
Elie Wiesel, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and Holocaust Survivor, Dies at 87 - nadav256
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.575072
======
nanna
Without disrespecting his memory, we should not forget that Wiesel lent
serious support to the occupation and, what is effectively, the ethnic
cleansing of East Jerusalem. Haaretz touches on this:

"In April 2010, he took out advertisements in four major newspapers,
criticizing the Obama administration for pressuring the Netanyahu government
to halt construction in Jewish neighborhoods located across the Green Line in
East Jerusalem."

For me, as an Israeli Jew, I find him too compromised by nationalism to bother
with. I'd much rather read Primo Levi or Paul Celan.

More info:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Wiesel#Opinions_about_Jer...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Wiesel#Opinions_about_Jerusalem_and_the_Holocaust)

~~~
Zafira
I think what bothers me the most about all of this is how criticism of the
national policy of the _state_ of Israel is reworked by certain opponents as
anti-Semitic attacks.

So often it feels like proponents of questionable Israeli policies seem to use
the Holocaust, Israel's fight for survival through the endless wars from its
creation through the 1970s to justify an aggressive and hostile stance.

Why is this?

~~~
golergka
> I think what bothers me the most about all of this is how criticism of the
> national policy of the state of Israel is reworked by certain opponents as
> anti-Semitic attacks.

Because this criticism is too often intertwined with attacks not on israeli
policies, but on Israel's right to exist. And yes, saying that jews don't
deserve a nation state is definetly anti-semitic.

> So often it feels like proponents of questionable Israeli policies seem to
> use the Holocaust, Israel's fight for survival through the endless wars from
> its creation through the 1970s to justify an aggressive and hostile stance.

Because fight for survival and hostile stance are directly related.

Ask yourself: is average citizen of a country neighboring yours sees you as an
enemy? Have he or his parents gone to war against you? Will he help you if you
get attacked? Or may he'll be glad to see you die?

Being peaceful and trusting is a privilege that Israel can't afford.

~~~
e12e
> And yes, saying that jews don't deserve a nation state is definetly anti-
> semitic.

But in the US and Canada, as far as I know, native Americans/first nation are
welcome to be first party citizens, no longer forced to live on reservations?
Not without an ugly history of oppression; but the "nation state" is mostly a
fascist fiction anyway.

Few native people of the artic claim that they deserve to build a "nation
state" \- at the same time they organise for other rights, and today work
quite well with the various states that govern the area.

The most sane parallell to the state of Israel is probably South-africa: it
has shown that it is possible to move from an apartheid state to a more modern
state that acknowledge all resident cultures. But as with South Africa, as
long as the international community largely supports oppression, a peaceful
coexistence is likely to remain out of reach. But hopefully popular opinion
will turn in Israel before the genocide is complete; I've already heard former
a Israeli helicopter pilot mentioned how he became a conscientious objector
after fly-overs of the Gaza strip brought home the similarities to stories
he'd been told about the Warsaw getthoes.

As for your examples; most of those are true for Europe (not being seen as an
enemy, perhaps, but the war part). And would also apply to South Africa. And
yet peace could be an option.

~~~
brashrat
but... but... Arabs living in Israel _are_ first class citizens, they are not
forced to live on reservations, and they participate in elections and are
elected to the Knesset, Israel's parliament.

The occupied West Bank is land that was formerly claimed by--no, not by
"Palestine", that wasn't actually a thing--the State of Jordan which also
included the territory of Israel in its claimed territory; the state of Jordan
gave up its claim to the West Bank when the people living there (according to
them, "Jordanians", but people you know as Palestinians) were politically
destabilizing to the government of Jordan. To stave off the political threat
(look up Black September), the state of Jordan gave up its claim to the West
Bank (and to Israel).

Israel only occupied the West Bank when Palestinian lawlessness and terrorist
antipathy toward Israel resulted in numerous bloody attacks on the civilian
population of Israel. Israel has a much better case for
occupation/pacification than Russia does of its occupation and annexation of
Ukraine. I (a non Jew) do believe that anti-Semitism is the root cause of so
much more anger directed at Israel than is directed at (say) Russia. Think of
other disputed territories around the globe. Only in the case of Israel is
there so much bitterness by outsiders toward one side, the less violent side,
the side that is actually a civilized democracy and obeys rule of law.

And now that I mention it, do you even know what Morocco has been doing for
many years in Western Sahara? Look it up, look up Polisario... it's an ethnic
conflict. People will read about that and tut-tut and say, wow, that's
terrible what the Moroccans have been doing, but quickly return to condemning
Israel. And they look at the Hutus and Tutsis and say "well, there is blame to
go around on both sides", and now we turn our attention to the tiny state of
Israel, largely surrounded by barbarous dictatorships who don't even treat
their own citizens well, and low and behold, it's those terrible awful
Israelis who are to blame, much moreso than the Russians or Moroccans. Somehow
it doesn't seem like there is plenty of blame to go around in this case, eh?

I believe that there are two reasons for bitterness toward Israel.

1) anti Arab racism motivates the belief that "we can't expect Palestinians to
behave any better" (hey, maybe we can't, but if you don't want me to accuse
you of anti-Semitism, come out and say it)

2) anti Jewish racism motivates the belief that "still, that doesn't justify
the way _those people_ are reacting", even though we see plenty of other
"peoples" around the world defending themselves.

What are the Israelis defending themselves against? Click around wikipedia for
awhile and look at the sheer number of Palestinian attacks directed at Israel
month in and month out every year for the past 35 years. Would you put up with
that directed at you and yours?

~~~
e12e
> Arabs living in Israel are first class citizens, they are not forced to live
> on reservations, and they participate in elections and are elected to the
> Knesset, Israel's parliament.

Yes, but families are split along the borders and checkpoints that have been
drawn up by Israel. As long as the territories are occupied, Israel, as the
occupier, is responsible for basic human rights and needs in the occupied
area. Especially when they stop trade going in, like the attack on ships
headed for Gaza.

> 1) anti Arab racism motivates the belief that "we can't expect Palestinians
> to behave any better" (hey, maybe we can't, but if you don't want me to
> accuse you of anti-Semitism, come out and say it)

Look, the jews were right to use terrorist tactics in the Warsaw ghettoes, and
I can understand why Palestinians (also Semites, by the way) resort to such
tactics in the current conflict. ANC wasn't peaceful in South-Africa, and it
can be argued that non-violence wouldn't have been able to, on its own, create
the civil rights reforms we've seen in the US.

> 2) anti Jewish racism motivates the belief that "still, that doesn't justify
> the way those people are reacting", even though we see plenty of other
> "peoples" around the world defending themselves.

This is a little bit like saying the Nazis were worse, so why should we
criticise how the British behaved in the Boer wars.

Israel is arguably a functioning, rich state with a strong military. It has
the power to approach the situation differently than putting minors in
indefinite detention for throwing rocks, for example.

Israel is no failed state - the main reason we think of the holocaust as
terrible, isn't (in my mind) _just_ the death toll and suffering, but the
systematic nature of it. This isn't millions killed in ravaging civil war, but
calculated atrocities.

Just because I want a peaceful resolution to the situation concerning Israel,
doesn't mean I won't (or haven't) spoken out against Turkey or Iraq on the
situation with the Kurds - to give another example. Or that I don't condemn
the US for their many dirty wars.

> Only in the case of Israel is there so much bitterness by outsiders toward
> one side, the less violent side, the side that is actually a civilized
> democracy and obeys rule of law.

"The less violent side"?

[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/15/world/middleea...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/15/world/middleeast/toll-
israel-gaza-conflict.html)

30 (mostly civilan) deaths to each Israeli? Yes, this is what you expect when
you attack a mostly civilian population with trained soldiers armed with
modern weapons.

I can accept that some people will argue that this is a "necessary" or
"justified" response. But "less violent"? That is harder to accept. If this is
"less violent" what would a "stronger" response look like?

~~~
brashrat
| _" The less violent side"?_

As I said, click around wikipedia for number of rocket attacks, number of
terror attacks, etc. initiated by the Palestinians, mostly against civilians.
Regardless of how many more Palestinians are getting killed _as a result_ ,
it's Arabs and Palestinians who rejected every previous set of borders
(including "pre-67"), and Arabs and Palestinians (OK, it's not just Arabs and
Palestinians, many other Muslim nation states join in with anti-Semitic
diatribes) who continue to say right out loud that their intent is to push
Israel into the sea, and who continue an armed struggle against Israel's
citizens and Israel's right to exist.

Israel today is an advanced, modern, technological country, so yes, they "win"
the conflicts with the Palestinians (and Lebanese Shiites) if you measure
"winning" in terms of bodycount (which you brought up). But if you measure
unprovoked attacks, it is the Arabs by a landslide, and in case where Jewish
extremists attack Arabs, Israel follows a policy of prosecuting their own
citizens. BTW, Lebanese Christians are Arabs, so are the Druze, and so are the
Bedouins, and they largely prefer the Israelis to the vicious treatment they
receive from their Muslim neighbors, cooperating in many ways with the Israeli
armed forces.

Is Israel perfect? Not by a long shot, but neither is any other people or
nation.

~~~
e12e
Well, I think we've both pointed to where our views come from, and it's
probably not much point in discussing this further here on hn. I thank you for
your interesting and measured input. These things do too often devolve into
shouting matches.

I will respectfully indicate that it seems a little disingenuous to claim that
attacks on Israel are "unprovoked". They follow a similar pattern to Israeli
terror attacks on the British occupation government, and I would hope that
there'd be room to find common ground among two prosecuted people, rather than
simply replace one oppressor with another in the region.

~~~
brashrat
Thanks for the compliments.

What I mean by "unprovoked" is, if the Palestinians would stop attempting
violence, the Israelis would stop attempting violence.

If the Israelis were to stop their violence... the Palestinians would just
keep going; that's actually what's been happening.

~~~
e12e
For what it's worth, the hope I see for Israel and Palestine today stems from
the non-violent protests against the occupation that includes many Israelis
and Jews. This includes conscientious objectors and groups championing
dialogue between people living in Israel and the West Bank.

Lack of dialogue is one of the cornerstones on which we build hatred, racism
and violence. It is much harder to justify demolishing someone's family home
in order to have a good killing field from your border wall, if you are
friends with that family.

[ed eg: [http://m.btselem.org/](http://m.btselem.org/)

and
[http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/](http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/)
]

------
Aelinsaar
Baruch dayan emet. When I was a young boy I had the good fortune to meet Mr.
Wiesel and chat with him for a while about his book 'Night', an life in
general. He was one of the warmest, most intelligent and interesting people
I've ever met.

------
edw519
"The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is
not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's
indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.” -
Elie Wiesel

R.I.P.

------
relk4
A sad day. Although much of what he wrote was controversial, he remains my
favorite author I was assigned to read in three separate occasions in high
school.

~~~
EazyC
What was the controversy about?

~~~
littletimmy
Some allege that parts of Night are too implausible and historically
inaccurate. But then again, I think he wrote it as a novel rather than a
historical document.

~~~
know-fear
I know parts are very historically accurate. My father and uncle were there
and are mentioned in the book.

~~~
Zafira
I think for a lot of people, it's simply impossible to believe that people
could be that cruel. Most of us have not seen and blissfuly have not lived
through the horrors of World War II. I feel like this element, more than
anything else, drives a lot of the nonsense views that the Holocaust or the
wanton slaughter of people the Japanese deemed inferior is a made-up number or
that it "wasn't that bad" and so on.

I remember when the Holocaust was being discussed in school and having to read
books like _Night_ in school and I was actually fascinated by this; the depths
of good and evil that people can do are simply unfathomable. A British
journalist wrote about the aftermath of the Battle of Shanghai when he visited
what was once a densely packed suburb, "I saw only 5 Chinese, who were old
men, hiding in a French mission compound in tears."[1]

[1][https://books.google.com/books?id=zNN6M97vYMEC&pg=PA70&lpg=P...](https://books.google.com/books?id=zNN6M97vYMEC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70#v=onepage)

------
Wonnk13
Wow. I was fortunate to be doing my undergrad in Boston at a time when you
could hear talks by Weisel, Zinn and Chomsky. I didn't always agree with him
but he was an intellectual treasure.

------
bsaul
curious to read comments about controversial statements from eli wiesel...
what coule those have been ??

~~~
benjohnson
The one that stands out (for me) is Eli's question after God let the Jews die
in the Holocaust - "What is man? Ally of God or simply his toy?''"

Eli's question is a continuation of the theological "Problem of Evil":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil)

As a person of faith, Eli's question is still haunting in it's note of
despair.

~~~
themartorana
I've always been amazed people can still have faith after things like the
holocaust. I'm agnostic myself, something I'm sure you didn't need me to
say... But I don't know if there is a god or gods or afterlife at all - but if
there is, I'm pretty sure they don't intervene in our daily lives. Believing
he/she/they do is accepting a policy of extreme incompetence, or admitting
that our well being isn't always at the forefront.

At least admitting that God does give us free will and does provide an
afterlife, but doesn't step in when shit gets ugly in _this_ life (and I mean
levels of horrors you would have trouble believing actually exist) allows
faith to continue with some acceptance of logic.

But the idea that everything bad is of man, and everything good is of God is a
pretty untenable position, _it seems to me_.

But of course, I am not a man of faith, and my life is pretty good. So these
aren't surprising positions I'm sure.

~~~
benjohnson
My faith tradition would heartily agree that the situation is entirely
untenable - only that we would turn our suffering over to God as a way of
sharing in His suffering for us.

My rational side finds such a ideas entirely disturbing!

From a Christian viewpoint - God indeed isn't always interested in our
(momentary) well being - only that we are saved in everlasting life.

Our more mystical faithfull would remind us that we each experience this world
in the palm of God's hand - in that God could create a separate experience for
each of us and that (perhaps) the suffering we witness isn't experienced in
the way that we see.

------
metaos
why is this on hacker news?

~~~
dev1n
Because the community finds it relevant news.

