Background
This set of stories is inspired by Masha Gessen, who is the winner of the Hannah Arendt prize. If you don’t know who they are, I recommend using google, and then reading some of Hannah Arendt’s work. This link will take you to to Masha Gessen’s lecture at the Hannah Arendt prize. Midway through her lecture, she poses this question
So I think by now you understand that I didn’t stumble into the comparison of the Gaza Strip to a Jewish ghetto in Nazi-occupied Europe.
This is an interesting and controversial question, if you have been following the news. I would like to get this out of the way because it will distract if I don’t; and the raging controversy is not the focus of my story.
Masha Gessen was awarded the Hannah Arendt prize, and was to receive the prize sometime last week. The Hannah Arendt prize is jointly awarded by the City of Bremen, and a think tank called Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. The prize was announced, and then apparently withdrawn, but then reinstated after a backlash. The details are quite murky, and don’t matter in the grand scheme.
The more interesting angle to this is that Masha Gessen’s prize was nearly cancelled because she compared Gaza to Jewish ghettos in Nazi occupied Europe. If you think DailyKos has a somewhat irrational policy on holocaust or genocide comparisons, wait till you encounter the Germans on this question. For a better recap, please just read Massa Gessen’s essay.
The controversial essay that nearly got her cancelled was published Dec 9 by the New Yorker and is called the Shadow of the Holocaust: How the politics of memory in Europe obscures what we see in Israel and Gaza today. As the title itself suggests, that article is not shy of holocaust comparisons. It is fair to finish Masha Gessen’s thoughts, and to answer her question on why she compared Gaza to a Jewish ghetto.
And this is why we compare. To prevent what we know can happen from happening. To make "Never Again" a political project rather than a magic spell. And if we compare compellingly and bravely, then, in the best case scenario, the comparison is proven wrong.
The essay is answering her critics on the question of why she compared Gaza to a Jewish ghetto. Again, this is not the focus of my story, but you are better off with that background.
The central questions
Coming back to the holocaust itself, Masha Gessen describes German policies towards it as follows:
In 2008, when then Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke before the Knesset, on the sixtieth anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel, she emphasized Germany’s special responsibility not only for preserving the memory of the Holocaust as a unique historical atrocity (emphasis mine) but also for the security of Israel. This, she went on, was part of Germany’s Staatsräson—the reason for the existence of the state. The sentiment has since been repeated in Germany seemingly every time the topic of Israel, Jews, or antisemitism arises, including in Habeck’s remarks. “The phrase ‘Israel’s security is part of Germany’s Staatsräson’ has never been an empty phrase,” he said. “And it must not become one.”
Masha Gessen objects to this characterization of the holocaust as a unique historical atrocity.
The insistence on the singularity of the Holocaust and the centrality of Germany’s commitment to reckoning with it are two sides of the same coin: they position the Holocaust as an event that Germans must always remember and mention but don’t have to fear repeating, because it is unlike anything else that’s ever happened or will happen.
She quotes other philosophers (including other Jewish ones) to support her contention that the holocaust was not all that unique. One of the examples she cites is Hannah Arendt herself, who compared the Jewish Israeli party to the Nazi party just 3 years after the holocaust. For this comparison, Hannah Arendt would likely have been disqualified from the Hannah Arendt prize today. She would also likely have been banned from this blog for having violated the Rules of the Road.
I want to stop here and change directions a little bit. I understand that comparisons of the Nazi party’s actions to current Israeli policies is a very sensitive topic for a lot of people. My contention is that such debates are irrelevant to the central questions, and just serve as a distraction.
To me, the first central question is whether the Holocaust (capital H) was a unique singularity of evil (and therefore cannot be repeated, and therefore we can exist in the safe comfort of the knowledge that we will not repeat the Holocaust), or whether the holocaust (small h) was a trivial consequence of something else (and therefore can be repeated if that other something is repeated, and therefore we must all be vigilant).
A second central question is on colonialism. You may be aware of another controversial topic: whether Israel is (or is not) a colonial enterprise (or a “settler colonial enterprise”). For instance, here is Josh Marshall (a trained historian who happens to be Jewish, and whose views I respect even when I disagree):
the entire 150 year story is poured into the construct of “settler colonialism.” in which Zionism and the population that formed the state of Israel isn’t really any different from the colonists in Rhodesia or French Indochina. There is the “indigenous” population and the “settler” population and the former has to drive out the latter at least in terms of political power, if not literally, to put things to right
JM goes to great lengths to argue against using the colonialism narrative (or the settler colonialism narrative) to justify the October 7 attacks. I fully agree with him on this. Ascribing a group’s identity to an individual is my definition of racism and bigotry (and is my definition of antisemitism when applied against Jews). Thus, October 7 was an example of bigotry used to justify violence against civilians; and most of the Israeli reprisals against Palestinians can also be likewise classified as such. JM also argues that Israel is not a colonial enterprise, and in that formulation, he describes the battle of dueling narratives ~ the Israeli narrative is that Jews are native to Israel vs the settler-colonial narrative that Jews are Europeans (or other foreigners) who don’t belong there. He describes how these two narratives will not ever convince each other.
My contention is that such questions are also irrelevant. A more interesting question is “what is colonialism?”. And is it (or was it) a unique historical singularity (like the Holocaust)? Or, is it (or was it) a trivial consequence of something else (like the holocaust)?
Likewise, there are other related central questions. What is, and what is not, a genocide? Was the Jewish genocide of the holocaust a unique singularity?
Providing you with my answers to these questions will take a lot more ink, and the introduction of several historical facts spanning about 360 years. I will provide those in the next 2 parts.
I will cite Masha Gessen’s answer to her critics: we compare two things to each other not because they are exactly the same, but because we seek to understand what they are, how they might differ, and how they might be similar. But in those comparisons, when we compare a 2nd thing to a 1st thing, we should also seek to better understand the 1st thing itself. My contention is that critics of the settler-colonial comparisons (and genocide, and holocaust) often fail to understand colonialism (and genocide, and holocaust) itself.
If you are so inclined, you are welcome to address my central questions in the comments. I am writing this down largely for my own benefit (specifically, I want to be able to articulate my thoughts for my daughters when I discuss such topics with them); and I will welcome any informed answers to the questions I pose.
If you follow along, I promise you that I will introduce historical facts that will challenge the narratives you have grown up with...whether you are American, or European or Indian or in the Middle East (I do not know enough about the other parts of the world to extend this claim).
Cover photo
The cover photo I have selected is of a painting at the Powis Castle in Wales. This painting illustrates the historical narrative I would like to convey.
The painter is someone who did not ever set foot in India, but depicts a scene that is supposed to have taken place in India in 1765. The scene is fictional; reality is more interesting, more messy, and very uncomfortable for all sides. You may recognize the backdrop in the painting as something that resembles St Paul’s cathedral in London. The person at the center, on the raised throne, is Shah Alam, a Moghul Emperor who nominally rules over much of what is now India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Shah Alam’s domain includes the provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa which were the richest provinces on the planet at the time. The person on the left with the long English coat is Robert Clive, who was a representative of the East India Company. The East Indian Company had made a fortune by buying the goods produced in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, and selling it worldwide. In 1765, the East India Company was the richest company in the world. In this fictionalized scene, Shah Alam is handing over a “diwani” (i.e. rights to manage and tax) the provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa to Robert Clive. Note that Shah Alam has his head bowed in a supplicant way, even though he is on the throne, and it is supposedly his court. By contrast, the two Englishmen in longcoats are ramrod straight. That is not an accident, as I will cover in the next part. Powis Castle is the home (or one of the homes) that Robert Clive built with the fortune he amassed in India, and this painting is used to teach a narrative in Britain, and in India.
In the Indian narrative, this fictionalized scene is taught as an example of historical trickery. The evil Englishman came in as a trader, and tricked the gullible Moghul emperor into signing over the richest provinces. In the English narrative, the incompetent Moghul emperor was having a hard time managing his affairs, and asked the English for help. Reality is much more complicated (and uncomfortable for everyone all around). In the American narrative, this event does not even get mentioned. It should: the fictionalized scence was one of the consequences of the French-Indian wars that preceded it and was hugely consequential in the Revolutionary war that followed it. I will cover that angle in the next part.