The Role of the Uniqueness of the Holocaust in two Jewish religious responses to the Holocaust - Essay Example

Evaluate the role of the "uniqueness of the Holocaust" in two Jewish religious responses to the Holocaust. There are three key questions asked by Jewish mystical philosophers in determining the uniqueness of the holocaust; Why the Jews What universal lessons can be learned from the Holocaust and Why is it important to study the Shoah today Rabbi Jacobs' Contemporary Jewish Religious Responses to the Shoah covers most of the arguments of Jewish theologians, and this essay will rely heavily on his work to bring these issues to the fore. Whilst Jacobs is predominantly concerned with preserving the importance of the experience of the Jews at this moment in world history and in relating it back to the teachings of the Talmud, he does recognize that Gentiles died during the Shoah. His priority is to document and explain the Jewish experience of the Shoah evaluating its impact on Judaism. Jacobs begins by describing the 'holocaust' as murder, debunking the historical connotations that word has of a 'burnt sacrifice'. He prefers Shoah which means 'total destruction'. He considers this to be an important distinction given that it was not Germans who were sacrificed, but Jews who were put to death. Jacobs refers to the Shoah as 'unprecedented' rather than 'unique'. It was Katz1 who first referred to the 'unique' intentionality of the holocaust, distinguishing 'genocide as the intent to destroy the national, religious, or ethnic identity of a group' from 'the intent to destroy physically all persons who identify with and are identified by a given national, religious or ethnic identity'. Denialists argue that this mystifies and removes the event from its place in history, denying the historical fact that others were subjected to similar genocide, and -- ironically - to make all those who experienced the Shoah less human. "those Jews who suffered did not think of themselves as victims of a "Holocaust." Nor did [they] use such terms as "Churban" or "Shoah," . Rather, one typically spoke about the "recent Jewish catastrophe," or the "disaster."2 Denialists claim that the original goal was resettlement in Madagascar or Russia; it shifted to extermination for expediency. What, they argue, is 'unique' about that Ethnic cleansing is quite common. Look at the Interahamwe of Uganda, the Bosnian Serb paramilitaries led by Karadi and Mladi, or the anti-independence militias of East Timor. American - Indian Ward Churchill views Steven Katz as a member of an exclusive tribe of Jewish historians who "argue the uniqueness of Jewish victimization" and who consequently "downgrade and shunt into historical oblivion" the suffering "not only the victims of the many genocides occurring outside the framework of Nazism, but non-Jews targeted for elimination within the Holocaust itself," specifically Gypsies and Slavs. Jewish theologians continue to disagree with the Denialists, since "it was never the quality of [the Shoah's] sheer terror or unlimited suffering that set it aside from other catastrophes but the meaning of this suffering, its causes and effects, what has been called the intentionality of the Holocaustt"3. Katz responds to Particularists (eg Jacobs) and Universalists (eg Denialists) as follows: 'the Nazi program of genocide, if understood as a war against a self-conscious Jewish identify, is neither unique in Jewish historical terms nor world historical ones'4 Further, 'Quantity and proportion are not sufficient by themselves to establish a judgment to uniqueness pro or contra'5 Why then do Jewish theologians believe that the Jews were intentionally treated differently from other proscribed races Hitler said; 'If with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of menby defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting the work of the Lord.'6 The Nazis dehumanized Jews and embellished their own rhetoric with demonic visions of Jews as the anti-Christ or at the least as his earthly troops. In his last will and testament Hitler7 declared that, "Above all I charge the leadership of the nation and their followers with the strict observance of the racial laws and with merciless resistance against the universal poisoners of all peoples international Jewry.' The Nazis believed that there was a mystical philosophical basis for eradicating the Jews. Only Aryans were truly human and as a member of the master-race it was the duty of an Aryan to protect his fellow humans and guard heaven's gates from non-human devils. The Shoah was not an attempt to missionize, nor economically exploit or expand and control Jews. This was not tribal warfare in a localized area. It was not a fight over territory or resources. It was not a political dispute. This was a scorched earth policy without prisoners or reprieve. 'The intention of Hitler was to rule over a world that was Judenrein' [my italics] 8 Ironically Denialist attacks on the 'uniqueness of the holocaust' have led to the Shoah becoming little more than a footnote in secular historical textbooks. For example, Marxism undercuts the importance of the Shoah by casting it as little more than a byproduct of materialism. Jewish theologians remain concerned that the Shoah will slip between the cracks of academic debate and be viewed a notch in the scale of man's inhumanity to man. "But such murder of millions as this will be lumped with the bloody expulsion of the Armenians by the Turks or with the shameful acts of violence by the colonial French: as regrettable, but in no way unique. Everything will be submerged in a general 'Century of Barbarism."9 Like Katz, it is Jacobs' argument that only the Shoah was an 'intended, planned and largely executed extermination'. Jacobs and Katz argue convincingly that the sole purpose for the death camps was extermination. They had no higher purpose; they could not have come into being for any other reason. Their laws, infrastructure, philosophies, re-written histories and personnel were created, put in place and perpetuated for the sole reason of extermination. The non-humans that were exterminated there had no chance of reprieve, no rights, no authority on whom they could call to reconsider their status. They had no status. In this dehumanized and dehumanizing environment they were little more than products on a conveyor belt to be fed to the ovens after being tortured and brutalized. And like a production line, nothing went to waste. Everything that Jews owned - from their property to their body fat - was requisitioned, removed, recycled. Secular historians can agree that the Shoah was a turning point in mankind's understanding of itself. Mankind does have the capacity for unfathomable evil. In answer to the question how could a loving God allow the Shoah to take place at all, Jacobs explains that for the first time in Jewish history non-Torah observant Jews outnumbered Torah-true Jews. As Ezekiel prophesized Jews turned away from the Torah, forgetting their important role in the in God's plans. The 'pintele yid' - - spark of Judaism - - waned from their hearts. This failure of the Jewish people to observe the Torah would have lead to a state of void and emptiness on the world. In order to prevent this happening God began the process of Redemption which would end the oppression of the Jewish people and allow them to return to Israel, eventually restoring the Heavenly Kingdom. This process began with a 'fury poured out' which Jacobs argues was indeed the Shoah, the 'most incredible saga of sacred heroism ever displayed by a people.'10 As a direct consequence of the Shoah not only did the state of Israel come into independent existence, but Jacobs notes a world wide increase in Torah-observance. So in Jacobs' view, not only was the Shoah an unprecedented event in mankind's history it was also a sign -- relevant predominantly to Jews -- that their prayers had been answered and that God had returned from His exile to take control of His Kingdom once more. One can understand why such arguments leave the majority of non-believers glassy-eyed and frustrated. It really is an argument that makes sense to the Torah-observant. To what extent could this argument be appreciated by those Gentiles who died in the death camps believing that their deaths would help preserve democracy world wide As one reviews the works of Maybaum, Fackenheim, Berkovitz, Rubenstein, Katz and Blumenthal it becomes clear that there is difference of opinion on the meaning of this suffering, its causes and effects -- especially the long-term implications for the Jewish faith. At the extreme end of the spectrum Rubenstein argued that the Shoah eradicated the concept of a benign Almighty. God is seen as the ultimate Nothing. There is no salvation and the Jew - - like all animals on the planet - is simply a part of the natural cycle of life and death. Whilst Rubenstein's views are sufficiently broad to articulate the zeitgeist of the ordinary man in the street, most Jewish theologians and philosophers have taken a more traditional 'faith history' approach to the theological issues raised by the Shoah. Commenting on the reaction11 to his 1993 book David Blumenthal restates the story of the Akeda, and like Jacobs sees this as a motif of the covenant between Jew and God, but with a key difference: " if God is our God, and is active in our history, not just a cosmic impersonal force -- which God is; then, how did God permit the holocaust to happen So, I said it: The holocaust was abuse and, in a theology of divine providence, God is an Abuser." From a Gentile perspective this is a more palatable argument. It still claims the moral high ground, but it does emphasize that this is a personal viewpoint; the way that Blumenthal has rationalized and healed his personal relationship with God. By personalizing his arguments Blumenthal leaves breathing space for other philosophies. Jacobs believes that one should not question God's privity. Blumenthal argues that the purpose of the covenant is to allow Jews to engage in a mature way with God. God does get it wrong and is open to correction because ultimately He is a merciful being. This is the ultimate purpose of the covenant. A major criticism of this approach is that the Nazis become the means by which God brought about a desired theological end for the benefit of His chosen people, the Jews, and the experience of the Jews during World War II can be viewed as a mystical event sitting outside modern history. There is no answer to an argument couched in those terms. One is either a Jew or one is not. If one is a Jew the argument makes perfect sense. If one is not, then there is nothing to discuss since Jewish theology distinguishes between secular history and faith history, seeing martyrs where others see slaughtered innocents and miracles where others see 9 long blood stained years of man's inhumanity to man. Sir Jonathon Sacks sits in the middle ground between Jacobs and Blumenthal. Whilst abhorring the actions of the Nazis he recognizes the importance of the covenant and how one can reconcile oneself to an 'abusing God'. In an article12 for the Times he comments: "It is the question of questions for religious belief. How does God permit a tragedy such as the Indian Ocean tidal wave How does he allow the innocent to suffer and the guiltless to die.... Jews read the Bible differently. One of its most striking features is that the most challenging questions about fate come not from unbelievers, but from the heroes of faith themselves. Abraham asked: 'Shall the Judge of all the Earth not do justice' In Judaism, faith lies in the question, not the answerThe religious question is, therefore, not: 'Why did this happen' But 'What then shall we do'" The Shoah is celebrated then for being a milestone in the faith history of the Jews, the re-establishment of the nation of Israel and the restoration of the Kingdom of God. The excessive persecution the Jews endured throughout the Shoah allowed them to remind God of his promise to them to protect Torah-observers, their seed and land. Hence the pact is renewed. In short it is not the Shoah which is unique, but the interpretation of its origin, purpose and effect by Jewish theologian philosophers which is unique. From this viewpoint the so-called denialists and anti-anti-denialists seem off the mark - they do not grasp the point that Jewish theologians are making. For example, Edgar Morin levels 3 separate charges against Jewish theologians, who in his opinion fall into the 'support-Israel-at-all-costs brigade': obsessive Judeocentrism results from the uniqueness claim this stance justifies the increasingly criticized behavior of the state of Israel towards its neighbors "the development among all diaspora Jews of a psychosis of an unconditional sense of belonging to Israel. The black hole of the Shoah fuels the Jew's uncertainty about the possibility of being integrated among the gentiles, and gives the secular diaspora dweller the evidence of the irreducibility of his Jewish identity." 13 Clearly these gentlemen will never agree as they are arguing from different premises. Morin negates the importance to Jews of faith history. By its very nature it is not open to questions of the madua type, which in Jewish theology are not relevant since they seek to question the wisdom of God's actions. The importance of remembering the Shoah has also been much discussed amongst Jewish theologians. "The deeds of the Nazis may have been unique and singular...; but as humans the Nazis are not beings from another planet, but people of our race,... and their deeds indicate that which is humanly possible, which cannot be completely foreign to the rest of us... if these crimes are to be understood in a critical but nonetheless empathetic sense it means "only" that by this experiment we want to find out and learn more about ourselves, about our latent inventory of behaviors, about our capacity for evil.14" Again whilst Jewish theologians argue about the final purpose of the Shoah from a faith history viewpoint Gentile and Jew can agree with Rubenstein when he says 'Auschwitz has enlarged our conception of the state's capacity to do violence. A barrier has been overcome in what for millennia had been regarded as the permissible limits of political action.'15 Bibliography Amry, Jean, 1980, At the Mind's Limits: Contemplations by a Survivor on Auschwitz and its Realities, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, tr. by Sidney and Stella P Rosenfeld of Jenseits von Schuld und Shne Bewltigungsversuche eines berwltigten Munich: Beck Bastian, Till, 1994, Auschwitz und die "Auschwitz-Lge": Massenmord und Geschichtsflschung [Auschwitz and the "Auschwitz lie": mass murder and falsification of history] Munich: Beck Blumenthal, David R, 1993, Facing the Abusing God: A Theology of Protest, Westminster John Know Press, Louisville, KY Churchill, Ward, A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present, San Francisco: City Lights, 1997 Hitler, Adolf, Mein Kampf, Houghton Mifflin & Co: New York 1969 Jacobs, Steven L , ed 1993, Contemporary Jewish Religious Responses to the Shoah, Studies in the Shoah, University Press of America, Lanham, MD Katz, Steven T, 1983, Post-Holocaust dialogues: Critical Studies in Modern Jewish Thought, New York University Press, New York & London Kolitz, Zvi 2000, Yosl Rakover talks to God, Vintage International, New York Morin, Edgar, "Isral-Palestine: le double regard", Libration, September 11, 1997 Rosenfield, Alvin H , The Americanization of the Holocaust, in Thinking about the Holocaust: After Half a Century (ed by Alvin H Rosenfield), Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1997 Rubenstein, Richard, 1975, The Cunning of History, New York, Harper Coloplion Sacks, Jonathan, Why does God allow terrible things to happen to His people The Times - 1 January 2005 - also at http://www.chiefrabbi.org/ar-index.html Young, James E , 1988, Writing and Rewriting the Holocaust: Narrative and the Consequences of Interpretation, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/Brueggemann2.html Read More