Norman Finkelsteins The Holocaust Industry - Term Paper Example

Norman Finkelstein’s The Holocaust Industry In 2000, Norman Finkelstein published his book The Holocaust Industry. He claims, on his webpage, that its publication “marked the beginning of the end” of his academic career (n.p). The outrage it evoked from what he calls “the Jewish-Holocaust-Israel establishment” resulted in losing his assistant professorship at Hunter College in New York City and in his unsuccessful bid for tenure at DePaul University in Chicago. Since then, however, some of the allegations he makes in his book have turned out to be accurate, and events have occurred that have provided justification in some of the assertions he made in The Holocaust Industry, in spite of significant personal and professional loss. In The Holocaust Industry, Finkelstein, whose parents were both Holocaust survivors and inmates of concentration camps during World War II, argues that the American Jewish establishment exploits the memory of the Holocaust for financial and political gain, and to further the interests of Israel. Finklestein believes that this “Holocaust industry” has corrupted authentic memories and interpretations of the Holocaust, and has established Jewish culture as victimized. The book has been a bestseller in every part of the world except for the United States. Finkelstein believes that the American Jewish mainstream panned it, most powerfully through The New York Times, which he sees as a promotional vehicle of the powerful Jewish elite in America. To be fair to Finkelstein’s critics, though, it does seem that he had adopted the same victim mentality as those he criticizes. Historian Omer Bartov (n.p.) of Brown University accuses Finkelstein of this very thing, in his review in The New York Times Book Review, a review that Finkelstein blamed for poor sales of the book in the U.S.: I find so striking about The Holocaust Industry is that it is almost an exact copy of the arguments it seeks to expose. It is filled with precisely the kind of shrill hyperbole that Finkelstein rightly deplores in much of the current media hype over the Holocaust; it is brimming with the same indifference to historical facts, inner contradictions, strident politics and dubious contextualizations; and it oozes with the same smug sense of moral and intellectual superiority. One of the biggest criticisms of The Holocaust Industry is that it provides Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites with fodder to continue their conspiracy theories. This does not mean, however, that Finkelstein’s theories should be discounted. He has proven to be correct in his description in chapter three of the book (“The Double Shakedown”) regarding the blatant corruption of many of the lawyers and politicians involved in forcing Swiss banks to pay reparations to the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust. Most of the billions of dollars the banks agreed to pay had not even been seen by individuals yet, but rather to Jewish organizations, memorials, Holocaust education projects, and to aid with Jewish emigration from Eastern Europe (Ross n.p.). Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg has agreed with Finkelstein about the Jewish reparations, as well as his claims about forced Jewish labor, which Finkelstein insists is exaggerated to gain more sympathy for Jews and for Israel, stating that they are “conservative” and “moderate” (Finkelstein n.p.). Finkelstein believes that there are those in the American Jewish mainstream that have used the Holocaust to benefit themselves financially and politically, and to garner unshakable support for the state of Israel. He states: Indeed, the Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world’s most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a ‘victim state,’ and the most successful ethnic group in the United States has likewise acquired victim status. Considerable dividends accrue from this specious victimhood—in particular, immunity to criticism, however justified (3). Finkelstein makes a distinction in The Holocaust Industry between the actual, historical event, which he calls “the Nazi Holocaust”—an event that cannot be denied, and the “ideological representation of the Nazi holocaust” (3), which he calls “the Holocaust.” One of the ideologies of the Holocaust, he insists, is the uniqueness of the Nazi Holocaust. According to this view, the Holocaust was the end result of rampant anti-Semitism in Europe, and especially in Germany. Finklestein states that this is a romantic, simplistic, and moralistic view of history, and that there have been other similar genocides, such as the Armenian Genocide during World War I. He insists that the Holocaust is not “incomparable” (Vornic n.p.). Other scholars disagree; as historian David Cesarani states, “The Nazis’ attempt to exterminate the Jews of Europe, and indeed the Jews of the world, is unique, because it's the first time that all the apparatus of a modern state was applied to destroying a group of people who were defined according to racial, biological politics” (Vornic n.p.). One of the reasons the Holocaust as an ideology is so powerful is that it provides us with a moral lesson to a horrible, historical atrocity. According to Jewish writer Gad Nahshon, referring to other genocides like slavery in America and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia as “holocausts” trivializes the Nazi holocaust (n.p.). Nahshon goes on to say that “a healthy collective memory” of the Holocaust should be integrated into our values and educations, perhaps because it exposes us to a horrible atrocity that should never again be repeated. Learning about the Holocaust may prevent future atrocities, or at least make us sensitive to them, regardless of the reasons and justifications for them. It creates outrage when other genocides begin or when governments like Libya start killing their own people. What should not happen, however, is the exploitation of the Holocaust, as Finkelstein describes. Finkelstein’s experiences as a son of Holocaust survivors influence the content in The Holocaust Industry. Growing up, his parents rarely spoke of their experiences, and it was rarely spoken of by other survivors he knew. In the 1960s, there were few Jewish organizations devoted to the Holocaust, few scholars studying it, and few memorials. Most Americans, including American Jews, seemed to know little and care even less about the Nazis. Finkelstein argues that, as Andrew Ross of Salon Magazine states, “Jews were more concerned about integrating fully into American life than about harping on a dreadful historical episode that would set them apart both as an ethnic group outside the mainstream and, worse, as victims” (n.p.). It was only after the establishment of the Holocaust industry when an outpouring of sympathy about the Holocaust occurred. Finkelstein finds Holocaust survivor and author Elie Wiesel as the worst offender of those who profit from the Holocaust industry. Andrew Vornic (n.p.) of BBC News suggests, however, that the reason why it took over twenty years to build Holocaust memorials is that was how long it took the victims of the concentration camps to process the horror of what had happened to them. This could explain why Finkelstein’s parents and his parents’ contemporaries were silent about their experiences. A generational set of values, different from that of Finkelstein and other members of his Baby Boomer generation, could also explain both situations. It was common of people from “the Greatest Generation” to choose to remain quiet about their traumatic experiences of war and genocide, especially with their children and grandchildren. It was not until their children and grandchildren asked them to share their experiences when it began to be discussed and commemorated in the United States and Europe. It was the children and grandchildren of victims of the Holocaust, like Finkelstein, who began the scholarship and evaluation of what had happened to them. Perhaps that was because their experiences were too painful to process, at least at first. Thais does not mean, however, that Finkelstein’s views should be discounted, in spite of his critics’ insistence that there is little to no evidence for his theories. There is something to be said about segments of an entire cultural group economically and politically profiting from such a horrible atrocity and tragedy. He makes good points about the victimization and exploitation of Jewish suffering, something that was very real but perhaps should not be capitalized upon as much as it has. On the other hand, it is important to study the Holocaust in order to prevent something on its scale from ever happening again, to any group of people. Additionally, Finkelstein provides a more complex view of history and warns against a romantic, simplistic, and moralistic interpretation of it. Works Cited Bartov, Omer. “A Tale of Two Holocausts.” The New York Times Book Review, 6 August 2000. Web. 9 May 2011. Finkelstein, Norman G. The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. London, England: Verso Books, 2000. Print. Finkelstein, Norman G. The Official Website of Norman G. Finkelstein. Web. 9 May 2011. Nahshon, Gad. “The Holocaust Industry. The Jewish Post. Web. 9 May 2011. Ross, Andrew. “Book Review: The Holocaust Industry.” Salon Magazine, 6 September 2000. Web. 9 May 2011. Vornic, Andrew. “Is There a Holocaust ‘Industry’?” BBC.com, 26 January 2000. Web. 9 May 2011. Read More