Genocide

[Charles Weinblatt]

Having devoted almost three years researching the Holocaust for my novel, "Jacob's Courage," I have assimilated more than enough of blind hatred for a lifetime. This has been made all the more real by the murder of many members of my own family in the fires of Nazi persecution. All the while, I kept telling myself, "It's all a part of the past. It won't happen again. Humankind is now more mature. Societies are more peace loving. Killing over insignificant differences is over." My God. I was so wrong.

Not to belabor a point, but since the Holocaust, we have witnessed Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur. An English schoolteacher in a Muslim country was recently sentenced to flogging and imprisonment for allowing her students to name a teddy bear, "Mohammed." All over the globe, people are still persecuted for religious, political or ethnic differences. Have we learned nothing from the mistakes of humankind's history? We continue to butcher people who are "different." Why?

It is one thing for a nation to go to war to defend itself, or for conquest of land and national resources. Yet, humans continue to displace, torture, sterilize and kill others, only because they are different. One might assume that in the shadow of the Holocaust, we would see less of this senseless killing. Instead, the thought process behind intolerance is growing. This is evidenced by the recent increase in Islamic radicalism, as well as in the growth of anti-Semitism. Even entire governments, like the Sudanese, slaughter mass populations because they do not worship as Muslims. How can millions of people in the 21st Century continue to believe that non-believers should be converted or killed? How can society have gone backwards in the development of tolerance? And, what is yet to come?

We live in a world of ever-decreasing natural resources and ever-increasing nationalism and religious bigotry. Evil exists in our age. It hides behind the flags of many nations, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Somalia, the Sudan, and their proxies, China and Russia. These governments (and likely the majority of their populations) are modern-day Nazis. They do not wish to see a smaller, less powerful Israel. They wish to see Israel, "wiped off the face of the earth." This is despite the fact that Jews lived in the place called Israel for centuries before the Muslim religion was founded. Yet, these people have the audacity to suggest that Jews have no right to live in the land that God gave them three thousand years ago.

There are, of course, many Zionists who have the same hatred. There are extremists in every society. Yet, I have never heard of a Jewish suicide bomber. Jews do not launch rockets into the civilian Palestinian population on a daily basis, or kidnap innocent civilians, as Hamas and Hezbollah militias do. Jews do not vow to destroy Arab societies. They defend Israel, a tiny strip of land upon which Jews have resided since the dawn of recorded history. Germany decided in 1939 that Jews should be exterminated. Muslims, in whole or in part, agree today. Moreover, today's radical Islamic movement covets the destruction or conversion of every human who does not share their religious belief.

Until Muslims learn tolerance, the world will continue to teeter on the edge of global war and mass destruction. It has been a long and painful process, but every other religion has learned to tolerate the others. Christians, Buddhists and Jews do not persecute, arrest or kill people who are "non-believers." We consider it their privilege to be non-believers. Yet, the brand of today's Islamic radicalism is more dangerous than ever before. They act as though the Crusades had just ended yesterday. Their mantra is "convert or die." How can this madness exist in the 21st Century? And if the majority of the world's Muslims believe in peacuful co-existence with other religions (especially Judaism), then why don't they speak up? Why don't they eliminate extreemists within their own religion?

The politics of Israel have now reached a precipice. Demographics tell us that unless Israel withdraws into its 1967 borders (and abandons settlements beyond those borders), the future of Israel as a Jewish nation is in peril. The Palestinian birth rate is simply much too high. In a few years, there will be more Palestinians than Jews in this land. Thus, Israel must give up on the settlements or give up on being a Jewish state. The only other option is to deprive non-Jews of voting rights. And that, as we all know, amounts to apartheid - a condition which is an anathema to Jewish belief.

The solution seems simple. Israel should withdraw to 1967 borders and dismantle settlements outside of those borders. The reality is somewhat more complex. If Israel could obtain a real peace in return for those settlements and land, everyone would win. And, Israel might even be able to trust the Palestinian Authority to keep their word on peaceful coexistence. Unfortunately, Hamas and Hezbollah will not be a party to such an agreement. Hamas and Hezbollah (along with Islamic Jihad and The Islamic Brotherhood) want nothing less than the total destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews. This is in their charters, for everyone to read. They pledge to destroy Jews and the nation of Israel, not to negotiate with it. So, if Israel agrees to give up the land upon which Palestinians reside, who will stop Hamas and Hezbollah (plus their benefactors - Syria and Iran) from destroying the peace-loving Jews who still occupy Haifa, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem? Who will prevent Iran from launching (nuclear) war on Israel? Who will stop Hamas from launching rockets and suicide bombers against innocent Israelis? It would be naive to believe that the Palestinian Authority would or could keep the peace. Meanwhile, Hamas and Hezbollah vow to kill every Jew in the Middle east, using every vicious and abominable method available to them, especially suicide bombs against the omst innocent Israelis - women and children.

So, the murder, rapes, torture and killing goes on. Muslims throughout the world claim to be peaceful. Yet, they make no eeffort to stop their brethren from committing genocide? They hardly address the issue. If the people of Iran believe that it is wrong to destroy Israel, then they should deprive their clerics of power. If the people of Syria believe that destroying Israel is wrong, they should rebel against the Assad government. If the people of the Sudan and Somalia believe that it is wrong to displace, torture and kill non-Muslim citizens, they should protest. Their inaction speaks louder than words.

When will the Islamic people of the world stand up against the rape, torture and murder perpetrated by Muslims who claim to represent their faith? When will say that genocide is wrong? And, how can we help them learn to value tolerance? How many more innocent humans must be killed in the name of Islamic law? How can we look into the eyes of our children and grandchildren without feeling shame and disgust for our lack of action?

[Karen Tintori]

The nonfiction book I wrote this year, UNTO THE DAUGHTERS: The Legacy of an Honor Killing in a Sicilian-American Family, from St. Martin's Press, is the story of the horrific murder of a young immigrant teen by her male relatives. Since it happened in my own family and was kept a secret for more than eight decades, I have a personal and deep interest in the subject of honor killings.

For the past several months, as news of honor killings in the West have made headlines, I have been posting comments on blogs in the US, Israel, Canada, The Netherlands, India, Pakistan, and other countries, decrying this barbaric custom and asking for full prosecution and punishment for these males who have taken it upon themselves to serve as accusers, prosecutors, judges, juries, and executioners.

Of all the people that conquered Sicily, the Arabs left the most lasting footprint in terms of cuisine, culture and custom. Honor killings is the ugliest. Yet -- as news of fathers strangling or shooting their daughters makes headlines on our shores, Muslims, the liberal media, and cultural relativists refuse -- or are afraid -- to call these heinous murders "honor killings," instead excusing them as "family disputes" and the result of "teenage disobedience."

As a child of the '70s, I find it incomprehensible -- and reprehensible -- that the feminists and liberals have not raised their voices to speak out for the victims of these brutal murders. They hide instead behind a flimsy veil of cultural or moral relativism, their silence overwhelming.

Are we not our sisters' keepers?

Our sages teach that if you save one life, it is as if you have saved the entire world.

I refuse to keep silent and will continue to speak out against honor killings, which have now claimed young women among immigrant families in Europe, Canada and the US. Their voices, screams, have been silenced.

Karen Tintori
www.karentintori.com

[Mathias B. Freese]

dear charles weinblatt
i just read your short article. if you go to mathiasbfreese.com and press "On the Holocaust," you might find a similar take on the Holocaust but, of course, from a different perspective.
kind regards,
matt freese

[Charles Weinblatt]

Thanks for your contribution. Having lost family members to the Holocaust, I am able to summon little compassion for those who implemented Hitler's Jewish extermination program. I''ve seen and read many such accounts. Yet, their rationalizations fall upon deaf ears. How can I feel sorry for a concentration camp guard? They destroyed more than half of my maternal extended family? So now, I'm supposed to feel their angst? I'm sorry that they were given unjust orders from their superiors. Yet, each of these "guards" was capable of defying orders. All of them had the chance to rebel, join the partisans, or just disappear, rather than participate in the slaughter of six million innocent men, women and children. I cannot feel their sorrow and I never will. I would rather die than send an innocent person to their death. I cannot feel sorry for those who lacked the moral fiber to separate themselves from commiting genocide.

More to the point is the question of whether evil is a genetic predisposition. I think not. The evil of anti-Semitism is not biological, but cultural. It is not genetic, but environmental. Generations of Europeans and Asians have been taught by their ancestors that Jews are dangerous, evil; the root of all negative manefestations. This perspective desires the world to mourn for the perpetrators of the Holocaust, rather than the victims. Some of my ancenstors were also bigoted. I heard many derogatory comments about blacks and gentiles. Yet, I am in control of my own perspectives. I would die before committing genocide. How then can I forgive those who lacked the decency to reach the same conclusion? Let's face it, Europeans had not the slightest inclination to stand up for Jews. Their parents taught them that the world would be better off without Jews. They blindly followed those thoughts. Whether they failed to reach their own conclusions or simply preferred to hate Jews, the result is the same - dead relatives.

More innocent people have been killed in the name of religion that in all of the world's wars fought for territory or natural resources. And the percentage of Jews killed in such endeavors has always been far too high. Why must we always be the victim? From the Crusades and the Spamish Inquisition to the Holocaust, it has been easy for the world to hate Jews. Crush the Jews who are different! Destroy the Christ-killers! If they are different, then they must be evil! What an egocentric load of crap. People seem to require others to hate in order to make themselves feel adequate. Freud might have had a lot to say about this. Egocentricity is often the root of such evil, as was 20th century Germany.

Until parents stop teaching their children to hate us, the genocide will continue. What will it take to stop this madness?

[Mathias B. Freese]

Man is a defective species; why is it so hard to accept that? A good reading of world history lays it bare. I am not using evil here, whatever that is; i am discussing human nature. A duck swims; human beings kill. Anti-semitism is just a monstrous tributary of man's gnarly behaviors. His repetition compulsions go on endlessly through out the centuries. The U.S. Constitution is based on this acute perception of human nature -- "Men are not angels."--Madison. You pose the telling consideration that we need others to hate in order to feel better about ourselves. And you have observed that in history and world literature. It is nature, and not learned behaviors.
In sweet disagreement with you,
matt freese

[Charles Weinblatt]

Well, I have no doubt that Freud would agree with you. However, my father, who was a psychiatrist practicing at the same time as Freud, posed no such litany of intrinsic sin. To suggest that all of humankind has a violent intrinsic nature is simplistic. We are not all born to kill. If humankind is inherently evil (OK, let's call it "angry"), then how can you explain the fact that the vast majority of us perform no significant injustice upon our peers? What are we? Freaks? You could suggest that we would all turn to violence if there were no law enforcement. But, I don't think we would. At least not most of us.

I've often compared the overall psychological condition of humankind to that of an individual; maturing through the centuries from violent cave men to current "civilized" Western societies. Some of today's societies (see cleric-driven Muslim extremists and fascist governments) remain culturally immature. Others (see Scandinavian and Western cultures) are more civilized, or at least more tolerant. Yes, we still have wars, injustice, depravation, starvation and blind aggression. But, it is not logical to postulate that humankind is destined to kill simply because we have done it in the past, or that some of us continue to perpetrate violence. For example, most Americans at the turn of the Seventeenth Century hated Native Americans and tolerated slavery. Two hundred years later, there is still plenty of social injustice in the US. However, you must admit that we've come a long way. We are more tolerant and socially mature. The same maturation process has occurred throughout most of the free world.

In conclusion, I humbly reject your suggestion that we are doomed to kill each other because we are born with an ill-conceived nature, or because we used to do it. Man is not a psychologically defective species. We are all born with the potential to kill in anger or hate others who are different. That is not defective. Most of us have learned to overcome those feelings. It's an artifact of our cave man days, when violence was an every-day requirement for survival. Yet, we are also born with the capacity to love. Most of our societies value the ability to express empathy and compassion for others. In free societies, each generation has become increasingly tolerant of others who are different. The logical conclusion of this social maturation process will be a society that has learned to value differences, rather than fear them (not that my grandchildren will see it).

[Mathias B. Freese]

I will reply once again, Mr. Weinblatt. You have said so much that I will fly overhead and pick and choose the mountains I want to light upon. I am not into sin. It doesn't exist in my world.I am concerned about what is true and what is not true based on reason, emotion, psychological truths garnered over the years and a dash of intuition. You heavily discount unconscious forces -- that is a mistake, a very human one. It is dark and nether "down" there. As a therapist, it was my garden. Please don't posit so adamantly that we are in control of these forces; that cannot be for we struggle all our lives to comprehend our selves and our relationships with our parents and siblings. And by all accounts, we do not make a good job of it, we are mortal.You also assume that we are in the process of "maturation" as a society, or as societies across the world. We have no proof of that in any real sense of science. It simply is not so; you also assume that civilization is following a one way street sign called "progress." Of course, not. Historians have debated that for decades and have come up very dry. You and I remind me of the priest and rabbi who agree about most things -- man, the world, peace and so on. However, first causes -- revelation -- shatters this harmony, for it comes down to, in one instance, to -- Did he rise or not? I find you make assumptions that are well intended and phrased very well, but we differ on first causes. To wit, you say, "In free societies, each generation has become increasingly tolerant of others who are all different." Dear sir, this is myth based upon conjecture grounded in unfounded optimism.
With this I end our discussion. I will look forward to your other writings and hope to engage you there.
kind regards,
matt freese

[Charles Weinblatt]

Since, as you suggest, we all must acquiesce to the destructive nature of our subconscious, mine forced me to produce the last word (after all, who can deny those annoying bad thoughts?).

Your typically Freudian attitude would have humans forever doomed to repeat the terror that their ancestors inflicted upon each other. In your logic, laws that protect us based upon conscious desires must ultimately fail because of the wicked nature of our subconscious.

Yet, the vast majority of people that I have come to know well seem well dominated by the better angels of their nature. Freudians would have us believe that we are born with a foretold destiny. I believe that our behaviors are a combination of intrinsic forces (the subconscious) and environmental factors (actions based upon learned or acquired thoughts). Children of tolerant parents are often more broadminded than children of intolerant parents. We can overcome the darker nature of our ego collectively. Otherwise, why create civilization, science, laws, medicine and the arts. We are not doomed to repeat history if we learn from it.

With this unFreudian thought, I retire.