Abstract
The uniqueness of the Holocaust rests not in its magnitude, systematic annihilation of people, politically induced and justified racial hatred, or its occurrence in the enlightened Europe. The Nazi killing was a continuation of the prolonged Jewish suffering and subjugation under the Christian Europe as well as the Islamic Middle East. Enlightenment did not impede the European civilization from periodic pogroms and organized violence against the Jewish people. Their life under Islam was different. Though religion-sanctioned persecution has been theologically alien to Islam, the tolerant but patronizing and discriminatory dhimmi status accorded to the Jews (also of Christians and of Zoroastrians in Iran) cannot be described as egalitarian, let alone equal.
Holocaust is not an exclusive Jewish, European, or Christian tragedy but a human calamity. This universal message cannot be understood by ‘uniquefing’ the Holocaust. Despite its unparalleled character and magnitude, its understanding cannot be done in isolation. Both before and after the Second World War, the humanity has seen so many wanton killings driven by ideological considerations, political divisions, and religious zeal. Some were organized at the level of state and others by societies, but both reflecting a high degree of xenophobia and intolerance.
Over 1.5 million Armenians perished during the closing stages of the First World War, mostly at the hands of the Young Turks, the future leaders of the modern Turkish Republic;
With over 90,000 deaths, Hiroshima still remains the largest human-inflicted mass murder in history;
Over 1 million Hindus and Muslims were killed in the post-partition communal violence in the Indian subcontinent in 1947;
In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, 8–10 million perished in Stalinist Russia;
Estimates of human costs of the Cultural Revolution in China go upwards of 2 million;
The five-year reign of terror unleashed by the Pol Pot regime saw deaths of over 2 million Cambodians;
The Hutu–Tutsi killings in Rwanda are estimated between 500,000 and 1 million;
Around 1–2 million were killed in the Sudanese civil war;
The Bosnian crisis resulted in the deaths of at least 100,000 people; and
Until early 2016, the Syrian civil war consumed at least 200,000 lives.
In all these instances, the perpetrators—states and organized or unorganized groups—had “reasons” to justify mass killings. In some cases, they were “punishments” for wrongs committed by the victims and in others they were “a deterrent” mechanism. Like the Holocaust, some of these mass killings took place amidst regional and international armed conflicts. In some case, one could notice reflections and remorse accompanied by reconciliation but in others, the past is too painful for the perpetrators to remember and atone. Hence, to be meaningful, Holocaust education cannot ignore similar mass killing of civilians, both before and after it. Only by drawing on their similarities and differences, Holocaust education could reach a wider audience and appreciation.
Traditional pedagogy on Holocaust revolves around four identifiable players, namely, victims, perpetrators, bystanders, and rescuers. They are clearly definable and observers can clearly recognize them and identify themselves in understanding the Holocaust and its phases and magnitude. However, during the Second World War, a vast majority of the global population did not belong to any of these four categorizations but were colonies of European imperial powers, Allies as well as Axis powers. They were preoccupied with their own struggles for freedom from oppression and colonialism and were least interested in or knowledgeable about the European theater. If one were to draw and sustain the interests of people of these rank outsiders, then one has to transform Holocaust into being a unique and universal human tragedy.
Making the Holocaust “similar” to other calamities, however, raises the prospects of its trivialization through imprecise comparisons and inadequate understanding. This manifests in comparisons between the Jewish tragedy and various other large-scale political violence. It is not uncommon in many societies to depict political rivals as fascists or modern-day Hitlers.
Prominent Israeli leaders, including some survivors, were responsible for the deliberate minimization or miniaturization of the Holocaust. Driven by immediate political and electoral calculations, some drew parallels between Hitler and the Schutzstaffel (SS) with various dictators and militant groups in the Middle East. Menachem Begin, who lost most of his family members in the Holocaust, was one such individual. The personal tragedy propelled him to see Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization as the latter day incarnation of Hitler and SS respectively. Even the responsibilities of the office of prime minister did not impede him from viewing the Palestinians through the Holocaust and in 1982 during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon he compared Arafat’s presence in Beirut to “Hitler in the bunker.” Begin, however, was not alone. Others also compared leaders of Iran and Iraq to Nazi Germany when they threatened to “erase” Israel.
At the height of internal schism over the Oslo accords, some displayed posters of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin dressed in SS uniform and one such poster was visibly displayed closer to a podium in a Likud rally addressed by Benjamin Netanyahu. The leader of opposition not speaking out forcefully against this became controversial in the wake of Rabin’s assassination a few days later and was interpreted as a benign “incitement.”
Such trivializations of Holocaust, Hitler, and SS has been widespread among non-Israeli leaders, both western as well as Third World leaders. Political contest and rivalry provide the context for minimization. At one time or another, various Western leaders, including those belonging to the US, Great Britain, France, and others have drawn parallels between Hitler, Nazi Germany, and the SS to their political opponents, often belonging to the Middle East. Leaders such as Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Muammer Qaddafi, and Yasser Arafat were depicted as Hitler’s successors.
Others compare national tragedies to Holocaust. Noted Indian historian and journalist Khushwant Singh described the operation by the Indian army to flush out Sikh militants from the Golden Temple in Amritsar as “Holocaust.” His familiarity with the Jewish tragedy and his prolonged campaign for normalization of relations with Israel did not inhibit him from drawing such a parallel. Leaving aside the magnitude, by no stretch of imagination can one compare the militants who took refuge in a holy shrine to millions of men and women who were incarcerated, gassed, killed, and cremated in Europe.
For long, mainstream Palestinians and Arabs were not prepared to accept the Holocaust due to the fear that the recognition of Hitler’s treatment of the Jews would somehow result in them justifying the creation of Israel. This was compounded by the argument that the post-War European societies were trying to “atone” for their sins by supporting the idea of a Jewish homeland outside Europe. In November 1947, with the exception of Cuba and Greece, all Christian majority countries either voted for the partition plan or abstained. Thus, seeing Israel as the atonement for the Holocaust was a powerful factor leading to its denial.
This strategy proved less effective in furthering the Palestinian cause, especially in the liberal circles in the West. Holocaust denial signaled not only an unscientific approach to human history but also political immaturity and hence, some Palestinians began to seek a positive parallel between the Holocaust and their own trauma in the wake of the formation of Israel. The victimhood of deprivation of statehood and identity found greater resonance than denials, especially in the West. One could, thus, notice a shift in the Palestinian approach toward the Holocaust, especially after the Oslo process.
At the same time, as Palestinians and Arabs were moving away from denials, the Islamic Republic of Iran sought to fill the vacuum. Disregarding the historic Persian legacy, since 1979, Iran has emerged as the principal producer and distributor of various anti-Semitic literatures, especially The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Though there are alternative voices within the country, Iranian missions abroad donate and disseminate this forged literature to educational institutions in different parts of the world.
A far more serious challenge comes from those who draw parallels between the Holocaust and the current Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. For many, Arabs and non-Arabs alike, the Palestinians nakba of 1948 was no different from the Jewish Holocaust, if not in terms of its magnitude but in terms of its long-term implications. The Palestinian life, it is argued, is intrinsically linked to and affected by what happened in 1948 when the State of Israel was established. Some go to the extent of seeing Israel as a modern-day Nazi Germany and such parallels are not confined only to Palestinians, but scholars and elites in many Third World countries as well as in Europe do not hesitate to depict the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians through the Holocaust prism. In their assessment, yesterday’s victims have become today’s victimizers.
The link between the Holocaust and Israel is far more complex than commonly recognized. The Jewish tragedy in Europe had a profound impact in galvanizing international opinion in favor of a Jewish homeland. However, reducing the formation of Israel to the Holocaust reflects unfamiliarity with human history and its trajectory. Any dispassionate understanding would indicate that Israel alone was not responsible for the plight of Palestinians and their statelessness. Various omissions and commissions of the Arab–Palestinian leadership were equally responsible for the sorry state of affairs. Unfortunately, like individuals, nations are also scared of self-reflections.
This special issue of Contemporary Review of the Middle East tries to address some of the issues and challenges facing Holocaust Education. The inspiration came from the Conference for International Holocaust Education organized by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) in collaboration with the UNESCO in Washington, D.C. during September 26 and October 2, 2015. Most of the contributors are the participants of that conference who took time off and shared their thoughts within a short span of time. Above all, I am grateful to the principal force behind the Conference, namely, Christine Beresniova and Peter Fredlake at the USHMM and Karel Fracapane at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris. Any errors and omissions are mine.