Interview in JTA

There is an interview with me in the JTA

Vatican Reinstatement: Op-Ed

Back to the Dark Ages
by Professor Deborah Lipstadt

www.aish.com/societyWork/society/Back_to_the_Dark_Ages.asp

The Vatican has done far more than set back Vatican/Jewish relations. It has made itself look like it is living in the darkest of ages.

Pope Benedict XVI has reinstated as a bishop a man who both denies the Holocaust and suggests that 9/11 was an American plot. He has done so, it is reported, in order to strengthen relations with a renegade segment of the Catholic Church. This is one of those inexplicable moves that has left many people asking "Have they no decency?" A more basic and, possibly even more appropriate question would be. "Have they no common sense?"

A number of commentators have observed that this will "complicate" Vatican-Jewish relations and will make it more difficult for Israel and the Vatican to come to an agreement about a papal visit in the near future. All this may be true, but that is an exceptionally narrow way of looking at the implications of this move. Simply put, it makes the Vatican look as if it is once again living in the most unenlightened of ages.

Holocaust denial is an explicit form of antisemitism. It has no purpose but to inculcate contempt for Jews. According to deniers Jews use the Holocaust to win the world's sympathy and, in the course of so doing, win reparations from Germany and political support for Israel. Such a charge, based as it is the imagery of money and political manipulation, hearkens back to traditional antisemitic stereotypes. Why a pope would want to give support to such a movement is baffling. More baffling, however, is why a pope would want to associate the Vatican with someone who preaches lies and manipulations of history.

In 2000 I spent ten weeks in a British court because Holocaust denier David Irving charged that I had libeled him by calling him a denier and an antisemite. My legal team traced Irving's comments and claims about the Holocaust backed to their sources. We followed the footnotes. In every case we found some form of invention, manipulation, distortion, and deletion. The documents that he claimed "proved" that the Holocaust did not happen did no such thing. His wrongs were so egregious that the judge, in a sweeping condemnation of Irving, used language not often heard in a British legal decision. Irving, the judge wrote, "perverts," and "distorts." His statements about the Holocaust were "misleading," "unjustified," "a travesty," and "unreal."

But there was more to it than just that. This was not happenstance or a series of improbable mistakes. Irving's "falsification of the historical record was deliberate and ... motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence."

Holocaust deniers rely on a merry-go-round of "I will cite you and you will cite me." Irving's claims about the Holocaust are either drawn whole cloth from other denier or parroted by other deniers, such as Bishop Williamson. Deniers have no independent proof on which to rely because there is none. The Vatican has associated itself with a body of lies.

But the reinstated bishop does not just deny the Holocaust. He also claims 9/11 was staged by America as a pretext to invade Afghanistan. The linkage between the two sets of denial is, of course, not happenstance. Basic to 9/11 denial is the charge that four thousand Jewish workers in the World Trade Center were warned to stay home that day. In fact, about 500 Jews were among the victims. That is over 15% of the total, a number consistent with the Jewish population of the New York metropolitan area. Moreover, how could so many people be told anything and thousands more not hear about it?

In short, both these claims are not just malicious forms of antisemitism but they are completely illogical. They would be laughable were it not for the tragedies they address.

In embracing Bishop Williamson the Vatican has done far more than set back Vatican/Jewish relations. It has made itself look like it is living in the darkest of ages. One awaits a pronouncement that it is heresy to believe that the earth revolves around the sun or didn't the Vatican already once do that?

Apples Over the Fence [12]: Lipstadt Commentary in the Forward

For additional commentary by me in the Forward on this issue see here

A Danger Greater Than Denial
Opinion

By Deborah E. Lipstadt
Wed. Dec 31, 2008

The news that Herman Rosenblat’s Holocaust memoir “Angel at the Fence” is a fraud has the press buzzing and the publishing world reeling. The book, which the publisher apparently anticipated would be a best-seller, was pulled right before it was to be shipped to bookstores. No one who has paid close attention to the story, however, has a right to be surprised.

I first heard Rosenblat’s story in June of 2007. I was on a bus headed to Birkenau together with other scholars who study genocide. None of them were Holocaust specialists. One passenger began to read aloud from an e-mail he had received about a boy in Buchenwald who was saved because a young girl threw him an apple over the camp fence every day for seven months. Years later, the two met as adults. He learned that her family had been slave laborers in the nearby town. They were posing as non-Jews. They fell in love, married and recently celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary.

Long before my fellow passenger got to the fairy tale ending, I was skeptical. How could a young girl stand at a concentration camp fence without guards noticing? Would a Jewish family passing as Polish non-Jews permit their daughter to wander around near the camp? Could a prisoner go near the fence without being shot? Was the fence low enough for a small girl to throw an apple over?

When the professor finished, I declared, “Fiction. Bad fiction.” Some of the scholars suspected that years of skirmishes with Holocaust deniers had made me a hardened skeptic. After later coming across numerous renditions of the story — which, it turned out, was all over the Internet — and learning that the Rosenblats had appeared on “Oprah,” that a children’s book on the story was already published and that a memoir and film were forthcoming, I felt I could no longer remain silent. On my blog I stated that this story could not be true. The attacks came in quick succession: How could I question Holocaust survivors? Who was I to defame them?

The most vituperative attack came from Harris Salomon, who was making a film based on Rosenblat’s story. In an e-mail to me, he pronounced my opinion “worthless.” He declared that, since he had traveled throughout Eastern Europe doing research, “i may be more of a more of a [sic] holocaust expert then you.” He closed by accusing me of having committed “the greatest sin to the memory of all those perished so long ago.”

In the interim, Michigan State University historian Ken Waltzer, an expert on Buchenwald, had done the research that reporters, publishers and producers did not do. He spoke with historians who knew the layout of this sub-camp and with people who were interned there with Rosenblat. The story was clearly a lie.

The New Republic’s Gabriel Sherman spoke with additional survivors who further confirmed that this was a hoax. Even Rosenblat’s sister-in-law admitted never having heard the story of the girl with the apples, either at the Rosenblats’ wedding or in the 40 years that followed.

In response to the growing scrutiny, Salomon went ballistic. He complained to one of Waltzer’s deans and intimated that he would hold Waltzer “responsible” if Rosenblat’s health suffered because of the questions being raised about his memoir. The publisher, Penguin’s Berkley Books, stonewalled anyone who contacted them.

When Sherman found yet more survivors who contradicted Rosenblat’s story, the whole thing fell apart. The publisher pulled the book. Rosenblat admitted making up the story. Suddenly, Salomon, the great historian, told the press that he was “extremely angry” about being the victim of a scam (although he has said he still plans to make his film, albeit now as an acknowledged work of fiction).

Sadly, Herman Rosenblat overshadowed his genuine Holocaust story with a completely fabricated one. What really happened to him and his family has been lost in his lies.

There are various lessons to be learned from this: Facts about the Holocaust must be checked. Historians should never build their understanding of events based on one story from one person. But Rosenblat had enablers. His publisher, agent and movie producer pounced on his story. Reporters never bothered to check it out. They all seemingly wanted a story that made the Holocaust heartwarming, even though, as Waltzer aptly put it, the “Holocaust experience is not heartwarming, it is heart rending.”

Salomon believed that this kind of “candy-coated message” would reach “Middle America” and “do more to teach people about the Jewish experience during the Holocaust in a way nothing before has done.” Jewish sources also allowed themselves to be co-opted. Aish HaTorah featured the story on its Web site. A Chabad rabbi, whose relatives died in the Holocaust, was swept off his feet by this phony tale and arranged a belated bar mitzvah for Herman, garnering even more publicity for the Rosenblats and himself.

I have spent much of my academic career studying Holocaust denial. But the much greater danger to our collective memory of the event is posed by Holocaust trivialization and romanticization. What the Rosenblats and their enablers did was create yet another obstacle for the remaining survivors to convince others that their stories are true.

Rosenblat claims that all he wanted to do was make people love each other more. The Chabad rabbi probably thought the story would inspire faith. Salomon wanted to teach Middle America about the Holocaust.

These may be worthy goals. But the Holocaust should not be reduced to a means for trying to fulfill these or any other ends. The instrumentalization of the Holocaust, the use of it to fulfill something else, is the ultimate degradation of the event. If Holocaust deniers were smart, they would sit back and let the Rosenblats, Salomons, Berkley Books and the like peddle their wares. Within a short time, no one would know what was truth and what was fiction.

Apples Over the Fence [11]: Lipstadt Commentary on CNN.com

For some comments by me on this story see CNN.com's webpage

December 31, 2008

(CNN) -- I don't know whether to be sad or angry -- or both. The recent exposé of the fact that Herman Rosenblat's Holocaust memoir is a hoax was no surprise to me. From the first time I heard the story of his "miraculous" survival during the Nazi era, I doubted that it could be true.

Rosenblat's claim that, as an inmate in a Buchenwald sub-camp, he had survived because a young girl had tossed an apple over the fence each day for seven months just did not seem credible to me.

The notion that a concentration camp inmate could approach the fence without the SS shooting him beggared the imagination. I could not believe that a little girl whose family was supposedly passing as non-Jews would allow their daughter to engage in such an act.

The fairy tale nature of the incident was enhanced by the supposed reunion of the couple on a blind date years later when both had moved to America. The story was that they discovered each other's true identity and, after a whirlwind romance, decided to marry.

Survivors who had been in the camp with Rosenblat and had kept in touch with him since the end of the war protested that the story could not be true. They wondered why Rosenblat had never mentioned the incident until the late 1990s.

A number of other historians shared my doubts, which I posted on my blog. As one of the first to express skepticism about this, I became the target of attacks from those who thought I was demeaning the Rosenblats.

We doubters could not, however, initially overcome the power of Oprah, on whose show Rosenblat and his wife appeared twice. Credulous reporters, who should have sought some form of verification, kept writing about this "miraculous" event.

The producer who acquired movie rights tried to intimidate those of us who raised questions. He wrote to me saying, "I have traveled all over Eastern Europe for several years in preparation for what will be a major feature film. I may be more of a Holocaust expert than you, even though, I have no title nor university affiliation. What I do know for sure is before I make any statements I know the facts. You simply do not know those facts, and that Deborah, is the greatest sin to the memory of all those perished so long ago."

The publisher refused to let anyone see the book. Public relations people circulated versions of the story urging recipients to send it on so eventually it would reach millions of people.

Slowly, thanks to the power of the Internet and the work of some intrepid historians, the hoax was exposed. The publisher pulled the book. The movie producer cried foul, presenting himself as a victim who had been duped.

This is not the first time such a hoax has been perpetrated. Most of the previous stories have been spread by people who were passing as survivors. In contrast, the Rosenblats were both survivors of the Holocaust. But that fact has now been lost in the shuffle.

What, then, is the danger of these sorts of hoaxes? First of all, they give ammunition to Holocaust deniers. This is a bonanza for them.

Deniers expend great efforts in trying to implant doubts in young people about the veracity of the Holocaust. They spend so much energy attacking Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl" because it is a book that is widely read by young people.

The fact that this "apples over the fence" story has already been published as a widely successful children's story provides the deniers with a great opportunity to peddle their wares.

However, the danger posed by deniers is not the primary reason why such fabricated stories should be exposed. The events of the Holocaust are horrible in and of themselves. They do not need to be aggrandized or exaggerated to be made to sound any worse than they were. They also do not need to be rendered as joyful love stories that make us feel good about what happened.

Both are insults to the survivors and inimical to the pursuit of historical truth. The optimum way of teaching about the Holocaust and presenting its history is, to quote Detective Joe Friday from the old TV show, "Dragnet," "just the facts, just the facts."

What we need, particularly in relation to something as mind-boggling as the Holocaust, are "just the facts.

Rabbi Emanuel Rackman: The Death of a Great Man and a Great Leader

Rabbi Emanuel Rackman passed away yesterday. I was privileged to deliver one of the eulogies at his funeral in New York. It follows below.

Tribute to Rabbi Emanuel Rackman Z”L

When I set out to write History on Trial, my book on my trial in London where I was sued for libel by the world’s leading Holocaust denier, my editor said to me: “Deborah begin by telling your readers who you are. Let them know how you came to be the kind of person who would stand and fight the way you did.”

And so I sat down and wrote about how my parents had instilled in me a deep sense of right and wrong. Then I added the following:

When I was in first grade my parents decided to move from Manhattan to the suburbs. They chose Far Rockaway, a beach-side community in Queens, because they admired the local rabbi, Emanuel Rackman, and decided that this was the man they wanted as a spiritual leader and a role model for their children. A graduate of Columbia Law School, a man with a Ph.D., a learned rabbi, a lover of Torah// he combined knowledge of Judaism with the contemporary world. His meticulously prepared and well-crafted muscular sermons, delivered without notes, covered a wide range of topics -- everything from the weekly Torah portion, which he adored, to Arnold Toynbee, whom he abhorred.

Shortly after the fall of Stalin, during a period of Khrushchev-style perestroika, he traveled with a group of American rabbis to the Soviet Union. On the Shabbat of his return my father suggested that I stay in services during the sermon -- a time that we children generally ran all over the expansive lawn in front of Sharrey Tefila. “It will be memorable,” he assured me. Though I was not quite sure what memorable meant, I knew the trip had been something important. I did not grasp all that Rabbi Rackman said in that sermon, but I understood that he had made contact with a group of Jews who were not free to live as we did and we could not forget them. They were, he taught us, our responsibility. When I took my first trip to the Soviet Union in 1972 in order to meet with refuseniks, I remembered his words.

He was a stickler for doing things right. He insisted on decorum at services. He laughed so when I told him that as a child I thought decorum was a Hebrew word because the only place I heard it was in shul from him. Daled – yud – koof—vav –resh – mem.

A believer in intra- and inter-religious dialogue, long before it was in vogue, Rabbi Rackman reached out to people both within the Jewish community and outside of it. Right-wing religious Jews attacked and denigrated him for his attempts to demonstrate how one could -- and should -- draw upon the best in both traditional Judaism and the secular world. From the other end of the religious spectrum some would question his unwavering commitment to Halacha. How, they wondered, could such an enlightened man be so wedded to such an ancient tradition. He ignored his attackers and went on living a life that exemplified Torah u’Madah.

I remember how my father would seethe at these attacks and stress how important it was that Rabbi Rackman’s ideas not to be silenced. He believed in taking a stand and in speaking out when he saw injustice.

Long before I knew precisely what a role model was, I knew that I wanted to be just like him.*

What I did not know then and what I only learned last night from a colleague when I told him of Rabbi Rackman’s passing, was that in 1951 when Rabbi Rackman was recalled as a chaplain due to the Korean War, he discovered that his security clearance had been revoked because he opposed the death penalty for the Rosenbergs and supported Paul Robeson's right to free speech. The Air Force offered him the choice of an honorable discharge (not a dishonorable one). Had he accepted it, he would have been able to go home to his family but he would have to accept that his security clearance was rightfully revoked. Alternatively he could seek a military trial. After much thought, Rabbi Rackman took the military trial. He acted as his own lawyer, and was cleared of all charges and promoted to Colonel.

Why did he fight so hard? Because he believed that while "a person can be right or wrong on many decisions that they make, when it comes to one’s integrity, one must stand strong and never let anyone impugn it. Ultimately,” he said, “all a Rabbi has is his reputation and honor."

Rabbi Rackman was not afraid of controversy. He believed that Halachah had to live in the present and not the past. He knew that Halachah was fully up to the task. He sometimes wondered if its adherents and those who interpreted it were as well. He was willing to go out on limb and stand virtually alone when he felt that Halacha was not being allowed to rise to the challenges it faced. Such was the case when he tried to find a solution for long suffering agunot. What a terrible moment it was when he was so viciously attacked for his efforts. Would that his critics would have put as much energy into resolving the problem as they did in attacking him.

Rambam in Hilchot Talmud Torah perek hey [5] teaches about the great kavode we owe a Rav Muvhak, the teacher from whom you have learned the essence of Torah, the teacher who has shaped you. I may not have learned the majority of the things I know from Rabbi Rackman. But he gave me the rosh pinah, the cornerstone or foundation upon which I built so much of the rest of my life.

He taught me and so many others – by example as much as by words – that while one cannot fight every fight, there are certain fights from which one cannot turn away. He taught me and so many others – by example as much as by words – that sometimes, in order to live in this world, one must find ways to work together with those around you, even if you do not fully agree with them. But on certain matters he knew and was not afraid to say: here there is no room for compromise. 'ad kan, v'tu lav.

He was my Rav Muvhak.

He could be the scholar. He could be the lawyer. He could be the teacher of Torah. But he could also be a listening, caring, personally involved model of a pastor. There were a number of crucial moments in my life, particularly in my teenage and college years, when I turned to him with personal problems. He listened and he cared.

A great man walked on this earth and so many of us sitting in this room -- together with hundreds of others who were privileged to have his life intersect with theirs -- are more than just better for having had him in our lives. We are who we are, in great measure, because of him.

I have had many blessings in my life but none greater than when my father and mother chose Rabbi Emanuel Rackman as our family’s rabbi. The rest is history.

May his memory be for a blessing. Yehi zikhro barukh.

* Adapted from Deborah Lipstadt, History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier, New York, Echo Press, 2006

My thanks to Rabbis Michael Broyde, Michael Berger, David Ellenson, and David Blumenthal for their suggestions and coments.

---

An Antisemitic Cartoon in Emory's Student Newspaper Generates a Torrent of Criticism from Across the Campus

Last Friday an unquestionably antisemitic cartoon appeared in Emory's student newspaper, The Wheel. I was sent the cartoon and the cartoonist's accompanying explanation.

The cartoon was split into two sides. One side showed the wall/fence between the West Bank and Israel with Israeli soldiers in front of it and on the other side were Jews in a ghetto with a Nazi guard in front of it. Underneath in caps was the following sentence: EXPERIENCE IS THE BEST TEACHER.

The accompanying explanation decried the wall and accused it of creating the economic gap between Israelis and Palestinians. It also claimed that it was NOT comparing the situation on the West Bank to the Holocaust. [Despite the fact that the cartoon did exactly that.] The cartoonist also said he did not mean to be offensive. [Despite the fact that he was.]

The cartoon was also accompanied by a dissenting op-ed by two students saying that this was a form of Holocaust denial and antisemitic.

What's most interesting than the cartoon is what happened next.

Faculty began to hear about this on Sunday. Within a day and a half 40 faculty members had signed a letter to the editor decrying the cartoon. They included people of at least 4 different faiths [Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist], different ethnic groups, and different disciplines [Jewish Studies, African American Studies, Islamic Studies, German Studies and many many more]. In addition a number of other faculty wrote their own letters to the editor.

To my mind this is the story. Not the cartoon and the cartoonist's misguided attempt to create a cartoon about a serious problem.

This is what people should take away from this story: People with widely different views of the political situation and with disparate attitudes about the Israeli/Palestinian situation were able to set those differences aside to condemn a blatantly ill informed and prejudicial cartoon.

What follows are the joint faculty letter, an op-ed by me on the topic, and some other letters regarding the cartoon:

The Emory Wheel
November 17, 2008

Faculty Letter in Response to Cartoon:

To the editor: The cartoon published in the Emory Wheel comparing Jews to Nazis is historically inaccurate, belittling to the Holocaust, slanderous to Israel and the Jewish people and, in our view, frankly antisemitic. The Wheel owes all its readers a retraction and an apology. We acknowledge the Wheel’s First Amendment rights, and we assert our own right to denounce the bigoted and irresponsible content that it may print. Alan Abramowitz, Alben W. Barkley Professor of Political Science Frank S. Alexander, Professor of Law Angelika Bammer, Associate Professor in the Institute of Liberal Arts Robert Bartlett, Arthur Blank/National Endowment for the Humanities Distinguished Teaching Professor Michael Berger, Associate Professor of Religion, Law and Religion, and Jewish Studies David Blumenthal, Jay and Leslie Cohen Professor of Judaic Studies Oded Borowski, Professor of Biblical Archaeology and Hebrew Michael Broyde, Professor of Law Rudolph Byrd, Goodrich C. White Professor of American Studies Vincent Cornell, Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Middle East and Islamic Studies Richard Doner, Professor of Political Science Tara Doyle, Senior Lecturer in Religion Marshall Duke, Candler Professor of Psychology Astrid M. Eckert, Assistant Professor of History Shoshana Felman, Woodruff Professor of Comparative Literature and French Sander L. Gilman, Distinguished Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences Hazel Gold, Associate Professor, Department of Spanish and Portuguese Benjamin Hary, Associate Professor of Hebrew, Arabic and Linguistics Ann Hartle, Professor of Philosophy Peter Höyng, Associate Professor of German Herbert Karp, Professor Emeritus of Neurology and Emeritus Medical Director, Wesley Woods Hospital Walter Kalaidjian, Professor of English Harvey Klehr, Andrew W. Mellon Professor of Politics and History Melvin Konner, Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Anthropology Howard I. Kushner, Nat C. Robertson Distinguished Professor, Rollins School of Public Health and Graduate Institute of Liberal Arts Scott Lilienfeld, Professor of Psychology Deborah Lipstadt, Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies Judd Owen, Associate Professor of Political Science Edward L. Queen, Director, Ethics and Servant Leadership Program and Coordinator of Undergraduate Studies, Center for Ethics Dan Reiter, Professor and Chair, Department of Political Science Mark Sanders, Associate Professor of African American Studies and English Caroline Schaumann, Assistant Professor of German Studies Raymond F. Schinazi, Frances Winship Walters Professor of Pediatrics Joseph Skibell, Associate Professor of Creative Writing and English and Director, The Ellmann Lectures Barbara J. Stoll, George W. Brumley Jr. Professor and Chair, Department of Pediatrics Donald Stein, Asa G. Candler Professor, School of Medicine Kenneth W. Stein, William E. Schatten Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History, Political Science and Israeli Studies Brian Vick, Assistant Professor of History John Witte Jr., Jonas Robitscher Professor of Law and Director, Center for the Study of Law and Religion Paul Root Wolpe, Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Bioethics and Director, Center for Ethics

In addition there were letters by Professors Don Seeman [who was at Hebrew University the day the cafeteria was bombed], Laurie Patton and Gordon Newby, Michael Berger, Mark Bauelein, Paul Wolpe

And there was a separate op-ed by me:

My op-ed on the topic:

A Spurious, Prejudicial Cartoon

By Deborah Lipstadt Posted: 11/17/2008

In Friday’s Wheel there was a disturbing cartoon directly comparing the Nazi ghettoes with the separation fence the Israelis have erected on the West Bank. This equation is historically spurious and highly prejudicial. The Germans put Jews from throughout Europe in ghettoes to either die a slow death of starvation, deprivation and disease or a faster death with a bullet or poison gas.

Irrespective of what one thinks of the fence/wall (most of it is a fence), it was not built for this purpose. It was built as a defensive mechanism. Even if one opposes it, one cannot ignore the fact that it has tremendously reduced homicidal bombings (sometimes mistakenly called “suicide bombings”) of Israeli targets. There was no fence/wall before there were these bombings of busses, schools and other civilian targets. It was built in response to them.

Regarding the disparity of wealth which Woodliff seems to blame on the wall/fence, this existed long before the wall/fence was ever there. The Palestinian Authority has received countless billions of dollars to help its people. During the corrupt regime of the late Yasser Arafat most of these funds disappeared. (Look under Swiss Banks to find some of them, or in Paris, where his widow lives a life of supreme splendor.) The funds obviously were not used to aid the Palestinian people, many of whom are suffering terribly.

When Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip, it left behind fertile farms, hothouses filled with advanced hydroponic systems for growing vegetables, and other installations which could have been used to better the Palestinians’ lot. Most were destroyed by the Palestinian people. International funds were raised to help the residents of Gaza. These too have resulted in little improvement. Meanwhile, rockets from Gaza continue to be fired into Israeli towns. A barrage Saturday put 18 people in the hospital. In response, Israel has shut the border between Gaza and Israel, further increasing the suffering of the residents of Gaza.

There is a serious problem in the Middle East but Woodliff’s glib comparison of Jews to Nazis is not only ill-informed, it demonstrates a certain prejudice — antisemitism — which will never help resolve the situation. Whatever one thinks of Israeli policy, to describe it as akin to the Nazi policy of murdering all of European Jewry is to engage in antisemitism and a form of Holocaust denial.

Finally, I was struck by the explanatory note the Woodliff appended to the drawing. No editorial cartoon should need an explanation or an addendum. If the cartoonist is any good, his work should speak for itself. With that I rest my case.

Response to Lipstadt/Broyde Op-ed

http://billboushkaint.blogspot.com/2007/10/libel-tourism-british-law-tempts.html

New York Times Oped by Deborah Lipstadt and Michael Broyde on Libel Tourism

See today's New York Times for an oped by me and Michale Broyde, my colleague from Emory Law School, on Libel Tourism, the attempt by Saudi bizillionaire Ibn Mafouz to stop anyone from publishing anything linking him to terrorism.

He is exerting a chill of unbelievable proportions and must be stopped. Where are the voices of outrage from my university colleagues? They seem to take Saudi efforts to silence those who criticize them in stride. Wonder if Mr. Walt and Mr. Mearsheimer are going to write about this... doubt it.

Armenian Genocide: op-ed by Deborah Lipstadt and Peter Balakian

An op-ed written by my friend Peter Balakian and me appears in this week's New York Jewish Week

Turkey Must Acknowledge its Past
by Peter Balakian and Deborah Lipstadt

Turkey’s ambassador to Israel, Namik Tan, told The Jerusalem Post (Aug. 27) that Israel must force the ADL to retract its acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide, that failure to do this would be a stab in the heart of the Turkish people and that the Turkish people do not distinguish between Israeli Jews and Diaspora Jews on this issue. Tan also said that recognizing the Armenian genocide will mean that “my ancestors have done something inconceivable,” and it will set off “a campaign against Turkey and the Turkish people.” Though he subsequently tempered his language, this was a very harsh attack with overtones of classic views of Jewish power.

Turkey has told Israel and various Jewish organizations that if they favor a congressional resolution acknowledging the genocide it will not bode well for Israel’s relationship with Turkey or for Turkish Jews.

It is true that Turkey is the only Muslim nation willing to maintain a close diplomatic relationship with Israel and remains the only Muslim country that allows a small Jewish community to live in relative freedom.

We know that Turkey is pressured by internal factions and by other Muslim nations to sever ties with Israel. And it is also clear how fragile and tenuous, despite seeming quite comfortable, Jewish life in Turkey is.

Nevertheless, it is equally crucial that historical denial of genocide be addressed in an uncompromising fashion. While historians are taught to be skeptical, it is absurd to be skeptical or neutral about events of the magnitude of the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, which are attested to by reams of documents and material evidence as well as testimonies by victims, perpetrators and bystanders.

Neutrality or skepticism in the case of these two tragedies constitutes denial, which is the final stage of genocide in that it seeks to demonize the victims and rehabilitate the perpetrators.

The broad and international record on the Armenian genocide has been created by an international body of dispassionate scholarship for decades, and notably, affirmed by The International Association of Genocide Scholars in repeated statements that note that this history is not controversial anywhere in the world but in Turkey.

Raphael Lemkin, the noted legal scholar who lost 49 members of his family in the Holocaust, invented the concept of genocide, in part, on the basis of what happened to the Armenians in 1915.

The main actor here, however, is Turkey. It is time for Turkey to end its nine-decade campaign to erase the Armenian genocide. It is time to stop bullying and attempting to coerce states and organizations that engage history honestly. Such a campaign is immoral.

By passing the resolution (H.R. 106) before it, Congress must make it clear to Turkey that, even as we welcome its alliance with the United States in so many arenas, the time for this denial is over.

Turkey’s calls for a commission of historians to resolve this issue are disingenuous, especially for a country that has a law that makes it a crime to “insult Turkishness,” under which scholars and publishers who have spoken about the Armenian genocide have been prosecuted and even killed.

It is wrong and unbecoming for the Jewish community to participate in what can best be described as a charade, i.e. the notion that the jury of historians is “still out” on this issue. Imagine if Germany had taken a similar stance with the Holocaust. While hindsight may be 20/20, it is regrettable that the Jewish community telegraphed a message to Turkey that this is a matter of debate and negotiation.

We understand Turkey’s difficulty in acknowledging these dark episodes in its past. However, acknowledging this crime would, rather than spawn a campaign against Turkey, as ambassador Tan claims, prompt applause from the international community.

It will be a sign that Turkey can critique its past honestly. The most effective way for a country to resolve its criminal past is to acknowledge the criminal act, try to make some form of recompense and become a force in trying to prevent the repetition of such events.

Germany has, with varying degrees of success, achieved that. It is time for Turkey to do the same with the Armenian genocide. And it is time to stop threatening a small vulnerable Jewish community or the one other parliamentary democracy in the Middle East for acknowledging historical truth.

The time has come for the U.S. Congress to join more than 20 other countries, the Vatican, the European Parliament and other world organizations, in affirming the Armenian genocide. Given that H.R. 106 is a nonbinding resolution with no “teeth in it,” the hysteria over the resolution has reached a point of absurdity. It is time for Turkey to acknowledge the moral perspective of other countries, and time to move on.

Peter Balakian is professor of the humanities at Colgate University and the author of The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response, which won the Raphael Lemkin Prize. Deborah Lipstadt is professor of Holocaust studies at Emory University and author of History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, which won the National Jewish Book Award.

From London: Article in Spiked magazine

I have a short piece in today's Spiked about the issue to be debated tonight.

Monday 16 July 2007
Denial should be defeated by facts, not laws
In the run-up to a debate in London tonight, the American warrior against Holocaust denial explains why she’s opposed to censoring deniers.

Deborah Lipstadt

When an editor at the Washington Post heard that I oppose laws criminalising Holocaust and, by extension, genocide denial, he observed: ‘Now that’s a “man bites dog” story.’

His surprise is shared by many people who hear my view. These folks expect that, given the six-year legal battle to which British historian David Irving subjected me for calling him a Holocaust denier, I would be a strong proponent for such laws. The legal battle was exceptionally costly and it seriously disrupted my life.

Irving and his fellow deniers are liars and falsifiers of truth when it comes to the Holocaust and even to other aspects of history – for example, the bombing of Dresden. This alone makes some people think his outrageous claims should be outlawed.

Regarding Irving, who seems to me to love to say the outrageous, and his version of so-called history, the judge who presided over our legal battle – Judge Charles Gray – was unambiguous. In his judgment he used the following terms: ‘perverts’, ‘distorts’, ‘misleading’, ‘unjustified’, ‘travesty’, and ‘unreal’, and said his ‘falsification of the historical record was deliberate’.

So why not silence Irving and his compatriots? First of all, I believe in free speech. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees people a right to make total fools of themselves. Sometimes it is painful to hear, but I would rather they had the freedom to say what they wished than the government had the power to control them.

Furthermore, I do not believe that laws against denial are strategically wise. They tend to make martyrs of the accused, arousing sympathy for them. They also render the item which has been outlawed ‘forbidden fruit’. Thus it becomes more enticing and appealing to certain segments of society – disaffected youth, for example.

Most importantly, however, genocide denial laws suggest that we do not have the facts and the documentation to prove that these people are liars. We defeated David Irving in court not with law but with facts. We followed his footnotes and demonstrated that, in the words of Professor Richard Evans, Irving’s work on the Holocaust was a ‘tissue of lies’.

Our defeat of Irving is a far more powerful commentary on his work because it is rooted in the facts and did not occur under the cover of a general law outlawing Holocaust denial. I was, of course, quite lucky in that I had a magnificent legal team and group of historical experts.

The effort was long and quite costly. (Though certainly not as costly as David Irving likes to claim it was. I recently spotted an estimate of six million dollars on his webpage. Notice, of course, his choice of number. This is complete fiction and his form of ridicule.) I was able to mount a vigorous defence. Irving’s reputation as a person with something of value to say about the Holocaust was left in tatters.

Ironically, none of this would have happened had the UK had laws outlawing Holocaust denial.

I shudder at the thought that politicians might be given the power to legislate history. They can hardly fix the potholes in our streets. How can we expect them to decide what is the proper version of history?

Let me add two caveats. I believe quite strongly that those who engage in incitement – which is often the object of denial – and lead others to engage in acts of violence should not be granted a shield of protection by the law. Some people throw stones. Others use words to encourage people to throw stones. Both are equally guilty.

Secondly, I fully understand why countries such as Germany and Austria, the countries which spawned the Holocaust, would have laws against Holocaust denial. The geographic context in which something is said is of crucial importance. The swastika or denial of the Holocaust has a different resonance in Atlanta than it does in Berlin or Vienna.

I know this may be inconsistent, but I am reminded of what the American essayist and poet Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote many years ago: ‘A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.’

I write this from Sarajevo. Today, a professor, who happens to be a Serb, told me that she believes laws against genocide denial are necessary in this region: denying the horrors that took place here in the mid-1990s should be illegal, at least for the near future. She argued that this is a region in which the ‘rule of law’ has never been imposed justly, fairly, and democratically. A law outlawing denial of the genocide and crimes against humanity which occurred in this region would give people that faith and prevent them from trying to find other ways of seeking justice.

I don’t agree with these positions; however, I recognise that I say these things in the luxury of my American university or, as I will on Monday evening, in the confines of London’s Institute of Contemporary Arts. It can be different when one has an ‘up close and personal’ perspective on these outrages.

Ultimately, our objective should be to create a society where denial of genocide is seen as so outrageous and so despicable that anyone who engages in it would be rendered a pariah.

Deborah E Lipstadt is Dorot Professor at Emory University and the author of History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, published by Ecco 2005.

She is speaking in the debate Should Genocide Denial Be An Offence? at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in central London at 7pm this evening (Monday, 16 July). Other speakers include David Cesarani, research professor in history at Royal Holloway College, University of London, and author of Eichmann: His Life and Crimes; Frank Furedi, professor of sociology at the University of Kent and author of Politics of Fear: Beyond Left and Right; and Francesca Klug, professorial research fellow at the Centre for the Study of Human Rights, LSE, and author of Values for a Godless Age. For more information, click here.

Previously on spiked

Brendan O’Neill interviewed Deborah Lipstadt about European proposals to outlaw genocide denial. Frank Furedi said that laws against genocide denial were a really bad idea. Nathalie Rothschild argued that bans on Israeli academics are censorship in disguise. Josie Appleton argued that accusations of ‘fascism’ are used to shut down debate. Brendan O’Neill said that the use and abuse of the g-word in international affairs has given rise to a new game: Pimp My Genocide. Or read more at spiked issue Free speech.

reprinted from: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3609/