Criticizing Islam may get you a court summons in Canada. But calling the Jews “privileged racists” who intentionally exploit the memory of the Holocaust to generate political power may just get you a graduate degree.
The University of Toronto has come under heavy criticism for accepting a master’s thesis from an anti-Israel activist that accuses the Jewish community of deliberately using Holocaust-remembrance programs to create a false impression of Jewish victimhood, in order to make it easier for Jews to push “racist” and “apartheid” policies in Israel:
The thesis, titled “The Victimhood of the Powerful: White Jews, Zionism and the Racism of Hegemonic Holocaust Education,” was written by Jenny Peto, a Jewish activist with the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid. It denounces the March of Remembrance and Hope, for which young adults of diverse backgrounds travel with Holocaust survivors to sites of Nazi atrocities in Poland, and March of the Living Canada, which takes young Jews with survivors to Poland and Israel.
Peto argues that the two programs cause Jews to falsely believe they are innocent victims. In reality, she writes, they are privileged white people who “cannot see their own racism.” The “construction of a victimized Jewish identity,” she argues, is intentional: It produces “effects that are extremely beneficial to the organized Jewish community” and to “apartheid” Israel.
While her argument may not technically qualify as Holocaust revisionism, it’s teetering precariously close. The argument that Jews are using the memory of the Holocaust to propagate a false sense of victimhood only makes sense if you believe that a) Jews are exaggerating the facts of the Holocaust to make it sound worse than it really was, or b) the Holocaust is as horrific as it is portrayed, but was not uniquely horrific. In other words, Jews are deliberately downplaying the adversity faced by other cultures in order to exaggerate the importance of the Holocaust.
The second perspective seems to be where Peto is coming from. In her thesis, she laments that the Holocaust minimizes the magnitude of other apparent horrors, such as violence against women, America’s historical acts of “genocide,” terrorism, and Israel’s “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians.
Peto isn’t the first to argue these points. Norman Finkelstein has said and written similar things in the past. But this is the first time that I’m aware of that an esteemed Western university has treated borderline Holocaust revisionism as legitimate scholarship.
“This isn’t from The Onion. It’s from the New York Times: “President-elect Barack Obama, an avid basketball player, will join the ranks of other athletic leaders, such as Vladimir V. Putin, left, Fidel Castro, and Evo Morales.”
============
Nice pick up, Jen.
Good to start the work week off with a good laugh.
“Take it from a former airline executive: “GM as it is cannot survive without long-term government life support. If it gets that support, it can’t change enough and won’t change fast enough. Contrary to [GM CEO Rick] Wagoner’s brave declaration, bankruptcy is an option. In fact, it’s the only option that merits public support and actually has a chance at succeeding.”
=============
As a former airline industry hand myself, I can tell you that the automobile industry proposed bailout is the polar opposite of the airlines industry.
The airline industry went from regulation to deregulation. The automobile industry proposed bailout would go from quasi deregulated to entirely regulated under the green agenda.
More…..
Although creative destruction is unpleasant, given the ramifications of structural changes in an industry, it is what open markets systems are all about. The vitality of our economy is in large measure a result of creative destruction.
Regulation of an industry, like automobiles, is government protectionism. If anything, the bailout proposal would only make the Big 3 more isolated from market reality.
Steven Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society: “…a government-run big three automotive concern would inevitably end up disastrously making cars no one would want to buy.”
Which provides the best argument against the auto bailout, albeit a bit different argument than that intended by Calabresi: nobody wants to buy cars from the Big Three now, so if a government-run Big Three would result in the same, why even bother considering it?
Gee, maybe they can have an article next week on smoking and/or nicotine gum chomping heads of state.