Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Wiesel calls on France to stop Roma deportations
Jewish Chronicle
By Jennifer Lipman, August 31, 2010
Elie Wiesel has condemned the French government's decision to expel Roma immigrants but cautioned that a comparison with the Nazi round-ups was not appropriate.
The Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor described the repatriation of Roma people from France to Romania and Bulgaria as unacceptable.
As a former refugee, Mr Wiesel expressed his solidarity with the Roma and called on French president Nicolas Sarkozy to stop the crackdown. But he also said: "It is necessary to be careful with the language."These Roma are sent to Romania, to Hungary, not to Auschwitz. He added: "One doesn't have the right to trivialise events, memories and souvenirs."
Robert Le Gall, Archbishop of Toulouse, had likened the situation to the expulsion of Jews from occupied France during the Holocaust.
Around 700 Roma, also known as gypsies or Romany, are expected to be deported from France. Mr Sarkozy has defended the plan as necessary to decrease crime levels, but it has been met by criticism in France and around the world.
France's Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, the founder of humanitarian aid organisation Médecins Sans Frontières, is one of a number of senior French politicians who have publicly questioned the decision.
Mr Kouchner, whose father was Jewish, said he had considered resigning. He said: "I am not happy with what has happened. I have been working with the Roma for 25 years."
More than 220,000 Roma are believed to have been murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust.
For more on this see: Sarkozy's crackdown on Roma camps adds fuel to criticism at home and abroad
Rwanda warns of Darfur troops pullout if UN publishes report
Daily Nation
Posted Tuesday, August 31 2010 at 19:47
KIGALI, Tuesday
Rwanda will withdraw more than 3,000 peacekeepers from Sudan if the United Nations publishes a report on war crimes allegedly committed by Kigali in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), an army spokesman said today.
"The Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) has finalised a contingency withdraw plan for its peacekeepers deployed in Sudan in response to a government directive in case the UN publishes its outrageous and damaging report," a statement from spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Jill Rutaremara said.
The UN draft report alleges that Rwandan Tutsi troops and their rebel allies targeted, chased, hacked, shot and burned Hutus in the DR Congo, from 1996 to 1997, after the outbreak of a cross-border Central African war.
"All logistical and personnel resources are in place. The pullout will take the shortest time possible. The withdrawal will apply to the RDF peacekeepers serving under the United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) and the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS)," he said.
UNAMID is a joint UN and African Union peacekeeping mission in Sudan's troubled western region of Darfur which consists of 21,800 uniformed personnel.
UNMIS is a force with 10,000 troops from dozens of countries deployed in 2005 to support the implementation of the 2005 peace deal that ended the two-decade-long north-south civil war in Sudan.
Rwanda has 3,300 troops in UNAMID and a further 256 serving with UNMIS.
Rwanda last week accused the United Nations of trying to deflect attention from its own failures by leaking a draft report accusing Kigali of war crimes in neighbouring DRC.
Rwanda's Foreign Affairs Minister Louise Mushikiwabo wrote to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon earlier this month that Kigali would curtail cooperation with UN peacekeeping missions if the report was released.
"We reiterate here what we have already told the high commissioner; namely that attempts to take action on this report -- will force us to withdraw from Rwanda's various commitments to the United Nations, especially in the area of peacekeeping," Ms Mushikiwabo wrote.
The UN report, a copy of which was seen by AFP, says Rwandan Tutsi commanders and their rebel allies carried out systematic attacks on Hutus in the DR Congo from 1996 to 1997 that resembled the 1994 Rwandan genocide. "The systematic and widespread attacks described in this report... reveal a number of damning elements that, if they were proven before a competent court, could be classified as crimes of genocide," stated the probe.
The report is expected to be released in the coming days. Meanwhile, UN chief Ban Ki-moon never asked for claims of "genocide" by Rwandan forces to be removed from the report on violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a UN human rights spokesman said today.
Rejecting media reports of interference by Mr Ban on the final wording of a report on the atrocities committed from 1993 to 2003 in the country, Rupert Colville, spokesman for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said: "I want to make this crystal clear, this is absolutely untrue.
"Up to this point the Secretary General has never put pressure on the High Commissioner (for Human Rights) to alter the text," he added.
The 600-page UN report was leaked to French newspaper Le Monde, which in an article last Friday quoted unnamed UN sources claiming that Ban had warned Navi Pillay, the UN human rights chief, against using the word "genocide" in reference to Rwandan forces. The newspaper's sources said that Rwanda, one of the biggest contributors of peacekeeping forces in the region, had threatened to withdraw its support to the United Nations if the damning report were to be published or leaked. (AFP)
Monday, August 30, 2010
Obama and the Mess in Sudan
Obama and the Mess in Sudan
August 28, 2010, 6:13 PM
By NICHOLAS KRISTOF
My Sunday column is about President Obama's failure to follow his own campaign rhetoric about paying attention to genocide and Sudan. As a senator, Obama was one of the leaders in calling on the Bush administration to do more about Darfur -- and yet he has been disengaged in Sudan issues and his administration hasn't been as successful as the Bush administration in getting Sudan to behave a bit better.
There are, of course, a thousand caveats. Genocide in southern Sudan, if it happens, won't be Obama's fault but that of Bashir and a thousand other local players. And while I focus on Bashir's shortcomings, it's also worth pointing out that southern Sudanese officials have shown poor leadership and often more penchant for corruption than building a state. The Darfur rebels enjoy nice hotel rooms but for the most part haven't tried hard to negotiate a serious peace. There's plenty of blame to go around. But it's also a false moral equivalence to say that because all of the actors are flawed, they are all equally bad. There is a big difference between an official in the south with a secret bank account and an official in the north who orders villagers massacred.
In my judgment, the Obama administration's first mistake was to take forever reviewing its policy to Sudan. When it took office in January 2009, it had some momentum on its side, and Sudan was truly nervous -- especially of Susan Rice, who had famously flown into the Nuba Mountains as assistant secretary for African affairs even after Sudan threatened to shoot her plane down. The Bush administration envoy for Sudan, Rich Williamson, had proposed a series of tough measures, including taking out electricity and radio in Khartoum for a couple of days as a warning, and that too had Sudan on edge. All that momentum was lost by an endless Obama review, and then the policy in practice ended up all carrots and no sticks. Critics also say that the policy hasn't been implemented and that quarterly reviews have not occurred as mandated; I hear different versions about that and am not sure where the truth lies.
In fairness, sticks haven't worked terribly well against Sudan, and I happen to agree with the special envoy, Scott Gration, on the need for both engagement and carrots. The Bush administration managed to win the CPA treaty in 2005, ending the north-south war, in part because it seriously engaged with Khartoum and listened to Bashir -- so engagement isn't a bad thing. But sticks are necessary as well as carrots, and sticks are what has been absent from the administration policy. In addition, there was a sense that George W. Bush was personally pushing Sudan policy when he was in the White House, and he would periodically talk about it publicly. Obama has barely mentioned the word Sudan, and this lack of leadership is one reason for the incoherence in his administration's policy.
What leverage do we have? For starters, Bashir cares a great deal about his image. That's why Sudan has hired public relations agencies and bought an advertising special section in my newspaper. Bashir fulminates about the Save Darfur meeting. He wants to get off the terror list. He wanted to be chair of the A.U. And he knows that the U.S. can very much help determine what that global image is. In addition, Bashir wants debt relief, which the U.S. can help with in the I.M.F., and he wants to be able to interfere in the south without American objection.
One of the things that worries me most is the signs that Bashir is funneling arms to disgruntled factions in the south, to foment civil war there. Indeed, I'm told that the south just captured a helicopter crew of Western mercenaries carrying arms and is interrogating them. Bashir has done something similar vis-a-vis both Uganda and Chad (supporting rebels in each case, who in turn committed frightful atrocities), and he may well do the same in the south. It's a worrying sign that the architect of the Janjaweed strategy in Darfur, Ahmed Haroun, has been reposted as governor of South Kordofan, on the southern Sudan border. The fear (for which there's no evidence so far) is that he'll oversee a similar strategy there and recruit a militia to attack the border areas so that the north can control the oil.
Pulling off a referendum in a place like southern Sudan will be enormously difficult in any case, but it'll be 1,000 times harder with the north dragging its feet. Among the issues that have to be decided are the division of oil revenues, the division of debt, the division of water rights, the demarcation of the border -- and the nettlesome question of Abyei, the oil-producing area on the border that both claim. There has been negligible progress on these issues, and all that makes conflict more likely. And of course mutual trust is nonexistent.
It's a good sign that the U.S. has sent Princeton Lyman, a veteran diplomat, to take charge of a team on the ground in Sudan. In the CPA negotiations, the Bush administration had senior people intimately involved in negotiations and on the ground, and until now the Obama administration hasn't done the same. This is a big step forward, albeit a belated one. I'd also like to see the U.S. make clear to Kenya that it has no objection to the onpassing of the Ukrainian tanks that southern Sudan ordered but that have been frozen because of the publicity after they were seized by Somali pirates.
The U.S. could also signal that it has no objection if a third party provides the south with anti-aircraft systems. The north can't depend on its ground forces to destroy the south (partly because much of its infantry was traditionally from Darfur), and so it will depend on its air superiority. If it is denied control over the skies, because of the south's anti-aircraft ability, it may be less likely to launch a new civil war. The U.S. also needs to work much more with Egypt, China and other countries to get them all engaged in spotlighting the Sudan negotiations and the referendum process. Egypt and China are both against southern Sudanese independence but are waking up to the fact that it may happen any way and in that case their interests may be harmed. The UN General Assembly is a crucial opportunity to internationalize the issue, and it's less than a month away.
Look, Sudan is diplomacy at its toughest. I don't mean to be glib about the challenges that the world faces there. But Obama declared that this was a priority for him, and he blasted Bush for Sudan mishandling -- even though Bush overall did a better job on Sudan than Obama has, particularly when the CPA is figured in.
One of the lessons we should have learned from the last few decades is that when wars start, they are very difficult and expensive to end. The World Bank estimates that the average African civil war imposes costs of about $100 billion on the country and its neighbors. Everybody agrees in theory that it is better to try to avert wars ahead of time than try to extinguish them once they have started. Yet the Obama administration, the U.N. and world leaders are manifestly not doing all they can to avoid another war in Sudan. I'd welcome your comments.
August 28, 2010, 6:13 PM
By NICHOLAS KRISTOF
My Sunday column is about President Obama's failure to follow his own campaign rhetoric about paying attention to genocide and Sudan. As a senator, Obama was one of the leaders in calling on the Bush administration to do more about Darfur -- and yet he has been disengaged in Sudan issues and his administration hasn't been as successful as the Bush administration in getting Sudan to behave a bit better.
There are, of course, a thousand caveats. Genocide in southern Sudan, if it happens, won't be Obama's fault but that of Bashir and a thousand other local players. And while I focus on Bashir's shortcomings, it's also worth pointing out that southern Sudanese officials have shown poor leadership and often more penchant for corruption than building a state. The Darfur rebels enjoy nice hotel rooms but for the most part haven't tried hard to negotiate a serious peace. There's plenty of blame to go around. But it's also a false moral equivalence to say that because all of the actors are flawed, they are all equally bad. There is a big difference between an official in the south with a secret bank account and an official in the north who orders villagers massacred.
In my judgment, the Obama administration's first mistake was to take forever reviewing its policy to Sudan. When it took office in January 2009, it had some momentum on its side, and Sudan was truly nervous -- especially of Susan Rice, who had famously flown into the Nuba Mountains as assistant secretary for African affairs even after Sudan threatened to shoot her plane down. The Bush administration envoy for Sudan, Rich Williamson, had proposed a series of tough measures, including taking out electricity and radio in Khartoum for a couple of days as a warning, and that too had Sudan on edge. All that momentum was lost by an endless Obama review, and then the policy in practice ended up all carrots and no sticks. Critics also say that the policy hasn't been implemented and that quarterly reviews have not occurred as mandated; I hear different versions about that and am not sure where the truth lies.
In fairness, sticks haven't worked terribly well against Sudan, and I happen to agree with the special envoy, Scott Gration, on the need for both engagement and carrots. The Bush administration managed to win the CPA treaty in 2005, ending the north-south war, in part because it seriously engaged with Khartoum and listened to Bashir -- so engagement isn't a bad thing. But sticks are necessary as well as carrots, and sticks are what has been absent from the administration policy. In addition, there was a sense that George W. Bush was personally pushing Sudan policy when he was in the White House, and he would periodically talk about it publicly. Obama has barely mentioned the word Sudan, and this lack of leadership is one reason for the incoherence in his administration's policy.
What leverage do we have? For starters, Bashir cares a great deal about his image. That's why Sudan has hired public relations agencies and bought an advertising special section in my newspaper. Bashir fulminates about the Save Darfur meeting. He wants to get off the terror list. He wanted to be chair of the A.U. And he knows that the U.S. can very much help determine what that global image is. In addition, Bashir wants debt relief, which the U.S. can help with in the I.M.F., and he wants to be able to interfere in the south without American objection.
One of the things that worries me most is the signs that Bashir is funneling arms to disgruntled factions in the south, to foment civil war there. Indeed, I'm told that the south just captured a helicopter crew of Western mercenaries carrying arms and is interrogating them. Bashir has done something similar vis-a-vis both Uganda and Chad (supporting rebels in each case, who in turn committed frightful atrocities), and he may well do the same in the south. It's a worrying sign that the architect of the Janjaweed strategy in Darfur, Ahmed Haroun, has been reposted as governor of South Kordofan, on the southern Sudan border. The fear (for which there's no evidence so far) is that he'll oversee a similar strategy there and recruit a militia to attack the border areas so that the north can control the oil.
Pulling off a referendum in a place like southern Sudan will be enormously difficult in any case, but it'll be 1,000 times harder with the north dragging its feet. Among the issues that have to be decided are the division of oil revenues, the division of debt, the division of water rights, the demarcation of the border -- and the nettlesome question of Abyei, the oil-producing area on the border that both claim. There has been negligible progress on these issues, and all that makes conflict more likely. And of course mutual trust is nonexistent.
It's a good sign that the U.S. has sent Princeton Lyman, a veteran diplomat, to take charge of a team on the ground in Sudan. In the CPA negotiations, the Bush administration had senior people intimately involved in negotiations and on the ground, and until now the Obama administration hasn't done the same. This is a big step forward, albeit a belated one. I'd also like to see the U.S. make clear to Kenya that it has no objection to the onpassing of the Ukrainian tanks that southern Sudan ordered but that have been frozen because of the publicity after they were seized by Somali pirates.
The U.S. could also signal that it has no objection if a third party provides the south with anti-aircraft systems. The north can't depend on its ground forces to destroy the south (partly because much of its infantry was traditionally from Darfur), and so it will depend on its air superiority. If it is denied control over the skies, because of the south's anti-aircraft ability, it may be less likely to launch a new civil war. The U.S. also needs to work much more with Egypt, China and other countries to get them all engaged in spotlighting the Sudan negotiations and the referendum process. Egypt and China are both against southern Sudanese independence but are waking up to the fact that it may happen any way and in that case their interests may be harmed. The UN General Assembly is a crucial opportunity to internationalize the issue, and it's less than a month away.
Look, Sudan is diplomacy at its toughest. I don't mean to be glib about the challenges that the world faces there. But Obama declared that this was a priority for him, and he blasted Bush for Sudan mishandling -- even though Bush overall did a better job on Sudan than Obama has, particularly when the CPA is figured in.
One of the lessons we should have learned from the last few decades is that when wars start, they are very difficult and expensive to end. The World Bank estimates that the average African civil war imposes costs of about $100 billion on the country and its neighbors. Everybody agrees in theory that it is better to try to avert wars ahead of time than try to extinguish them once they have started. Yet the Obama administration, the U.N. and world leaders are manifestly not doing all they can to avoid another war in Sudan. I'd welcome your comments.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
U of M's College of Liberal Arts Names Bruno Chaouat Director of Holocaust and Genocide Center
French professor envisions increased programming around cultural, historical and philosophical issues regarding the Holocaust and genocide
The University of Minnesota College of Liberal Arts has named Bruno Chaouat as the new director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. Chaouat (ôshow-AHTö), an associate professor in French, has been at the University of Minnesota since 2002. His academic research addresses, among other topics, post-Holocaust art and literature. He has written essays in French and in English on the current debates about the representation of the Holocaust in visual arts. His work also examines the ideological, political and philosophical challenges faced by Jews in France. He focuses on the polemics of the new anti-Semitism in relation to the current Middle East conflict.
Chaouat assumed the directorship on July 1, and has already begun putting together a lecture series for 2010-11 that will address "Alternative Narrativesùor Denial?" Two speakers in that series will include Professor Henry Rousso (CNRS, Institut d'Histoire du temps present, Paris) and Professor Jeffrey Mehlman (Boston University), who will both speak in spring 2011.
Plans are also being finalized to bring to Minneapolis the filmmaker Michael Prazan, who will present his film "Einsatzgruppen: the Death Brigades," considered the most important documentary to date on the Holocaust by bullets (Eastern Europe), this November. Chaouat is also building a partnership with Universite de Paris VII-Diderot, whose Department of Sciences Humaines Cliniques has a highly regarded program on trauma, genocide and psychoanalysis.
"I am very pleased that we are able to appoint a director who has Bruno's long-time experience on both the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies and Center for Jewish Studies advisory boards," says James A. Parente, Jr., dean of the College of Liberal Arts. "His deep involvement with CHGS will lend itself to extending the legacy of founding director Stephen Feinstein, and his background in the humanities will bring many innovative directions to the center's research, teaching, and outreach missions."
The University of Minnesota College of Liberal Arts has named Bruno Chaouat as the new director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. Chaouat (ôshow-AHTö), an associate professor in French, has been at the University of Minnesota since 2002. His academic research addresses, among other topics, post-Holocaust art and literature. He has written essays in French and in English on the current debates about the representation of the Holocaust in visual arts. His work also examines the ideological, political and philosophical challenges faced by Jews in France. He focuses on the polemics of the new anti-Semitism in relation to the current Middle East conflict.Chaouat assumed the directorship on July 1, and has already begun putting together a lecture series for 2010-11 that will address "Alternative Narrativesùor Denial?" Two speakers in that series will include Professor Henry Rousso (CNRS, Institut d'Histoire du temps present, Paris) and Professor Jeffrey Mehlman (Boston University), who will both speak in spring 2011.
Plans are also being finalized to bring to Minneapolis the filmmaker Michael Prazan, who will present his film "Einsatzgruppen: the Death Brigades," considered the most important documentary to date on the Holocaust by bullets (Eastern Europe), this November. Chaouat is also building a partnership with Universite de Paris VII-Diderot, whose Department of Sciences Humaines Cliniques has a highly regarded program on trauma, genocide and psychoanalysis.
"I am very pleased that we are able to appoint a director who has Bruno's long-time experience on both the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies and Center for Jewish Studies advisory boards," says James A. Parente, Jr., dean of the College of Liberal Arts. "His deep involvement with CHGS will lend itself to extending the legacy of founding director Stephen Feinstein, and his background in the humanities will bring many innovative directions to the center's research, teaching, and outreach missions."
Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies Names Jodi Elowitz as Outreach Coordinator
Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies has named Jodi Elowitz as their new outreach coordinator. Ms. Elowitz has more than 10 years of experience in the field of Holocaust and diversity education in Minnesota and Tennessee. Elowitz began her career at the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies in 1997 as an intern and graduate student under the tutelage of former director Dr. Stephen Feinstein.After completing her Master of Liberal Studies degree, which she designed to have an emphasis on the Holocaust, she went on to work for the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas as the director of Holocaust education. While at the JCRC, Elowitz oversaw numerous educational and community programs, and designed resources, study guides and curriculum for secondary educators. She also taught seminars and workshops to educate teachers and students about such topics as the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, anti-bullying, civil rights and race as seen through American popular culture.
In 2008 Ms. Elowitz accepted the position of executive director for the Tennessee Holocaust Commission. She brought her talents as an administrator by leading the staff and board through a major rebranding and strategic planning process, while laying the foundation for the commission's continued sustainability and growth.
"We are very fortunate to have someone of Jodi's talents and background working at the center," said Bruno Chaouat, director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. "Not only does she bring tremendous energy and passion to us, [but] she also has a unique history and relationship with CHGS, the university and the community."
Elowitz received her Bachelor of Arts degree in humanities and her Master Liberal Studies degree at the University of Minnesota.
Monday, August 23, 2010
It's not your father's Holocaust denial
An upcoming lecture series at the U of M will examine how demented Holocaust denial arguments have been rebranded as 'alternative narratives'
By BRUNO CHAOUAT
The Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the University of Minnesota -- of which I am honored to serve as the new director -- is launching a lecture series titled "Alternative Narratives -- or Denial" for the 2011 spring semester.
Denial is not always easy to recognize. Calling the Holocaust a "fable" or a "myth" is not the only mode of denial. Denial can sometimes be called "alternative narratives" or "revision of history," and be disguised as scholarly inquiry. Scholars in the United States and in Israel have demonstrated a continuum between drawing questionable analogies to the Holocaust and denying it. Through historical, literary and philosophical inquiry, this lecture series will explore the moral and intellectual issues raised in revising the history of the Holocaust and of genocides.
This lecture series is especially timely in light of film director Oliver Stone's recent attempt to diminish the importance of the Holocaust in the name of placing it in "historical context," and his corollary accusation that Jews control the media and U.S. foreign policy. Jews, Stone infamously declared, are "the most powerful lobby in Washington," and "Israel has f---d up United States foreign policy."
We are accustomed to viewing Holocaust denial as a right-wing, neo-Nazi, marginal position, and thus many discount it as innocuous hysteria. However, Holocaust denial is not the monopoly of neo-Nazis, Aryan supremacists or shameless anti-Semites. It comes in multiple guises, and lately has often been recast in the service of anticolonialism, anti-imperialism and even antiracism. More and more, the fantasy that Israel and the Jews control the memory of the Holocaust to serve selfish and even criminal ends leads to minimizing, or outright denying the Holocaust. Professor Elhanan Yakira, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who spoke at the College of Liberal Arts last April (4-19-10 AJW), demonstrates this phenomenon in a book titled Post-Zionism, Post-Holocaust: Three Essays on Denial, Forgetting and the Delegitimation of Israel (Cambridge University Press).
Stone's rant illustrates this brand of Holocaust denial, conspiracy theory and anti-Semitism disguised as a denunciation of imperialistic global exploitation. It is pernicious because it is hard to recognize -- unless a proponent, such as Stone, loses his temper and launches into an attention-getting tirade. Regrettably, this brand of Holocaust denial is entering the mainstream; Stone was invited on National Public Radio a few weeks ago, and appears to have been taken seriously by an educated, thoughtful and compassionate audience.
Faithful to the legacy of our greatly missed colleague and friend Stephen Feinstein, the first director of the center, I consider that one of our organization's missions is to debunk Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic bigotry in all of its guises, including when it comes as compassion for the oppressed and in the name of social justice. The French historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet aptly called Holocaust deniers "murderers of memory." I believe the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies is a sentinel of memory. It is my hope that our first lecture series will reflect this conception.
***
Bruno Chaouat is the director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at University of Minnesota.
Anne Frank's Tree Falls As Holocaust Denial Rises
By Bonnie Erbe
Posted: August 23, 2010
How sad and odd, that the so-called Anne Frank tree in Amsterdam should fall at a time when Holocaust denial is growing, especially in the Arab world, according to one White House official.
Hannah Rosenthal, U.S. special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, told the Jerusalem Post that the Obama administration is working hard to combat anti-Semitism but despite that, Holocaust denial is on the rise, especially in the Arab world.
Rosenthal recently led a trip of eight influential imams. After visiting the Auschwitz concentration camp with Ms. Rosenthal, the imams signed on to a declaration regarding the Holocaust. According to the Post,
"We bear witness to the absolute horror and tragedy of the Holocaust where over 12 million human souls perished, including 6 million Jews." It continues, "We condemn any attempts to deny this historical reality and declare such denials or any justification of this tragedy as against the Islamic code of ethics. We condemn anti-Semitism in any form. No creation of Almighty God should face discrimination based on his or her faith or religious conviction."
I applaud the Obama administration and the imams for doing this, even at a time when many American Jews are sorely disappointed with the president's stand on Israel. Many are hopeful that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's bid to reopen peace talks will produce something of value. But they do not believe the Obama administration to be as Israel-friendly as prior administrations have been.
All of this comes as I return home from a reunion of some 35 descendants of Russian-Polish Jews from the tiny town of Dokshitzy (which is located in what is now Belarus). My grandmother was born in that town and my grandfather in another town or "shtetl" some eight miles away. My grandmother was one of 11 children. She emigrated to the United States but the large family she left behind did not and they perished.
There was a poor but thriving Jewish community in Dokshitzy prior to World War II. Jews comprised half the town's population of 6,000 people before the war. Most of them never made it to the Nazi concentration camps. The Nazis came through Dokshitzy in the early 1940s, forced most of the men into hard labor and cordoned off a Jewish ghetto for the families. After the Nazis had ransacked the town, they lined up residents in front of pits, shot them down, and filled in the pits with dirt. They burned all the houses and desecrated the graveyards, as if to erase the memory of what they had done. At least in the latter part, they did not succeed.
Which brings me back to Anne Frank's tree. The world-famous diarist created the most widely-read account of the Holocaust while she and her family hid from Nazis in Amsterdam for more than two years. The teenager and her family were discovered by the Nazis and arrested in 1944. Anne Frank died of typhus in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in March 1945.
Dutch officials have gone out of their way to preserve the 150-year-old Chestnut tree outside of the house in which she was hiding. The tree gave her hope during her two year residence in an attic as it was just about the only thing she could see from the attic's window. Now it is gone, as Holocaust denial increases, just when we need it most.
Friday, August 20, 2010
US envoy slams central bank over 'antisemitic' Romanian coin
(AFP) - 5 hours ago
BUCHAREST -- The US ambassador in Romania on Friday slammed a central bank decision to go on selling a coin depicting an inter-war leader with anti-Semitic views despite criticism from the Holocaust Museum in Washington. "I am very disappointed by the decision on the part of the National Bank of Romania to issue the coin commemorating Patriarch Miron Cristea", Mark Gitenstein said in a statement.
"Cristea's actions as Prime Minister - specifically his role in the revocation of citizenship for over 225,000 Romanian Jews - cannot be ignored," he added.
Cristea headed the Romanian government in 1938-39.
As prime minister he amended the citizenship law, thereby stripping 37 percent of the country's total Jewish population of their Romanian citizenship.
To mark 125 years since the setting up of the Romanian Orthodox Church, the central bank had minted five silver coins carrying the effigies of its patriarchs since 1925.
The first of the five was Miron Cristea, who led the Church between 1925 and 1939.
At the start of August the central bank received letters of protest from the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and the Elie Wiesel National Institute for the Study of Holocaust in Romania.
The bank set up an internal commission to look into the issue.
On Thursday, after the panel released its conclusions, the bank said it would not suspend issuing of the coin, which can be bought since July.
In a statement it said its selection was "in no way and by no means intended to hurt the feelings of any community, to prejudice the interests of specific groups or to convey xenophobic, racist or anti-Semitic messages".
Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved.
BUCHAREST -- The US ambassador in Romania on Friday slammed a central bank decision to go on selling a coin depicting an inter-war leader with anti-Semitic views despite criticism from the Holocaust Museum in Washington. "I am very disappointed by the decision on the part of the National Bank of Romania to issue the coin commemorating Patriarch Miron Cristea", Mark Gitenstein said in a statement.
"Cristea's actions as Prime Minister - specifically his role in the revocation of citizenship for over 225,000 Romanian Jews - cannot be ignored," he added.
Cristea headed the Romanian government in 1938-39.
As prime minister he amended the citizenship law, thereby stripping 37 percent of the country's total Jewish population of their Romanian citizenship.
To mark 125 years since the setting up of the Romanian Orthodox Church, the central bank had minted five silver coins carrying the effigies of its patriarchs since 1925.
The first of the five was Miron Cristea, who led the Church between 1925 and 1939.
At the start of August the central bank received letters of protest from the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and the Elie Wiesel National Institute for the Study of Holocaust in Romania.
The bank set up an internal commission to look into the issue.
On Thursday, after the panel released its conclusions, the bank said it would not suspend issuing of the coin, which can be bought since July.
In a statement it said its selection was "in no way and by no means intended to hurt the feelings of any community, to prejudice the interests of specific groups or to convey xenophobic, racist or anti-Semitic messages".
Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved.
Volunteers Needed to Assist Holocaust Survivors with Oral History
A group of local Holocaust survivors meet every month at the Jewish Community Center in St. Paul. The meetings are recorded to preserve the stories, experiences and the conversations that take place at the gathering. The group is looking for volunteers to type up transcripts of the recordings for historical posterity.
To volunteer,send an email to amram001@umn.edu. Please type "holocaust" in the subject line.
For more information about the group please click here to be linked to their page on the CHGS website.
To volunteer,send an email to amram001@umn.edu. Please type "holocaust" in the subject line.
For more information about the group please click here to be linked to their page on the CHGS website.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Bruno Chaouat to speak on Anti-Semitism, Israel, and Ideological Change in France
HAVE FRENCH JEWS TURNED RIGHT?
Anti-Semitism, Israel, and Ideological Change in France
Since 9/11 and the second intifada, the Left has often charged Jews with becoming increasingly right-wing. This charge is based on the support of Jews for Israel and the United States, both deemed reactionary countries by many on the Left in France and Europe. Bruno Chaouat will analyze whether French Jews have turned to the Right by examining debates among those on the Left and by exploring the reactions of the French Jewish community to recent waves of anti-Semitic violence in relation to the Middle East conflict.
Bruno Chaouat is associate professor of French and Jewish studies and director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the University of Minnesota. His publications include a book on Chateaubriand and autobiography, many articles on 19th-century French literature, edited volumes on shame and terror, and essays on anti-Semitism and Holocaust testimony in France. He is now completing a book project titled "Jewish Envy: France After Anti-Semitism."
February 10, 2011 7:30 p.m., Temple of Aaron Synagogue, 616 S. Mississippi River Boulevard. St. Paul 651-698-8874
For more information please contact Center for Jewish Studies, e-mail: jwst@umn.edu
or phone: 612-624-4914.
Co-sponsors: U of M Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies, Department of French & Italian; U of M Hillel; Temple of Aaron; St. Paul Jewish Community Center; United Jewish Fund and Council
Anti-Semitism, Israel, and Ideological Change in France
Since 9/11 and the second intifada, the Left has often charged Jews with becoming increasingly right-wing. This charge is based on the support of Jews for Israel and the United States, both deemed reactionary countries by many on the Left in France and Europe. Bruno Chaouat will analyze whether French Jews have turned to the Right by examining debates among those on the Left and by exploring the reactions of the French Jewish community to recent waves of anti-Semitic violence in relation to the Middle East conflict.
Bruno Chaouat is associate professor of French and Jewish studies and director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the University of Minnesota. His publications include a book on Chateaubriand and autobiography, many articles on 19th-century French literature, edited volumes on shame and terror, and essays on anti-Semitism and Holocaust testimony in France. He is now completing a book project titled "Jewish Envy: France After Anti-Semitism."
February 10, 2011 7:30 p.m., Temple of Aaron Synagogue, 616 S. Mississippi River Boulevard. St. Paul 651-698-8874
For more information please contact Center for Jewish Studies, e-mail: jwst@umn.edu
or phone: 612-624-4914.
Co-sponsors: U of M Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies, Department of French & Italian; U of M Hillel; Temple of Aaron; St. Paul Jewish Community Center; United Jewish Fund and Council
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
American Muslim leaders visit concentration camps
August 17, 2010
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Eight Muslim American leaders who visited concentration camps and met with Holocaust survivors signed a statement condemning Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism.
The trip earlier this month, intended to teach the participants about the Holocaust, featured visits to Dachau and Auschwitz.
"We stand united as Muslim American faith and community leaders and recognize that we have a shared responsibility to continue to work together with leaders of all faiths and their communities to fight the dehumanization of all peoples based on their religion, race or ethnicity," the statement read. "With the disturbing rise of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and other forms of hatred, rhetoric and bigotry, now more than ever, people of faith must stand together for truth."
Marshall Breger, an Orthodox Jew who served in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, and Rabbi Jack Bemporad, a Reform clergyman, launched the trip to educate those who may not have had the opportunity to learn the history of the Holocaust. Breger said this would help combat Holocaust denial among Muslims.
The leaders on the trip were imams Muzammil Siddiqi of Orange County, Calif.; Muhamad Maged of Virginia; Suhaib Webb of Santa Clara, Calif.; Abdullah Antepli of Duke University in North Carolina; and Syed Naqvi of Washington, D.C., along with Dr. Sayyid Syeed of Washington; Sheik Yasir Qadhi of New Haven, Conn.; and Laila Muhammad of Chicago. Muhammad is the daughter of American Muslim leader W.D. Muhammad and granddaughter of Elijah Muhammad, leader of the Nation of Islam. U.S. government officials, the State Department's special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism, and the U.S. ambassador to the Organization of the Islamic Conference also participated.
In 2001, Yasir Qadhi, one of the imams on the trip, called the Holocaust a hoax, but he later said his comment had been a mistake. After the trip earlier this month, Qadhi told the N.J. Star-Ledger, "It was a very moving experience for all of us imams, in particular myself. I had never seen anything like this. I was just overwhelmed throughout the entire trip. I was just overwhelmed at the sheer inhumanity of it. I could not comprehend how such evil could be unleashed."
The Aug. 7-11 trip was co-sponsored by a German think tank, the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, and a New Jersey-based interfaith group called the Center for Interreligious Understanding.
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Eight Muslim American leaders who visited concentration camps and met with Holocaust survivors signed a statement condemning Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism.
The trip earlier this month, intended to teach the participants about the Holocaust, featured visits to Dachau and Auschwitz.
"We stand united as Muslim American faith and community leaders and recognize that we have a shared responsibility to continue to work together with leaders of all faiths and their communities to fight the dehumanization of all peoples based on their religion, race or ethnicity," the statement read. "With the disturbing rise of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and other forms of hatred, rhetoric and bigotry, now more than ever, people of faith must stand together for truth."
Marshall Breger, an Orthodox Jew who served in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, and Rabbi Jack Bemporad, a Reform clergyman, launched the trip to educate those who may not have had the opportunity to learn the history of the Holocaust. Breger said this would help combat Holocaust denial among Muslims.
The leaders on the trip were imams Muzammil Siddiqi of Orange County, Calif.; Muhamad Maged of Virginia; Suhaib Webb of Santa Clara, Calif.; Abdullah Antepli of Duke University in North Carolina; and Syed Naqvi of Washington, D.C., along with Dr. Sayyid Syeed of Washington; Sheik Yasir Qadhi of New Haven, Conn.; and Laila Muhammad of Chicago. Muhammad is the daughter of American Muslim leader W.D. Muhammad and granddaughter of Elijah Muhammad, leader of the Nation of Islam. U.S. government officials, the State Department's special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism, and the U.S. ambassador to the Organization of the Islamic Conference also participated.
In 2001, Yasir Qadhi, one of the imams on the trip, called the Holocaust a hoax, but he later said his comment had been a mistake. After the trip earlier this month, Qadhi told the N.J. Star-Ledger, "It was a very moving experience for all of us imams, in particular myself. I had never seen anything like this. I was just overwhelmed throughout the entire trip. I was just overwhelmed at the sheer inhumanity of it. I could not comprehend how such evil could be unleashed."
The Aug. 7-11 trip was co-sponsored by a German think tank, the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, and a New Jersey-based interfaith group called the Center for Interreligious Understanding.
Germany charges ex-Rwandan mayor with genocide
(AP) - 4 hours ago
BERLIN -- German prosecutors say they have filed charges against a former Rwandan mayor for his alleged involvement in the African country's 1994 genocide.
Federal prosecutors said Wednesday that they charged the 53-year-old ethnic Hutu -- identified only as Onesphore R. -- with genocide and murder as well as incitement to those crimes. They said he was a mayor of an unspecified district in northern Rwanda at the time of the killings.
They say the man called for a pogrom against the Tutsi ethnic minority on three occasions in early April 1994 and forced a local official to throw out Tutsis who had taken refuge in his house.
Prosecutors say the man ordered and coordinated three massacres between April 11 and 15, 1994, in which at least 3,730 Tutsis were killed.
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Schools can exclude materials disputing Armenian genocide Court ruled on 1999 case
Schools can exclude materials disputing Armenian genocide Court ruled on 1999 case
By Peter Schworm
Globe Staff / August 12, 2010
In a closely watched case, a federal appeals court yesterday ruled that statewide public school guidelines on teaching human rights history can exclude materials disputing that the mass slaying of Armenians in the First World War era constituted genocide.
The decision, written by retired Supreme Court justice David Souter, who occasionally hears cases with the First Circuit Court of Appeals, found that state education officials did not violate public school students' free speech rights in 1999, when they excluded all "contra-genocide'' sources calling the Armenian genocide into question.
Van Z. Krikorian, a professor at Pace University Law School who filed a brief defending the state's move, said he was thrilled by the ruling, equating those who dispute the genocide designation to Holocaust deniers.
"It would have put human rights education in reverse,'' he said. "It's a major defeat for genocide denial.''
Upholding a lower-court decision, the court ruled that although state guidelines were advisory, and "not meant to declare other positions out of bounds in study and discussion,'' they were part of the official curriculum and therefore under the discretion of state authorities.
Requiring that officials include references to dissenting viewpoints, Souter wrote, "might actually have the effect of foreclosing future opportunities for open enquiry in the classroom.''
Harvey Silverglate, a Boston civil rights lawyer representing the Assembly of Turkish American Associations, had argued that removing the references amounted to government censorship and prevented students from hearing both sides.
"It always is a sad day when a court constricts First Amendment rights rather than expand them,'' he said. "I think they made a mistake.'' Silverglate said his clients will consider whether to appeal.
The Turkish-American group disputes that the Muslim Turkish Ottoman Empire committed genocide against its Christian Armenian minority population. Over 1.5 million Armenians died at the hands of Turkish forces, but Turkish activists maintain it was not the result of a policy.
In 1998, the Legislature ordered the state Board of Education to prepare an advisory curriculum guide for teaching about genocide and human rights, and a draft of the guide initially included a section on the "Armenian Genocide.'' Under pressure from Turkish advocacy groups, the commissioner of education, David P. Driscoll, revised the draft to include references to opposing views, said the ruling.
When officials filed the guide with legislators in March 1999, the state's Armenian community protested the inclusion of "contra-genocide'' viewpoints, and the education commissioner removed the references.
Peter Schworm can be reached at schworm@globe.com.
© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper Company.
By Peter Schworm
Globe Staff / August 12, 2010
In a closely watched case, a federal appeals court yesterday ruled that statewide public school guidelines on teaching human rights history can exclude materials disputing that the mass slaying of Armenians in the First World War era constituted genocide.
The decision, written by retired Supreme Court justice David Souter, who occasionally hears cases with the First Circuit Court of Appeals, found that state education officials did not violate public school students' free speech rights in 1999, when they excluded all "contra-genocide'' sources calling the Armenian genocide into question.
Van Z. Krikorian, a professor at Pace University Law School who filed a brief defending the state's move, said he was thrilled by the ruling, equating those who dispute the genocide designation to Holocaust deniers.
"It would have put human rights education in reverse,'' he said. "It's a major defeat for genocide denial.''
Upholding a lower-court decision, the court ruled that although state guidelines were advisory, and "not meant to declare other positions out of bounds in study and discussion,'' they were part of the official curriculum and therefore under the discretion of state authorities.
Requiring that officials include references to dissenting viewpoints, Souter wrote, "might actually have the effect of foreclosing future opportunities for open enquiry in the classroom.''
Harvey Silverglate, a Boston civil rights lawyer representing the Assembly of Turkish American Associations, had argued that removing the references amounted to government censorship and prevented students from hearing both sides.
"It always is a sad day when a court constricts First Amendment rights rather than expand them,'' he said. "I think they made a mistake.'' Silverglate said his clients will consider whether to appeal.
The Turkish-American group disputes that the Muslim Turkish Ottoman Empire committed genocide against its Christian Armenian minority population. Over 1.5 million Armenians died at the hands of Turkish forces, but Turkish activists maintain it was not the result of a policy.
In 1998, the Legislature ordered the state Board of Education to prepare an advisory curriculum guide for teaching about genocide and human rights, and a draft of the guide initially included a section on the "Armenian Genocide.'' Under pressure from Turkish advocacy groups, the commissioner of education, David P. Driscoll, revised the draft to include references to opposing views, said the ruling.
When officials filed the guide with legislators in March 1999, the state's Armenian community protested the inclusion of "contra-genocide'' viewpoints, and the education commissioner removed the references.
Peter Schworm can be reached at schworm@globe.com.
© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper Company.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)