http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/11/18/tomo/index.html?x

by Norman Finkelstein

This past month I was invited, for the second time in as many years, to present a book in Germany. Last year Piper published The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering and this year Hugendubel put out Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. In significant respects, the receptions differed: The Holocaust Industry generated much public interest, Image and Reality relatively little. No doubt the reason is that Germans have a huge stake in the legacy of the Nazi holocaust but rather little in a just resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict. It would seem that this order of priorities, although understandable, is to be regretted. The Nazi holocaust, however horrific and even if forever a part of Germany's present, is--except for the handful of survivors--fundamentally a historical question. The persecution of the Palestinians is, by contrast, an on-going horror, and it is, after all, the crimes of the Third Reich that are used to justify this persecution. In the first instance, moral action by Germans is no longer possible; in the second, it plainly is.

Precisely for this reason I actually looked forward to the recent German trip. I made no secret last year of my conflicted feelings about promoting The Holocaust Industry in Germany. Many close friends and comrades counseled against it and--much more important--I was quite certain that both my late parents would have disapproved. Germans, I was told, could not be trusted to honestly debate Jewish misuses of the Nazi genocide (the subject of The Holocaust Industry). In addition, the huge media interest in my book prompted questions--in my opinion, legitimate--about whether I myself wasn't becoming a beneficiary of the industry I deplored. Ultimately I decided that, notwithstanding the real moral risks entailed, I should go to Germany, a decision which, in retrospect, I don't regret.

In the case of the new edition of my book on the Israel-Palestine conflict, such reservations seemed less pertinent. The post-war German generation had just redeemed itself by voting into power a coalition with a resolute anti-war platform. If Germans weren't now ready to honestly debate the Israel-Palestine conflict, when would they be? And no real danger lurked that this book would provoke a media circus if for no other reason than that it wasn't an easy read. Nonetheless, I arrived in Germany with high hopes that just as The Holocaust Industry somewhat succeeded, I think, at breaking a harmful taboo, so my new book would perhaps break the taboo on German public discussion of Israel's brutal occupation. With Palestinians facing an unprecedented catastrophe in the event of a new Middle East war, the stakes loom particularly large.

To judge by a steady stream of email correspondence and many conversations, it seems that The Holocaust Industry did stimulate a sober--and much-needed--debate among ordinary Germans. (A handful of neo-Nazis exploited the occasion but, as the dean of Nazi holocaust scholars, Raul Hilberg, observed, German democracy is not so fragile that it can't tolerate a few kooks coming out of the woodwork.) It's still too soon to gauge the popular reaction to the Israel-Palestine book. What can already be discerned, however, is the persistence among politically correct Germans of a pronounced animus to my work.

The nadir in the relentlessly ugly campaign of ad hominem vilification after publication of The Holocaust Industry was probably the article in a major German newsweekly, Der Spiegel, claiming in all seriousness that each morning after jogging I meditated on the Nazi holocaust in the company of two parrots. Either Germans had suddenly become engrossed by the (imagined) private life of an obscure Jew from Brooklyn, New York or--what seems likelier--the personalized attack on the messenger was a deliberate tactic to evade confronting the bad news that the Nazi holocaust had become an instrument of political and financial gain.

During this last trip to Germany, a major state television station, ARD, suggested that I was a publicity hound peddling used goods. This same program wanted, however, to stage a confrontation between me and the Israeli exhibitors at the Frankfurt Book Fair, and to have me denounce on camera a famous Israeli author--both of which I refused to do. It would surely have garnered lots of publicity but I found distasteful the idea of a slugfest between Jews for the amusement of Germans. Even among the politically correct crowd some nasty habits apparently die hard. It is widely known in Germany that both my late parents passed through the Nazi holocaust. This family background has also been shamelessly seized on by politically correct Germans to ridicule and dismiss me as unstable.

Such venomous attacks on a Jew and the son of Holocaust survivors are altogether unique in German public life which is otherwise ever so tactful and discreet on all things Holocaust. One can't but wonder what accounts for them. In fact, the Holocaust has proven to be a valuable commodity for politically correct Germans. By "defending" Holocaust memory and Jewish elites against any and all criticism, they get to play-act at moral courage. What price do they actually pay, what sacrifice do they actually make, for this "defense"? Given Germany's prevailing cultural ambience and the overarching power of American Jewry, such courage in fact reaps rich rewards. Pillorying a Jewish dissident costs nothing--and provides a "legitimate" outlet for latent prejudice. It happens that I agree with Daniel Goldhagen's claim in Hitler's Willing Executioners that philo-Semites are typically anti-Semites in "sheep's clothing." The philo-Semite both assumes that Jews are somehow "different" and almost always secretly harbors a mixture of envy of and loathing for this alleged difference. Philo-Semitism thus presupposes, but also engenders a frustrated version of, its opposite. A public, preferably defenseless, scapegoat is then needed to let all this pent-up ugliness ooze out.

To account for Germany's obsession with the Nazi holocaust, a German friend explained that Germans "like to carry a load." To which I would add: especially if it's light as a feather. No doubt some Germans of the post-war generation genuinely accepted the burden of guilt together with its paralyzing taboos on independent, critical thought. But today German "political correctness" is all a charade of pretending to accept the burden of being German while actually rejecting it. For, what is the point of these interminable public breast-beatings except to keep reminding the world: "We are not like them."

It can also be safely said that politically correct Germans know full well that, more often than not, the criticism leveled against Israeli policy and misuse of the Nazi holocaust is valid. In private conversation (as I've discovered) they freely admit to this. They profess to fear that, if Jewish abuses become public knowledge, it will unleash a tidal wave of anti-Semitism. Is there really any likelihood of this happening in Germany today? And isn't vigorous and candid debate the best means to stem an anti-Semitic tide: exposing the abuses of the Jewish establishment as well as the demagogues who exploit these abuses for nefarious ends? What politically correct Germans really fear, I suspect, is the loss of power and privilege attendant on challenging the uncritical support of all things Jewish. Indeed, their public defense of the indefensible not only breeds cynicism in political life but, far from combating anti-Semitism among Germans, actually engenders it. Isn't this duplicity typically credited to a dread of, or a desire to curry favor with, a presumed all-powerful Jewry? One also can't help but wonder what thoughts run through the heads of politically correct Germans about Jews when the ones they typically consort with, prostrate themselves before in unctuous penance, and publicly laud are known to be the worst sort of hucksters.

The challenge in Germany today is to defend the memory of the Nazi holocaust and to condemn its abuse by American Jewish elites; to defend Jews from malice and to condemn their overwhelmingly blind support for Israel's brutal occupation. But to do this requires real moral courage--not the operatic kind that politically correct Germans so love.

Norman Finkelstein is the author of The Holocaust Industry and Image and Reality in the Israel-Palestine Conflict.

from http://www.accuracy.org/

JONATHAN GRANOFF
http://www.gsinstitute.org

Director of the Global Security Institute, Granoff said today: "Richard Perle's recent statements that the U.S. is determined to go to war regardless of Iraqi compliance with the weapons inspectors subverts the international system as well as the Constitution." The Mirror in London reported on Nov. 20 that Richard Perle, head of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Review Board, in a meeting with British members of parliament, "admitted the U.S. would attack Iraq even if UN inspectors fail to find weapons." The article quoted a British member of parliament: "This makes a mockery of the whole process and exposes America's real determination to bomb Iraq." Granoff added: "Perle's remarks contradict Bush's and Powell's statements on what triggers war."

WILLIAM HARTUNG
MICHELLE CIARROCCA
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports.html
Hartung is a senior research fellow at the World Policy Institute at the New School; Ciarrocca is a research associate with the group. They co-authored a report on U.S. military spending and security assistance since 9/11. Hartung said today: "The Bush administration's strategy of 'preemptive war' in Iraq is the brainchild of a small circle of conservative think tanks and weapons lobbying groups like the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), whose members have been pressing this approach for over a decade.

In the run-up to the 2000 presidential election, PNAC published a report on 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' which has served as a blueprint for the Bush/Rumsfeld Pentagon's military strategy, up to and including the coining of terms such as 'regime change.' PNAC's founding document -- a unilateralist call for a return to the 'peace through strength' policies of the early Reagan years -- was signed by Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and numerous others who have gone on to become major players in the Bush national security team. Like the Coalition for the Liberation of Iraq, a newly formed group of current and former Washington insiders designed to promote the Bush administration's policy in Iraq, PNAC draws its support from a tightly-knit network of conservative ideologues, right-wing foundations, and major defense contractors. Bruce P. Jackson, a former vice president at Lockheed Martin who is a board member and a founding signatory of the Project for a New American Century's mission statement, serves as the chairman of the Coalition to Liberate Iraq. In adopting the strategy promoted by this conservative network, the Bush administration has successfully pressed for more than $150 billion in new military spending and arms export subsidies since September 11, 2001, much of which is going to major weapons makers like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman

Note: The publisher of the Japan Times (Ogasawara), a senior writer (Glasserman) and a former Boeing president are members of a right wing CIA front group, the CSIS/Pacific Forum. --pa

http://www.accuracy.org

This is from the MOVE-ON Mailing list. I am not as optimistic as they are, but anyway, I think it is worth reading, especially by people who think there is no value in protesting.--PA

Over the last month, things have gotten more complicated for those of us who are concerned about a war on Iraq. There have been elections, changes in rhetoric at the White House, a new resolution at the UN, and most recently the entry of weapons inspectors into Iraq. There is good news and bad news; we have some triumphs to celebrate and serious hurdles to confront.

Below, we share our understanding of where things stand on the war with Iraq.

THE ELECTION AND CONGRESS

There's no getting around the great disappointment of Election 2002, and it's certain that President Bush will attempt to portray the election as an endorsement of the Iraq war plan. But the fact remains that not a single candidate lost because he or she voted against the war. And in several cases, when candidates came out against the war they made significant gains in the polls. So, while the talk about Iraq certainly distracted from a discussion of the economy and other critical issues, the repercussions of the vote may be to strengthen Democrats' spines rather than embolden Republicans.

The election of Nancy Pelosi to the position of House Minority Leader is a terrific sign that Democrats are paying attention. Pelosi's opposition to Bush's war resolution comes from her long tenure on the House Intelligence committee -- she knows as much as anyone in Congress about the actual dangers we face.

It's very unlikely that Congress will vote on the war again, but there is still great value in working with Congress on this issue. Of the 133 Representatives who voted against the Iraq resolution, most are still concerned about the war and willing to work on it. Stay tuned for upcoming ways of engaging Congress in fighting this war.

THE SHAPE OF THE OPPOSITION

One of the big pieces of good news is that the opposition to this war remains quite broad, even after the new UN resolution and the war vote. At the grassroots level, folks still have a tremendous amount of energy and passion to devote to stopping it. Leaders who have been involved in the peace or disarmament movements for the last thirty years say that there is more energy now than they've seen in decades.

We also have a whole host of organizational allies.

Religious and church groups are getting fired up -- the leaders of President Bush's own denomination issued a statement saying, "It is inconceivable that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior and the Prince of Peace, would support this proposed attack." Catholic bishops have also been speaking up. Members of the religious community who work on foreign policy issues say this groundswell is unprecedented in its size, speed, and unanimity.

Just as importantly, unions and labor groups are beginning to mobilize against the war. Dozens of local and state-level unions representing hundreds of thousands of workers have passed anti-war resolutions. And AFL-CIO President John Sweeney sent a letter to Congress before the war vote asking them to consider some very serious questions about the coming conflict. In the struggle against the Vietnam war, it took years for organized labor to come on board, but already we have the strong support of some of that community.

The community of veterans is also getting fired up about the war on Iraq. A number of veterans of Gulf War I have started Veterans for Common Sense, a group which advocates the diplomatic resolution of the current conflict. Like many current military leaders, veterans are deeply concerned about the safety of the soldiers who will serve in this conflict -- especially after the poor treatment of the over 200,000 vets who applied for health help after the first Gulf War.

In a number of other constituencies, from Muslim groups to academia, more and more folks are turning out against the war. The opposition is diverse, broad, and deep.

THE UN RESOLUTION
[This section aided by the analysis of the Friends Committee on National Legislation.]

On November 8, the United Nations passed resolution 1441, which called for full Iraqi compliance with the resumption of weapons inspections. While many people see the resolution as a concession by France and the other states that make up the Security Council, we believe it is not entirely negative.

First, it appears that the US engaged in good faith with the UN process -- in other words, that US diplomats didn't rely on twisting arms to get what they wanted, and that they made very significant compromises out of respect for the institution. Remember how back in July the President was very clear that he did not intend to go through the UN? The fact that the United States has engaged in such a deep way with the UN is a great step forward for those of us who care about global institutions and law.

Second, the resolution doesn't provide a blank check for war -- in fact, the understanding of most of the diplomats at the table is that the US will have to return to the UN to get explicit authority for a military strike, which will be difficult. US Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte said after the resolution passed that "there is no automaticity" -- that breaking the terms of the agreement does not automatically signal a war. That's a huge step forward from the resolution originally brought to the UN in October.

Finally, there's a real possibility that the in-depth inspections which were launched on Monday may offer an alternative to war. Given the serious political risk involved in invading and taking over Iraq, the Bush Administration may choose to respect the international inspections process rather than drawing the anger of allies at home and abroad and going it alone.

High-ranking members of the Bush Administration will continue to claim that the resolution gives them the authority for war if Iraq shirks its obligations. But a basic reading of the text itself makes clear that this is not the case. Over the next month, we will need to make sure that our elected representatives push President Bush to continue to work within the United Nations and the realm of international law.