, and instead to prioritize speech and action aimed at preventing further loss of life. This is why when invoking the past, we must do so in ways that illuminate the present and do not distort it. This is the necessary basis for establishing peace and justice in Palestine and Israel. This is why we urge public figures, including the media, to stop using these kinds of comparisons."

Karyn Ball Professor of English and Film Studies, University of Alberta

Omer Bartov Samuel Pisar Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Brown University

Christopher R. Browning Professor of History Emeritus, UNC-Chapel Hill

Jane Caplan Emeritus Professor of Modern European History, University of Oxford

Alon Confino Professor of History and Jewish Studies, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Debórah Dwork Director of the Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Crimes Against Humanity, Graduate Center—City University of New York

David Feldman Director, Birkbeck Institute for the Study of Antisemitism, University of London

Amos Goldberg The Jonah M. Machover Chair in Holocaust Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Atina Grossmann Professor of History, Cooper Union, New York

John-Paul Himka Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta

Marianne Hirsch Professor Emerita, Comparative Literature and Gender Studies, Columbia University

A. Dirk Moses Spitzer Professor of International Relations, City College of New York

Michael Rothberg Professor of English, Comparative Literature, and Holocaust Studies, UCLA

Raz Segal Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Stockton University

Stefanie Schüler-Springorum Director, Center for Research on Antisemitism, Technische Universität Berlin

Barry Trachtenberg Rubin Presidential Chair of Jewish History, Wake Forest University

nybooks.com

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire

Inscription à : Publier les commentaires (Atom)

La « guerre sainte » et sans frontières que mènent les djihadistes contre « le monde des ténèbres » se déploie selon la logique manichéenne d’une lutte à mort où chaque camp prétend incarner le Bien et voit dans l’autre la figure du Mal. Comment en sortir ?
Du premier côté, on ne saurait comprendre l’extrême violence dont les mouvances de l’islamisme radical font preuve sans la rapporter aux doctrines dont elles s’inspirent et aux multiples causes sociales, politiques et économiques qui expliquent leur émergence dans le monde arabo-musulman contemporain. Mais, symétriquement, tout se passe comme si les démocraties avaient été prises au piège d’idéologies meurtrières qu’elles ont davantage contribué à nourrir qu’à combattre efficacement dans le respect de leurs propres principes. De l’usage de la torture à l’utilisation croissante de drones armés, la « guerre contre la terreur » a trop souvent été menée dans le mépris du droit, alimentant ainsi une spirale sans fin de haine et de ressentiment, tout en servant de prétexte à une remise en cause de nos libertés fondamentales. Dans cet essai, incisif et très documenté, Michel Terestchenko nous introduit au coeur de ces dynamiques de violence exponentielle, qui se développent jusque dans notre pays, et nous donne les moyens d’exercer notre responsabilité de citoyen afin qu’elles fassent enfin l’objet d’un débat public.

Forward

The “holy war” without borders lead by Islamic jihadists against “Netherworld” follows the simplistic logic of a fight to the death in which every side pretends to be the embodiment of the Good and sees in the other the face of Evil. Is there a solution? On the first hand, it is impossible to understand the extreme violence of the radical Islam movement without a closer look at its origins and at the many social, political and economical causes which explain their emergence in the contemporary Arabic-Muslim world. At the same time, everything goes as if the democracies were ambushed into the deadly traps of the ideology that, more than fight efficiently and in accordance to their principles, they have helped setting. From torture to an increasing use of armed drones, the “war on terror” has been too oftenly lead without regard to the law, and it has been constantly feeding feelings of hatred and resentment, while serving as an excuse for the questioning of our fundamental rights.

Such a Fragile Veneer of Humanity, The Banality of Good and Evil

Description This important new book by political philosopher Michel Terestchenko has been hailed by critics as one of the most outstanding and noteworthy essays in recent times. Expanding on the work of the German political theorist Hannah Arendt, who in Eichmann in Jerusalem raised the question of whether evil is radical or simply a function of banality -- the tendency of ordinary people to obey orders and conform to mass opinion without critically thinking about the results of their action or inaction -- Terestchenko proposes a new paradigm of “absence” vs. “presence” of self. The essence of altruism, he explains, has nothing to do with selfless acquiescence to a higher authority. In fact, selfless behavior is one of the surest paths to blind obedience and servility. Examining the psycho-sociological roots of the subservience that leads to inaction in the face of injustice, he cites specific historical examples showing that presence is more important than absence of self: forgotten cases from the history of Naziism, the “duty” performed at Abu Ghraib prison camp and, conversely, the heroic actions of the people of Chambon-sur-Lignon at the height of WWII.

www.frenchpubagency.com

On The Fair Use of Torture, or, How Democraties Justify the Injustifiable

Description The moral condemnation of torture has failed to prevent the exacting challenges of its theoretical legitimization as a “lesser evil.” In this audacious essay, Terestchenko dissects the arguments of thinkers, philosophers, and judicial authorities for whom torture, in its various incarnations and in varying circumstances, can be justified. In a thorough refutation of the school of thought known as the liberal ideology of torture, he explains how the use and legitimization of torture creates a deeply corrupting poison for civil society and its institutions. First Terestchenko presents a genealogy of new torture practices, from their origins in the 1950s to their present-day forms. He shows how such practices as “sensory disorientation” and “self-inflicted pain,” among others, have evolved over time. Then he examines the legal aspect, giving the example of the way the United States justified, or refuted, what went on in Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. He goes on to debunk the myth of the noble torturer, illustrated by the fictional counterterrorism agent Jack Bauer in the TV series 24, and vigorously refutes the liberal ideology designed to show that even perfectly compassionate citizens might justify torture to find a ticking bomb. Developing the notion of abuse of public trust, he argues that this dangerous fallacy will turn our democracies into illegitimate states.