⚠️ Historical Documentation Notice
This document is part of a historical archive and is presented for scholarly research and educational purposes.
The content reflects historical perspectives and should be understood within its historical context.
The International Campaign for
Real History
If you then couldn’t prove that the money had gone to the victims, might you not be stirring the folk rhythms of an ancient prejudice?
September 18, 2000
No. 8, Vol. 271; Pg. 9, ISSN: 0027-8378
Dead Souls
Author analyzes reception in U.S. of book on Holocaust reparations
Christopher Hitchens
WELL, Jesus Christ —
as Senator Joseph Lieberman would want to say — it ought not to take Commentary magazine to give serious attention to the fleecing of Holocaust victims and the exorbitance of Holocaust profiteers.
Yet I open my September
[2000] issue of this neocon album and find that the most salient article is contributed by Gabriel
Schoenfeld and titled “Holocaust
Reparations — A Growing
Scandal.“
The likelihood is that no such essay would have been commissioned or printed if it were not for a book by
Norman Finkelstein, The
Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of
Jewish Suffering, which is currently occupying a word-of-mouth position somewhere between samizdat and “not in front of the goyim.” Of course, Schoenfeld knows his duty, and makes as short a work as he can of Finkelstein himself.
As a defender of Palestinian rights, a “follower of
Noam Chomsky” and a scholar who exposed the anti-German vulgarities of Daniel
Goldhagen, Finkelstein enjoys no rights that
Commentary is bound to respect. But this is of no consequence.
Schoenfeld concludes on the available evidence that the sudden boom in Holocaust litigation is most often exemplified by Edward
Fagan, an obscure personal-injury lawyer from San
Antonio, Texas who claims to have signed up 31,000 clients in record time. For his role in the Swiss settlement, he submitted to the court a bill for $4 million, or $640 an hour. The average pension that Holocaust survivors today receive from the German government is $640 a year.
Now let us ask ourselves a question. Suppose that it was your desire to incite and incubate anti-Semitic emotions in Germany? You would not need to be a sneaky Jewish lawyer (Edward Fagan of San
Antonio could possibly be a sneaky Irish lawyer, unless he really thought that a one-vowel change would save him from a
Dickensian cliche).
But if you employed dubious methods to reap vast sums from an already penitent state, and if you did this hand on heart, saying that business had nothing to do with it, and if you then couldn’t prove that the money had gone to the victims, might you not be stirring the folk rhythms of an ancient prejudice?
That risk might conceivably be worth running, assuming that German democracy meant nothing to you and that you took Goldhagen’s view of the irredeemable German (or
Swiss, or Dutch) national character.
But you would still have to face the victims and survivors, who have not received the vast sums aforementioned, or any measurable share of them, and who are nearing the end of their lives, and who discover instead that the money has gone to finance
Holocaust memorials inscribed with the names of well-heeled donors.
IN making the case that this is exactly what has happened,
Norman Finkelstein has not run into a storm of obloquy of the kind that nearly destroyed, say, Hannah Arendt.
He has instead been given, with the partly honorable exception of Commentary, the silent treatment.
In England, in Germany and elsewhere
Finkelstein’s arguments and evidence have received serious attention and been subjected to real and fierce debate. But in the United States, where the press and the academy are wedded to a near-uniform combination of Holocaust kitsch and
Holocaust dogma, no real argument has been permitted to arise. The self-regard almost passes belief.
In a report on
Swiss neutrality and Swiss business practices, commissioned allegedly on behalf of the victims by Stuart
Eizenstat for the United States government in 1997, we were solemnly instructed that neutrality itself was a moral failure on the part of the gold-hugging Alp dwellers.
What, then, of the indifference of the much mightier United
States, which excluded Jewish refugees and did massive and indeed enthusiastic business with Hitler while not sharing a vulnerable common border with the Third Reich
[see Ken Silverstein, “Ford and the Fuhrer,”
January 24]?
I suppose it is thinkable that this combination — of a boycott somewhat diluted by slander — will end with two recent interviews on l’affaire Finkelstein, given by
Professor Raul Hilberg to
Eva Schweitzer of the Berliner Zeitung and to
Roberto Antonini of Swiss National Radio.
Professor
Hilberg (left) deserves his renown as the dean of Holocaust studies, since his book The
Destruction of the European Jews was in many ways the founding text of the discipline. He describes the actions and methods of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims
Against Germany and its outriders — such as Edgar
Bronfman’s World Jewish Congress — as “detestable” and even as “blackmail.”
He endorses the main arguments of the
Finkelstein book and confirms some of its findings in his capacity as a child of Viennese Jewish refugees.
On the academic Holocaust career-path, Hilberg repeats his view that there is no “quality control” and gives his dry opinion that
“this is the only reason why
Goldhagen could obtain a PhD at Harvard. There was nobody
on the faculty who could have checked his book.”
Most challenging of all, perhaps, Hilberg responds to those in the German-Jewish community leadership who worry that Finkelstein’s book will furnish, as it were, ammunition to the enemy. “Only when this taboo is broken,” he says, “will Germany be emancipated.”
In Tom Segev’s outstanding history
The Seventh Million, one can read of how Menachem Begin led a mob that nearly burned down Israel’s Knesset in 1952. The protest was against Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion’s acceptance of compensation, freely and openly offered, from the German
Federal Republic. Begin was a chauvinist and a demagogue, but his furious refusal of “blood money” at least had a tincture of pride and principle.
Now we read that
Lawrence Eagleburger, a former president of Kissinger
Associates, is paid $300,000 a year to chair a commission that arbitrates unpaid insurance claims, brought by people often no better than bounty hunters, on the lives of the dead of the Nazi era. This synthesis — of the shades of
Eichmann and Gogol — fully deserves Professor
Hilberg’s characterization as “obscene.”
Website comment: Among the groups mentioned in this article: the
Anti Defamation League