Arun Gandhi is the fifth grandson of “Mahatma” Gandhi and is president and co-founder of the M. K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence.
He begins by describing Jews as being
"locked into the holocaust experience-- a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends."If his people had lost one out of every three members of its community would he suggest that they "shed" this experience? Then he goes on to posit that
"The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful."An individual? Seems to me that history shows that a whole lot more than one person was involved in making this happen.
He then proclaims that the "Jewish identity in the future appears bleak" because Jews are "anchored to the past" and believe that their "survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs."
He goes on to describe Israel and its policies as "a snake pit -- with many deadly snakes in it" He asks "Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbors and build a relationship?"
Finally he declares that "we have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity."
This reeks of antisemitism. Jewish identity based on violence? Not a word about suicide bombers? Hamas? Rockets from Gaza? Withdrawal from Gaza?
My question is how did the editors of the Washington Post decide to publish this? Couldn't they have found something more subtle? Didn't they realize that this piece was too heavy handed? I am really disappointed in them.
[In case you have any doubt that past par should be read with a heavy dose of sarcasm.]