June 2001
Metaphysical Guilt
As mentioned previously April and the early part
of May were
also devoted to get Whither Zionism? into the hands of
people
who control our fate. I am a scientist and have few illusions about the
behavior of my fellow human beings, especially of those who are in
power. But
scientists love experiments, even when they think they know the
outcome. Whither
Zionism? was such an experiment. Everyone who has eyes to see and
ears to
hear must know that the current Middle East policies are doomed to
failure and
bound to lead to disaster.
In the February update I mentioned that there is nothing new under the
sun,
when it comes to human behavior as exemplified by the allegations
against
Senator Ashcroft during his confirmation hearings. On p.36 of Whither
Zionism? there is a quote from Josephus in
regard to
events just prior to the onset of the Jewish war against Rome which had
the
result that: "many of the most eminent of the Jews swam away from the
city
[Jerusalem], as from a ship when it was going to sink [II 20:1]." The
June
5, 2001 issue of the Salt Lake Tribune carried an article
headlined
"Moderates Fleeing Middle East" The article starts with: "Worn
down by eight months of violence that shows no sign of easing, many
Israelis
and Palestinians are packing their bags for the United States or
Canada...." Two millennia have made no difference in that part of the
world.
The question arises, therefore, what is the responsibility of
the individual citizen both here and in Israel in order to bring about
a degree
of sanity in that troubled land. We Americans will be held responsible,
whether
we like it or not, because it is no secret that Israel is our client
state. Why
does this bother me personally? Because, as a former citizen of Austria
and
subsequently the Greater German Reich, I am told that I bear personal
guilt for
Hitler's atrocities! This is no exaggeration. Karl Jaspers,
the renowned German existentialist philosopher wrote a booklet in 1946
during
the Nuremberg trials Die Schuldfrage. Ein Beitrag zur
deutschen
Frage.(The question of guilt. A contribution to the German
Question). In it he explained that there are four types of guilt. 1.
Legal
guilt for criminal behavior, 2. Political guilt for allowing a
repressive
regime to come to power or when in power to tolerate it, 3. Moral guilt
for
personal misconduct, even when under orders, and 4. Metaphysical guilt
which
flows from the demand that every human being is co-responsible for all
the
wrongs and injustices which are being perpetrated in the world when one
knows
about them and simply stands by without taking action. Ergo
in
relation to the Nazis I am absolved from criminal or moral guilt
because I
didn't do anything bad but I am supposed to have political guilt
because I had
to live under them and did not volunteer for an act punishable by death
or
concentration camp. I am also supposed to be co-responsible for their
criminal
acts on the metaphysical plane. Jaspers writes of himself : "Dasz
ich
noch lebe, wenn solches geschehen ist, legt sich als untilgbare Schuld
auf mich"
(the fact that I am still alive I carry with me as inexpungeable
guilt). Please
note the term untilgbar - inexpungeable. Whatever one does
after the
fact is irrelevant for this particular form of guilt and one Jewish
author has
proclaimed that the German people have been stamped with the mark of
Cain on
their foreheads for eternity. This has, of course, practical uses
because
German as well as Austrian citizens can now be collared for financial
retributions in perpetuity. Inexpungeable guilt!
There is obviously some hyperbole in Jaspers' exposition. If one were
to follow
his thoughts to their logical conclusion one would have to say that all
the
citizens of the former Soviet Union had political guilt for allowing
Lenin to
come to power and for submitting to Stalin's crimes. All the millions
of
Cambodians whom Pol Pot drove into the rice paddies and who didn't die
were
guilty for having survived. The more than a billion Chinese are guilty
of still
tolerating the communist regime, not to speak of the North Koreans,
Vietnamese,
or the Cubans who have to make do with Castro on their island. These
are just a
few examples for the difference between philosophic ideas and the harsh
realities of this world.
Nevertheless, Jaspers is correct that when one sees a catastrophe in
the
making, shrugs ones shoulders and says I can't do anything about it
anyway, one
may incur a degree of metaphysical guilt. In a closed society the
individual is
severely limited in his options, but what possibilities exist in the
so-called
free world? To explore these Whither Zionism? was written and
distributed to all the members of the Bush administration, as well as
all the
members of the House and Senate: International Relations Committee,
Armed
Services Committee and Appropriations Committee.
In addition, review copies were sent to all the major daily newspapers
in the
country and the major TV pundits. The Wiesenthal Center,
the Holocaust
Memorial in Washington and the Anti-defamation League
also got copies. Furthermore, Steven Spielberg is
known for
his interest in the fate of the Jewish people and I thought that the
reasons
for the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple when depicted
accurately,
rather than from a propaganda point of view, could provide an excellent
lesson
for chauvinistic hotheads.
The result was, of course, predictable. DreamWorks
returned
the book with the comment that they have a policy to reject all
unsolicited
material and, therefore, the book is being returned unread. I can't
even use it
any more for anybody else because it carries an autograph to Spielberg.
There
were no replies from any of the magazines, newspapers or TV
personalities. As
far as politicians are concerned there was also mostly silence apart
from eight
notable exceptions where I received polite form letters or cards,
including one
from Dick Cheney's office who thanked me and wished
me well On
the other hand our National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice
was too busy to even ask her staff to reply, although she was contacted
on
repeated occasions.
During the Easter recess I tried to get in personal touch with my
senators but
got no further than their secretaries. They are just too busy to bother
seeing
constituents. In olden days you could get an audience even with the
emperor or
give Caesar a personal petition, but no more when "the people" rule!
The irony is that the senators I did vote for didn't give me time of
day but my
Congressman, Jim Matheson, for whom I did not vote,
was
willing to lend me his ears and I could put the book personally into
his hands.
He is new on the job, not yet infected with the disdain for the
constituents
who pay his salary and obviously wants to get re-elected. The senators
have
nothing to fear, their secretaries who shield them know it, so why
bother?
Thus, we have a very effective censorship in this
country for
ideas which do not emanate from well known public figures. In the first
instance a "reputable publisher" will not take your manuscript
because a) the editor may not agree with the contents and possibly more
importantly b) it won't bring in huge quantities of money. In our free
country
one can then take the self-publishing route which gets the book in
print but
that's the end. Papers will not review it and even if you want to give
it to
your local library one lady told me in regard to War and Mayhem
after
leafing through it in a cursory fashion: "We only take books from
reputable publishers." Therefore, unless one has the good fortune to be
a
member of the old boys, or gals for that matter, network your chances
of
getting heard or read are astronomically small.
The same applies, of course to this website. Who in, literally, all the
world
is going to find it, even when it is submitted to all the search
engines. There
is just too much stuff on this "information superhighway" and its
bumper to bumper traffic.
So, what has been accomplished? I have shared my "metaphysical guilt"
with the movers and shakers of this world and deprived them of excuses.
To read
a hundred pages is no chore but to disregard them is a mistake. The
Middle East
continues to drift into chaos and the Mitchell Commission
recommendations -
although well meant - have predictably been rejected by both sides.
Youngsters
who aspire to heaven via martyrdom cannot be restrained by anybody and
to make
their disappearance the precondition for negotiations is a lame excuse.
So is
the necessity for continuing to expand the settlements. Since the
relations
between the U.S. and the UN have soured considerably in the past few
month a UN
commission as suggested in Whither Zionism? may at this time
not have
much chance of coming into being but some unimpeachable third force
seems to be
the only hope for letting intellect overcome passion.
In conclusion I might mention some thoughts of a revered icon of the
twentieth
century on the topic of Palestine which can be found in Churchill
and the
Jews by Michael J. Cohen. Although Churchill had
been
early on an outspoken supporter of Zionism he had begun to develop
second
thoughts later on. There may also have been personal reasons involved
for his
change of mind. His close friend Lord Moyne, Minister
of State
Resident in the Middle East, was murdered in November 1944 by a Jewish
terrorist organization led by Menachem Begin, who
later became
Prime Minister. At the end of WWII during his last weeks in office
Churchill
said:
"I do not think we should take the responsibility upon ourselves of
managing this very difficult place while the Americans sit back and
criticise...I am not aware of the slightest advantage which has ever
accrued to
Great Britain from this painful and thankless task. Somebody else
should have
their turn now..."(p.260).
America has assumed Britain's burden and is now saddled with "managing
this very difficult place" but the prospects for bringing stability to
the
area by the U.S. are no better than they were for the Brits, or the
Romans for
that matter.
In 1946 Churchill said in the House of Commons:
" The idea that the Jewish Problem could be solved or even helped by a
vast dumping of the Jews of Europe into Palestine is really too silly
to
consume our time in the House of Commons this afternoon" (p.327).
Well it did happen, the migration was unavoidable, the state of Israel
came
into being and people of good will are now forced to spend considerably
more
time than just an afternoon to deal with the consequences of this
"silly
idea."
|