Apples over the Fence [4]: The New Republic Interviews Survivors: Story is Fabricated

Gabe Sherman has followed up on his initial story in the New Republic on Herman Rosenblatt's supposed memoir, Angel at the Fence, with another one detailing extensive interviews with survivors, some of whom were with him in the camp. He has also interviews Rosenblatt's sister-in-law whose late husband, Herman's brother, was with him in the camp.

To a person they all say the story is false. A number of them tried to stop Rosenblatt from telling this story. They could not.

Up until now I have written with great sadness about this whole mess. I still am sad. Sad that other survivors will feel on the defensive about having to "prove" their memories are indeed true. Sad that some people will feel more inclined to wonder if a survivor is telling the truth. Sad that the deniers will use this story as fodder for their argument that you cannot believe survivors' stories.

But, after reading Sherman's latest my sadness is mixed with anger. People tried to stop Rosenblatt. They told it was wrong to fabricate a story. They warned him against it. All to no avail. He apparently loved the publicity.

Some people have written to me asking why they should even care about deniers. "They lie anyway. Why do you care if this gives them ammunition?" I don't care about deniers. They have made their minds up based on lies and inventions. I just don't want to give them any ammunition to convince other people, people not inclined towards denial. Rosenblatt played right into their hands.

This scandal was unnecessary.

Herman Rosenblatt survived the camps as a young boy despite the inhumane efforts of the Germans to work him and other prisoners to death. That's enough of a miracle in my book.

The apples and all the other embellishments should have stayed in the larder.

Off Topic: Bush Pardons [then retracts it] a Real Estate Crook

Sorry for this off topic post but this has been making me nuts since I first heard about it this a.m.

President Bush pardoned a real estate crook who scammed lots of people. The guy's name is Roubert Toussie.

Here's my question: WHY WAS HE PARDONED IN THE FIRST PLACE?

He committed a crime that is emblematic of the housing crisis plaguing so many Americans.

Of all crimes to pardon. THIS WAS NOT THE ONE.

OK, got that off my chest.

The AZM [American Zionist Movement] Gets the Message

I just learned that the AZM is revising its 8 heroes of Hanukkah web page. They screwed up -- as I noted in the previous post -- and they moved quickly to rectify their mistake. Good for them.

The AZM [American Zionist Movement]: Absurd and Out of Touch

Are the folks at AZM [the American Zionist Movement] living under a rock? Are they completely out of touch?

My friend Rela Geffen, Past President of Baltimore Hebrew University, has alerted me to the fact that someone at the organization decided to put together a Hanukkah game on their web site. They singled out 8 Hanukkah heroes.

All men. Yup, all men.

They are men of accomplishment without doubt.

But couldn't these folks have found one woman to celebrate?

Golda Meir?

Henrietta Szold? [She created the MOST successful Jewish organization in the world and one that has had a tremendous impact in Israel...]

Nehama Leibovitz? [One of the great Torah teachers of all time.]

Hannah Senesh? [She showed more bravery than some of the leaders who sat in Tel Aviv. She died to save her people.]

Rachel? [one of Israel's great poets]

Alice Shalvi? [considered the "mother" of Israeli feminism and a winner of the Israel Prize. The prize committee described her as having been "revolutionary and courageously trailblazing, with intellectual integrity and long-term vision."]

Rabbi Naamah Kelman [the first Israeli woman to be ordained]

Didn't it seem strange to the AZM folks to look at 8 photos of Jewish heroes and not see one woman? Did they notice and not care or -- and this is even more frightening -- did they not even notice?

And sometimes organizations wonder why they become irrelevant.

I am not asking for 4, i.e. parity. Just one or, maybe to be a bit greedy, two.

If you want to see how it could be done check out the website of the Jewish Women's Archive, a great organization that I have always thought was highly relevant but, after my encounter with the AZM, am even more convinced of the fact.

Or maybe we should get the AZM folks a subscription to Lilith

NPR: Using Yiddish to Define an English Word

This morning on NPR's Morning Edition a story was introduced by the host as follows: "We've been throwing the word moxie around lately. It means courage, nerve, sort of like the Yiddish word, hutzpah."

It's quite something when NPR uses Yiddish to define English!!

Apples over the Fence [3]: The New Republic Covers the Story

[Link fixed 3:38 p.m.]

Gabriel Sherman's article on the Apples Over the Fence story is now up on the New Republic website.

Since I am quoted in the article, I want to reiterate two points:

1) I am upset by this incident because it gives fodder to the deniers. It helps cast unreasonable doubt on other trustworthy memoirs and recollections.

2) More importantly, even if we had never heard of deniers and they did not exist, it would be wrong. The Holocaust beggars the imagination. It is beyond belief in many respects. The facts -- as Joe Friday would say "just the facts, just the facts" -- are bad enough. One need not embellish them in any way.

Finally, as I said to Sherman, I find this all very sad. A Holocaust survivor who went through terrible experiences and lost many members of his family has overshadowed the truth of what happened with a questionable tale.

Blatant Discrimination Against a Moslem Woman

According to the AP a Muslim woman was arrested for refusing to take off her head scarf at a courthouse security checkpoint. She was ordered to serve 10 days in jail for contempt of court, said police in Douglasville, a city of about 20,000 people on Atlanta's west suburban outskirts.

The police said she violated a court policy that prohibits people from wearing any headgear in court. However a spokeswoman for Georgia Attorney General said that there is no state law on the matter and that it is up to the judge and the sheriff.

I guess the good ole boys who run the court did not like it. If this happened to someone wearing a kipah Jews would be up in arms and rightfully so. There is no difference here.

And it happened right here in my neighborhood....

A Gift for the Antisemite: Bernard Madoff

Ever since I heard about this scandal and the degree to which it impacted philanthropies, particularly but not only Jewish philanthropies, I have been shaking my head in wonder.

How could this man do this to so many institutions which do good things? In addition he hit lots of people, some of them quite rich and some of them in far more modest circumstances. Many are left with nothing.

Madoff is a sociopath. That seems pretty certain.

He is an antisemite's dream. The worst of them could not have dreamt up such a story.

There seems to be no punishment strong enough for this guy.

Ha'aretz's Bradley Burston says exactly what I have been thinking: Christmas came early for the worst of the antisemites this year.

Limmud

As some readers of this blog know, I am a great fan of Limmud, a wonderful educational enterprise. The "mothership" of Limmud is held in the UK every year between Christmas and New Year's.

The Guardian has an interesting article on the event.

British Boycott of Israeli Universities: The End of this Antisemitic Action?

According to the JTA a threat of legal action by Anthony Julius, who was my lawyer in Irving v. Penguin/Lipstadt, has brought an end to the attempt by a small group of university academics to boycott Israeli universities.

Anthony promised free legal assistance to any academic affected by the threatened boycott, and wrote the union’s general secretary that he considered the union’s motion -- to “consider the moral and political implications of educational links with Israeli institutions, and to discuss the occupation with individuals and institutions concerned, including Israeli colleagues” -- to be both a boycott motion and anti-Semitic.

Last week the union, known by as the UCU, dropped its latest boycott call.

Anthony took this action despite the fact that many people -- including some within the UK Jewish community -- opposed it. He knew it was the right thing to do.

I am not the least bit surprised. He took the same stance in my case.

The rest, as is said, is history.

Bravo Anthony [and also to his cohort James Libson who played an equally important role here, as he did in my case].

Apples Over the Fence [2]: The Truth Will Out

It has been a bit over a year since I posted my doubts about the Herman Rosenblatt story about having a young girl throw him apples over the fence when he was in a Buchenwald sub-camp. I expressed strong reservations when I first heard it.

Never has anything I posted received as many comments. The number stands at 105 at the moment. I find that remarkable.

Well it looks like the book and the 15 million dollar movie will be out soon.

But that is not the only thing that will soon be out. Some serious historians as well as other historical sleuths have done some pretty serious research on this story. There are also survivors who are very upset about this story. They just don't believe it.

Based on what I have seen thus far, I would say that this story is not exactly a shining example of verisimilitude.

The folks behind these productions [movie and book] will go after the critics with a vengeance. One of them did so to me. He essentially accused me of slander and told me that I really don't know much about the Holocaust and that he knows more....

Seems to me that it is his way of trying to silence the critics.

My prediction is that he won't be able to do so this time. There is just too much evidence to the contrary.

Another really unfortunate circumstance.

Film on Free Speech: Irving Gets a Starring Role

The filmmaker who included David Irving in his film An Independent Mind [see previous post] defended his decision to do so. In an article in the UK online magazine Totally Jewish the filmmaker presents himself -- rather proudly -- as having bucked criticism and done the brave thing.

The problem is that the guy gave Irving a chance to spout, not just odious views, but misstatements of fact and he apparently did not even know how to challenge them. [That was what my trial was all about.]

It's one thing to argue that people with disgusting views have a right to freedom of speech. They do [unless they engage in incitement].

But since when does a person who just spouts lies and distortions and inventions have to be celebrated?

Obviously such a liar has a right to speak but what person in their sane mind would believe that they have to give them a platform?

Obviously Rex Bloomstein, the filmmaker did.

The film, celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in particular Article 19 which states 'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.'

Rex Bloomstein has made The Longest Hatred: The History of Anti-Semitism and KZ which tells the story of Mauthausen concentration camp.

Bloomstein told the publication that he "thought long and hard" about including Irving in the film, but said: "In the end, I thought it was right to include him and I would have to accept that the decision would be met with some controversy."

He also said: "Irving is someone who reflects the limits of freedom of expression. He epitomises repellent views which make us aware of the limits of freedom of expression. It would be derelict not to include someone who challenges how we look at that freedom."

This guy does not get it. It's not a matter of right or wrong. It's a matter of judgment.

Why give someone who is simply twisting the truth and lying a platform?

Did Bloomstein, possibly unconsciously so, want to show how brave he is? How willing he was to buck criticism? I think dense is a far more accurate term.

Sometimes, just because lots of people criticize you, does not mean you're are right. [With apologies to the originator of the line: Just because I am paranoid does not mean everyone isn't out to get me.]

[For my views on outlawing Holocaust denial see here.]

Irving to Appear on UK's Channel 4: Have They Completely Lost Their Minds?

From today's Guardian

by Oliver Marre

[....]

On Tuesday night, C4's offshoot channel, More4, is showing a 90-minute documentary, An Independent Mind, in celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[....]

According to the puff: 'This unique film gives a voice to eight characters from around the world who have fought to exercise their right to free speech.'

What C4 doesn't say is that the film's eighth and final hero is Irving. The timing is fortunate for Irving, if not for the rest of us, since he's currently trying to flog his self-published misery memoir.

[....]

As Irving objects to being called a Holocaust denier and is in the habit of writing to newspapers that do so, I've gone in search of a better description. His personal website offers Hitler's walking stick for sale, refers repeatedly to Jews as 'nice folks' (including during a magnificent attempt to ally himself to John Cleese, because the comedian is divorcing his wife, who is Jewish) and carries links to his flattering biographies of Hitler and Goebbels. Any suggestions?

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.

---

Mumbai: Two Year Old Moshe Holtzberg Cries: Eyfo Ema? Where's Mommy

Steve Schwager, the professional head of the Joint Distribution Committee, American Jewry's overseas relief organization, just sent out a description of the memorial service for those killed at the Chabad House. I reprint one paragraph which says it all.

This morning, an homage ceremony organized by the Israeli Consulate in Mumbai honored the memory of the slain before the bodies were flown back to Israel. Rebbetzin Holtzberg’s parents attended the service, which JDC’s Country Director in India, Antony Korenstein, described as “heartrending”. All eyes were on Moshe, Gavi and Rivki’s two-year-old son, who was heroically rescued from the Chabad House by his nanny during the siege. He kept repeating the chilling question, “Ima, Ima, eifo Ima?” (“Mommy, mommy…where’s mommy?”)

Mumbai: A Voice from Moderate Islam

A United Arab Emirates columnist, Sultan Al-Qassemi, has written an eloquent plea for voices of moderate Muslims to be raised in condemnation of the acts of war perpetrated by the terrorists in Mumbai. It is translated courtesy of MEMRI.

He calls for an end to the citing of excuses, e.g. other conflicts, for these actions. In short, there are no excuses.

I hope his voice is heard and replicated. It will also be a response to those who so easily condemn all of Islam for these actions.

Mumbai and the Media: Avoiding the T-Word

Honest Reporting has a pretty comprehensive analysis of how some media outlets bent over backwards to avoid using the term terrorist to describe the killers [aka terrorists] in Mumbai.

Mumbai: The Terrible Tragedy

I have expressed particular sorrow about the death of the Chabad rabbi, Rabbi Gavriel and Riki Holzberg. Lest any one think otherwise, I am also deeply deeply saddened -- and enraged -- by the death of so many other victims.

This entire event has demonstrated that these kind of terrorists have found a new form of terrorism with terrible terrible implications.

These are people whose minds have been corrupted and who have lost any sense of morality. I say that even as we know so little about them.

We don't know their so-called "motives." In fact, in many respects their "motives" are irrelevant. It does not matter what they are. Their actions are despicable and so are they.... [[I use the present tense because I am convinced that many of them are still alive. This criminal act was not committed by just 10 people.]

Poland and the Jews: A New Era

The Jerusalem Post carries an interesting article on how the relationship between Poland, particularly the Catholic Church, and the Jews has changed.

Barukh Dayan Emet - Blessed is the Truthful Judge: In Memorium to R' Gavriel and Riki Holtzberg

Link to JTA coverage added 2:55 p.m.

Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife, Rivka, were murdered along with three other hostages in the terror attack on the Chabad house in Mumbai.

May their memory and the work they did be a blessing to those remain behind.

They were killed by terrorists who had to seek out the Chabad House.

CNN: "Militants"????

Some of the comentators on CNN persist in talking about militants. What does one have to do to be considered a terrorism? Kill more than 140 people? Take control of more than 3 places?

Tragedy in Mumbai: Why was the Jewish Center [Chabad] Attacked?

I am watching CNN discuss the attacks. The various anchors, reporters on the scene, and commentators keep asking, "But why did they attack the Jewish center?"

They keep asking yet it seems so self-evident to me....

The Emory Wheel and Other "Antisemitic" Incidents at Emory

EDITED 10:27 A.M. [EDITS IN ITALICS]

The editor of the Emory Wheel has an editorial in today's paper regarding the editorial board's decision to run the cartoon. It is written in a way that will allow people to interpret it as they wish, though it does seem to acknowledge that many people in the Emory community found the editorial distasteful. After posting this I heard from the editor. He said that, since there are still letters coming in to the paper, he did not want to shut down conversation by making a definitive statement one way or the other. [Or, at the least, that's how I understood him...]

Another Emory related item: Last week on a Sunday evening there was a fire set at the fraternity house a fire at the AEPi house. The fraternity is known as a "Jewish" fraternity. Many people linked this to the Emory Wheel cartoon and the excitement on campus over a demonstration about the West Bank fence/wall. For the Atlanta Journal Constitution coverage of the story see here.

There were those who assumed it was an antisemitic act. The police don't know if it is. The situation is complicated by the fact that at Kappa Alpha house this past Friday morning there was an incident of vandalism and one at the Sigma Chi house last Tuesday.

People should wait for the police investigation to be completed. Then they should look at it and decide if it is a fair and comprehensive effort rather than one that is designed to calm fears.

There is always time to yell, scream, and accuse. Now is the time to let professionals do their jobs.

Meeting with Emory's "Infamous" Cartoonist: A Learning Experience

Yesterday afternoon I met with Dylan Woodliff, the young man who drew the cartoon in the Emory Wheel comparing the wall/fence between the West Bank and pre-1967 Israel to the ghettos under the Nazis. For background on this see here.

After hearing from some of his teachers and his fellow students that he was a "good guy" who got into something way over his head. I had emailed him offering to meet him. He readily agreed.

My motivation for doing so was twofold. I felt, based on what I had been told and on his "explanation" which accompanied the cartoon, that he had gotten in way over his head. Maybe there was room to do what it is our job to do, educate. I wanted him to understand why what he did was so wrong.

Secondly, he had been subjected to a barrage of criticism, well deserved criticism but criticism nonetheless. Rarely does a single student do something that gets 46 professors to unequivocally condemn his actions. I was concerned about him. It's pretty heavy stuff for one person -- particularly a student -- to face. I wanted him to know that though I felt strongly about what he did but felt empathy for him as a person.

I found a contrite student who was worried that people thought he was an antisemite and that he had ruined his future. [In the age of Google these things don't go away.] I found a student who tried to make a point about the politics of the Middle East and did so in a thoughtless and ill informed fashion.

We did not talk that much about the cartoon itself because by this time he knew full well that he had really messed up and that he should never have made the analogy. In fact I told him about how, in the past, I had tried, on occasion, to make a point about something and, in the course of so doing, said something stupid, angry, or extreme. My point was lost because all anyone could focus on was the extreme way in which I had expressed myself.

I assured him that I had no doubt that he was not an antisemite. In fact, if I had thought otherwise I probably would not have bothered to meet him.

The previous evening I had also met with Sal Rizzo,the editor of the Wheel. I think he too realizes that he and his editorial board failed in their job of ensuring responsible journalism. I am not talking about censorship. Obviously they have the freedom to screw up... as they did royally. I talked about judgment.

Both students realized that by using this false and hurtful analogy they had ultimately shot themselves in the foot. No one had discussed Middle East policy. All people had discussed was the thoughtless analogy.

These two meetings reminded me that we do a lot of our educating in the classroom but sometimes we do our most important educating outside of it. I think they learned something... and so did I.

A Cartoon that Says it All, No Explanation Necessary

With thanks to Bruce's Mideast Soundbites for finding this cartoon.

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.